Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant or accept liability for the accuracy or usefulness of the transcripts.These are copied directly from the broadcaster's website.
RN World Today -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

Senate focus shifts from alcopops to IR

Reporter: Hayden Cooper

ELEANOR HALL: To Canberra - and it's lost its fight to get its tax on alcoholic drinks through the
Senate, but the Federal Government says it won't take no for an answer on workplace relations.

The Senate is preparing to debate the Fair Work Bill which the Government says will consign the
Howard government's WorkChoices policy to history. But once again Labor is in a stand-off with the
cross-bench senators.

In Canberra, Hayden Cooper reports.

HAYDEN COOPER: Early this morning Senator Steve Fielding joined some of his parliamentary
colleagues for some exercise.

STEVE FIELDING: That was a game of soccer without the alcopops so...

HAYDEN COOPER: But when he left the field the workout stepped up a gear thanks to an excitable
bunch of journos.

JOURNALIST: But in the end you've achieved nothing, haven't you Senator Fielding?

STEVE FIELDING: No, we have achieved a lot actually. We've broken the back a fair bit but we've got
to go further...

(Journalists interrupting, speaking at the same time)

JOURNALIST: How can you be claiming that?

STEVE FIELDING: We have made sure that...

JOURNALIST: But what have you done?

STEVE FIELDING: ...that Government stops hiding behind a blatant tax grab.

JOURNALIST: But how has that helped binge drinking?

STEVE FIELDING: Well I've just explained to you...

JOURNALIST: How has that brought down binge drinking?

STEVE FIELDING: ...that we're having, we're now...

JOURNALIST: Was it worth?

STEVE FIELDING: We're now having a debate, where we should have had a debate about what are the
best measures to tackle binge drinking. Obviously that is the debate that should have been had but
unfortunately the Rudd Government hijacked that debate and turned it into a tax problem...

JOURNALIST: Senator the distillers this morning are saying they're relieved...

STEVE FIELDING: Now, hold on, hold on, for the Government...

JOURNALIST: That's hardly the position of an industry with its back broken...

STEVE FIELDING: I'll pick that up. For the Government to say that we're going to hand the money
back to the industry is ludicrous.

HAYDEN COOPER: Even Senator Fielding's cross-bench colleague Nick Xenophon has joined the
criticism, accusing him of over-reaching.

NICK XENOPHON: You know, there's that old Kenny Rogers saying, 'You've got to know when to hold
'em, you've got to know when to fold 'em,' And I think Steve Fielding should have folded yesterday
and taken a very comprehensive package of measures that would have shifted the culture of binge
drinking and my plea to Steve Fielding is to reconsider his position.

HAYDEN COOPER: That's unlikely. Senator Fielding shows no signs of changing his mind. His rhetoric
indicates anything but.

STEVE FIELDING: Can I assure you, what Family First has done has actually broken the back of the
alcohol hold on Australia. We have broken the back. The Government will still put measures in
place...

(People interrupt, speaking at once)

To be frank with you...

MALE: How can you honestly justify something like that? That's ridiculous!

HAYDEN COOPER: In short the Senate vote means premixed alcoholic drinks will become a lot cheaper
and the Health Minister Nicola Roxon says she has no plans to reintroduce the bill and try again.

NICOLA ROXON: No well look it's been voted against in the Senate. That's the end of this bill. It's
been opposed. Of course there's opportunities for the Government in the future to try to take these
steps again but we've been having a debate for a long time. This measure has been in place for
nearly a year. The Liberal Party have refused to support it and have just adopted the position of
the distillers.

HAYDEN COOPER: Nicola Roxon won't let anyone forget that Steve Fielding didn't scuttle the bill all
by himself. The Coalition did its bit too. But the Opposition leader says there's no need to hand
the money back.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: The only reason this money will be going back to the distillers is because the
Government refuses to accept our invitation to cooperate with us to direct it to health awareness,
alcohol awareness programs to reduce binge drinking.

HAYDEN COOPER: In the Senate chamber the debate is shifting to the Fair Work Bill, and it's no
certainty either.

Steve Fielding:

STEVE FIELDING: We'll have to wait and see it unfold. We're still in discussions, still in
negotiations.

HAYDEN COOPER: The negotiations have been stalled on the question of just how small business should
be defined under the unfair dismissal laws.

The Government wants to set a limit at 15 employees so in a business below that level workers won't
be allowed to make an unfair dismissal claim until they've been employed for a year.

Nick Xenophon and Steve Fielding want the limit lifted to 20 workers and it's understood Senator
Xenophon has even proposed a compromise, suggesting the limit be dropped back to 15 in two years'
time to help small business through the worst of the financial crisis.

But the Minister won't budge.

JULIA GILLARD: Why did we pick the number fewer than 15? That's not just something that we plucked
out of the air. That is the number for redundancy law in this country. For a long period of time,
businesses with fewer than 15 people have not been obligated by the award system to pay redundancy
pay.

So we want clear, simple arrangements for small businesses where you could stand up in a community
meeting with small businesses and you could say everybody in this room who employs fewer than 15 on
a head count, these are your unfair dismissal arrangements, these are your redundancy arrangements.
Everybody 15 and above, this is what applies to you.

If you move the numbers test for unfair dismissal, you make that conversation unbelievably
confusing, two different tests, no rhyme or reason as to why they should be different.

HAYDEN COOPER: That's the impasse. Overcoming it in the next 24 hours is the challenge. Everyone's
expecting a late night and maybe even a long day tomorrow.

NICK XENOPHON: I'm looking forward to having further discussions this morning, this afternoon,
tonight, in the early hours of the morning tomorrow if need be.

JULIA GILLARD: We will be here as long as it take, as late as it takes, working as hard as
necessary to get this bill. I'm not contemplating any other outcome.

ELEANOR HALL: That's Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard ending that report from Hayden Cooper.

Fed mounts another attack on credit crisis

Reporter: Stephen Long

ELEANOR HALL: The world's most powerful central bank is mounting yet another attack on the credit
crisis. In an extraordinary move, America's Federal Reserve is now buying the US Government's own
debt to try to inject money into the system.

The Fed will also take hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of mortgages off the books of many
troubled banks. Many say the move amounts to printing money. But will it work?

Joining us now to analyse this is economics correspondent Stephen Long.

So Stephen, is this the equivalent of the US central bank printing money?

STEPHEN LONG: Well in effect yes, Eleanor, but not literally. They're not actually physically
running the presses and sloughing off greenbacks. What they do is they basically create a liability
on one side of the Fed's balance sheet and buy in this case $300-billion worth of US treasury
bonds.

And the purpose of that really is with interest rates at zero or near zero in the US, they're
trying to push down the long-term interest rates on US Government debt. And a lot of interest rates
in money markets and financial markets have benchmarked off that so the hope is if they push down
those long-term interest rates, they push down the cost of money right across the spectrum and
hopefully get credit flowing again.

This is being seen as a radical step but Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman has been talking about the
prospect of this for a long time and in one sense it's a step further along a road that they've
been travelling for two years now.

If you look at it now, they're basically buying up all manner of debt out of the markets -
mortgage-backed bonds and securities, consumer debt, whatever they can now, treasury bonds - to try
to get the flow of credit going again with the system just totally dried up.

ELEANOR HALL: But Ben Bernanke has also been arguing very recently that we're just months away from
an economic recovery, so why is he taking this step now?

STEPHEN LONG: Well, what central bankers say in public is often designed to inspire confidence.
Behind the scenes they must be worried about the fact that the US economy has cratered. We've seen
the worst statistics for 60 or 70 years. When you look at joblessness, consumer spending, all
manner of things, the US economy is clearly in really bad shape.

Now if he actually genuinely believes that the US economy will begin recovering again at the end of
this year or the second half of this year, as he's publicly stated, then he would have factored in
this extraordinary measure into that. He would have had in mind that the Fed was going to do this.

Because things are so bad that they need some sort of expansion in credit to create more
consumption and get jobs going again. Without this measure there's certainly no hope and even with
it, you have to question whether he's being very optimistic.

ELEANOR HALL: But in taking this move is there a danger that he will drive up inflation?

STEPHEN LONG: Well you hear a lot of people out there warning gloom and doom on the inflation front
from this but actually the purpose of this is to create inflation. They want to create inflation
because the real risk in the US and indeed across the world is a dangerous, debilitating cycle of
debt deflation.

Already you have a situation where the consumer price index has risen by just 0.2 of a per cent in
the US over the past year. That's partly because of a fall in petrol prices. But you've got very,
very sluggish increases in consumer prices and you've got asset prices - houses, stocks and the
like - falling backwards at a rate of knots.

They're worried basically that you get a cycle of inflation with asset prices falling, consumer
prices falling, and then people holding off spending money because they think prices will be
cheaper in a few weeks' time or a few months' time, mass unemployment and falls in profits and
wages. And guess what? The debt stays constant. And so that's what they're trying to avoid.

In the long run there is a potential threat of inflation because of the massive amounts of money
that Western Governments are spending to bail out the system, but that's in the long run and as
John Maynard Keynes said, in the long run we're all dead.

ELEANOR HALL: We're all dead. So will this work though to end the credit crisis and to bring the US
economy back into recovery mode by the end of this year?

STEPHEN LONG: The real honest answer that anyone could give is: who knows? We don't know. What we
can say is it clearly is having a positive impact. That's already obvious from what's happened in
the credit markets and on the stock markets. But will it rescue the world? Hard to say.

Really, one school of thought is that private debt is so large and the systemic problems are so big
that all this is just basically palliative care and it won't work.

And the other thing is that if you look at Japan, they tried this, forms of this, and it didn't
work. Now the US is saying they're going to go further but that may engender its own problems.

ELEANOR HALL: Stephen Long, our economics correspondent, thank you.

Anger over AIG adds ballast to bonus ban

Reporter: Michael Rowland

ELEANOR HALL: In the United States, the scandal over the performance bonuses paid to executives who
almost drove insurance giant AIG into the ground has prompted calls for a financial
super-regulator.

The US Government has pumped more than $150-billion into the massive insurer to try to prevent its
collapse.

Now President Barack Obama says he wants to end the culture that saw the hefty bonuses paid in the
first place.

AIG's executive Edward Liddy felt the full force of congressional anger when he appeared before a
committee looking into the bonus issue, as Washington correspondent Michael Rowland reports.

MICHAEL ROWLAND: Edward Liddy's appearance on Capitol Hill gave politicians a very public
opportunity to vent their outrage over the bonus payments.

Massachusetts Democrat Stephen Lynch:

STEPHEN LYNCH: This is like the captain and the crew of the ship reserving the lifeboats, saying to
hell with the passengers, we're going to take the lifeboats for ourselves, for the crew and the
captain. That's what happened here.

MICHAEL ROWLAND: Michigan Democrat Gary Peters:

GARY PETERS: There are thousands of white-collar employees with employment contracts who have
foregone promised bonuses and benefits and have taken pay cuts in order to save the companies that
they work for.

People are sick of this double standard where working-class and middle-classes workers are treated
differently than the financial industry executives.

MICHAEL ROWLAND: The fury surrounding the bonuses has taken attention away, at least for the time
being, from just how parlous a financial situation AIG is really in. Mr Liddy says the insurance
giant is still is in great danger of collapsing thanks to the risky trading practices undertaken in
the company's financial products division.

EDWARD LIDDY: Although we have wound down more than $1-trillion in the portfolio of AIG financial
products, roughly a third from its peak, the unit that is at the root of our financial problems,
that portfolio remains very large - $1.6-trillion - and it continues to contain substantial risk.
The financial downside for taxpayers is potentially very large and it's very real and that's why
we're winding down that business as quickly as possible.

MICHAEL ROWLAND: The exotic derivatives conjured up by AIG's more inventive executives have also
been the subject of withering political attacks. New York Democrat Gary Ackerman led the charge.

GARY ACKERMAN: It's like snake oil salesmen selling you jars of snake oil and they don't even have
the oil in the jars. I mean there's a great company called I Can't Believe It's Not Butter. You
know at least they have the decency to tell you it's not butter.

I mean this is insurance without being insurance because if they called it insurance they'd have to
have money to pay you off.

MICHAEL ROWLAND: Mr Ackerman also warned Mr Liddy AIG and every other big financial institution was
about to come under much greater regulatory supervision and that's why the bonuses should be paid
back in full now.

GARY ACKERMAN: Give that back. Take it out of your profits down the road. Eat it now. It's a lot
sweeter now than it's going to be later because you got legislation coming down the pipe that
they're going to call I Can't Believe It's Not Waterboarding.

MICHAEL ROWLAND: US President Barack Obama is foreshadowing a powerful new regulatory body to keep
a greater eye on just what America's banks and insurance companies are up to.

BARACK OBAMA: People are rightly outraged about these particular bonuses but just as outrageous is
the culture that these bonuses are a symptom of, that have existed for far too long.

The financial regulatory package that we're designing as well as the economic policies that we want
to put in place are going to put an end to that culture. That's what we're striving for, that's
what the American people are looking for and working with Congress that's what we're hoping to
deliver.

MICHAEL ROWLAND: The President has also put on a very public show of confidence in his Treasury
Secretary Timothy Geithner. Mr Geithner is under fire for not doing more to stop the AIG bonuses
being paid. It's added to the ongoing criticism over his handling of the US financial system and
the broader economy. At least one senior Republican has called for the Treasury Secretary's
resignation.

With Mr Geithner at his side, Mr Obama has given his top economic official a ringing endorsement.

BARACK OBAMA: I have complete confidence in Tim Geithner and my entire economic team. Nobody's
working harder than this guy. You know, he is making all the right moves in terms of playing a bad
hand.

MICHAEL ROWLAND: And it's a hand that's unlikely to improve any time soon.

In Washington this is Michael Rowland reporting for The World Today.

2050 CO2 targets should be higher, says committee

Reporter: Sabra Lane

ELEANOR HALL: A federal parliamentary committee has recommended that Australia aim to negotiate a
cut in carbon emissions of 80 per cent by 2050. It's an intriguing recommendation by the
Labor-dominated committee. The Federal Government's own target for that date is only 60 per cent.

But the committee says there is no way the world can hope to avoid the consequences of dangerous
climate change if it doesn't make deeper cuts to carbon emissions.

The committee's chairman Labor MP Kelvin Thomson has been speaking to Sabra Lane.

KELVIN THOMSON: We took a science-based, evidence-based approach to this problem. We came to the
conclusion that it's in Australia's interests to secure a global agreement to deliver deep cuts in
carbon emissions so as to stabilise concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 450
parts per million or lower by 2050.

SABRA LANE: And so you've specifically said they should be cut by about 80 per cent?

KELVIN THOMSON: Yes, we have the view that it's hard to see how the world can get to 450 parts per
million by 2050 unless the developed countries are willing to cut emissions by 80 per cent by that
time.

So given that we believe that the Australian Government should be willing to adopt a policy setting
which would reduce our emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 in the context of seeking agreement from
other developed countries to also cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

SABRA LANE: That's a bit of a backhander to the Government's policy because it's set 60 per cent as
a target by 2050.

KELVIN THOMSON: Well I believe that the negotiations at Copenhagen need to be based around the
science and that the science requires us to look seriously at 450 parts per million.

I believe the Government has been highly committed to action on climate change. It's ratified the
Kyoto Protocol, it's introduced a carbon pollution reduction scheme and it's committed to
increasing Australia's renewable energy target to 20 per cent by 2020. So I have no doubt that the
Government is very sincere in its desire to tackle global heating.

What we as a committee have done is to say that Australia and other developed nations need to be
thinking about cuts of the order of 80 per cent by 2050.

The other observation I'd make is that greenhouse gas emissions are generally measured against a
1990 baseline. This is rather onerous for Australia because we were expressly permitted to increase
our emissions by eight per cent in the first Kyoto period and also because the inaction of the
previous government has left us tracking for 20 per cent carbon emissions above 1990 levels by
2020.

So it may be that our commitment to an 80 per cent cut should be a commitment to cut by 80 per cent
from now on; that is to say a cut of two per cent every year from 2010 to 2050. Now that is
challenging but achievable. We can't change our past but we must change our future.

SABRA LANE: But still this is a smack in the chops for the Government's official policy.

KELVIN THOMSON: No, it's not that at all. The Government is quite committed to tackling climate
change and its actions have made that very clear. What we are saying is that in terms of the
negotiating position that Australia takes to Copenhagen it ought to be a negotiating position which
enables us to look at stabilising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million or
lower by 2050, and that's why we've made the recommendations we have.

SABRA LANE: Why haven't you made specific recommendations in regards to the 2020 target?

KELVN THOMSON: I don't think we had enough evidence before us to make recommendations concerning
every single year or every single possibility.

SABRA LANE: By having the five to 15 per cent target for 2020, do you think that that will be
enough to garner support at Copenhagen for the higher targets that you're talking about?

KELVIN THOMSON: Well this is a question of negotiation between Australia and the other countries
and in particular Australia and the other developed countries. As I say, the committee believes
that in order to get the action that we need from Copenhagen to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions
at 450 parts per million the developed countries need to be prepared to think about cuts of the
order of 80 per cent by 2050 and Australia needs to be part of that.

Barack Obama has indicated that the United States is considering cuts of 80 per cent by 2050.

ELEANOR HALL: That's Labor MP Kelvin Thomson speaking about those new targets to Sabra Lane.

LNP could take Government

Reporter: Annie Guest

ELEANOR HALL: Queensland's Liberal National Party appears to be heading for victory at this
weekend's election according to private polling by the Labor Party. The polling was published in
some newspapers today but political observers say it's likely that it was a strategic leak by the
Labor Party in an attempt to claw back supporters intent on a protest vote.

In Brisbane, Annie Guest reports.

ANNIE GUEST: Are Queenslanders going to throw their four-term Labor Government out this weekend?

Yes, according to a report on Labor polling in today's 'Australian' newspaper by academic Peter van
Onselen. He's an associate professor of politics at Edith Cowan University.

PETER VAN ONSELEN: The key results of the polling are that the Labor Party are in trouble.

ANNIE GUEST: And does it show that the LNP could win government in its own right?

PETER VAN ONSELEN: It does show that the LNP could win government in its own right. This is going
to be a very close election.

ANNIE GUEST: The man who wrote John Howard's biography says he's been given details of the polling
by two Labor sources. He hasn't seen the surveys.

Associate professor Van Onselen says it's known as track polling and it's based on small samples in
key marginal seats that are going to decide the election.

PETER VAN ONSELEN: It's the seats that both sides need to win if they're to form a government and
in those particular seats the Labor Party is currently trailing the Liberal National Party on
Labor's internal results.

The trends are all going against them, which would indicate that if this holds up over the next few
days before polling day on Saturday, the Labor Party are looking like not just losing their
majority status but not even being able to form a minority government either.

ANNIE GUEST: And where exactly are these seats that are showing Labor in trouble and why do you
think that's the way voters are swaying?

PETER VAN ONSELEN: The seats where Labor in trouble are around the Gold Coast area but also inner
Brisbane electorates as well and that's where some of the angst inside the Labor Party comes from
about the strategies that they've employed.

ANNIE GUEST: He's talking there about whether Labor could have appealed to those known as
latte-sipping urban dwellers with a more personal attack the LNP leader who hails from a Darling
Downs farm.

The polling continues an upward trend in support for the LNP since last year. The most recent
surveys by Newspoll and Galaxy published on the weekend and last week both show the LNP leading
Labor 51-49 on a two-party preferred basis. However those results are not considered enough for the
LNP to form a majority government.

There are some similarities in this latest Labor polling leak to a report before the 2006
Queensland election and Queensland political commentator Mark Bahnisch, who's also the founder of
the online political blog site Larvatus Prodeo says it's strategic.

MARK BAHNISCH: With internal polling when they do leak it, it's normally right. That isn't to say
that they don't leak it without reason.

So what they're trying to do by leaking or releasing this polling at this stage is really to send a
signal that their campaign is in deep trouble and by doing so hoping to minimise a protest vote and
to get people to look very seriously at what might happen or what the state might look like on
Sunday morning.

ANNIE GUEST: With a minority government shown in the published polls to be a distinct possibility,
the independent candidates are coming under increased focus.

Four sitting Independents are fairly likely to be returned. Then there's the possibility of a
Greens member of Parliament and an outside chance of Pauline Hanson winning a seat.

None are committing their support to either party and their views can perhaps be best summed up by
the message on the phone of Chris Foley, the Independent Member for Maryborough, north of Brisbane.

CHRIS FOLEY: Hi this is Chris Foley. If it's Lawrence or Anna calling, I'm busier than a dingo
hopping a fence at Fraser Island, but I will call you back. Despite what the media are saying, I'm
happy to have a cuppa with either of you and see what you've got to offer my electorate and the
state of Queensland.

By the way, did I mention the cheque book?

(Beep)

ELEANOR HALL: A telephone message from Independent candidate Chris Foley ending that report from
Annie Guest in Brisbane.

Cellar Monster changes plea to guilty

Reporter: Stephanie Kennedy

ELEANOR HALL: To Austria now where in a dramatic turnaround overnight Josef Fritzl, the man accused
of enslaving and repeatedly raping his daughter pleaded guilty to all the charges against him.

Fritzl changed his plea after listening to his daughter's evidence and he told a psychiatrist that
he is aware of his evil side.

Stephanie Kennedy filed this report:

STEPHANIE KENNEDY: For two days Josef Fritzl listened to his daughter Elisabeth's video testimony.
Her evidence of horror and abuse is a story made of nightmares. For 24 years she was kept as a sex
slave, locked in an underground cellar. It was in this windowless dungeon where her own father
repeatedly raped her, she bore his seven children.

While Fritzl had earlier pleaded guilty to rape and incest he denied enslavement and murder by
neglect. He refused to seek medical help for a baby that died shortly after birth.

As the court convened for a third day, the judge asked Fritzl how he felt after watching his
daughter's evidence. In a low voice he told the court. 'I plead guilty', and he added he was sorry.

The plea took the court and his lawyer Rudolf Mayer by surprise.

RUDOLF MAYER: He said he had changed because he had seen first time the (inaudible) of Elisabeth
and he had seen the first time how she had thought about this thing and how was her feeling about
the facts.

I was very, very surprised because his personality, he always want to be powerful. I was very
surprised that it was possible for him now to speak how guilty he is.

STEPHANIE KENNEDY: The picture that has emerged of Josef Fritzl is of a man who must be in total
control of the people around him. That need to control was evident at this trial. He shielded his
face with a blue folder on his way into court but eventually he let his guard down and photos of
the man dubbed the Cellar Monster were splashed around the world.

The court appointed psychiatrist Dr Adelheid Kastner explains his mental state.

ADELHEID KASTNER: The roots of what he did at least partly lie in childhood I think, where he had a
childhood that was deprived of any kind of emotional warmth, of love and of security.

And he spent the childhood in fear for and of his mother. And he never learned to feel positive
emotions and he always had problems in having positive emotions for other people. But what he felt
was being suppressed, being oppressed, being maltreated and what that made him want was being in
control of others.

STEPHANIE KENNEDY: Fritzl told her he was born to rape and he would repeat his behaviour.

ADELHEID KASTNER: He has to be considered dangerous. He has to be considered a danger for others
because the need to be in control won't end with him becoming older.

STEPHANIE KENNEDY: Under Austrian law the jury will still hand down a verdict. Then the court will
deliver justice for Elisabeth and her children and hopefully they will be able to move on with
their lives.

This is Stephanie Kennedy reporting for The World Today.

Red Cross seeks safe return of workers

Reporter: Karen Barlow

ELEANOR HALL: The International Red Cross is appealing to the humanity of an al-Qaeda linked
Islamist group which is holding three of its workers hostage in the Philippines and is threatening
to kill them.

The rebel group Abu Sayyaf abducted the Italian, Swiss and Philippines nationals in January on the
remote southern island of Jolo. It reportedly asked for a ransom of $1-million to release the three
aid workers but is now threatening to behead them.

Karen Barlow has our report.

KAREN BARLOW: Filipina Mary Jean Lacaba, Swiss national Andreas Notter and Italian Eugenio Vagni
were captured by Abu Sayyaf rebels on the island of Jolo on January the 15th. They had just
inspected a local prison and were on their way to the airport when they were taken by men on
motorcycles.

Abu Sayyaf has been seeking $1-million for their return but two months after the initial capture
the Government's response this week was to mount a rescue attempt. Three soldiers and two militants
died in the resulting fire fight. The Red Cross workers are still captive and the rebel leader
Albader Parad is clearly unhappy.

ALBADER PARAD (translated): Remember, if they pursue operations and they come close to us and
another fire fight erupts, I will behead one of the group of Red Cross hostages.

KAREN BARLOW: The leader of Abu Sayyaf rebels made the threat in an interview with a local Sulu
Province religious radio station.

ALBADER PARAD (translated): You know when I say something I do it. I have not said anything that I
didn't act on. Remember, if a fire fight happens and it reaches us here in Sulu, you will just
receive the news that one of the Red Cross members has been beheaded. I will say goodbye now.

KAREN BARLOW: The International Red Cross is extremely concerned about the safety of their three
workers. The ICRC's Anastasia Isyuk is a Manila-based spokeswoman.

ANASTASIA ISYUK: We have not had direct contact with our colleagues since Wednesday 11th of March.
We hope to be in direct contact with them and you know to receive information that they're okay.

KAREN BARLOW: The Red Cross has found the talk of beheading the three disturbing.

ANASTASIA ISYUK: We appeal to their sense of humanity. We ask them to avoid taking any action that
could endanger the lives of our colleagues and release them quickly.

KAREN BARLOW: It's thought to be the first time that Abu Sayyaf has abducted Red Cross workers, but
it's not the first hostage drama for the militant group and it has beheaded captives before.

Another group of Abu Sayyaf killed American Guillermo Sobero in 2001 after negotiations broke down
with authorities.

While they want money, counter terrorism expert Professor Clive Williams from Macquarie University
says they also have another agenda.

CLIVE WILLIAMS: Well in the past Abu Sayyaf has not normally beheaded non-Catholics. You know part
of their rationale is to drive Christians and particularly Catholics out of the southern
Philippines area and to do that at times they have beheaded Catholics, particularly people like
missionaries in order to scare immigrants that have come from other parts of the Philippines to
leave the area.

KAREN BARLOW: What sort of group is Abu Sayyaf now in 2009? It's variously described as previously
tied with al-Qaeda, it's seeking an Islamic state.

CLIVE WILLIAMS: It's seeking a fundamentalist state in the southern Philippines. I doubt that it's
had any contact with al-Qaeda for probably about five years now.

But because it's based on several islands it tends to be perhaps broken down in a cellular sense;
you know there are local leaders who are dominant on different islands and often there isn't much
cooperation or liaison between them. And so it's often hard to know why a group on one island is
doing something which may seem to be at variance with the overall objectives of the group.

KAREN BARLOW: The Philippines authorities say peaceful avenues for the return of the three workers
are still open.

ELEANOR HALL: Karen Barlow reporting.

Smoking ban angers mental-health groups

Reporter: Barbara Miller

ELEANOR HALL: It seems logical for a health department to enforce a no smoking rule but mental
health experts are warning the New South Wales Health Department that banning smoking in
psychiatric facilities could be dangerous for both patients and their carers.

The department though says it will push ahead with its plans, saying smoking is the number-one risk
to health.

Barbara Miller has our report.

BARBARA MILLER: Ashtrays will be removed from mental health centres, outdoor smoking areas closed
down and patients supplied with nicotine replacement therapies. But the New South Wales authorities
are making no apologies for the moves.

Liz Develin is the director of Health Advancement.

LIZ DEVELIN: Smoking is still the single biggest risk factor for death in New South Wales. It
out-rates alcohol. It out-rates overweight and obesity. And hence New South Wales Health must show
that smoking is just unacceptable and no-one should be exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.

BARBARA MILLER: Liz Develin says the ban will be gradually introduced, ensuring a smooth
transition.

LIZ DEVELIN: There's very good evidence published in psychiatric journals from across the world
where, where you do this properly, you don't see increased aggression or patients going off their
medication or not turning up for their mental health service, but it could happen if people don't
do it properly which is why we're providing very extensive guidance on how to do it.

BARBARA MILLER: But some mental health groups are worried. Desley Casey has been an acute mental
health patient several times and now works with the consumer group CAN Mental Health.

DESLEY CASEY: I think it's cruel, it's inhumane and it actually goes against the human rights of
people with mental illness.

BARBARA MILLER: Why do you think it's cruel?

DESLEY CASEY: Imagine that you're acutely unwell and you're locked in an inpatient unit where you
can't get out. You're a smoker. And now they're expecting you to go through withdrawal symptoms. So
basically your mental health is actually exacerbated and illness is exacerbated by the fact that
you're actually going through withdrawal symptoms.

BARBARA MILLER: David Crosbie the CEO of the Mental Health Council of Australia says a similar ban
at an institution in Victoria ended badly.

DAVID CROSBIE: In this case you had people who were under community-based orders to receive
treatment and, you know, were at risk of flight who were being taken outside the hospital grounds
to stand in a vacant paddock and there was at least one case where from that location they were
able to easily abscond.

In some situations I think the harm being done or that could be done by forcing people to either
give up smoking or remove themselves from a safe environment are very significant and they're not
things that we should be rushing into.

BARBARA MILLER: But anti-smoking advocates don't buy those arguments. Dr Andrew Penman is the chief
executive officer of the New South Wales Cancer Council.

ANDREW PENMAN: If you continue to reinforce smoking behaviour in people suffering from mental
illness you simply condemn them to a burden of chronic disease and an increasing burden of poverty,
which are going to stand in the way of rehabilitation in mental illness.

BARBARA MILLER: Desley Casey says she's under no illusions about the dangers of smoking but she
says stopping would be riskier.

DESLEY CASEY: I personally would not risk my mental health for the sake of actually looking after
my physical health. My mental health is more of a higher priority in the smoking department.

BARBARA MILLER: Most states and territories still have designated outdoor smoking areas in mental
health facilities. But the West Australian Government introduced a ban last year on smoking on the
grounds of all public health facilities, including mental health centres. However the WA Minister
for Mental Health Graham Jacobs is currently reviewing the policy after staff complaints about the
measures.

ELEANOR HALL: Barbara Miller reporting.

Smoking down, but lung cancer up

Reporter: Sara Everingham

ELEANOR HALL: Now to some surprising research on lung cancer. While smoking rates in Australia are
on the decline, the latest figures show that the number of deaths from lung cancer is rising.

Many of the victims are people who gave up smoking decades ago and some are young people who've
never smoked in their lives.

Sara Everingham has our report.

SARA EVERINGHAM: In 2005 Sue Pusey's son Matthew was diagnosed with lung cancer.

SUE PUSEY: We were absolutely devastated.

SARA EVERINGHAM: She says her son had never smoked, lived a healthy lifestyle, ate well and
exercised. He survived with the disease for just over three years and died in November last year.
He was 31.

SUE PUSEY: Questions were asked why if had never smoked in his life, how could you get lung cancer?

SARA EVERINGHAM: Cancer experts say anecdotally cases like Matthew Pusey's seem to be increasingly
common.

William Darbishire is the CEO of the Australian Lung Foundation.

WILLIAM DARBISHIRE: It seems to us maybe because we're more active that there are more and more
never-smokers appearing, yes, and particularly women.

SARA EVERINGHAM: Do we have any idea what can cause lung cancer in people who've never smoked?

WILLIAM DARBISHIRE: There's no scientific evidence. We've seen a particular increase in the number
of young Asian women falling to lung cancer, never-smokers. You know, you could perhaps say well
that might subsidiary smoking or secondary smoking, but that's not proven.

SARA EVERINGHAM: What is known is that overall deaths from lung cancer are on the rise.

William Darbishire again.

WILLIAM DARBISHIRE: In 2007 the ABS stats came out yesterday and there's now 7,623 Australians
dying of the disease. You know there's more women being killed by lung cancer now than any other
cancer.

SARA EVERINGHAM: And most people who die from lung cancer are former smokers. Associate Professor
Matthew Peters is from the Cancer Council.

MATTHEW PETERS: What we're seeing now is 10 per cent more lung cancer deaths in women than breast
cancer deaths. It's really a legacy of past decades of smoking.

SARA EVERINGHAM: Whatever the cause of their lung cancer, William Darbishire says patients often
feel unfairly stigmatised.

WILLIAM DARBISHIRE: Everyone's being put into this category, it's well you know almost if you've
got lung cancer you deserve it because you've been a smoker.

But you know some people have given up 20-odd, 30 years ago and then it's sort of coming back to
haunt them. And that's also creating what we characterise as a stigma in people who've been
diagnosed and people aren't seeking treatment because they're thinking, oh well I deserve it, which
is you know, nobody deserves lung cancer.

SARA EVERINGHAM: While lung cancer rates are on the rise they will eventually fall in line with the
drop in the number of people smoking. Even so Matthew Peters argues those with lung cancer now need
more help.

MATTHEW PETERS: Projections are for the next 20 years at least, lung cancer will still be the
number-one cause of cancer death in our community.

So in these 20 years and even beyond that, we've got to start working not just on prevention which
we've done a good job with, but we need to improve better treatment and also better support.

You know a woman with lung cancer should expect the equivalent of a breast cancer nurse, but a
woman with lung cancer won't get a lung cancer nurse to help her in her passage through this
difficult problem.

So matching the sort of intense overall management that breast cancer patients get, which they
should get, for lung cancer patients would be a welcome change.

ELEANOR HALL: That's Associate Professor Matthew Peters from the Cancer Council ending Sara
Everingham's report.

Water war steams ahead

Reporter: Simon Lauder

ELEANOR HALL: The Victorian Premier indicated today that his Government won't be backing down on
its water fight with South Australia despite the South Australian Government's threat to take the
issue to the High Court.

John Brumby accused his South Australian counterpart of going back on a deal that the premiers
agreed to six months ago. And in a sign that the water problems are severe, Victoria's Environment
Department has warned the residents of the Murray River towns that they could become Australia's
first climate change refugees.

In Melbourne, Simon Lauder reports.

SIMON LAUDER: The idea of fleeing your homeland because of climate change is a scenario usually
associated with water levels which are rising, not falling. But the executive director of
Victoria's Department of Sustainability and Environment Campbell Fitzpatrick told a water
conference in Melbourne this week that people from communities in northern Victoria are pretty
close to becoming Australia's first climate change refugees.

One community which relies heavily on the waters of the Murray River is Mildura. Its mayor Glenn
Milne agrees with Mr Fitzpatrick's prediction.

GLENN MILNE: My personal feeling is that we are heading down that path. You know we're seeing a
major part of our irrigation areas drying up because of the lack of water which is overall caused
by the mismanagement of the Murray River.

SIMON LAUDER: The prospect of an exodus from northern Victoria also worries the Premier John
Brumby.

JOHN BRUMBY: All of those irrigation communities, Echuca, you know literally right down to Bendigo,
Swan Hill, Robinvale, Mildura, you know right across the north of the state and even back to
Wodonga, Cobram, all of those places would lose investment and jobs and people and population.
That's what he's saying and that's the fact of the matter.

SIMON LAUDER: John Brumby says that's what will happen if Victoria gives in to demands from South
Australia and the urgings of the Commonwealth Government to remove its four per cent cap on water
trading from irrigation districts in the Murray.

South Australia's Premier Mike Rann says his Government is prepared to go to the High Court to
argue the case for the free trade of water. The threat took the Victorian Government by surprise
earlier this month but now Mr Brumby has made it clear he won't back down on his state's
restrictions on water trading.

JOHN BRUMBY: If you just go open slather and allow governments into the market, what you're going
to do is devastate irrigation communities in country Victoria and I'm not going to stand by and see
those country communities devastated by arbitrarily lifting that cap.

SIMON LAUDER: The Victorian Premier has accused his South Australian counterpart of going back on a
deal with his threat to take legal action.

JOHN BRUMBY: It's only six months ago we agreed at COAG on the new Murray Darling Basin Agreement,
it's only last COAG I think we agreed on the four per cent cap. And Mike Rann at the time described
it as a, quote, 'stunning result'.

SIMON LAUDER: If the water crisis is enough to send two Labor governments into a High Court battle,
it's time for some other 'ugly choices' to be made.

So says the head of the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide. Professor Mike Young
says the amount of water that evaporates from Murray Darling billabongs, lakes and wetlands is
equal to the entire amount that flows into the system.

MIKE YOUNG: We're essentially running a system which is bankrupt. We're actually trying to spend
more than we've got.

SIMON LAUDER: Professor Young says the river will disappear if its waters continue to be spread far
and wide.

MIKE YOUNG: It's not just the Lower Lakes, it's all the other lakes right through the system. And
what we've suggested is that we need to look at each one of those and work out which ones we should
keep and which ones we might let go.

SIMON LAUDER: So basically letting them die?

MIKE YOUNG: Letting them die but at the same time realising we can keep the others alive by doing
that.

SIMON LAUDER: So this is giving up on any hope that the big dry will end?

MIKE YOUNG: I think so, yes. Well certainly planning for it and starting and putting in the
infrastructure so that while the big dry continues we're making sure we keep things alive.

ELEANOR HALL: Professor Mike Young from Adelaide University speaking to Simon Lauder.

Victorian Government says golf a great investment

Reporter: Simon Santow

ELEANOR HALL: Credit may be drying up around the globe but the Victorian Government has just spent
up big to lure one the world's most famous sportsman to the state. Golfer Tiger Woods has agreed to
accept an appearance fee of $3-million to play a tournament in Melbourne in November.

The bulk of this fee will be paid by the Government which was engaged in an intense bidding war
with the New South Wales Government over the sporting star.

But will the money spent by the taxpayers of Victoria be a good investment?

Simon Santow reports.

SIMON SANTOW: He's without doubt the best golfer of his generation and quite possibly the best the
sport has ever seen, so not surprisingly getting Tiger Woods to come and play golf in Australia is
no easy thing.

TIM HOLDING: From a Victorian Government perspective, we make no apologies for spending to bring
the very best major events and the very best sportspeople from around the world to Melbourne.

SIMON SANTOW: The state is already proud of its grand prix, horseracing carnival and tennis.
Victoria's Major Events Minister Tim Holding won't confirm the reported $3-million price tag for
adding big-name golf to the mix but the fee is guaranteed by the taxpayer.

TIM HOLDING: All of these events bring people from interstate and from overseas. They showcase
Melbourne on an international stage and they create jobs and generate a huge economic benefit for
our economy.

SIMON SANTOW: That argument is causing quite a stir in sporting mad Melbourne.

CALLER: I'd go pay pretty much you know premium price to go see him because he is a phenomenon.

SIMON SANTOW: Not all the calls to 3AW this morning were as positive.

CALLER 2: No, I think it's disgusting and it's just nothing short of a junket really.

CALLER 3: G'day, how are you?

PRESENTER: Okay.

CALLER 3: What happens if he doesn't make the cut?

PRESENTER: Well if he doesn't make the cut he still gets the money.

CALLER 4: Why can't he just go there and try and play the game and put something back to everybody
and give it all back to everyone else. Even with the economy the way it's just even morally wrong.
What about all these poor people that are losing their jobs? And here's the Government giving money
away just to get some guy here.

SIMON SANTOW: On ABC local radio, this call from a disability rights campaigner.

CALLER: I really have to ask, what is the Government's priority? Is the role of the state going to
be to blatantly subsidise private gain? And I really think that the Government really should be
looking at its own priorities and what is the community benefit test to this?

SIMON SANTOW: And host Jon Faine challenged Sports Minister James Merlino on the boast it would
turn $3-million into $19-million.

JAMES MERLINO: This is the economic modelling that has been quite commonly used in terms of
estimating the economic benefit of our major events calendar and it looks at things such as
tourism, both interstate and international.

You know, we're expecting with Tiger Woods at the Australian Masters this November crowds of 70,000
to 100,000. It looks at the impact in terms of jobs. It does look at the impact in terms of the
coverage of Melbourne...

JON FAINE: Will you release that modelling?

JAMES MERLINO: ...both interstate and internationally.

JON FAINE: Will you release that modelling?

JAMES MERLINO: You make estimates before events Jon and then post events you actually look at the
final costings of the event...

JON FAINE: Will you release that modelling?

JAMES MERLINO: The modelling, the modelling has been audited by the auditor-general.

JON FAINE: But will you release it?

SIMON SANTOW: New South Wales says it too had wanted Woods, but not for this year's Australian
Open.

GEOFF PARMENTER: Oh I think they're to be congratulated. I think that clearly is something that
they've decided would work well for them this year.

SIMON SANTOW: Geoff Parmenter is the chief executive of Events New South Wales. He warns getting a
return on investment is not guaranteed.

GEOFF PARMENTER: If you spend it at the right time as part of a long-term strategy I think you
could well build a good business case for that.

But you know the challenge is to try and get that money back as a one-off investment, to try and
demonstrate that if you spend, you know, $3-million, $4-million, $5-million on one initiative that
you're going to drive the sort of visitor dollars and the sort of exposure that that money
warrants.

SIMON SANTOW: New Zealand in 2002 landed a sporting coup when they brought Tiger Woods out for
their Open Championships.

ALLAN MCKAY: At that stage of course Tiger had just completed the Grand Slam so he held all four
major titles. The very thought of getting him to appear in New Zealand even just to go sightseeing
was enormous but to get him to actually play and perform created an enormous public appeal for
golfers and non-golfers.

SIMON SANTOW: Golf professional Allan McKay was instrumental in bringing Woods out to New Zealand.

ALLAN MCKAY: I think it's going to be a wonderful experience. He's a very popular person and he's a
very, very nice guy to deal with and I wish you guys the best of luck.

SIMON SANTOW: Despite the hype, overseas travellers were nervous in the wake of September 11.

ALLAN MCKAY: You couldn't have written a worse script for the four months prior to the New Zealand
Open for when Tiger came.

SIMON SANTOW: And then tournament organisers made some mistakes.

ALLAN MCKAY: They got the ticket prices wrong and I think that it did prohibit a lot of people from
putting together the whole package of travelling, hotel, accommodation, meals and then too big a
ticket price.

We needed other players and the organisers did try desperately to get other players, obviously not
of the same quality. But you can't really stack the tournament with one player. We needed other
people. And yeah, I would hope that they would get ticket price correct and have the course packed
out, similar to a British Open or a US Masters.

ELEANOR HALL: Some lessons there. Allan McKay is the golf pro who helped to bring Tiger Woods to
New Zealand seven years ago. Simon Santow with our report.