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 the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Sky News The Contrarians -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) Hello, and welcome to the

Contrarians, this is the only

show on Sky or anywhere

elsewhere we truly involve

you, the viewers, by reading

out your tweets and emails.

Well, tomorrow - well not

tomorrow, but after this

coming weekend, we will have

the federal budget next week

and wow the anticipation is

thick in the room, certain

here at Sky News. Wayne Swan

is likely to jump up and

announce mission accomplished

when he delivers his surplus

forecast, it's reminiscent of

the speech in 2003 by gorge W

Bush on board the USS aircraft carrier where it

was, well, a little bit of

time to go before the Iraq

war truly wrapped up. Wayne

Swan hopes to deliver a

surplus, and hey, maybe he

will get there, I will be the

first to admit I have got egg

all over my face in 12 months

time. But if Kevin Rudd does

come back and that is what the speculation suggests, I

can't imagine that the bloke

who said he has got no Labor

values is likely to serve him

but you never know, anything

is possible given the way

this Government has operated

over the last four and a half

years. Nothing would

surprise. The budget will be

important, there will be a

massive cut to it, no matter

what happens because at the

end of the day they are

trying to go from a roughly

$40 billion deficit in one

year to a surplus the year

after. That is going to mean

tax increases, that is going

to mean cuts to areas like welfare for example that we

have seen speculated about

today. At the end of the

day, this is going to be a tough budget and the

difficulty for the Government

is that it is relying on a

bounce out of this budget. I

don't know how you get a

bounce out of a budget that

involves tax hikes as well as

cuts in spending along the

way to try to have a massive

contraction ry effort in

order to return to surplus

but hey, maybe the Government

knows something that I don't.

Greg O'Mahoney, Chris Bampton

and Claire Harvey,

congratulations, new deputy

editor of the Sunday

telephone grahl. What have

you got? I can't give

anything away. Like Wayne

Swan. But I think it is

going to be a very harsh

budget, he has got $41.5

billion to find if he is

going to live up to his

promise but, you know, it

looks like he is going to get

there. Will he get there on

the forecast or do you think

he will get there in 12

months time when the real

numbers come in? The problem

with the Labor Party at the

moment is that it is impossible to predict even

what they will be doing next

week, so I'm not going to

hazard a guess whether he

will be Treasurer in any

years time. I think we will

be on track for that surplus.

I think he has staked his

political career on it. He

may be a back bencher in a

couple of weeks. On that

question of who will be in the cabinet when and if Kevin Rudd becomes Prime Minister

again, I think you will find

a lot of forgiveness, a lot

of people who said they might

not be able to serve under

him may be able to... Because

they love the flag on the

bonnet, all of that kind of

stuff. And their first love

is the party, they are able

to put aside personal... You

make a good point. Troy,

you're a creature of the

Labor Party. You now trash

them all the time but at the

end of the day there is love

in the room, they still talk

to you, yeah? Yeah, they do

actually. Some of them

against each other and all

sorts of things. But yeah,

look, I think if we are going

to go straight into the

leadership, we can do that.

If you want to raise it, why not. Claire just raised it.

I think the Government is in

a lot of strife simply

because this budget is happening in a context where

there is intense speculation

about the leadership. We saw

the news poll on Monday or

Tuesday which showed the

primary vote of 27%, hardly

ever been that low, only on

one other occasion. So this

is not the best place, best

time for the Government to be

selling a budget that is

possibly going to have

massive cuts in it and

questionable economic

forecasts as well. Maybe it

is the best time. Their vote

can hardly go any lower, so

do the hard stuff now and

begin the rebuilding that we

have been told about. But

they have sich political

capital and such little

skills in being able to

communicate effectively and

backing their policies and

their programs. So how on

earth are they going to sell

something that is difficult

to achieve while economists

are selling do we need this

surplus or not, and should we

be putting the break on

fiscal policy? So there is a

lot of serious economic

questions about this and an

awfully difficult political

environment. You have long

marvelled the at job that

Swan does has Treasurer. Do

you think he will be you able

to pull a rabbit out of the

hat? Do you think he is

going to deliver a really

good forecast and that's

where it ends? Who knows

what happens in 12 months

taodeunl. Every budget has

been described as tough, this

is massively tough. It

should a cause for some cause

of celebration, it is a rare

example of a promise that

they have kept, but as Troy

has pointed out, you could

not have more distrackions.

I think the understatement of

the week is Troy saying it is

not the ideal time to be

bringing a budget to market.

I mean, it is hard to

remember a week, even in the

six years or five years of

this Government, that where

there have been so many dick

tracks and it is just

extraordinary to think we are

days away from this huge

pledge that Swan made all

that time ago and he is days

away from predicting he will

get there and no-one cares.

So what? My issue with this is that the original forecast

for the budget that he is

actually going to deliver,

not the forecast or this fictitious that is never

going to happen, but the one

that he actually brings down

for the 11-12 financial year.

It started at 12 billion, it

went to 22 billion, it went

to 37 billion, now it is

likely to be well into the 40

billions and then you look at

him about to deliver a

surplus protection of 1.5

billion or thereabouts, is

there a small chance that it

might blow out? What is he

supposed to do? Is anyone

seriously suggesting that the

Government should not return a protected surplus this

year? I mean, why would they

do that? No, that's not what

I'm saying. My point is that

it is good for them to be

slowly, although they are not

doing it slowly, they are

going from 40 to a surplus if

they make it, but to slowly

work their way back towards a

surplus. Whether that

happens in 12-13 or a year or

two later, it doesn't matter

to me. But these guys are

delivering three consecutive

40 billion deficits and then in one year they are planning

to deliver a surplus if they get there. Wouldn't they

have been better off to have made some of these tough decisions incrementally over

time rather than try to do it

all at once in one financial

year. Mash the Labor Party

we have got in Government now

is dealing with the legacy of

decisions that were made by Kevin Rudd in part, for

example, the defence cuts.

There was a defence white

paper in 2009 which is left

the Labor Party in an incredibly difficult

situation t had no choice but

to do what it did yesterday

which is announce 5 billion

in cuts in advance of the

budget. I mean, I just think

it is nonsense that the Government could be expected

not to announce a surplus or

to backtrack on that promise

of delivering a forecast

surplus. But why? Because

it is an invitation for you

and Alan Jones and everyone

else to smash the

Government. Allan and I are

like that. The thing is if

you want to follow the modern

tradition of Rudd and Gillard, they break their

promise. They did it on

refugees, they did it on

education. Consistency.

Exactly, consistency about the modern Labor tradition which is to promise something

and walk away from it.

You're a fan of the modern

Labor Party? I think there's

a lot of governments about the Government's economic management and they are now

in a situation where... It

has all gone left sijs you

left the staffing ranks.

They have put themselves in a straight jacket with this

surplus and there are a lot

of economists saying is this

the right thing to be doing

now? Absolutely not. The

timing is incredibly unlucky

for the medicine that we are

about to get. China is slowing, interest rates are

probably still too high, house prices aren't doing

anything, it is a really

tough time, unemployment is

going up, to be hitting the

populous with the tough

medicine that this budget

will be. I thought one of

the benefits was that we had

good unemployment. Should

they have promised a surplus,

that is one question? The

only answer is no, they

should not break this promise

now. Should they have made

it in the first place? There

is no question that he has to

do what he promised to do.

For political reasons? Yes.

But the Government says it is

not for political reasons,

even though it is hard to find an economist who agrees

with that point of view. All

right, we are done with the

budget, we have got 45

minutes to fill. Let's stick

with the budget but let's

come at it from a different

angle. Can somebody explain to me how you're supposed to

get a bounce out of a tough

budget? Every budget, as far as I can remember, is always

talked about as leading to a

bounce or likely to lead to a

bounce, they rarely do... It is only the tough budgets

that do and I think it is

because Australians, like a

bit of austerity, we don't

mind the idea of a little bit

of sacrifice. Look at the water restrictions. When Australians were first told

you are going to have to stop

hosing the driveway, everyone was horrified but once it started happening, everyone

got into it, it was a bit of

spirit of the blitz, you

know, solidarity in the face of hardship. I think Australians quite like a

little bit of tough love. I

think the main reason for the

bounce is going to be an

honoured promise, a rare

example of here is a promise

I made dots tots They still

haven't actually delivered on

a promise. It is a

forecast. I know. But the

ability to show some numbers.

They are closer to it and

they have identified some

numbers that show in all

likelihood we will

achieve... Oh God, seriously!

They are about to deliver a forecast of something which by definition means it hasn't

happened yet. It is not

going to happen. To be

honest, what's making it say

it is not going to happen?

Because they have never

matched their numbers in the

budget before. I will shave

my head if they achieve a

surplus this time in 12

months, an actual surplus, I

will shave my head. This

will be really embarrassing if it happens. If they get

this surplus, I will shave my

head. Keep it on tape. The

producer said we are keeping

that on tape. I will do it,

it will be funny, but at the

end of the day I'm so

confident it is not going to

happen, that I can't imagine

that this forecast surplus is

actually going to happen.

You realise that the main

variable as to whether or not

it happens is China. If

there's a massive slow down

on China, the effect... After

what I said let's hope for

the slow down. But it's

really out of the

Government's control. Which

is why it is such a silly

political promise to make.

What, shaving your head?

That is probably not smart either. Now I have done something as silly as the

Government, I have made a

dangerous promise that I will

keep though. But there is

also a need for good economic

argument here and the

Government is not good at

communicating at the best of

times let alone on serious

economic policy questions.

So there has got to be a

serious case to be put to the

Australian people and a

debate to happen about what

is the impact of withdrawing

$40 billion of money out of

the economy in one year when

parts of the economy are

already running at a sluggish

rate and others have question

marks over them, as Greg has

said, the mining and

resources sector relies

largely on China and the

Asian region. So what is actually going to be the

economic impact of taking $40

and is this the right billion out of the economy

decision to be doing? What

is your view? I have serious

question marks over that.

The opposition will make,

like, their world is falling

in, the sky is falling in if the Government doesn't

deliver this promise that he thv pledged themselves too

but there has got to be a

serious economic debate and

argument about the merits for

doing this in such a short spals of time given, as

you've just noted yourself

Peter, the projections are

blown out considerably. I

think the really is that that

promise was made at a time

when Barnaby Joyce was

getting a lot of traction

running around talking about

debt. That there was a risk

that the US might default on

its debts for example. Like

the Greeks or the south-west

pacific, he got carried away. Let's remember that

was the context in which this

promise was made. The

Government's number one

credibility problem is

breaking promises. It cannot

make the promise. The tweets

are mostly making the point

that I won't need to shave my

head in 12 months time.

Challenge accepted. Well,

Ed, we will let you do the

shaving if it happens. But

it ain't going to happen. We

will be back in a moment.

Welcome back. You're watching Contrarians. I'm pretty sure I said Wayne Swan

has to deliver the surplus in

12 months time, I'm pretty

sure I did. We will have a

think about it.all of that

coming up shortly, let's

first take a look at what's

making news. Westpac has

become the third of the major banks to cut its interest

rates today announcing a drop

of .37% to 7.09%. The cut

will save home owners with an

average $300,000 mortgage

around $900 a year in monthly

repayments. Westpac's cut is

the major banks this month the second largest made by

but it is still less than the

.5% cut by the RBA. The ANZ

will make its decision next

Friday. More budget cuts are

emerging ahead of Tuesday's

budget with welfare to be

tightened on a number of

fronts. Around $700 million

will be made when the

youngest child turns 8 and

for partnered parents income

support to end when their

youngest child turns 6. The

Prime Minister says that

parents will be assured that

the budget will be fair. A

16-year-old boy from the NSW

Central Coast has drowned

snorkelling at an island off

Bali. The teenager was on

holiday with his family when the incident happened

yesterday afternoon. Local

police say the teenager signalled for help after he

struck his head on a boat

while surfacing but then he

lost consciousness. A blind

Chinese dissident at the

centre of a diplomatic Rowe

between US and China has made

a plea for help telephoning

the congressional in

Washington from his hospital

bed in Beijing. Chen

Guangcheng pleaded for help

from the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to get

to the United States. It has increased pressure on Barack

Obama and the way that he is

handling the deepening

crisis. Motoring groups have

welcomed the ACCC's decision

to launch an official inquiry

into the petrol price saying that an investigation is

slonge overdue. The consumer

watch dog will investigate

claims of price gouging at

the petrol pump as bowser is

prices hit record highs. It

will look into price

information sharing between

the major companies. And in

sport a wonder spice from

Wayne Rooney has been called

the greatest goal in the 20

year history. The

spectacular kick clinched the

2-1 win for Manchester United

last year. A quick check on

the national forecast,

showers in the south-west,

mostly fine in the east.

Welcome back. You're

watching Contrarians where

I'm joined by Greg O'Mahoney,

Chris Bampton and Claire

Harry. I did say if Wayne

Swan delivers. I think you

say if they deliver a

surplus. Swan, the royal they. Which means the

Government. Let's have a

look, my producer reckons he

has got it. "I will shave my

head if they achieve a

surplus this time in 12

months. An actual surplus.

I will shave my head". They.

That's pretty much they. I

think context is important.

Can I just say, Troy has been

very sheepish, you're

normally the first person to

go on what Kevin Rudd is

doing and thinking. Shall we

get him on the phone right

now? I was speaking to him

as I was walking in the

door. What was he saying,

how long is he going to wait

until he challenges? I

haven't spoken to him lately

but I have spoken to a number

of the caucus members and I

was stonished to find earlier

this week that a number of

them who had told me they

would never ever counter on a

return of Kevin Rudd now say

it is the only option for

Labor and it is inevitable.

And I'm as shocked as anybody

else. I have previously said that I didn't think Rudd

could ever come back in Labor

politics, I admit that freely

because of what was being

said to me by the caucus

members, now seems that they

have changed their mind... I Assumed did you your own

analysis. I talk to caucus

members and then report on

that and then analyse what

they say. I'm not a mouth

piece. It is pretty hard to

be a mouth piece for 103

members of caucus. But it is

an astonishing turn around,

two months after Julia

Gillard defeated Kevin Rudd

by the biggest margin ever in a ministerial leadership

ballot, that many of other

colleagues are now branching

ranks and are now openly

saying that it is time for

another change... That is really pathetic display.

Isn't that what is exactly

what is wrong with Labor.

What, Troy? No. By caucus.

You know, isn't the very

notion of changing Prime

Ministers again exactly what

is wrong with the Labor Party

right now? Look, it may

be... A Lot of politics say this is just a media making

this stuff up and it is

not... We have got a tweet

that came in, what effect is

there for a leadership

change, is it just

journalists stirring again?

It is not. People can say

they like about me, but I

would never write an article

for a newspaper that jaw gave

us quotes. She just had a go

at me. I did not have a go

at you, I was having a go at

the caucus. Bit of tension.

When we have fine

journalists, like Peter van

Onselen. These happen because journalists make

their comments freely known. One point that has been... They say it because

they want you to report it.

reporting what everybody has You don't run around

said but if they give you

these quotes and it comes

from a credible source, I

think there is an obligation

to report it. I don't think

the 72 votes, 71 votes was

ever a pro-Gillard vote, more an anti Rudd vote but in a sense, that is the same

problem with a Rudd return,

unless they get very desperate. What has been

killed I think is this myth

that Kevin Rudd was the

reason for all of Labor's

hardship and flaws for the

last 12 months. As he said,

he wasn't behind the Malaysia

solution, he wasn't behind

the back down on the ETS, he

didn't do what Gillard did... He was the Prime

Minister when he barked down

on the ETS. Not on the Prime

Minister to bring one in.

Someone lent -- not on the

promise to bring one in. The

now Prime Minister. Then

promised won't bring it in,

then she brought it in and

then said she was entitled to

change her mind pch it is

just layer upon layer of

deception but so much of what

has happened in the last 12 months of the Labor Party has

nothing to do with Kevin Rudd and during that recent

leadership debate, you would

think that he is behind

everything that's gone wrong

and I think lo and behold for

me to feel sorry for him but

it was outrageous they just

went after him and we are

seeing right now he hasn't

said a thing publically for a

couple months. I think the

dumping of Rudd was

disgraceful and was a real

indictment on Labor and their diterring and some

foolishness and panic at the

first polls slump which was

not as bad as other Prime

Minister's had survived in

and to solve he going the past. I just don't think

andg to solve and behlem me g it it where you ous ers in polit win politicsim and ww saidhere is acad I

indr politicalLabor annd dbol of Goved some ditl of Governsome

fooli panic fooliief communipanic at firolicy makerump Minismeet Barackurvived the sorts of thst don't the sorts of thit

header matterolve he gor the sorts of thst don'to

by more and main. I this begin the u this ibegin

Simplle and so oeadershi mave a leadeolitics, thatave a leade acks mave a leadeolitics,acks sr that thatity, if you academic

studiat can't puber that can nicate studiet can't commf the look ibility with loredibility der as of ths said about andent is on it aus will look of thin ang, then natuBarack O

cus will lots of the the leadere and mo lhat. Clair efasn't about How doe I drong to Rhe was drong to dumpsaying y

app he was hav Rhe was haviNo, I'm selection, ft him in twill loo l. I didn'the publi

eg. I betteh that s

m say then. doesn't

sai happened sayied, he feellaire jut

leadellot, he that. e would swimg I thou I becaback. I'm naving a mattersat. I know massis talk about maut that. Ie l afteere is

maship, it

havership, it is o hadership, it g to

anyth I don't kneadershithe aeks, I don' positi

mxt steps arI better anybody whatxt steps ar 't think mxt steps arI better't

the whatdy has, nob. What what I has, nobodyWhat abo

thanybody intlan. How c say he thn. How cou he justay inperested,w could you inwwhat recight demand he recent

hiof grov his hand up. You must be hiof gnd up. by the coll

joking. He would swim

through the river to get the

minship back. I'm not sure

about that. I know there is

serious talk about the

leadership, it is going to

intensify in the next few

weeks, I don't know what the

next steps are, I don't think

anybody has, nobody has a

plan. How could you say he

wouldn't want it back? He

might demand a certain amount

of grovling by the colleagues

that knifed him in the first

instance. I think he would

need to be dragged to the

chair like Peter Slipper was

dragged. You don't think he

wants it either? No, I think he absolutely wants it but he

is going to have to be

drafted. He is going to love

every minute of it. If it

happens, and that's what the

increasing discussion is, it will be fascinating to see

the way all these minister that's lined up to call him

everything from a psycho path

to a complete fool of a man

to lacking Labor values, you

know, I can't wait to see

their excuses for such

venting. And what if Kevin

Rudd says you know what, I'm not interested, you had an

opportunity a few months ago,

you rejected me twice, and

I'm not interested. And this Government can just go to the

next election, lose, and then

he will just weigh up his

options then. No, he won't

he is Kevin Rudd. Normal

Some people are suggesting people would think that.

that Kevin Rudd is so vein that he would deny the leadership again. I think he

is so vein that he thinks

Australia and the world need

him and that anything he can

do to help. Whether he is

next election, I don't think the leader or not before the

he is going to sit in the

opposition benches for the

next three, six, nine years

waiting for his next chance.

I think someone else by the

next time Labor is in power

will be leading the Labor

Party. He may want to lead

Labor in opposition back into

Government. That's what he

might be thinking.

Seriously? That is why Gillard supporters are, in a

sense now, starting to talk

about the progression expect

of Kevin Rudd coming back

because then they can be rid

of him once and for all if he

loses. Given to what

happened, Kevin Rudd is not

going to come back, there will not be a leadership

transferred to Kevin Rudd

unless they come gravel, cap in hand... Does that mean

Gillard stepping aside?

That's exactly it. Or being

tapped on the shoulder. I think she is a different political beast to Kevin

Rudd. She will do the right thing by the party rather

than try to force it to a

last minute ballot. She

might, but remember John

Howard and Bob Hawke didn't

do that, they said they

needed to be blasted out and

hawk was and Howard wasn't.

It is quite possible that

some Prime Ministers get

there and don't want to give

it up. One of the few to

give it up was Kevin Rudd.

Why would Julia Gillard give

it up, she is doing such a

cracking job. There would be

a real undenial amount of

talent. There is all this

discussion now with

Christopher Pyne having met

with James ashby, he says

that he hasn't, he didn't speak about anything

untoward, there is an article

in the Sydney morning her ad

sight today that Mal Rouf has

met with him too. If I were

Chris Pyne I would be very grateful that it turns out

that he has met with him too.

There is a great deal of

speculation about the reasons

why Christopher Pyne would

want to meet with James. He is opening up dialogue

between his office and the

office of the speaker, which

is a very important thing to

do, and that argument is

backed up by the fact that

Mal is meeting with him too.

Why are you smiling? Because

Peter was. Yifement thinking about Peter with a shaven

head. I was thinking there

was a scoop? No. If there

is no story there, he has

done the best job that he

could to make one. If this

is just business as usual,

wow, just about every

interview he has given this

week has asked more questions

than it has answered. The

question is is it routine for

the manager of opposition

business to contact the

speakers office at 11 p.m. seeking more contact or has there been... I'M trying to work out what you're implying. The question is

has there been an attempt by him to manufacture the complaints against Peter

Slipper. You know, was the opposition involved in jams

Ashley's legal complaint, did

they have prior knowledge?

That is the question. And Christopher Pyne says he

didn't but now this question mark that has now been raised

against him because why else

would he be meeting him. It looks like that will then

wait to the people that say that it is a

Welcome back. You're watching the Contrarians

where I'm joined by Greg

O'Mahoney, Chris Bampton, and

Claire Harvey . We have had

various tweets come in about

the slipper/Pyne saga, we

have also had a suggestion

here from clearly an optimist

in the Labor Party. Polls

will change after 1 July when

most people notice more money

in their purse tax free

threshold rise etc. Is that

your view? I don't know

about that. I think there is

already suggestions about

welfare being cut, cost of

living increasing, petrol prices, energy prices,

electricity bills, I don't

know about that. I think

that is a lot of hope and a

lot of faith. A lot of

people were saying in Labor Party circles that when the

carbon tax legislation was passed, the Government's fortunes would change and they have got worse. So

there is a lot of wishing and

hoping here, I'm not so sure

about that. We have seen on

that, Oakeshott came out and

said that the floor should be

removed from the carbon price

and I think that just

highlights the real risk that... That is a real piece

of slippage in terms of the policy settings? Christine

Milne is going berserk. She

thinks that it should be scrapped, Rob Oakeshott is

floor, everybody knows that saying they should remove the

it will be hard to fiscally

sustain when this carbon tax

trading scheme because the turns into an emissions

price will drop to the floor

at least. Just on Christina

kin eely, what is she up to

there? What did you think of

that intervention there? She

is not someone who is renown

for policy strokes of genius.

She has clearly got talent.

But is it an ability of lair

loyalty to advise the Prime

Minister to essentially dump or significantly amend the

carbon tax? Not at all. I

thought it was incredibly

disloyal and all about

Christina and putting her

name back on the agenda but if you think about what she is asking the Prime Minister

to do, the Prime Minister has

taken so much water, courtesy of breaking her promise to

bring it in, and now saying

having taken all of that

water, break the promise

again. I actually think Christina is right about backfliping on the carbon tax

but she is wrong to think

that Gillard can do it.

Because no matter what the

Prime Minister does now, it

will be seen through

political expediency, another

broken promise etc etc, but a

think a new leader could make some significant amendments.

I'm not sure dumping the tax

all together... But don't you then have the same problem that the opposition is going

to have, what do you do with

all the compensation? Just

blow the budget. I've never understood why Labor

governments get any fiscal

credit for bringing the

budget back to surplus. We

have said this before, voters

vote the Coalition in to fix

the economy after you guys

wreck it and then people

bring you guys in to fix social services after the

Coalition wreck that. I

mean, in a simple sense, that

is roughly what happens.

That is complete rubbish and that portrays the university

that you work for if you

reduce your political

analysis to that. You are

stinging today. He is on

fire today. You attack Claire Harvey's newspaper

that she, and I for that

matter, write for and work

for. You then attack the

university that you were

going to be coming in and

doing lectures for but we

will see about that. Move

on. God all mighty. Why the

aggression? What is eating

you up Troy? There is nothing eating me up at all but I think on the carbon tax... Seriously, what is the problem? You have obviously

got something on your mind?

What Christina said... Tell

uncle Peter. What she said

was that she was going to dial and she suggested the Government dial it back a bit

and there is a lot of people

in Labor Party circles

suggesting that there

possibly should be more

compensation and perhaps the

settings around the carbon

price are too harsh given

what is happening

internationally. A price of

$23 a tonne is more than

twice what carbon prices are

in Europe and so there is

actually a serious element to

that. She is not saying get

rid of it all together... She

is suggesting that is an

option. To take some of the

heat off the Government. In

many ways she is trying to

help the Government because

they are suffering so much

pressure on this issue and

she is right to point to the

fact that Tony Abbott is

making this his one issue crusade. Everything that

goes wrong now, every cost of living that happens is going to be linked to the carbon

tax. So I think she was give

something wise advice there

without saying she doesn't

believe in climate change,

she was just saying dial it

back a bit, which is code for

change the policy settings

around it. I was going to

say Pete is right, it will

take a new Prime Minister to

walk away from that policy.

We know Rudd can walk away

from it because he has walked

away from the ETS before, so

he knows how to. Isn't the

main problem with the carbon

tax is not the exact settings

that could be tweaked one way

or the other, it is the

headline, there is a carbon

tax, and that Labor's failure

to sell it properly so that

you walk down the street

anywhere in Australia today and ask people and they will think that it's a tax that

you and I are going to pay.

They don't grasp that it is a

tax on the 500 billest

polluters and that is Labor's

fault. In fairness though,

it is a tax on the big polluters that will get

passed on in some form, but

then that's where the

compensation is supposed to

come on. But certain Labor

has been poor where the

opposition has been good at

selling this idea that it

will hit individuals. You

get the impression that the

average voter thinks this he

will get a carbon tax bill in

the mail once a year. We

have already seen a number of electricity companies say

they will put a line on their

carbon tax. We have seen trade unions saying they are

going to have to compensate

for the carbon tax. So there

is a lot of companies and organisations factoring this

into increased cost of living

so it is a big problem for

the Government to sell. I

think the mood for action on

climate change is not as

strong as it was years ago.

We have had tweets asking is

Bob Hawke still alive and

kicking, give him another

crack. He has been quite

active in the last week but

the mention of someone like

Bob Hawke reminds me of a

time where you remember having a Prime Minister with his or her hands on the

wheel. I mean, he was a

leader and you talked about leadership before. Whatever

his ills, it has been

extraordinary this week

seeing Labor policies after

Labor policies saying Gillard

is not a good communicator,

but she is a good

communicator, the truth is

you can't separate it like that, she is Prime Minister

of Australia, by definition,

she has to be a leader. I don't agree she has been a great negotiator but you

can't rule out the ability to

communicate and the ability

to lead. I'm surprised at

her ability to communicate is

poor, I thought it would be

better. It once was great.

I thought when she was deputy - that is the great irony

here... You have got to

remember this. You read

Twitter and there is a fair

bit of venom towards the

Prime Minister now. I tebd

to think that the Prime

Minister is as far gone as a

lot of these people on

Twitter do, but I don't say

that with dplee. I think it

is very sad. -- with agree.

I thought that Rudd's was the

kind that you grab a beer and

you don't mind watching

because he wasn't the nicest

bloke in the room. But the

general public thinks he was. Julia Gillard can't win Twitter and there is a fair

bit of venom towards the bit of venom towar s the

Prime Minister now.e I Prime Minisier now. I tebd Prime Minister nowt I tebd to think that the Prime

Minister is as far gone as Minister is as far gone Minister is as far gone as a

lot of these people on lot of these people on Twitter do, but

Twitter do, aut I Twitter do, but I don't say Twitter do, but I on't say that with dplee. that with yplee. that with dplee. I think it that with plee. I think it

is very sad. -- with agree. is very sad.

I thought that Rudd's I thought that Ru d's was I thought that Rudd's was the

kind that you gr b kind that you grab a beer and kind that you grab a beer and you don't mind watching because he wasn't the becauserhe wasn't the nicest because he wasn'n the nicest

bloke in the room. But the

general public thinks general peblic thinks he general public thinks he was. Julia Gillard can't was. Julia Gilla d can't win was. Julia Gillard can't win a vote in the public, Kevin

Rudd can't win a vote in the

caucus, yet youlmeet Julia

caucus, yet you meet Julia Gillard, it is hard to dislike her, you meet Kevin dislike her, yoe meet Kevin

Rudd, it is hard to like him. Rudd, it is har to like him.

It is a very unusual dynamic It is a very unusual dynsmic.

You take that view, don't You take that viet, don't

you? This is the great you? This is the reat

tragedy of modern Labor that tragedy of mod rn Labor that the caucus put the r

the caucus put their faith in Julia Gillard because Julia Gillard becaude she Julia Gillard because she did Julia Gillard hecause she did see those great stren ths see those great strengths in see those grea strengths in her, at jan administrator, her, at jan adminis rator, as her, at jan administrator, as a policy leader, she a policy leader, s e could a policy leader, she could give good speeches, land

punches in Parliament but that hasn't happened as Prime

Minister. We are almost out Minister. We are almost out

of time. My producer has of time. My prod cer has

told me that we have got something special to show something special to sho

you. I don't know what it is

by the way. Oh God, by the way. Oh God, there we go. I g . I like

go. I like the way he has left the side bu ns left the side burns on. Do I

have to leave the side burns

on? Maybe that is the on? Maybe that is lhe added on? Maybe that is the added

part of the bet. We are part of the bet. We are out of time. We of time. We are down to 10 www.ai-media.tv Live Captioning by Ai-Media www.ai-media.tv