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.
ABC News 24 11am News -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) poor people in the meat of the sandwich in Syria. It was such shocking vision and has really raised the awareness of the world to exactly what's going on there. You deal in this field and would've seen a fair bit over the years. Is that the worst attack you have heard off in deck xwaids?It's certainly confronting imagery. It is not perhaps - it's very personal, and close quarters. In terms of the number of people affected, it probably doesn't compare to the attacks in Tokyo in 1995 where tens of thousands of people were exposed in a minor way but certainly the most confronting thing for medical professionals are the young people that have clearly been affected by something. Thanks for talking to us. Kevin Rudd has stepped up for a media conference. Let's listen NOur responsibility as the government of Australia is to build Australia's future to. Build the new industries, new jobs, new small businesses of the future. So we don't have all of our eggs in one basket to. Build the hospitals we need for the future, to build the schools of the future. To build also the fra fraf the future. Including the nnk, a vital underpinning for the future of our national economy and doing all that while maintaining, as much effort as we possibly can to keep cost of living pressures as low as possible for Australian families. That's our vision. When it comes to the big calls in Australia's economic history, we've been on the right side of those calls. We believe in building the nation's infrastructure and getting those calls right and making the big calls on the Australian economy as we did during the global financial crisis. When I heard reports of Mr Abbott's campaign launch yesterday, many people will asked me, well what was his vision? That's for others to conclude but I didn't hear much thatch at all. That's what the Australian people want to hear. Where do you want to take the country, which policies you're going to embrace in order to get you there and how you're going to do it. They're pretty bassic questions. National elections are about priorities. And our priority on infrastructure is absolutely clear. That's why I'm so proud of the investment, of the decisions that have been made by the deputy frm in his capacity as Infrastructure Minister, the minister responsible for Infrastructure Australia, and more recently responsible for the National Broadband Network. If we do not have world-class infrastructure, there is no future for the Australian economy. It's as basic as that. There this vast continent of ours has 23 million people in it. Unless you have the infrastructure pumping, frankly it's not going to work mabd that is a core part of our vision for the future. Because if the infrastructure is working and the new industries are being built, so we don't have all our eggs in one basket, then the bottom line is this: that jobs are there for the future. If you don't have a job in the future you have economic security. passionate, therefore, about building passionate, therefore, about building those jobs for the future. The Deputy Prime Minister has been hard at work Minister has been on a range of infrastructure projects. Whether it's road, whether it's urban rail, whether it's rail freight and a lot of other things beside. But this is an exciting project for Australia's future that we are talking about today. The Deputy Prime Minister and I today are proud to announce the government's response to this important report delivered by the high speed rail advisory group which the deputy commission Prime Minister commissioned some time ago. Those who are members. Group include former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer as well. It's a good report. The government's response is appropriate given our national infrastructure challenges. First of all the government has decided in response to this report to legislate to preserve 1,750 kilometres of rail corridor all the way from Brisbane to Sydney through Canberra to Melbourne. Secondly to legislate an invest in the establishment of a high-speed rail authority which will oversee the planning, the development of a full and final business case and to oversee the development of this project for the future. These are important decisions in laying out the future of our rail infrastructure for the economy's future. It's important as I said before to put all this in the context of priorities. Let me conclude with niece observations. Our of
priority is building the future of the economy and building the future of our infrastructure. If we were to build this entire 1,750 kilometre high-speed rail project from Brisbane to Melbourne by 2035, it would cost less than Mr Abbott's un affordable, unfair paid parental leave scheme for the same period of no into context. What is more necessary same period of time. Put that
no necessary for the nation's no into context. What is more future? A high speed rail network which links future? A network which links these vital cities along Australia's each coast for an un cities along Australia's coast for an un affordable, unfair coast for an unfair paid parental leave unfair paid parental scheme? My final point is this: are many, many things wrong with Mr Abbott's paid parental leave scheme but there is a particularly important lesson that we should all derive from what it says about his priorities for the future. In scheme benefits a small group of people but everybody in Australia then has to pay for this scheme. And if Mr Abbott becomes Prime Minister, that is the principle which will apply across-the-board his government if he was elected would then seek to today. Deputy Prime Minister, I turn to you, and then we'll take your questions.I first want to take the opportunity to thank those who've reported in the advisory group. This followed the reception of the high speed rail study done by ACON which we received in April. I then established an advisory group that was about community consultation. It received about 320 separate submissions. It was chaired by Lyn O'Connell the Deputy Secretary of my department but it also included some prominent Australians including former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer, Jennifer Westacott the CEO of the Business Council of Australia, Brian Nye, the ed head of the Australasian Rail Association and other prominent representatives including Peter Newman who's a member of the Infrastructure Australia council. We wanted to ensure we got some hard economic analysis into the high speed rail proposal. And indeed, Trinidad and Tobago they've produced a report that I'm release ing on track implementing high speed rail in Australia. What it suggests is a range of recommendations. The government is taking them up. The government understands that high speed rail is it a part of Australia's future. High speed rail is now on every continent, including Europe and Asia. For Australia the challenges are greater. Because of our less densely populated areas but down the east coast, between Brisbane and Melbourne, we know that it is viable. The report recommends that the first stage would be from Melbourne to Sydney. It does that because of the economic analysis that shows that $2.10 would be returned as a result of every single collar invested so this is a project that stacks up. What's more t would lead to the creation of jobs, some 10,000 jobs during the construction phase. It recommends Sydney to Melbourne by 2035 and you would have Sydney to Canberra up and running by 2030. It recommends taking essential ly fight sized chunks of the larger proposal, doing it on the basis of where the greatest economic benefit would be. It also recommends an important process to make sure that the entire corridor is preserveed from Brisbane right through to Melbourne and we will introduce legislation before the end of this year, my department has already begun working on that legislation. We
also would establish a high speed also speed rail authority which
would also would establish a high speed from would include representatives Queensland,
from New South Wales from Queensland, Victoria and the ACT. This obviously Queensland, Victoria and ACT. This obviously has to be a ACT. This obviously has to be project done in with the transport but also the planning authorities in the relevant jurisdictions. We will also work with Infrastructure Australia to develop a business case. I know first hand that there is a great deal of interest from Japan, China, Spain, Italy and France, from companies in this jurisdictions. One of the benefits of high speed rail is it's a bit like what the automotive industry does in manufacturing and it's a bit like consistent with what the National Broadband Network will do. It's a driver of innovation of Australian industry and with rail spectrum allocated as we did earlier this year specifically for rail, high speed rail would certainly benefit from that as well. It would spur new high tech supporting industries delivering jobs and innovation. It will integrate our regional and our metro communities so that you can get from Sydney to Melbourne CBD to CBD in unthree hours. But importantly also, because the route would throw through the southern highland s, Canberra, Wagga Wagga, all Wodonga and Shepparton, this woulding an enormous economic stimulus for those regional communities, delivering jobs and economic growth in those regional communities. It also goes without saying that there
is substantial environmental benefits from is benefits from high speed rail.
It is in terms of It is in terms of emissions obviously a cleaner form of transport. There are also benefits in terms of taking vehicles off our roads because benefits in terms of rail is the most safe form of transport as well. So this is about a low carbon, high productivity future. This is about making sure that we have a considered approach as well. We want to overdeliver but underpromise on this project. We haven't suggested this can be done by tomorrow or next week, but by putting in place $52 million in the forward estimates to make sure that our commitments can be realised, that will certainly be able to deliver that. One of the great divisions at this election is about being for the future, is about infrastructure. There's nowhere, there's perhaps two areas where that stands out as being very stark to me. One is the National Broadband Network, which we will continue to roll out. They will, they said they would wreck it, that was the job that Malcolm Turnbull was given. He knows that lacks credibility so now they're going to wreck it but not tell people. What we also have a distinction on is in rail. This government has proudly invested more in urban public transport since 2007 than all previous governments combined. Tony Abbott is being fair dinkum and honest with the Australian people on this one. He is telling them, we will have zero dollars invested in urban public transport the same amount that the Howard Government invested in its 12 years in office. We have urban public transport projects right around the nation. Another one announced just half the week at Tonsley Park in Adelaide. We have important urban public transport projects because unless you deal with that you can't deal with congestion in our cities. Taint we have rebuilt one third of the interstate rail freight network taking seven hours off the journey from Brisbane to Melbourne. What that means in practical terms is that taken their dry goods off roads companies like Woolworths have taken and onto rail. Good taken their dry goods off and onto rail. Good for safety, good for productivity. Also we have funding in our project for budgets such as the inland rail project. $$300 million as part of nation-building 2 to make sure you have an inland route through parks, good in terms of the interstate rail freight network will you also a very positive development in terms of making pressure off the main coastal route. As well as that we're investing in important intermodal projects such as Morebank here in Sydney that's absolutely vital and will take 2,300 trucks off Sydney's roads every single day. With the high spiel reed project we believe this is a very important part of Australia's future.

Our vision is clear nor building the future. Infrastructure is a core pillar of that vision. Whether we are building the National Broadband Network, whether we are building the urban transport network for so many of our larger cities in the future, whether we are building high speed rail linking these major cities on the east coast or whether we're also building inland rail for future as well, we believe in infrastructure. It underpins future industry which in turns underpins future jobs and jobs is our No. 1 priority. Over to you question on Papua New Guinea. The Australian Federal Police have revealed that $220 million of illegally obtained moneys are entering and being invested in Australian banks every year. Why have none of those moneys been repatriateed? I'm unaware of the report and we'll examine that and provide but a response in due course.In terms of your commitment to the high speed rail, the $52 million is laes than half of 1% of a project that's over $100 million. Are voters right to question your genuine commitment to this project? In terms of the process, how does the land get set aside given a lot of it is privately owned? In terms of the commitment, $5 2 million is an initial commitment that will enable firstly the establishment of the authority secondly will hey Lou the preliminary work will be done including on how we attract capital to such an investment. Because there is a return of $2.10 for every dollar investment, we believe and the committee believes very strongly that it's possible to attract private investment for this project. What the $52 million will do in terms of the forwards, so that's over three years essentially s to ensure that that work can take place. You will need future investment, whether government money or private one. One of the issues explored by the task force as well is whether because there's a return to government, whether it essentially becomes an issue whereby future government investment is treated as that, as an investment, rather than a cost. The difference between this project and the paid parental leave scheme is just that. Paid parental leave, money paid, greater money than for a high speed rail line, right around the east coast. Once it's expended it's gone. The difference is this produces a return to the national economy, productivity. That could shape as well how the design and through Infrastructure Australia, part of the recommendation is that they would oversee looking at future capital costs. So we envisage potentially significantly more money, but that because it produces a return, it could well be that that can be done off budget. That's why we've established it. That is what the committee who I've met with this morning and had discussions with over a
period of and had discussions with period of time. This is of course the third period of time. This is We're taking considered
approach to course the third installment. approach evidence-based policy, approach to this. This is the best way to do infrastructure policy.What about the land issue? That is one of the reasons why you establish the authority. It could well be, you can't create Han infrastructure project such as this without having issues that have to be dealt with, including potential resumption of land that is an issue that will have to be dealt with. That's why you establish an authority. You deal through State and Territory Governments and involve those planning authorities, environmental authorities as well as transport authorities in the process.Another key project that will reduce congestion is the second Sydney Airport. The overwhelming majority ... (inaudible question) are we going to hear more about that project? In terms of the second Sydney Airport, our position's very clear. We support a second airport for Sydney. It's about jobs, it's about
about economic growth and it's about ensuring that Sydney remains a global city of the future the we've established a process that is looking at the detail. Once again, evidence-based policy. We had a joint study from New South Wales and the Australian Government. What it found was that Sydney needed a second airport. It essentially narrowed down thes options to Will gone and Badgerys Creek. We know Badgerys Creek what the situation is, because it's had an environmental impact statement, prior to, prior to the election of the Howard Government that took the money out of the second Sydney Airport project, a billion dollars when they were elected in 1996. Wilton requires further study in terms of geotechnical work because of mining that's gone on in the area and subsidence. When that work is done, as with all of these reports, they will be released transparently.(E)(Inaudible question) There needs to be policy. That's precisely what we're doing.Ite on high speed rail, (inaudible question) Potentially yes, but the first priority has to be driven by where the population is. And the population of Australia is in terms of the large numbers is down that east coast corridor. The benefit in terms of not just the capital cities but the benefit for the Sheppartons the Wodongas, as well as going north to Brisbane, Newcastle, Taree, port Mac quarry, the stations that have been identified by this study have a positive economic benefit, so we're looking at that. As for future development, I think what we're doing here is putting this out there because that is the priority and that's been the priority that's been identified by the experts.I think I'll take the - to add to that and go to you. I'm quite passionate about how you further develop WA's infrastructure. And I think there's probably not been an earlier Australian Government prior to us who has invested more in WA's economic infrastructure. Whether it's up in the Ord or in the road system around Perth. If you arrive at Perth airport these days, you see a road which we built by and large. And if you look at the road network around Perth, a huge investment as well. And as well as Perth's urban public transport needs as well, a half billion dollars commitment I seem to recall DPM. On the broader region you're talking about, I reckon it's a very exciting prospect. It'so it's one where I'm sure Infrastructure Australia will invest a lot attention in terms of how we invest a lot of energy and and can turbo charge its attention in terms of can turbo charge its infrastructure for the There sin creasing speculation that Australia could be on the There sin creasing that Australia could be on time. An article in Guardian in the UK last time. An article Guardian in the UK last week
said Guardian in the said there is a real prospect said there is a real of the Australian economy. Do you see that as a genuine danger?I think it's important to first and foremost explain to our international audience and all Australians how robust the Australian economy is. If you were to put up a set of international comparisons about where we are and what our growth prospects are, these are very, very strong. This is an economy which has been in positive growth now for more than 20 years, unmatched by most economies in the world. Secondly you look at an unemployment rate which is less than half that of Europe. Thirdly you look at monetary policy in this country with the lowest rates in 60 years. You look at all that having been achieved on the basis of the lowest get-to-sg. DP ratio in the world. The future is never identical with where you've been in the past. International economic circumstances are changing. One of the things you have to avoid doing is what the British Conservatives did when they came to office in the UK. A massive fiscal austerity drive which threw the British economy into recession. Pat this point, this delicate point of global economic circumstances unfolding, the last thing Australia afford last thing Australia could
afford to do is by taking a $70 billion sledgehammer to the economy, which would pose a real risk of throwing this economy in that direction through wrong fiscal policy. That is the policy which has been supported by and large in the statements put out by Mr Abbott. We don't share that view. We believe that our responsibility is to support jobs, to support industry, as well as to continue to build the vital economic and social fra fraf the future. You do that right, and at the same time, maintain a rational fiscal policy response to these delicate global circumstances, work in conjunction with monetary policy, and on top of that, be very attentive to the cost of living pressures of consumers sand there is a road for us to chart in the future. We know what that road needs to be. We've outlined the the policies for doing that we talk about building new industries and not having all our eggs in one basket. Outlineing a productivity plan for the future, as well as maintaining these other critical investments I believe we can navigate the shoals which lie ahead and there is no economy better equipped to do that than this Australian economy. (Inaudible question)My job as the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister's job as well is to argue the case as to what is the best set of plans for this country's future. And whether you have been engaged or not for the last several weeks, what we have done every day is say here is our man for building Australia's future. Here is our plan for building new industries. Here is our man for building jobs for the future. Here's our plan for managing cost of living pressures for the future. For building your schools, your hospitals. At the same time, the infrastructure of the future as well, while managing to the greatest extent we can cost of living pressures felt right across Australia. We're out there, very plainly about what we want to do and the contrast, I believe, Australians are focussing on. Let me repeat today's core contrast. We say that if you were to build a high speed rail link from Melbourne to Brisbane, by 2035, you would spend less than what Mr Abbott proposes to spend on his un affordable and economically irresponsible paid parental leave scheme. I believe the Australian people are focusing on those clear points of contrast. On Syria ... (inaudible question)The first thing in responsibly responding to the Syrian crisis is to take things one step at a Secondly, weapons inspectors are critical things one step at a time.
Secondly, weapons inspectors are critical in that overall equation, are critical in that equation, in determining the nature of weapons used and to the greatest extent we can, those responsible. As those responsible. As I indicated in the statement I made in Canberra yesterday, all the indications are pointing in the direction of chemical weapons having been used and in the direction of regime complicity. But we have not yet available to us the evidence for final conclusion on that point. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with the regime. The burden of proof lies with the regime to disprove that they were not responsible for this horrendous act of mass murder of 350 men, women and children, you've seen the picture, I've seen the pictures, they turn your stomach. And 3,600 people injured. This is 2013. This is not the Somme. It's not a mustard gas attack a hundred years ago when people may have wondered what would happen. We know the history of chemical weapons. We know what they do people. These are horrendous deaths. The position of this Australian government as we will do all within our power to act with the international community to bring those responsible to justice and if these matters are established as those of fact, then to international community in an appropriate set of international responses. didn't acknowledged yesterday that we
didn't have a mandate or the government didn't have a mandate for the carbon tax. Why then did you vote for mandate for the carbon then did you vote for it? And what other elements of the last three years' policy do you feel the government didn't have a mandate for?What we had a clear mandate for was acting on climate change. And we have. We as one of the first steps of this government in 2007-08 I remember going to pal plea was to ratify the Kyoto prot come. The rest of the world community had been waiting for a long time for Australia to step up to the plate. We did. We had a mandate to increase the renewable energy target by 2020. If you want to look at a single policy that's driving the clean energy revolution policy across Australia that's it. We also had a mandate to put a price on carbon. I noticed what Mr Abbott said the other night in the debate in Brisbane, that there was some criticism of my actions on that matter. Mr Abbott blocked that twice in the Senate. For goodness' sake . (Inaudible question)My overall concern is always cost of living pressures on working families.. I want to look closely at what the Retailers Association of Australia is saying and I think Alex in fairness to your question I'd rather give a considered response to it once I've looked at their particular submission. Lowering the threshold for the Foreign Investment Review Board. How do you think that will be seen in China and elsewhere?With Mr Abbott's policies on these questions, we always need to work out precise my what the detail is. Can I just say that on the question of the use of investment, domestic or international this has always been a relatively open economy. But I make no apology whatsoever in terms of my passionate commitment, some would say my economic nationalist commitment to building Australian industry in the future. We offend get criticised, the Deputy Prime Minister, myself and others, for believing in something called industry policy, for believing in something called manufacturing, for building our own industries. Now that involves a level of co-investment with government. Guess what? We're prepared to accept that criticism. More broadly then, what I would say is that our deep commitment lies with how we build the industries of the future, investment is necessary from at home and abroad but we will be putting always the needs of Australian industry and Australian jobs first. That's why we're elected, that's what I'm passionate about. When you talk about industry turbocharged by infrastructure, not just by the National Broadband not Broadband Network, not just by a high speed rail link Broadband Network, not major cities a high speed rail major cities of north and south, but major cities of north south, but also by the huge south, but also by industry spin-off of that and these project also industry spin-off of that these project is basis of these project also work on the is basis of carefully
considered applications is basis of considered others to co-invest as well. About others to co-invest About a decade ago in opposition you said About a decade ago for opposition you said the need mate. What did I say 15 years for ...Been doing his homework ago, have you found that mate. What did out too? We'll get to that out too? We'll get about 10 years ago you said a second Sydney Airport was overdue. The time for studies still
was over. Now you're saying we still need to go cautiously despite the fact there's many more people now more people now living in Sydney. How is it less urgent than it was 10 years ago?Want to put a context here. No-one was talking about a second airport for Sydney prior to 2010 when we announced the joint study between the Federal Government and the state government. The fact is that we would have a second airport up and running right now with jobs being generated had the Howard Government not ripped the money out that it be allocated by the former Keating Government. So what I want to do is when it comes to infrastructure and when you have projects that go for more than a term of office, because if you make a decision today, you can't have an airport operating in the next three years. You can have construction started perhaps, but you can't actually make a decision and have it operating in the next day. What you need is a level of bipartisanship. I've worked towards that happening. I've worked towards both the Federal Government and the State Government cooperating. That's why we had unanimous findings of a report that was chaired not just by my department, but by Sam Haddad the head of New South Wales Manning. When that report came out, the New South Wales Premier said a second airport not only should it not be in Sydney, it should not be in New South Wales. That was a farcical position that essentially was saying no to jobs and no to economic growth in Sydney and endangers Sydney's position as a global city of the future. Now, this Friday, I will be welcoming into Sydney the first into Sydney the first flight back by air India of my my Indian counterpart minister Singh will be on that flight. That shows the potential that is there for growth in jobs and economic opportunity because of the growth of the middle class in our region. A very important part of the Asian Century White Paper is taking advantage of that growth. So growth from China, growth from India, in spite of what some newspapers have reported, there's still slots available for China, for example, 5,500 seats are available every week right now. So enormous opportunity, but we need a second airport for Sydney. I've had a considered approach to it. I make no apologies for that, because what I'm about is actually the construction and delivery of a second airport, rather than the announcement being the end in itself. And in order to do that you've got to bring people with you. You've got to also have a bipartisan approach. And I must say, that's why I've worked unashamedly with people such as Joe Hockey and Scott Morrison to achieve that outcome. Just also to add to what the deputy PM just said, you know how we've been walking all all through this election campaign about building the industries of the future? We've been talking today about the role of infrastructure in all of that. For goodness' sake, building the tourism industries of the future is a huge employer, really jobs for Australians. Middle class markets in China and India and prospectively Indonesia are going through the roof. With China in the period that we've been in government, the DPM is the minister responsible for aviation policy has worked through a whole series of agreements with Chinese airlines not just air China but China Eastern, China southern, Hainan airlines a few others I have probably forgotten. We now have stacks of services and this is so critical. Gold Coast, Far North Queensland, WA, Cairns, you know, this is critical stuff. It's real jobs. I go back to the question about priorities. This election is about priorities. We're building these industries of the future. The fact we now have resumed at last a direct air service between Australia and India, a with
country of 1.1 billion people with a middle class going through the roof and we're go to have the' sum shone of regular airline services is an an unabashed good news story for Australia. On the other side of the priorities can I just say this: that's what future.
we're on b the jobs of the future. What I see from Mr Abbott is cut, cut, cut in order to fund crazy policies like his paid parental leave policy. By the way on that score, someone drew to my attention just before I came here a great intervention in this paid parental leave debate by the shadow Treasurer. When asked - not the Treasurer. It's Mr Turnbull, ...The shadow ...The ...To ...The shadow minister for Malcolm Turnbull when talking about ...To for wrecking the NBN. about the paid parental leave scheme this morning in about the paid parental Brisbane, sure everything has scheme this morning to be paid for, it's a choice, Brisbane, sure everything Greg, Greg being to be paid for, it's a interviewer. I mean it really is a choice. And then is a choice. And then Mr Turnbull goes on to say, and when people say the paid parental leave is - when people say the paid parental leave scheme is too much, or it's too generous, that's a reasonable objection. Unquote. So Malcolm Turnbull today effectively torpedoed Mr Abbott's entire case on the paid parental leave scheme. As a senior minister, alternative minister, senior leader within parliamentary Liberal Party, he has said that this scheme is in his own words too much and too generous. The Liberal Party as of today, two weeks before an election, is split right down the middle on Mr Abbott's core priority objective. It's as simple as that. Not only are they split down the mid on it between Mr Turnbull bull and Mr Abbott, they are split amongst others in the Liberal Party. You heard with former Senator Minchin had to say the other day about it and the National Party saying if it came to a vote they'd cross the floor. Here we are, two weeks before an election, core policy, the paid parental leave policy, $22 unfunded, un affordable, unfair, reckless, and a party which wants to be the government of Australia split down the middle on it? I mean this is a remarkable day in this entire election campaign. this
And I conclude my remarks where this today: this paid parental leave scheme, there are many, many problems with it. But the core point is this: this scheme benefits a small group of people, but everybody, I repeat everybody, ends up paying for it. And that principle will apply across-the-board to all areas of policy if Mr Abbott becomes the Prime Minister of this country. Thanks, folks.

That was live from Sydney, the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the Deputy Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announcing support for high speed rail between Brisbane and Melbourne. The government would legislate to preserve 1,750 kilometres of rail corridor and 52 million dollars would be spent on high speed rail authority that would everysee the next stems. On Syria Mr Rudd says all the indications are pointing to regime complicity in that apparent gas attack in Syria but he says the Australian Government will wait for the results of an investigation along with the international community before making any decisions on what the next Leader
steps might be. The Greens Leader Christine Milne has announced her party's arts policy. She joined the member for Melbourne Adam Bandt for a media conference a short time ago.For the Greens, the arts are not only intrinsically worth while, but they're also the key to transforming our society from the old dig it up, cut it down, ship it away type of economy to one which is knowledge, information and creativity based. Because that is what this century is actually about. We need people to be thinking about outside