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.
Lateline -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

(generated from captions) change its spots. If you accept that the rhetoric of the Labor Party against penalty rates has changed because the polling has told them to change it. Have a look at recent state Governments in recent years when they got electioned. They sacked people, go after conditions. They are not good employers. Just ask a teacher in this State. The third thing is purely this, the Opposition has said, "Oh, we won't change the law, Fair Work Act on penalty rates." Of course they won't, because penalty rates aren't set in the Fair Work Act. Always look at the detail. They are looking at employer submissions to change penalty rates. That's what they've said.We will take that back to Kelly O'Dwyer. The earlier question is whether Australian workers are overpaid because of union interference, do you think that's the ka is?Well, firstly let me respond to what Bill said, a desperate grubby smear that has been perpetuated by the Labor Party to try to cling onto power. It demeans you, Bill, in actually perpetuating this and your government to run If you win the election, I hope you've gotYou don't have the record to run onYou don't have a positive statement.I I beg your pardonWell, you're interrupting me That's why I said I beg your pardonThe point I make is that Australians will be better off under an Abbott Government and that is because we understand that everybody should have the opportunity to lead fulfilling live,, that we do this by growing the economy. In the previous Howard Government we doubled household wealth. This was a good thing for people. It gave them choice about their lives, about their businesses, about their families, we believe that it's not a zero-sum game as the Labor Party seems to think, that you need to take from one to give to another. In the economy, you can actually grow the pie. We want to restore confidence to the economy so that people can actually employ other people, particularly in small business. Small business is one of the engine rooms of our economy. We want to give small business the confidence to again employ people. That's the best opportunity that we will provide, particularly to young people who are finding it now so difficult to find a job under this government where unemployment is going to be going up and 800,000 Australians will be unemployed next year, and that's the Government's own figures .I will come to our other panelists. Tom Watson?I think the last three questions from Caitlin, Ryan and William, all of them are sort of really you're asking what kind of a future have I got in this economy? I'm an outsider, I've been in Australia for three days but I just want to say to you, you live in one hell of a great country.You have 22 year s much of unencouple bered economic growth. William can talk about rights for lot he paid is because you've got a great economy and you should feel proud about that. One thing about the UK, the experience in the UK when we liberalised labour laws, it was always the lowest-paid workers that were hit the hardest, the they are the ones who are exploited and they are the ones that are undermined in the workplace and that's not good for any civilised society, so you should revere those rights because they're very important in the workplace.Tim Wilson, briefly. Sadly I think the Coalition is going to disappoint me because they won't pursue the sorts of industrial relations reform that I would like to see that promotes the queed that individuals can engage with their employers and pursue contracts and industrial relations that suit them and come up based on terms and conditions that meet their own approval, rather than being constantly locked out of arrangements because unions decide outcomes or collective bargains on their behalf without a choice.A question from Georgina MooreHello, Bill Shorten. Myself and the public felt betrayed by the removal of elected PMs Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, both of which you were instrumental in orchestrating. As a politician with obvious career leadership ambitions, how do you feel that the Australian people's tainted perception of you will affect your possible career leadership ambition s? (APPLAUSE) Changing from Julia Gillard to Kevin Rudd was very difficult, as I've even said on this show before, very difficult. But the Labor Party and indeed the nation, and the nation should have competitive politics from both sides, and the Labor Party needed to be competitive at this election.One thing which I have to say, Georgina you've got your legitimate view is for me the idea of Tony Abbott controlling the Senate of Australia and the House of Representatives and having unfettered power, yeah, well, that is not something which I can easily live with, and we owe it, people like myself owe it to the Labor Party and also more generally to Australia to make the Labor Party the most competitive choice it can be, and I believe in this election. Even though we're still the underdog, even though there are plenty of people with plenty to say about us in the newspapers, when you actually look at the positive policies we've got, better schools, which will see properly funding, national disability insurance, lifting people's retirement income through superannuation, promoting jobs, we are competitiveBill Shorten, I will bring you back quickly to the question, and the querer has her hand up. Go ahead. I was going to say I think Julia Gillard was elected and she had a mandate to do all her policies that she did and Kevin Rudd hasn't had a mandate to implement national - the Northern Territory scheme that he is implementing now, so I think we all wanted the opportunity to remove Julia Gillard and when Kevin Rudd was PM, we wanted to remove him, too.You stole everyone's choice.I have to say that was honestly put you wanted to vote these Labor people out. I tell you what, I don't believe Tony Abbott should run this country. Just as you believe you didn't want those two Labor people running Australia, I think what you've said confirms to me that Labor should be competitive. We owe is to our supporter s and this democracy to make every effort to provide a real choice. At the end of the day one side or the other will win this election, but I know one thing: This country never functions well when any side of politics has absolute power of the Senate and the House of Representatives and that's what I believe.Bill Shorten, while we've got you here, we will almost out of time, but can you confirm Pam Williams' account in the 'Financial Review' of your secret meeting with Kevin Rudd on the night of the mid winter ball in relation to this whole issue. Tony, it is a matter of public record that I supported Kevin Rudd, as I identified. I'm not going to rake over.Will you just confirm it's part of Labor's history now and clearly other people involved in those peat meetings have talked about them, can you confirm whether or not...There is nothing I will add about that story in the 'Financial Review', what I'm interested in is using a show like this to debate the future affairs of this country. Can I say to those Labor voters and those undecided, if you think disability is important, have a look at Labor's run on the board F you think schools are important, have a look at Labor's run on the board.Thank you very much. That is all we have time for. Please thank our panel - Sally Warhaft, Bill Shorten, Tim Wilson, Tom Watson and Kelly O'Dwyer. (APPLAUSE) .And our special thanks to our hosts at the Melbourne Writers' Festival, the Deakin erj and this wonderful Melbourne audience. - the Zeke kin Edge and this wonderful Melbourne audience, you should give yourselves a quick round of applause. (APPLAUSE) Thank you. Now, next Monday on 'Q & A', Kevin Rudd will answer your questions, but he will do it alone. The PM has agreed to share the stage with the man who wants his job, the Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, but at this point, the Opposition Leader hasn't responded to our invitation to join this special 'Q & A' debate, but if Mr Abbott doesn't agree to participate, Mr Rudd will face the audience in a one-man show and we're to Mr Abbott. So, until next week's 'Q & A', whatever shape it takes, goodnight.


Captions by CSI Australia

Tonight - election express or just an attempt to derail parental leave?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 time.I am really pleased that he is trying to run a scare campaign against paid parental leave, because our paid parental leave policy, it's all upside for families and it's all upside for small business. This Program Is Captioned Live.

Good evening. Welcome to 'Lateline'. I'm Emma Alberici. Before weapons inspectors have even had a chance to survey the area where chemical attacks are reported to have taken place in Syria, the US and the UK have reportedly discussed launching missile strikes on Damascus within a fortnight. The British Foreign Secretary William Hague says he's convinced the regime of Bashir al-Assad is responsible for releasing the deadly gases. And he's pushing for unilateral military Bob Carr
retaliation. Foreign Minister Bob Carr hasn't ruled out support for such a move but he's welcoming the caution the US President Barack Obama has shown so far.I think this is the Australian mood. After Iraq, comfortable with an American administration that is carefully weighing consequences here, fully aware of dangers of unintended outcomes. Senator Carr also says Labor's poor showing in the polls is at least in part the result of a coordinated attack by the Murdoch press, mobilised to vilify the Labor Government. That interview shortly. You can join the conversation with Jane Kennedy, just follow the 'Lateline' hashtag. First our other headlines. Time out. Essendon and the AFL to resume negotiations tomorrow on the penalties for its supplements program. And and murder. China's high-stakes political trial reveals a secret love affair and the cover-up of a killing. And - friends in need. A special report on how drug users are being trained to save the lives of people who have overdosed. Labor has revived plans for a high-speed rail network as a key poll showed the government making up a small amount of ground on the opposition's lead. Kevin Rudd says a bullet train is a better use of money than the opposition's paid parental leave scheme. But Tony Abbott's questioned the decades-long time frame to complete the potential project. Tom Iggulden has more from Canberra. With less than a north night to go until polling day, Kevin Rudd's taking his message to anyone who will listen.We are building and building for the future. The Prime Minister's keeping it simple for the adults as well.If we do not have world-class infrastructure, there is no future for the Australian economy. Labor's dusted off plans for a bullet train down the east coast. If returned, it'd legislate to reserve land for a high-speed rail corridor and commit $52 million for a study into how to build it. The final cost would be more like $114 billion.It would lead to the creation of jobs. Some 10,000 jobs during the construction phase.The government has been talking about spending $100 billion in 30 or 40 years' time. I'd much rather spend money now to get better outcomes tomorrow.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 time. The opposition's paid parental leave scheme is mentioned in the same breath as just about everything else the government has to say at this stage of the election campaign.I am really pleased that he is trying to run a scare campaign against paid parental leave. A lot of the critics are men. And some are in the coalition. One senior figure says he can understand the criticismWhen people say it's too much or it's too generous that is a reasonable objection. It's not an unreasonable - it's always reasonable to say hey hang on, can't do you this in a better way with less money? Mr Turnbull was quick to point out he supports the scheme.Is that a really bad thing that we would say here in Australia we have the most generous paid parental leave scheme in the world? But the Prime Minister seized on his comments.This is a remarkable day in this entire election campaign. 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. A potentially bigger threat to the policy for an incoming coalition government would be opposition to it from Labor and minor parties in the Senate. But Tony Abbott says Labor would have to respect his mandate if he won the election.I mean, do you really think that the Labor Party is it going to say no to the women of Australia? I doubt it very much. The latest Newspoll gives Labor little hope leading into the final stretch of this election race. Its primary vote has risen by 3 points to 37% and Mr Rudd has arrested his slide as preferred Prime Minister. But on the all-important two party preferred measure, the coalition maintains a 53-47% advantage.

The bribery and corruption trial of China's one-time political star, Bo Xillai has come to a dramatic end. On the fifth and final day of the trial, Bo Xillai accused his wife of having an affair with the chief of police. Mr Bo sacked the police chief last year. He told the court the officer then fled to the US Consulate in order to es kaich the anger of a jealous husband. Bo Xillai has been trying to discredit his wife's testimony against him, calling her crazy. The prosecution says the bribery and corruption charges against Mr Bo are serious, and that he should be given no leniency. A verdict is expected in a week's time.

The United Nations says unidentified snipers have fired at weapons inspectors heading to the site of an alleged chemical attack in Syria. The UN says one of those vehicles in the convoy has been damaged and will have to be replaced. their job, world leaders are debating whether to intervene in the conflict. The Israeli Prime Minister has joined Britain and France in calling for international action. Middle East correspondent Matt Brown reports from Jerusalem. The world's most sensitive mission could be Mission Impossible. UN weapons inspectors reportedly came under fire after they left their hotel in Damascus to visit the site of the apparent chemical weapons attack.And every hour counts. We cannot afford any more delays. We have all seen the horrifying images on our television screens and through social media. Rebels claim this is a fragment of one of the shells involved. It's been days since the attack and proving where the chemicals came from won't be easy. But France has dismissed the Syrian government's denials and says there will be a proportionate response.It has been established that a chemical massacre happened. Assad is responsible. We need a reaction. With major European allies ready to back some form of action, even without a UN Security Council resolution, all eyes are on Washington, where Barack Obama is reportedly considering a military response.You have to have the diplomatic throw-weight behind to you make sure that the first strike that your adversary knows it's inevitable that escalation will follow and there will be no relenting on the pressure. Israel is one Syrian neighbour which no doubt has a lot of suggestions for possible targets. It won't admit it, but it's reportedly attacked Syria four times this year, targeting advanced weapons due to be shipped to the Lebanese group Hezbollah, which is Israel's sworn enemy. The Air Force is even changing its training to account for the increased instability in the region.And our plans are constantly ready and our alert times are very well fitted to the operational scenario. It's very short. It's shorter than you think. But any attack on Syria risks an escalation. On the Golan Heights, which Israel captureed from Syria in 1967, it's been preparing for the worst. A small number of Syrian soldiers who reportedly targeted Israeli vehicles have already been killed.There has been drastic change. First of all, we've deployed special infantry forces that are able to respond to every incident. Second, we've boosted our tank activity as we saw here to carry out retaliatory fire toward any threat that confronts us. At the UN monitored Kanitra Crossing Israeli soldiers have even seen sensitive Syrian territory change hands. Tensions really soared here in early June, when rebels stormed the Syrian military post just a few hundred metres down the road.The first thing the rebels, they took down the flag of the Syrian regime and raised the rebel frag and that flag remained there for a few hours. And then we saw that again the flag of the Syrian regime was returned to its place. Mortar fire has burned the grass here. Scores of wounded have been brought across the fence into Israel for treatment. And it's all unfolding just 160 kilometres from Jerusalem. That's just one of the reasons Israel says it does not want an all-out war with Syria. While it says now is the time to deal with Bashir al-Assad 's chemical weapons, it wants international action.Now the whole world is watching. Iran is watching. And it wants to see what would be the reaction on the use of chemical weapons.Another powerful voice demanding an international response.

To discuss the situation in Syria, we were joined in the studio by the Foreign Minister Bob Carr just a short time ago. Senator Carr, welcomePleasure to be here. Given the seriousness of last week's chemical attack in Syria and the growing certainty that the Assad regime was responsible, what do you think is the likelihood that western countries will intervene militarily?Well, the difficulties of intervening in Syria have been set out in a very thoughtful letter to Congress from General Dempsey the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, July 19 this year. There are big costs an considerable risks attached to each of the available options, no-fly zone, I'm looking at his letter, buffer zone, control of chemical weapons so a lot of thought has to go into this, and again I think as I've said before I think the caution of the Obama administration is very well placed. Very well placed. A rush to arm the opposition when that was a popular option late last year or earlier this year I don't think in retrospect would've served anyone at all. Especially given the growth we've witnessed in the presence of al-Nazra and al-Qaeda that in that loose coalition of militias makes up the Syrian opposition. I think the caution of the Obama administration is to be applauded. In that spirit I'd be happier if they took as long about this as they need to. The letter was addressed to the Chairman of the committee on armed services, the honourable Carl Levin. Still relevant. You say that was from July 19. That's some four or weeks ago now. We're hearing report there is was a 40-minute telephone conversation between David Cameron and Barack Obama about the pocket of a military strike within two weeks?Indeed, but the point the Chairman of the joint chiefs made about limited stand-off strikes, which is a rubric that I imagine would capture the missile strikes that have been discussed, would still be relevant, he says, for example, the force requirements would include hundreds of aircraft, ships, sush marine and other enablers. Depending on the duration the cost would be in the billions. Over time the impact would be the significant degradation of regime capabilities s there is a risk however that the regime would withstand limited strikes by dispersing its assets. He goes on to talk about retaliatory strikes are also possible and a possibility for collateral damage. Now, one briefing I've had in recent days suggests that when the US has deployed precisely what you were suggesting in the past, the commanders have had to make - have had to make a calculation of the civilian deaths that would occur with each and every strike. From our perspective, the well-established caution of the Obama administration is altogether understandable. But it would appear that the UK is not sounding as cautious. Indeed your British counter part, William Hague, has said just in the last 24 hours, "We cannot in the 2 1st century allow the idea that chemical weapons can be used with impunity and there are no consequences. We intend to show that an attack of this nature Mr Not pass without a serious response." What do you expect he means by a serious response?There's nothing in that spirit that I or Kevin Rudd would disagree with. One only a had to see the footage, chemical weapons lend themselves to what are known as mass atrocity crimes. The fact that Medicins Sans Frontieres in the last 24 hours have suggested I think confirmed would be the stronger verb that three hospitals in Damascus in the space of less than half a day treated 3,600 people with these toxic symptoms, that would suggest that this does belong in the catalogue of mass atrocity crime.It's reported that the Elysse Palace said the French President had spoken to Kevin Rudd over the weekend. Can you share with us exactly what the nature of those talks were?It was a long conversation. I spoke to my French counter part on Saturday night after the meeting of the National Security Committee in Canberra. The French feel very strongly about this. They have a historic attachment to the welfare of this part of the world. They've been very focused on the humanitarian catastrophe. They heard the French President said at a we're
Friends of Syria meeting what we're witnessing in Syria is an escalation of a catastrophe. An es chase of catastrophe. - an escalation of catastrophe.The semantics are changing but they're all gathering toward a similar conclusion, that something must be done. I guess the question is: what will that something be? Especially given Barack Obama was the one to say that a chemical strike would signal some kind of red line?Something must be done indeed, but we look forward, we haven't received it yet, we look forward to a briefing from the Americans on which of these options the White House is attracted to. After considering what the military has bowled up to it, as General Dempsey said in one of the two letters he sent to the Congress, we're presenting what is possible. It's up to the political masters to determine what is desirable. When do you expect that briefing?I can't speak for the White House or for the US administration but I am comfortable, the Prime Minister is comfortable with the US administration that gives due weight to all these considerations. Here is an administration, let me just underline this, that has sought to extricate America from two wars in the region. Led by a President who was a noted opponent of the Iraq intervention. And who's spoken on several occasions about the dangers attached to various of these options, arming the opposition, no-fly zone, buffer zones. I think Australians are (1) filled with revulsion about the prospect of a government in this day and age using chemical weapons to achieve a mass atrocity, but (2) I think this is the Australian mood. After Iraq, comfortable with an American administration that is carefully weighing consequences here, fully aware of the dangers of unintended outcomes.Now, next Sunday, Australia assumes the presidency of the UN Security Council. How much influence do you expect Australia to have over any decision about an appropriate response to Syria, or do you expect such a response if it is to be in the form of a military strike to take place beyond the auspices of the UN?That's an acute question. It all hinges on the response of the Russians. That's why the accumulation of evidentiary data at this point is very significant. The question to ask is: will the material, will the evidence, will the information gathered by the UN team confirm to Russia's satisfaction that chemical weapons were deployed and, second, will other evidence, because the UN team's not going about this, will other evidence, will other evidence persuade the Russians, very hard-headed, very realist on this question especially, that the use of weapons was that of the Assad administration. On both counts, extremely difficult to prove? Especially at this late stage, some five or six days after the attack?Yeah, so the Russians have been very, very hard-headed on this and prepared to cut slack for their ally, their friend, their supporter in the region, the Assad government. However, if the evidence is compelling enough, that is the evidence not only of chemical weapons use but of use by the Assad forces I would like to they that President Putin's administration would say "That is enough." We now assume responsibility for achieving what really should be consensus of the world on this. (1) a ceasefire, so that not only chemical weapons stop being used but all weapons by all militias, and second, a commitment to what was resolved on at Geneva in the middle of last year, a peaceful political transition toward as democratic pluralist multifaith Syria. With the people of Syria, the people of Syria, not militia, not military, choosing the composition of the coalition that governs the country. Through a fear and transparent - fair and transparent election.Next week Thursday and Friday you will be off to the G20 meeting in Russia. Are you going to offer to take Julie Bishop with you given the polls suggest she will likely be the new Foreign Minister just days after this meeting in Russia?I'm punctilious about adhering to the caretaker conventions. So is the Prime Minister. We've actually got a book on our desks which spells out what the obligations are. And there's nothing to be gained by not doing that. The convention doesn't require the attendance at a conference of the opposition spokesperson, but full briefings. And that means briefings without any inhibitions, and I'm offering as I have on other occasions briefings to the opposition on this. But ... But it would be within your remit to invite her along?No, that's - no-one's suggested that to me, and the caretaker convention doesn't suggest it let alone require it. We make no commitment during this caretaker period that would bind an incoming administration. I this think that is the key theft.Now there are 12 days to go for to you reverse the trend in the polls. You're particularly aware of what's happening in Sydney. What do you put the poor showing down to? Especially in Western Sydney?Well, first of all I think Labor stabilising confirmed by the Newspoll today and then regaining the momentum is going to happen . I think apart from anything else, the public reaction I've experienced when I've been mixing with voters to this colossal ramshackle parental leave scheme that Tony Abbott, against the opposition of everyone else in his party, has embarked on, has committed to, I think is gaining traction with the electorate. People realise how essentially unfair it is. And how you cannot be talking about debt and deficit while signing the country up to a thoroughly uncosted hybrid proposition like this. They say it is costed. They say it has been costed.It's not. I saw Joe Hockey flailing around on Q & A, it was the least convincing performance by a shadow Treasurer I can recall. So first of all, I'm encouraged by the public response to that, to think Labor can regain ground in this week, and then fight hard in the final week of the campaign. I think a big factor in it is the extraordinary media bias we've encountered. I have never seen, I say this as someone who hasn't complained about the media as a rule but I have never seen the coordinated attacks on any government that I have seen coming from the News Limited tabloids. 70% of the papers in this country are controlled by Rupert Murdoch. And there's no doubt they're being mobilised to vilify the Labor government and in particular its Prime Minister. I mean, everything, every article, I cannot nominate a front page devoted to federal politics in the Courier-Mail or the 'Daily Telegraph' in Sydney that hasn't been there to deride, to treat in a derisory fashion, the Labor Prime Minister of Australia. What's the motivation, do you think?I don't know enough about the national broadband scheme to tell you the extent to which News Limited would be disadvantaged or whether they'd be disadvantaged at all. So what do you suspect is the motivation?I can't answer that question. Could it just be because they don't think the government's done a good job?It might be that they do it because they can do it but I think that leaves Australians...' Isn't it entirely possible that they believe your government hasn't been a good one?It could well be the case. But shouldn't the Australian people decision? With all the facts before them, without being bullied and bustled in that direction by a coordinated campaign by 70% of the newspapers in the country? On the bottom line, this is about a fair go for the Australian people. Let the Australian people make up their minds themselves, let them look at ... Ultimately they will, though. They don't read a newspaper to be told how to vote.The corrosive effect of having derisory front-page treatment of the government every second day and flattering treatment of the opposition every other day is very real. Let the Australian people look at newspapers and hear TV bulletins that give both sides. It's not hard for other newspapers to do it. And News Limited papers have done it in other elections. It's a requirement for a fair go. Fair treatment so that in that spirit, the Australian people can exercise what is the greatest glory of our public life, and that is, a decision made by the public, the public are the masters n a free and fair election. Finally, the Prime Minister and his deputy Anthony Albanese today announced plans for a high-speed rail link, I think it was between Melbourne and Brisbane, by 2035. You made a similar pledge in 1998 to deliver high-speed rail between Sydney and the Central Coast by 2010. And many people are still waiting for that.No, I didn't make that pledge. It would - I would've been e vis rated if I0'd made that pledge.We conducted a number of studies about high speed rail but it won't work without a Federal Government commitment. You need that investment of national resources ... Why has high speed rail been so hard to achieve in Australia?Because of the population numbers and the population distribution in Australia. We had it looked at between Sydney and Canberra. Between Sydney and Canberra on its own and it was very hard to justify the extent of the public subsidy. Some years have passed since that study and valuable as it was, it's been overtaken by population growth, Australia's had the highest population growth of any industrial country, and by changing economics. Bob Carr, thanks so much for coming in for us.Thank you, Emma, thank you.

For the first time in Australia, drug users are being trained to inject the drug Naloxone to help save people dying from overdoses. Naloxone can quickly reverse the effects of heroin and pharmaceutical drugs like OxyContin. Lives have already been saved in Sydney and Canberra where drug users have been trained to use the first aid kits. With our special report here's John Stewart. For years, ambulance drivers have been using the drug Naloxone, also known as Narcan, to save people drying from a drug overdose. Now drug users are being trained to save others from an overdose death.Just put the needle into the muscle, probably about two-thirds of its length. And then slow ly press the plunger for a couple of seconds.Australia's first Naloxone pilot began in Canberra 18 months ago. Drug users attend a training program and learn how to inject the potential life savers.The aim of today's program is to teach you how to manage overdose risk factors.Drug users are given a Naloxone kit with a syringe, gloves and sharps container. Those who've used the kit say they no longer have to wait for an ambulance to arrive.After they'd had some and had a shot, it was sort of almost instantly that he just sort of lost consciousness. Um ... and sort of very quickly started going blue. And so ... um ... my partner and I were fairly quickly on to it. One of the things that was really good about I suppose with the ambulance is they came and they just said you've saved his life and you've saved a lot of our time. So far, about 130 kits have been handed out in Canberra. The kits are also being distributed in Sydney and Adelaide. Those running the commours in Canberra say Naloxone is saving lives.Absolutely I think most people could be saved. The research evidence shows that when there's a fatality there usually are people present. Sometimes there's no intervention at all given before that person dies. And the research also shows that people are willing and able to intervene, they just need the tools and the education and knowledge to be able to do that. Dr Ingrid Van Beek from Sydney's Kirketon Road Centre is also training drug users to inject Naloxone. She hopes the kit also be distributed nationwide.Ideally we'd like to see this rolled out right across Australia into all sort of places where opioid use occurs. Particularly if we're to have an effect at a population level. That's the sort of coverage that we'd be hoping to achieve. Naloxone kits are now common in parts of the United States and Europe. A campaign on YouTube aims to convince governments around the world to distribute the drug to lower the overdose death rate.There would be a lot more people whose parents wouldn't be grieving right now. But Naloxone does have critics. Dr Alex Wodak is a retired addiction specialist who worked with drug users in Sydney for 30 years. He's not convinced that enough research has been done to seefl distribute the kits.The evidence so far is very weak. We have a large number of studies of poor quality just observational studies looking at seeing what's happening. And we don't have any controlled studies where one group gets the intervention the other group doesn't get the intervention. Although there's a study currently under way in the UK that is looking at this in a controlled way. However, Dr Ingrid Van Beek says there is no doubt that Naloxone will save lives.It's very problematic not to do what's you know clearly the obviously right thing to do, for want of high-level research evidence, sometimes we just have to do what makes commonsense. Currently, about 650 people die of opioid overdoses in Australia each year. Our death rate peaked in the late 1990s. But is again steadily climbing.The peak was definitely in the late 90s, so 1999 was when we had the highest recorded numbers. And so we saw a major decrease in deaths in 2001 when there was a major disruption to heroin supply across the country. And for the following few years, following that, it really maintained sort of much lower levels but we've seen a gradual increase year-to-year since the mid 2000s and that's continuing today. The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre says the latest research suggests that the overdose death toll could climb by an additional 50 deaths per year. Dr Alex Wodak says that heroin production overseas is booming and that could have consequences for Australia.Almost all the heroin that ends up in Australia comes from Burma. And production of opium from which heroin is made has been going up in Burma every year for the last six years. And has been going up in Afghanistan for the last three years every year for the last three years. Now, all that suggests to me that we should be prepared for the possibility that heroin overdoses might skyrocket in Australia in the near future. If the overdose death rate continues to climb, Naloxone kits may become a key part of Australia's national drug strategy.

Negotiations have stalled between the AFL and Essendon over what penalties should be imposed on the club and coach James Hird over its supplements program. It's expected the club will be stripped of premiership points which would end its finals ambitions this season. Essendon is also facing a fine and loss of draft picks. Hird, club doctor Bruce reed, Danny Cochrane and Mark Thompson are facing charges of bringing the game into disrepute. They spent most of the day in talks with the AFL Commission, but left without an outcome.We will be back in tomorrow. I'm not sure whether the Essendon deal will get done tonight. When I left about half an hour ago they were about the same distance away as they were two or three hours ago.After weeks of very public jousting between Essendon and the AFL the private talks will resume in the morning. The fifth Test has ended in a dramatic draw, with failing light forcing umpires to call an end to play. England was hoping to make history with a first-ever 4-0 series victory, but with play abandoned the home team have had to settle for a 3-0 win over Australia. With champagne flung across the Oval the magnitude of England's series win sunk in.When runs needed to be scored they've been scored, when wickets need to be taken they've been taken. That's a hallmark ach good side.After a day lost to rain the home side resumed on 4/247. But when James Faulkner bagged his fourth England was out and trailing by 115. Shane Watson led by example before tea.A long way up. And a long way back. And as Australia's lead grew, so too did their belief in a fifth day triumph. After all stranger things have happened.Oh hello. England's turn to face the music quite quickly after Clarke strode off he set them a target of 227.

Joe Root the first to fall, and Alistair Cook was caught leg before for 34. But as the shadows crept across the Oval, England's resolve strengthened. Pietersen's poise perfect. With a knock that jolted Australia's 11th-hour attack. Mitchell Starc gave his team hope dismissing Ian Bell, but when darkness fell, it was another failed Test that came to light.Getting very fidgety here.Despite the skipper's pleas Tim time was called on this match and the series a 3-0 victory for England.At the end of the day you look through the series I think our bat something probably the area that's let us down. We've been trounced 3-0, basically. The Ashes go on the line again at the end of the year, this time in Australia.

And now to the weather.

That's all from us. If you want to look back at tonight's interview with Bob Carr or review any of our stories or transcripts you can visit our web site. You can also follow Ous us on Twitter and on Facebook. 'The Business' is coming up with Ticky Fullerton. I will see you here again tomorrow. Goodnight.

Captions by CSI Australia Tonight - the incredible shrinking efficiency dividend. It's the secret weapon delivering billions in savings for both sides of politics.

They're getting frustrated and going into a Centrelink offers and waiting up to three hours to see someone. Now that's not efficient. That's just cuts. I'm Ticky Fullerton. You're watching 'The Business'.

This Program Is Captioned Live.

For 26 years, successive Federal Governments have been raiding the public service piggy bank, promises, promises, why the efficiency dividend's struggling to deliver. Going for gold. Apple backing its new iPhone to win the Smartphone race. And bring back the long lunch. What's eating the nation's restaurateurs? First a quick look at the markets.

Fiscal rectitude is a key them this election campaign and both major parties are depending on the so-called efficiency dividend to deliver billions of dollars in savings. The efficiency dividend was introduced by the Hawke Government in 1987 and relies on government departments finding savings without cutting major programs. But after quarter of a century, has this magic pudding approach to public spending run its course? Neal Woolrich reports. 22 days into the election campaign and fixing the budget is near the top of both parties' wish lists.We'll end Labor's big waste. We'll end Labor's small waste. We'll end Labor's ridiculous waste.Well Mr Abbott I think what the pawn people really want to know is where your $70 billion worth of cut also fall on their jobs, their schools, their hospitals. While the leaders squabble over whose cuts will be better, both sides will be relying on the so-called efficiency dividend for billions of dollars in savings.Efficiency dividend certainly did work when they were first introduced over 20 years ago. But really now the pressures in the public service mean they just result in cuts to jobs sand services. The efficiency dividend was introduced in 1987 by then Finance Minister Peter Walsh. It relies on government agencies reducing their spending by a set percentage each year without cutting major programs.It was based on sharing some of the productivity gains between the public serviced and the budget, but since then, it's gotten out of control, as successive governments have used it just is as an across-the-board cut.For most of its history the efficiency dividend has been at 1 or 1.25% but it was boosted by 2% in 2009, then last financial year, the government added an extra 2.5% on top, a measure aimed at saving $1.5 billion over four