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) This Program is Captioned Live.

# Theme music

Tonight on the Roast - and the Coalition announces a plan

to reward people
for staying in a job for two years.

But first, Mark Humphries
has these quiet words

to say about the election campaign.

Of course I'm joking!
He's going to be horribly loud.

Mark!

The third leaders' debate
took place in Western Sydney tonight

and in the words of Francis Ford
Coppola, 'Should've stopped at two.'

The debate was co-hosted by Sky News

and the completely impartial
Daily Telegraph (!)

So, based on previous front pages,
look out for tomorrow's headline:

After announcing his plans
to move Australia's naval base

from NSW to Queensland.

Kevin Rudd has had a run in
with NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell,

or as Kevin calls him:

Hey look, everyone, it's Bof.
Let's talk to Bof.

Maybe let's not talk to Bof.

Oh, Bof is a bitch.
Maybe call him Barry next time.

Oh, Bof is a bitch.
Maybe call him Barry next time.

Meanwhile, The Liberal candidate
for the Tasmanian seat of Bass

is under attack
from a new Labor leaflet

that claims
he was parachuted into the seat,

and not just metaphorical claims.

Look! There's the candidate,
Andrew Nikolic,

literally parachuting into Tasmania.

Labor got the photo
from his Facebook page

and got that 'Here I come!'
quote from nowhere.

So, Andrew, you'd better
take down some of your other photos

before someone uses
them against you. Someone like me:

Andrew Nikolic -
taking us for a ride.

Andrew Nikolic -
look out, he has a gun.

Andrew Nikolic -
nowhere to be seen! Compelling evidence I just created.

Andrew Nikolic,
your political career is now over.

Clive Palmer, the man whose party
is committed to uniting Palmer, appeared on Lateline last night

to tell us that pre-election
polling is rigged.

Of course polling's rigged
in Australia.

But what evidence does Clive have?

There were polling companies that
I used to give large donations to,

and they write the results for them.

Oh, Clive rigged them. Right.

Well what do
the polling companies say

about Clive's chances
at this election?

The latest Channel 7 ReachTEL poll
has you winning no seats at all.

Hey, receptionist
at Channel 7 ReachTEL polls,

expect a delivery from Roses Only.

And Clive Palmer's not the only one
confessing to things.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd
dropped this bombshell

while speaking to teachers
about his old primary school:

Arrest that man.

For The Roast, I'm Mark Humphries.

He sure is.

Next up tonight,
the Coalition has announced

an Abbott Government
Job Commitment Bonus

for young people who find work
after being on unemployment benefits

for 12 months or more.

The plan would give job seekers
under the age of 30 a $2,500 bonus

if they stay in a job for 12 months,

and a further $4,000 if they remain
employed for two years. In short, they're proposing
to give people money in exchange for doing a job. Of course, in my day
they called it a wage, but that was way back in 2013. The coalition says this plan will:

and frankly, I can't think
of a better way for Abbott

to help the unemployed find work

than by giving money to employed
people who have already found it.

You're right, Tom.

Elect this man right now!

You know I don't have that power -

Finally, we're starting to see
policies

that benefit the unemployed.

And I'm not talking about
those unemployed people

who go out every day looking
for jobs and are turned down

due to 'the economy'

or 'lack of available jobs'.

I'm only talking about
those lazy bros like me who are perfectly able to get a job,
but simply don't want to.

Because when you don't work,
every day's a public holiday!

So how is this going to
convince those people to work?

Tom, my bros are lazy,
not stupid. They'll jump at the chance
of getting free money.

As long as there's something
in it for my bros.

What about a wage?

Oh, my bros will need
something better than that, Tom.

VOICE OVER: Meet Sean.

He's been unemployed
for over a year,

despite being offered
a number of jobs.

I don't want to give this away
to just anyone.

Well, what if I offered you
$2500 for working for a year? And an extra $4000 if you stay in the
job for two years?

Two years?
But, then I can quit, right?

Well, we'd like it
if you continued working.

Well, I'd like it
if you made it worth my while.

My bros talking about
more money, Tom.

Specifically, another $4,000
in two years time

just for staying in that paid job.

Right.

But this is also designed to help
the 'real' unemployed people, right?

Oh, yeah, those guys.

Yeah, for those guys
it gets a bit more complicated:

Hello. I'm wondering
if you could help me.

I'm a bit confused about this Job
Commitment Bonus I've heard about.

Well, it's a big help
for job-seekers.

After one year of employment,
the government will give you $2,500. Great. I've been struggling to
find employment for a long time now.

So, how can I get a job?

Well, when you've worked
in a job for two years

you'll get a bonus $4,000.

Yes, great, so how do I get the job?

Glad you asked.

If the job is in a regional area,

the government will give you another
$6,000.

Oh, OK,
but can you help me find a job?

Ah, maybe I'll just get my manager.

Clarke? We have another one.

Hello. How can I help?

Yes, this man says
I will get thousands of dollars

when I get a job -

Yes, well, after one year
in the job, the government -

That's great, I want a job.

It's been really hard for me to find
a job. So can you help me with that?

Absolutely. When you've
worked for two years -

No, I know that but no-one
is hiring at the moment.

So, how do I get a job?

Did you tell her about
the $6000 regional area bonus?

I did. She's not interested.

No, I am. Unfortunately,
no-one is interested in me.

One more time -

How do I get a JOB?!

Money, when you get a job.

Oh, screw this.
I'm doing this myself.

Great job.

I know. It feels good to help.

Right. I'm still confused.

So how is giving money
to people for staying in jobs

going to create more jobs
to actually lower unemployment?

Guys?

After one year of employment,
the government will give you $2,500.

No, no! Not again!

Finally tonight, Kevin Rudd
has called into question

Tony Abbott's temperament
during an interview on Today Tonight.

Speaking about the worsening crisis
in Syria, Mr Rudd said:

I sometimes question,
I really do question,

whether he really has the
temperament for that sort of thing.

Which means
it's time for another instalment

of Kevin Rudd's
no.1 election strategy of choice:

Last night's interview
was a Rudd smackdown on Abbott.

Just listen to him tear apart
Tony Abbott's resume:

You know what his background is.

He's been in Parliament
for 20 years,

19 of which
he was the great pugilist.

You know, and the last 12 months
he's suddenly become the statesman.

So, the Tony Abbott that I know,

having served 15 years
in Parliament with him,

is of a different nature.

OK, traditionally
when you're trying to slam someone,

you avoid mentioning
their two decades of experience

at the highest level of politics,

pointing out that
that's five more years than you have,

and then calling them a statesman.

But that's alright. That's just
round one against the great pugilist.

You're still in this one, Ruddy.
You got moxie.

Remember your training -
Jab, jab, hook!

Sometimes I find in him
a bit of an impulsive nature.

No! Impulsive?!

You just said he accrued 20 years
of experience before running for PM!

That's patience! Get off the ropes!

I think Mr Abbott
is a little different.

Quick! Remind us
you're the Prime Minister!

I had a long chat
with President Obama this morning.

Good, you're back in the fight!

Presidents don't talk to just some
guy, they talk to the Prime Minister.

And if you're point against Abbott

is that you can't see him
as a leader,

then show us
what a real leader looks like.

Yeah, now, that's a leader!

He looks focussed, tired, like he's
been up all night solving a mystery.

And, Kevin Rudd,
what did you look like

on the other end of that phone call?

OK... So that's how you get
a phone call with Obama, huh?

Guys, can we get
a hipster filter over me?

OK.

And can I be wearing a tracksuit?

Hello statesman.

Hi, this is
sepia tracksuit guy speaking.

Put me through to the President!

Yes, I'll hold.

In the meantime, if we're talking
about temperament,

how about we play through
some of Rudd's last three years and see how his temperament
affected his ability to lead.

What?!

Is there a knife I can hold
to run faster through this?

No, no, no, NO!

Doh! Game over?!

Wait, I won? The temperament bar
didn't even matter! What the hell sort of game is this? And I mean, even if temperament
was relevant, and Tony Abbott was temperamental, this is peaceful Australia,
not a war torn dictatorship, so what would it really matter?

WOMAN: Mr Prime Minister, you
have an important phone call at 1pm.

But my track suit is in the wash!

Argh! I'm so angry
because of my temperament!

Launch the nukes!

We don't have nukes.

But I know someone who does.

Obama?

He hung up!

Why did he hang up?

Oh, 'cause I took off the tracksuit.

No-one wants to talk
to a guy in a suit!

Goodnight!

This Program Is Captioned Live. Tonight, the final forum. Rudd and Abbott face off for the third and possibly last time before the election on Saturday week. My challenge 10 days before an election to Mr Abbott is with 200 policies Mr Hockey said today, out there costed by the Liberal Party internally, why are not any of those tout there for people to scrutinise because they want to know where all the cuts are going to come from. I am determined to under-promise and over-deliver so that after the election people are much more likely to be pleasantly surprised than furiously dis appointed. This Program Is Captioned Live. Good evening, welcome to Lateline. Tonight being simulcast on ABC 1 and ABC news 24, I'm Tony Jones. A small proportion of the small proportion of voters who watched the debate screened on pay TV and network second channels produced a worm which gave a narrow victory to Kevin Rudd but that unlikely to change the momentum of the campaign and although the debate focused on economic management t wasn't as passionate as the stoush in this studio. What about the deviation in the Liberal Party on the Budget strategy, a fundamental deviation from saying we have to go back to surplus because we've got a crisis and now saying we're putting it off into the never-never You've run up $30 billion debt, $30 billion Budget deficit and say you've had a shift in policy. What elsio due do when you predict a surplus and end up with 30 billion dollars of deficit? Geoff Gallop and Michael Kroger prove that ideological differences can still raise temperatures. You can join Rowan Dean, co-author of 'The Spectator' in Australia, follow the Lateline hashtag. First, Syrian cyber hackers shut down the 'New York Times' website. Petty pen yltz. Jeff Kennett rubbishes the sanctions handed out to Essendon football club. And anxiously anticipating an eruption. Living in the shadow of Japan's Sakurajima volcano. Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott have squared off in the last election debate but neither landed a telling blow. There was none of the testiness displayed between the leaders at the second debate. Highlights instead came from the members of the Western Sydney audience who asked the questions. Political correspondent Tom Iggulden has more from Canberra. Kevin Rudd behind in the polls has been vowing this week to fight harder to win the election but tonight's debate lacked the spark of last week's confrontation in Brisbane. I don't a apologise for being in the vision business. You've got to do that in national politics I'm in favour of a vision. I think sometimes what Mr Rudd's come up with is a nightmare. Western Sydney feels the effects of economic upheaval as much as anywhere in Australia. The bulk of questions were economic in nature. The Prime Minister asked the audience of undecided voters to look back on his record of dealing with the global financial crisis. I used to wake up each morning quite frightened by it all, frightened that we'd end up with double-digit unemployment, frightened that we'd end up with small businesses collapsing all over the place. If his management of the global financial crisis was so outstanding, why did his own party sack him in June of 2010? The audience provided uncomfortable moments for both leaders. Do honestly believe you were not destabilising the Gillard leadership during the months leading up to your return to the Prime Ministership and do you honestly believe the Australian people didn't see through it? Through all of that I believe I was doing the right thing by the party and by the count scpra one of the other things I've done since then is reform our party.Tony Abbott was confronted over his paid parental leave scheme. Your policy of paid parental leave is a great policy but I just think that the fork-lift driver in Mount Druitt shouldn't be paying his taxes so a pretty little lady lawyer on the north shore earning there are 180,000 a year can have a kid. Just to be fair. That's a fair point, Ian, if it were true but you see it's big business that will be paying the levy that will fund the lion's share of the difference in cost.Also unlike the previous debates, the grilling from the audience yielded new policy detail from the leaders. We should not sell our land, we should keep our land to the Australian people. Mr Rudd signalling Labor would be prepared to take a new look at foreign investment rules. I am a bit nervous, a bit anxious, frankly, about simply an open slather on this. I think when it comes to rural land, but land more generally, we perhaps need to adopt a more cautious approach. The Prime Minister's suggestion that the Coalition would cut front-line health funding drew this response from Tony Abbott. We are not shutting any Medicare Locals.Do you That is the first time I have ever heard that because the health spokesman, Mr Dutton, has said exactly the reverse.The shadow Health Minister has promised a review of Medicare Locals if the Coalition wins the election. There are some Medicare Locals doing amazing work around the country. There are others that frankly have failed their local communities. On and on and on.The leaders' debate did at times threaten to turn into a personality battle.I'm going to try not to waffle and I'm going to try through void attacking the other side in this answer. I reckon that's waffled cubed, mate. Simple question needs a straight answer.Outside the debate forum, activists provided more energy than the leaders could muster inside it, not all of it positive as far as police were concerned. A mountain a week of forests! In the carpark of the Rooty Hill RSL, the Prime Minister's media bus broke down. Tony Abbott's media bus saved the day, providing a jump-start. If Kevin Rudd planned to jump-start his campaign with his performance at the debate, he failed. His supporters are claiming he won the encounter but no-one's suggesting he did anything to leverse the increasing impression that - reverse the increasing impression that Tony Abbott will win the election. Hackers support ovthe Syrian Government have managed to shut down the 'New York Times' website and there's a Melbourne leak. This morning, people using the 'New York Times' website were redirected to a server controlled by a group calling itself the Syrian Electronic Army. The website was off line for at least three hours. The 'New York Times' is calling a malicious external attack. Internet company Melbourne IT which manages the website's address says human error was to blame. It says two staff members, an American company it uses as a reseller, responded to a bogus email and provided their personal details. These perpetrators have then used their personal details to work through their emails and secure bona fide user names and passwords of one of the customers they look after and one of those customers is the 'New York Times' unfortunately and then by getting the user name and password of that customer they were able to redelegate the details and actually shut down that website.Melbourne IT said it was a sophisticated attack. It's reviewing security but says it can't guarantee it won't happen again. Meanwhile, world leaders are debating how best to respond to the crisis in Syria. The US Secretary of Defence says the United States is ready to go if a decision a made to launch military strikes against Syria and Britain has just drafted a UN resolution that would authorise necessary measures to protect civilians. For more, we're joined by Europe correspondent Mary Gearin in London. David Cameron says this draft resolution will be put up by Britain tomorrow to the Security Council. Why is he leading this charge? Well, Tony, he's making this charge for a number of reasons. Some might say to answer the disquiet within his own country and elsewhere about the fact that US and Britain and France are talking about taking this action perhaps without the UN mandate and so if it's that reason alone that many are thinking that the Labor Opposition here will find very hard now that the UK has decided to go to the Security Council with this resolution to oppose such action. We don't know yet what exactly the wording is of course. Downing Street spokesman has said it would try to I the council authorise all necessary measures to protect civilians from chemical weapons and that's an open-ended resolution perhaps to force Russia and China into a position of, for once, not vetoing resolutions critical to Syria. It remains to be seen as to whether that would happen. Does a resolution have any chance of getting through at all? Russia and China have traditionally blocked any kind of resolution of this nature. Even Downing Street sorterise saying that they're not necessarily - sources are saying they're not necessarily expecting the countries to support it and especially if the resolution is seen as giving a green light to military action despite that open-ended language. Russia has been very consistent in the last few daze and it's reiterated again today saying still has doubts about whether the West has proven its case and Syria has challenged again as the West to make its case that the Assad regime is responsible. Under the circumstances, whether or not this resolution will result in a mandate is doubtful. The UN secretary-general has called for the international chemical weapons team in Syria to be allowed to have their job completed. Is there an argument in Britain that they should be allowed to do that or will this intelligence-led action continue? Absolutely in the UK that debate is very much alive. This is of course a country that's still scarred by the Iraq war, that the echoes of the Iraq war are with us with every step of this conflict. I was speaking to Claire Short, the former Cabinet Minister who resigned over the Iraq war and the lies she said she was told. She said what's the rush, why can't we wait for UN inspectors to do their job and argue this before the UN Security Council? As far as we know those inspect rrz just entering into their second visit today. They haven't had any interim report or phone call to these commanders as far as we know so any action that would be taken would be without direct evidence and along the lines of the indirect or circumstantial evidence that perhaps the rebels didn't have the motive or capability so the Assad regime may have.Mary, if this doesn't get a tick from the Security Council, it's very unlikely to get it, is it clear what David Cameron will do? We know that he has been meeting with his national Security Council today and that he's scheduled a parliamentary debate and vote tomorrow. Most exprrts saying that any action could happen within days and they're expecting if it does the military experts are drawing up plans to be in the first instance a very short, sharp campaign, beyond that no-one knows what will happen. Thanks, Mary. We'll speak to you again soon, no doubt. Thanks, Tony. With Australia set to assume the presidency of the UN Security Council from next week, rights groups are urging the Government to take a strong stance on Syria. Human Rights Watch has opened its first office here and is demanding Australia take a more activist approach to foreign affairs. Our reporter Jason Om was at the launch. We get as close as possible to the abuses that are taking place.Human Rights Watch has been one of the world's most vocal rights groups for more than 30 years. Now the nonprofit organisation is branching out with a new base in Sydney. It publishes about 100 reports and briefings on human rights issues to approximately 90 countries and I've come to be particularly grateful for the quality and breadth of the work that Human Rights Watch provides.Heading the group's presence in Australia is Elaine Pearson, the former deputy director for Asia says Australia the world's rising powers and should be taking a more activist role in the region.It's really only when there is public pressure on countries that they are forced to confront their abuses and take the actions necessary to make changes. Australia is about to be thrust into the heart of world affairs by becoming President of the UN Security Council and with the military intervention in Syria looking possible, Human Rights Watch says Australia needs to take a stand. There is a real opportunity to push on the issue of civilian protection in Syria, to continue to push for unfettered humanitarian access but I really think that we'll be guided by the events that happen in the next few days and so far, unfortunately, the Security Council has shown its abject failure to really deal with the situation on the ground in Syria.Hume hump has often proved to be - Human Rights Watch has often proved to be an irritant to Governments around the world and attracted its fair share of critics, one includes the group's founder, Robert L Bernstein, who dis agreed with its handling of Israel in 2009 but for now the Sydney office is focussing on Asia and Myanmar in particular. Violence against Rohingya Muslims in that country was a focus at the launch. We will keep urging Australia to keep that good balance between engagement and criticism of the ongoing human rights situation in the country. The group also plans to carry out domestic investigations with Australia's asylum-seeker policy likely to be a focus. To assess the performance of the leaders in the final debate of this campaign, we're joined now in our Sydney studio by former Western Australian Premier, Geoff Gallop, and in Melbourne by the former President of the Victorian Liberals, Michael Kroger. Thanks to both of you for being here and let's start by asking whether either of you think tonight's debate is actually going to change the minds of any voters. Geoff Gallop, you first. I think there's still an un resolved question in this election that relates to the Budget strategy that the Liberals are going to adopt and what it will mean for the economy and what it will mean for services. In a sense, Kevin Rudd did focus on that two or three times in the debate so in that sense I think he's focussing on one of the important issues that gives him a chance in the last weeks of the campaign. But do you think though that this debate will really change the way voters are thinking? First of all, not a huge number of people will have seen it, secondly, a lot of people have locked their votes in. That's true but I think the only hope Labor has is to really push hard on this Budget question and what it represent es in terms of social philosophy, what it represents in terms of consistency. It wasn't so long ago the Liberal Opposition were saying we had to go back to surplus and do it very quickly, now they're saying that would be irresponsible. I think that is the issue for Labor and I thought Kevin Rudd got that across quite well alongside his critique of the paid parental leave scheme which of course is unfootball. Michael Kroger, what do you think and going back to the initial question which is whether this debate will change anyone's minds. The worm gave it marginally to Kevin Rudd, the pundits too but mostly they're saying won't change the momentum. The answer to your question is no. But Geoff wants to talk about the Budget and the situation in relation to the economy, well, let's talk about it, Geoff. Answer me this question since you're a senior Labor figure, how are you proposing to pay off the $300 billion worth of debt your Government's run up? Firstly, I think the Labor Government has a much more progressive attitude to taxation. They've started to deal with the question of middle class welfare which is going to return under the Abbott Government. We've seen it with the paid parental leave scheme. They have a mining tax in place. They're serious about the revenue you need for the kind of economy and society we're going to have. On the other side of the equation y think there's an aspiration to go to low debt but that's put off in the short-term which leads one to wonder what does this Opposition represent? Is it a Government Abbott type Opposition that wants to spend money as Peter Costello said or is it a small Government, Liberal Opposition that when it gets into power, there's confusion on this and I think Labor are perfectly correct in making that an issue for the public.Imp Geoff, I hear all that but have you got any idea how you're going to pay off the debt? I just said- It's best we don't engage in a Melbourne-based interview. You've got an inter viewer here in the middle. And a very good one, Tony. According to Clive Palmer, the best interviewer in Australia. It's the such a relief to have someone say that every day. Thank you very much. Glorts to the actual question here. Clearly, Kevin Rudd is focussing on the costing issue, the issue of the cuts every time he gets the opportunity. Labor must be hearing back in focus groups that people are worried about this. It could be the last remaining worry they have about the Coalition. Why not just simply answer it and get all the costings out there, release all the details which are not so far being released? We know the answer to that because they haven't released all the policies but they made a big step forward with that today. I've got to say this is not strong territory for Labor and if this is all they've got they are in serious trouble because every time Rudd talk about the economy his ratings go down because it reminds people of what a disastrous record Rudd has as Prime Minister and as an economic manager. 10 of the last 11 Liberal Budgets were surpluses, 11 of the last 11 Labor Budgets have been deficits. This an issue this guy has got to get off. He's got to stop talking about debt and deficit and when he talked about the 70 billion of cuts tonight it rang hollow.That particular figure certainly did ring hollow because it's been fact-checked left, right and centre by just about every fact-checking centre and it is not correct. It is correct, however, that several senior Liberal figures have mentioned that figure in the past but now we're getting down to the real figures and yet Joe Hockey today refused to release the parliamentary Budget office details. He's saying trust the three authorities that we've put in place. That's not enough for lot of people. What do you think? I think it's going to be released next week but here's the fundamental point, what the electorate have heard from Rudd is $70 billion. Peter Beattie was on a television program on Sunday and kept referring to 53 billion, Rudd was back today at 70 billion. This has been corrected and proven completely false. When Hockey came out today with the cuts and savings he's making, people just said, "Yep, fair enough." No-one thought this was terrible. There are no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to Defence, no cuts to medical research. As I said, if this is all Rudd's got, he is going to lose this election but Kevin Rudd was only strong in '07 and '08 when he had no record to defend and a blank dhooek write for big massive programs which made him sound incredibly visionary. Now we're going - now with an appalling record and $300 billion of debt which Geoff has no idea how they're going to pay it off, clearly, this man is looking very haul scpo shall scpo look like he's headed for a catastrophic defeat unless he can do something dramatic in the next 9 days. In answer to Michael's point about this election and what it represents, we can look at three fundamental issues, attitude the too the NBN, whether there's real commitment getting the NBN to into the home and not down the street. Secondly a real commitment to social justice in health and education and Labor has the runs on the board and a strategy in place to deal with that. Most importantly, concern for the environment. Labor hasn't pished this issue in the election campaign but I think it is an important issue and they have a clearly different position from that of the Liberal Party. If we're going to look into the future in the new world we live in, not John Howard's world of the late 1990s, early 2000s, that world's gone. We're in a new world now, it's tougher, more competitive, we've got to develop a new industry for Australia to cope and I see in the Liberal Party a desire to go back to a world that's no longer existing, that's John Howard's Australia so I think there are big issues in this election and the Budget issue- You're talking in a sense more about the big issues than Labor is. They're advertising campaign and the thrust of their negative campaign is all about the costings and cuts issue. You've asked me. True.I'm also asking you to assess how they're going in selling these big-picture stories. Everything one knows that they carry enormous baggage The election campaign. Two leaders, a number of leadership challenges and, secondly, of course a number of deviations on fundamental policy. That is a problem for them but that being said, Tony, we can't avoid discussing important issues for the future of Australia and as a person who's been involved in politics on the Labor side and been watching politics since retiring, I have lot more confidence that within the heart of the Labor movement and the Labor Party is a desire to deal with these issues. In the heart of the Liberal Party is complacency about Australia and its position in the don't want to go back to that complacency. Before I go back to Michael Kroger, you started by talking about the Coalition's kuts and costings being a critical and fundamental issue but if Tony Abbott was given the chance there because Kevin Rudd kept harping on about this and he said - he used the old Ronald Regan line of, "There he goes again," he went on then to deliver what was a pretty good line from him which is, "I'm determined to under-promise and over-deliver." If that line gets out there, where's Kevin Rudd left? I think you've got to look at the two Budget strategies, how they're going to deal with the Budget and when they're going to deal with the Budget. Labor said both, they've said how, they've outlined all of their cuts which came through from the last report from Treasury which indicated revenue was going down, they've said they're aiming for 2016/17 and you can compare their program with the Liberal program. It's a very big issue because what the Liberals are doing is going back to the John Howard sera of middle-class welfare, unaffordable in terms of the long-term future of our country, unfair for many of our citizens because of the opportunity costs involved. Lets gore back to Michael Kroger on that point and I'll just say one other thing that's being talked about by the Labor Party, by Kevin Rudd in particular and that is the commission of audit, they're now making the comparison with Queensland, trying to make the Campbell Newman case that cuts were not foreseen when people voted for him? Look, first of all Geoff got it right, he said this Government has enormous baggage and he said they've got fundamental dev yaingedzs on policy which was a nice way of saying something else. They are the two reasons the Government shouldn't be reelectedtism has a disastrous record. Hang on, can I interrupt and ask Michael what about the deviation in the Liberal Party on the Budget strategy? A fundamental deviation from saying we have to go back to surplus because we've got a crisis and now saying we're putting it off into the never-never. That's pretty fundament al. No, Geoff, you're absolutely right there. Did you notice in passing the Budget update figures which were $33 billion out from the prediction, did you notice Penny Wong's- Stop interrupting. Did you notice Penny Wong and Wayne Swan's 11/12 Budget and the forecast they nade for the next 4 years which were out by $106 billion. My God, if these people were directors of companies issuing prospectus forecasts they'd be facing charges because of negligence. Don't you come in here and say, "The fundamental change in policy," my God, mate, you've run up $300 billion of debt, 30 billion Budget deficit and you're saying, "We've had a shift in policy." What else do you do when you predict a $3 billion surplus and ended up with $30 billion definite - deficit. God forbid. It is the Opposition Leader that's making trust and credibility an issue. The fact that not so long ago he was say we had a major Budget crisis and we need to return to surplus quickly and now he's saying not, surely that raise as credibility issue that has to be addressed. The costings are fully funded. We haven't had all the costings yet, Michael. We haven't had them all. We haven't compared the costings from the three worthy people.You've got to let him respond. Let me assure you the Liberal Party's happy do debate the economy with you all day every day. It is the principle reason why Kevin Rudd will probably be defeated on Saturday week unless he can turn this ship around. Michael Kroger, lets gore back to some actual policy, one of Kevin Rudd's more telling point. We talked earlier about Tony Abbott's telling points, one of Kevin Rudd's was on the funding of education reforms, equity reforms commonly known as Gonski. He made the point the Coalition is committing itself only to the next 4 years not to the next 6 years out to 2020 where the policy really ramps up in terms of its cost. If you're going to commit to those reforms, as it appeared that Tony Abbott had done, you have to commit on the long-term, don't you? He's being asked to commit beyond the forward estimates and if Geoff Gallop or Kevin Rudd can explain where the extra $8 billion will come from to fund them as well as the NDIS as well as the NBN and other programs, I'm sure Tony Abbott would be very happy to agree and Christopher Pyne would be delighted to agree but like all things, this is Walter Mitty land. This is Kevin Rudd dreaming of fantastic success and it's an illusion. We are in a Budget crisis created by this Labor Party. You know what the Liberal Party dreams of? Of coming into Government one day where there's a Budget surplus behind and we have surplus assets in the bank. What a remarkable thing that would be.Michael, before I go back to Geoff, on that point, the picture you paint is one that does seem to require a very high level of cuts in order to bring it back into surplus some time in the future and of course we have seen expensive new policies introduced like the paid parental leave scheme so do you think this Government, if it - an Abbott Government, will have to cut seriously, big time? No, no, what they're going to do is growing grow the economy. I know that sounds a really simplistic, pathetic piece of retwalk but you grow GDP, you grow the tax beige and that's fundamentally what the opposition are trying to do when they get into Government. They've quarantined health, education, medical research and defence and that's taken the air out of the tyres of Kevin Rudd's attack. That's a very good point. They have quarantined so many areas although look nothing to the future you can't see where the big money for the education reforms are going to come from? From my experience, I would say to all of the voters out there that are looking at this election, there are two ways you can look at a political party and its leaders. One is to look at the particular policies they put forward in a context ed of an election campaign and second, look at what's in their gut. What do they believe in? In Labor's case, we really believe in having this infrastructure in place. I remember in my time as Premier the Howard Government had no interest in this new technology and Labor has put NBN on the agenda. Secondly, the drift to inequality in our society created by complacency about our education system, the role that private initiatives should play as opposed to public support, the same thing happened in health. It's not in their gut, Tony, nor is it in their gut to deal with climate change and for these three reasons, whatever Tony Abbott might say now, when he's in Government the priorities will not be for the NBN, for social justice and for dealing with climate change. That is a fundamental difference.Back to Michael Kroger, do you think Labor would do a lot better if they had someone actually expressing these kind of visions in the way we're hearing expressed here by Geoff Gallop? Because mostly you don't get it expressed like that. No, because it would be like the Liberal Party coming out saying, "We want to abolish pay roll tax. We want to increase employment in this country by returning $20 billion from the Commonwealth to the states to end pay roll tax. We want a national disaster insurance scheme so people in the states afflicted by natural disasters for which they're not insured are recompensed by the Government." We'd love to announce these things but there's one problem, and it's the reason the Whitlam Government have been stained ever since they left office, the reason the Labor Governments have been stained around the states because of over-spending in the '80s. Economic management matters, Geoff. Of course it matters. The incompetence of this Rudd-Gillard Government and Swan and Penny Wong will stain this Government for a generation.Time for a final comment. I'd love to know Michael's real views on the paid parental leave scheme and whether or not it's affordable for the people of Australia into the future. It's certainly affordable and fully funded, Geoff, and you know that. He did make that case last week to be fair. Michael Kroger in Melbourne and Geoff Gallop in Sydney, thanks for a passionate and lively discussion on the back of that debate. Thank you.

The former Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, a past President of the AFL club Hawthorn has attacked the penalties handed to Essendon and its coach, James Hird, over the club's use of supplements. Last night the league barred Essendon from this year's finals, suspended Hird for a year and fined the club $2 million. James Hird and his legal team have criticised reporting today of the scandal. Hamish Fitzsimmons reports. After days of negotiation, Essendon and James Hird last night apologised to the game's governing body, the AFL commission. James Hird says his individual charge of bringing the game into disrepute under rule 16 of the AFL code of conduct was unwarranted and was eventually dropped. I should have known what was going on. I should have done more and I'm very dis appointed that I didn't but it is now time to move on. James, given that you have accepted this penalty, is that you conceding that you did break the rules? Not at all. Why is that? I didn't break the rules that I was charged with. Those charges have been dropped and we've agreed to move on.According to the commission, the club broke the rule as a result of the actions of James Hird and others. The AFL commission has found and Hird, Thompson and Corcoran agree that in consequence of their actions, Essendon football club breached AFL player rule 1.6.Last night the AFL and Essendon finalised a penalty over the club's supplement program in 2011/12. Essendon will be fined $2 million, barred from the finals this year and will also lose draft picks. Hird is suspended for a year, assistant coach Mark Thompson was fined $30,000 and club operations manager, Danny Corcoran, suspended for four months. We have been finding very - fighting hard for what we believed in. We've been fighting very hard for the club to be able to tell its story and, importantly, for the sanctions and the facts that have now governed or crafted the penalties here to fit the crime.Some, like former Victorian Premier and ex-Hawthorn President, Jeff Kennett, rubbish the punishments. The penalties handed down last night by the AFL have been described by some as tough. They were almost in consconvention tool the damage that could have and may still be done to the players. Those at the centre of the scandal are upset at the way they've been treated since February when the club's self-reported concerns about its supplement program. Our football club is a great club and has been unfairly dealt with this year. As I said, we do own those mistakes but the way it has been treat yed don't think is fair. Hird's lawyer was even more critical of the reporting of the case. Fact, he did not admit any charge, fact, he was not found guilty of breaching 1.6. Fact, the charges were withdrawn against him. That happens to have been the fact in respect of Mr Corcoran and Mr Thompson as well.Essendon has offered James Hird an extended contract and he's tipped to return to coaching as early as August next year. Jeff Kennett says there's an air of the AFL looking after its own. The culture of the AFL is wrong. It has all the worst elements of a boys' club.It's not over for Essendon yet. An investigation by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority is continuing and that could see action against both players and officials. There's been erupting constantly for nearly 60 years, spewing out smoke and ash and sending shivers through the more than half a million people who live nearby. Japan's Sakurajima volcano recently blasted 100,000 tons of ash more than 5km into the sky, reminding surrounding communities of its power and volatility. Vulcanologists warn the magma chamber beneath the volcano is 90% full, meaning a large lava eruption can not be ruled out. Mark Willacy travelled to Sakurajima in Japan to see how people live with this rumbling giant. In legend, this belching giant was named for a beautiful Goddess, the divine being venerated as the symbol of delicate earthly life, but Sakurajima is anything but delicate. It is the mother of all Japanese volcanos. Just across the water from the city of Kagoshima, it is both a tourist drawcard and a troublesome neighbour and for our visit on this perfect summer's day, the mountain is putting on yet another show. Sakurajima is one of the world's most active volcanos. Some years it belches into life or erupts over 1,000 times and this bad-tempered beast is just 8km from the 600,000 residents of Kagoshima. And recently Sakurajima showered this city with 100,000 tons of ash, turning day into night and sending people scrambling for cover. Its 500th eruption of the year sent plumes more than 5km into the sky and reminded everyone here just how vulnerable they are to the vagaries of this volcano. But mostly, Sakurajima is just a daily inconvenience. The most annoying thing is the falling ash. We cannot hang laundry outside. The clothes we were get filthy and the ash gets in our eyes. People have to sweep it from the front of their houses almost every day. But the people who are most exposed to the volcano are those who live at its base. You can understand why people may want to live here. It has a stunning coastline and a relaxed pace and this place is also famous for its fruit and vegetables. Saburo Yokomichi's family has been farming on Sakurajima for nearly 300 years and he's grown used to the volcano's terrible temper. When I was a year 3 student at school, I experienced a huge eruption. The sky became like night from the ash and I saw lava flowing down the volcano but I have become used to it. Me and the mountain are like friends.But Saburo Yokomichi wasn't around when the volcano last really blew its top. The 1914 eruption was the biggest in 20th century Japan, generating a large lava flow as well as a tsunami and leaving about 60 dead. TRANSLATION: My father and his family were evacuated to another island. I still think about a large eruption but we have learned to co-exist with the Mikan has been studying
Sakurajima for more than 30 years and while he's not worried about another big eruption, he does warn that pressure underneath the volcano is rising. The magma level deep within the volcano is back to about 90% of what it was before the 1914 eruption so we do have to worry about a big eruption in the long-term .And while we were on Sakurajima, the volcano rumbles into life again, spewing out more ash and giving the people who live here some more cleaning to do. Across the small stretch of sea, the people of Kagoshima go about their business. They can only hope the Goddess of the volcano can keep her temper for a little while longer. A quick look at the weather now.

That's all from us. If you'd like to look back at tonight's discussion with dpal gal gal and Michael Kroger or review - with Geoff Gallop or Michael Kroger or review any Lateline stories or transcripts, you can visit our website. See you tomorrow night.

Captions by CSI Australia Live. Tonight, shock and market awe over Syria. Global equities tumble with mounting fears of military action against the Assad regime. Any long-term action at all would be a big negative for markets, of course. I'm Phillip Lasker, you're watching The Business. Wall Street's fear gauge is