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) # Life's too short for you to die # So grab yourself an alibi # Heaven knows your mother lied,
mon cher

# Separate your right from wrong # Come and sing a different song # The kettle's on, so don't be long,
mon cher # So come on, let me entertain you

# Let me entertain you

# Look me up in the Yellow Pages # I will be a rock of ages # Your see-through fads
and your crazy phases, yeah!

# Little Bo Peep has lost his sheep # He popped a pill and fell asleep # The dew is wet, but the grass
is sweet, my dear

# Your mind gets burned with
the habits you've learned # But we're the generation
that's gotta be heard # You're tired of your teachers,
and your school's a drag... # Derek, are you going to throw up?
Yeah.Right, come with me. # So come on,
let me entertain you... # He did what?!
What did you give him that for? Look at the state of him, you idiot!

Uurrgh!

You alright, babe?
No, I wish I was dead! What's up with him? What'd you give him
Special Brew for? I didn't force him, did I?
Like some kind of foie-gras goose! Look at the state of him.
What are you doing? What do you think I'm doing? Oh, for fuck's sake!

Unbelievable.

Prostate.

My life.

# RADIOHEAD: "Bones"

# I don't want to be crippled,
cracked

# Shoulders, wrists, knees and back

# Ground to dust and ash

# Crawling on all fours

# When you've got to feel it
in your bones

# When you've got to feel it
in your bones # I used to fly like Peter Pan # all the children flew
when I touched their hands # You see, you've got to feel it
in your bones

# You've got to feel it
in your bones. # Captions by CSI Australia

This Program Is Captioned Live. Tonight, the Prime Minister left out on a limb over fraud claims. What we're doing today is calling Mr Abbott on his truthfulness. This is a $10 billion fraud on the Australian people.In response to that, the heads of Treasury and finance put out a statement saying that neither of their departments had costed any Opposition policies. The Government today, for political reasons, in a desperate attempt to mislead people, has selectively released some documents from finance and Treasury. That's not what they do as a matter of course.

Good evening, welcome to Lateline. I'm Tony Jones. Also tonight, as pressure mounts for swift military action against the Assad regime over US, British and French claims that it was responsible for last week's horrific chemical weapons attack on civilians in rebel-held areas of Damascus, there are growing demands for the US to reveal what evidence it has that the attack was ordered by the Syrian regime. One of the most compelling media reports cites a US intelligence official claim thaing have intercepted phone calls from a panicky Syrian defence official to an officer in charge of a chemical weapons unit. We'll get the assessment of former national Security Council adviser, Michael Singh. You can join the conversation with guest tweeter, author, columnist and ABC broadcaster, Richard Glover. Follow the Lateline hashtag. First, Rolf Harris charged with indecent assault and making indecent images of a child. We'll cross to London live for the latest. Swooping on the smugglers. Five people arrested in a series of dawn raids. And dream on - 50 years after Martin Luther King's historic speech, President Obama rekindles the hope for racial equality. Some of Canberra's most senior bureaucrats have weighed into the election defending their independence against what one called inappropriate use of advice provided to the Government. The rebuke undermines Government attempts to embarrass the Coalition today over its policy costings and is a significant setback to the Labor campaign. Political correspondent Tom Iggulden has more from Canberra. They're not old enough to vote but they do help underline the Opposition Leader's netball dad image. Sorry about the sweat. That's alright. You've been working hard.Maybe that should be his daggy dad image. A bit of body contact never hurt anyone.Kevin Rudd's going for the nationalist approach to help his image after saying he was anxious about foreign investment he's now bringing forward a plan to build new navy ships in Melbourne. Are we going to have the vast bulk of our naval ships built in this country or simply subcontracted over seas? But barely a day's gone by in this campaign without the policy costings issue rearing its head and today was no different. I think if you folks lose sight of the numbers sometimes. The Government's revealing figures from the Treasury and finance departments it had compiled before the election campaign started. It says they show a hole in the Opposition's savings measures announced this week. There is a deliberate strategy by the alternative Government to hide the cuts to come from the Australian people. What we're doing today is calling Mr Abbott on his truthfulness. This is a $10 billion fraud on the Australian people. When it comes to Budget figures, if Mr Rudd's lips are moving, you know he's not telling the truth. What we had was waffle, waffle, waffle and waffle. It was almost edible.But the public servants who compiled the numbers for Labor are not happy about how they're being portrayed. The department's released a statement saying, "At no stage has either departmented costed Opposition policies and outing different costing assumptions will inevitably generate different financial outcomes." In other words, comparing number with Government advice with actual Opposition policy is no comparison at all. We did ask Treasury and finance to cost the Opposition policies on the basis of what the Opposition had said publicly. Obviously we don't know all the detail of their policy because they're not telling Australians the detail of their cost ltion or their cuts. The costing was prepared using a rule of thumb methodology. That is bureaucratese for on the back of the envelope. What the Government is doing, in their desperation now, less than a fortnight away from the election, they are compromising the public service.The Parliamentary Budget Office took the highly unusual step of getting involved in the election debate after this comment. As the Labor spokesperson on Coalition costings earlier this year, I put into the Parliamentary Budget Office for a costing on one Coalition policy. Getting rid of 12,000 Canberra public servants. But the PBO says:

The man rns undermining of the Government's attacks on Coalition costings doesn't bode well for Labor because it also undermines Kevin Rudd's main argument for re-election.every letter box in Western Sydney is being stuffed with material claiming the Coalition is going to cut this and cut that. All lies of course. Even before the costing setback, Labor was on the back foot. Some bookies are reportedly already paying out on a Coalition victory. More fool them. Some of you might remember I once worked for a Opposition that was careering towards an inevitable victory and it didn't happen. Someone told me a few days ago it's 150, 160 Melbourne Cups, the favourite has won 35 times so have a think about that. But in a 2-horse race, the odds for the favourite are more of a sure thing. You should have gloves on.Australian entertainer Rolf Harris has been charged by British police with numerous counts of indecent assault against two teen-aged girls and of the making of indecent images of a child. The alleged assaults date from 1980 to 1986. Joining me now from London with the latest is our Europe correspondent, Mary Gearin. Mary, what can you tell us about the charge s? Tony, as you say, they relate to two alleged victims, one aged between 15 and 16 and the charges relating to her are indecent assault on a girl under the age of 16 between 1980 and 1981 and the other alleged victim was 14 in 1986 and those charges, there are three of indene assault against her. Also in addition to that there are four counts of making indecent images of children and those relate to a period between March and July last year.Do we have any idea who the alleged victims are? No, Tony, we don't. All that we can say is that Mr Harris was first interviewed about all this in November last year. We don't know whether, for instance, those more recent events, the charges relating to the indecent - making indecent images of children actually sparked that or not. That will become clear obviously in the court case. We know that's when he was first interviewed under caution by police then he was first arrested in March of this year. We know that Scotland Yard did send investigators to Australia and that just recently Mr Harris had his arrest extended, if you like, but this has now come to the point where the prosecutors have said that they've got sufficient evidence now and it's in the public interest for charges to actually be laid and it's notable to say that this is the first time Scotland Yard' actually named Rolf Harris. It's only been the media that in the past few months have published his name and identity in relation to this investigation. Do we know what has happened in terms of the charges? Was he brought in to a police station to have these charges laid? Has that happened already? We're not sure. Basically, he's been keeping a very low profile and the police in turn also have been very circumspect about giving any information out. We know that the last time that he was rearrested, if you like, that date had been told to the press that something was going to happen some time in August. We've been given only very scant dates along the way and even though there were - you might have seen images of media camped outside houses and police stations and so forth, it's not ever been clear that Mr Harris has actually been coming and reporting himself to police stations. We don't know what happened today and we've been trying it for comments from the family and friends and lawyers and agents and certainly that's not been forthcoming. The one thing is says at the bottom of this press release, "Mr Harris will appear at Westminster Magistrates Court on 23 September." Not very far from now. Is it clear what will happen then? Will that be his first appearance and then it will be adjourned? Is that how it work s? That's right. That's what we're assuming it to be, the preliminary stages of a case and it's not quite certain as to how long it will take 'til this all plays out. This has been some time in the coming as we know, this has been a very long investigation and this process of someone being arrested and not charged is something that's been confusing to, I think, many Australians who are used to the arrest and charge and identification perhaps of that person coming very soon on the tail of that. So it's not yet clear as to when all of the details will come to light and Mr Harris has not been making any public comment apart from once on stage in the past few months where he thanked people for their support. Of course at the very bottom it says he has right the to a fair trial so I suppose the media will have to be very careful with this one. The Coalition has seized on nationwide raids on alleged people smugglers claiming illegal networks within Australia have flourished under Kevin Rudd. Ples say the five men arrested today across four states were responsible for organising more than 130 boats that arrived in Australia. Jason Om reports. The morning raids were the result of a year-long investigation and targeted suspects in NSW, Victoria, WA and SA. Had men are aged between 21 and 40 and come from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. These people are major players within their industry. From the intelligence we've received they are significant players. Federal Police allege the men helped organise 132 boats come to Australia and were involved in the collection and transfer of money. Four of the five men came to Australia on boats themselves between May 2012 and July this year and it's alleged they provided false details to Australian authorities. Those who have not been picked up in the first scoop today does not mean you should sleep well tonight. This effort remains ongoing. Three of the men were arrested while still in detention, including at the Inverbrackie facility in SA. In Adelaide, 37-year-old detainee Said Ali faced court on two counts of people smuggling and one count of dealing with proceeds of crime. He was given conditional bail. Also charged in Adelaide, 34-year-old Hussein Ali who didn't apply for bail and was remanded in custody. While in Perth, 31-year-old Barcat Waheed had been in detention for 17 months and was granted conditional bail. The operation today would have a significant impact on those currently in Australia but also have that impact in Indonesia as well.The raids have given some fresh ammunition for the Opposition's immigration spokesman who's been campaigning in Townsville. It doesn't surprise me that when Kevin Rudd lets 50,000 people into the country illegally on boats that people smugglers then come and set up shop here on our own shores. The Government wouldn't respond to the loyal attack, preferring to leave the - to the political attack, preferring to leave the AFP's result to speak for itself. Another two men are due to front court on Friday. Tensions are escalating both inside and outside Syria as world powers debate possible intervention in the country's civil war. The US President has gone on American TV to make the case for a military strike but insistess he still hasn't made a decision. Russia has warned a US strike would be a catastrophe as moving two warships into the Mediterranean. The British military is also on the move, sending six typhoon fighter jets to Cyprus. The UK parliament is about to debate whether to support military intervention. Shaun Hassett reports. The US President is at pains to point out he hasn't made up his mind on Syria. First of all I have not made a decision. We have not made a decision. Barack Obama says he has concluded the Assad regime used chemical weapons in Damascus last week and that such a clear breach of international norms must carry consequences. President Obama says firing a limited shot across the bow could have a positive impact on the situation in Syria. I think it's important that if in fact we make a choice to have repercussions for the use of chemical weapons, then the sad adregime, which is involved in the civil war, trying to protect itself, will have received a pretty strong signal that in fact it better not do it again. If the US and moving towards a military strike it's being slowed down by the diplomatic community. The UN secretary-general has told Mr Obama weapons inspectors inside Syria should be allowed to finish their job before they leave the country on Saturday. America's strong ally, Britain, is also applying the handbrake. As protesters rallied against a military strike, the British parliament is about to start debating possible intervention. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, is still trying to win support from some of his own MPs, his Coalition partners and the Labor Opposition.I'm determined we learn the lessons of the past including Iraq and we can't have the House of Commons being asked to write a blank cheque to the Prime Minister for military action.Britain wants the United States to go through the UN process, although Russia is almost certain to veto any Security Council resolution authorising the use of force. Moscow says a US strike on Syria would be a catastrophe and it's backing up its words with deeds, moving a missile cruiser and an anti-submarine ship to the Mediterranean. The buildup to military action is being watched with concern in the Middle East. Turkey says a suspected chemical attack must not go unpunished while Iran's country supreme leader says US action would be a disaster for the region but it is Lebanon, Syria's smallest neighbour, that is bearing the brunt of the escalating conflict. The BBC's Quentin Sommerville reports from Tripoli. Lebanon is already feeling the heat from Syria's war. During last Friday's prayers, a huge car bomb sent the faithful at this Sunni mosque running to the exit. Here, they're clearing up now, the cleric in charge had urged his followers to go to Syria and fight the Assad regime. He's in no doubt who's to blame for this carnage. TRANSLATION: From the minute the explosion occurred I knew it was the Syrian regime. These were the kind of attacks they carried out when they controlled Lebanon in the 1980s.This is a country that has chosen sides in its needless conflict. A week before it was the Shia neighbourhood hit, fighters from the Shia militia, Hezbollah, are battling alongside President Assad's soldiers. In the Lebanese city of Tripoli, Syria road is divided along sectarian lines with snipers on both sides. As one honours its martyrs from the war in Syria, the other takes pot shots at their posters. The war in Syria is felt directly here on Lebanon's streets. Its suffering and its violence isn't limited just to Syria's borders. The worry is that as this war escalates, so too does the danger not just to Lebanon but to the entire region. Even on the anti- Assad Sunni side, there are worries about the expected strike against Damascus. A Syrian army detector now fighting alongside the Opposition has a warning for the United States. TRANSLATION: We want to bring down a criminal regime and not bring down an entire country. The US has to be careful and precise in choosing the targets in the city of Damascus.The war next door runs the danger of tipping the balance of power here in Lebanon. What it might do for the rest of the region can't yet be guessed. To discuss the situation in Syria, the options for international intervention, we're joined now from our Washington bureau by Michael Singh, managing director of the Washington institute, a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the national Security Council. He previously served as special assistant to secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. Michael Singh, thanks for joining us. Will the US go public with the evidence that it has or that it's convinced President Obama, among others, that the Assad regime is definitely responsible for these horrific chemical weapons attacks? I think they'll have no choice. I think that the US Government, as well as the British Government and others Governments will have to publicly share what information has led them to conclude the regime is responsible for these attacks in Syria because of course the entire justification for military action is based upon punishing and deterring chemical weapons attacks.Do you have any idea what evidence they have? They're talking about intelligence evidence. There have been a few reports of what that intelligence evidence might include. Do you know? I don't know and it's not clear how much can be released. So far what we've seen is basically conclusion that the public evidence so far, the open-source evidence we might say, is compelling and points to chemical weapons and that only the regime possesses the types of weapons necessary to deliver those types of weapons in the way that they seem to have been delivered. That maw or may not be compelling again based upon one's level of skepticism but I think that what the administration here hopes, what Prime Minister Cameron hopes in London is that this will be sufficient to get over that hurdle of skepticism.The most compelling report that we've seen is in foreign policy where a journalist is quoting US intelligence officials talking about an intercepted phone call or phone calls between a Syrian defence official and some sort of military officer in charge of a chemical weapons unit after the attack. Do you know anything about that? I don't have any information on that and, again, there's obviously a very difficult decision to be made if you've got classified information as to whether you should release that. Also unclear as to how compelling that will be because of course remember every one has in the back of their minds the Iraq experience. You have President Obama who himself was a very severe critic of what happened in Iraq so in many ways I think people will not necessarily be automatically swayed just by saying this is intelligence. I think there's going to need to be a comping and logical case if you're going to base this on the regime using chemical weapons. You would have seen that when you were working with Colin Powell, the dilemma he had when having to go before the United Nations to present so-called evidence, much of which turned out to be bogus? I think the difficulty you face here is that there is a certain odd quality to what's being presented here, the notion that we are not going to really become involved in this conflict in an effort to resolve it but we're somehow simply going to police the way the conflict is waged, as though we're football referees in a sense. I think that given you had 100,000 people already killed, something that President Obama acknowledged in his remarks yesterday, given there have been so many atrocities, again, I think for many people it's confusing as to why now we believe it's necessary to punish this and then simply go away in a sense. Do you believe that in order to convince the world that a military strike - and there seems to be an accelerating momentum towards having military strikes against Syria, as punishment for the use of chemical weapons - do you believe they will be forced to delve into their intelligence and bring it out into the public whether the public are skeptical about it or not? I think you have to make a compelling presentation. I think that whatever that means, whether that means bringing up some of the rather declassified some - declassifying some of the intelligence but I think you need have too have a narrative people will acceptyism think that before we delve too much into that, it's important we ask ourselves do we have a clear objective? Are the means we're talking about sufficient to accomplish that objective? And are we perhaps focussing too much on only the military angle? You don't hear, for example, a diplomat ic strategy with respect to Syria or a political strategy. I think one of the mistakes we shouldn't repeat here is focussing too much on the military angle and not enough on the other angles. Did President Obama box himself in in a sense when he talked about the use of chemical weapons crossing a red line beyond which he would pretty much be forced to take action? I think that's true. By setting down the red line now there is a strong element of credibility being at stake here but, again, I think there's a broader problem here which is that you've heard Western officials, both American as well as officials in Europe and Australia talk about the threat that Syria poses to our strategic interests. This is in many ways a sort of regional war and yet we have been almost entirely absent and so that is really in a sense the fundamental problem is there's a disconnect between the conversation we're having now and our indifference previously to everything that's been going on there.That is certainly reflected in what the White House spokesman is saying because he's insisting that if there is military action it won't be about trying to force regime change in spite of the fact the President says there should be regime change in Syria t will simply be about punishing the Syrian authorities for actually using chemical weapons. Now to limit things in that way, does that limit your options down the track or does it in fact draw you in to a broader conflict if you do take that action? There is the possibility of being drawn into larger conflict and I think the real risk there is that you could be drawn in in a way that is unsuccessful. Unless you start with the right object xve the right strategy to achieve it, simply a process of piecemeal escalation is unlikely to result in any satisfactory conclusion. I think the other danger here is that we risk giving the impression that we are really no longer in a sense a major player in the Middle East or committed to advancing our interests or friends' interests in the Middle East and that will have reverberations for us in this region, for our staninged in this region and our influence in this region I thin for a long time to come. There were a few practical issues, one of which is the fact there are chemical weapons inspectors on the ground suppose lade still being given access to the area where these chemical attacks took place. Should that entire thing be resolved before there is any move to military action? I think that this is tied to the political strategy in the various capitals. I think that to make the right kind of presentation to legislatures, to our Congress here, to parliament in London too, make the right kind of case to the public, some of the leaders will want to have in hand some kind of report from the weapons inspectors and of course the Western countries won't want to engage in any kind of strikes with those inspectors on the ground which may account for the fact the regime has now asked those inspectors to stay longer. So I do think there's an element here of some almost inevitable delay. Yet you're getting mixed messages from Washington because once again the White House spokesman says their work is redundant. We know it was a chemical attack, we know the Government or the regime did it so their work is redundant? I think that's accounted for by the fact the inspectors are not expected to say who is responsible for any chemical weapons usage, only to say whether or not chemical weapons were used and so I think the White House doesn't want that inspection report to really be the only thing that people focus on. I think they want people to focus on the broader evidence which they have introduced and will introduce presumably more of and not simply the UN report because there will be a sort of tendency in some capitals to really just look solely at the UN report as legitimising or not legitimising action. You're making a series of sensible claims but there's a certain inevitability to these things sometimes and of course the Pentagon is right now drawing up a target list in Syria and preparing them selves for the possibility of getting that order which of course they have to do. If they do go ahead with limited strikes, what would they be against? What would they hit? General Dempsey, who's our top mill itary chief here in the United States, gave a sense of this in testimony to Congress earlier. He talked about the fact you might have strikes against high-level regime military targets, regime military capabilities, rather than necessarily just chemical weapons stocks themselves because preventing the future use of chemical weapons isn't simply about the stocks of those weapons themselves but about the means to deliver them against the civilian population. So what you've heard the administration talk about is not just deterrence but degrading the regime's military capability those I would thing just about any military targets would be fair game in these types of limited strikes but I think that that would be still of quite a narrow scope and a very short duration to listen to what officials are saying. The 'New York Times' is talk about the military units responsible, their headquarters, missile launchers, artillery batteries and possibly air bases where attack helicopters take off. Are those - is that the kind of thing you're talking about? I think that is quite legitimate. I would just say the thing you need to keep in mind is you need to make sure again, what is the objective? What are you hoping to have accomplished at the end of your military campaign? I would say that simply punishment can't be enough. I they think that's not a serious enough unling object frve the use of external military force in this type of situation. If you're going to use military force, you need to think what's the sort of end game here, where will this have left the situation? You want to make sure you leave things in a better place than you start rather than simply doing something for the sake of doing something and, again y would say the targets need to be picked with tat in mind but also, again, you need to have other elms of a strategy here. If the strategy or the basis for it is the responsibility to protect doctrine and indeed we know hundreds of thousands of civilians or at least 100,000 civilians have already been killed, why not attack and destroy, for example, the entire Syrian Air Force on the ground and prevent them from taking off and do what the rebels are asking for, put a no-fly zone over Syria? Why not take that kind of action? In terms of the premise, it's hard to see the premise here as really being responsibility to protect because obviously, as you said, there have been 100,000 or more people killed in this conflict over 4 million refugees generated by this conflict and there's no real plan or intent, I think, to address that mass humanitarian effect ych think instead we see our Western countries wanting to defend this so-called international norm against chemical weapons usage, against this particular type of weapon, and so I think the military action will be geared to that. But if you had a very different objective in mind, if your objective was to really resolve the conflict, which is, I think, what you would need to do to stop all the various spill-over effect, not just the refugees and the deaths but the spill-over into Lebanon which your program was referencing earlier, then I think you would have a different strategy and I think that would certainly look at more severely degrading military capabilities of the regime and strengthenening the moderate or secular Opposition in a way that the two parties could sit with one another across a negotiating table. We presume the President is being present would a series of war plans and indeed the templates for the kind of action you're referring to there already are there. There was Libya and before that many years earlier in Kosovo. Both of those examples are being talked about as what the US could do if it had the will to do it. Do you think they ever will? I think that if you listen to President Obama's interview last night, he clearly dismissed the idea of a more ambitious objective in Syria. He said that US military involvement would not help resolve the conflict. He said he hopes a political solution can be reached but he made pretty clear he didn't see a role for Western military action or a more aggressive Western strategy in accomplishing that. He referenced, for example, Iraq and iavoiding a repetition of that which tells you he's looking to do something much more modest heryism thing in many was the objective here has been set. It is a narrow object scpve the desire is to be in and out quite quickly so whatever war plans are generated will be keyed to the objectives set by the commander-in-chief which is our President here.Michael Singh, we out of time, I'm afraid. We could talk a lot long er about this but we can't do that tonight. Thank you for joining us. Thank you for having me.Americans have gathered in Washington to commemorate 50 years since Martin Luther King's 'I Have a Dream' speech but amade the celebration there was a pervasive sense that America's struggle for equality was far from over. North America correspondent Jane Cowan reports. It was a moment rich with history and symbolism. America's first black President standing on the same spot where Martin Luther King gave unforgettable voice to the struggle for racial equality. Because they marched, the civil rights law was passed. Because they marched, a voting rights law was signed. Because they marched, doors of opportunity and education swung open so their daughters and sons could finally imagine a life for themselves beyond washing somebody else's laundry or shining somebody else's shoes. Thousands braved the rain to line the National Mall where crowds listened to Martin Luther King deliver what became one of the most celebrated pieces of American oratory. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream for them. But when Martin Luther King was a preacher leading a movement, Barack Obama is a President juggling multiple constituencies, one who's dis appointed supporters by failing to talk more about race or to target policies directly at fixing African American disadvantage. The test was not and never has been whether the doors of opportunity are cracked a bit wider for a few. It is whether our economic system provides a fair shot for the many, for the black custodian and the white steel worker, the immigrant dish washer and the Native American. To win that battle, to answer that call. This remains our great unfinished business.Two past Presidents and a cavalcade of celebrities paid tribute to the man who inspired their own achievements. I am absolutely thrilled to be here. I remember when I was 9 years old and the march was occurring and I asked my mumma, "Can I go to the march?" Took me 50 years but I'm here. This march and that speech changed America. They opened minds, they melted hearts and they moved millions including a 17-year-old boy watching alone in his home in Arkansas. # Amazing grace # How sweet the sound # That saved a wretch like meBut people here on the National Mall are conscious of just how much further America has to go to fully realise Martin Luther King's dream. Poverty, disadvantage, incarceration and unemployment are all dramatically higher for African Americans. Voting rights are again under threat and the killing of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin has revived racial tensions. We had a specific case with Trayvon Martin and it leaves such the result that it's OK to kill someone and we took it to our court system and our court system let us down. As far as equality is concerned, we have a long way to go.Barack Obama acknowledged the sieve rights struggle hadn't yet been won. Yes, there have been examples of success within black America that would have been unimaginable a half-century ago but, as has already been noted, black unemployment has remained almost twice as high as white employment, Latino unemployment close behind, the gap in wealth between races has not lessened, it's grown.A dream still alive but the promise of racial equality elusive. After a 7-month investigation, Canberra Raiders player Sandor Earl was stood down today for breaching the NRL's anti-doping policy. The Raiders winger has been issued with an infraction notice for the use and trafficking of a peptide, CYC1295, a synthetic substance which releases growth hormone. League chief executive David Smith said Earl made admissions when being interviewed by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority recently. I can tell you there's been an admission of the use and trafficking of a specific peptide and the investigation continues so any evidence that relates to trafficking, whenever it may be, clearly will follow thal thated through. David Smith says authorities do not yet have information warranting action against other players. A quick look at the weather now..

That is all from us. If you'd like to look back at tonight's interview with Michael Singh or review any of Lateline's stories or transcripts, you can visit our website or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. The Business is coming up with Phillip Lasker. Emma alba reach yf will be in this chair tomorrow and I'll see you next week. Until then, goodnight. Tonight, the flying kangaroo bounces back. Qantas shares take off as the airline turns a loss into a wafer-thin profit. There's an improvement from last year but it is a poor result. The improvement is from a very low base.I'm Phillip Lasker. You're watching The Business.

This Program Is Captioned Live.

Investors were cheering but it was mainly cost cutting delivering the goods. Challenging flying conditions - Qantas warns of heavy weather ahead. And weathering the Asian mini crisis. The cash crash from India to Indonesia. And Big Brother for shoppers. Technology to track your mobile coming to a store near you. First a quick look at the markets and a flat day on the local bourse with caution over the Syrian crisis keeping investors on the sidelines. The All Ordinaries inched up 5 points, in Japan the Nikkei advanced 0.8%, Hong Kong's hang seng bounced back from multiweek lows. The shire price of Qantas has headed skywards as announced a turn-around from loss to profit today. In announcing its full-year result, CEO Alan Joyce described the market as volatile but remained committed to cost control and repairing the airline's international business. Summing up the airline business today is, according to Qantas boss, Alan Joyce, pretty simple. There are a whole series of positives and a whole series of negatives and this typically, I think, happens in an airline of our size.But according to Joyce, the positives are starting to bear fruit, turning a $245 million loss to $5 million profit or, as the airline prefers, a pretax profit of $1 92 million. There's an improvement from last year but it's still a poor result. The improvement is from very low base of profit of around 97 million so there's an improvement but the superior metric to use to identify whether the performance is good or not is that profit relative to their asset base and that continues to be poor. Nonetheless, investors lapped up Qantas shares today with the share price up 14%. This result shows good progress in the group strategy against a challenging backdrop with high fuel costs and intense competition. But cracking open the numbers on what's been described as a strong position by Joyce reveals a few weaknesses. Qantas domestic earnings down $98 million or 21% on last year, Jetstar down 65 million or 32% down on last year, Qantas freight down 20%. On the positive side, the non-flying Qantas loyalty program saw earnings grow by 13%. Qantas international, while still running a $246 million loss, managed to halve the loss from last year and Joyce claims it will get even better soon. We are two years into a 5-year turn-around plan for Qantas international and we're on track towards our target of returning to profit of financial year '15. But the airline's former chief economist has a completely opposite view, describing the international business as being in terminal decline. The reason I think it's in terminal decline is because that segment of the market is in what I call persistent excess supply so there's always too many seats in the mark. Then there's the soaring cost of fuel made worse by the lower Aussie dollar. We expect underlying fuel costs to be $160 million in the first half of this year higher than in the same period in the prior year. That, combined with a relatively flat market, may well make the ongoing cost-cutting program that's played a big part in its profit even more crucial in the future. That number is a very significant number of 19% cost reductions in the last four years. There wouldn't be many businesses that have achieved that. And yet, since its heyday and profits north of a billion dollars, the market hasn't shown much confidence in receipt years in Qantas.It's very volatile and shareholders haven't been paid a dividend in 5 years. If I was a sharehold er I wouldn't be happy. Today's vote of confidence could be short lived. Desperate measures for desperate times in India where the rupee is in free-fall. India's Reserve Bank is resorting to GFC-era policies in the latest steps to resolve the crisis engulfing its economy. It is a similar story in Indonesia as well where the Central Bank today raised its benchmark interest rate by half a per cent in a bid to arrest its sliding currency. Neal Woolrich reports. A currency in free-fall and a Government under siege. The Government has lost control over the economy, completely. They are helpless before the forces of the market. India's rupee has lost more than 20% against the