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) (Laughter)
Tell me, what did he say?

'Cause he'll have got it wrong,
I guarantee. What did he say? He said that I was 24 inches. Well, there you go, classic layman,
you're clearly a 23. What do you reckon about my head,
you know, in terms of circumference? You're a 26. 26.
Right, 26 inches. 28, 26, 23.5.

You're not just
reversing perspective and thinking that the heads that are
further away must be larger? (Laughter) Bizarrely, David's head is actually
bigger than Katherine's, even with perspective of distance.
Katherine's got quite a small head. She's got quite a small head which
you defined earlier on as large. David, it's time to encourage Lee
to stop talking, and what do you think? I don't think it's true. Do you not?
No. There is something about it
that just has the ring of... Fishy. crock to it. Have you got a tape measure?
What, why? Well, then we could prove I'm right
by measuring your head. If we did have a tape measure, you
wouldn't want to prove you're right because you don't get a point just
if this is true. You have to make... No, no, if you had a tape measure,
you would prove that I'm right and then you'd say true. Yeah, and it would be true
and we'd get a point. And... (Laughter, applause)

(Laughter) Can I just...
Do you mind if I just...? Don't worry, I know what I'm doing,
I used to be a vet.

My head shape is like a torpedo,
though. You have to get the full length... Remember not to measure it
from the nose, Lee. Are you measuring it correctly?
Hang on, hang on. DAVID O: You can take it, the nature
of a head is that it gets smaller. You've got to get
the height of the head. David, would you read out
the result, please? It's... 23!
Bang on 23! (Laughter, applause)

I am... So, David,
what does that lead you to conclude? I still don't believe it.
Really? Do you believe him now? No, I don't. Do you believe him now?
A little bit. A little bit. I think
we're going to say this is a lie. You're going to say it's a lie.
Yeah. Lee Mack, were you telling the truth,
or were you lying? I was in fact telling a lie. (Applause)

Yes, it's a lie - Lee can't tell
the circumference of someone's head just by looking at them.
(Buzz!) And that noise signals time is up
and it's the end of the show and I can reveal
that David's team romped to victory by six points to three. (Cheering, applause)

But of course,
it's not just a team game and my individual liar of the week
this week is David O'Doherty. (Cheering, applause) Yes, David O'Doherty. Obviously, I don't really think
he's the best liar, but I'm just giving him the award to
fulfil a regional quota. Goodnight. (Cheering, applause)

Closed Captions by CSI -
Amy Idziak .

This Program Is Captioned Live. Tonight, the Opposition leaps on the extraordinary intervention in the costings debate by three leading public servants. Mr Rudd's claims that there was and problem with our costings, some problems with our figures, have exploded in his face. But the Prime Minister isn't backing down, claiming the Coalition's sums are still $10 billion out. And our position does not change one jot from what we put yesterday because the burden of proof lies with Mr Abbott. Good evening, welcome to Lateline. I'm Emma Alberici. Every election campaign brings big promises and this one has been no different. Fast trains, tax breaks for the north, new highways, an entire naval base transposed at great expense and one of the world's most generous paid parental leave schemes but it's hard to remember a time when the country was three most senior public servants in Treasury and finance have in injected them selves into the political maelstrom. With 7 days before the election, has Labor lost the trust battle? We'll explore the week in politics with Labor's Andrew Leigh and the Opposition's Christopher Pyne. You can join the conversation with guest tweeter, Miriam Lyons, follow the Lateline hashtag. First,

Another blow to NSW Labor. More corruption findings against former State Minister, Ian Macdonald. And a dramatic rise in the use of the drug ice with violent results. Kevin Rudd is brushing aside an unprecedented rebuke from senior public servants about his use of costings figures to attack the Coalition. The Prime Minister is standing by his claim the Coalition is engaged in a fraud and costings shortfall of $10 billion. Tony Abbott meanwhile has confirmed he'll wait until the closing hours of the campaign to release his full policy costings. Tom Iggulden has more from Canberra. With just a week to go in the campaign, facts are getting blurry even for these protesters confronting the deputy Liberal leader. You're a very good friend of ours, Mrs Bishop. Not married. The Government was called out by senior civil servants over its inappropriate use of costings numbers. As for statements by bureaucrats, these things are from time to time made.Statements in the closing stages of an election campaign are virtually unprecedented but the Prime Minister's standing by his action. Our position does not change from what we put yesterday because the burden of proof lies with Mr Abbott. Mr Rudd said he had good reason to adue the Opposition of committing a $10 billion fraud on voters. Our commitment is to make sure the spotlight is on that quantum and therefore the elements contained within it and in the absence of them providing full details, what therefore constitute logical conclusions. Mr Rudd's claim there was some problem our costing, some problems with our figures, have exploded in his face. The Opposition Leader's accusing the Prime Minister of lying. What we've seen over the last couple of days in increasingly hysterical statements from Mr Rudd and his Ministers, they've got their own figures wrong, now they've got the Coalition's figures wrong as well.The controversy over costings boiled over on Melbourne morning radio. Our costs were based on information we had before the election. The easiest way- That's not what the Prime Minister pretended yesterday. You and I both know, and Joe knows, this all can be cleared up- No! It goes to credibility. I am bloody losing my temper because the people of this country are sick of the bullshit they're getting fed. No need to swear. The Prime Minister's accusing the media of double standard on the costings issue. The reason we are in this debate at all, not withstanding the headline in your paper today, is because Mr Abbott, as of today, has not faced one element of scrutiny by a range of newspaper outlets on when he will deliver his full costings.Under questioning on that subject today, the Opposition Leader did offer slightly more detail. Next week. Which day? It will be when we're finished releasing policies and I suspect that will be towards the end of the week. The Prime Minister's outraged there's nout more outrage about that answer in the media. Everyone seems to collectively shrug their shoulders and say, "That's just what the Liberal Party do. That's what a political part a does." A lot of people are tired of the costings debate. The international respected British magazine the Economist has its say, turning its back on its Conservative leanings, it's going to support Kevin Rudd. A choice between a man with a defective manifesto and one with a defective personality is not appealing, it says in an editorial to be published on the weekend, but Mr Rudd gets our vote largely because of Labor's decent record, adding his numbers are more likely to add up than Mr Abbott's. The United States is considering taking unilateral action against Syria after Britain withdrew its support for a military strike. The UK parliament narrowly voted down a motion supporting foreign intervention, raising questions about the future of Britain and America's so-called special relationship. France says the UK back-down won't affect its support for military action while the United States says it will now make a decision on its own timeline. As Europe correspondent, Mary Gearin, reports, UN wep nns specters are spending their last day in Syria. Britain's decision to withdraw support for a military strike means the US is now considering taking unilateral action, although it's still reaching out to its allies. Our approach is to continue to find an international Coalition that will act together. The US Defence Secretary has also been quick to defend the strength of America's relationship with Britain. The British have been very strong in condemn ing the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons and that vote in the parliament doesn't change that.That vote was a shock loss on the floor of the house for the British Government. It saw 30 Tory MPs cross the floor. Politics is difficult. Of course it is. That involved going to parliament, making an argument in a strong and principled way but then listening to parliament. I think the American public, the American people and President Obama will understand that. This was a parliament responding to a country scarred by the memories of Iraq. I think tonight the House of Commons spoke for the British people who have been making clear that they don't want Britain to be part of a rush to war and I was determined that we learned the lessons of Iraq and didn't make those same mistakes we'd made in the past and I'm glad we made David Cameron see sense this evening. I think the British people tomorrow morning will wake up and think, "Goodness, thank goodness we're not going to get involved in whatever might happen." Does it damage Britain's relationship with the United States? It may well do but does that really matter? I think doing the right thing matters most.Lord Dannett says the UK vote may put a cooling effect on the west's strategy. President Obama is not a George W. Bush, I think President Obama is much more backward-leaning in terms of wanting to get into military activity. I don't know whether the Americans will launch strikes or won't but it's possible the message from the British parliament might be heard in Washington and the Americans may thing again. Meanwhile, the French President says the vote across the channel will not affect his country's will to Syrian regime. Francois Hollande told the Le Monde newspaper that a decision to strike could come as early as Wednesday but Germany's Foreign Minister has now ruled out joining military action. The people of Syria wait while the West considers its next move. Back to the election campaign and our Friday Forum. Joining me from Canberra is Labor MP Andrew Leigh, Opposition spokesman for education Christopher Pyne is in our Adelaide studio. Welcome to you both, gentlemen. Andrew Leigh, let me start with you. You're an economist by background. Shouldn't you have known better than to be releasing Parliamentary Budget Office advice you knew to be out-dated and not an accurate reflection of current Coalition intention s? Well, Emma, all costings are based on assumptions behind them. You can change those assumptions and you get different costing results. What I used in having one of the Opposition policies costed - a policy that would do tremendous damage to my own electors - was what I thought was the most reasonable set of assumptions based on what was out in the public domain. You can make the results differ if you use unreasonable assumptions, for example, it now looks as though in the case of raising superannuation taxes on low-income workers, the Coalition want to, rather than using the reasonable assumption that that starts on 1 July next year, make the much more unreasonable assumption it's retrospective but if they're using these unreasonable assumptions then we need to see the detail. If you go to the Parliamentary Budget Office website you'll see requests for 46 Labor costings, you'll see a bunch of Greens costings there, you'll see mow Liberal Party costings. It's almost as though what the Coalition are doing in this campaign is trying to make the Greens party look respectable in terms of their economic management and their willingness to stand up to public scrutiny. Christopher Pyne, reasonable, these costing analyses by Labor?Of your policies? Well, Emma, what we've seen and no amount of trying to gild the Lily by Andrew Leigh will detract from the fact that what we've seen is Labor tried to get away with one lie too many in this election campaign by claiming yesterday a $10 billion black hole in the Coalition's savings measures that were announced on Wednesday and tried to cloak that lie in the clothes of the department of finance, Treasury and the Parliamentary Budget Office and in the most unprecedented action that I've ever seen in eight elections that I've been running for Sturt, the heads of the Treasury, Finance and the Parliamentary Budget Office specifically repudiated and humiliated the Prime Minister and said that they would not be used for base political reasons with one of Labor's scare campaigns and lies in this campaign. And all day today Labor's been trying to create a smokescreen about how this is something to do with the Coalition's costings. This issue is about the credibility of a Prime Minister who has lied and scared the electorate for the last four weeks. It's about credibility, it's about trust. That is the only issue we're discussing in terms of this complete fiasco in which Kevin Rudd now has egg on both his faces.Andrew Leigh, first Kevin Rudd continued to repeat the $70 billion figure when it's been fact-checked exhaustively and found to be comprehensively wrong. Now this so-called $10 billion black hole has been entirely discounted by three of the country's most senior members of the public service. This does present a credibility problem for Labor, doesn't it? I disagree with that statement, Emma. What the heads of Treasury and Finance have said is no more and no less than the exercise of costings depends on its assumptions. No, they actually did say it was in appropriate for the Government to have claimed that the Parliamentary Budget Office had costed the policy of any other political party. Well, certainly what we have done is done our best attempt at letting the Australian people know what the Coalition's policies will cost.But it wasn't what you purported it to be, you'd have to admit. We have used the best information that's out there and the most reasonable assumptions to have a go at working out what the Coalition's policies will cost. If they're making unreasonable assumptions, if they're thinking about retrospective taxation, if they're thinking about getting into firing public servants within week, then they need to come clear and say that, Emma. I don't want to be having this costing debate. I would rather be discussing the kind of future that Christopher and I want to build for our kids. This is an anodyne debate, not one we should be having but we're forced into this position because the Coalition has a massive black hole. Whether it's the $30 billion that Saul Eslake says or the $70 billion Andrew Robb and Joe Hockey were saying- That was quite some time ago and as I just pointed out, it's been exhaustively fact-checked. Mr Pyne, Joe Hockey has said publicly that the Coalition has 200 policies fully costed. If that's the case, why won't you reveal that information to the public? Already we know half a million Australians have already cast their votes and they weren't privy to information that would have helped them make that very critical decision. It's a perfectly fair question, Emma. The truth is that by mid next week, all of our policies will have been released. Now, as you would know in every election campaign there are upwards of over 200 policies released and we have over the last four weeks, with our policies, released savings measures and on Wednesday brought that together at the National Press Club and Joe Hockey released $31 billion worth of savings, but by mid to late next week of course all our policies will have been published- Excuse me for interrupting but when you say "mitt to late next week", is it going to be Wednesday, Thursday or Friday? Tony Abbott said today that by mid next week you could expect all of the Coalition's policies to be announced and therefore you could get a Budget bottom line. Can you tell us which day? No, of course I can't tell you which day because I'm not prisky to that particular piece of information but I can tell you that all the policies will be released by mid next week and you can then expect a Budget bottom line but we won't do what Labor did in 2007 under Kevin Rudd and 2010 under Julia Gillard and that is release our entire costings document at 5pm the night before the election and honestly, with Kevin Rudd having hit the wall so badly today over this humiliating issue to do with the there are 10 billion, I'm starting to wonder whether the Labor Party wished they'd kept Julia Gillard as the Prime Minister. They might have actually had a better run in the election rather than the faintly hysterical Kevin Rudd we witnessed today at his press conference in Perth where even one of the people the fainted after having to leave his press conference because it was so hysterical and long-winded and faintly boring. Andrew Leigh, I'll give you a chance to respond. This isn't a game. We're not playing hide the costing. This isn't a pea and thimble trick chin the Labor Party says, "We've done our best to cost your policy based on reasonable assumptions," and you say, "No, we've made other assumption s. We won't tem you what the assumptionerise but we come up to a different answer." That is a crazy game do be engaging in and what it means is that ultimately there are cuts being hidden from the Australian people. We know the Coalition has a set of policies which are disproportionately egoing to advantage the top 1%. You don't really believe this rubbish! Absolutely, Christopher. Let me talk you through some of the rubbish you're proposing. You're proposing to give the private health insurance rebate back to millionaires and billionaires to pay them $75,000 when they have a child and to get rid of the mining tax and you're paying for that by raising the superannuation taxes on low-income workers, by take away the school kids bonus from kids in their first day of school and by potentially driving the country into a downturn as we've seen in the UK and in Queensland when you cut too hard you cost jobs. So you're going to benefit the top 1% with your policy but the bottom 99% are going to pay for it. It would be nice if you were clear with the Australian people about how it's going to add up. I think it's sad that you genuinely - if you genuinely believe that complete tripe you're spouting on national television y think it's particularly sad and you really need to get out in the real world and actually read what's going on in the real world rather than tell bald-faced lies on national television about somebody else's policies. Which of those was a lie, Christopher? Where did I mischaracterise one of your policies? The top 1% have done very well over the last 30 years. Their income share has doubled. They don't need $75,000 to have a baby. We don't need to restore the private health insurance rebate to billionaires and we certainly don't need a huge tax cut for Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer paid for by taking away money from kids on their first day of school. You've been caught red-handed lying about the Coalition's costings in the last two days and you're still doing it. If you wanted to be honest you'd remind the audience that 1.7% of women in the workforce earn more than $100,000 a year so in fact 98% of women earn less than $100,000 a year in the workforce and as a consequence, they are the biggest winners from a paid parental leave scheme that treats them like adults and says if you're on holiday you should be paid your full wage, if you're on long service leave you get your full wage and if you go and have a baby you'll get your full wage for 26 weeks so that you can spend that time nurturing your child and knowing you can still pay your bills. It is remarkable to me that Labor is opposed to one of the most significant social and economic reforms that has been proposed in this country. I actually think you would like to propose it yourself but now embarrassed that the Coalition's proposed it, have to diss it when your heart's not really in it.Christopher Pyne, I'm interested to know your view on the Economist magazine's editorial coming up this weekend. They're barrack ing for Kevin Rudd in this election. How big a blow is that for the Coalition? It's not a blow at all. In a free country, in a democracy like ours, newspaper editorials or magazine editorials can plumb for which ever political party they want and the Economist wants to support Kevin Rudd, well, good luck to them. The Economist certainly noted the use of market-based mechanism to deal with carbon pollution and quickly poo-pooed Direct Action and, as you'd expect- Obviously the Economist doesn't care about people lying before elections. They noted the benefits to Australia of the rapid fiscal stimulus which saw us avoid recession. The alternative to that fiscal stimulus would have been the kind of sluggish growth we've seen elsewhere in the world. That's what we would have got if we had a Coalition Government in place when the global downturn hit. The Economist magazine recognises our strong economic policies and of course it would be remiss of me not to mention that internationally it's been Labor Treasurers who've gotten the Euro Money magazine award for world's best Finance Minister. I'm sure that the average voter in Australia is really sitting there in their loungeroom tonight thinking how important it is that the Euro Money magazine gives awards to Australian Treasurers or the view of the Economist.I would like to get a couple of questions in here.Andrew Leigh, a number of announcements from Labor this week did seem like policy on the runch at a time when Defence spending is being cut, tell us how does it make sense to spend $6 billion on moving the Garden Island naval base from Sydney to Brisbane? How is that a priority given the current state of the Budget? Emma, we know Garden Island faces some challenges and there's - in terms of our strategic posture, the Government's view is that it makes sense to have a look at option based out of Queensland.But the Defence White Paper in May thought it was too expensive. What's changed? We're certainly looking at various option here and recognising that Australia's Defence posture always has to be adjusting. There's going to be a variety of views on these sorts of issues but exactly where we structure our naval bases is absolutely vital. I think if you look at the strategic situation for Australia, our naval forces are probably the most important part of our military posture and so having them located in the right bases is really vital. We want to be able to help out in the region. We've been doing a good deal of stabilising operations in places like the Solomon Islands and then we also want to have the capacity to respond to international challenges. For those reasons, the Government thinks that these - the basing out of Queensland makes some sense. Christopher Pyne, this seems to have come as a surprise to the Liberal Premier, Barry O'Farrell? Absolutely, Emma. If we just review the week very quickly, we've had five lovely Kevin Rudd slightly hysterical thought bubbles. On Monday he announced $115 billion for a very fast train. On Tuesday he announce heed was moving garden island from Sydney to Brisbane without consultation with anybody. On Wednesday he announced a crack down on foreign investment which his Minister for agriculture said he hasn't discussed with anyone at all. On Thursday he said he was bringing forward two naval supply vessels two years with non-existent billions dollars and on Friday he was repudiated by the department of Treasury, the department of finance and Parliamentary Budget Office for telling bald-faced lies about had Coalition's costings. Kevin Rudd has not had a very good week and the Garden Island one was a real doozey. That's on top of the Northern Territory company tax cut to 20 cents in the dollar which was, again, not discussed with anyone so when he came back to Prime Ministership, Kevin Rudd said he was a new Kevin Rudd, he was going to be consultative and have Cabinet government and all we've seen is the old Kevin Rudd treating people poorly, whether it's the make-up artist Lily Fontana or the hostess on the VIP jets, announcing policies on the run, thought bubbles, no consultation, all money pushed out past the forward estimates. Frankly, the Australian public are sick of it. They want adultess running the Government and have their chance next Saturday to make that choice. Andrew Leigh? Certainly the two parties will be presenting very different visions to Australia on 7 September. The Coalition are clearly planning savage austerity. We know from estimates that John Quiggen has done that for every $10 billion they take out of the economy, the unemployment rate is going to rise half a per cent and we know the impact that that sort of a slump would have on the jobs and the life prospects of Australians leaving school. Our view is that with an economy moving out of the mining investment boom, it's appropriate to invest in schools, to fund the Better Schools package for 6 years not 4 years and demand states don't withdraw money from schools. To continue investing in universities and of course to build the national broadband network. Mr Abbott talks about being an infrastructure Prime Minister but it's Labor willing to spend on rail, it's Labor willing to take fibre to the home. Done lot of door-xoblinging and I'm yet to find anyone on my door-knocks who would prefer the fibre stopped in the cable down the street rather than coming to their home. Australians want the 21st century investments and want to be sure those trades training centres are going to stay in our schools. They want to be sure we're going to expand university places as the demand goes up and that we're going to continue to invest in the underpinnings of prosperity not simply regard productivity as being a case of cutting back wages and conditions and going back to the old WorkChoices model. That's not the solution for building prosperity in the 21st century. Productivity is about skills, education and infrastructure. That's what Labor will deliver.Christopher Pyne, not withstanding a major mishap by Tony Abbott this last week of the campaign, it looks like he will be the Prime Minister in just a little over a week's time. Apart from getting rid of the carbon tax and the mining tax, tell us how will Australians notice a difference in your first 100 days in Government? What will be the most telling change? Well, Emma, of course we will abolish the mining tax and the carbon tax which will help reduce electricity prices and secure people's jobs. We'll immediately move to genuinely protect our borders and stop the people smugglers from filling our humanitarian intake of refugees by bringing back temporary protection visas, turning back the boats where it's safe to do so and having rigorous off shore processing.I guess I'm asking you how it will feel different for Australians in the first 100 days rather than these things which might not necessarily reap rewards for you in the first 100 days. I think it will feel different because people are sick to death of watching the television news and seeing unauthorised boats arriving, captained by people smugglers and losing control of our borders. You might dismiss that as not very important but I actually think out in the electorate, talking to people, they want their electricity prices down, they want to get rid of the carbon tax, they want their jobs to be secured, they want to have some faith in the economic management of the country and after the debacle of the last 24 hours, with the Prime Minister verbaling the departments of finance, Treasury and the PBO, I think that's the last straw and they do want our borders to be protected. You might not think that is a big change but for most mums and dads who are trying to pay their mortgages and pay their bills, just knowing they can do that and that our borders bile protected will be a very big change.Thank you both, gentlemen, for coming in this evening. Thank you. Thank you.

A former NSW Labor Minister and an ex-union boss could both face criminal charges after a damning report by the State's corruption watchdog. The ICAC has found that former resources Minister, Ian Macdonald, acted corruptly by granting a coal exploration licence to a company chaired by his friend, ex-union leader, John Maitland. The decision went against advice from Mr Macdonald's own department and meant NSW missed out on the potential windfall of a competitive tender for the mining project in the Hunter Valley. Karl Hoerr reports. After a lengthy and at times heated inquiry, the findings are in and for the key players in this saga they don't make pleasant reading. Former mineral resources Minister, Ian Macdonald, has been referred to the DPP to consider the charge of misconduct in public office. The ICAC says in handing an exploration licence to Doyles Creek mining, Mr Macdonald act against the interests of the State, chiefly to benefit his mate, the company's chairman, John Maitland. Mr Maitland, former head of the CFMEU, has also been found to have acted corruptly. He's been referred to for the possible charges of making false or misleading statements and discussing evidence he gave at a closed hearing. Fellow investors Craig Ransley and Andrew Poole also face charges for agreeing to publish false statements. A report revealed this area had enough coal for a medium to large mine but John Maitland described his plan as a small to medium-sized mining operation. False or misleading according to the ICAC. The report has also found parts of the proposal's financial modelling were false or misleading including the cost of a mine training facility and the mine's proponents had also claimed the plan had overwhelming community support. In fact there had been significant opposition. Just last month the commission found Ian Macdonald acted corruptly over a separate mining licence involving his former Labor colleague, Eddie Obeid. All four men referred over the Doyles Creek inquiry have denied they acted corruptly. John Maitland has dismaced the findings as the views of one person and Ian Macdonald says once again he's the victim of bias and prejudice. I believe I will clear my name and that these reports will gather a lot of dust in the future.Other will no doubt have a different view. Victorian police statistics show an alarming spike in the use of the drug ice reflecting a significant increase around Australia. The violent effect of the drug is taking a heavy toll on families and putting emergency workers at risk of attacks. Kerri Ritchie reports. This man has had two sons addicted to ice, one managed to beat it, the other is in jail. He lost all empathy for people. He'd gone from being such a lovely person to this outrageous animal.This father says he handed over $60,000 to a man with links to a bikie gang who encouraged his son to start dealing. He was told, "Pay up," or his son would be shot dead. I know these people don't care about life. They don't care about anything. They get people involved, they put them in a position where they own them. Police say in the past year the number of people they've charge would manufacturing and trafficking amphetamines has jumped by 54% and crime syndicates here and overseas are making and importing ice and increasingly it's being sold in small towns. What comes with that is a need to fund the habit because the price of ice is anywhere from $500 to $1,000 a gram. Very expensive and they need to often do property-related crimes to fund their habit. Police say there's been an increase in assaults on medical staff by people on ice. Doctors say people using ice are risking long-term brain damage. They're violent, they're agitated. We can't reason with them. They're incredibly strong and some of the drug we can usually use for people that are agitated we can't use in ice because they interact. This is an issue for parents, for communities, for teachers to start having educational discussions around the insidious nature of illicit drugs. This father says young people must stop glamourising drug use. I think he wanted to be a wannabe gangster and this is the end result. This dad hopes his son can make a fresh start interstate when he gets out of prison. Former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is to be appointed a professor at the university of Adelaide after the election. The honorary position was announced after she announced her intention to retire from the parliament. Ms Gillard is in the process of moving to Adelaide where she has family. Now to the weather: That's all from us. If you'd like to look at tonight's forum with Andrew Leigh and Christopher Pyne or review any of Lateline's stories or transcripts, you can visit our website and you can also follow us on Twitter and on Facebook. See you again on Monday. Goodnight.


She wants to do the interview with
the signs, so you'll have to bog off.

Morning, Olly. How's your head?

Like a bat shat in it?

No. If anything, I am hungunder.

First DoSAC party under the new
regime, you lasted, I'd say,
until seven...

Yeah. Well, I do have a life, Olly.

Yes, but only in the way that
jellyfish or athlete's foot
have a life.

What was it last night, then?

Candlelit anniversary dinner
for one?


Terri, what actually are you up to?
Are you still drunk?

No. I had to get in early anyway
because the BBC man's coming.

Are you wearing trainers?
You ARE wearing trainers.


Yes. If Signal toothpaste made
trainers, that's what they'd
look like.

I don't see there's any...

This colour for healthy breath.

Morning. Morning.

Do, please, let me.

Thank you very much.

Can I take your coffee?

Oh, no. I'm clinging onto
that for dear life.

It will dehydrate you.


Mojito Murray, they now call her.

You know, they had to
install speed bumps at the bar.
She's like Gazza at Euro '96.

I really love the division of
labour in this place.

I like the way the women
do the heavy lifting and
the men do the heavy sarcasm.

Would you like
some help with your make-up?

I'm wearing make-up.

So this interview, who's coming?

Ten o'clock news.

Who...Nick Robinson?

Not Nick. He's away with the PM
on the world tour. No. It's Gavin.

Gavin Esler.

Gavin Boyes.

Who the hell is Gavin Boyes?

He's up and coming.
In what? Gay porn?

I'm launching the fourth sector
initiative. It's the centrepiece of
my political career.

I don't want to do it to some
Newsround press packer.

It says here, on Google,
that Gavin Boyes

is the state wrestling champion
for West Virginia.

The launch tonight,
how many journos coming?

We've got confirmed, four.

ALL: Four!?That's one per sector.

It's not something we are ashamed
of. We're not launching
a new leper colony.

OK. No problem. I'm just going to go
down and collect Gavin and his BOYS.

Welcome to DoSAC, Gavin.

Thank you.Gavin Boyes!

I'm Glen Cullen.
No need for me to get up.

Right. Nice to meet you.

Seems very nice, young but...

Is this the way to
the face-painting tent?

I was hoping I could
be a tiger, maybe.

I told you you've overdone it with
the make-up.With the lights, you
do need it a lot on.

Take a bit off. I'm going to start
slurring my words in a minute.
It looks great.

Gavin Boyes, hello.

Just pop you over there.

We'll start with an easy one.

Just relax.

Yes. I was.

Nicola, just relax.

Secretary of State, could you
explain what your launch
is all about?

Well, Gavin, the fourth sector is
really about empowering ordinary

people to give a little bit extra
and thus create something extra...

I'm so sorry, can I just...
just one second, sorry.

You all right?

You're very close and you're staring
at me like a dead-eyed shark.
It's making me tense.

Sure. Sure.

Sorry. Where were we?

So why is the PM
doing this world tour thing?

What's the point of that? I mean,
he's not easy on the world stage,
is he?

He walks like his dick's made of
glass, you know. Is it a Malc plan?

It could be. You know Steve
Fleming's back. It could be him.

If he's back, it really is the end.
What will you do when the ship
goes down?

Oh, plenty of options, Olly.

You could be a beefeater.
Do you want to be a beefeater?

Don't you worry about me, Olly.
I've got contacts.

What do you mean, don't worry about
me? Are you big in Japan?

What, what's that smile for?

Do you need winding?

I'm going to the election.

Are you serious?

I should hear later today whether or
not I've got enough support

for the Ilford East long list.

Fucking hell!

You on a massive poster.
What's your slogan going to be?

"He's old and sullen,
vote for Cullen." How about that?

Actually, I'm pretty excited by this.

It's hard to take on board. It's
like being told your dad's gay or

I am strangely really proud of you.

The Prime Minister fully endorses
my fourth sector initiative.

I know that's something
he's really squarely behind.

Surely you can't ignore the
nay-sayers who say he's a lame duck,
not fit for the job?

I believe that Tom is absolutely
the best man for the job

and I think we should all just
let him get on with doing that job.

What's morale like in the party?

Sorry... One sec, I just said best
MAN for the job, I think, didn't I?

I need to say best PERSON.

It's kind of the same, you'd have to
be very PC to pick a hole in that.

You don't want to give
the impression you'd like
a female leader?

Absolutely. At some point,
I would love there to be
a female leader,

but that point
isn't reached yet, you know,

and I believe the current prime
minister is absolutely the best

for the...Yes...job.

Yes. Yep. Got it.

Best person for the job.
You did get that, did you?

Yeah.You got the end.Yeah. We got
all we need. Thanks very much.

OK. (MOUTHS) Was it all right?

It was perfect.

It wasn't perfect cos I said
"best man" and I corrected to
"person" and you kept going "Urgh".

I wouldn't give it a second thought,

Give our...our very best
to John Craven and Dexter Fletcher.

Right. So, Ben Swain, the man
you love to hate and love to sack,
actually, is on his way up.

Oh, great.
I'm flypaper for dickheads today.

I'm going to get out of this funeral
suit and chisel off the first
three inches of make-up.

Ah, the prodigal Swain returns.

Menstrual cycle,
Ben on the 4th July.

Olly, put the kettle on.

Oh, the good ship Olly-pop,
old lang syne.

How are things at the Department
of Education, Education, Education?

Going at the foot pump mainly because
you are the Robin Hood of politics.

Robin Hood was a hero.

He was not a hero,
he was a terrorist.

You're stealing from the education
department, pumping it out as a
DoSAC idea.

This Back On Track policy that you
launched at your chimps' tea party
last night,

well, that sounds
very similar, very, very...

almost identical to my Unify Policy
that I was working on here

til I was booted out by
knicker face. Where is Jenni Murray?

I really wouldn't go in...
Oh, God! Jesus!

She's just been doing an interview.

An interview for what? FHM?
What's she done to her face?

She looks like a pissed Aunt Sally.
I'm really sorry...

Let's not talk about it ever again.

I will forget...

What do you want?
..everything I've seen.

Back On Track, it is exactly the same
as my Unify Initiative.

You don't like me, that's as clear as
fish piss by kicking me out after you

Malcolm's calling. I thought he was

sluicing sand out of Tom's thong in
Ibiza or wherever they've got to.

He is. He's away in Spain.
Just ignore Malcolm.

Ignore Malcolm?

What can he do?Olly, you're not
answering your and I'm getting
worried that you've hurt yourself.

I just keep getting these terrible
images flashing in my head.

Of you being stabbed
repeatedly in the face.

Or you in a coma
on a life-support machine

dreaming about being
a gay policeman in the 1970s.

Malcolm, I can explain.

Olly, thank God that you're safe.


That's from me.

What's Giant Haystacks doing here?

I am here, Malcolm, because Nicola
has been nicking my policies,
through Olly.

Is this true, the little man
in the red and yellow car?No.

I've been told by Steve Fleming
to think the unthinkable.

Well, listen, I am telling you
to unthink the unthinkable.

You can't even cope with thinking
the thinkable.Why are you here?

Hello, Malcolm. You look a bit tired.
You look incompetent.

Tired and a wee bit grumpy.

Well, actually, Lucille Ballbag,

I am here to prep Nicola here
for her BBC interview.

A bit late for that.

Terri, I fucking e-mailed you and I
told you to move it to later because

I wanted to administer a preparatory
fucking verbal cosh. Right?


And there it is.
Didn't fuck...didn't fucking send.

It didn't send. Right?There you go.
You just owe me an apology,
that's all.

I'm sorry?

That's the one.

That wasn't an apology, that was
a "pardon, I'm sorry?".

Why aren't you on the Tom tour?

Yeah. I heard Steve
Fleming was on the tour.

Big beast.

Tiny fucking rodent, more like.
He's part of the larger problem.
Which is?

Have you been in Number Ten lately?
Jesus. It's like the break-up of
The Beatles.

During the fall of the Roman Empire,
while fucking Jordan's getting
divorced from

that bloke, all happening at the
same time in a tiny terraced house.

Anyway, this interview, right...

How did it go?

It's a small...

Sorry, Malcolm. Can I? Sorry.

They wanted to talk "Tom",
and I said that he was the best MAN
for the job.

Yeah. Well, so what, it's the BBC,
it's not fucking Spare Rib, is it?