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.
Australian Agenda -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) workplace relations laws

support people in getting

access to some entitlements

and rights at that time. In

addition of course there is a

government program to assist

people if the employer is in

circumstances where it can

not pay those appropriate

entitlements. More

generally, on the question of

economic management, and the

situation in our economy

today, we know that the underlying fundamentals of

our economy are very strong

indeed. People may have seen for example some reports in

today's newspapers about the

resources sector and it

thinking about how much

skilled labour it's going to

need in the fighter, how many

people it's -- in the future,

how many people it's going to

need in the future because of

the growth it is undergoing,

more than $400 billion worth

of projects in the pipeline

but we also know a feature of

our economy today is that we

have got a high Australian

dollar, which is likely to be

sustained at high rates, that

does put pressures on other

parts of the economy and

consequently that gives rise

to what we call patchwork

effects around the economy.

And we do know that there

are sections of retail in

particular that are feeling a

brunt from high Aussie dollar cautious consumers and the

like. So the best thing we

can do as a government, apart

from getting the workplace

relations laws right, and we

have, is to continue to provide strong economic leadership management of our

economy, including during this remarkable time of

transition. Thanks very.

The Tasmania deal again, do

you need the Federal grooens

support to fund it, to

legislate it and fund it and

if so how can you possibly

expect to get that support

and also why did you agree to

a deal that sees taxpayer

funds go to

(GUNFIRE) Ltd to -- to begun

to compensate it for a

decision to withdraw from

native forests. The Tasmanian

government has a set of

discussions to have with

won't involve the federal Gunns, those discussions

government. Yes I have got a very different view from Bob

Brown about this issue, my

view is, this is an important

step forward in what has been

a very long-running and vexed

debate. As a Labor person I

come to this with a view

about supporting working people, particularly working people who haven't done

anything wrong, but are phase

facing a very different

situation and of course I

come to it with a view of

best environment for the about wanting to have the

future. So I'm for practical real world change and that's

what this agreement is about.

It does not require federal

legislation for us to deliver

it. It will require Greens

support to get parts of it

through, how will you do

that? It doesn't require federal legislation to deal

with it. In Tasmania it will

though. I have just made

those comments I have made

about the situation in the

Tasmanian Parliament. So you

probably need to now ask Mr

McKim whether he is intending

to vote against a reduction

in wood quotas or whether he

is intending to vote against

reserving more area as

protected forest area, they

are questions should ask him. Prime Minister Julia

Gillard there wrapping up

that news conference to

announce the details of the

long-awaited details of this so-called refugee swap deal

with Malaysia to recap those

details, as we know 800

asylum seekers will be sent

from Australia to Malaysia.

And Australia will take 4,000 refugees who have been

processed in Malaysia, back

here in Australia over the

next four years, the Prime

playing to two constituencies Minister is essentially

with all of this, one wants

to see the boats stopped and

there she is talking about as

you heard smashing the

business model of the people

smugglers with a strong

deterrent that sending 800

asylum seekers to what she

calls the back of the queue

will deliver. But on the

other hand she also has play

to the constituent including

within the left of the Labor

Party that is worried about

the human rights treatment

these asylum seekers will

face and there she is trying

to give assurances there will

be protections for human

rights, to that end here is

what she had to say. They

will not be caned. They will

be allowed to live in the

community after a short

period for health and

identity checks. They will

be allowed ongoing access to

employment opportunities and

will have access to

appropriate medical care.

Children will have access to

education. So the kids will

have access to education,

there will be appropriate

medical care, it was not specified there that that

means access to public

hospitals, or indeed public

schools for the kids. But

importantly these asylum

seekers will have the

entitlement to work. They

will have employment rights,

unlike the 9 0,000-odd other

asylum seekers in Malaysia

who are not allowed to work

who are routinely rounded up

and thrown into detention if

they are found on a work

site. Now, the detail here

will mean that asylum seekers

sent to Malaysia will spend

45 days or up to a maximum of

45 days in a transit centre

before they are then released

into the community. They will

as I say have those work

rights, but what about the

567 asylum seekers who have

arrived in the 1 weeks since

this deal was announced? 11

weeks since this deal was

announced. Initially the

government said they won't be

processed in Australia, it

was looking first to Malaysia

and then PNG to take these

people. They had no success

on either front and today

have confirmed a back-down

they will now be processed in

Australia. The around 500

persons who have arrived

claims processed in since 7 May will have their

Australia. Julia Gillard

said that decision was really

only made in the last couple

of days. The UN the High

Commissioner for refugees

will be involved in oversight

of this whole arrangement. A

statement from the UNHCR says

it's not a signatory to this arrangement, however it appreciates both governments have consulted with the

office, it say s its

preference has always been

for Australia to process

asylum seekers who arrived by

boat in Australia right here,

but it does welcome the fact

that Australia will be taking

4,000 refugees from Malaysia

under this deal. And it also

points to the possibility of some positive outcomes here

on both sides when it comes

to the treatment of asylum

seekers and hopefully trying

to reduce the dangers that

asylum seekers face when making that dangerous boat

journey to Australia. Let's get some immediate reaction

to this now from David Mann

the head of refugee and

immigration legal centre

joining us from Melbourne. Firstly what what do you think of what you heard from the Prime Minister and what

you have seen from this

agreement this afternoon? Look, it's really vital we

see all of the details that

both governments reveal

what's really going on here

so we can see whether what's

on paper live s up to what's

been promised. Are there

going to really be proper

protections for people expelled from Australia which

is a tigtary to the refugee

treaty to a country that's

not and has a really very troubling track record when

can comes to the treatment of

refugees. What are the

guarantees, how is it going

to play out, who will monitor

this. Because we know that

people are being sent to a

place where many, many people

have been harmed before. Now, when the Prime Minister therefore says that they will

have the human rights

protected that they won't be

caned, there will be special

provisions for uncompanied

children, and other special

needs cases, you are not

convinced of that, you want

to see how that's going to be

guaranteed? It's extremely

regrettable it has come to

this at all for a country Australia, that signed up to

the refugee treaty, to be

proposing to expel people who

have come here, expecting

protection from persecution

to a country that hasn't

signed a treaty and to send

people to a situation of

uncertainty to a prek -- prek

ar yition -- prek ar yution

-- precarious situation. What

need to see is how this will

play itself out. We need

concrete credible assurances

including how it willing

implemented to ensure it is rigorously implemented and

monitored. With eno know

there are great -- we know

there are great dangers for

many refugees in Malaysia and

we need to know they are not

inflicted on anyone expelled

from Australia, There will be

a joint committee from representatives from

Australia and mal overseeing

this and an advisory council

which includes the UNHCR and

organisation for migration,

is that not good enough? Time

will tell whether it's good

enough but what we really

need to see are all the

details. This is, we haven't

been shown the agreement. Nor have we been shown the

detailed operational

documents, that are going to ensure that these people, we

are told, who are expelled

from Australia are not going

to be treated in the same way

that tens of thousands of

people, reachings and asylum

seekers are mistreated in

Malaysia on an ongoing basis

or at least subject to that.

So what we need to do is see how it will be different for

these people in concrete terms. And in operational

terms. We haven't seen that

yet. But Australia will be

taking 4 refugees from that

situation in Malaysia,

resettling them here and its

human rights argument is that

this will deter people making

what is, as we know, a very dangerous journey to Australia. Is there an argument on the human rights

front there? Certainly

no-one wants to see people

risking their lives on boats

and anything, any reasonable measures to stop people

expose ing themselves to

those dangers certainly are

worth looking altbut what we

should never do at the same

time is in the same breath

expose people to other types

of dangerers such as sending

them, expelling them from a country such as Australia

where we have signed the

treaty to a situation where

they could be be exposed to

dangers to be put in harm's

way and real questions remain

about how credit inl and how

concrete the protections will

be -- credible and how

concorrection the protections

will be in Malaysia where a

country has a troubling

record in the past. The big

concern for un accompanied

minors, particularly girls,

pregnant women, the elderly, the Prime Minister said a

couple of times there that

there will be no blanket exemptions, yes there will be

a case by case assessment and special provisions where required, but no blanket

exemptions for any of those

categories. So are they more

vulnerable in the situation

in Malaysia that they will

face? Absolutely. And in fact

one of the real questions

that remains unanswered is

what prescreening mechanisms

will be put in place by

Australia when people come

here such as pregnant women

and we have pregnant woman

who has arrived since 7 May.

These are real examples. A mother and child whose

husband is here and has been

found to be a refugee and

quite a number of children, what mechanisms will be put

in place to ensure very

vulnerable people are not

exposed to dangers in the future whether by sending

them to Malaysia or if they

are sent to Malaysia what mechanisms will be put in place to look after them. Now

we haven't seen the details

of any of this and it remaining a real concern and

one that we need to get to

the bottom of by seeing what is in that operational manual. What is in that

agreement. A couple of final

questions, is this legal? Is Australia at risk of

breaching any laws under this

agreement? There is no doubt, Australia has signed

up to the refugee treaty

which means that we have

agreed at bear minimum for

anyone that comes to our country seeking protection

from persecution to ensure

that we don't expel them to a

situation where they are

exposed to dangerers and if

people are under this agreement, expelled to

Malaysia and do face dangers,

do face a breach of their human rights, undoubtedly

Australia will be at risk of

violating its basic obligations to those people.

Time will tell whether that

happens or not, but in the

meantime one of the real

concerns here is that

Australia is essentially

embarked upon a policy here where it's shirked its

obligations under the refugee

treaty to those coming here

seeking protection by proposing to essentially

expel people to a country

that hasn't signed that

treaty and to a situation

where there are troubling

conditions in relation to

human rights. So time will

tell whether people do come

to harm but there are real

concerns that remain. Do you

expect therefore this to be

tested in the courts fairly

quickly and would it be in an

Australian court? Look, you

certain ly couldn't rule out

that possibility because

whenever someone's safety is

at stake, when we are talking

about life or death issues

and we are talking about

signing up to obligations, legal obligations, there is

always of course the

possibility that someone will

bring an action in the court

to challenge this. I mean,

what remains a real concern for many of the people exposed to this situation who

have come here seeking our

help, seeking protection, is

that they are not put in

harm's way in the future and

if they feel they are and

that there has been a breach

of their obligations or

potentially certainly you

couldn't rule it out. Do you

welcome at least the fact

that the government has now

said those 560 or 70-odd

asylum seekers who have come

in the last 11 weeks will now

be processed in Australia?

Well, those people were of

course condemned to legal

limbo and really that got us

squarely into the zone of arbitrary and quite potentially unlawful detention, so anything to resolve that issue where we

are talking about a mother,

we are talking about a child,

we are talking about a

pregnant woman and other

children very vulnerable people, anything to resolve

that is very welcome but now it is high time the

government got on with

processing these cases and if

their refugees granting them

protection because every day is another day of damage to

them. David Mann from the

refugee and immigration legal centre, appreciate your

reaction to this breaking

news this afternoon. Thank you. And I will just bring you up-to-date with a statement we have got from

the opposition as well, this

is from the shadow

Immigration Minister Scott

moreson. He says the $292

million five for one people

swap deal is an act of gross

hypocrisy and humiliation of

Labor's border protection

policies over the last three

years, the conclusion of the agreement after almost three

months open admission that

pool factors created by

Labor's weaker policies have been responsible for all

people who have arrived over

the last three years. We will

have more analysis of this

after the break with or panel, stay with us.

Welcome back. Before we

get to our panel let's check

in on the latest news

headlines. Here is Gemma.

The government's asylum

seeker swap deal with

Malaysia has been finalised

at a ceremony in Kuala

Lumpur. Under the plan

Australia will send 800

asylum seekers to Malaysia in

exchange for 4,000 genuine

refugees whose cases have

been verified by the UN

refugee agency. The Prime

Minister said all asylum

seekers will be treated with

dignity and respect, in

accordance with human rights

standards. Ms Gillard also

claimed that the agreement

will smash the people

smugglers business model. The Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd

has pleaded for more international help for

Somalia's famine victims, Mr

Rudd has visited a camp in

the south of the country, to

see first-hand how the people

of Somalia are being affected

by the famine in the Horn of

Africa. His visit coincides

with an extra $20 million of

emergency humanitarian

support, taking Australia's

total commitment to the

crisis to more than $80

million. The extra funding

comes as the UN describes the

famine as the worst humanitarian crisis in almost

60 years. As Norway

continues to mourn, more

details emerge of the motivation of the man behind

the attacks. Anders Breivik,

the man who carried out the

attacks, say s he intends to

explaining his actions when

he appears in court tonight.

He published a 1500-page

terrorist man photo on line

just before killing at least

93 people. He told police the

masses ac er was cruel but

necessary. Former AFL footballer Andrew Lovett has

been cleared of rape charge s

relates to an incident

involving a young model on

Christmas Eve 2009. A

Melbourne court was told the

model woke to find Lovett raping her, and was later

found crying in the hallway

of the apartment. Lovett's

defence argued that the woman

had an unclear memory of the

night, and had given inconsistent versions of what

took place. When the not

guilty verdict was read in

court, he wept and hugged his

family and supporters. In

sport - Paramatta's Jarryd

Hayne has spoken with the man

involved in a nightclub

incident with him and the

pair have agreed to take no

further action over it.

Meanwhile the Roosters have been dealt another blow

action they try to avoid the

wooden spoon, with lock Frank

Paul Nuuasalla facing a two

match ban for a dangerous

throw. Thanks for that. We

will get to our panel, Graeme

Morris and Georgia Hawkins in

just a minute W ewill check

in -- and -- Peter Lewis from

internal media cations joins

us, we saw slightly more positive new force Labor in

the Newspoll this morning and

we will have a look at that

later in the show but your

poll today, this afternoon

also has some slightly better

news for Labor in the over standings? That's right you

call it incremental movement

but a 1% improvement in the

primary vote and two party

preferred so we are up to

55-43 from 56-44 a week ago in normal context that will be terrible in the current situation that's probably

regarded as a pretty good

result for Labor. The primary

vote for the Coalition is

still at 48%. It is still a

big big gap but if it is the

start of a comeback we will

see in the coming weeks and months. Looking at the carbon

tax debate which has been central over the last couple

of weeks you flipped this

around a bit and asked what

do you think of Tony Abbott's

idea to get rid of the thing,

to repeal the carbon tax.

Basically reflects the

attitude on support

opposition to the carbon price, split those numbers

around and it is basically fellowing through 50% of

people say they support --

fellowing through, --

throwing through:

63% of those aged over 65,

support that proposition.

Only 36% of those in the

18-24 age bracket support T And of course the other big

issue over the last week has

been the attention on the

media around the world and

here in Australia in the wake

of the phone hacking scandal

in the UK. Now, some really

interesting questions that

you have asked here about who

people trust, the ABC comes

out very well, as does some

of the Fairfax press in your surveys but a particular question whether we have seen

in the UK makes people more

or less concerned about the conduct of Australian

newspapers. Yeah, look the

question there 51% of people

saying more concerned, only

5% less concerned. It seems

that without drawing

equivalents there is a desire

for greater government

regulation of the media. And that's probably driving a

little bit of the debate we

have been hearing over the

last 7 days here. Thanks very

much with that. We will check

in with you next

week. Thanks. Let's go to the

panel. Joining us as they do each Monday. Bruce Hawker

from campaigns in

communications and with me in

Canberra Graeme Morris from

Barton Deakin. The Malaysian

deal signed seals and

delivered it will kick in

from midnight. What do you

think now we can see the fine

print? If it works, if it

stops the boats, then the

Prime Minister should give

minister Bowen and Kevin Rudd

and the Immigration

Department a big kiss. If it

works. As I work it out,

it's going to cost about

$500,000 per refugee that we send away, or asylum seeker

that we send away. A lot of

that cost is to do with those

we are talking here as well.

That's true but why are we

doing this? We are doing it

to get rid of 800 people.

There is still something slightly odd about one for

you four for me. One for you,

four for me. We are talking about people here, slightly odd. I don't know whether

this means that the East

Timor solution, that is now

botched and is off the

table. It is gone. So it's

botched. But look, if it does

work a big tick, but when you

have a look at the cost we

are now paying for the

education, the health, and what-not of people in

Malaysia. We would do that

underer the Coalition as well

-- under the Coalition as

well. Under the Pacific

solution we forked out a lot

of money. It goes both ways. If you look at the

agreement there is all these

nice sounding words and

what-not but all the costs

are borne by Australia and

yet we are talking 4,000, It

would be in Nauru as well. We

are talking 4,000, We spent a

lot of mun money in Nauru,

feeding, shelter, clothes,

education and health. I know,

but we shouldn't think that

this is a 50/50 deal. It is

not. As I said earlier the PM

and government does have to play to two constituencies here, those that want to see

the boats stopped and those worried more about human

rights. Does this strike the

right balance? I think it

does. It is never going to be

an entirely elegant solution.

And of course just to answer

Graeme's point it is just as

well that Tony Abbott didn't

manage to form a government

because his commitment to the Greens when he was negotiating to form a

government was that he would

double the refugee intake at

a cost of about $3 billion.

So there was a huge ticket

on the offer there from him in if the Greens were going

to support him. As to the

question about the balance,

well, it does provide us with

a regional solution, it does

have the UN HCR saying there

are aspects of this deal that

we like, including the fact

that there is going to be an

extra intake of refugees who

have been processed and

assessed into Australia.

There is going to be an

education facility for the

children who are going to be

on or in Malaysia, there are

going to be hospitals available or access to health. There is going to be a number of things here and

they are going to be able to

find employment. Things which

the other 90,000 people who

are currently refugees in

Malaysia aren't going to have

access to. So I think they

have strg something of a

balance and I think it's been

a pretty fair one. Detail here that of course people

will argue about when it

comes to those work rights

etc, but on the politics of

this Bruce, I guess it will

depend if it works. What if

we do still see boats coming

in the months ahead. Where

does Labor go from here?

They have invested a lot in

this Malaysian deal. They

have have to keep searching for solutions if the deal

doesn't work. They are

obviously still talking to

PNG once the leadership

issues in that country are sorted out I think they will

be able to advance it. One

thing for clear the

government will be making it

absolutely certain to those

who would smuggle refugees

that they are going to take

away the financial incentive

for them to do so and they

will keep working at that

until such time as they find

their way through that maze, and I think they may have

found their way through it

with the Malaysian approach.

Certainly the number refugees

that's arriving here is

significantly fewer than we

saw before, although there

are still some boats arriving

and that is, we have heard,

are going to be up until

today, are going to be dealt

with in Australia rather than

overseas. That's something I

think they had to do Constitutionally will be my

guess. Well, this has been a

bit of a back down though,

hasn't it, because the government has always said

that they wouldn't not be processed in Australia those

567 who have arrived in the

last 11 weeks. Now we are to

believe they have had to

decide in the last couple of

days they will have to

process them here. That's

right. And I think that's unfortunate but I don't think

it's the end of the world. If

this process that we are

engaged in now manages to

stop the flow of boats in the

way in which we have been

seeing them come in recent

years then I think that's a good outcome and we can

manage the processing of 500

refugees on Australian soil. Despite what was said

before. I do want to turn

to other issues with you both

as well. But very quickly,

we want to get reaction from

the opposition's shadow Immigration Minister Scott

Morrison, he's going to be

joining us in just a minute,

I will find out if he's there

now. Do we have him? Okay

he will be there in just a

minute. Scott Morrison

tlafrn of thanks for joining

us, we posted some of your

initial reaction earlier you

are still not convinced this

will work. The opposition was doubtful as to whether this

would be delivered at all. It

has now been signed and

sealed. Do you at least give the government some credit for getting to this

point? They have limped over the line after what it's been

a fairly tortuous three

months of false dawns but nevertheless the agreement is

there and just as ugly's

thought it will be. Whether

it stops the boat or not, 567

people has turned up as we

know. The Prime Minister

today said those 567 or thereabouts, that had been

decided a number of days ago they wouldn't be sent to

another country, yet

yesterday Brendan O'Connor

issued a presses release saying they will still be going to another country.

They can't be up front with people about this sort of stuff. Why can't they tell

the truth? We have seen over

the last 11 weeks a significantly fewer number of

arrivals than in the same

period last year. So do you

accept that at least the

announcement of this 11 weeks

ago did have some deterrent

effect? A boat a week and

almost 600 people is not what

I would call success and the

numbers in 2011 versus 2009

are higher, 2010 was a record

year if the government wants

to use that as the benchmark

well then heaven help us all.

This is an arrangement which

has yet to prove but it's an

announcement that has nasties

in it. Now Australia is responsible people found not

to be refugees who we have

already sent back to

Malaysia, to send them back

to their own own country. Not only that if they fail the refugee assessment there they

get a second bite of the

cherry to make a claim to

come to Australia under the other convention

arrangements, that was a real

last-minute think which I

knew was still in the balance

when I was in Malaysia. Let

me pick you up on that. If

they are not found to be a

refugee after being processed

in Malaysia they can they ren

apply to -- reapply to come

to Australia? Under another

coninvestigation, not under

refugee convention, but under

the convention against torture or another which is

covered by the complimentary protection conventions, in

addition to that we have to send those who return to Malaysia all the way then back to their home country,

so basically they are all

stul our problem but we will

not provide the preks they

would have otherwise got here

-- the protections they would have otherwise got here if

they were in our Kay in Nauru

or in Australia. The schools

they are talking about, they

say they are proovt schools,

not talking about Nox grammar

or something like that, they

are talking about makeshift

refugee schools run by

volunteers who have had 10 days training. If that's the

sort of education the Prime

Minister think s these dhirn

are entitled to -- these

children are entitle ed to

then her interest in

education is about as con

fengted as other things we

have seen from her, It might be better where they have

come from and the claim you

and the opposition have been

making for months now that

they would be caned in Malaysia, we also now have an assurance from the Prime

Minister they won't be. She can't give these assurances.

I have been to Malaysia.

People with UNHCR cards with

identification now are

routinely arrested and taken

away. Now, if she thinks that

this is absolutely foolproof

she is kidding herself and

asylum advocate and those

working with them in Malaysia

knows that to be true. We had

an Australian citizen

arrested and taken away to a

detention centre with an Australian passport recently

and if you can't protect one

of your own citizens how is

she going to go protecting

asylum seekers who literally

enter this world of

vulnerability that she is

going to send them into? A

final question, how long do

you give the government for

this to work? What sort of

time frame is reasonable here

to make a judgment on whether

this is of has been a success? I let history judge in the future but the key

point is this, this is a

one-off, one country deal

with a use-by date of just

800 transferee, after that it's back to business as

usual. Now, the arrangements

we have always advocated

permanent. Temporary

protection visas only.

Processed on Nashue for

everybody who turns up. --

Nauru for everything who

turns up. That is a much

better solution, 9 5,000 per

trefry to Malaysia and all

other in ind add quayies

means the government has gone

for a very poor second best.

I final on this point and the same point I made this

morning, this deal is an

admission that they have got

their policy wrong for the

last three years. You don't

change your policy if you

think you have got it right,

so the last three years, and

all the chaos that's created,

they have just

coninvestigated up to today

and they should be --

confessed up to today and

they should be ashamed serve

the record. Thanks for

joining us this after November. After the break we

will return to our panel --

Some other issues today and in particular the Prime

Minister as we saw this

afternoon rejecting a report in the 'Financial Review'

that while Kevin Rudd was

still in charge she urged a

bipartisan deal be struck

with Tony Abbott on tackling

climate change. Stay with us.

Welcome back. Rush returning to the panel now we

are joined by Graeme Morris

and Bruce Hawker. I want to

turn to the issue of the Prime Minister's commitment to tackling climate change a

report in the 'Financial

Review' newspaper this

morning argues, suggests, that Julia Gillard when she

was deputy PM to Kevin Rudd

suggested to the gang of

four, the inner circle of

cabinet that they drop any

sort of emissions trading

scheme or while ever Tony

Abbott was Opposition Leader.

It will be better to seek a

bipartisan deal with Tony

Abbott to cut emissions by 5%

that didn't involve putting a

price on carbon. She wrote a

paper that was considered by

the strategic priorities and budget committee of cabinet,

that inner circle, arguing

that the more difficult

climate change policy should elements of the government's

be set aside as long as Tony

Abbott was leader of the

opposition. Tony Abbott leapt

on that this morning. So the

real Julia supports the sorts

of policies that the

Coalition has long supported,

the Julia who currently

occupies prirmship is essentially support ing Bob

Brown's policies and not what

she thought best before the

last election. Not true

though says Julia Gillard.

Those reports have no

voracity or truthfulness to them. I have always believed

that climate change is real.

I have always believed that

carbon pollution caused by

human activity needs to be

cut. I have always believed

that in order to do that the most efficient way of doing

it, the best way of doing it,

was by putting a price on

carbon. And I have never

believed that this nation

could reach its minus 5% emissions reduction target

other than by putting a price

on carbon. Bruce Hawker this suggestion that Julia

Gillard got cold feet on the

whole pricing carbon idea,

when the going got tough for

the government, isn't new. We have heard it from time to

time now a number of times.

Why does it keep coming up

and where do you think it's

coming from? I have got no

idea where it's coming from.

But I think Julia's pretty

comprehensively knocked it

out of the park yet again

today. One thing she has always said is that climate

change has been a big issue

for Labor and for her

personally, putting a price

on carbon was the way to go

and we have to find a way of

doing that. It always struck

me as a bit odd when these

stories started to appear

that anyone would seriously

bipartisanship with Tony contemplate any sort of

Abbott over the issue, given

that he has stake ed his

whole claim to the issue of

the leadership of the Liberal

Party? In hindsight it may

not have been politically at

least a bad idea. To

neutralise the issue and get

on to something else. It has

hard been been a political

winner since for Labor? He

wouldn't have been a party to

it. What seems to presuppose

all this is he would be party

to this sort of an arrangement. Throughout his

entire time as leader he has been exactly the opposite of

that. He has done everything

he can to undermine it. He

would have resisted whav

Labor suggested, that's a

fair bit. It was a pretty

emphatic denial from Julia

Gillard, I suppose what in 30

years we will see all the

cabinet papers and find out

eventually. Well, I

certainly hope for the Prime

Minister's sake that the

journalists don't produce a .

They are two fairly senior journalists who wrote this

story. It would sort of

explain why if the Prime

Minister had said look we

need some sort of

bipartisanship deal, let's

just do what Abbott is doing

which is the direct action,

and then she told the then

Prime Minister Kevin to drop

the whole thing, then you are

in the election campaign, we

won't have a tax. Then we

have got the tax and then we

will have the emissions

trading scheme, you know, if

a piece of paper came out

after the Prime Minister's

denial today that said hang

on, that's not quite true, my

goodness. That would be just

dreadful. We will see if

there is any papers. She could barely be as inconsistent on the issue as

Tony Abbott. This is the

fellow that five days ago

said we should not even have

the 5% reduction by 2020 in a meeting with a small group. This fellow changes his story

as often as he changes his

undies and really it is time

people started focusog on

that rather nonsense by --

focusing on that. There

hasn't boon a huge amount of consistency on this issue on

both sides. I want to finish

on the Newspoll today because

we talk about the Newspolls

whenever they are horrendous

for Labor. Today is still

bad. But it's turned the

corner a little. Bruce

Hawker, not just on the party

standing lus on the carbon

tax question here as well.

Support for it has leapt from

30% to 36% but gee they have

got a long, long way to go.

What do you reckon about the

poll today, are you encouraged? Encouraged but one swallow doesn't make a

summer. What we are seeing is

a slight thawing and what it

does point to is if you get

down to the business of

explaining in detail to

people what's in it for them

and how they are not going to

be affected by the carbon

tax, and anything like the

way in which the opposition

claims it will be, then you

can get some traction. The

big thing that they have got

going for them is two years in which to sell that story

to get people to go to that

calculator on the website and

work out they are not going

to be slugged and get on past

it and start focusing on

other issues such as the NBN,

education, health, the big

plus force Labor

traditionally. Graeme, is

this a dead cat bounce or are

we starting to see? I woke up

this morning and listened to

the ABC Radio and they said big jump in the poll for the government. I went and had a

look at the poll in the 'The

Australian', it is the third

worst poll in the Labor

Party's history. Since the

last election the Labor Party

has lost three-quarters of a

million voters. And when you

think about it, the Prime

Minister has thrown $15

billion at the electorate,

plus a #25dz million

advertising campaign, and

what do we get? 12 or

13. No, plus the pamphlets.

It is $25 million. And what

do we get? We got a

statistical blip. The polls will improve. They cannot

stay where they are. But if

the Labor Party's excited by

these polls it shows you that

now days they are very

grateful for very small

mercies. Almost as bad as

John Howard's polling back in

2001. Now that's the point in

all this is that if you stick

to your guns and you work at

the - at silling a program

you can actually -- as

selling a program you can get

across the line if you get a

bit of luck along the way.

They need a bit of luck as

well and we will see if that

comes. And some good

policies. They have good

policy s unlike Tony Abbott

who has got absolutely no

policies whatsoever. I will

not let either of you have

the first word. I will wrap

it up. Do join us same time

tomorrow, right now after the

break the latest Sky News, we

will have more on the Live Captioning by Ai-Media us. Malaysian deal. Stay with