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) Cameron who has had to

swallow humble pie this

afternoon as well. We will be

reflecting on the September

11 anniversary and talking to

with us. US am bass Geoff Bliche stay

captioned by Ai-Media This program will be live

Good afternoon welcome to

the program I am David Speers

if anyone thought the High

Court ruling two weeks ago

would take the politics out

of the asylum seeker debate

they were sadly miss taken.

It now looks like we are in a stand-off with the Coalition

arguing Nauru is the best

place to send asylum seekers

and Labor arguing an even

tougher line as it hopes to

revive its Malaysian plan.

Well today after some

internal debate and

criticism, the Labor caucus

did finally agree to and sign off on the government's bid

to revive the Malaysian deal,

by changing the Migration Act

to get around the High Court

ruling. The change to the

government wants is to allow

the government of the day to

decide where asylum seekers

are sent. For Labor, that

would be Malaysia but Julia

Gillard says if the Coalition

gets into government, well

that will allow them to send

asylum seekers to Nauru

should they choose to do so

but if neither side is

willing to blink and back the

change to this Migration Act,

we could just see boats continue to arrive and the

two sides of politics

continue to blame each other.

Because at the moment Tony

Abbott isn't giving any sort

of commitment that he will

back this change to the

Migration Act, he continues

to criticise the Malaysian

plan of the government's as a

flawed and failed policy.

Today after winning the

caucus support for her

position, Julia Gillard tried

to throw the challenge and

some political heat back on

to Tony Abbott, she mentioned

him in fact 24 times in one

press conference. On the

principle though, there is

nothing to negotiate. I mean,

the question for Mr Abbott

here is a crystal clear one.

Does he believe executive

government should have the

power to implement its policy on asylum seekers and

refugees? Full stop. Yes,

no. Mr Abbott has said on the

public record that he

believes that executive

government, to use his words,

I am prepared to work

constructively to give the

government, to restore to the

government, the option of

third country offshore

processing. I am not asking

him to do anything more than

honour those words. This is a

big test for Mr Abbott. This

is a test for Tony Abbott. It

is a test as to whether he's

guided by the national

interests or he's always

guided by his political

interests. The test here is

for Tony Abbott. I think we

get the message. The test is for Tony Abbott. For his part, Tony Abbott has

released a statement in which

he says that the Coalition's happy to consider any legislation put forward by

the government, but Julia

Gillard, he says, has not

come up with a better policy,

she's come up with a legislative excuse to present

a flawed policy. The Malaysia

people swap arrangement in

the Coalition's view is say

proovsh policy failure --

proven policy failure, Nauru

is a proven policy success.

There we now have essentially

a strange parallel universe

where it's the Coalition

arguing for Nauru, the more

humane option, and Labor

arcing that Malaysia, the tougher -- arguing that mal

asha, the tougher deterrent

is the option. The only way

to stop boats coming is to

have Malaysia as an option to

return asylum seekers to

where they came from. In

parliament this afternoon

Tony Abbott reminded the

comments before the last Prime Minister of some of her

election. Given that Nauru

has signed the refugee

convention, and Malaysia has

not, why is the Prime

Minister persisting with a

policy that has been rejected

by the High Court and many in

her own party, and which

offends every principle that

she has ever espoused.

Further, why didn't the Prime

Minister talk to the

President of Nauru when she

sat next to him last week

about reopening the nah year

detention centre that is the

-- nah year deterrence centre

-- Nauru detention centre

that is the one proven success in the fight to stop

the boats. The policy

proposition he is now butting

before the Australian people

is he will rip money off

Australian tax payers to fund

a solution that experts have

told him will not work. And

those same experts told him

that Malaysia will send a hard-hitting deterrence

message. Tony Abbott says

he is still waiting to see

the legislation, so too are a

number of those in the Labor

left faction as well. They

did end up supporting the

motion before the special caucus meeting this morning,

many are still wondering

exactly how will the

Migration Act be changed.

What sort of safeguards will

still be built in through

offshore processing, how will Australia still meet its

international obligation s if

it is going to be sending

asylum seekers to Malaysia.

We do have a pretty clear

indication though that the

Coalition is unlikely to

support this change, that

Julia Gillard's putting

forward, when it does hit

parliament next week. Because

Scott Morrison, the shadow

told us this morning he is Immigration Minister here

not interested in supporting any blank cheques for this

government or future

governments to dump asylum

seekers in a third country.

We would like to see, and we

will be happy to see, a strengthened Migration Act

but it is not a blank cheque,

we support offshore

processing, we don't support

off shore dumping. Of course

without the Coalition's support Labor can't go any

where with this gauze the

Greens as -- because the

Greens as Bob Brown made

clear don't support any

offshore processing. The

drift of across to the right

of Tony Abbott on this matter

is intensely worrying for a

country that has prided

itself on a fair go. For

people, and which has been

built upon immigration and

not least asylum seekers. The

Greens will not be supporting

the government's legislation.

Like the Greens many in

Labor's left faction wanted

to revert to just onshore processing asylum claims.

They had promised a revolt

initially, in the end they

settled for a robust debate

in the caucus this morning.

How will they live with the decision in is the left going

to go along with it, are they

going to be openly critical

or play ball with the Gillard

government's decision? I

spoke to Doug Cameron, the

co-convener of the left

faction who tried to caucus

today to stop the change but

in the end was defeated by

the numbers. Thanks for

your time. Caucus has met and

has backed Cabinet's decision

here to push ahead with offshore processing. Do you

accept that decision in Yes,

I am bound by caucus rules

and party rules and the

caucus has made a decision

and I accept that decision. How difficult is that for

you? It's as difficult as it

has been for many MPs and

Senators over many years. You engage in the collective debate, it doesn't always go

your way. You did in the

caucus move to change what the Prime Minister put

forward and you had some

support there. Were you surprised you didn't have

more support? No I wasn't. I

think the support was good. I

don't want to get into all

the details in the caucus, it

is not my job or responsibility do that. But

the debate was a good debate.

I would describe it as robust

but respectful But, the left

of the party clearly didn't

act as one here in trying to

stop this happening. Well

that would have been - that

would have been a bit of a

miracle if the left had acted

as one. The left has not

normally acted at one. Are

you surprised on this issue

it doesn't see offshore processing as something it

should be resisting? Yeah,

but there is different views

and I think Christmas Island,

the tragedy at Christmas

Island, people are indicating

that's changed their views on

their outlook on this. So

that's understandable and

people are entitled for

different views. There is no

attempt to try and bind

people to a position. You

spoke pretty passionate ly

before the meeting about what

you would do with your own daughters if you were stuck

in Afghanistan. You said you

would have no hesitation

getting on a boat trying to

get somewhere like Australia.

What do you say now? You are

part of the government that

is going to press ahead now

with this poll sick of

sending them back -- policy

of sending them back to mal

ash yavenlt I have been very lucky that Australia accepted

me, much to the chagrin of a number of people but I have been fortunate I could come

here, many people are not

fortunate to be able to make

that decision and if they are

refugees what I said was that

if I had my two daughters

under the Taliban, where you

couldn't listen to a radio or

two girls, my two girl s

couldn't get educated I would do whatever it took and I

would have put them on a beat

and tried to get them a

decent -- put them on a boot

and tried to get them a

decent life. The issue for government and the whole

parliament, not just the

government, is to try and

make sure this debate is

focused on the humanity and

requirement to deal with it

in a humane way. How do you

justify within yourself being

part of a government that is

going to send asylum seekers

or wants to send asylum

seekers to Malaysia? Well it

is always a different thing

but when you sign -- a

difficult thing but when you

sign a pledge to act in a collective way and you put your position up and you don't win that position, then

you are bound by the

collective decision and

that's the position I'm in.

And I support the government's position on

this. So you support the policy now to send asylum

seekers to Malaysia? I

support the government's decision to do what it's

doing and I will continue to

work with the minister, as I did beforehand, to make sure

it is done in a humane way. That we meet our

international obligations,

that we meet our obligations

to individual asylum seekers

to be treated in a humane

way. And I think that's a

reasonable proposition. Has

Julia Gillard lunch lurched the party to the right on

this issue, as Kevin Rudd

warned night he was brought

down. I have got no comment

on watching the left to the

right. It was a debate within

the caucus, the caucus has

made a Democratic decision, I

am bound by that and that's

where I am at the moment. Has Julia Gillard let down the

left? I wouldn't argue that

anyone has let the left down.

The left has got its own

position to put and its own

arguments and I think the

left put the argument s

together strongly this

morning and unfortunately

that wasn't the majority of

the decision of the

caucus. And the actual

legislation you are yet to

see, so you don't know

whether that is going to allow a future government to send asylum seekers

anywhere? I don't know what

the legislation will do but

one thing that's clear, this whole debate that's taken

place, is that Nauru on its

own, the Coalition position

of Nauru locking people up,

throwing the key away, and

hoping that that will stop

the boats, is not a feezable

proposition. Thank

you. Thank you. Labor's

left faction co-convener

Senator Doug Cameron talking

us earlier. Stay with us

after the break our panel, Grahame Morris.

Welcome back, timing to

check in on the littest news

headlines. Here is -- latest

news headlines. Here is Mike. Prime Minister Julia

Gillard has appealed to the

Coalition to back changes to

migration laws to put beyond

legal doubt offshore

processing of asylum seekers

and the ability to make deals

with other countries. The

Gillard and Immigration

Minister Chris Bowen have

announced the government will

introduce migration law

changes to parliament next

week to provide some clarity

in the wake of a High Court

decision which put in doubt both the Malaysian deal and

other forms of offshow

processing. -- offshore pros,

she says amendments will

restore what Labor and

understood to be the third

country transfer provisions

of the my rate Act. The -- my

rate Act. They will need the

support of the Coalition to

get through both houses

because the Greens will

oppose it. Yvonne Goolagong has attributed Samantha

Stosur's win to the twink her

twinkle toes. She came the

first since Goolagong to win

a tennis Grand Slam today. She downed Serena Williams

6-2, 6-3. Federal Parliament

has paused to remember those

killed in the September 11

attacks. Prime Minister Julia Gillard reflected on the

lives lost during the attacks, including those of

ten Australians and also

commemorates the lives lost

during other terror attacks

in the decade since.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott

also paid his respects and

re-affirmed the importance of democratic pluralism. In the

meantime Prince Charles and the British Prime Minister

David Cameron have joined

bereaved relatives to mark

the 10th anniversary of

September 11 at an emotional ceremony in London. The Australian share market has

closed over 3% lower on

renewed concerns over the

eurozone debt crisis. The

falls follows speculation

Greece is close to defaulting

on its large debt, while

Germany is devising plans on

how to shield German banks. Financials, health care and

material stocks were hardest

hit. Gold stocks were among the only high point of impacts. In sport the

Wallabies have suffered a major Rugby World Cup blow

with scans revealing gun

winger Digby Ione has a

fracture thumb requiring

surgery. The injury appears likely to recall him out of the rest of the tournament. In the weather:

Mike thank you, time to

check in as we do each Monday

afternoon on the Essential

poll. Peter Lewis from Essential Media Communications joins us, the numbers you have go this week

for Labor are a little better

but still in trouble. That's

right. We have had a 2%

increase in primary vote

which is where it was a

fortnight ago. That improves

two party preferred a little

bit back to 56-44 which is a

change within the margin of

error but a change

nonetheless. And, when it

comes to Julia Gillard, she

is still struggling, still

going backwards in term s of

her own popularitiment We

have Tony Abbott now ahead as

preferred Prime Minister by

four points. On Julia Gillard's personal approval

rating the negative rating,

the dis approval is now very

high at 64%. 36% of those

strongly disapproving of her performance. Abbott also has

a very high dis approval

rating at 50% but in this two

horse race he is ahead. A

couple of specifics you have

asked about the asylum seeker

debate and whether people

support the idea of offshore

processing or not. I note the kneelson poll this morning

had majority favouring

onshore processing, not your poll though this afternoon? That's right, we

have only given people two

options I think Neilson gave

them through but the two

options being the process in

Australia or send overseas.

We have got a fairly clear

read which I think matches

the mood of the public as

well. 53 sent to another country, 36 processed in Australia. Strong support for

offshore processing by

Coalition voter, strong

support for onshore by Green

voters and Labor voters and

this is the problem for

Labor, 44, 44, split right

can you see some of that down the middle and I think

playing out today. Just

finally, the sleeper issue in

this parliament is the pokies

reform that Andrew Wilkie is demanding the government

pass. By I think it is May next year otherwise he is

threatening to pull the pin

on this minority government.

Have you asked about what people think on this

technology. That's right. pre-commitment

Strong and growing support

for that proposition. 67%

support just 25% oppose. 80%

of Labor voters, 78% of Green

voters and 59% of Coalition

voters support the Wilkie

proposal. Just not the

clubs. That's the only

problem there for Labor.

Thanks so much for that. We

will talk next week. Cheers. Time to welcome

the panel this afternoon. Joining us in Canberra

Grahame Morris, former

Liberal staffer and now with

Barton Deakin and Greg turn

bull a former Labor staffer

and former journalist. You

pointed out former journos

and former staffers, let's look at the asylum seeker

debate. The legislation that

Julia Gillard is talking

about and will introduce to

parliament next week, we are

told, is going to allow any government to choose where

what third country they send asylum seekers to. So that

will be Malaysia for this

government in the future the

Coalition might want to go

with Nauru. Should Tony

Abbott back that? Well yeah

it depends on the wording.

But why didn't the government

just put their commonsense

hat on and do the orthodox

and the first is to come up

with a piece of legislation

that says the minister should

have flexibility to do what

he likes. That's the first... That's pretty much

what this is about though,

isn't it? The next one you

would do is you would open

Nauru. The next one you would

open Manus. And then after

all of that is done and you

doubled the adomdation there,

then you might have -- accommodation there then you

might like at Malaysia. But

there is say huge chance now

the High Court if the Prime

Minister goes straight ta

Malaysia with a sort of Labor

people swap idea that he shas

got, that the High Court will

still find something

somewhere to justify knocking

it over again. I don't think

there is any doubt it will be

tested. Just think about it. If we were both political advisers and there are times

when you cut your losses. And

in this case I would have

thought for a week's

embarrassment and say look,

we accept Nauru, they would

have cut the ground under the opposition, where would the Opposition go if the

government said okay the High

Court have changed the rules

we have to go to Nauru. What

does the Opposition do then? They could say we are the ones leading this country

thank you very much,

Opposition #6789 That's a week's embarrass -- that's a

week's embarrassment. At the

moment we will have

bunfighting again. That's the

policy argument coming from the brassy to the government

and both sides Nauru will not

be a deterrent these days. People know you will end up

in Australia anyway, only a tougher Malaysian plan is

going to work. That is one piece of judgment. It might be wrong. It might be

wrong. But there are some

unknowns in any event,

Grahame, even on the scenario

you describe because the nah Nauru itself is legally up in the air following the High

Court decision and it too would need to be tested so

that is not necessarily the

solution but look I think the

High Court decision a week or

so ago played the engulfing particleance the government

into the rough and the --

parlance a government into

the rough. Getting it through

caucus is a minor

triumph What a disappointment

if she failed on that

front. Per position now is to

try to do what you call wedge

politics on Tony Abbott so

say she is saying we the

Labor Party are in favour of offshore processing, you are

in favour of offshore

processing this less slative

amendment will restore the

balance of power to the

executive to proceed with

that, put up or shut up and I

think that's going to be very interesting politics and I

think a no-brainer for Tony

Abbott he has got to support

it unless he wants to be the one preventing offshore processing. Then what? Then

Everyone will laugh. It with go straight to Malaysia.

cannot and will not work. The

High Court will find some

little treaty we signed with

south Wollongong or south

Hong Kong or something or

High Court to test it. If you other. That is is for the

change the Migration Act that

base bely gets around the

around the High Court High Court -- basically gets

decision. That was about the

Migration Act. Sort of except

Australia can never control

what anyone in Malaysia is

going to do. We can guide

Nauru, we can guide PNG. There is a huge difference. That's the point

though isn't it here, Labor

as I say, it is reversal of roles, it's Labor with a

tougher policy, Malaysia is a

much tougher policy than

Nauru. It doesn't work. It hasn't had a chance to work

yet but the point also I

heard Scott Morrison in a

interview with you David say that - and Tony Abbott, say

that Nauru is a proven

unfortunately that's looking success. And that's true but

look forward. The High Court backwards. You have got to

has changed a lot of this.

And what's also changed is this advise that the government's got from the

bureaucracy that says that

because so many, was it more

than 90% of those in Nauru end up in Australia

anyway. The ones found to be

refugees anyway. Exactly so

it is sending a signal that

is saying Nauru is a staging

post to Australia, come one,

come all. What did you make

of the left of Labor today?

They put up a fair bit of a

fight before the meeting, robust discussion we are told

in the meeting but now they

will go along with it. Is

that just how party politics

works. I think so and we saw

that with Doug Cameron saying

he is bound by the caucus rules and indeed he

is. Played the game well

though didn't he. He was out

there, arguing his case, he

has done it well for some

weeks, and then he tests it,

his colleagues knock him off

and he plays the political

game. Big tick for him. In

terms of the politics of

course having the grooeshs as

up -- the Greens upset as

they are is probably a good thing for the

government. Getting back to

whether this is a test for

Tony Abbott, whether to back

this change to the Migration Act or

not, if he refuses to back

this change, what are we

going to end up with? Boats

continue ing to arrive and

neither side willing to

embrace the others option

here and just blaming each other for every boat that

arrives? Well I think then

he would have even Dennis Shanahan saying he was

putting politics ahead of

good policy and people. I

don't - I mean, look I think

Tony Abbott would probably on

balance get some political

benefit from refusing to

support that amendment. But

at the higher end of analysis

I think he will be regarded

as someone intent on

spoiling. I think support it

but I would have a Malaysian

clause in there that says, if

you want to do Malaysia

first, this is invalid.

Just... So some demand that

must also include

Nauru? Yeah, that the is not beyond everyone's wit and in

the caucus room in the

cupboard somewhere must be a little thing called commonsense that is sitting there with a frown on its

face, saying, look at me,

look at me. It is just - if

they do the orthodox here, we

will have a much calmer country. But unfortunately we

have got some political egos here that will not wear a

couple of days embarrassment. And they are going to suffer politically. It is just

stupid. The polls today... Intentsly, I think -- intentionally if you think

about it the ought to ask

Samantha Stosur she seems to

have all the answers this

morning and she couldn't do

any worse. We will have solid

agreement on that. On the

polls the Nielsen poll today showing that Labor would

actually be in front under

Kevin Rudd. It keeps the Rudd

story alive for another day,

another few days. Is this

going to go anywhere or what's happened here have in

other options now being

knocked out Greg if there is

a change that has to now be

Kevin Rudd? I putting this in

the cat -- I put this in the

category of the perversity of

the media and opinion polls. If prime ministership was the

gold Logie sure, let's have a appointed on this baz and

then it would be relevant

that Kevin Rudd has one

million Twitter mates or

friends. But the fact is this

is basically where opinion

polls stop trying to measure

public opinion and start

trying to influence and influence the political process. But it is more than

that isn't it? Labor MPs who

are at the moment facing wipe

out at the election will lose

to pay attentions to these their seat and career, have

sort of polls? Be What we

have a poll that would Labor

do better under Samantha

Stosur? I think they will

but it will not happen. It is

not realistic is it? What do

you think Grahame? They would do better under Samantha

Stosur but I actually think

that the Prime Minister is

running third in a two-horse

race. How do you get yourself

into that position? And I

just cannot believe that the

Labor Party who can look at political grown-ups in the

one of their colleagues and

say, hey, we might survive

here, we might actually win, and they would rather sit

there and say, no, no, no, I

would rather flashed. Let's

get thrashed fellow s. This

poll that says they win under

Kevin Rudd beware. This is

political fool's gold that's

what it is. If they reach for

it it will evaporate the

moment they grabbed it. On

that note good to talk to you both. Thanks for that. After

the break we will be talking

to the US Ambassador Jeff

Bleich about the anniversary

of September 11.

Welcome back. The 10th

anniversary of the sent 11

attacks has seen some moving memorial services in New

York, Washington,

Pennsylvania and around the

world. Here in Canberra last

night we saw a national

memorial service attended by

the Prime Minister,

Opposition Leader, top military brass and of course

the US Ambassador Jeff

Bleich, he gave very heartfelt speech about that

day 10 years ago, and talked

about his old college room

mate who just made it out on

time. He spoke also about the

bonds that had been forged

that day, the way Americans

came together to help each

other and nations as well.

Australia and the yooirts of

course saw the invoking of

the ANZUS treaty from John

Howard immediately he was

there in Washington when the

Australia and the United attacks occurred. Since then

States have fought in

Afghanistan as well as Irish. Both arguably in the name of

the -- and Iraq. Both in the

name of the war against

terrorist. 10 days on since

September 11, a day that's

changed the world in so many

ways but particularly for the

people in the US. I spoke

earlier to the US Ambassador

Jeff Bleich. Thanks for

your time you gave a very

moving speech at the memorial service here in Canberra last

night. For those who missed

it tell us about your old

college room mate who just

got out of the World Trade

Center in time. My college

room mate Geoff Thompson

worked in the second tower,

and when he saw the first

tower had been hit by a

plane, despite the warnings

he started going downstairs.

And he asked others to follow

him but they were - they

stayed above and he was just

below when the second plane

hit. His tower and cut him

off from everyone so he

continues down the steps but

they were full of people,

both first responders coming

up and other people trying to

get out and when he emerged

from the building he was

barely out before the second tower collapsed behind him

and all of his - everyone he

worked with was lost. And at

that point he couldn't -

there were no cars that you

could drive in New York city

and none of the phone systems

were working so he walked

home for 18 miles. To get

back to his apartment and he

was covered in dust and blood

and when he finally got home

his girlfriend, who had been

watching the news, had been

mourning his death convinced

he had been lost and he

opened the door the two of

them looked at each other,

crying. She said "You look

like a ghost". And he asked

her to marry him. They then

lived a very different life

from that moment Yeah, no, no

he changed his lifestyle. He

had been in high finance and

also he is a musician so he

had been on the road a lot

and he married, became a -

they have a son, he started

teaching math in a small town

and really focusing on things

that matter. His family, his

community and educating

another generation. But you

know, I told his story

yesterday because I wanted to

get across that point which

is in the face of that kind

of violence and hatefulness

and fear and death, he did

what I think we have all done

which is look to the future,

look towards love. And then

as you said in the speech,

lived a life that so many were denied the opportunity

to who die ed in the attacks.

A 10 year anniversary has

been an opportunity to

reflect on the attacks

themselves and what's

happened since and also

perhaps even why they

happened. Do you have a better understanding now of

why the US was hit in the way

it was? You know, I think we

do. We will never be able to

make sense of that kind of

hatefulness and the belief

that in order to advance your political views, whatever

those views are, that you

would start killing innocent

people or just going about

their days, mums and dad s

and sons and daughters just

going to work. But no-one

will ever make sense of that

kind of terrorist attack. But

I think there was a greater

understanding of the sort of

sishtiondz that would

circumstances that would generate that, the -- the

generate that, the challenges

in other countries and the

rise of hateful thinking and

also the strong networks that

have developed with real

wealth and real capacity to

carry out that kind of an

attack. So I think we learn

something about ourselves, we

learn something about society

and we started reaching out

more to break down these

misunderstandings but we also

learnt how to defend

ourselves better. It also, everyone reacted difficultly

to the September 11 attacks

but -- differently to the

September 11 attacks but are

you able to say how they

affected the American psyche

as a whole in the way it

seized the world? Obviously

are you sadder and that will

never go away. It is one of

those deep scars on a

national psyche but I think

we are also more resilient

and we have more resolve than

we did before. I think when

you are attacked because of

your values, because people

don't like the fact that you

have a type of society that

has had this kind of impact

and influence around the world, and they want to

attack those values, it makes

you cherish those values more

and want to reinforce them

and so I think we have

devoted much more of

ourselves to service.

Yesterday was way day of

service and -- was a day of

service and people have been

giving more to charity, we have given more to other

communities, we have reinvigorated our alliances, we have formed new partnerships with other

countries in the world. We

have built networks to communicate better. The

social media I think is a

reflection of an impulse to

connect more with the world.

And I think that's been as

over the course of 10 years

you see that that has been

the movement, that has been the direction we have taken.

There have obviously been

some great successes for the

United States in the 10 years

since, the fact there hasn't

been another attack on

American soil, the fact that

you have got Osama bin Laden

and a number of other senior al-Qaeda figures but do you

acknowledge there has been

mistakes as well in fighting

terror #i678? Certainly we

are not -- terrorism. Certainly and we

are not perfect and this has

been a circumstance that

no-one has ever faced before

so we made the best judgments

we could at the time. Some of

them in retrospect weren't

the right calls. Is Iraq the

biggest one of those? As the

President has said, he would

not have gone into Iraq at that time because he believed

that we needed to stay

focused on Afghanistan. But

once we went forward I think

we had to make the right

choices. And over time those choices have shifted. Now if

you like at Iraq they don't

have Saddam Hussein, we have

brought our combat forces

home, I think history will

judge whether or not Iraq is

better for that experience.

But I think broadly speaking

what we have done is focused

on how do you do two things,

one is stop the terrorists

who are committed to terror,

and how do you create a world

in which you have more

friends and fewer enemies and

that sort of hateful ideology

that doesn't find any

recruits. Afghanistan is a war that is still being

fought 10 years on, there

aren't so many - there isn't

so much of an kwaefd presence

there now -- an al-Qaeda

presence there now where is

the biggest threat from the US coming from today? Terrorism remains a very significant threat and

it is al-Qaeda has many

different forms and there is

Al Shabab and LE text and

al-Qaeda in the arraignan

peninsula. Terrorist --

Arabian peninsula. Terrorist

networks have not disappear

ed and we need to remain very

vigilant about them. That is

- but if you look at the -

what we are doing in

Afghanistan, part of it was

to eliminate a breeding

ground for terror. Part of it

ha was to allow it was to

allow that country to avoid

falling back into a situation

where they would be a target

for terror. And a breeding

ground for it and that means addressing some of the

challenges there, making sure

there is greater equality,

greater opportunity, greater freedom and that's what we

are working in terms of governance and development in

that country. Just finally,

when do these memorials stop?

We are presumably not going

to see what we saw over the

last 24 hours on the 11th and

12th anniversary of September

11 but is there an appetite to continue remembering in

this way? I won't predict how future generations behave but

what I will say is take great

comfort on Anzac Day here in

Australia, when we walk up to

the steps of the war

memorial, there are tens of

thousands of people who wake

up before dawn and walk the

streets for - in memory of

people who died long before

they were ever born. And I

think that's a tribute to

this country. And I think the

fact that we remember and

that we choose to serve on

that day in the memory of others is a great testament

to us as well. Thank you.

Thanks David. Ambassador

bleesh speaking to us a short

time ago and when the

government had thought it had

got through a day without the

Craig Thomson matter rearing

its head the NSW have

announced a investigation

into the health services

union. We will stay more on

that. After the break the

very latest Sky News. Live Captioning by Ai-Media