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) the AFL. The club says its

financial situation has

improved by $2.5 million in

the past year bud dwindling

crowd numbers are putting the

club. Just a little over 16

thrtion people attended

port's -- 16,000 people

game against Fremantle. attended Port's recent home

Tomorrow's forecast:

Sky News. PM Agenda is You are with News Day on

moments away. Here is David

Spears. Thank you. After the

break on PM Agenda we will be

talking to Professor Ross

Garnaut about his final

report handed down today, the

Garnaut review 2011 has

dominated Parliament this

afternoon. In fact quite an extraordinary end of Question

Time there with the speaker

of the House nearly losing

his job. We will explain what happened there. We will also

be looking of course at the

other big news today, the sad

deaths of two more Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. One

of them shot by an Afghan

National Army colleague. What

is that going to mean for the

situation, the trust, between

Australian and Afghan forces

on the ground there? We will

be talking to retired Major

General Jim Molan about that.

And the live cattle trade,

the government has banned or suspended at least live

exports to 11 facilities in

Indonesia. Has it gone far

enough? We will look at that

right after the break. right after the break.

clerpd clerpd captioned by Ai-Media This program will be live

This is PM Agenda.

Welcome to the program. Australia's role in

Afghanistan is once again

under question after the

death of two more soldiers

there. One of them,

25-year-old Lance Corporal

Andrew Jones was killed by an

Afghan national army recruit he was mentoring and

training. The other,

27-year-old lieu tenant

Marcus Shaun case died when a

Chinook helicopter crashed

but it is the first of these

Afghan National Army soldier deaths, the betrayal of an

that has caused real concern

today about possible Taliban

infiltration and the erosion

of trust between the two

force s who are supposed to

be working side-by-side. Both the defence force chief Angus Houston and the Prime Minister Julia Gillard were

at pains today to stress the

importance of trust between

the two forces and the importance importance of

this training and mentoring

continuing. They will be

experiencing a myriad of

emotions, grief and anger foremost amongst them. But I

know that they will also want to re-affirm their commitment

to the Afghan partners with

whom they do enjoy a productive, trusting and

close relationship. But I

would be asking people that

this -- at this really

difficult time to think about

the full breadth of what we are doing in Afghanistan.

Coming up later in the

program, we will look at how

this incident is going to

impact on the level of trust

between the two forces, what

it's going how it's going to

be received among the Australian forces in

Afghanistan. We will be be

joined by former commander

MajorEn general retire ed Jim

Molan. It doesn't stop the

momentum in the carbon tax debate gathering further

steam. Today the government's

key climate change adviser

Professor Ross Garnaut handed

down his final report. The

Garnaut review 2011 at the

National Press Club. In it he

calls for a carbon price to

be introduced now saying it

wouldn't put Australia out of

step with the rest of the

world. The economist s says

the independent body should

determine what the carbon price will be, what the

target should be for cutting

Australian emissions and how

emissions intensive trade

exposed ind I centre I should

be -- industries should be

compensated but it was this

line in the report which

caught Tony Abbott's eye in

particular. He said "Every

dollar of revenue for carbon

pricing is collected from

people. In the end mostly

households, ordinary

Australians, most of the

costs will eventually be

passed on to ordinary

Australians". Tony Abbott

seized on that line saying it

will not fit with the government's argument that

only the top 1,000 companies

would be forced to pay this

Opposition Leader didn't carbon tax. What the

general household mention however is the

compensation that Ross

Garnaut also recommended in

this report. In fact he is

calling for two rounds of

staged tax cuts targeting low

and middle income earners,

the government has already

suggested and promised it will be offering more than

half the revenue raised from

a carbon tax in household assistance. The Prime

Minister also pointed to the

reality in this report that

the Tony Abbott direct action

approach also comes under some criticism from Ross

Garnaut as she pointed out to

the House. Using direct

action measures to achieve a

similar amount of emissions

reduction would raise costs

much more than carbon pricing

but would not raise the

revenue to offset or reduce

the costs in any of these

ways. The costs might be covered by Budgetary

expenditure but this affects

who pays the costs not

whether the costs are there.

Other people's taxes have to

rise to pay for extend tours

under direct action. --

expenditures under direction action. Ross Garnaut will now

embark on a national tour to

explain his report and

advocate a carbon price, but

in his speech today at the

National Press Club he left

little doubt what he think s

about the political

opposition to the carbon tax

. He labelled it ignorant and

the nature of this debate

ill-informed and noisy. I spoke to Professor Ross

Garnaut after his press club

address about this attack on

the opponents of a carbon

price and just why he thinks Australia needs a carbon tax

now. He Professor Garnaut

thank you for your time. You

spoke today about truck loads

of misinformation in this

debate and a political debate

that's less civilised,

noisier, and more ignorant

than those before it. Are you

directing this criticism

particularly at Tony Abbott

and have you gone beyond your

role as an independent

adviser here? No, I'm not

particular ly directing those

comments to Tony Abbott. A

lot of people have been

participating in this debate

in slogans, in misinformation. Is he one of

them? It goes well beyond

that. The I don't want to

name individuals but I think

we are all aware of the

shortcomings of this public

decision. I'm - I was asked

to be an independent adviser,

to give my independent views,

my terms of reference require

me to give my independent

judgment. So I had to tell

the truth and I have told it

exactly as I saw it. It might

have been politically

convenient including for the

government if I pulled some

punches, but I thought my responsibility to the Australian community was to

tell the truth. But some of

what you said today is

clearly a political attack.

It might have political

implications but I don't see

it is a political attack. In

fact one of the things I said

today is there no reason why

carbon pricing should be a partisan political issue.

There is no reason why conservatives shouldn't

support carbon pricing. In

fact the conservative government's of Europe are

strong supporters of carbon

pricing, Angela Merkel in

Germany, David Cameron in the

UK. And all conservative leaders since Margaret

Thatcher led the way quite

some team ago. So I am not

taking up support for carbon

pricing - I'm not taking up support against the conservative side, in fact

I'm on the conservative side in majority global conservative opinion. I'm

saying the same things that I

was saying when I was saying

the same things as the leadership of the Liberal

Party just a couple of years

ago. They are now saying that Australia shouldn't get ahead

of the rest of the world and

while you spoke today about

the steps that countries like

China and the United States

are taking they are not

putting a tax on carbon. And the proposal is for Australia

to do that. Why should we put

a tax on carbon before those

big emitters do? Two points there. You measure whether

you are getting ahead of the

world by looking at what we

are doing to reduce emissions compared with other

countries. I have suggested

the guidelines for the new

independent climate change

commission in setting targets

should try to position

Australia in the middle of

developed countries. Well-being in the middle is

not getting ahead of the

world. It will be getting

ahead of where we are now

because we are a drag at the

moment. But I suggest that the climate change commission

should put us in the middle

of developed countries. Now

some countries are choosing

to reduce emissions in

expensive ways. China is

putting a whole lot of

regulatory measures in place,

it's taking a whole lot of

arbitrary actions to reduce

emissions and the US, the

cabinet of the US knows very

well it will be cheaper to

reduce emission s with an economy-wide carbon price

through an emissions trading

scheme. It can't go that way

at the moment and so it is

doing things in other ways

that the cabinet of the

United States knows there is

more expensive. If we have to

reduce emissions by on

average the same as other developed countries we should

try to do it in the cheapest

possible way. Otherwise there

is a burden on the Australian

people that's unnecessary. We

don't have to do things in a

way that places more burdens

on Australians just because

China and America are placing

burdens on their people. But

are those burdens and the

more expensive approach you

are talking about looking at

a very longer term horizon

than the short-term argument that's been played out now?

No, those burdens are being

carried right now in China

and the US. For some time it

has been impossible to get a

coal-fired power station going in the United States.

Now that imposes a cost. They

have got to use the next

cheapest form of power. But

when you do it through regulatory measures you don't

find the cheapest option, you

find the option that the regulators have

identified. But the reality

is while you might say they

are more expensive ways to do

it, our exporters, our trade

disadvantage won't they to exposed emitters will be at a

those in China and the US? If

China is reducing emissions

through regulatory means that

increases the cost on China,

including on users of electricity who compete with

ours, that exceeds the burden

that will be carried under a

carbon price here. For

example China divides its

high emitting industries like

cement, steel, aluminium,

into highly emissions

intensive and excessively emissions intensive. It

raises the electricity price

to what the bureaucrats say

are highly emissions

intensive. It raises it a lot

more. Something like $39 a

tonne of carbon dioxide for

those that judges are

exceptionively emission s

intensive. -- excessively emissions intensive. That

raises their costs. China to

reduce energy demand and

emissions in such industries

as steel, aluminium and

cement have denied the value

added tax rebate for exports

that go to all other

exporters. In Australia when

we export aluminium, the

aluminium exporter gets a

rebade for all the value

added tax, for all inputs that have gone into production, it gets that

rebate ed. In China they

don't whereas other Chinese

exporters they do. So they

pay the cost in a lot of

different ways. If you do it

through regulatory means will

add up to a higher cost than

through using market

mechanisms. Can I turn to the

question of compensation. The

government looks like it will

go 52% compensation of the

revenue raised for

households, some 46% for

industry and 2% or

thereabouts for encouraging new renewable energies. Is

that about the right mix? It

is not very difficult from

what I have -- different from

what I is said. There is a

lot of details within those categories that require a lot

more work. To start with it

is broadly the right mix. I

add a little bit more to

households but not a lot

more. For the first three

years what I suggest were

trade exposed is broadly what

was there in the CPRS before

the global financial crisis buffer so there won't be a

huge difference there. A key

sticking point is going to be

the coal fired power

generators, do they de serve

compensation? Well, depends

what you mean by" deserve". I

think what one needs to look

at is first of all whether it

will be helpful to the

efficient operation of the

Australian economy simply to

give them cash, give them

compensation because the

rules have changed. I don't

think there is any case for

that.le I think there is a

case for doing certain things

to make 100% sure that there

is no hiccup in electricity

security as we move forward.

But the reason for doing that

is an energy security reason

not compensation for loss of

asset value. When you use the

word "Deserve" actually that

is a good word because the

main reasons for giving more

than what's necessary for

energy security would be

equity reasons, that it is

somehow unfair, and then the

question is on equity grounds

is that more important use of

money than the equity grounds

for giving tax credits

and... And you don't think it

necessary... Higher skoshl security payments -- social security payments to

Australians who are paying

the higher electricity price

s that electricity generators

are passing on. I don't think

it qualification on the

equity grounds, there is

limited support along the

lines for my recommendations

for energy security. A final

question, you put a lot of

work of course in the 2008

report only to see the CPRS

shelved by Kevin Rudd. Given

the sort of political climate

you have described today are

you any more confident that

we are going to see a price

on carbon this time? This

sort of process, you are not

there till you are there. But

I do sit there in the

multi-party committee, I can

say that it's a very

constructive process. A

really solid discussion of

real issues, detailed

discussion of real issues,

and that gives me some hope. You think they will

reach a deal? I don't want

to speculate on that but I

can say there is really constructive serious

discussion of real issues.

Professor Ross Garnaut thank

you. Good David. Is this

report going to change this

debate over the carbon tax?

We will be joined by Malcolm

the break. Farr and Phil Coorey after

the break.

Okay, our panel shortly

first we will check in on the latest news headlines with Vannessa.

A man-hunt is under way for

a rogue Afghan army soldier

who shot dead an Australian

comrade who was on guard duty

in Afghanistan. Lance

corporal Andrew Jones who was

25 was at a patrol base when

he was shot by an Afghan

National Army soldier who was

sharing guard duties with

him. In what's been described

as a very bad day for our

forces another soldier was

killed in a Chinook

helicopter crash. He has been

identified as 27-year-old

Lieutenant Marcus Shaun Case. Live livestock exports will

be suspended. Joe Ludwig has

confirmed. He said he was establishing an independent

review to look at the whole supply chain of Australian cattle exports to Indonesia

and reserve the right to add

more abattoirs to the list of

banned facilities, Senator

Ludwig also announced the

suspension of a type of

animal restraint box used in

live exports. The government's key climate change adviser has recommended that polluters

pay a carbon price of $26 a

tonne, raising $11.5 billion

in the first year of a carbon

tax. In his final climate

report, Professor Ross

Garnaut says 55% of the

revenues should go to

households and 35% to the

polluting businesses as

compensation. The remainder

will go towards innovation

and carbon farming which will

be offset by existing

spending. South African

President zum has visited

Muammar Gaddafi in Tripoli to

try to broker a peace deal

just hours after NATO

Secretary-General said the

Libyan leaders reign of

terror was coming to an end.

Meanwhile in Rome 8 army

officers including five

generals appeared at a news conference saying they were

part of a group of up to 120

military official s and

soldiers who defected from

Gaddafi in recent days. And

in sport Paramatta full back

Jarryd Haynes says he won't

let State of Origin

aspiration s interfere in his

club form. They the Dragons

thrashed Paramatta, and the

prop Michael Weymann say s

they will be much tougher to beat this time around. The weather:

Thank you very much. Let's

go to the panel. Phil Coorey from the 'Sydney Morning

Herald' and Malcolm Farr from Thank you for

joining me. A lot has

start with Afghanistan happened today. I want to

though, very sad news and we

are getting used to talking

about too many Australian

soldier s who have died but

one of them today the first

time an Australian soldier at

the very least has been shot

by an Afghan National Army

soldier, they are training

and mentoring. How

significant is this Malcolm and what impact is it going

to have do you think on the

Australian forces over

there? Well, I think over

there they will have a much

better idea of the

relationship of the Afghan

forces than we would here

which might be a problem

because I think a number of

Australians are thinking well

look if Afghan soldiers are

shoot ing our soldiers and we

are try ing to shoot other

other Afghans why not let all

the Afghans shoot each other

and our 20-year-old boys will

not be killed in the process.

So I think the government and

the opposition have got a big

task a head to convince those people that we should be

there, we should be there

prepared to see the sacrifice

of our young men, and that

this was one quite rare,

one-off incident. Because the

reality is, Phil, that unless

you train up these Afghan

National Army and the Afghan

police, there is no point

being there. It is crucial

that they be trained to take

over security. That's the

reason they sight for staying

there, for how many more

years bin Laden is gone,

al-Qaeda has moved elsewhere

so the argument is if you

don't tranan Afghan army

al-Qaeda will move when they

leave. Possibly, possibly not

but this won't help the

argument at all and Gillard

and Abbott acknowledge that

today there will be a PR

problem with this one because

people are already asking why

are we still there. What's

the end game and now they are

taking pops at urguys and these are the people meant to

be helping and I think this

will probably resonate out

there a lot more than some of

the other deaths for that

very reason. Bob Brown was

again today stepping up his

calls for a withdrawal. Let's

move on because it was a lot

going down today as I said

Ross Garnaut's final report,

Phil does it tell us anything

we didn't know? Will it

change the debate at

all? Look I don't know how

much influence he has any

more on the process. Certainly they are some way advanced in the negotiations

amongst themselves the Green

and government and Independents, were they to

use some of this information

like you suggested a $26 starting price which sounds

about where they will fall

anyhow, if the Greens can be

convinced. Just what he recommended last time around. Basically more

reaffirmation of the way the

government... It struck me he

used his speech today to

really drive at the opponents

of a carbon tax. He used

words like ignorant.

Ill-informed, a pre reform

style political culture. This

was a pretty heavy political

speech? The government

shackled by this multi-party

love fest - I am not sure

there is that much love going

on. No lurve. But Garnaut

without all the aaggression you can imagine that ministers would like to do

and he pinged a lot of the

arguments along the way. He

responded to them. But more

importantly he's returned to

general conversation the idea

that households are going to

be compensate ed. This just

disappeared allowing the

field open for Tony Abbott to

just call this toxic tax. I'm

sure there are people out there who think that were it

to come in that their payroll

will get an Canberra carbon

tax deduction from it. They

don't quite understand, the

government will be hoping

this has changed the

conversation a little so they

can be talking more about

compensation. Now, Garnaut

said the compensation should

cut out at an income of

$80,000 a year for a single

person. And I was in jest

thinking, one way think the

opposition should cut out at

$52.5 million. 150 grand. But

the reality is Ross Garnaut

says in the report households

will have to pay this.

Perhaps not directly but

prices will go up. Well, no,

he did say that and then - you know the sort of eight

words where he said that the

households will have to bear

the full brunt then the 8,000

words about say ing how they

would be comb pin stated for

that and guess which --

compensated for that and

guess which words the

opposition picked up on. Been

while the debate today was

about live cattle exports,

those horrific pictures on

'Four Corners' last night of

the slaughter of cattle in a

number of abattoirs in

Indonesia, now Joe Ludwig the

agricultural minister today announced a suspension

relating to 11 facilities,

here he was. The last thing

any of us would want to see

is you feel that you have been compromised in your

ability to discharge your

office by the vote that has

just been taken. Whatever we

on this side of the House

think of a particular

decision that you might have

just made we do have deep and

abiding confidence in your

ability to run this House Mr

Speaker. The government has continuing confidence in you

as the speaker of this

Parliament. That's obviously

not Joe Ludwig. That's as you

may have noticed the Prime Minister and the Opposition

Leader there talking about an

issue on the confidence for

the speaker. We will get to

that in a minute. But as I

said Joe Ludwig suspending

exports and announcing a

review. Now, a lot of those

in Parliament the Greens and

the number of Independents

say you have got to ban live exports all together. Was

this a sensible middle ground

from the government today? I don't think they had much

choice, the back bench anger

was such that they clearly

wanted more than just a

review which he announced

last night. I don't think he

had a choice but to do this

and MPs on both sides are

saying today they are getting

white hot reaction from the

electoral offices today from

people outraged and bombarded

with emaims and so forth --

emails and phone calls to do something. There is a clam

your out there. The footage set people off. So they had

to do something more than

have an enquiry and they are

not getting any argment from

the Coalition either. There

are a handful of Labor MPs

who want to go further. They

want to go further and ban

the whole thing. Ala the

Greens and Xenophon. That's

unclear how it will happen. It will be a cost to the industry no doubt about

that. Their counter argument

is look stop sending they

critters to Indonesia, build

abattoir s up the north and

send them there. Warren Truss

argues that has all sorts of

limbations because it is seasonal because of the

weather and you can't find

labour up there and they

don't have refrigeration. And

many countries for live

cattle imports. It is huge

and to ignore that will be

totally ridiculous and

extremely damaging to the Australian livestock industry. There has got to be

a middle course. Banning live exports completely is not

that middle course. Warren

Truss made the point if you

have a problem like this you

fix the problem not end the

whole system of live

exports. They ban for a year

or two live exports to Egypt

while a problem was being

fixed. The Howard Government

did that, so this isn't quite

on that scale, they are not

banning them to Indonesia per

se just to 11 abattoirs in

Indonesia. So it is a lesser

measure than Howard undertook

in 2006. Also today Tony

Abbott announced after a -

well, a quite robust party

room debate I'm told on

cigarette packets that the

Coalition will back the plain

packaging of cigarettes, they

will move amendments but they

are not going to die over

this, in the end they will

back it. Is that a back down

from Tony Abbott or not? He

doesn't believe it is of

course, he said the opposition had no position

because it wanted to see the

legislation. Well apparently

seeing the legislation does

not actually necessary at

this stage. But the Nationals

have made it clear they

didn't support it. I think it

is a very sensible - It was

pragmatic politics. Look,

smoking related diseases kill

more people than AIDS every

year. And that argument was

going to be more powerful

than this thing over property

rights.... He was on a hiding

to nothing politically and it

was going to go through the Parliament regardless what he

did because the five cross-benchers were going to

support it and a few Lyns

were going to abstain or

cross the floor and he was

going to get knocked around

for the next six weeks

waiting for the legislation

and probably reach this same

conclusion anyhow. So yes

it's a back down but it is

worth it because it to knock

it off now rather than gep

wiped around for another six weeks. Final issue the

speaker Harry Jenkins nearly

lost his job at the end of

Question Time today. There

was a motion Phil which was to... Throw out Bob

Baldwin. And the motion was

to support the speaker's

ruling, which... Named an MP. The Coalition then was

voting against the speaker's

ruling, Rob Oakeshott sided

with the Coalition, and therefore the House - The

House was voting against the

speaker's ruling. That would

northerly mean the speaker

goes -- normally mean the

speaker goes. Which happened

in 1972 or whenever it

was. '75. Jim Coate. And the speaker flagged after

Question Time I will make my

position clear and we heard Tony Abbott jump up and say

woah, woah, please don't go,

despite differences. Knew

paradigm you can change

anything. People can come in

and sweet talk. The trouble

is what would have happen had

Jenkins resigned as Labor

speaker he would have gone

back to the Labor backbench

and sure as eggs Labor and

the endz would have voted

Peter Slipper to be the new

speaker so Labor would have

gained wund and - two

because Labor would have gain

ed one and Abbott would have

lost one. It would have been

a two number swing in the

house of Reps, so so one

minority would have been a

three minority and when the

normal speaker was in the

chair and suddenly they

immediately moved to realised that was so he

confidence in the speaker and

said stay. I also don't think

they wanted - on an issue

like that - they were noisy, I mean, hopefully there will

be a message sent through to

some of those opposition back

- and government backbenchers thes of people that, you would never go to

to seek their opinion because

they are just jibbers but

during Question Time they

make all this noise, disrupt proceedings, maybe they will get the mentionage they

should belt up. Maybe Harry

should throw them out more

often. He let's aI fair bit

go. Raise the question, is

Harry Jenkins doing a good

job? He is hot and cold I

find. Some days he let's all

hell break loose and it is

like a bad umpire at a footy

game. Players get

frustrated. We would only

have three people left in the

chamber. We sit above his

head, we are experts where we sit. He doesn't take our advice. He is no better or no

worse. But I think sometimes

he let it is go too much and

he is too lenient and this

sort of invites the stuff on

himself sometime. A tough job though, no doubt about that.

He will be there in the chair

again tomorrow and they will

be there watching. Looking

forward to that. Thapg thanks

for that. Pleasure. Inspect after the break we will have

a closer look at the death of

these two Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. Stay with us.

Welcome back - as we

mentioned earlier the death

of two Australian soldiers in

Afghanistan over the last 24

hours has revived debate

about Australia's role in

that war. And in particular

the fact that an Afghan

National Army soldier was

responsible for one of those

deaths shooting 25-year-old lance corporal andue Jones at

a patrol base in the Chora

Valley has raised questions

about the level of trust

between Australian and Afghan

impact on those Australian forces. How is this going to

forces on the ground? I

spoke a little earlier to retired Major General Jim

Molan who was the commander

of multi-national forces or

the chief of operations of

the multi-national forces

during the Iraq war. Thank

you for your time. There are

a few possibilities about why

this Afghan National Army soldier shot the Australian soldier, what are there and

how concerned are you that he

might have been a Taliban

plant? It's always possible

that he was a Taliban plant

but I think it's less than

likely because he has chosen,

if after a number of years in the Afghan National Army, he

is a Taliban plant he has

chosen a very small occasion

to do us harm. And why didn't

he wait till a VIP visited or 10 soldiers were together and then do something. The possibility is still there.

He may also have been just a

traumatised individual. This

is a society 30 years of

conflicts, the most appalling

conflict, there must be a

higher proportion of totally

traumatised people, the third

alternative is he has had an

- he has had an accidental discharge of his weapon and

it has been on automatic and

he has killed the soldier and

run off in panic. That's a small problemiality, the

other two had more it

probability. The other two

are more likely. This isn't

the first time it has

happened where an ANA soldier

has shot and kill ed a soldier, the first

Australian. But with American

soldiers who have been killed

is it always easy to answer

that question why they did

it, to find out whether they are a Taliban plant or whether it does something

else. Will we ever know

exactly why this happened? This is the problem

and this goes to the trust

that must exist between the Afghan National Army and the

mentors, the train er, the

allies, it has happens to the

Brits and Americans,

invariably the person who

does it is killed so you don't know why it

occurred. This guy got away. This guy got away. Is there any chance of getting him do you think? I think

there is a fair chance of

getting him but it won't

probably tell us much because

you can't then say, if one is

a Taliban plant then others

will be a Taliban plant. The

beauty of our soldiers is I

think that they know that for

us to be successful we have

got to trust the Afghan

National Army. Do we trust,

do the soldiers on the ground

trust them? Those that I

have spoken to when I was

this question mark in their last there, there is always

mind about how much they

should be trusting these

guys. This is hardly going to

help is it? No it's not going

to help but it is happened to

other armies in the past, and you don't - we don't have the luxury of pulling back.

We have got to trust. And

this is not just this war,

every war has been the same.

You look at our allies

different cultures working

together, it is all about

trust and it goes to the risk

that is in a soldier's life

every sect of his day. --

second of his day. We

shouldn't of course forget

the other sad death of this

officer in the Chinook crash

as well overnight. What's

this going to do to the

aviation core over there? We

don't know what caused the

crash. Whether it was a

mechanical failure or whether

the aircraft was shot down

but our arm aviators over

there, they are in combat all

the time. They are in combat

to a similar extent to the special forces or mentors,

they do it on a little bit

quite er base because they

are back working with the

extraordinary record over Americans. They have an

there and they will soldier

on through this. We only have

two aircraft over there, we

have to replace the aircraft

I assume to make it a viable

unit and that will occur

are not cheap though are fairly fast I imagine. They

they? They are not cheap but

these are good machines - They are a workhorse over

there? They are used all the

time. Particularly in the

high altitude stuff and our combat aviators are doing a mighty job over

there. Another very sad day

but thank you for sharing your thoughts with us

today. Thank you. We will

probably have more on that tomorrow of course as the reaction continues to these two deaths, for now we are

out of time. Stay with us,

the late est news is next. Live Captioning by Ai-Media