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.
Insiders -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

(generated from captions) Get it off! At last, I have a dolphin. the Yodelling Dolphin of Kirkwall. But Sire, I don't think this is the terrifying beast of legend. It's a bit small to be We're near Kirkwall, aren't we? Don't be silly, It has to be. Oh yeah. Near Kirkwall, yes. Yes, that is a dolphin, yes. And that's a dolphin, isn't it? of Kirkwall. So, it must be the Yodelling Dolphin if it's got my ear. Now open its mouth and see My darling Guinevere, 'tis I thing your loving heart desires. and I have brought you the very Oh, how wonderful! Let me hear it sing. Righty dokey. (Squeaks) But it's not yodelling. Ha ha ha! It will do, I'm sure. its eye bulge. Stop it! You're making (Squeaks) That's nothing. Watch this. Music. So much music! This could get ugly. had a great idea. Hey, dolphin. I've just Let's not have a fight. SQUEAK AAH! My ear! Oh not again! Closed Captions by CSI This Program Is Captioned Live.

This Program is Captioned Live.

investigato Good morning, human rights

investigators in Libya say documents

uncovered in the capital Tripoli

close co-operation between the CIA, uncovered in the capital Tripoli show

the British Intelligence

the British Intelligence Agency MI6


and the Gaddafi regime. The group Human

correspondence shows that British Human Rights Watch says the

Intelligence officers gave the

information about Libyan dissidents. Intelligence officers gave the regime

Chilean rescuers have begun

recovering the bodies of 21 people

killed after their plane went down

the Pacific ocean. The military killed after their plane went down in

crashed after two attempts at the Pacific ocean. The military plane

on the Juan Fernandez islands during crashed after two attempts at landing

poor weather. Four bodies have been

recovered. But they are yet to be

identified. The United Nations is

warning that the famine in Somalia

warning that the famine in Somalia is likely to worsen in

A report from the UN office for the likely to worsen in the coming days.


coordination of humanitarian affairs,

says that almost all regions in the

countries south could face famine. Tens of thousands of Somalis have Ten

already been forced to seek

already been forced to seek food and

shelter in refugee camps And

Australia's Sally Pearson has leapt to

to victory at the World

to victory at the World Athletics

Championships winning gold in the

Championships winning gold in the 100

metres hurdles. Pearson lived up to

all the hype setting

all the hype setting a new

championship record in a

run. Meanwhile Jamaican Usain Bolt championship record in a breathtaking

made amends for his false start in

the 100 metres final metres title with the fourth fastest the 100 metres final taking the 200

time in history. Stay tuned now for

Insiders with Barry Cassidy.

This Program is Captioned


Good morning, welcome to Inciders. The Federal

Government is in a crisis of

its own miking this weekend

political solution to the because it set out to find a

asylum seekers issue and failed miserably. The High Court found the Government's novel

agreement with Malaysia is

illegal and there's now a question mark over the whole

concept of offshore processing.

On top of the Craig Thomson

scandal the High Court decision

was a savage blow going to the

Government's competence and

judgment and it set off a media

frenzy about the future of the

Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

First to the fresh crisis facing the Gillard Government tonight. The Government's

asylum seeker swap with

Malaysia has imploded. Sunk by

the High Court. One back

bencher called the decision

catastrophic. Congratulations

to the High Court for standing

up for humanitarian principles

and ruling that it was not

appropriate to send un accompanied children to

Malaysia. Nobody expected the

High Court to do this. This was

not our legal advice. The High

Court's decision basically

turns on its head the

understanding of the law in

this country. Blame is being

sprayed in all directions. The

judges, the Solicitor-General. The Prime Minister's looking for someone

to blame over her failed Malaysian solution. She should

be looking in the mirror, not

at Justice French, not at

anyone else. I believe that it

represents a missed opportunity. The High Court's

decision will send a signal

that may see a flood of boats.

It won't be members of the

High Court that take the phone

call that Chris Bowen had to

take after a boat crashed into

the rocks at Christmas

Island. But as in sport, bagging the ref might make you

feel better but it doesn't

change anything.

This decision has potential

ramifications not only with our

arrangement with Malaysia but

for offshore processing more generally. Even in locations

where offshore processing has

been conducted in the

past. Within this particular region probably only New

Zealand clearly would meet all

of the criteria that the court

has identified. They have no

where to turn and no-one to

blame other than tlems

absolutely nothing in themselves. There is

yesterday's judgment that would

call into question the

suitability of Nauru. How

embarrassing would that be?

That would be an enormous climb

down. Yes, it would be a

humiliating backdown. I'm not

ruling anything in or out in

terms of our response. They

tried Timor, that was the first

option. And that failed. And

then Malaysia. And that's

failed. And Mr Speaker, it should be forever remembered

that the Labor Party in

Australia was the party that

wanted to send young children

by themselves to malaise -

Malaysia. Move away from those

policies, they're expensive,

harmful and ill legal. Human

beings are not football carts,

you don't swap them. The Government is left

looking silly. The Government

has just completely bungled

this unbelievably. This is

typical of a government that

just can't get anything

right. With whether it be pink

batts, school halls, live

cattle exports. It's just

another debacle. Yet another

competent minister as part of

an incompetent cabinet run by

an incompetent prime minister.

The easy option would be to

resign. The only thing that

would happen if I resigned is

my quality of life would go

up. We have a government

clearly in control of

government. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Has anyone approached you about

stepping down? No. I think this

is a Government which this

morning is almost dying of

shame at its own

incompetence. Press this little

button here. This is not a

government, this is some

perverse form of Romper Room

running the country. The

Government doesn't look like a

joke, it is one. Thank you very much, cheers.

And our guest this morning is the Minister for Immigration

Chris Bowen. Before then we'll

see what the Sunday papers are

saying and more, I guess,

loosely related leadership speculation. Yesterday Julia

Gillard and Kevin Rudd met with the Secretary-General of the

UN, Ban-Ki Moon and even that

apparently David Marr, had

leadership significance. Yes,

the Sunday 'Telegraph' reports

this morning that the fact that

Ban-Ki Moon went first to Kevin

Rudd's house before he then

went to meet with the Prime

Minister indicates, and I

quote, the unusual schedule

only served to highlight the

fractious state of the Federal

Labor Party. Now the way in

which it highlighted that is

not explained in an article

where I thought there was

sufficient space to do so but

they don't quite get to it. I

think the lie can be looked at

quite easily. There's the

meeting, the first meeting, and

Mr Ban hasn't even got a tie

on. This is obviously not the

meeting that matters. The

meeting that matters is the one

with the Prime Minister. He's

all dolled up, he's got his tie on. This is the crucial meeting. Would you wear a tie

for a meeting with a guy who is

reportedly referred to you as

spanky banky. I think facts

like that are probably kept

from the leaders of the world

like Mr Moon. I mean Mr Ban did

have a moment to, and I quote,

express some concerns, that's

diplomatic language, some

concerns on how to deal with immigrants, asylum seekers and

refugees. He could get a chance

in amongst all the leadership

questions. We'll go to that

later on. Just on the

leadership and the introduction

in that story talks about this

all happened amid increasing

leadership tension. Now for a

start there needs to be

leadership tension and is it

increasing? It seems a certain

lack of fact behind these

stories. These stories are

mischief and no doubt, look,

there's real despair inside the

Labor Party about where Julia

Gillard has taken the party.

But, you know, the one thing

that makes her job look pretty

secure is that changing leaders

last time didn't seem to do the trick. The 'Herald Sun'

reporting on the same event,

the meeting with the UN Secretary-General, has Kevin

Rudd quoting Kevin Rudd

boasting he still has a ticker.

That implies he still has, I

guess, leadership ambitions.

Let's see what Kevin Rudd

actually said after those

talks. And how's the ticker, as

they say in the Labor

ranks? The ticker is ticking

away. So it really doesn't take

very much, does it? Naughty

man. It goes back to that

original story, on Friday, the

tick, tick, tick, headline so

it was one newspaper, one

journalist, though it ran

around the group, suggesting that quoting government

sources, contemplating that they were contemplating

bringing back Kevin Rudd.

Anthony Albanese had this to

say about that. I notice, for

example, in one of the reports

today it didn't even refer to

members of parliament, it was

government sources, which is

usually code for someone who

knows someone who was a staffer

who knew someone and met

someone whose cousin worked for

somebody somewhere in an MP

somewhere in Australia. I mean

we need to get real about

this. Nouf I - now I don't know

what you're finding ringing

around but you'll find any

number of people in the Labor

Party telling you they're in

trouble and they have policy

dilemmas ahead. Have you been able to find anybody to tell

you seriously there have been

numbers counted or they're

looking for alternatives? The

key word is disorganisation

here. Any of these stories that

kind of posits that there's

some sort of coup being

organised, the absence of

organisation is kind of the

problem at the minute. There is

a kind of a panic, you know.

And the failure of the Malaysia

solution is a big part of that.

It's kind of a major strut of

the Government's recovery

program that's being kicked

away and as a result there's

just sort of scrambling and

panic and, you know, yeah, you

will talk to people who will

think out loud about whether

bringing Rudd back would work

and so on. But, you know,

dozens and dozens of deeply

worried people running around

freaking out does not an

organised coup make. Michael,

do you think there's any serious contemplation going

on? I think the huge problem

they're in is that the primary

vote is in the high 20s, below

30%, they're facing 2 years

away it must be said though,

electoral oblivion under the

current leader. But that was

the current leader, Julia

Gillard was brought in because

they thought they were going to

face the same thing under the

previous leader and they've got

no where really to turn because

it's hard to see how replacing

Gillard could improve things

that much but they know at the

moment they can't find a way

out. They appear clueless, as

Chris Uhlmann put it, luckless

at times but to change leaders

again would be reckless,

wouldn't it? Well, as you get

closer to an election and the

facts of what you're facing

become closer, we've seen in politics over and over again

that just about anything could

happen. So it's hard to see,

you know, anything happening

now but we've seen in the past, who can say what's going to

happen? The only thing that can

really rescue the situation is

a long and uninterrupt ed

period of good government, even

unremarkable government. But

unfortunately the events of the

past week actually mill itate

to erode that. It's not just the events of the past week.

All the contradictions that has

been brought into this

government are still there and

they will play out over the

next couple of years. You just

can't sort of being methodical

and working through them. You can't get around those

contradictions that are coming

to the surface now. They won't

go away. What would you do for

4 or 5 months out from an

election if you were facing

utter oblivion and the polls

told you putting Kevin Rudd

back in the job would lift your

primary vote 20%, you'd be

tempted, wouldn't you? They

won't do it now because they

hate Kevin's guts so much and

so many people fear retribution

from Kevin. But when you get

close to the event and you

think it might save your job or

save oblivion. I want to go to

'Courier Mail' here because

perhaps there's an ironic twist

about this given the problems

the Government has and yet for

a moment there it appeared as

if the Government might will

the party that would win an

extra seat in the parliament

and that's because Peter

Slipper was threatening to

walk. This is Peter Slipper,

the deputy speaker, Queensland

member and last night his seat

of Fisher, the federal

divisional council, had a vote

and they installed Mal Brough,

the former Howard government

minister, now out of

parliament, as chair and

Slipper had fought against

having Mal Brough as the chair.

Basically the president of the

seat, and he lobbied against it

and he had threatened to - well

he had said that would put him

in an untenable position and

the idea is he would sit on the

cross benches and the Liberals

would lose a seat. Apparently

now there are reports this

morning saying he will work

with Brough but he's unlikely

to get preselection for the

next election. That becomes

blindingly obvious to him then

Peter Slipper might revisit his

position but Tony Abbott was in

Birdsville and had this to say

overnight. Peter is a strong,

loyal member of the Coalition

down in Canberra and I'd expect

that to continue. So that's

certainly one to keep an eye

on. It sure is but Peter

Slipper is always one to keep

an eye on. I love he did this threat - I think he put in

writing to the 'Courier Mail'

that my continued status as an

LNP member of parliament would

be made Intoll rabble by such a

development and so on but then I think the next day or

yesterday he said, "I never

made any such thing." It's

brilliant. There's a lot of

talk just after the election

about the significance of Peter

Slipper when he popped his hand

up for the deputy speakership

surprising all of his

colleagues and got there with

Labor numbers. So he's always

been in kind of the margin. We

have to move on but just in the

Adelaide paper a suggestion

that there may be a Father's

Day announcement coming

today. Yeah, apparently more

money for dads. Apparently,

yeah, you're going to be

getting a father's bonus, 2

weeks pay at the minimum wage

if you earn less than $150,000.

You don't even have to take

time off work, you get the

money. That's about $1,100 for

those earning under $150,000. I

haven't seen the details and

it's hard to keep track of all

these parental pay and bay -

baby bonuses. If the Government

is handing out more money to

fathers or parents just because

they're parents would seem to

be one of the most absurd

things you could do right now.

The Government is in a

desperate situation to get back

into surplus in 2012-13. The

economy has been slowing down,

they're going to have to cut

spending in order to do that.

So the idea that handing out

money to people because they're

fathers would seem to be

ridiculous. I haven't seen the

details. Tony Abbott's holding

on to his massive parental -

paid parental leave plan

despite the fact that - That's

an irresponsible policy as well

so what you really need to be

doing now, amid all this global

turbulence is to be running a

very tight ship. Not just

handing out money as if it's

falling from the sky or being

given to you. Blokes having a

baby, changed my mind. We go

straight to our interview and

our guest this morning is the

Immigration Minister Chris

Bowen who joins us from our

stud Joe - Sydney studios. Good

morning, did you consider

resigning at any stage over the Magistrates Court judgment? I've got a job to do

and I've got an obligation to the Government and the Prime Minister to see that job through and that's what I'm

going to do. We have negotiated

an innovative arrangement with

Malaysia, one I'm proud of

under the regional framework.

Obviously we suffered a big setback with the High Court

judgment but just because times

get tough doesn't mean you run away from your responsibilities. But did you

at any stage though consider

resigning? Well, Barrie, my

position is as I say. I'm going to continue in the job because

I've got a job to do and my job

is to see this through, to develop the Government's

response to what is a very

changed circumstance. But

that's not the question, did

you consider resigning and did

you in fact offer your

resignation to the Prime Minister? Well conversations between the Prime Minister and

I are are conversations between

the Prime Minister and I and

that's how they will remain.

But my position and the Prime

Minister's position is that I

need to continue in this job

and see this through and that's

what I'm going to do. I'm not

going to run away from my

responsibilities just because

the going gets a bit tough.

Being Immigration Minister has

never been an easy job for

anybody and just because it

gets a bit tougher doesn't mean

I walk away from it. The bottom

line you were badly advised,

whatever, but you lost a

significant case so who takes responsibility? Is it is the

minister or a whole team effort involving the Solicitor-General, the Government and the

Department? Let's be clear

what's happened here. The

Government followed its legal advice, I followed my legal

advice to the letter every step

of the way and that legal

advice was very soundly based

in the existing judice

prudence. There are many cases

on which we built our case on

to support the Government's

position and we believed our

legal position was strong.

That's not to say the High

Court is not entitled to change

the Jew ris prudence, of

course, they are the highest

court in the land but our

position was based on very

strong legal advice and that

legal advice was soundly based

on the existing law, common law

and jur juris prudience. But

this legal was not drawn to

your attention. Whose responsibility was that? Why

wasn't it drawn to your

attention? We got legal advice,

there were many cases in which

arrangements had been for

offshore processing had been

challenged in the courts and on

those occasions the Government's position was

upheld and we had no basis to

believe that that would change

in this circumstance. We had no

basis to believe that the

findings of various courts in

relation to declaring offshore

places would be overturned

under this High Court. Now the

High Court has the right to

overturn previous decisions, of

course they do, but that's not

the say that the Government's legal advisers or the Government could have had a basis for expecting that to occur. Because, as

occur. Because, as you say, the

High Court did have every right

to do this what then so

frustrated the Government about

the judgment? Well, Barrie,

what we've done is, as I say,

negotiate something different,

something innovative, something

on a regional framework which

people said we wouldn't be able

to do. We did through the Bali

process and people said they

would never get a deal with any

particular country. We did with

Malaysia. It was hard work.

People said you wouldn't geld a

deal that the UN HCR could live with. We did. It's a

significant achievement and

when you make that achievement,

something that breaks the

people smuggler's model and

when you receive a setback and

the law gets changed of course that's frustrating to the Government. I don't walk away

from that but that's not to say

that we don't then work

methodically through what is

the new situation and respond

accordingly. People said you

were never going to deal with

East Timor and you

didn't? Well, Barrie, my job

was to negotiate a regional

framework with Kevin Rudd

through the Bali process,

that's what we did. It was my

job to come up with innovative

regional arrangements, that

what we did with Malaysia and

of course with PNG. That's what

we set out to do and that's

what we achieved. Now we will

have to go, obviously, through

in light of the High Court decision what our response will

be and that's what I'm doing in

conjunctions with the Prime

Minister and cabinet

colleagues. Just on the Prime Minister's criticism of the

High Court, she personalle ised

it. She credit size -

criticised the Chief Justice.

The legal council said that was

unfair and curious. I don't

agree with that. I think the

Prime Minister was defending

the legal advice to the

Government pointing out all the

legal advice was based on

existing juris prude erns, on

existing case law, that was a

sound basis for the legal

advice and one of those cases

was a case previously herd by

Chief Justice French. It's not

a criticism, a it's a statement

of fact. It was referred to by several commentators and the Prime Minister was simply

referring to that. That is not

a criticism. To compare with

what the Prime Minister said to

what several ministers in the

previous government said when

they lost High Court cases

there's no comparison at all.

The Prime Minister was making a

statement of fact. It was the

previous government that had

the habit of attacking High Court judges when they didn't

like the zetion. The key to it

now is what happens next. The Greens say you can't process offshore, the Coalition says

you can. I guess the key to

this is what is

Solicitor-General says. He's

looked at the judgment. When

will you hear from him? We have

received that advice and I will

be releasing it today. What

that advice tells us is that

not only is the Government's

declaration of Malaysia

invalid, obviously under the

High Court decision, but also Minister Ruddock's declarations

of Nauru and PNG should also be

held to be invalid. And that

the solicitor general and two

other senior council can have

no confidence that an

arrangement with PNG or Nauru

is possible under existing law

as a result of this judgment.

So obviously I'll be releasing

that publicly. That will inform

the Government's decision

making and frankly it should

also inform Mr Abbott's

position because he has

incorrectly stated that there's

no implication for Nauru under

this judgment and that is

simply untrue. Couldn't you

interpret what the High Court

is saying that providing Australia kept responsibility

for the detention centres on

Nauru and that people were

treated humanely, then there is

no reason why Nauru could not

be used? Well, the advice we

have deals with that matter and

comments on that matter and

makes it clear that there are a

range of circumstances that

would be taken into account, that the new protections that

have been built in under this

High Court ruling would make it

difficult for offshore

processing to occur in PNG and

Nauru. That there are certain

steps that could be taken to

reduce the risk, of course

there are, but it would be

difficult and would be

contested in court. And it's

not just the advice we have

from these 3 senior counsels.

I've seen advice from Ron

MerkelQC, I've seen Professor Rothwell say New Zealand would

be the only country that could

comply with these new tests set out by the High Court and that's something the Government

will need to work through and the Opposition will need to

work through as well. So what

are the options now then if

that's the case and you accept

that interpretation, does that

mean the only option is onshore

processing? Well, I'm working

through all the options with

the cabinet as you would expect

to do. This is a significant

change in the law and we need

to take our time to respond to

it accordingly. There are a

range of options which are

obviously self-evident and we

need to work those through. The

law has been changed during the

week in terms of the common

understanding of the law. We

need to consider those options,

they range across the board. We

have options available to us

and I'll make further

statements about it when we've

had a chance to fully digest

the Solicitor-General's advice

and the policy ramifications of

it. One of those options would

be to amend the Migration Act,

wouldn't it? Yes, yes. Clearly

the High Court has interpret ed

the Migration Act in this way

and it will be open to the parliament to change the

Migration Act to deal with how

the High Court has interpreted it and that's one of the

options that would be

available. And that might mean

teaming World Cup the Coalition

against the Greens and coming

to an arrangement with them and perhaps what the Coalition

could bring to the table they

could say to you if you're

prepared to consider Nauru they

would support you in terms of

amending the act? So far the

Liberal Party has said we're

prepared to talk providing the

result is Nauru, TPVs and

turning the boats back. If Mr

Abbott says he wants to talk

about legislate IF change, let

him say that. We're working

through the options. Quite

clearly under all the legal

advice if Mr Abbott wanted to

go down the Nauru option he

would need legislative change,

he would need it on several

basis and what is very clear

from the High Court you could

not send unaccompanied minors

in any workable way to Nauru or

anywhere else, that's a significant change. The Liberal

Party said very clearly no

problem, we'll send

unaccompanied minors to Nauru.

They can't under this judgment.

So then they would have to deal

with the issue of unaccompanied

minors and the incentives to

put children on the dangerous

boat journey to Australia. This

is a matter that everybody

needs to reflect on. This is a significant change in the law.

We'll be reflecting on it and

Mr Abbott, if he's fair dinkum,

needs to reflect on it as well.

He can ignore the legal advice.

We know he ignores climate

scientists and economists and

he will probably try to ignore

lawyers as well. It's a matter

for him. We'll put the advice

out there and he can reflect on

it as well. Given that nothing

else as worked surely a bit of bipartisanship might be the way

to go. Say if he was to put

temporary protection visas to

one side and just talk to you

about Nauru, would that be the makings of a deal? Well,

Barrie, our position remains,

we think you need to break the

people smugglers' business

model. Nauru and of itself is

an offshore processing centre.

It doesn't break the model. Our

criticism of Nauru on that

basis stands. Now what we've

said is let's step back now,

the High Court has made a

significant change, everybody

should reflect on that. I've

said if you like time out for a

moment, let's go back, have

everything on the table and

consider the options and I think that's the appropriate

thing to do. But that doesn't

mean that Nauru, even with

legislation, is some silver bullet because it's not. You've

said in the past the Pacific solution does not by itself

break the people smugglers'

efforts but you said it breaks

the spirit and the will of the

asylum seekers. Well, and I

stand by that. I stand by

saying that if you simply have

offshore processing without a

situation where you can break

the people smugglers' business

model which is what the

Malaysian agreement did and

what the Malaysian agreement

set out to do which is to say

there's no point getting on the dangerous boat journey to Australia because you will be

returned to Malaysia and yes,

you will have your claims

considered but you will have

them considered in line with

the other 92,000 asylum seekers

in Malaysia. That was what we

set out to do and that's what

we did achieve and that's what

I'm proud of the fact that we

achieved. Now Nauru, simply by

itself, just like any other

offshore processing centre,

does not achieve that but it

did when it was in operation

have significant negative

effects on the mental health of

those people who spent considerable amounts of time in

Nauru. Given what the

Solicitor-General had to say

about the High Court judgment

it follows then with

unaccompanied minors you're not

in a position to process them

anywhere else but here in

Australia? Well that's the

situation under the law as it stands, under the legislation

as it stands, as it's interpreted by the High interpreted by the High Court.

That is that every decision to

remove an unaccompanied minor

from Australia will be

judicially reviewable. That

would make the transfer of

unaccompanied minors to any place other than Australia unworkable and that's something

that would need to be worked

through as well and as I've

said many times, then you have

the obvious problem of an

incentive to put children on

boats to make that dangerous

boat journey and I don't think

Australia ever wants to go through again what we went

through last December burying children because they made that

boat journey. But the boats now

will come in bigger numbers,

won't they, as a result of the

High Court judgment? Well look,

as I've said, I think the

Malaysia arrangement had a significant announcement affect

in and of itself. The number of

boats that arrived after we

announced the Malaysia

arrangement fell by half. Half

the number of people arriving,

a very significant impact and

by the way a much more

significant impact than Nauru

had when it was announced by the previous government. But

all that's changed now and

therefore - I'm just making the

point, Barrie, that even the announcement of Malaysia had

some impact. There were a range

of factors and yes, I think penal smugglers will be

capitalise ing on this. We've

won, you can go to Australia

and everything's changed. Our

message is this. Our

determination to break the

business model remains. We've

had to deal with the High Court

judgment but we're going to do

that and we're going to

respond? A methodical way. And

you talked about now the

special status of New Zealand,

there's a South Pacific Forum

on this week in Auckland, you

will discuss this, no doubt the Prime Minister will discuss this with the New Zealanders? Look, New Zealand

and we work closely on these

matters. New Zealand's had an

issue to deal with in recent

weeks and months of a boat

trying to get to New Zealand. I

talked to my ministerial

counterpart regularly, they're

committed to working with us

under the regional framework

and we'll continue to talk to them. You honestly believe given everything that's

happened that you can still win

the next election? Look, I do,

Barrie. The next election is 2

years away and 2 years, as they

say, it might sound trite, is a

very long time. It's easy to

forget what the situation in

Australia was like 2 years ago

from today. It was very, very different and nobody would have predicted what was going to

happen over the 2 years

following. I think we can win

the next election because I

think we have the right plan

for Australia's future and I

think Mr Abbott is a huge risk

and I think the Australian

people do understand that. We

do have a job in front of us.

We do have an enormous task in

front of us but it's a task

that I think we're up for. Is

there any doubt in your mind that Julia Gillard will lead

the party into the next

election? No, Julia Gillard is

very firmly the leader of the

Labor Party and will continue

to be and she has the firm

support of the caucus. She's

got a big job as prime minister

of Australia and she's our full

support. What's the prospects of Kevin Rudd ever returning to

the leadership? Well, I think

I've answered the question,

Barrie. Jurl Julia will lead the party to the next election.

She's the Prime Minister, she's

dealing with the challenges of being Prime Minister very, very

well and she has the full

support of the caucus in doing

so. I think the analysis of

some of the commentators on

your show this is more an issue

in the media thatten it is in the caucus. There's some

evidence to suggest a lot of

the hostility towards the

Government is personal

animosity towards Julia

Gillard? I think people respect

the job that Julia's doing.

It's a tough job and everybody

knows that prime ministers go

through tough periods. John

Howard went through tough

periods, Paul Keating and Bob

Hawke went through tough

periods as prime minister.

Everybody goes through if

you're a prime minister engaged

in reform, it's r and it's

tough reform, whether it be

carbon pricing, asylum seeker

issues, there will be tough

reform which leads to periods

of unpopularity. Every prime

minister goes through that and

this prime minister is no

different to the previous prime

ministers who go through

difficult periods but that

doesn't mean she won't be

leading the party to the next election because I believe she

will be. Thanks for your time this morning. Thank you,


Protestors marched through

the Sydney electorate of MP

Anthony Albanese. I support

people's right to protest. Mr

Albanese was targeted for

calling last month's truck

protest in Canberra a convoy of

no consequence. Can you explain

that, please? What I don't

support is the idea the rally

would lead to a double

dissolution election and a new


We want our rights! You

either want to listen or you

don't. We have a democratically

elected government. You are a liar! Trees need carbon dioxide

to live. Go home and do some

research. Stop just listen to

Alan Jones and reading the 'Daily Telegraph'.

I call on Mr Albanese to


The comments that you made

down in Canberra last week - I

didn't appreciate the comments.

Listen. You dare call us

names. You sir are a loser.

You're a gutless loser. I'm

here, mate. You're a gutless

loser. I'm actually acting

minister for climate change at

the moment for this week. No

carbon tax! I just hope no-one suggests that people were

stopped at the Marrickville

border. Sophie Mirabella told

the 100 or so protestors to not

allow themselves to be

intimidated. I think it's about

100 to 1, wasn't it? It must

have reminded him of some of

his early years in Sussex

Street. As soon as he said that

in parliament last week or the

week before, whenever it was,

he said something like I see

bigger protests - I get more

trots protesting outside my

office every week than that of

the convoy and I thought mm,

something tells me that will be

materialising somewhere near

your address and so it came to

pass. The breaking story, the

breaking news is that the

Government has advice from the

Solicitor-General and that

advice is that any attempt at

offshore processing now

including Nauru would be

problem yacht Cal to the point

where they won't pursue

it? We'll have to wait to see

the advice later today. I'm

astonished. The 4 judges who

wrote the joint judgment in the

case, this week's case, said

quite clearly that Nauru was OK

the last time because although

it was happening out on Nauru

the people who were actually

dealing with the asylum seekers

out there were all Australian

officials and that it remained

in Australia's care and we were

responsible for them and that

looked to be laying down a law

that you could send people off

to, you know, boondock

republicans in the middle of no

where so long as we continued

to look after them. If that's

the case it looks like they've

got a bit of political cover

here but they're saying it's

sound legal advice. I think the

key thing for the Government is

now, out of all of this, is how

do they stop the boats? Because

that was the Howard refrain and

that will be the Abbott refrain. So they've got to come

up with something that says

we're going to stop the boats

by these means. And it can't be

Nauru, they say, because that

leaves itself exposed to legal

challenges. Are they coming

back to the true believers

option to basically go back to

a pre-Howard position and will

say OK, we're going to not

quite welcome the boats but

we're not going to do anything

significant - The true believers position is do what

you said you were going to do

all along as a nation, take

them in, take care of them and

stop vilifying them. Kevin Rudd

said he was going to turn back the boats. Labor said both

things. That was the

contradiction that has now this

week blown apart. Maybe this is

a moment to reflect on the

experience of countries that

really receive lots and lots of

refugee boats. And none of them

are saying that their urgent

national objective is to stop

all the boats. I'm talking

about greets gsh grees, Italy

and Spain. They really get

boats and their politics aren't

driven by the demand that all

boats stop. We are in a very

peculiar position and the

Minister said a moment ago that

once he announced Malaysia the

boat numbers dropped. In the 3

months before Malaysia was

announced the boat arrivals had

already halved and the notion

that there is inevitably going

to be an invasion of boats like

the 'Herald Sun' had on its -

here they come. Well look,

there may be more boats coming.

We can actually handle them.

They aren't very large numbers.

We can do it on shore, it's the

cheapest, the legally most

certain and the most humane way

to do it. And the most

politically fraught way to do

it. The decision on

unaccompanied minors does

provide an incentive for people

to put their kids on boats,

which is pretty scary. And it

provides an incentive for

Australia to deal decently with

these people. I think the

reality is it might be your

political preference and might

be ours as well here but the

political reality is that a

significant number of

Australians want - Michael, you

don't have to persuade me of

that. Want, and both parties

have gone to an election and

will still maintain the

position of we need a policy

that will stop the

boats. That's right. That's the

political reality. So it's not a political option to say

- It's a political reality

because it's been made the

political reality. Is there any prospect of the Government negotiating with Tony Abbott on

this and maybe coming up with a

solution that involves

Nauru? Look, at the moment, you

know, it's not really back to

the drawing board, it's here's

some bits of wood build a

drawing board and then get

cracking. It's kind of all over

the shop at the moment. I

wouldn't rule anything out. The

thing about this is not a deep constitutional judgment we've

had this week. This is some

High Court judges doing what

lawyers do and carve it all up

and argue this and argue that.

It's not a constitutional

thing, it's an interpretation

of existing law. So it is on

the face of it not that

difficult for the law, it may

be politically difficult but

it's not that difficult for the

law to be changed to say well

the Minister can declare that

sending people, boat people to

Nauru or Malaysia under these circumstances is permissible. A

bit of history here, that

actual piece of - that actual

amendment is 10 years old, it

was enacted in late 2001, post 'Tampa', by the Howard

Government with support from

the Beazley Opposition. So that

was a bipartisan section that

was added to the Migration

Act? The safeguards that went

into the law at that time into the law at that time were

put in by the Howard Government

with Beazley's backing. All that happened in the court this

week was the Government was

completely surprised that the

Minister was answerable in the

court for whether those

safeguards were available in

Malaysia. Now, I was there, I

was in the court, I watched

this unfold. It was so

interesting because there was

the Solicitor-General of the

Commonwealth having to admit to

these judges that the foreign

affairs advice on which the

Minister said Malaysia's a safe

haven, clearly said it's not a

safe haven. Clearly said it was

not a safe haven. The legal principle this week was whether

or not the Minister's decision

could be reviewed by the court.

Once it was reviewed by the

court it was a goner. So if

that's your position then what

do you make of Julia Gillard's

criticism of the High Court.

Let's hear from Julia Gillard

and then George Brandis. The

current Chief Justice of the High Court considered

comparable legal questions when

he was a judge of the Federal Court and made different

decisions to the one that the

High Court made yesterday. The

Prime Minister has shown a

lamentable ignorance of or if

she isn't ignorant of she's con

- contempt wous of the

separation of powers. Did she

overstep the mark. It wasn't

her remarks about Justice

French, it was actually this

sort of suggestion that somehow

the High Court had missed an

opportunity to forge an

effective policy to handle

asylum seekers. It's not the

High Court's job to join hands

with the Government and forge a solution. The High Court's job

is to review the decisions that

are made. French of course is

only one of 7 judges. Her

criticism of French is a bit

rough. French saved the

Howard's bacon in 2001 and let

the Pacific solution go ahead

but that was on the basis of

- That's when he was in the

Federal Court. And on the basis

of this unbelievably reckoned

area of law about the survival

in Australia of executive

prerogative to expel aliens at

the border. I mean it was

extraordinary area of law. What

the court decided this week wasn't even in the Migration

Act at that point. So I think

that's a bit rough. But Brandis

is rougher. The Howard Government, with Darryl Williams as Attorney-General,

there was no government in the

history of Australia has

mounted such a concerted and

ruthless attack on the

judiciary as that government

did and again it was over

refugees. It's not a serious attack on the separation of

powers what Julia Gillard said

this week but I think it did

portray the political

frustration that she's under

and the pressure that she's

under and was inadvisable in

those terms and basically not a

good look. I agree with that.

The question that I put to

Chris Bowen two or three times

on whether or not he considered

resigning, the answer to that

is yes, isn't it? You'd have to

consider throwing yourself out

the window after a decision

like that. It is hard on Bowen

too because I think he's one of

the ministers in the Government

that is extremely hard working,

he puts in to take he puts in to take quite a

portion of the load from the Prime Minister and I think

there's criticism that other

ministers don't shoulder the

load as much as he does. A very capable minister. This is

really sort of really bad luck,

I think, for the policy. They'd

worked together, as they say,

an innovative policy which may

have worked, they'd done a lot

of work on it. This is a bad luck judicial decision that's

come across. The problems are

really not that Labor can be

blamed for, not so much this

decision which can be

criticised itself but

everything leading up to it,

the idea that you can both

soften your boat people policy

and not have more boat people

come and then think well, we

didn't really mean to do

that. Isn't this whole thing a

question of overpromising? It's

a bit of a pattern of behaviour. Obviously it

happened with East Timor, we're going to have this

agreement. It's all the things leading

leading up to it. It's to

overpromise before it's in the

bag and when you have Bowen

saying we're on absolutely safe

ground here, I absolutely

expect that the High Court will

vindicate us, then it makes the

blow so much worse when it

doesn't happen. I think we need

to ask them please, if we can

have a look at the old advice

they were given not just the

newed a vice and it also raises

a serious issue about the quality of advice coming out of the Attorney-General's

Department. Bowen is the

Minister for Immigration, the

Attorney-General is the one who

is responsible for the kind of

advice the Government is given.

And this does back things you

hear about the

Attorney-General's Department

that it is not a brave

Department and that it is not

necessarily - that it doesn't

necessarily always have the

fire power at its disposal to actually tell the Government

things the Government doesn't

want to hear and look, it may

be, but let's see the old

advice because that will tell

us actually whether or not the

Government truly was ambushed

here. Michael, you mentioned

that Julia Gillard was in conflict, well she's in

conflict with News Limited for

one, I want to talk about that

in a moment, but just one last

reference to the leadership speculation. Peter Beattie,

have a look at the Gold Coast

bulletin, Beattie for PM which

he seemed to think was a funny idea. We'll have a listen to

what he had to say to the

Queensland media club. I think

that the Joh for Canberra or

Joh for PM had a bit of a ring

to it. I don't think Beattie

for Canberra has the same ring

for it. It leaves people cold,

it's a low end. I don't think

you will be seeing too much of

that. I say to all my

colleagues in the party hold

your nerve. This is a time to

hold your nerve and not to

change the leader. OK, look,

we'll move on from all of that now. The conflict that you

mentioned, Michael, glen Milne

wrote a Col column for the

'Australian' he made certain

assertion s which the 'Australian' said were untrue

and conceded nobody had checked

those matters with the Prime

Minister's office. So because

of that, was Julia Gillard

entitled to phone the CO EO,

John Hartigan and give him a

bit of a rocket? I think the

Prime Minister can ring whoever

she wants and give whoever she

want as bol ocking. I think it

shows as with the outbust

against the Chief Justice it

shows the political pressure

you're under when you do ring

up chief executives of media

companies in terms that some

describe as more volume than

Paul Keating used to do. That's

a real achievement. It's hard

to believe. That does show how

things, the pressure cooker

situation that she's under. But

it was exacerbated on this

occasion because John Hartigan

gave her certain assurances.

Now she claims that he gave her

assurances this story would not

run within the group. He says

that he singled out the 'Herald

Sun' and the 'Daily Telegraph'

and made no mention of the

'Australian', is that a bit of

a cute excuse? Well, I think

this is, you know, there's a

lot of he said/she said and

details about and it's all

happening over the weekend. I

don't think there's any real

suggestion that there's any

sort of conspiracy within, as

some people are quick to do,

within News Limited say OK, we

wouldn't do it there so let's

do it there. You know what

media's like, it all sort of

happens and - I know what media

is like. Media should be about

competition. One of the

weirdest thing about this

completely odd little story is

that there seems to be this

bunch of journos or commentators or whatever

kicking around this allegedly

red hot document or set of allegations or whatever, and

talking among themselves about

how they're going to manage the

story or how they're going to

break it. Like pointing to each

other's columns and radio shows

and whatever. And how to bring

down the Prime Minister with

it. That's pretty weird. I

think that has its oddities

about it. I think when you boil

it down, given what's been

going on with the Craig Thomson

situation, the facts that the

Prime Minister was involved in

a personal relationship years

ago with a union official who

has been alleged to have ripped

off much larger amounts of

money - All of which has been

reported. But let me ask you,

do you think the mass of

Australian people, Australian

voters know this? It's on the

Sunday Telly. Let's be clear

about what Glenn Milne said. He said our Prime Minister said our Prime Minister was

shackled like a convict to

Craig Thomson. Now there is no connection what ever between

the two stories. One's an old

bit of scuttle butt, one is a

news scandal. To say the Prime

Minister is shackled like a

convict vickt on the first

fleet. I can't see anyone is suggesting that Julia Gillard

at the time was complicit in

any way whatsoever. Nobody

seems to be contesting that. So

the only issue then is this

woman's judgment in who she was

going out with. If that's the new standard for judging

politicians then a lot of

people should be worried. And

my question would be why do you

plum the depth for this sort of

sleaze when there's so much

stuff going on in the surface.

You don't need to do this stuff. This Government's in

trouble. You don't have to be

raking through 17-year-old

non-scandal. I think it's a

totally valid story that the

Prime Minister conceivably,

could be brought down by a

story of union sleaze. Let's

have it. And why hasn't the

media been able to track - What

has that got to do with the

media - Why hasn't the media

been able to track down the old

boyfriend? No-one's been able

to do it. What's the relevance? Newslimit has

thousands of jornlists at its

disposal get them on the

job. This is a valid story for

people to know about it. Is it

a terrible thing that the Prime

Minister has done? No-one's

suggested anything like

that. It's a totally valid

story to know about. You're

continuing to insist ke despite

the fact this story has been on

the front page of high circulation newspapers that

people don't know about I. It's

been on the front page

nowish. It was on the front

page in 2007. The point of the

Glenn Milne story was to try to

sneer Julia Gillard's

relationship with Craig Thomson

by smearing her relationship

with this other union official.

It was a totally bodgey piece

of logic and it was a

disgrace. We need to move on.

There are big problems - Moving

forward, nothing to see

here. Dealing with the

manufacturing industry. Now

Julia Gillard had a conference

during the week on this. Some

of them left that of them left that meeting

believing that a deal was done

to have anen - an inquiry into it, that was not her position. In yesterday's

meeting which myself and Dave

and Heather Ridout were at, the

m pr PM #345ed it very clear to

us that she was open to looking

into some type of future

inquiry into the future of the manufacturing industry. The

words that were said by various government ministers this

morning were a surprise to

me. Look, people can get, you

know, different impressions

from a conversation, that's

human, that's natural. What I

said yesterday is I wasn't

looking at a free ranging, free

wheeling inquiry into

manufacturing, that my focus

was on the actions that we

needed to take. I don't want to

be held back from acting by an

inquiry which would inevitably

take some time. Now Michael,

the fear seems to beened and

the bigger issue is when the