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.
Sky News The Contrarians -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) Welcome to the con trair

Ryan s. This is where we give you the viewer the opportunity to throw one of the panel in the sin bin.

The hot rumour is when it comes budget time Wayne Swan

will be slicing and dicing

all over the place to try to

get to this artificial

surplus we need in a couple

of years time, we will be

looking at the issue of child

care rebates and means

testing it like Labor has

done to so many other areas

of public policy as well.

That number is about 150,000,

that is the wage of choice.

This is poor policy, it is

particularly poor policy from

a Government that claims to

represent the interests of

women. On the one hand we have Kate Ellis running

around saying we need more

women on boards. I tell you what, turning around and

means testing the child care

rebate ain't the way to do

it. It is the clearest way to

see the situation where there

is more financial pressure on families and when it does

that it puts -- puts them on

the women as well. There are

many better ways to try to achieve cuts in the budget.

They could start by taking a

look at the odd policy of the

Coalition, not the entirety

but the odd one. Turning

around and means testing the

child care rebate is the kind

of policy that costs as much

to do it administratively as

it results in savings. It is

poor and old fashioned Labor

and won't win them any votes.

On the far end of the panel,

I'll be shocked if you

Leeser. disagree with me, Julian

It's lovely to hear you

giving such a good editorial.

Next to him Phillip senior

Closest to me Claire Harvey from 'the Sunday Telegraph'.

I know exactly what Julian

will say. Is means testing a

circumstance? good policy in any

There's no doubt that in

some cases there is an

argument to be made for means

testing. I think the

challenge in the... What circumstances? There's no reason we should

be paying welfare to

everyone. Some people clearly

don't need it. That is a

silly way of putting it.

You asked a fairly silly question.

We are talking about means

testing, not pure welfare measures, obviously you, for

example, means test

can't have a joob. unemployment benefits, you

That is the point I'm

making. It is diff went if

you are talking about

welfare. Is child care rebate

is not a welfare measure but

designed to encourage people

to go into the workforce and

to have, in particular women,

so that both people can work.

The important thing that taking away the rebate does

is you have to understand the financial equation. At the

moment for many people,dy

pending on their income, the actual amount of income they

could make going into the

workforce is not much higher

than the cost of child care,

if their cost has to go into full-time child care, that is

with the rebate. If the

rebate gets taken away it is

even more marginal. There is

very little incentive for

them to go back into the

workforce. That is the

problem. It is completely

contradictory with all the rhetoric we have heard from

the Government in the last

couple of weeks about getting

people in the workforce.

In a general sense the

concept of means testing the

child care rebate, will that

women? make it harder for working

I think it certainly will. I

think it will make it harder

for working men as well.

There are more families now where the burden of child

care is shared. I think means

testing any Government

benefit is a rational and

right thing to do. I can't

see why anyone would disagree

with that. It is important to note that people go back to

work for more than just

financial reasons. I think

often people do take a

financial hit. Anyone with

children would know that, but

work is about more than just

earning money as we've heard

Julia Gillard say this week.

I think there are good

reasons to work even if child

care is very expensive.

One of the followers on

Twitter says, "Are you watching, maybe today will be

the day they question the

Government but not grill the

opposition. But don't hold

your breath?" What are your

thoughts Julian Leeser?

The real problem with the means test is the blunt instrument. Wherever you put the cut-off some people will

miss out and you will have

the economic consequences

that Phil was talking about. What about this blunt

approach of companies that instrument of Tony Abbott's

have to pay for his paid

parental leave scheme?

You are talking about two completely different issues there.

The blunt instrument.

The key thing we have not

mentioned in recession to the

means test is the 150,000

figure is a magic figure for

the Labor Party. It is the

same figure with cutting out

the Medicare rebate as well.

Why do they pick 150,000 assuming that is what ends up

happening in this debate?

It sounds very neat and

round but it is not a lot of

money in a modern economy. If

you are living in a city for

two people it's a reasonable

middle class income but it is

not rich.

Two people is the key point there. In this structure you

have two people on the one

salary if you are going to

sort of try to make ends meet

with children, sometimes?

It just strikes me as odd if

you are a Government looking

for cuts thin instead of

looking at a whole range of

different areas of spending

you look at an area where the inevitable consequence of

this change flies in the face

of what they have been

telling us for the last two

weeks is critical - that we get as many people in the

workforce as possible. This

that. measure clearly will not help

One of the issues, one of

the emails that came through

came through from Paul Howes

two said vote Peter Van

Onselen off. We know where he

stands on the issue of means

testing. I'm glad that...

I thought he was against the

loss of any jobs?

I'm glad he came in on this

one. He has been on if front

page of the Australian today giving exclusive information

with comments to Dennis shan

that hand, quite a big issue

this, this whole idea of key

unions put Gillard on notice.

What is that all about?

Essentially the unions are

starting to hear from their

members what we suspected was

happening all the time, that people were very concerned about the cost of the carbon

tax. We have seen treasury

figures that it will cost

families something in the

order of $860 extra per year.

There is concerns about job

losses in the steel sector,

particularly in other heavy

industries, the Government

really has failed to explain

this. Union leaders have to

make a choice here between

representing their members

and holding up the Labor Party.

Do they have to make that

choice is that a fair summary?

I think it is. If you look

at the shift in Paul Howes'

rhetoric on this issue in the last three months it tells you the Government is losing

this issue badly. Three

months ago he was saying that

his union absolutely

supported the carbon tax, provided there was appropriate compensation.

Today he is saying that if

one job goes then his union

support will walk. If that's

his standard his union can

walk now. Loses jobs is inevitable.

This is a lot of show. Paul

Howes has a lot invested in

Julia Gillard remaining Prime

Minister. He is one of the

people that put her there.

You are a bitter feature

editor for 'the Sunday

Telegraph'. He writes a

column for you each week.

It is an interesting quote

he gave that is what Phil was

getting at, if one sdwrob is

gone his support is gone. His

get out of jail card there is

how do you quantify one job

being gone specifically

because of this carbon tax.

The reality is it will have

to cost one job along the way.

I suspect we will find once

the full details of the

compensation package are

announced Paul Howes and his

colleagues in other unions say they are very pleased with the way the package has

been designed and they like it.

If that happens - I don't disagree that might happen -

if that happens it seriously undermines Paul Howes' credibility. For him to make the statement he made today

and then walk away from that

statement when we all know it is inevitable there will be

some job losses, he says in

that article that this could

be the straw that broke the camels back for the steel

industry. Welcome to reality. Where has he been for the

last six months. People have

been telling him that.

If only he came on the show

to defend himself. I want to

jump back to the child care

issue for a moment. A tweet

said, "Why should I be paying

for someone else's child

care. If you aren't receiving

a benefit then $0" middle class welfare is the point

there. Why do we have middle

class welfare through various

benefits and rebates?

The Government wants to encourage people to have

children, we need more young

taxpayers and women to work

for the purpose of increasing

our productivity. We lose productivity when women leave the workforce.

One for the country. Peter Costello was strong

about this and it is good

policy today. That is why you

need to have these sorts of

benefits to encourage people

to have kids and have more of them.

Do you think that is why people have children?

No, I don't think so at all.

People have children for

different reasons, some are

self interest and some Al trueism.

Self interest.

Because they want children,

that's self interest. I think

neigh parent would say they

get a great deal of joy out

of having a child. Costello's payments created

a baby boom so these measures do work.

They did what President

Obama's cash for clunkers

scheme did, they accelerated

a wave of babies that would

have come anyway. I don't

think people decided to get

married and have a child

because there was $5,000 on

offer. They might have had a

baby they were going too have

in the next two years.

Don't forget to vote

viewers. If you want to vote

one of the panel off - I

remind you you can't vote me

off - it is contrarians at

Sky News.com.au. I consider

any vote for Mehsud right to use that vote in any

direction. You are not only

wasting your vote but

empowering me at the same

time. Let's talk about the budget in a broad sense.

There has been a lot of talking down by the Government at one level about the fact that this is a tough

budget, they will have to cut

- I said Julian already signed.

It is four years in a row.

Whenever the Government is

making a tough decision...

There has been a GFC?

Whenever they say they are

making a tough decision they

don't make a tough decision.

John Howard never said he was

making a tough decision but

he always made them. He would

say sometimes, "I am making

decisions that people don't

necessarily agree with" Iraq

for instance, but he never

said he was working hard or

making tough decisions. Don't

you like to hear a real

decision. Hear reform that is

reform and not change. It is

a bastardisation of the political language.

Isn't it the usual pre budget pan toe mine, this

will be a very tough budget

and we have heard half a dozen treasurers say that

over the years and by budget

day all the nasty stuff has been leaked.

Let's not talk down the pre

budget pan toe mine. We have

Wayne Swan on Australian

Agenda on Sunday.

Ask Wayne Swan why he is

proposing to cut $500 million

out of medical research when

there are a raft of poorly

administered, wasteful, new

programs that this Government

implemented in its term of

office. There is a whole raft

of Green schemes that not

only have proofing completely

inefficient in terms of

causing carbon efficient.

Everyday we are hearing news

reports about the impact those schemes are having on

power prices. They are not

only wasting my any but

causing people to pay higher

power bills. How about revisiting those.

Final thought before the

break. He got the last word.

He has not been voted off

into the sin bin so anyone

looking to cast a quick vote

for him feel free to do so. We will be back in a moment.

Welcome back you're watching

The Contrarians. We'll be

back with you in a moment.

Let's have a look at today's

news headlines. Convicted

child killer Keli Lane has

been sentenced to 1 years in

jail with a non parole period

of 13 years and five months

for murdering her baby

taughter Tegan. The former

water polo champion was found guilty last December of

killing her newborn shortly

after they left a Sydney

hospital in 1996. About 200

people, including Lane's parents packed the New South

Wales Supreme Court to hear Justice Anthony Whealy

sentence the 36-year-old.

Independent MP Andrew Wilkie

is fighting accusations he

ordered Jr military cadets to

a lute Adolf Hitler in the

1980s. He admitted

involvement in the bastardisation scandal but

said he never ordered the

Nazi a lute. He said he has

been targeted because of his

fight against poke can I

machines. Australia's biggest

manufacturing union is

warning it will withdraw his

support for the Government's

carbon tax if just one job

looks to be lost. Paul Howes

has called a crisis meeting

of AWU officials to discuss

the impact of the tax and the

compensation package being

offered to protect jobs. Tony

Abbott has praised the union

leader. The Government

maintains its objective is to

support jobs and future prosperity. Two men are in

hospital after a shooting in

Bondi in Sydney's east.

Police were called the

Penkivil Street just after

midday and found a man with a

gunshot wound to the stomach.

A short time later a second

man was located at a nearby

cafe with several injuries,

including gunshot wounds.

Police have closed part of

Penkivil Street. Artist Ben

Quilty has won the Archibald

Prize this year for his

portrait of Margaret Olley.

He said when he first asked

Olley to sit for him she said

no. He beat a strong batch of

contenders including the

Packing Room Prize winner

featuring Matt Moran. The

Archibald Prize is now in its

90th year and is one of

Australia's and most

prestigious art awards. The

Hawks are hoping to keep

their impressive form alive

in the AFL this weekend. They

take on the Eagles tomorrow

and will welcome back two key

players. The Hawks are

chasing a third straight win. Tomorrow's weather:

Welcome back you are

watching the contrarian s.

The voting has come in. --

the contrarian s. The voting

has come in and the vote is

split in every direction. I

want more clear cut results

than that. Let's move on to

an issue that has been on the front page of 'the

Australian' a couple of days

in a row. La risk a beer

rent, the Australian of the

Year finalists she's head

something disgraceful to say.

During the course of Q and A

on Monday night she came out

and tweeted, I watched a show

where a guy had sex with a

horse and I'm sure it was

less offensive than best

price, being the Aboriginal

activist on the show who had

the temerity to disagree with the New South Wales

Australian of the Year in

terms of the value in the intervention in the Northern

Territory. Apparently she has

had a humiliating backdown

today. She said, "I regret

that a recent Tweet of mine

has caused offence. I take

full responsibilitiy or the

their care lessness in the

way I expressed myself and I

apologise unreserve Edly."

You can't take it back. It is poor.

This is one of the sill I

williest I have ever seen.

It is someone so eminent.

I suspect she thought that

she was sending a direct

message rather than

broadcasting to the entire twittersphere.

She is only nasty in private

and not in public.

It has exposed all the

themes of distribution within

the Aboriginal community and

the Aboriginal community for

want of a better word. There

was an el low Qwent piece in

'the Australian' today in

which she slated Larissa not

only for this piece but

others. She suggested much

like a, Andrew Bolt has done,

that she is a white fella in

blackfella's clothing. It is

an incredibly savage debate

going on and it is centring

around the intervention. That

is a really interesting

thing.

I agree wholeheartedly, particularly with the last

comments. There is a clear

division, if you like,

between the urban activist indigenous leaders and those

who live and have their

experience actually in the

rural and remote communities.

That was so starkly apartment

with this particular Ince dwent.

Why is there divide? That is clearly there with some of the personality and faces

that come out in each direction.

I will give you a clear

reason why. It is easy when

you are standing outside of

those regions themselves

looking at it from afar to

think certain actions are

considered pa termistic. One

man said ask the kid cowering

in the corner because he is

worried about his alcoholic

father beating him if he

wants a does of paternalism.

It is the difference between

being there on the ground and

seeing the problem versus some abstract view from affair.

It is not just a division in Indigenous communities but

the same division in the

general community about views

about right and UN committees

versus more practical pieces

versus more practical people. There is really that

division. Can I pick up on a

point Claire was making about the division in the Indigenous community and why

this is important for other policies going through,

particularly policies to do

with Indigenous Australians.

At the moment the Government is trying to put together a

group of people to write a

new preamble or put a new section in the institution

dealing with Indigenous recognition. You will have

the same split in the Indigenous community and we

have seen some of this

already and some previous

articling on this question as

well. This incident demonstrated the division among the community and

really reminded us that the

Indigenous community is quite

as different as the rest of Australia. They've got every right to

be as split as the white

community, I think, but I

think Larissa beer rent is

one of those people

considered by people as the

inheriters of the tent

embassy legacy, people who

will protest about anything.

I don't know if that is necessarily right.

Will she lose your New South Wales Australian of the Year for this.

I think everyone send titled

to a really stupid mistake.

Do you both agree with that.

I wouldn't be stripping her.

I have said plenty of stupid things.

You are not the New South

Wales Australian of the Year. You could be.

If I were I could loose it

with one tweet. It is important that she

apologised. I know that Bess

Price, has noted that it was

great there was a private

apology. She would like a

public apology. I don't think

she needs to be stripped of her status.

Luckily the all white panel

on the Contrarians know

what's best poor the

Aboriginal community. You

were lecturing us that the

inner urban elite don't

understand the plight of the Aboriginal communities. Have

you been there.

I went to Arakoon. I went

there for a native title ceremony.

I haven't but that's why I'm

not lecturing people from a

position of ignorance. I

listened to the people who

did live through the intervention both before and

after and I paid heed to that.

Final thoughts on this issue? Gosh.

You don't want her to lose the New South Wales

Australian of the year. I

agree about that but that is

going a bit far. I want to

know what she was doing

watching a show where a guy

had sex with horse. That is

the great unanswered questioned.

I don't remember that

happening in Deadwood. If Q

and A have any guts they will

get her on on Monday to explain herself.

They plan further ahead than

that. They announce the panel

the week before. Give them two weeks.

It moves very quickly when

Julian Assange wants to ask a

video question.

Maybe she will ask a video

question of somebody on the

panel next week. Let's move

on to other issues. Gillard

on welfare during the week.

Claire Harvey, it was a big

issue what did you make of it?

It was an interesting example of how Julia

Gillard's message was delivered on two levels and

only one of the levels seemed

to be reported. It was

reported as a crackdown on welfare cheats and dole

bludgers. It was an address

in which she said nothing

remotely unusual or nothing

different from what is in the

Labor plaintiff foreperson.

She describe Labor as the

party of work. She described

all sores of conservative

working class value s she

holds, none of which would

have been offensive to the

audience who are the big ends

of town. The point was we

aren't handing out your

taxpayers 'money Gaily and we

want you to hire some of the long-term unemployed people.

Do you agree?

It was one of the Julia

Gillard speeches that is all

rhetoric with no content.

What was the policy? Can

anyone tell me the policy

that game -- came out of

that.

The expression of values.

There is no values in

politics at the moment. I

like the idea that our

politics spell it out.

The value out of that speech

is Labor is the party of

work. Labor is pro people

working. It is meaning...

I see Julian Leeser nodding

your head. The Liberal Party

used to say we are the party

of work and free enterprise.

It is a fair point. There were two speeches this week

by the two leaders and Tony

announced a policy at the

Menzies research centre. He announced his infrastructure

policy. He will use infrastructure Australia to

icess projects in a way that

Labor hasn't with the NBN or

BER or any of the other major

infrastructure trends. It was

a tale of two leadership

styles. One with more empty

rhetoric or words. People pay

a lot of money to go to the

Sydney Institute dinner. I

think the people who went

there would have been

disappointed. I know people

who came to the breakfast to

hear Tony Abbott were

thrilled the next morning.

Get a plug in.

One of the points is we are

not the Greens. Isn't this

part of Julia Gillard's

attempt to distance Labor and herself idealogically from

the Greens.

I don't have the problem

with a person making a speech

as part of the policy making process. She gave a speech saying it was important to

move people from the disability mention into the workforce. She talked about the need to improve participation and productivity. She has talked

about these things endlessly

and it is time to announce

policies to deal with it and

stop giving another speech.

You got the last say again.

When we come back a whole

range of other issues

including should women be allowed to fight on the frontline.

Welcome back. You're

watching The Contrarians.

Women on the frontline,

should they be allowed to and

then we'll go from there?

Absolutely. I think there's

absolutely no justification

for people not being in

frontline jobs.

With equal standards about

whether they do?

I think if they can meet the physical tests needed to get

into those sores of jobs - we

would end up talking about

only 150 women maybe that

would get into these jobs.

Let's remember that frontline

doesn't mean lying in a fox

hole or digging a trench, it

might be aguard in the airfield. If women can do

those jobs and they want to then they should.

It is a good point.

Frontline does not

necessarily mean you are

chasing down the Taliban in Afghanistan. There are a

range of frontline roles

where it's not purely about

whether you can bench press 200 pounds.

It does mean chasing down

the Taliban as well. It's all

of those things. Let's not

pretend it's not at the

gitier end but that said I

agree that if you can pass the physical test - the test

is there for a reason, it is

there to tell whether you can

do the job or not. If you pass the test so it be. My

concern for the issue more is

it feels like it is floated

up as a distraction, ever

since the multiple enkwir

Rees were announced in the

joint prose conference no one is talking about the Skype

sex scandal anymore. Everyone

is talking about women in the

frontline. That seems awfully

convenient to me that that is

where the debate has gone

rather than where the debate

should be.

I want to come back to this.

First do you want to see

women fight on the frontline

to defend you?

I'm comfortable with that if

that is the view of the defence professionals.

If it is all encompassing,

if they can qualify what is

existing tests are you are for it?

Of course. You have to take

advice from the people who

run the frontline and know

what the situations are.

Even if they have had

themselves involved in trfs

over what happened at ADFA.

That is a different

position. What happened at

ADFA is terrible.

If there is a wider culture

in the military which is what people are saying that is the

sort of people you will be

taking that advice from?

They are a different set of

commanders, people who are

determining what the

frontline Dom bat roles

actually are. If it is going into houses in Afghanistan

and in the dead of night, if

it's having to do some very

difficult physical work, if

the assessment is that

whoever it is, men or women,

meet the tests, then they

should be able to do that.

Nope of us would meet the

test either. We should put that clearly here on the record now.

I don't think it is a

distraction from the issue of what happened at ADFA.

It is to be said that we are

talking about it rather than

the issue.

That's true but the absence

of women in 2 Defence Force,

they are only 13% of the

Defence Forces is a big part

of defences problem. I think

situations like what's going

on at ADFA have been allowed

to marinade at defence

because in past there's an

archaic, old fashioned year 9

at a boarding school culture that per vaidz.

I don't disagree with that but it is interesting that

instead of the debate being -

so we have this cultural

problem let's have a inquiry

and figure out what might

come out of it and one of the

things that might come out is

we need to get more women

from the higher echelons of

the military and the only way

for that to happen is to

serve in higher combat roles.

We have leapt to women have

leapt to the frontline. I she

we have a tweet that she is

anti-quotas. In my view you

need quotas to create merit.

Merit is sometimes not

already there but that is a

whole different debate. I say

this seriously, why hasn't

the name or names as well as

the photo, quite frankly, of

the ADFA student who had sex

with this woman been

published so that that person

can be humiliated when they

were prepared to humiliate

her by Skyping her to his

mates? Why? If I knew his

name I would publish it?

I think because she has

taken the course of not

releasing that name. She has

access to the media. She has

spoken at length, she

obviously knows his name and

has chosen not to do that.

I know some journalists know this and they won't tell me.

I would like to know because

I think this bloke should be

named. He was prepared to have her having sex with him

filmed to a bunch of his

mates why can't we publish

him and publicly shame him.

It happened to the guys

involved in the Brimble Saada

and it had good consequences

in that case, why can't it happen here?

Can I say there's a real process going on here,

there's inquiries and so son

and I think trial by media,

I'm not for a second excusing

what these people did but

trial by media is really ugly.

These are the facts that are

undisputed is my understanding. If they are found guilty and

if they're punished that may

be an appropriate time to

release these details but

there's a process here and

she's chosen to go through

the proper process there and

you have to respect her for

having done that. I think we

should let the process take its course.

I don't have a problem with

the person being named. I

agree with Julian in is a

process going on. I don't

think it would be particularly prejudicial to

that process for this

person's name to be known.

Tweet:, "Totally agree

publish his picture and shame

the prick."

I wouldn't have a problem

with someone doing it.

Moving on to the ETS, or the

carbon tax, you can't get

through a show without

discussing it, what's the

view of the panel in terms of

the way this debate is going.

Is it getting harder for the

Government or is the

Government finding a way

through it. There was a fair few details that came out

during the week, perhaps not

as much as some people would

have liked but more defails

that come bay a-- Combet announced the other day.

The is on the verge of

jumping the shark if it

hasn't jumped it already. I

am a supporter of an emissions trading scheme and

accept a fixed price on

carbon is a necessary way to

get to that. But when Greg

Combet announced the

compensation I thought, "Wow,

there is -- this is really

getting dogged down."

They are ongoing with their

modelling. If they did know

all the detail they would

announce it but they put this

thing out before they knew

all the detail, trying to respond to the criticism that

they received with the

original mining tax that they

announced the thing without

consultation. They try to do

the reverse now and go too

far the other way?

Who knows what's really going on inside the

Government. This is just a

mess. It is another policy

they have mismanaged so badly

and yet it is so important

for them to get this right

because it's Gillard's last

role roll of the dice. If she

can't tell the carbon tax she

is finished. The Greens or

her own party will take her

out. We have seen constant mismanagement of this whole

issue of carbon pricing by

the Government. Where it was

her decision to push Rudd to

dump the ETS in the first

place, if failure of him to

properly sell the scheme, the

range of different enquiries

by different bodies they've had, they'll never be a

carbon tax under a Government

I lead, then the announcement

of a carbon tax and the

question of price and

compensation. It is just a mess. The worst thing about

all of this is what she's

actually now doing isn't that

really different to what

Kevin Rudd was going to do

with his fixed price on carbon before moving to an

ETS so she could have

essentially stuck with the

original plan and not be seen

to be reversing on what she's

committed to do.

The whole point of the dumping of Kevin Rudd was

Julia Gillard knew the ETS

was turning into electoral

poison. They got rid of them.

Then she got elected in a

sdrr difficult set of circumstances where she had

to dance with the greens and

they insist she introduce

AETS and she is back to where she started from.

The Greens will not force

this to been election not

with weekly meetings with the

Prime Minister.

I would not be priced. --

surprised. The Greens would

love another election.

If the Coalition continues

to prosecute the case against

the carbon tax effectively

this issue will cost the

Government the elects

election and I stand --

election. I stand by that.

Greg Combet not long after

his speech at the National

Press Club this week where me trumpeted that certain people

would be better off after the

carbon tax was asked how many people would be worse off and he dodged the question a

number of types. Are we

ending up with something

similar to the CPRS? We are.

Under the CPRS millions of people were worse off.

Everyone in the high income

category, a large swathe of

people in the middle income

category, and this's not to

mention Al the small binses

not in anyway compensated and

all the people in Paul Howes'

membership whose jobs are at risk.

If they get this legislated

and enacted, if it then isn't

as bid as the doom and fwloom

predictions from the

Opposition -- doom and gloom

predictions from the

Opposition, how does Abbott

recall queue late his attack.

Is he exposed a little bit? He has been very clear about this that we would be

repealing this tax.

If the tax isn't so bad how

does he keep selling it?

He's made a firm commitment

there and if he were elected

and did not repeal the tax

people would be asking you are just as bid as the other

mob. I don't think that's the

- likely to happen.

How does he deal with the political fight if that doesn't happen?

I think there's so many hypo

thetty calls there. I think

the big thing there that you haven't factored in is are

the groons going to support

this at the end of the day.

They last time said there

were too many carve outs. I

imagine they will say the say

thing -- say the same thing

this time as well. Thank you

both of you -- all of you for being here.

You have been watching the

contrarians. Be sure and tune

in on Sunday morning for win

Wayne Swan on Australian Agenda. Thanks for your company. Live captioning by Ai-Media. www.ai-media.tv