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) ON RECORD: Helpful hint No.1 - in a heart-warming smile. there's no harm Well, of course! SHATTERING GLASS Helpful hint No.2 - by offering a cheery hello. brighten someone's day I always do that. Ow! Hello! that you can compliment. Always find something about a person Ugh, that's me to a tee. and denied any light... And whilst night brought the dark

which I could not fight. (YAWNS) ..fast sleep called forth, So, Misery, what did you think? That is a nine on valerian root. Why...thank you? Don't need this anymore. that record myself! It's like I made Closed captions by CSI

This Program Is Captioned Live. Good morning. International

intervention in the Middle East is

underway with the United States

deploying more than 100 cruise

missiles against Libyan targets.

French aircraft fired the opening

shots overnight destroying tanks and

armoured vehicles. Just hours ago,

have been targeted in coalition the Pentagon confirmed over 20 sites the Pentagon confirmed over 20

strikes. The conflict looks set to

the most significant military strikes. The conflict looks set to be

intervention in the Arab world since Iraq. The airstrikes

of heightened rhetoric from Iraq. The airstrikes come in the wake

leaders in the US and Europe. French of heightened rhetoric from coalition

President Nicolas Sarkozy was quick

yest to announce military action after President Nicolas Sarkozy was quick

yesterday's meeting of leaders from

Canada, Italy, Britain and the

States. US Secretary of State Canada, Italy, Britain and the United

Clinton last night said the world States. US Secretary of State Hillary

fears "unspeakable atrocities" from Libya's

the use of ground

the use of ground troops. Meanwhile Libya's Colonel Gaddafi but ruled out

in Japan radioactive contamination

has been detected in food produced

near the Fukushima nuclear reactor.

Engineers say they're closer to

restoring power to the cooling restoring power to the

systems at the plant. But

nuclear systems at the plant. But the UN

nuclear agency says there's still nuclear agency says there's still a

risk that the situation could nuclear agency says there's still a

deteriorate. And Prince William is

continuing his tour of flood-ravaged

areas of Queensland today. Thousands

are expected to turn out across the

Prince. state's south-east to welcome the

recovery workers and residents Prince. He spent yesterday meeting

affected by Cyclone Yasi in North

Queensland. Stay tuned now for

Insiders with Barry Cassidy.

This Program is Captioned

Live. Good morning. Am

welcome to 'Insiders'. The

world's attention was on two

major events, disaster in Japan

and unfolding situation in

Libya. At home the issue that

is defining federal politics

2011, climate change, was

gathering pace just the same.

The Prime Minister finally

declared loud and clear that

she had walked away from a

pre-election commitment. Tony

dioxide is not the villain many Abbott declared that carbon

people think it is, and then

thought better of it, and a Government adviser may have

found the game changer - bury

the talk of a great big new tax

with a great big new tax cuts.

The Greens - they're travelling

so well that they took a slap from the Prime Minister with a

smile. How much of your recent

poor polling results do you

attribute to your lie on the

carbon tax? I did the last election carbon tax? I did say during

the last election campaign - I

promise ed that there will be

no carbon tax. There will be

no carbon tax. That's true,

and I've walked away from that

commitment. I'm not going to

try to pretend anything else.

It was a performance worthy of

Walt Disney. Mr Abbott doesn't

care about climate change

because he doesn't believe in

climate change. Yes, he says

the right thing to the xhunt. Climate change is real.

Mankind contributes to it. Put

him on talkback radio and his true opinions emerge. Whether carbon dioxide is quite the environmental villain that some

people make it out to be is not

yet proven. We are living

through an awful contest between knowledge

parliament the only way I can ignorance. In this minority

act on climate change act on climate change by

pricing carbon is to work with

others. Squoo the Greens made

me do it", she said. It brings

a little smile to one's face.

So I had a really stark choice

- do I act or not act? Well,

I've chosen to act. about an Australian Prime there something slightly sad

Minister forced into something

by Senator Bob Brown? As an

ideas bank or Australia's

future you won't get better

than the Greens. It is likely

Australia's carbon price would

need to commence at around $25.

So $25 a tonne carbon price

means $300 a year on your

electricity bill, 6.5 cents a

litre on your that's just for starters. Of

course the Government has not made any decision in relation

to that at this stage. middle income earners in to that at this stage. Low and

Australia will Australia will be better off

direct ly as a result of these

arrangements. That's an important observation on his

part. We now have an absurd

situation where the Treasurer doesn't appear at the

announcement of new tax cuts.

generation And in addition, future

generation s of their family

will be protected dangerous climate change. My

argument is not with Garnaut, it's with the Government. We

should be especially grateful

to have Tony with us today,

because I understand there was

a flurry this morning when his

staff tried to explain to him

it was a green event about a

saint. And he had to be

convinced it was Patrick and

not Bob. Prime Minister wearing green

without any prompting from Bob

Brown. The Greens are not a

party of government. She had a slap at the Greens in middle of a very good speech.

And have no tradition of

striking the balance required

to deliver major reform.

There's product

differentiation going on here.

Neither of the extremes in

Australian this reform. The Prime

Minister can't simultaneously

call the Greens extreme

government with them. The the same time be in a

Greens are only extreme in the

sense of extremely popular and

growing. This is a reform growing. This is a reform that

can only be handled in the progressive Labor tradition.

If Labor keeps taking our policies, I think doing all right. This morning

our program guest is the

Minister for Trade, Craig Emerson, on the implications

for Australia of the Japanese

disaster. Before then, we'll check out the Sunday papers

around the country. Overnight,

the air raids have started in

Libya. Karen Middleton, no

token effort either, the bombings have been quite

extensive. That's right,

Barrie. They're calling it

operation odyssey dawn, a

collection of allies,

Americans, British, French,

Canadians and Italians, but the British and Americans started things off with 110 tomahawk missiles launched at defence

systems in Libya, followed by

French war planes that struck

at some ground-based assets, including armoured This he have started off indicating they're serious

about it. Listen now to what

some of the leaders around the

world have been saying about

it. Tonight, British forces

are in action over Libya. They

are part of an international

coalition that has come

together to enforce the will of

the United Nations and to

protect the Libyan people. We have all seen the appalling brutality that Colonel Gaddafi

has meted out against his own people, and far people, and far from introducing the ceasefire he

spoke about, he has actually

stepped up the attacks and the

brutality that we can all see.

So what we are doing So what we are doing is

necessary, it is legal, and it

is right. I am deeply aware of the

the risks of any military

action, no matter what limits

we place on it. I want the American people to know that

the use of force is not our

choice that I make lightly.

But we cannot stand idly by

when a tyrant tells his people

that there will be no mercy.

that there will be no mercy. TRANSLATION: I am very sorry

and saddened that my country

tonight is facing a barbaric

and armed attack. , an attack

that caused some real harm against civilian s and buildings. The Foreign Minister, Kevin Minister, Kevin Rudd, has of

course been urging precisely

this outcome for weeks now, and

this is what he had to say

Meet the Press this morning. The Australian Government

fully supports this military

action against the Libyan

regime because it's necessary

to do whatever is possible to

protect the Libyan people and

it is action which is entirely consistent with the

authorisation of the UN

Security Council. This is the

first phase in a multi-phase

operation which will be

conducted by coalition forces. On the specific operational

characteristics of each phase,

I do not intend to provide any

comment whatsoever. So, Piers, it's generally an international

effort and they put it together

very quickly. Yes, Barrie, very quickly. Yes, Barrie, but what's the

what's the end game? What do

they actually hope to achieve?

If the United Nations is now in

the business of taking out

people or dictators who are acting against their own people, where people like Mugabe? Are we

going to see action against a

person who's murdered far more

of his own people than Gaddafi

ever did? I suppose in Yemen too, 20 people killed overnight. overnight. Overnight, I'm not

sure where that leaves the

total. I think during the

rioting that's taken place in

and around Sana'a over the past

week or 10 days or so, we've

had more than 200 people there

killed. In Libya, just going

back to that for the moment, we

don't know who the rebels are, what their politics are, what they propose, apart from deposing

deposing Gaddafi, which, you

know, universally would be

greeted. Where do we go from

here? I guess that's true, for the operational matter they're

not a matter for us, we haven't

committed anything to this, of

course that doesn't stop the media from asking Australian politicians about operational

matters. Diplomatic support in

something like this is important for those third-party

countries, we've been more vocal than most other one. Rudd and Gillard are

effusive on this one. No-fly

zone by themselves have never

gotten rid of dictators at the

end of the day, you've had

go in there and boot them out, Iraq is a great example. There

is a question about the end

game in this and how it will

end up. As a vocal proponent

of this, I think we'll have to

offer an opinion on that offer an opinion on that eventually. And how far the allies

allies shepherd in a new regime

if they're going to get rid of

the old one. As Piers you don't know what you'll get. The development on the

story at home this morning on

climate change and Ross

Garnaut's proposal of tax cuts is compensation is compensation for the price

on carbon. Julia Gillard said

this morning on agenda, on Sky,

it is a live option. Here she it is a live option. Here she

is. Well, certainly tax cuts

is a live option. We've got to remember what's the purpose

here. The purpose is to tax

businesses that are creating

carbon pollution. I've always

said yes,

price impacts and we will

provide generous assistance to

households. Tax cuts are a

live option. Would that be the

game change, Karen? game change, Karen? It makes it much harder for the

opposition, doesn't it? They're in favour of reducing

household income tax, but not

in favour of a carbon tax. If

the Government marries those

two things together, it becomes politically far more

complicated for the opposition

to oppose. That may well have

occurred to the Government.

Barrie, this is more absurd ad

hoccery from this Government.

We already have the line the Gillard - before

the last election, promised a tax summit before June this

year. I gather that that's

been moved, but we may learn

the details later on. We'll

have the date very

yes. Okay. Now, if we're

going to fiddle with tax cuts

to deal with the carbon dioxide

tax impost, let's do it in the framework of

framework of an overall

restructuring of what is the

most cumbersome tax system in

our history. our history. We can't have,

you know, payoff going here,

payoff going there in what is

really just a massive wealth

redistribution program for redistribution program for no effect. That goes to the point

of whether this would be tax

reform or whether it would be

just a political convenience.

At the moment it's political

convenience. That depends - if

they adopt the Garnaut

recommendation, you move to the

flat tax rate that Henry recommended last year. I think

35% tax rate from everyone from

25 grand to 180. You'd have to call that reform. If it's just

tweaking the low income tax offset, which is what the Sunday Telegraph suggests may

happen this morning, it

probably doesn't fall under reform basket. Henry leaves

people worse off. I was going

to say Garnaut recommended a one-off cut to petrol excise,

which clearly isn't about reform. Let's hear about how

Ross Garnaut puts it. Here he Ross Garnaut puts it. Here he is. I think it's very important to save from cooking: if at the same

time you can reform the tax

system and make us all more

productive, that's a good

thing. You can do it at the same time without

compromising of the environmental objective. This

is plain horse shit to say that any tax is going to save the

planet from cooking, you know? Australia's emissions are so small on the international

scale and the proposed

reduction is so minuscule

within that - It's surely more about the best way of selling

the whole box to the public.

It's a way of getting the

thing off the agenda. It's

been killing Labor for three years. Hang on, Piers, let Phil

finish. Labor has to deal with

this thing. They tried to dump

it. They have to get it done.

You know, we know, the net effect

effect on global emissions will

be negligible from this. If

they can marry this to a reform

agenda, they don't lose votes

on it, they can compensate

people, get the issue dealt

with. That's the politics of as that. There is also the

issue that internationally eventually countries that

haven't moved to do something

about emissions will about emissions will be

penalised. If you are at the

back of the pack, you will end up facing international

penalty, financial penalties,

for not having done something.

There is an incentive there to

do something soon. I accept

they need to get on with it,

but they also genuinely believe in the inner substance of the

issue and they've mucked up the

politics before. Gillard said

if it doesn't happen this year,

it won't happen at all. To me

there seems to be frustration in there.

this, one last crack at it,

then everyone can go jump if it doesn't get up. They'd rather

have a conversation about tax cuts than tax increases. But let's cut this right down to

the basics. There's not going

to be sufficient energy

emission reduction to boil an

egg, you know? This is how

ludicrous it is, and with due

respect to both of my

colleagues here, they're

talking about the structure of

tax cuts and so on and so for tax cuts and so on and so forth

for what, to

When we know that China is building far more fossil-fuelled power plants

than we could even dream of. We'll of. We'll come back to this.

We've gone a little beyond the papers, that is the Sunday

papers. We'll go to the

program guest now, the Trade

Minister Craig Emerson joins us

from our studios at parliament

House in Canberra. Good

morning and welcome, Minister.

Thanks, Barrie. We'll start

with the implications for the

region of events in Japan. Perhaps you can start

rate has gone up in a crisis. Yes, it's fascinating Yes, it's fascinating really,

because, as I understand it,

it's a consequence of the Japanese people Japanese people being very

patriotic and wanting to bring

back their foreign currency

savings in other countries and

then exchanging them for yen.

That drives the price of the

yen up. So you get this

perverse result where the

Japanese people, being very

patriotic, wanting to bring the

money back to rebuild Japan, are actually forcing the

exchange rate up and that's causing

their exports to decline. their exports to decline. So they're trying to do the right thing, but that collective action itself is actually

damaging to Japan's immediate

prospects. Is that a matter of

concern for that take investment out of

this country? Not so much. In

fact the G7 grouping of

countries has intervened to try

to offset this appreciation of

the yen. It does actually

mean, incidentally, that our exports become a little more competitive, but that's not the

main point of this argument.

The point is that, you know, a

lot of people trying right thing by Japan are

actually causing some economic damage in addition to the

damage that's already occurred directly as a result of the

earthquake. My understanding

there, Barrie, is that this

will be significantly bigger than the Kobe earthquake

economic impacts of 1995. That

was $100 billion back then, so

we're looking at a very large

amount of money, a large amount

of damage. I'm sure that's why the Japanese people are

actually bringing that money

back in, because they know that there's a be done. As part of that damage,

damage, does that mean that there

there will be disruption

obviously to the manufacturing

industry and does that have

implications for Australian

trade? Oh, look, it can a

little. They are very

high-tech manufacturers. I

don't think it would be

significant in relation to

Australia. I've seen reports of concerns in the United

States because the sorts of

things they do are machine

tooling - that is, in addition

to high-tech electronics, it's

actually the tools that are

used in high-tech facilities in

the United States and Europe. disrupting effect. But there's

a fair bit of spare capacity in

the Japanese economy and then

there are other economies that

are producing similar things. So I don't think that that will

be the major impact. I think

it will actually be the direct impact on Japan and then, of

its purchasing power because,

you know, they'll have to do a

lot of rebuilding. But in the

very short term that rebuilding

again perversely stimulates

demand. So you get all the

comings and goings, put it all

together, it's a very big

impact, but I don't think the impact on very significant, certainly in

the short term, Barrie. What about on the nuclear crisis,

then? If there is a scaling back, perhaps

back on that, would the impact

of that be? Well, it's a bit

early to speculate about that,

of course. Again, you and I

will have seen reports that

countries are reassessing their

position on nuclear energy, position on nuclear energy, on

building new power stations,

and so on. Some would argue

that that would have a negative

effect on the value of Australia's uranium but a very important resource

that we have which is regarded

as a fuelling transition is our

natural gas reserves. Probably

substantially, if anything,

increase the value of those

reserves, the reserves that

sitting in the ground and being

developed right now. So with

all things economic, there are

some things that go down, other

things that go up. If anything, it's probably substantially increased the value of those gas reserves. But whatever the

safety aspects, though, of

nuclear power, clearly it's the one power

essentially of greenhouse gas

emissions, so would that then,

if there was a scaling back,

make it more difficult for some countries around the world to hit their targets? Well,

that's right. If scaling back, given that

nuclear is zero emissions, that

puts the pressure on other renewable energy sources to

come to the fore, that creates

economic insensitive s in economic insensitive s in fact for renewable energy sources to

come to the fore, which in terms of

terms of the global environment

is not necessarily a bad and in relation to natural gas,

it emits about half the

emissions of coal. So that

means that gas become s a important energy source in the

whole equation. It also would

increase the incentives for

what's called GOC questation

for coal, that is, putting the

carbon dioxide into the ground.

If these sorts of changes do

occur in relation to nuclear,

that will set in train a new

set of incentives, because, as

you point out, that imperative of reducing emissions is even greater and

that increases the economic

attractiveness of some of these

alternatives. Okay. If we can

talk about the tax Ross Garnaut was saying Ross Garnaut was saying the

best way to compensate

households from a price on

carbon is through tax cuts.

He's been a bit of a mentor of

yours over the years. Does his

idea have some merit? Well, we

have indicated for some time

and as has Ross in his 2008

report, that there does need to

be compensation Now, I guess you could put

households into two categories:

those in the tax system and

those who are not. Aged pensioners generally are

the tax system, so tax cuts of

themselves wouldn't be of

benefit to aged pensioners. So

they would be looking at an

increase in the aged pension as part of the generous

compensation that the

Government has been talking

about. But for those in the

tax system, what we've said is

that we would concentrate that compensation on lower and

middle income earners and so,

yes, that could mean would be looking at tax relief,

compensating tax relief for low

and middle income earners, and middle income earners, a

point, by the way, Barrie, that

Tony Abbott and his colleagues

would well have would well have understood when they sat around the cabinet

table and said that they are

going to terminate, remove, the

carbon price. Well, that means

that they are going to grab

back the income tax cuts

associated with our carbon

pollution reduction arrangement

s and so he knows what he has

done in making that decision announced that they will reef those tax cuts back and

potentially increase - reduce

the aged pension as well. So

Tony Abbott, the guy who says,

"Hey, we're from "Hey, we're from the coalition,

we're for low tax, they never

have been and they are

demonstrating again that they

wouldn't be because he'd have

to take those tax cuts

back. Would you say this is a

convenient way to do it, though, because you reach more people, but by your own admission you miss pensioners,

you would miss the unemployed.

Well, I didn't say that this

was exclusively the only option

on the table. What is tax relief, compensating tax

cuts, is an option, increasing

payments for those who are in the income payment system,

whether it be aged pensioners or other types

that's an option as well. This

is not new. What we is not new. What we are saying

is that it is a live option and

we are looking very closely at

it, but these are the sorts of

things that we were looking at

before, and Tony Abbott knows

that. That's why it's so

significant that he and his

shadow cabinet would have had a

discussion to say, "Yes, when

we are going to take back the

tax cuts and we are going to

reduce pensions for lower income earners and aged pensions." pensions." I reckon that's

pretty callus, but that's the

sort of thing he's up to. If

you were to do it this way, you

can hardly call it tax reform,

it might be tax relief, but

more political opportunism than

tax reform, isn't it? We have

always indicated we would provide generous compensation

for lower income earners and also for some middle income

earners. We've indicated that all the way through.

is not something that has just

been dreamed up. What the

Prime Minister has said is that

this is a live option, and it

is a live option. Tony Abbott

knows it's a live option. He

knows it's a live option and that he knew when shadow

cabinet said that they'd Yank

out the carbon price, yank out

the carbon price, Yanking out

tax cuts, you're yanking out a

opportunity for tax reform here

as well. They say they're the

party of low taxes, the party

of tax reform, rubbish, because

they are going to just put the

whole thing into reverse gear and so we and so we have no insulation

against other countries acting

against Australia for doing

nothing on carbon pollution

reduction, no insulation

whatsoever, and under Tony

Abbott you'd have higher taxes

and lower pensions, great deal

Tony. Would $6 billion, though,

be enough to cover the cost of compensation? And this is where we're not getting into the detail at this stage,

Barrie, because we've got to

work through the most effective

and fairest compensation

package for lower and middle

income earners. That's what

we're doing now. But the idea

and the commitment to provide

generous compensation for lower

income earners in particular is

not new. What we're saying

that tax cuts and some tax

reform possibilities do emerge

from this. You saw Ross

Garnaut on your program, and I

saw the tape, of him saying

there may be some opportunities

for tax reform. I don't want

to overstate that, because, you

know, let's see how it comes

out in the end. But the

concepts are right, that we

would provide tax cuts, we would would provide benefits in terms

of compensating adjustments in

pensions. Tony Abbott would

reverse both of those, and he

needs to explain to the

Australian people

they sat around that shadow

cabinet table, they were able to make that callus decision

all for the opportunistic

position of being able to say they won't have a price on

carbon, bad for the

environment, bad for working Australians, bad for low-income

earners and bad for Australian

pensioners. Great deal

Abbott. When you work your way

through this and try to come

negotiating with Tony Abbott,

you'll be negotiating with the

Greens. The Prime Minister

says this party has no history of striking the right balances.

How are you going to negotiate

with them? Well, the Greens

three times voted against carbon pollution reduction

scheme. I think, and hope,

they'll have pondered the fact

that they did that. They would

have to vote against our emissions trading scheme,

putting a price on carbon. Now, I think that a lot of

Green supporters would say if

the Greens are so concerned

about reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere, why do

they keep voting against it?

So, yes, there will be So, yes, there will be a negotiation, but I think that

the Greens will need to

understand, and I hope they do understand, that not understand, that not only will people be watching the Government, they'll be watching

the Greens as well to ensure

that they do the right thing by

Australia, contribute our national effort towards the

global effort of reducing carbon pollution into the atmosphere, and I know Piers

says it's only 1.5%. Other

countries are moving. If stay in the past instead of

being part of the future, then

we could face a very severe

economic dislocation, as other

countries say one major country in terms of emissions per

capita has done nothing, and in fact

fact has Yanked out, if Tony

Abbott gets his opportunity,

the one thing that's put in

place a carbon price, then I

would fear for our economic

future not only for the

environment. I just want to ask

you finally about the Doha

round, it seems we've gone

quiet lately. How gloomy is the outlook? concerned about the Doha round,

Barrie. There has been a lot

of discussion amongst the major

countries about the price that

they would have to pay for a

successful Doha round - that

is, the tariffs that they might

need to am reduce, the improved

market access into their

countries. All right, have a

discussion about the price for

success, but there should be a

real discussion about the price

of failure. The price of

failure would mean a

deterioration in our

international trading rules,

opening the door for those

countries that might want to think that that's the

discussion that needs to take

place while these negotiations

are going on in Geneva right

now. So I call on the major

countries of the world, we're

not the problem, we not the problem, we are facilitating an outcome here as

a friend of the system, but it's all right to talk about

the price of success. Let's

have a proper discussion of the price

price of failure of the world

trading system. How urgent is

that, given that 2012 is the

election season in many places?

Look, it is really urgent.

These discussions are going on

right now in Geneva, right now in Geneva, they've

been going on for a few weeks. We had a meeting in Switzerland

of seven countries. It was good that Australia was there. I was able to represent

Australia as one of the seven

major countries involved in

trying to sort all trying to sort all of this out.

There was a political commitment given at that

meeting. It's got to be

translated now into action.

Parties are talking, and the

atmosphere is better, but our

sense is that there's not a lot

of movement and there's not

much time, in fact very little

time to go, before we won't be

able to hit the 2011 deadline. As you say, there's elections in the United

States, and other major

countries. So I think that's a real

real problem. We've got to

give it a red-hot go for

2011. Thanks for your time this morning. Thanks, Barrie. I'm

now going to toss a coin and

invite the Premier to make the

call. Heads. Heads it is. We

do face a choice. The choice

about this State's O'Farrell knows that if you

know what he's really know what he's really planning,

you won't vote for him. For 16

years, NSW has suffered broken promises, scandals and incompetence. If incompetence. If we don't perform, if we don't deliver,

you can throw us out at the

next election. Premier, do you want a bigger NSW?

Shrinking is not an option.

Immigration has benefited us,

but immigration is a federal

issue. I think he's actually achieved bipartisanship

here. Premier, you recently

objected to Prime Minister flood levy. NSW families flood levy. NSW families are

facing - they face higher

mortgage costs. NSW has a systematic

systematic or systemic cost of

living problem. Yes, and it's

called the Labor Party.

called the Labor Party. I'm not going to do what's

happening in Canberra. I'm not

going to trade our policies, our commitments, our

principles, simply to hang on

to office. If Mr O'Farrell

gets elected, he'll discover governing governing is a little different

to being Opposition Leader. It's

O'Farrell hasn't yet been able to bring himself to endorse the

coag health reform. Excuse me,

people across this State only

get one opportunity under our electoral system

years to hold Government to

account. Don't risk the Canberra phenomena for

independents and Greens see

Labor return. I know there is

a powerful mood for change in

NSW, but I challenge the notion

that that must mean a change of

Government. I'm delivering

change in Government.

change in Government. And the

first editorials are in the

Sunday Telegraph endorses the

coalition and says the NSW

Labor Government is finished,

it will go down as it should in

spectacular fashion. It's

pretty black and white. The

'Sun-Herald', the headline is

victory is yours, Barry, now

earn our trust. Phil? Yeah,

well, imagine what the headline

will be if Labor wins? Obviously O'Farrell will win

the election. The biggest thing probably for expectation management. He's going to have - nice problem to

have, a large majority and so

forth, but there will be

enormous expectation on

O'Farrell to fix O'Farrell to fix NSW and not a

lot of attention has been

focused on them to this point, it's all been about the

disintegration of NSW Labor. A friend of

friend of mine sort of privy is

to internal polling and to internal polling and stuff and says essentially the focus groups

groups especially, there's been

very little - people don't care

who O'Farrell is, they'll just

vote for him. They want to get rid of the Labor Government, they'd vote something. A couple of people

in the Telegraph forum made

that point, we didn't know who you were until tonight. So

suddenly, as probably we should

say from Sunday week, Sunday next next week, suddenly the

spotlight will be on Mr

O'Farrell and an enormous

weight of expectation. I saw somebody write this week Barry O'Farrell is under huge

pressure to say what he'll do.

He's not under huge pressure,

that's the point. Esz' under

pressure to stay upright, look

vaguely sensible. The telegraph made the point he offers a safe

pair of hands, the state needs

action and energy. Indeed. action and energy. Indeed. I

agree with Phil. Expectations

will come after the election

result. He'll

massive rump on the

backbeverage of all sorts of

people he doesn't know. Lots to tidy up, Piers. Exactly,

Barrie. My point is this:

this is not a thing you can

look at the first 100 days of

Barry O'Farrell. You have to be looking at the first term, the orgian stables have the orgian stables have nothing on the job

to remedy what is basically 20

years of mistrust in Liberals,

- because it's been 20 years

since the Liberals lost

popularity in NSW. So he has

to recapture that ground. I don't know whether you're going to ask for us to ask for us for our

predictions, or later in the show No, by all means. I've

seen a lot of seen a lot of stuff particularly from the Labor

side we could be reduced to be about - I think that's

where it is. I saw Graeme Richardson earlier this year

talking about 14, and so on and

so forth. I think that there

is a lot is a lot of spin coming out from Labor, from Sussex Street

particularly, the people who

are managing Labor, and they

have been predicting on the low

side because when it just does

come in over 20, probably 24 - To put that

To put that in perspective,

what's the size of the House?

93. And 20 seats to Labor. But when they significantly more than the

predictions, then they'll be

able to say boy, didn't we turn

it around for some genius in

the last days, what a brilliant campaign we ran. That's the

only thing they'll take from this. That also might be weather proofing themselves

from federal implications,

carbon tax and impact that has.

If it comes under 20, they'll say that was a result of the

carbon tax, would that be a

fair call? I don't think so.

It's entirely understandable that Tony Abbott have linked carbon tax to this

election. You could link

anything to the election.

Abbott will say without doubt

the people of NSW have spoken

on carbon tax, the

nation is next. Labor was

going to get thumped long

before Gillard pressed the

button on carbon tax. You can

hitch quite a few things on

it. Another late issue is

prominent ALP figures are

having a go at Kristina

Keneally at the last minute

because she showed the door to

23 MPs. Some of those weren't shown the door, they left voluntarily. That's

right. One of the big issues

for Labor post election will be looking at who leads the party

and already it's been suggested

that John Robertson wants the

job. People within Labor are

telling me that they are

absolutely dismayed at the

amount of resources that have

been pulled to support

Robertson in his seat where he already

already has a margin of 22%.

These people are incredulous

that other seats where they have significant support are

being depleted of resources to

prop up this former trade union

boss, the guy who cost NSW $15 billion. Already starting work

on the next one. Barry

O'Farrell of course has put out a

a contract with the people, a

million copies, he's signing a

lot of them, Kristina Keneally lot of them, Kristina Keneally had this to say about that.

Just check if this contract

has a cooling-off period, good

luck to him, that's a great use of his time. But when he does

need medical attention for his

RSI injuries, he can go to a

public hospital, where he's

confident, he knows that he's

going to get the care that

needs. Go with God,

Barrie. Remarkable sense of humour, I think given

everything. Well, indeed. I

think the other point about the

spinning - the diabolical

situation is they're trying to

save the furniture. She's

trying to keep up the happy

face, but they're also talking

down their likely result in the hope that maybe some

and think we don't want a

complete liberal domination in

the parliament, and they might

actually claw back a little of

that vote. I'm surprised that

O'Farrell put oout

contract. I don't think he

needed to get into that level

of detail and offered to resign

if he didn't fulfil his

promises. Some of the promises

are fairly big, a couple of

metro rail lines have been

notoriously hard for previous

governments to build. I think he'll have to break promises

when he gets in and realises the extent of things, with expectation sort of thing you do if it's

going to be a tight election.

I don't think you need to do

that - I think it's quite

interesting that O'Farrell is

now the longest-serving Opposition Leader across

Australia. In effect, there

are a lot of changes - this is

not a traditional State

election. One, we have

optional preferential voting,

this makes it difficult to predict the outcome with great

accuracy. Two, O'Farrell is

seen in NSW as an because we've had so many failed failed Labor Premiers. Being the longest-serving Opposition

Leader is not necessarily a

badge of honour. Sorry, Karen,

I think this is why he's had

run the sort of incumbent

campaign and put out campaign and put out rather

extravagant promises. I would

have thought you'd take a

different approach. If you're

going to win so easily, why

make extravagant promises? If

he does what Phil suggests and

breaks the promises, he can't

do a Julia and say I didn't

expect this result, I've had to

break my promise. has been relentlessly against

him saying where are your

policies, Barry? To other developments this morning, one

quite astonishing, Wayne Swan now has

opened it up with the news tax summit will be in early

October. I think October 4 and

5. Pushed out to the second

half of the year. That's

right. Same month of CHOGM. Debate over compensation

for the carbon tax - Well, I expected this earlier this expected this earlier this year and in fact we it. All right. We'll look now

at some of the developments, take a

take a look at them in

chronological order, the way

the issues developed on climate

change this week. Wale start

with Julia Gillard on 'Q&A' when she went to that issue of

the broken promise. I promised

that there would be no carbon

tax, that's true, and I've walked away from that

commitment and I'm not going to

try to pretend anything else.

If you find that you're blocked

on your normal route driving

home, do you just sit there and

say gee, I'm never going to see

my home again, or do you find

us to have an emissions trading

scheme. I've found a different

way through. So she did this

because she hit a roadblock and

had no other choice. But

took her over a month to decide that she was sitting in a

traffic jam, because she did

try to weave her way with, "Oh,

I always talked about a climate

tax during the campaign", when

she hadn't. So I think this is

just absolutely more deceit from a

truth. That was the best

explanation she's had so far.

It has taken her an awful long

time to get it out. In

fairness to her, she started

running that line in September, after the election last year.

It started with an interview

with us, but subsequently in

others she started saying others she started saying -

remember she said "I reserve

the right to break my promises because of because of the hung

parliament". No-one paid

attention until about a month

ago, when they officially

pushed the button on this

thing. She's running the line

with the circumstances have

changed with hung parliament, she's September last year. No-one

noticed it. It's the point about finding another way

through she didn't convey very

well. To go to your point, Phil, then you Phil, then you have to go to

the article that your colleague

Peter Harcher wrote yesterday,

where he was talking about the

legitimacy of Labor to govern.

That was a good piece. If you talk about the in

consistencies, of course, in

consistencies on both sides,

Tony Abbott manages to achieve

it in consecutive days, we'll

look at what he had to say this

week. I don't think we can say that the science here, whether carbon dioxide is quite the environmental villain

some people make it out to be

is not yet proven. Climate

change is real. Mankind contributes to it. It's

important to have a strong and effective policy to

carbon dioxide emissions, and

that's what the coalition

has. He has to put the Monday contribution behind him,

doesn't he? Never mind real

Julia, which one is real Tony?

This is crazy stuff, one day

he's saying science isn't

settled, the next day he's Stick to one line. He Stick to one line. He did

precisely what his party room

told him not to do, 5050 in the

coalition believes in man-made climate change, the other half

doesn't. He toldz his party

room let's not get an argument

about this again, let's keep it

on the Government and keep it on a

on a great big new tax. So

he's the first one to open it

up again. Piers, your view is

the science is not settled?

Absolutely, Barrie. I don't

think that any reputable

scientist has been able to -

when Julia made her speech about extreme

da da da, I went right through

all of the material yesterday

and there is not a reputable

scientist who pins down bushfires, tsunamis,

earthquakes, cyclones,

hurricanes, you name it, to

climate change During the week,

to that proposition, Julia

Gillard had this to say. And

the scientific consensus is

stronger than ever. Given

these realities, I ask who

would I rather have on my side,

Alan Jones, Piers

Andrew bolt or the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science, the Bureau of Meteorology,

NASA, the US National As mot feric Administration and every

reputable climate scientist in

the world. Quite a list. As I

said before, she has a lot of trouble with the truth,

Barrie. I think all of those organisations would put

themselves in her camp. And I

think that if you read very

carefully the reports they

actually put the way they're filtered by

Julia Gillard, you'll find that

almost all of them have very,

very major caveats about linking climate change Even linking climate change to - Even if you were right, I

think you're not, wouldn't you

rather err on the side of

caution? No? No, no, when it

comes to erring on the side of

caution, I would err in favour of keeping the Australian

economy strong, rather than

exporting our jobs to China and

India and

which are major emitters - And

leave it to other generations to figure out if it's correct

or not, shall we have this debate again? No, because Karen our global warming, if it exists,

in terms of an throw po genic

global warming, if we are making any contribution,

whatever we do will have no

effect on global temperature.

Therefore, why should we put

our kids out of jobs, close down industries here, close

down the concrete industry,

close

not going to do that, they're

not that dumb. That's exactly

right. The whole business of a

carbon dioxide tax is to put impost ons these Capital will go elsewhere, Phil. Phil. They'll also be compensated, compensated, Piers, I think

you're overdramatising just a

tad. Then you're just talking

about re cycling money, Karen.

No, you're talking about

transitioning Let's move to Julia Gillard's second

contribution in the week, a

speech in Adelaide, when she portrayed Labor as the party in the centre in this debate,

they're the sort of sensible, moderate centre. she sort of dismissed as denial

ists and the Greens, of course

- well, she regarded them as

extremists, and to that Tony Abbott said this. The Prime

Minister can't get her story straight if they are extremist,

as she now says, why did she

form a government with

them Barn by Joyce puts it

another way, like two people

walking down the street holding hands saying this relationship

is a farce the,' on to

something, aren't they? Yes. What the Greens probably have got away with

got more popular out of

blocking climate change last

time, they won votes on it. As

Gillard said again this

morning, she said that the

Greens are against jobs. She went stronger went stronger this morning on

one of the other programs. The point - look, it is

inconsistent with what's been happening thus far. She's trying

trying to position herself in the middle, Abbott will protect

existing jobs, the Greens want

to create new ones, we Labor

will be able to do both, that's

the point she's trying to make.

It is interesting, she's

making a relative argument, she's not saying our merits, judge us relative

to this mob here and this mob

over here. Does it happen what over here. Does it happen what Piers is saying concrete

factories will close down, Gillard is saying we'll keep Gillard is saying we'll keep them open, but also give a

nudge to solar cell manufacture

or whatever else, only Labor

can do that. She's talking to

oher own people, those who are

worried about the influence of

the Greens. She's also talking

about people saying Labor is

hijacked by the Greens' agenda. This is essentially four people within the Labor Party.

That's how I read the speech Adelaide, Barrie, it was Julia Gillard propping up Julia

Gillard within the Labor Party

because, as we've seen, yet

again this morning, Kevin Rudd

is everywhere and he is everywhere and he made a

meal out of the media whilst

she was in Washington with

Karen. He is at the moment, but there are some very big

international issues going on

at the moment. But Kevin is

over every crisis. Let's face it, we are a long way from

Libya. Curiously enough, we don't

don't have a contiguous border

with Libya, don't have any

forces there, we large number of citizens who

are involved there, and yet I

think Kevin Rudd has had more

to say about Libya than any

other Foreign Minister and

we're not even on the security council. Further council. Further on what Labor is doing in China to differentiate from the differentiate from the Greens,

Christine Milne disputed an interpretation

interpretation put on the

decision they took on the pulp

mill, where we said last week

that the she'd interpreted the Government took the decision to

build a bit of distance between themselves and the Greens.

Well, she disputes that and we

accept that, she didn't say

that. You would think, though, speech, it's happening anyway.

She might like to rethink what

she's - Not so much on the

pulp mill. This is what Bob

Brown now says about the

Wednesday speech. There's product differentiation going

on here, so it brings a little

smile to one's face to see product differentiation, while

carrying through with a

long-held Green political philosophy. If that's the bind

- In other words what they do

not what they say On detention

centres - of course there have

been fires this week

there, about 70 extra Federal

Police have been flown to Christmas Island, Kevin Rudd

had this to say about had this to say about that.

That vision, in terms of what

it represents, is completely unacceptable. How can you

expect our officials to process people's properly, their

applications for asylum, et

cetera, when that sort of thing is happening? And is happening? And the

Minister, Chris Bowen, made it

clear that these people are

proven to have been part of

this, then refugees are not,

they face deportation. Well,

it's a failure of policy.

There are too many people in these senters. They're getting frustrated.

I'm not excusing violence, of course you can't excuse that,

but you can understand why people are getting frustrated.

They're responsible for their

actions in the end. Government has to do something

about this problem. They've

got 6,000 people in various

forms of detention across the

country now. It's ridiculous.

These people are there because

of Julia Gillard's policies.

Let's be quite frank about

that. And Kevin Rudd's. And

John Howard's before that.

Prior to 2007, the number of boats coming boats coming to Australia had

shrunk to about zero, two or

three, per year at most. Now,

we've seen this thing blow out.

As you say, Karen, it As you say, Karen, it is a policy failure. Barrie, had

any of these people been

throwing Molotov cocktails in

their own homelands, they

should have been refused

refugee status here. They

wouldn't have met the character

test. I've just got through

saying that's precisely what Chris Bowen has said, if

anybody has alife to the buildings - They could jeopardise their own applications Let's wait to see

what actually occurs. But

given the fact that the men who sabotaged their sabotaged their own boat and blew it up, injuring Defence

Force personnel, are all living

in Australia now with permanent

residency visas, I don't hold

out much hope this government will do anything more than it's

done in the past. It was a tough press conference for

Chris Bowen. It went on for about 50 about 50 minutes or so. about 50 minutes or so. This

is pretty much how it ended. Have a look at this. Clearly,

though, Christmas Island is out

of control and you're the Minister responsible. make whatever observation you wish. The detention centre is in the control of the

Australian Federal Police Australian Federal Police and it's being handled

appropriately. I'm the minister, I take responsibility. Will then? I think you're starting

to exhaust the questions, but

yes. And it was 50 minutes in.

How can you be involved if these people are wandering

downtown buying petrol at the

bouzer and making Molotov

cocktails. I'm not sure of the

situation there now. Do you

think they'd be making Molotov

cocktails in community

detention. More with the panel

shortly with , time now for

Mike Bowers and Talking Pictures. I'm Mike Bowers talking pictures with Craig Reucassel from 'The Chaser',

welcome. Good to be

here. Julia was the toast of

the town and came back to be

roasted back here in Australia.

It's not so nice back here.

When you come back and people

are saying we prfr Kevin Rudd,

that's a tough reception at the

airport. If I got that, I'd

leave again . Lovely Moir, read

my lips, carbon tax HELP. She

was struggling on this initially.

she was going to be sent back a

bit. It's like when she's

having a fight, she's all

right. Black and white, some

hack took these. I liked the photos, I think it's good. I

love these T-shirts, these are surely the

surely the best T-shirts in the

ABC, I want one of those. They

are very good. Look at Tony

getting his face on all the

T-shirts, typical. Now he has

an official photographer

following him around. Gillard,

Abbott, do you have a

preference for who should be sacked first?

thing, with Julia's polling

ratings plummeting, Abbott's

disapproval rating went up

still. He could get to 100%

disapproval and still knocking

off people. He's amazing.

Poor old Kevin, those beady

little eyes seem to follow you

around the room. That's a

fantastic one, isn't it.

Naturally he's trying to get on

some particular news show.

He's been back on '7.30 Report', 'Lateline' and

everything else. He's lapping

it up. It's like back to the old days.

old days. I'm not suggesting he started strife in Libya, but I'm not

ruling it out, okay? Mr David

Rowe, who's done politics now

and drawn the fabulously named Kevin Rudd with the K on the

hat, I love the smell of hat, I love the smell of Newspoll in the morning. It's

great, very great. I have to

say, I know he's pushing for

the no-fly zone, I think the

only thing that Kevin will

ensure won't be able to fly is

his leadership potential. He's

not getting back there, no matter what Newspoll does. It seems Tony Abbott believes in

climate change, except when

talking to people who don't This is mystifying, I can't

get over it. The biggest bit

of environmental change at the

moment is his policy. I think

the best position really is

Turnbull. The reason Turnbull is so consistently believes in

climate change is he has a

giant mansion on the

waterfront. I think that's -

everyone should have that. That way they have to be

looking out the front and go I

should really worry about

this. Do you reckon he's got a

stick? Yeah, yeah, the boat

seems a bit higher this morning, darl.

of him putting - mud technique

is a bit - Not so good.

Strange to see Tony building

something for once, he's

normally knocking things down. When he When he comes back later,

changes his mind, pushes the

wall down, it's easier. In

Perth at the 500 club, the new

power couple is Gina and Tony,

what a power couple they make. Gina has learnt important lessons,

lessons, don'