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) The top stories from ABC News. An Australian woman has been charged with murder over the death of a policeman in Bali. Sara Connor and her British boyfriend David Taylor are also facing charges of assault causing death and group assault. The pair could face up to 15 years in jail if found guilty.

The Turnbull Government says a decision on the timing of a same-sex marriage plebiscite has yet to be made. In a statement, the prime minister's office says the timing and specific question have not yet been decided and are subject to typical cabinet processes. During the election campaign the prime minister promised the plebiscite would be held before 2017.

The Australian Olympic Committee will pay the fines handed to nine athletes who were removed from an Olympic venue after being found with false accreditation. The Australian's were fined $4,000 each after watching a basketball semi-final between Australia and Serbia.

And Australia's Bledisloe Cup hopes lay in tatters after a crushing 42-8 loss to the All Blacks in Sydney. New Zealand piled on six tries to one to notch up their biggest win on Australian soil in more than a century.

Stay tuned for Insiders with Barrie Cassidy.

This program is live captioned by Ericsson Access Services.

Good morning, welcome to Insiders. Federal Parliament resumes in a little over a week and the positioning has begun. Malcolm Turnbull finds himself in a place Julia Gillard once occupied, dependent upon others to get in
anything done but will Bill Shorten in Opposition play Tony Abbott in the new Parliament and try and create chaos from the Government's wafer thin margin? The first test, the first signal will be Labor's approach to the Government's budget cuts. More than $6 billion in a single bill. These are cuts they embraced before the election so what Nowitzski that the election's over?

When the Parliament returns on 30 August, it will be nearly 4 months and a long federal election since we last met. The Australian people will expect all of us, government, opposition and cross-benchers, to make the Parliament they have elected work for them.But first off the bat there are $6.5 billion of measures that the Labor Party put in their forward estimates which they took to the people at the last election.In the upcoming sittings we'll introduce an omnibus measures we understand from the campaign the Opposition is prepared to support.Measures that they had in their estimates that they are honour bound to pass.

Mr Turnbull says he wants cooperation.We are ready to reach across the aisles.Cooperation doesn't involve him telling everyone else what to do.Labor must bring an open mind and fiscal rationality to any discussions.He Malcolm
is negotiating by megaphone. phone.
Malcolm Turnbull can pick up the phone.This is not a time for rigid ideology.In an negotiation it's not a matter of he gets everything he wants.Grow up, be a man, act like a leader and put through the Government's omnibus savings bill. The time for posturing is over. He's got another thing coming.The Parliament.
test of that will be in the Parliament.Game on.

Labor's going to test the Coalition's paper-pin one-seat majority every way it can. Suggesting today it mightn't allow the Coalition pairs, which allows MPs to attend to personal matters without affecting the votes.It will be seen as payback taken during the Gillard minority government.The way Mr Burke has petty.
raised these issues will seem petty.We're not going to play petty, schoolyard games but there's a bigger issue here.They don't have a working majority.Mr Turnbull's told the Australian people that he's won the election, that he's got a strong working rhetoric.
majority, etc, etc, you know the rhetoric.If it were true they wouldn't be coming to us with requests for pairs.It is just a case of you reap what you sew.I don't think it was as savage as that.I think Australians are sick of that.

And our guest here in the studio that.
this morning can pick up on all of that. The Minister for Revenue and Financial Services Kelly O'Dwyer. First the Sunday papers with the panel. Denis Atkins, Phil Coorey and Mark Kenny. Dennis, it appears as if the first major political event next year will be the plebiscite on same-sex marriage. Yes, we were told earlier in the year by the Attorney-General George Brandis that it was the hope of the Government - well he basically said the expectation of the Government that after the election there would be legislation that would go through and there would be a ballot News
this year. But it now appears the News Corporation Sunday papers have got what appear to be quite well sourced stories saying that the - well they're saying that there's not enough time, it will now be held in February. And we have since learnt that the AEC has given this advice to the Government and that appears to be the reason, that to
there's not going to be enough time to do it this year. Now that sets up two things. One is that this debate will continue. We've seen it as one of the strong debates within the Coalition since the election, especially from those conservatives who are opposed to same-sex marriage. So that debate now will continue for the rest of this year and as you say, it will be the barbecue stopper that will occur on Australia Day, presumably.And right through Christmas and then you open the parliamentary year with this debate at its height.A hell of a way to start the year. But I guess it puts pay to the Aboriginal - the recognition in the constitution referendum which had been pencilled in for May. That thing has hit the fence now, you would assume.The Fairfax follow up to that story made two points. One that the AEC had advised they couldn't do it this year but the other was that the no decision had been taken on the wording on the timing, though February '17 had been suggested. The wording that is suggested in that article is "Do you approve of a law to permit people of the same sex to marry? " That simple. It could be simpler. I guess you could talk about agree rather than approve or whatever. But do you think those form of words would be acceptable?It's going to be contested, isn't it? What is suggested someone is going to claim is a loaded question designed to deliver one result or kept
another. But obviously it has to be being
kept simple. On the question of it being not this year, I think here we are, we're 8 months down in this year already, you know, and sort of in the run up to question that's gone as well. There's hardly any time left of this year and if basic questions like the question itself and the logistics of it and then organising it haven't even been sort of agreed.I'd be surprised if the mood out there picks up on that headline that the Government has kind of broken a promise or something.Since the election they've been saying it's still hopeful this year but there's a possibility of early next year and obviously that's where it's landed. I don't think there is a big public sentiment calling for it to be sooner rather than later. I don't think people will care one way or the other. The consequence of this is what happens internally in the Liberal Party and allowing it to run on probably longer than might have been neat and tidy for George Brandis and the PM, I think that will cause some grief. But maybe, you know, if the AEC can't do it, maybe they could outsource it to the Bureau of Statistics.Nice thought. The Manus Island bill is in and it's big.Yes, the parliamentary library has done some research in the cost of running Manus Island. My colleague Adam Gartrell has this story in the paper today and it turns out that since it's been opened over the last 4 years, it's cost around $2 billion which is around $1 million for each of the people involved caught up in that appalling joint which we now understand is to be closed. But it's $420 million in capital costs, $1.25 billion to run plus a whole bunch of extra costs, year of extra capital costs and other recurrent costs and resettlement costs associated with the last few months. So it's an extremely expensive thing and presumably that money can be put somewhere else.Still a lot less than all the detention centres when I think they shut 17 detention then.
centres, the bill was much bigger then. So I'm sure the Government will argue it's a lot of money but it ain't as much as it used to be. Phil, this story despite some of the rhetoric about, there's talk doing
about the Government and Opposition doing a deal on the welfare cuts, is that what it is?They're going to announce - they're going to introduce this omnibus bill, $6.5 billion of cuts. These are separate. These are left over from the 2014 budget. Labor offered a compromise during the election campaign. They announced they would accept a halving of one of the another.
supplements and the retention of another. And it looks like the Government's prepared to accept that. This is again separate to the omnibus bills because thos supplements themselves were worth about $6 billion. The paper says today there's a deal. I've spoken to people in Labor and they said they haven't had any conversations with the Government about this. It looks like they may be reaching out to the papers to the Opposition. I'm sure the Opposition won't mind because it's their policy, you have to assume. They have in the past rejected their own policy on the other side of an election. It looks like the Government is going to cop a deal on the family tax supplements. They're the single biggest zombie measures left over savings.
from the 2014 budget in terms of savings. I can't remember the size of them or what the size of this was.It pays for the child care arrangements, doesn't it? Ostensibly, maybe your next guest will be able to help us with the numbers but this removes off the table, if the Government does accept this, the biggest sticking zombie measure since 2014.That's the papers, now we'll go to our studio guest, the Minister for Revenue, Kelly O'Dwyer, while she joins us he's the Minister for Employment, Michaelia Cash on the budget savings that the Government says Labor is now honour bound to support.These are savings that Bill Shorten took to the election and promised the Australian people. He's reneging on a promise made to the Australian people. And in fact, you know, it's opportune that we've moment.
got the Rio Olympics on at the moment. Bill Shorten could go and become a gymnast, he'd get a gold medal for the biggest backflip that anyone's ever performed in the history of the Olympics. He took these savings to the election, Laura. It's an absolute joke if he does anything other than that. Kelly O'Dwyer, welcome.Good to be with you.Is that the best way to open negotiations? Does that really capture the right spirit?Look, my colleague, Michaelia Cash, I think nails it when she says the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, has no economic credibility if he is prepared to walk back from the commitment that he made to the election.
Australian people prior to the election. Now, they banked on over $6.5 billion worth of savings. They banked that in their bottom line, in their budget figures and if they turnaround and say no, we didn't rel mean it, it means they are playing petty politics, they are playing with our national interest and Bill Shorten can't be trusted. Why don't you try persuasion before the Hectoring and the lecturing?We believe it's important for Bill Shorten to honour his commitments. He wants to be constructive -He said he will. They will honour their commitment bus they want to see the legislation.There will be no issue. These are the commitments they gave at the election so they will be able to honour those commitments. You don't need to negotiate something you've already agreed.Isn't it reasonable they see the legislation because they don't want you slipping in something they didn't agree to. They're entitled to see that, surely?Are they going to honour the commitment they made in the election? Now Bill Shorten has not said that he will honour those commitments. If he honours those commitments -He has said that.If he honours those commitments he will pass the bill.Why hasn't Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison called Bill Shorten in, Chris Bowen, sat them down and said this is what we want and start the negotiations that way?But it didn't a negotiation when they've already agreed these particular measures. The negotiation is around measures that you haven't agreed. These are the measures that Labor, during the election, said they did agree, $6.5 billion.Is that why there's
you bundled them all together so there's no wriggle room?We're putting all the measures that Labor have agreed in one bill so they can pass it and so that we can really budget repair.
commit ourselves to the task of budget repair. It is critical that we commit ourselves to the task of budget repair, that we reduce deficits because it will only be to
through doing that that we are able to reduce debt and that we reduce the burden on future generations, our children and our children's children.There might be one problem with that strategy, that if they do want to vote against one part of it, say the clean energy agency money, $1 billion or so, if they were to knock that back then you're left with nothing. You don't just lose the billion you lose $6 billion.But this is the issue. They actually baked that in to their figures. Their budget bottom line, that particular saving prior to the election. Now if they want to crab walk away from a commitment they made to the Australian people Bill
they need to be honest about it. Bill Shorten needs to say that he is going to play politics with the Australian budget, with the future of Australians and with our economic national interest.But wouldn't you rather be $1 billion rather than $6 billion short?But this is for Bill Shorten to explain. This is not for the Government to explain. It is for Bill Shorten to explain why it is that he's backfliping. We saw this prior to the election and during the election nah they made all sorts of grand statements of the things that they weren't going to do. In the election they backfliped on around about $47 billion worth of savings and revenue measures and that was because they needed that to bake it into their budget bottom line. The Australian people are sick, they are sick of these games, they are sick of the politics. They want the Government to get on with governing, they want us to fix the budget. They want to make sure that the Labor Party works well with the Government to act in the national interest.There might be a lot of wasted outrage if in the end they support you?I would love it. We would love that, Barrie. That's what we want.Now on these welfare payments, and we're hearing that Labor - well they've already, I think, indicated this anyway, they meet you halfway on that. With these supplements $700 or so on average, if that was reduced to $350, would that be acceptable? This is actually Labor's policy, this is not the Coalition's policy and we are brought forward a policy in relation to child care that is supported and paid for by these savings measures that we have put forward. Now, this only goes part way to delivering that. The Government needs to make sure that we cannot only deliver on the policies but make sure that we can pay for them as well otherwise we're simply extending out the the
problem that already exists with the budget. So this is a Labor policy, I'm not sure where the deal has
speculation has come from that a deal has been done.There's been some kind of deal around that figure, that would still leave enough for child care relief?No, no, it doesn't pay for it at all, it doesn't actually go halfway there to actually paying for it. That's why I'm surprised to read these sort of speculations and reports in the paper today. We need to make sure -That sound to you like their leak, not yours?I don't think it's come from the Government, let me put it that way. The on superuation and here you're negotiating with your own side which makes it a little unusual, but on these non-concessional contributions, $500,000 as it that?
stands, you are open to increasing that?Well, what we've said on superannuation is that, you know, as the fiscal pressures increase and as our demographics change we need to make sure that superannuation is fit for purpose going forward. That it is affordable, that it is sustainable and flexible and that it allows Australians to be able to save for their retirement. We're going to be legislating an objective for superannuation that says that it is for the retirement incomes of Australians that will either supplement or substitute for the aged pension. Now that is where our package has been tied together through this particular objective. The non-concessional contributions is one aspect that people have highlighted.And the question was, are you open to allowing that to be increased?What we're doing at the moment is we are having discussions with stakeholders, we're having discussions with colleagues as we would - ordinarily do.With an open mind.A as we would do.If you double it to $1 million that would satisfy most concerns?What we're doing is we're doing what we always do when it comes to legislation, we are consulting very broadly. We're making sure that there are no unintended consequences. We're making sure that we get it right. Because you did say in the run up to the election and during the campaign you would be sticking to word
the policy, you wouldn't change a word of it?This is our package, this is our policy. It's got additional flexibility measures which mean those people who are on lower incomes who haven't taken full advantage of their concessional contribution caps, they will be able to do that going forward, up to $125,000 going forward on that rolling 5-year basis. We've extended out 10 years for people to be able to make concessional contributions. That adds up to $250,000 that people will be able to put into superannuation if they take advantage of it. We're enkurpageing people to put money into their spouse's superannuation if they've got a lower income spouse and we're giving them a tax offset to do that. We're making it a level to
playing field for people who want to be able to have tax deductions for their superannuation contributions so that if their employed by a small business that doesn't actually offer this, they're not put at a disadvantage. We're creating a level playing field for people to be able to contribute to their superannuation because at the end of the day, it's their retirement income and we want them to be able to have a good and strong retirement.And just finally on the plebiscite around same-sex marriage. What if any decisions have been taken around this?So I've read the reports today. Obviously the Cabinet would be the ultimate decision-maker around the question and the timing of the plebiscite. The Government has committed to a plebiscite. We took that to the last election. We want the Australian people to have a vote.The timing?We have always said we would be very hopeful to be able to do that before the end of the year. We have said -That won't happen?We're committed to doing it as soon as practicable.Is February '17 the date?My understanding is the Special Minister of State has received clear and direct advice Commission
from the Australian Electoral Commission that says it's not possible to hold it before the end of the year.Why is it not possible?That's the advice he's received.Why is it not possible? No decision has been taken but ultimately that will be for Cabinet to decide.Why is it not possible to hold one this year?That's a decision for Cabinet.That's not a decision for Cabinet. It's advice from AEC that it's not possible this year, the question is why not? What have they said about that?I'm not the Special Minister of State, I'm the Minister of revenue and Financial Services and that advice will no doubt put billion worth of savings put to the Cabinet at a future point in time.So only then the country will know why it's not possible. Surely that's a question that can be answered now?As I said to you, no decision has been taken. No decision on the timing, no decision on the wording?That's correct. No decision has been taken.It will be next year, not this?No, Barrie, no decision has been taken as to the timing or the question. So you can't make that assumption.One decision that's been taken, it won't be this year, do you accept that decision has been taken?No, that decision has not been taken, Barrie. That is precisely the point I'm making that Cabinet has not made a decision. Advice has been received. That advice will be considered.Alright, we'll leave it there. Thank you. Thanks.

Australia's latest batch of political recruits was given a crash course on how to be an MP. of
The fresh batch make up a quarter of the House of Representatives.In 2 weeks' time the bells will be ringing for the beginning of the 45th Parliament.There is much and there are many to teach in the class of 2016.They wonder around Where
and show you where everything is. Where the canteen is.I haven't got your packed lunch.You go in and see who the classmates are.Mingle and chat.You make a few new friends. Play school, yeah. Pollee by
school, you've got to identify me by the picture.If I haven't developed a thick skin by now it will certainly be getting thicker.

You are the class of 2016.Just been given the standing orders, very important.There's lot of parliamentary procedures that until you've been in this place you don't understand.Don't take selfies while you're in the House of Representatives chamber. Me and a few of the other rookies got caught up with that this morning.We took were
a selfie in the chamber before we were told we weren't allowed to. I'm aims not to get chucking out. Amongst you will are some very strong differences of political opinion.If that happens...It will be a day that you will always remember.Getting in the door would be a good start, wouldn't it?

So 39 new members in the House of 25%.
Representatives. That's more than 25%. I thought that was a really high number until we checked and we found in 2007, 39 new members, 2013, 37. So that's about par for the course. That's very different to America in that sense where they don't really turn the Congress over in the same way.Just to make a point on that, I suppose that you'd you
expect to see a large number when you see a change of government, you wouldn't expect to see a large government.
number when there isn't a change of government.It was almost a change of government.Almost.And that's the point.Now based on that, and the situation that the Parliament is now in, this $6.5 billion in savings the Government has bundled the Labor
them all together to try to keep the Labor Party honest on this. Let's hear from Bill Shorten and Scott Morrison.We need to see the detail. For Malcolm Turnbull words are cheap. He hasn't provided a list of what the legislation is. Of course we will be constructive. But it speaks volumes for the attitude of this fellow Turnbull that what he does, instead of sitting down as convention would dictate and talk to us about what he has in mind, he's rushed off to announce it in a it.
speech.They've had a good look at it. They put it in their forward Shorten
estimates in the election. Bill Shorten has shook on this deal with the Australian people at the election and for him to now say he wants to crab walk away from that I think is dishonourable. What we're hearing from him today is just excuses because he wants to continue the budget sabotage that he engaged in in the last parliamentary term and I think Australians are sick of that.Phils that right? There's no need for has
negotiation here, the Labor Party has said it would do this and what they need to do is just do it. Well, I can understand the Government's tactic and technically they're correct. I think given how testy things are and are going to be, it might have been an idea to have a chat first, maybe Bowen to Morrison both reasonable men behind the scenes just to say this is what we're planning to do. I think largely the Government is right. I mean of these $6.5 billion there's 21 measures in that $6.5 billion. There's a couple of biggies and $1 billion is for this renewable energy agency called Arena. Labor promised to deliver that $1 billion saving but they were going to give Arena about 3 or 400 million and some
deliver the rest of that savings some other way which they can't do now because they didn't win. They're committed to the saving but not cart - cutting all that funding to Arena. Arena said it will wipe them out. This is where the sticking point is but I think Labor has no excuse for the rest of it, the other 5.5.Is it now that it's an omnibus, Labor doesn't have that area to go to the government and argue it some other way.That will be the staring contest, the Government, will they split the bill, won't they? These things can be managed.That's the point of this, isn't it? Why be cute about it. The point of putting in an omnibus bill is to deliver that very Tomahawk to say this is it, you said you would do it, all or nothing.They won the election. The Coalition did win the election. Absolutely.And I think Labor has to be careful here because the budget, it's a mess, and we talked earlier in the show about the welfare savings, this is not part of this 6 billion and there's a lot of stuff out there that is underpinning the budget numbers over the 4 years. Huge deficits being underpinned by savings that have no hope of passing.There's two political imperatives in the thinking of Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison. One is that they have to be seen to be tough. You know, they only just won, they've got a majority of just one seat in the House of Representatives so they can't appear to be weak. They need to convince their own side of politics that they're in control and they do that by, you know, beating their chest and being tough and as Mark said, bringing down the Tomahawk. The other thing is they've got to win a piece of legislation very quickly to demonstrate to the Australian people and to the Parliament that they are actually in control. Now the response from Labor is entirely predictable and understandable and that is it's not going to be as easy as you think. So we are back to 2010 again. We've seen the movie before, it's going to be a little bit different but not that much. And the shadow boxing, if that's what it was around the pairing arrangements too was trying to create that kind of sense, certainly from Labor's point of view. Let's pick up now on Christopher Pyne and Anthony Albanese on the row over pairing. We actually gave a pair to Craig Thompson to go to the birth of his child and we gave a pair to Michelle Rolland when her child was sick. When I found out that the whip at the time had misunderstood about
the situation. As soon as I knew about it I fixed it.And the only reason why Michelle Rolland, who had a sick child, was allowed a pair belatedly, was after it had been denied in writing, after it became a public issue.When I found out about it I fixed it.They behaved appallingly.They have to act like a mature opposition who are part of solving the problems in this country.He's like a goldfish, this bloke. No memory at all, just swimming around the bowl, swimming around, nothing happened between 2010 and 2013.It's interesting, Christopher Pyne there, he said that the whip, whose name still is Warren Entsch, that he screwed it up. And Christopher Pyne fixed it up.He's a fixer.I know with the Craig Thompson one that was Paul Neville, now retired and the late Don Randall who stood up in the party room and said look, this is not on, let him go home. That's why that was fixed, as I understand. The Rolland one was a mess up by Entsch but even when it got fixed she still had to supply a sick certificate to prove her child was ill. It was nasty. There was nothing civil about that period at all or the prosecution of these rules. And everilet ill thing like that was won but largely due to shaming.And even Barnaby Joyce now time.
accepts they were wrong at the time. Here he. IsIf those those
decisions were made then I think those decisions were also wrong, there you go. So I don't think two right.
wrongs are every going to make a right. I think we have to be realistic and decent in how we operate.It's a shame they weren't saying that 3 or 4 years ago. That's right. The proposition that Christopher Pyne put there that the Opposition has to behave responsibly and be part of solving the problems, there was very little of that cooperation between 2010 and 2013.And Phil, you've written about the summit season being just around the corner and there's an APEC meeting in November. There's no guarantee at this point they would not give the PM a pair, you would think so. Here's Bill Shorten on that. Does that count for overseas trips that could be in the national interest?Let's - we've got this Liberal sort of mission creep. We're not here just to make possible for the Liberals to pursue all their political partisan positioning and speech making around the place.Mission creep on pairing arrangements.You would have to let the PM go to APEC and I'm sure they will. Tony Burke when he was Environment Minister wasn't allowed to go to this once in a decade UN summit in Rio.And down at the Press Club we had trouble getting ministers, that is Labor government ministers at the time to make luncheon addresses because pairs
they were told they weren't getting pairs for it. There was a possibility the Government was House
losing votes on the floor of the House of Representatives if speeches.
ministers were coming to make speeches. How that contributed to a mature political discourse is beyond me.It got worse than that. Journalists couldn't have dinner with ministers outside Parliament, it was just terrible.What did you make of Kelly O'Dwyer and the super issue? Surely now they are open to negotiation internally. They will have to make some changes to satisfy the most vocal critics? It's very dangerous, I think, politically because last week the most contentious thing is the $500,000 is the maximum you can put in your super, that's the one that's got everyone steamed up because it's backdated. Morrison is canvassing with the backbench removing the date or lifting it to $750,000. We were just talking about this omnibus bill. You know, here's the Government trying to play hard ball with Labor on budget savings and at the siem time some
they're talking about weakening their
some of their own just to satisfy their own side. So it sends a conflicting message, you know, I think, in that perspective. That's don't want
the reality they face. If they don't want a stink on the backbench they're going to have to do something on that.They will face pressure and, you know, while George Christenson is the only one who has broken ranks and said that he's open to crossing the floor, open to having his own little revolt, he's not alone on that. There are others who could quite possibly join him.What did you make, Mark, of Malcolm Turnbull's speech during the week that was supposed to reset the whole thing, really lay down the markers for the next Parliament? Do you think the speech achieved that?I think it is a good thing that he is back to talking about the economy and as you say, laying down those markers. I think it was a solid effort, it expect from
was sort of a genre piece that we expect from prime ministers at the start of a term. Obviously the speech itself got somewhat sidetracked at one point by those protests.Just hold that and we'll have a look at what did happen part way through the speech.A tax system that encourages investment...( (PROTESTORS YELL)

Shut the bloody camps.She was on that stage for a long time. The old cliche about security was tight, not this time.That wasn't a federal copper either, that was the her off
head of CEDA who was trying to get her off the stage.The former Representatives.
speaker of the House of Representatives.So yeah. People protest, have thaigt require to protest and it's fine but I mean had that been someone else with, you know, with malicious intent getting that close to the PM for so long.And they've called for a report from the AFP. I haven't seen the results of that.And from CEDA too because the protesters probably got accredited as journalists and stuff.And they made up the media was
organisation, so, you know.What was it called?I don't know the Alice Springs Gazette or something. I think going back to your question, there's been foo - too long since the election, the PM needed to get back to talking to the economy and laying down these markers and notwithstanding those distractions there, it was a good speech and putting those budget measures into a context and the tax cuts and so forth.It was quite a reasonable speech and the arguments he made, I thought, were quite compelling. However it did not do what we were led to believe it was going to do which was sort of, you know, lay down the promise of bipartisanship. Now, he said we're willing to reach across the aisle, we're willing to put out the hand but it badgered Labor. He still continued on with the same sort of Hectoring language against the campaign and
Opposition that occurred during the campaign and Bill Shorten, his response to it was actually made an hour or two before Malcolm Turnbull made the speech. And Bill Shorten again,io u know, - you know, used government.
the opportunity to a - attack the government. We're not progressing a national debate here at all. What we're having is a continuation of the election campaign and, you know, I think there was a grab there from Scott Morrison saying look, the Australian public are sick of this. They are sick of the partisan and the hyper partisanship of Australian politics and I think what this speech demonstrated, while it had a very solid argument within it, what it did demonstrate was that both sides of politics haven't got that message.And that's why I think it's dangerous if Labor pushes too hard on the payback over pairing and issues like that.I don't think Labor will in the end. I think what's happening is there's a whole lot of this
blustering at the moment. I think this is the message, you will get the pair for the legitimate things much
but we're not going to give you time
much forward notice of it. Each to us
time you're going to have to come to us and after a while we will see from the pattern of it that presumably that the Opposition isn't as hard ball as the Opposition had been after 2010. But I think the rhetoric is going to make the Government sweat all the time.The topic of the protest at that speech was, of course, the offshore detention centres. A couple of things have happened there. The allegations of abuse on Nauru but then this announcement such as it was by PNG and Australia that Manus Island would close down, small problem with that. First of all they have to figure out what they do with those who are still there. 850 of them. They really haven't advanced that very much at all. This was Peter Dutton's response, though, to the ABC and the Guardian around those allegations of abuse.It's hard to understand why the ABC reports on the Guardian's reports of the ABC and all I ask is that people look at if facts. By trying to pretend to people these reports contain instances of sexual abuse or serious sexual assault, it's a nonsense and I think the actions of the Guardian and the ABC and others, frankly, belittle the very serious issues that are in some of these cases.I don't know whether anyone from the ABC, certainly at the Guardian either, for that matter, have said that all these allegations are serious. Surely the main point here is some of them are and that's where the focus ought to be.Absolutely. This is again something that we've seen with Nauru and Manus Island sort of again and again and again where we get reports that come out, usually being leaked or coming from third parties saying look, this is what's happening here, something needs to be done and the Government's response is to basically, as we saw there, to shoot the Messenger. To say look, you know, why have we got media organisations like the ABC, like the Guardian telling the Australian people things that I'm being told? That's what Peter Dutton was saying. He's saying look, yes, I get these reports, what are these people doing telling the Australian people about them? Now Michelle Grattan from The Conversation wrote during the week that good ministers solve problems, bad ministers whinge. You have to now get to the point where you say has Peter Dutton solved the problem? The big problem was the drownings at sea and that was solved by setting up the offshore detention problem - centres but that's created a problem that hasn't been solved and that's what do do with the detainees and that seems to be a fail with a capital F?You were told repeatedly if you allow the people on Nauru and Manus to come here the boats will start again. This started under Labor. It was Labor who realised towards the end of its tenure that they'd created this disaster again and they are the ones who set up the camps that they'd only abolished at the start of their tenure. The Coalition has inherited this. And it's just - unless you're prepared to let them in and take the risk the boats are going to start, it's such an ugly, ugly -A wilful failure.It's a wilful failure because these people are stuck there and the Government doesn't have any solution. They're not looking for any solution. The brutality of this system is intended. It is part of the overall policy because it's the obverse of letting these people go to a first world country. They can't do that. They can't allow these people to go to a first world country, even if it's not Australia, because that will be seen as Phil said - About exactly
three years from now we could be in exactly the same position.We probably will be.The easiest solution is PNG. They need to settle in PNGs that a reasonable solution?They've had 20 people - Less than 20 of the 850 have given have been
that a try.That's right and there have been reports that some of those have tried to get back into the centre, their life on the outside has been so appalling. I mean it's just not realistic.This has been a serious public policy failure in Australia for 15 years, since the Tampa, basically, when John Howard laid down what was a very tough response to a problem that he didn't have an answer to. But what we have heard at every turn since 2001 is we need a regional solution. Now, I've been watching that pretty closely over those 15 years and I've got to say apart from a bit of talking every now and then around the Bali protocols and, you know, sort of this, that and the other, meetings that they have, I can't see any solution.
serious work on a regional solution.There was the Malaysian solution
solution. Now, whether it was a solution or not.That came and went.And now Tony Abbott is saying of the Malaysian solution that they should have given it a go in retrospect.Damn right they should have given it a go. It was departmental advice behind that and the departmental advice was that it would act like a virtual tow back. A lot of people genuinely think it certain
might not have worked or are pretty certain it wouldn't have worked. The Greens didn't, they voted against it.The Greens didn't vote against it because they didn't think it would work, they voted against it because they thought it bought
was cruel and inhuman and they bought into this whole thing about it being a cynical trade in people. But there were 600 people have drowned since the Malaysian solution was blocked.And Labor offered to increase the humanitarian intake by 4,000 in return as part of Malaysia. They also, as this war on over 9 months, they offered to bring back the Pacific solution, they offered the Coalition everything it kept asking for and at the end of the day the Coalition said no because we don't trust you to implement it. It was a hideously political decision. I it's
said it at the time and I believe it's one of the worst decisions I've seen when it comes to the national interest in my time in Canberra and we don't know whether it was going to work but the Opposition was in no better position to judge that than anyone else and they had nothing to lose on that other than the boats might have stopped.The Greens voted against it for rank political reasons. They did not want to lose their self-proclaimed purity on immigration and refugees and, you know, they really got off much more Abbott
lightly than they should have.Tony Abbott now says that that was a mistake and then that led to this from Scott Morrison.You were also in the portfolio opposing the Malaysia solution.I acted in accordance with my leader's instructions.OK, a couple of things. Is he the kind of guy that instructions?
just follows his leader's instructions? But secondly he was quite vocal around it at the time as well.And Abbott was very quick on the repost there and said this is a team decision.Did it create a lot of new tensions?It did. I got a lot of text messages after that saying it was a series of shadow cabinet meetings and it was a collective decision. I don't know, I wasn't there, but there's clearly two now competing versions of what went on at the time.It's a sign, it doesn't just create - it inflames tensions which are now there. There's obviously anantipathy towards Morrison for having sided with Turnbull last year. It speaks to those divisions. On 18 C, you wonder why they spend so much time on it when it's got no chance of getting through anyway, that the combination of the cross-benchers, Labor and the Greens won't allow it to happen but let's hear now from James Patterson, a new Liberal Senator from Victoria and Scott Morrison.I think we're closer than we ever have been to passing 18C reform through the Parliament and particularly the Senate. My assessment is we are only 1 or 2 votes away from where we need to be in the Senate and the right bill, well crafted with the right approach has a very good prospect of passing this Parliament.Well it doesn't help me repay the deficit, sorry, to reverse the deficit, it doesn't help me pay back the debt, it doesn't help me get one more person in a job and it doesn't lead to one extra company investing more it's not
in Australia so you can appreciate it's not the top of my list.That's a fairly strong argument right there. How is the PM handling it? He gave the same response the next day on Neil Mitchell's radio show and it's the right response because you've got to remember - look, I don't have any - you walk out on the street and you ask people are you worried we can't insult and offend people racially? It's not the top concern out there and when Abbott got obsessed with this early on in his prime ministership it wasn't just ethnic groups that got angry it was mainstream voters. This is an elitist issue within the they
section of the Liberal Party and they don't want to hear the Government arguing about this sort of stuff. These are niche issues you can do in your position of luxury. And you talk to the pollsters at the time, one of the reasons Abbott fell off a cliff in 2014 as well as his budget was this fixation with these niche issues. People worried about their jobs, they're worried about healthcare and stuff like that. They don't want a Parliament bogged down in this stuff.I read during the week that this had to be changed and the reason that 18 C had to be changed is the first reason is that the nation is crying out for cultural leadership? Really? People are waking up saying I wish I could racially abuse someone.Why don't not
they get that position, why is that why
not understood within the party and why is it such an issue that drives them?Well, it comes from, in part, in great part, the base of the Liberal Party and, you know, people like James Patterson from Victoria, he comes from the Institute of group.
Public Affairs, so there's that group. There are outside commentators like Andrew Bolt, Ray Hadley and others who think that this is somehow strangling free speech in Australia. Now, you know, I'm sorry, I have never seen Andrew Bolt strangled to speak and to put his view. He writes a column in the biggest selling newspapers in the country, he's got a TV show, he is on the radio, he's got more free speech and sort of the Collingwood Football Club.Alright, well David Leyonhjelm, of course, the Liberal Democrat has put in a formal complaint under the existing act other
and the target of that is none other than Mark Kenny right here. Let's hear from David Leyonhjelm. The article that's the subject of the complaint was written by Mark Kenny in one of the Fairfax papers in which he described me as borish, Super silluous no all with the empathy of a Besser block, a hate speech apologist, whacky, self-promoting missen tlop and a practitioner of infantile reasoning. Now those comments are reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend or insult some white males. One of the grounds for making those comments was that I was white, that's unlawful under the section 18 C of the racial Discrimination Act. Despite your best efforts I really don't think you genuinely offended him.No, I don't -He went onto say he
that you might offend some people, he didn't say that he personally had been offended.That's right, because of course he and Malcolm Roberts the new Senator elect from Queensland, the One Nation guy, were on this very program a couple of days before that article went to press. My article, that is. And they invited people. They said, you the
know, offence is only in the eye of the beholder. You can only take offence, you cannot give it. It doesn't matter what someone says it's a question of how you obsosh it. What my piece was about is demonstrating that was utter nonsense. He thinks it's nonsense too. He wants to have it both ways. He's saying he's not offended but he's taking the matter to the tribunal.Why is he doing this? He's got nothing better to do. I mean really, you know. We've got problems in this country, national security, the budget. I mean if that's why you get up in the morning because you're upset you can't abuse people without them getting offended, I mean really? Go in
do something else. Get someone else in the Senate. We haven't got the luxury of time to mess around with this stuff in the Parliament at the moment. I really believe.David Leyonhjelm bangs on about all this sort of stuff for 3 years and then he went to a double dissolution election and as Mark pointed out in thiz column in Fairfax this morning, you know, his vote was halved. You know, so if he had been a normal half Senate election -He was thirded.Thirded, sorry, yes. Shrunk. If it had been a normal double dissolution election, you know, he wouldn't have been elected and, you know, he's one of the 3-year termers, isn't he?Yes.So he's going to be up again in a couple of years and I will make a bet now that he will not get elected.He went from 9% to 3% between elections. That's because he had a good position on the ballot paper.He used to deny that it was because he had a really good position on the ballot paper or because the Liberal Democrats were confused with the Liberal Party. But I think if that's the case well voters have passed judgement on the sort of priorities he has now. There is a bit of a list in terms of the kinds of internal divisions that the Government needs to resolve. The royal commission into banks has some support within come
Coalition ranks but now they've come up - they've floated the idea of maybe a tribunal that would be set up to hear complaints from banks. Now, that might give some wriggle room for those in the House of Representatives because their vote really matters, whereas the senators will probably be still free to express themselves as they like. But let's hear from some of them.It would be another 3 or 4 years to tell us what we already know whereas if we put the victims up there now, we can get determinations almost immediately with enforcible rulings that will force the banks to pay back what they owe.I'm more interested in action more than further talk and that's one of the drawbacks of a years
royal commission. It's going to be years and years of more talk rather than actually doing anything.Not as though we're wimping out on a royal commission.So you support a the
royal commission?Always have.Be the banks?Yes, into the financial sector and white-collar crime. If I like the terms of references and they included these unregistered managed investment schemes, Ponzi schemes, I would for it. The house is where the action will be.That's reality, let the senators have a bit of a blow out but they've got the keep the Reps under control. It's definitely a sign the Government's worried - remains worried oton politics of this. They've already boosted the power ts and resources of the regulator, they then a couple of weeks ago announced the bank bosses would have to go before a parliamentary committee once a year. Neither of those measures have fed the bulldog in terms of political concern.The latter one only lasted a week before it got superseded.A victim's industry bunl - tribunal, to
you can go to court but don't have so
to pay. The banks are worried and so are the Coalition.And Labor obviously thought it was on a winner through the election campaign with this and it's continuing to prosecute this case pretty hard and the charge that it suggests Labor is antibusiness or whatever, people I've spoken to say well if that's the case we're prepared to stand with the people, we've already paid the up-front cost of being seen as antibusiness So
and we're going to stick with it. So this issue is not going to go away.The other issue they came out of a clear blew sky, the Government didn't see this coming, the decision in Vietnam and of Long Tan and to have that event cancelled right at the last minute. Here's Dan Tehan on that.For us to be given such short notice of the cancellation is, to put it in very frank terms, a kick in the guts. I don't think this is the way that you should treat a friend. Let me be very frank. I don't think this is the way that you should treat a friend.So did they overreact to that or can you understand their annoyance?The Vietnamese?Well the Government, the Australian Government's response.They didn't overreact, I don't think. The Vietnamese, the timing was just appalling. If they had concerns in Hanoi, it's clearly there were two conversations going on in Vietnam. One at the local level where everybody seemed to be quite happy about it, they'd been negotiating with the Australian Government, with the veterans groups and there was going to be a ceremony and there were going to be events last Thursday but clearly somebody, somewhere, wasn't talking to the central government in Hanoi which is, you know, it's a communist government, it makes its own rules and it doesn't listen to -They obviously had deep concerns for a while, they just hadn't expressed them and.And all of a sudden they came whack down with it. I can understand why the Vietnamese don't like Australians parading around celebrating what was a victory over the Vietnamese forces at the time. They claim it was their victory.I know, that's another problem.We have to leave it at this point up.
because we have Mike Bowers coming up. I want to show you something from Friday, the Energy ministers had a COAG and inadvertently after the event the Minister Josh Frydenberg gave the country an insight into how sausages are made. What number COAG meeting? Is this the only the 5th ever? Can I first warmly welcome you all to the 5th COAG meeting of energy ministers. And as a recognition that the energy market is changing. We recognise that the national electricity market is changing dramatically. Last night ministers got together and recognise it's not business as usual, we're in a new paradigm and the time for action is now. Do you like that?Yep. Business as usual.It's media, it's grab worthy.When we met as ministers only last nieckt - night, there was a very clear message, that business as usual is not an option. We are in a new paradigm. Yes, Minister, I do like that. It was very good. Got to keep in mind those microphones are always live. More with our panel shortly but it's time now for Mike Bowers and Talking Pictures.

I'm Mike Bowers and I'm photographer at large for the Guardian Australia. I'm talking pictures this week with political editor for BuzzFeed Mark Di Steph Ngo and most recently author of - What a time to be alive, which is a phrase that the PM sometimes likes to bandy about. So yeah, it's a campaign diary about the horrors past.
and the nightmare that just went past.The product is, of course, that we have all these brand new Newbies coming to parliament and they all went this week to learn the new house rules.They're so excited. They're like little kids on their first day of school. They've been dropped off at the front door by their parents.Peter Broehlman, now as part of our introductory tour of Parliament House, will learn the parliamentary oath, repeat after methere's a bear in there." It's science week this week and in honour of science week I think we should - nass - NASA are trying to fool with our heads so I on.
think we should be our tinfoil hats on.We're getting to the stage where this is what is required in the current political climate to stay safe.This wonderful David Rowe, he's got Brian Cox here, the wonders of the Australian political universe and it's Brian Cox and the Leyonhjelm-Roberts collider.Look at Roberts, look at how he's drawn him. Oh my god there's a professor across from me and I've got to tell NASA how they're trying to corrupt the climate science.Many people were pretty focused on on shore Nauru and Manus.As Mr Tandberg has drawn here, Nauru remains open.The Australian flags going up "We have nothing to hide."Just trying to put up the Australian flag to cover up what's going on over there. Security left a bit to be desired this week when Malcolm spoke to the CEDA conference in Melbourne as protesters managed to pierce the inner sanctum.They just Walzed in pretending to be journalists. If you can get iconic images of the moment in time, a very disinterested and upset looking Malcolm Turnbull and this woman, she's well dressed, she was better dressed than a lot of the journalist there's.Poor Malcolm this week gave some money to a homeless man. He can't win.Malcolm Turnbull is doing a great thing here. He's opened his wallet and he's putting a denomination into a homeless person's cup. And the internet jumped on it and decided well look at his hand, look how many was of notes are in his hand. Jonathan Green "Try to imagine a way in which Malcolm Turnbull could have won this scenario."Put his black Amex in there or something. Who knew tinfoil hats were so hot. But they protected me from the ABC group think.The Michelle has got a ray up there, Guthrie has a ray to try to get us to think all the same.Back to you, Barrie.Or is it Barrie? Thanks, guys. Final observation.It was reported midweek that Malcolm Turnbull was not going to appoint a specialist foreign affairs adviser to his office. My understanding is that that's wrong. His previous person Francis Adamson has become the head of DFAT so he does need to fill that office and he is going to do so, I understand.Mine goes to that homeless
incident where the PM gave the homeless guy money. He got belted on both sides. Some idiots on social media said he didn't give him enough. Turnbull gives millions a year to char 'tis, not millions but quite a lot, they are no idea how generous he. IsHe gave a lot People
of money to the Liberal Party too. People on the other side were belting him for giving. Neil Mitchell was saying we're not meant to give beggars money. Give him a break.The PM goes along to the first meeting of the Liberal Party federal executive early next month. It won't be an easy time. There will be a lot of hard questions asked by some of the State directors about what was and wasn't done by Tony Nutt and the staff in central HQ. But the overwhelming pressing issue for Malcolm Turnbull is going to be to keep the LNP in Queensland under control. Now, there's been some talk about them

one thing which will buy peace is if Bruce McIver is the next president of the Liberal Party. Barnaby Joyce boasted this week about 32 new and upgraded mobile phone towers in his own electorate but improved communications may not work for everybody. We'll leave you with that. Thanks for watching.I'd like to make an apology to one group of people and they're the ones that used to frequent the Dunn Goh wan hotel on the firm belief they can't be contacted by mobile phone. Those days are coming to an end.

This program is live captioned by Ericsson Access Services.

Hello and welcome to Offsiders. At these Olympics the recriminations have opened before the Games have even closed. It hasn't been the event anyone budgeted for, not Rio, Australia.
not the IOC and certainly not Australia. But as the bickering and quarrelling gains prominence, it the
risks overwhelming and diminishing the good stuff.And it's the Australian Chloe Esposito, what an incredible day. What an incredible performance. She's won gold in the modern pentathlon.I was just waiting for that one composition where everything fell into place and I'm so grateful that it was today.

Tom Burton may have won the gold medal. This is unbelievable. He is celebrating.I didn't expect it but I sailed out of my skin and got the job done.And Serbia are through to

splitting away. I'm told that the