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.
7.30 -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

(generated from captions) especially for the kids. It was a big suprise and it was really cool. I got to talk to them about sport and stuff. I didn't know they would actually come. It was really epic. You don't really grasp the gratitude of what we do exactly until moments like that, where people light up like that, so it's very humbling. Other sailors spent their first 24 hours off the ship very differently. Heading straight for the sun at Surfers Paradise. So far just enjoying the beach, the water's nice, getting a tan, This is winter too. Unbelievable. More than 5000 of them are expected to enjoy some R and R in Queensland. Three ships have arrived already, and two more are expected this week. It's great news for local businesses. It doesn't take much for a few thousand people to spend in the millions of dollars collectively, and that's certainly what we'll see here. Another group, from USS Ronald Reagan, spent their afternoon against Brisbane Grammar's senior basketball team. These sailors only have a short amount of time here in Brisbane. They'll leave for Japan by the end of the week. But exactly when they'll go remains unknown, as ship movements are kept secret until the day before departure.

To weather - and thanks to Tom Stewart-Moore for sending in this beautiful sunset over Eucumbene Drive in Duffy. Look at those colours. A woman I'd then recently. -- a warm at night than recently.

than recently. Before we go, a brief recap of our top stories tonight. An ABC Four Corners investigation finds that some New South Wales cotton irrigators are legally using water intended for the environment. The NRMA has criticised the lack

That is the latest from the newsroom. Stay with us for 7:30.

This program is live captioned by Ericsson Access Services. Ericsson Access Services.
Thanks for joining me. Tonight - Justine Damond's grief-stricken friends speak exclusively to 7.30, and make a plea to the policeman who shot her. shot her.
Just say what happened. There are people involved here. Also - the UN accuses the Turnbull Government of reneging on a deal... Did Peter Dutton himself give you specific undertakings that any of these refugees would be allowed to resettle in Australia?He didn't give us assurances because we didn't present cases yet, but he did agree that we would be able to present such cases.

And - championing women is more than just PR for footy codes...I think they're starting to see us as genuine athletes.It's absolutely big business. The killing of Justine Damond by a Minneapolis police officer has left her loved ones agonising over unanswered questions. It's been more than a week since a rookie cop shot and killed the Australian bride-to-be, and close friends say his refusal to talk to investigators is making the grief even more unbearable for her fiance. Tonight, in their first interview with Australian media, close friends of Justine Damond describe their loss and their desperation for the officer involved to tell the world what actually happened. North America correspondent Conor Duffy reports from Minneapolis. Justine Damond was compassionate and kind...I've got them in my skirt... Yep?I'm just gonna go with the mum...She drew people to her in two countries, including these strangers who she'd helped rescue stranded ducklings.Doesn't seem to be wanting to...In her new home in America, she found love, with American Don Damond.Whenever the two of them were together, you could just feel the energy, you could feel the love - they found each other, they found each other from across the planet.What was Justine like? Anything went. I mean, the - you know, "Let's ride the roller-coaster!" "Yeah, let's do that. Let's climb down a manhole and get some ducks - let's do that!" Anything goes...

(SIREN WAILS) 5:30. South Washburn...Just over a week ago, Justine was killed - shot by a police officer she called to her street to report a possible rape. News quickly spread through her tight-knit group of friends in Minneapolis.It was just shock. It was like - if you could think of anyone that was a polar opposite of any type of violence or guns or - it would be Justine. And so I - I don't know what I did. I just kind of sat there and, ah... Then, when I put down the phone, I attempted to walk from my office - behind us in our home - to where Carole was. I couldn't walk up the steps.Tom and Carole Hyder live just around the corner. Justine's fiance, Don, was away at the time of the shooting, and it fell to Tom to tell his son Zach.And the look of absolute shock - to this day, he just turned ash. "What? No. What? No...!" Then it finally started to hit him that it was Justine, and both of us - he calls Justine his mum. They were buddies. She... He just was beside himself.Alright, so basically, my himself.Alright, so basically, my
mum is dead because a police officer ... ..shot her.My job was to take Zac, his son, to baggage claim, which is obviously the first time you can see an arriving person from a flight, and then Don came down the escalator and went straight to Zach and just - they just hugged and cried for a long, long time.You've just been with Don and you've been spending a lot of time with him. How is he coping?He said, "I don't want to be alone," then he'll just sit and then he'll just start heaving and weeping, and then he'll kind of pull himself back together and, ah, as yesterday, another man who'd been shot by the police - flander Castile's mother came along - with Castile's mother came along - with
they embraced, we just lost it.This is the spot where Justine Damond was shot and killed. It's been a week since her death, but there's still no answers about how a woman in cotton pyjamas trying to report a crime to the police could end up killed. The officer who shot her, Mohamed Noor, is yet to utter a word to investigators. What would yours and Don's message be to the officer involved in this in terms of asking him to make a statement?Have a heart, man. Just... know, there are families involved - your family's involved, our family's involved, our friends are involved. You know, please don't hide behind - yes, you have a legal right, but, you know, just say what happened. Just say what happened. Yeah. There are people involved here.

Let me talk to you...In communities across the city, the killing has dominated discussion, including at the United Church of God in nearby St Paul.I really feel bad for her family. I do. I just - I can't imagine the gut-wrenching pain that her parents are experiencing right now. ..with her daughter way on the other side of the world doing what we're told to do if you see something - call.Don't pull it out. Don't pull it out. (GUNFIRE) It's a pain they know all too well - the parishioners include family of Philando Castile - she was shot after being pulled over for a broken toilet. His girlfriend livestreamed the aftermath with her daughter in the car.There are still people that are angry - you know, we went through the whole emotion of the sadness of seeing the young man shot, then the wait to see if the officer would be charged, charged, everybody's happy - cautiously happy - trial comes, he's acquitted... He's terrorised us enough...!The swift reaction to Justine's death - including the sacking of the police chief - is a bittersweet moment for some in the African-American community who feel deaths of black men are often ignored.Do I think that, um, because of her being a white woman she will receive more justice? Yes. Yes, I do. Civil rights attorney Mike Padden is now representing Philando Castile's girlfriend. Like many in the city, he's weary of what he says is a pattern of police violence and cover-ups. Are people here really afraid to call 911 when they need help?Oh, yeah. Sure. People have got to the point, Conor, where, you know, people have home surveillance systems not only to protect themselves from bad guys, but to protect themselves from the police. That's how bad it's gotten.Padden has had independent experts examine the known facts about Justine's death. It's speculation, but he says they all concluded her shooting was accidental.And the reason for that primarily is the fact that she was shot in the abdomen. If he was shooting to kill, he would have shot her - he was at point-blank range - he would have shot her at the head or chest area if he was shooting to kill.As investigators continue to examine the evidence, for Justine Damond's family, the heartache of planning a funeral - instead of a wedding - has been made even more unbearable by the lack of answers from the city.I would say it's making it a lot harder. Yeah. And it... seems like Don deserves an answer, whatever it might be - some kind of an answer. But to protect the person who did this just doesn't seem fair.

The United Nations Refugee Agency, the UNHCR, is making an extraordinary claim that the Turnbull Government misled it about a refugee deal with the United States Government. The deal will resettle refugees on Manus and Nauru to the United States. The UNHCR says it was given a "clear understanding" that vulnerable refugees with close family in Australia would be considered for resettlement here. That's at odds with everything the Turnbull Government has ever said publicly. In a moment, I'll grill a top UN official on this remarkable accusation. First, here's political correspondent Andrew Probyn with a bit of background.

It was the deal the Prime Minister struck with a lame-duck President... The agroup is with the United States. It is a 1-off agreement. It will not be repeated. ..and it got the Australian Government out of a policy pickle.This will be an orderly process. It will take time. It will not be rushed. It will be administered with the UN high commission on refugees.But Barack Obama's promise - made during the dying days of his administration - was under almost immediate question by his successor.Very busy night. Breaking news - an angry phone call between President Trump and one of our four closest allies - Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia...That now infamous telephone call threatened to topple President Obama's offer to take 1,250 refugees languishing in Nauru and Manus Island. Donald Trump reportedly told the Prime Minister it was the worst deal ever, accusing Australia of wanting to export the next Boston bomber.There will be extreme vetting applied to all of them. That is part and parcel of the deal that was made.Mr Trump reluctantly accepted the deal - even though it's yet to be fulfilled. At the time, the Australian Government said publicly none of the refugees would ever be resettled here.They are not coming to Australia. The advocates can bleat all they want, they can protest all they want. We have been very clear - those people are not going to settle in our country, because that would restart the people trade, and we are not going to allow women and children to drown at sea again.But late today, a surprising statement by the United Nations, with claims the Australian Government privately agreed to accept some of the refugees. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees said there was:

The UN agreed to help relocate refugees to the US based on this understanding. The statement went on to say:

It looks like the government has deliberately misled the United Nations in order to secure support for a deal that, frankly, has always been full of holes.If there was such an undertaking, of course it should be honoured. Mind you, for such an undertaking to be revealed at this sensitive stage of negotiations with the United States does make things fairly difficult. Of the 2,000 asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island, 1,600 have been found to be refugees. So even if the US fulfils its promise and to -- fulfilled its promise and took 1,250 of them, 400 would still need resettling. The last time Australia had so many offshore refugees in detention was in the Howard years - and it took six years to clear. But back then, a quarter went to New Zealand - and some went to Sweden, Norway and Canada. 700, or more than 40%, had to be settled in Australia. So if the government now thinks that 400 will voluntarily go to Cambodia, they're dreaming.All I can simply say is that offer remains on the table.Former New Zealand Prime Minister John Key agreed to take 150 refugees a year from Australia - if activated when struck by Julia Gillard four years ago, 600 would now be living in the Land of the Long White Cloud.The Turnbull Government, like the Howard Government, should accept the New Zealand offer. It is simply crass electoral politics to say that we are so deficient in our military and diplomatic arrangements with the Indonesians that we are unable to stop boats even if we allow 150 proven refugees to resettle in New Zealand each year. It's preposterous to argue that back in the Howard years, and it's preposterous to argue it now.We know that there are a handful of split families - a handful of families - separated by the government's policies that the government has known about for four years, that it could reunite with the stroke of a pen tomorrow, but is refusing to do so.If Peter Dutton did tell the UN he'd resettle vulnerable refugees in Australia, he's not saying - the soon-to-be Home Affairs Minister is utterly paranoid about saying anything that starts up the boats again. There are already more than 300 people - many of whom are women and children - who've been transferred to the mainland for medical and compassionate reasons. And this is the horrid irony of the government's hardline border regime - even small mercies are hidden in the deliberate projection of a brutal and uncompromising policy.

Volker Turk is the UN Refugee Agency's Assistant High Commissioner for Protection. He joined me from Geneva a short time ago so I could probe him for evidence of the UN's claim the Australian Government misled it. Volker Turk, the UNHCR, in its statement today, says it agreed to support the refugee resettlement program to the US on the "clear understanding that refugees with close family ties would ultimately be allowed to settle in Australia." That is contrary to everything the Australian Government has ever said publicly. Can you please elaborate on how and when you were given this "clear understanding"?First of all, I think it is important to mention that there is a bilateral agreement between the United States and Australia on the resettlement of people who are currently in the offshore processing facilities. So UNHCR is not part of this agreement. But we have had longstanding discussions with the Australian Government on our role of facilitating the implementation of the agreement. As a result, we have reached a very clear understanding that we would be able to refer cases - compelling humanitarian cases, especially those with close family links to Australia - to the Australian Government for their consideration. For us, it was important - right from the start, when we got involved - that Australia would be part of the solution. That's the type of understanding that we have reached with the Australian Government.But it's important for me to drill down into exactly what you mean by "clear understanding". Did somebody tell you, in a meeting, that the Australian Government would resettle people with close family ties? Were you actually given that explicit undertaking?Well, obviously when we got involved in facilitating this agreement, we go into this agreement with a clear understanding that compelling family reunity cases would be considered by Australia. But how did you have that understanding?We had a lot of meetings with the government - including myself with the minister of immigration in November. We have had many meetings ever since the start of the implementation.Mr Turk you mentioned that meeting with the Immigration Minister. Did Peter Dutton himself give you any specific undertakings that any of these refugees would be allowed to resettle in Australia?Look, when we had the conversation with Minister Dutton in November last year, we had broad agreements and understandings of how we would - how UNHCR would - actually be part of facilitating the imimplementation of the agreement between Australia and the United States. There was no doubt in our mind - and this is what we put forward to the minister at the time - that we would present to him cases that are compelling humanitarian with close family links to Australia. We were hoping that, indeed, Australia would consider them favourably within the discretion that the minister has at his disposal.But I'll take it from your answer that he did not give you any assurance that he would actually allow those people to resettle in Australia.He didn't give us assurances because we didn't present cases yet. But he did agree that we would be able to present such cases and, in subsequent meetings with the department, it was very important for us to ensure that precisely the verification of close family links was ascertained by our officers so that we could present such cases. Of course, we went into this agreement on the understanding that, indeed, Australia would be part of the solution for a handful of compelling humanitarian cases with strong family links in Australia.You say you want to focus on the bigger issue, but the UNHCR is making a very serious allegation, which is that the Australian Government gave you an assurance, in private, which was inconsistent with what it was saying publicly. So therefore I think the details of what exactly you were told are very important for you to share, if you're going to make that accusation.Well, first of all, we have not made any accusations. What we have said is that we reached an understanding with the Australian Government about our role in the agreement that Australia reached with the United States of America - and it's about the resettlement of refugees from Manus and from Nauru. In that understanding, it was clear that we would be able to refer to Australia - and that was always part of our understanding - of those cases - only 36 people so far - with close family links to Australia.But who told you that?Well, it was the, ah, Australian senior government officials of the department. It was what we had discussed with many - in many meetings - with the Australian Department of Immigration and border control, and we have even had an involvement in ensuring that we are able to verify family links of those who have those links with Australia. So it is on the basis of that understanding that we made these cases - we presented these compelling cases - to the Australian Government, in the hope that, indeed, as is normally the case in such instances, that those with close family links would be able to settle in Australia.You keep referring to this "understanding" that you had. If you take, for example, in October last year - this is just one of many similar comments the Australian Government has made - the Prime Minister said, "Anybody who came to Australia by boat to seek asylum would be banned for life, even if they were a genuine refugee." There was no mention of an exception for family members. It was a pretty unequivocal statement. We're now in July. Why, if you thought you had a clear understanding, has it taken the UNHCR so long to come out when the government has made these sorts of very clear statements the whole way along?Well, you see, there is a very heated public debate in Australia about refugees, which is unfortunate, because around the world, we are facing enormous problems and challenges, and Australia has always cont butted to making sure that we are -- contributed to making sure that we are able to address them in a way that deals with refugee problems around the world. But when it comes to the Australian context - and especially to the asylum system within Australia - what we are seeing is a deterrence policy, a border protection policy, with a slippery slope where, indeed, people who are refugees are effectively punished. Part of that punishment is also how they deal with people who have family links in Australia. When we were part of facilitating the agreement that was reached between Australia and the United States, we went into this agreement after long discussions with Australian Government officials that we would be able to present to the Australian Government cases with compelling humanitarian links.Volker Turk, thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much. On the field and off, the nation's footy codes have come to a shared realisation - embrace women, or risk irrelevance. The future of the AFL and rugby league relies on recruiting women, so it's perhaps no surprise that we're seeing interest surge around the relationship between women and those sports. The NRL is considering a lifetime ban for players found guilty of domestic violence, while the AFL has been displaying its zero-tolerance policy on inappropriate conduct in the workplace. Is this all public relations, or a sign that the country's most beloved codes are actually becoming more inclusive? Tracey Holmes reports.

This is a story about two cities, two codes, with one pursuit - the growth of their game. And the focus is women.


The AFL that I want to lead is a professional organisation based on integrity, respect, care for each other, and responsibility.It's a privilege to run out, to represent your team or your state or your country. It's not a right for any of us. When you make poor decisions and women are involved, we are going to have big consequences.We will continue to make changes, because it's a journey, and we're not where we want to be yet.

We're starting with two laps...!

What the AFL has done with the AFLW has been an enormous success, and I think all the other sports - such as rugby union, rugby league, rugby sevens - are all lagging behind. The AFL has done really great to get behind it, but I still think there's more work to be done as well.This is Sydney University's most successful AFL team. They've been in six consecutive grand finals, but have never been allowed to train on the number one oval - until this year. The launch of the AFL's national women's competition changed all that.

With that huge growth and this past season, is there a different level of respect from the men that play the game here?100%. I think now, we have a seat at the table. We, you know, weren't training on Oval 1 before, but now we've got a night on Oval 1. I think there's a lot of dialogue that wasn't there in the past, and I think they're starting to see us as genuine athletes - especially our premier division team.The AFL is reeling tonight after yet another scandal...Two men on my senior executive team who had inappropriate relationships with two younger women who work in the AFL industry.Earlier this month, the AFL took a tough stance against two senior executives who admitted to office affairs. Their forced resignations have gone over well with these players.We have a code of conduct here that, thankfully, no-one has broken, 'cause they don't want to have those types of conversations, but I think it's really important because it does bring those values and harness them in terms of respect, equality, and I think, yeah, it's definitely - you need to adhere to a code of conduct. It also makes good business sense. COMMENTATOR: Huge crowd in attendance. Big numbers still trying to get in here at Princes Park.It's big business. The GDP numbers say that sport and recreation is about $18 billion a year, which is a bit more than 0.5% of national GDP.But the numbers have stagnated, and it's women that are key to growth. There's a piece of history for Jesse...!The idea of bringing in new competitions, particularly with the positive brand attributes of female sport, creates more content for people to consume, which creates opportunities for brands to invest in that as well. SomeI actually think that the AFL have an amazing opportunity opportunity - not just to capitalise on a female market, but actually to be change agents, to actually lead a much, much bigger conversation around the kind of society that we want - one in which women's achievements and endeavours are recognised and rewarded, and not considered second-tier or an add-on. It is Brisbane, and Canterbury Bankstown kicking off the Harvey Norman Women In League Round...Over the weekend, the NRL celebrated women's involvement in the sport. League can't yet boast a national women's competition to rival the AFL but, in a show of one-upmanship, but, in a show of one-upmanship,
they're taking the code of conduct to a whole new level - targeting domestic violence.We're not going to stand for this. The sport won't stand for it. We won't stand for people who do the wrong thing. And there must be consequences.The NRL is now actively considering lifetime bans for the worst offenders.In the past, I feel like the NRL had a big part in minimising it. That's then turned into victimising women that have domestic violence perpetrated against them.The NRL could learn from the Redfern All Blacks...We thought, "Let's create the influence within, 'cause we know that men were committing a lot of violence in communities - they're the highest rate of perpetrators. But we chose to build and fix it ourselves." Domestic violence is dealt with opening here - perpetrators have to admit they're guilty and be prepared to change their behaviour - if they want to play for the club.We're open about it. When we look at other footy teams around our competition, they don't really talk about it. Here, our women's team - they keep us honest on it as well.I'm a survivor of horrific, life-threatening domestic violence. I think the men have a long way to go. Hopefully, with the NRL implementing what they have, that'll trickle-down to our local clubs.The AFL women hope the administrators of their code will follow suit.I think athletes, administrators, especially the high-profile ones - they have a responsibility. They're getting paid lots and lots of money, they're getting social media attention, they're getting media attention - they have responsibility. That comes down to getting paid that really good salary - you need to behave accordingly. You're role models.The aim is growth. The answer is respect. Both off and on the field.

And that's the program for tonight. Thanks for your company. Goodnight.


MAN: From the moment Sam and I
arrived in Africa, you could tell that it was
really stressful for him. Sam, you gotta get your hand stamped. I don't want to do a hand stamp. No, no, no.
You have to. No! And it was also stressful for me. Nick off! Here I was in Africa
for the first time myself with a 14-year-old boy
on the autism spectrum, hoping that he would be able
to develop what are called his adaptive skills. Shut up.
You're being very mean to me. I was actually starting to have doubt
and thinking, "This is a stupid idea, "this is crazy,
this is not going to work."

And then while we were still in
Cape Town, Sam did something. You talk as long as you possibly can. He had this conversation with the woman who owned the hostel
we were staying in, and for the first time
in his life, he prolonged a conversation
by himself. Have you ever been to Australia? I have. He suddenly turned around to her
and said, "So, have you ever
been to Australia?" I felt a tingle down my spine
when it happened, and I realised that
the only reason he did it was we were providing him
so much more opportunity to do so. I suddenly thought,
"Maybe we're on to something. "Maybe this stuff can work."

But you wouldn't believe
the amount of drama, personal anguish and soul searching it took
for us to get here.