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) Crumble. More crumble. Must have more crumble. There you go. There. you can do all the surfaces. And when you've done that, for a few bits. And then I need you to go into town Yes, Nan. Well, we got rid of your nan, Manny. But about the quest... what about the hairy bat saliva? You know, left that place without pinching- You don't really think I'd have did you? I mean, gathering what we needed, (ALL LAUGH) hairy bat saliva - 'And so, the next vital ingredient - was added to the potion. were another step closer to home.' Princes Dick and Dom Any more of that crumble? Get out of here... Beat him up, beat him up- Ow! Not funny. The legs are... Jacqui Mapoon Closed Captions by CSI -

This Program Is Captioned Live.

Good Morning. After spending 15 of

the past 21 years under house arrest,

Burmese democracy icon Ong San Su

crowd of supporters gathered outside has finally been released. A huge has finally been released. A Burmese democracy icon Ong San Su Chi

her home as she emerged. She walked

free less than a week after Burma

held its first elections in 20 years.

However there is concern that Su Chi may be Su Chi may be re-arrested if she However there is concern that Ong San

Su Chi may be re-arrested if she

becomes too politically active. The

US President has thanked

soldiers for US President has thanked Australian

soldiers for their commitment in

com Afghanistan. Barack Obama made the

comments during a formal

comments during a formal bilateral

meeting with Prime Minister Julia

Gillard at the APEC summit in Japan.

The two leaders talked about

expanding trade and boosting

growth. Julia Gillard says expanding trade and boosting economic Afghanistan. Afghan

Afghanistan. Afghan officials say at discussed an exit-strategy for

least 8 people have been killed and

another 18 wounded by a bomb

another 18 wounded by a bomb in a

crowded market in Kunduz

The bomb was reportedly hidden on a crowded market in Kunduz province.

motorbike. A district chief says it motorbike. A district chief says

could have been detonated remotely.

The chief says a

The chief says a militia leader is

among the dead. And it's been a

disappointing night for Australian

Rugby Union and Rugby league. In the

poin union, The wallabies went down 35

points to 18 at Twickenham handing

England their biggest ever win over Australia. And champions, New Zealand defeated Australia. And in the league world

Australia 16 points to 12 at Lang

Park in Brisbane. And now Insiders

with Barry Cassidy. Captioned Live. This Program is

'Insiders'. The Prime Good morning, welcome to

Minister, Julia

had her first formal talks with

the US President Barack Obama

at the APEC summit in Japan.

The President thad to Australia

for what he called the enormous

sacrifices being made sacrifices being made in

Afghanistan. Mark Simkin is in

Yokohama and has just sent this

report. As the Australian side

is happy to Obama only had two one on one

meetings yesterday, one with

the Japanese host, the other

with Julia Gillard. The

meeting went longer than scheduled, 35 minutes. They

both came out of it speaking

each other's praises. I

suppose that's to be expected

in a sense, the US and

Australia are on the same page.

They talked about climate

change and obviously they're in

exactly the same position with

an ETS on hold and a trade an ETS on hold and a trade plan

Afghanistan and the possibility on hold.

of not an exit strategy - we don't use that expression

anymore, we use the term transition to Afghan control - and they and they talked about trade.

Here's what both leaders had to

say after the meeting later in

the day. In that meeting, I

reaffirmed Australia's long-term friendship with

America. We are good mates and

we will continue to be good

mates. What that means is that

participate in. The United that the two countries will we've got an agenda of work

States is here to stay. We are invested in your success because it's connected to our own. In this

United States sees a huge

opportunity to increase opportunity to increase our

exports in some of the fastest-growing markets in the world. For America, this is a

job strategy. So they might be

great mates, Barry, but that

won't stop the United States

eyeing off Australia's export markets. Now it's Canberra for Federal Parliament and then what? Obviously out

of that meeting with Barack Obama Julia Gillard scored an

invitation to the White House.

next That will happen sometime early

next year in the first quarter

of the year. More immediately,

the two leaders will meet again

in Lisbon next weekend, which

is a NATO meeting, and the

focus very much there will be

on Afghanistan and the way

forward. Obviously even more

immediately, later today there

will be further meetings here

at APEC. I can get what sadly, journalists sometimes at APEC. I can report, very

get what they wish for and

aren't so happy about about it. After mocking the so-called

silly shirts here at APEC for

years, last night at the years, last night at

official silly shirt event

everyone turned up in business

suits. Mark, an Australian cameraman got the President's attention at a picture opportunity for the two

leaders? Yes, Barack Obama is

well known as no drama Obama.

the media was being shepherded Everything ended yesterday as

out of the room, one of the

Australians yelled out, "Thank

you, Mr President". Obama thought that was you, Mr President". Barack

hilarious. Julia Gillard said, "Oh, that

was one of our Australian

cameramen", and the President

said, "I knew it was an Osy,

because our press pack is not

nearly so behaved". That's

become an international talking

point. Here's how Julia

the day. Who was it in the

camera crews who started camera crews who started out the call of "Thank you, Mr

President". When the American camera crews came in to film camera crews

the opening of APEC, they all

sauntered out tongues firmly in

their cheeks saying over their shoulder, "Thank you, Mr

President." You've leveraged

a permanent change in American media conduct. Good job, team. Julia Gillard there in

Yokohama. this morning is the shadow

Minister for Immigration, Scott

Morrison. First we'll see what the Sunday papers are covering

around the country. With the Government under pressure Government under pressure to

talk about what it stands for, there's talk - one such

opportunity will be the national conference and they

might bring it on early. Well,

if the national conference had

any relevance, I guess this

would be a great story. But

Fairfax is reporting that the conference which is

traditionally held every couple

of years where Labor the Government or opposition of

the day supposedly add meres to

will be pulled forward to

November or December next year.

It may also be held in

Melbourne. Now, considering

that these things are

stage-managed, there's very

little debate, things are

organised all beforehand, it's

a little bit of show where the

boys and girls can get

together, what's the point? Saying it's very important

this time around they have a

debate, given they didn't have

one last time. How will debate take place when debates

simply haven't occurred for a

long time at national

conferences. While there's

those who believe this is still important, in terms of a Labor Government actually following

what may or may not be in the

platform anyway is neither here

nor there because there's a

get-out clause in the platform. I agree to a degree,

Kerry-Anne, but I think Labor

is desperately trying, given

the outpower of criticism we've had about Labor's from Labor figures, from Labor figures over the past three

weeks, and you have Richardson on Friday, on Friday, you have John

Faulkner, and so on and so

forth, going back at the

various book launches, I various book launches, I think

that the Karl Bitar of the

national executive would be trying to establish some

relevance again and trying to get ahead of the pack, trying

to stem some of this exposure

of an agenda. They want to be

seen to probably bring that

national conference not the national conference not just to

the end of the year, possibly earlier, and - earlier, and - We're talking

about bringing it forward to

late next year. No, I think

they'll bring it forward even

sooner, Kerry-Anne, because

they can't keep - they're just drifting like a bleeding

corpse. So unlike the the Government, may I remind

you. So it can bleed and bleed

and that's fine. I don't see

it is bleeding. Joe Hockey was

out there this week, Tony

Abbott was in North

and so forth, doing a number of

things. There's no indication

of a split, there's no beat-ups about the coalition about the coalition having these major internal haemorrhaging. Melbourne this

time, many years ago they moved

to Hobart to get away from the Canberra They're moving to Melbourne to

get away from the New South

Wales right. Whether it's the New South Wales right or whether Sydney with this

election looks very shabby. I

think we've had our 17th or 18th Labor figure - Tony sturt

is the latest one this morning.

Does he take it to 17 or 18?

17. 17. I'm told there are

at least two more who are

likely to go, two in the next few weeks, and who knows before

March, when the election is

actually - the thing looks bad,

barrie The Fairfax papers got

hold of a Treasury dealing with the big population. I think most of

the figures were known, but

this confirms it. Yes, Josh Gordon in the Sun herald is

reporting a much bigger

Australia is on the way,

whether we like it or not, and

the bogey figure of 36 million population which everybody was desperately trying to avoid during the election campaign

and after the campaign was over, there was a Treasury

briefing to Julia Gillard that

said even if we manage to cut immigration intake by

two-thirds, we'd be at roughly 30 million by 2050 and the

conclusion reached in the

Treasury brief that Josh Gordon got hold of, given the powerful

global forces driving the

Australian economy, net

immigration figures well in

excess of that low number excess of that low number are

probably inescapable. We were' heading to 36 million whether

we like it or not as a product

of the fact we're booming.

That's an extraordinary That's an extraordinary story,

really, Barry rr, she went into this election

small Australia and happy with,

but to have to cut immigration down down to 60,000 or two-thirds, as David said, to achieve that,

it's pure fantasy. Piers, it

was a fantasy shared on all

sides of politics. Be at least

fair there. Be at least

there. David, but in the spirit of fairness, spirit of fairness, the

Treasury paper went to the

Government, it didn't go to the

Opposition. It doesn't change -

It doesn't change the

situation. Both sides were

talking through their trumpets.

But, David, one can address,

you know, what is a desired

outcome but when you have this in in your briefing papers, how do you stand there in you stand there in front -

But, Piers, they were both

blabbering all the way through the election campaign. It doesn't matter who was

Blattering, the point is it was

nonsensical, that given what

Australia's needs are going

into the future, not only on

the skills basis but just pure population and the fact that

the fertilitiy rate is so low,

we will just disappear if we don't have a healthy immigration level.

immigration level. And the

fact that both sides were blathering during the election

campaign and trying to hood

wipg the Australian people is a disgrace to Olympics. The

Treasury briefing came Gillard after the election, not

before We'll go to the shadow

minister for immigration, Scott

Morrison, to talk about the big

Australia concept and the High

Court decision this week on asylum seekers. Scott Morrison, good morning,

welcome. Good morning, Barrie,

good to be with you Let's put

talk of targets to one side for a moment, but years from now, 2050, Australia

will have a much bigger population, that is inescapable? The coalition

always said there would be population growth. We weren't in the zero population in the zero population growth

camp at any time. We said

there needs to be sustainable

population growth. The

Treasury report you referred to

made two other important

points. One was a migration

program had to be part of any

population strategy, a point

the Government rejected during the

the campaign. The second point

is the report also said that the rate having at the time - remember,

which is between 250,000 and

300,000 net overseas migration - the Treasury report - the Treasury report said was beyond the strategic capability

of all tiers of Government.

That was also a very important

point we were making up in the lead-up to the election and

have since On that more modest

figure of 180,000 a year, that

would still lead to a population of 36 million by

2050. Should we be alarmed by

that? Well, that figure 180,000 was in the intergenerational report and

that was the average net

overseas migration over that

entire period that we would

produce that figure. What we said in said in the election campaign,

and remains our policy, is that

we want to set a growth band

for population growth advised by the productivity and

sustainability commission that

would frame our migration

program into the future. Now,

we said we would get it down we said we would get it down to

170,000 net in our first term, and the Government said they were going to achieve that well, actually. So we'll see what happens. But if

Governments start doing the

work now, surely we shouldn't

fear a population of 36 million

in 40 years. Well, the big if

there is if Governments do the

work now, that's the point that

has been looked over in this

debate. Everyone agrees you

have to put the infrastructure

and services and all of these

things in place to meet population growth. What the Australian people have said to

us pretty clearly is,

particularly in my home state of New South Wales there are plenty of Victorian

voters feeling the same way - unless the infrastructure gets delivered, the population

pressures are compounding the

problem, not making it easier.

There needs to be these two

issues brought together, which

is exactly what we propose with our Productivity Commission

model. Do you accept, though,

that you don't cut migration

numbers just to avoid some arbitrary population figure

down the track, that you

actually structure migration to

fit the needs of the economy at

the time? Well, that's exactly Productivity Commission model,

that you would have a target

range of population growth, so

it's all about the rate of growth. Whatever figure that

turns up to be in 2050 or 2070

or 2030 will be what it will

be. What the Australian people

need to be comfortable about is

that we're running a migration

program that firstly is focused

on our skills needs and

secondly is not delivering a

rate of population growth that

cannot be sustained. That's

what our population policy was

designed to High Court decision, you've said this week the only winners

are people smugglers are people smugglers and lawyers. What about asylum

seekers? Qul, again, if you're

an asylum seeker sitting in a

refugee camp somewhere around the world, you're the world, you're going to be

less likely to get that

opportunity now than you were

before this decision. Let's be clear about what this decision

was about, Barrie. This

decision was about a change to

policy made in July of 2008 and

for those who want to get into

the detail of this, paragraph

70 of the judgment is the key

paragraph. What it said there - opportunity, I would like to

make the point - is up until

that time there was a

discretionary power of the

Minister to raise the bar

allow application s for visas,

protection visas, for those who

had been found to be legitimate asylum seekers. It was purely

discretionary. What changed in

July 2008, the Minister said,

"We're going to no longer

process people on naru, they'll all

all be processed Island, as a result they will

all each be decided upon

whether we'll use the discretionary power". The

court said it's no longer a discretionary power, it's now part of a part of a process. The Government's failure to think

it through set up a new

standard which the High Court

found in practice wasn't being

followed and as a result the

whole thing has fallen

out. You're ignoring 2001.

Isn't it true what happened in

that decision is they used 2008

as evidence, the manuals from

2008 as evidence, but it aoo

plied to what occurred in section of this judgment that strikes down anything done in

2001, excisions still exist, off shore off shore entry person status

all still exists. What changed

in July 2008 was a change in

the process. The Minister

introduced a non-statutory

process which the court has

basically said in imp cakes was

a strat industry process and in

its practice was found to be

deficient. In 2001 our changes

specifically said that section 75 of the constitution challenges to the High Court still remained. So 2001 -

there will be plenty of people

who want to throw shoes at

this, I suspect, in this, I suspect, in terms of the Howard the Howard Government policies,

that's predictable. The fact

is let's look at what was done in the judgment. It dealt with

what happened in July 2008. Why

do you say it was a terrible

judgment? Well, that wasn't a

reflection on the High Court, I

should be very clear about

that. But it is going to have

terrible consequences and that

was my point. We all know that in the bad old days - didn't say there were terrible consequences. Well, I did,

actually. I've said it on

several occasions since then. My meaning

My meaning was that the consequences for Australia and the consequences of people now

being able to gain the system

have been increased. We don't

want to see that, we don't want

to see lengthy delays and

procedures in our courts where

people use the system to

prolong their stay. We want to

see people's claims assessed.

We've always supported a review

by a second case officer, as is supported by the UNHCR all

around the world, and then a

decision, if one is to be made,

is made after that. But to tie

it up in our courts has never

been a good way to handle the matters, in our matters, in our view. What do you think the Government should

do now? Should it try to

legislate? What the Government

should do is not deal in half measures, not continue their policy drift, they policy drift, they should adopt

the coalition's policy. That's

what we're saying clearly. We want to see them put in place

policies that will address the illegal boats to Australia. If

they're not prepared to do

that, we think they're dealing

in half measures. We don't

want to paper over, we want a

fair dinkum solution. But

there's nothing you can do as a result of legislation as a result of the High Court judgment, there's nothing you

need to do by way of

legislation? The Nauru

solution remains completely in

tact. The Nauru solution was

not in any way put at risk by

this judgment this week, in the

same way I concede that

anything that may happen with

the never-never solution in

East Timor is also unaffected.

So I don't think they are

issues. There is a legislative that was unchallenged successfully all through the

years we operated it, where

similar appeal rights exist and

remains in tact. They can that tomorrow. They can pick

up the phone to Nauru today,

they can introduce temporary

protection visas again, they

can even use the safe haven 449

visas on their books today to

address the matters. We want

to see them address policies to

deal with their broader policy

failures s, not just this

policy failure. There are implications in terms of having a regional processing centre.

The problem with the regional

processing centre in Indonesia

is it will never happen. They can't get support. can't get support. It's

effectively an asylum magnet.

Nauru can be done today.

That's the difference, nar

Nauru can happen. This

judgment doesn't go to the

legitimacy of third country

processing. If anything, I

think it highlights the need

for it. That's why our policy

is ready to go. Zl is there

room, though, for the Government way it processes asylum seekers

by being more thorough, in

effect, more thorough in making

the assessments and effectively removing a lot of the grounds

for appeal? Well, I think the

Government has a wide array of

things it can do, both

statutory and in terms of

process. We're saying to the

Government we don't want to see a papering over of their

failures shown up in the High

Court decision. We want to see them deal in introducing

policies that have been proven

and have worked in the and we want to see them

restored. If the Government is

not prepared to do that, they

should take nothing for granted

from the Coalition in terms how we might receive any of the

proposed changes. Surely the

most fundamental thing the High

Court did was to make a judgment that asylum seekers,

like everybody else, ought to

be treated the same, they ought

to all have the same access to

fairness and the rights of law?

Well, again, what it said was

is the Government's process set up up was a non-statutory one. As a result, procedural fairness provisions were implied and

created. Those fairness provisions can be limited by

statute and the Government, I'm sure, is looking at doing just

that. But there's a key point

here, Barrie, still those who

arrive by boat will be treated differently than

differently than those who

arrive in other methods. That

hasn't changed under this provision. They provision. They are still

deemed offshore entry persons

and would still seem at the moment continue to have access

to the High Court, what other courts courts they have access to I

agree with Chris Bowen, that's

unclear, I'm sure it will be tested. We want to stop the

boats arriving and make no apologies apologies for that. We support a dual-track system which discourages boat arrivals. Just

finally, Paul Howes in his book

made the observation about you

and your visit to Nauru during

the election campaign. He the election campaign. He said

it was disappointing there are

only 100 eligible Australians

living on Nauru, 100 eligible

voters, that is, it's in

to as many voters as possible. That's a bit harsh. Well, I'm

not going to help Paul Howes with his usual self-promotion

campaign. The guy will get around in a scify soon and campaign to be the fifth Wiggle

if it will improve his profile.

Look, I'll let Paul throw

whatever slings and arrows he

likes. I'm sure I'm big enough

to take them all and see Paul

around the traps. He may around the traps. He may have

said this partly in jest, but

he calls you the shadow

minister for boat people and whipping up think that's pretty

characteristic of the way the Labor Party deals with this

issue. They want to whisper one thing out in western Sydney

which says if you have concerns about this issue, it's okay, we

understand. But their true

feelings are betrayed by Paul

Howes, they've been portrayed

by Stephen lostly and Craig

Emerson. They think this is

hysteria, they think it's just

us whipping up issues. They

should be honest about it should be honest about it if

that's their view. The Prime

Minister before the election

tried to say that wasn't her

view. I think their views are pretty plain. We don't think Australians who have these

views are in any way racist, we

think they're raising legitimate concerns. For a

long period of time we've always had a consistent position, as have the greens.

It's the government that is at

sea in this issue. The High

Court literally sunk them this week and I wasn't surprised. Scott Morrison,

thanks for your time. Thanks a lot, Barrie.

everyone. I'm here today to

contribute to this election

campaign that never ends. On

21 August, for the first time since 1931, a Government was

denied a majority after its

first term. One thing we can be confident is Brian of

Loughnane won't provide a self-serving address like Karl

Bitar. Well ... There was this

apparent blind faith would get over the line. Our

position at the start of the campaign was stronger than we would have expected even a few short months before. People

wanted the Government back, but

did not want to reward us for

our performance in the first

term. All of this boiled down

to the perfect recipe for a

high protest. We held to our strategy and I believe we

clearly won the campaign. Tactically, it didn't as well as we would have

expected. There are those who

know how campaigns work and

those who don't. We could get

absolutely no clear air. They

made Labor look like made Labor look like a rabbit.

They sucked up oxygen and worse, they portrayed disunity.

In this campaign, every day

matters. Why was the Liberal Party in New South Wales so disorganised, considering if

you won those three seats, you could have formed Government?

We are looking forensically

and dispassionately at

precisely what happened. Tony

Abbott was given constant

credit for not being as bad as people thought he person with strong principles.

All Tony Abbott had to do was get through the day without

putting his foot in his mouth. Highly Highly disciplined, intelligent, energetic. He was

being judged against very low

standards. By week three, I

thought that Labor was gone.

There were some lessons to

learn, and certainly we are

trying to ensure that we do

learn those lessons. We can't be clasent. Those responsible

for the leaks and for the

disunity did their job well, well that they almost brought down a Labor Government. Tony

has led our party to an extraordinary result and

deserves great credit for this remarkable turn-around. I don't think a campaign like

2010 will ever happen again.

At least we're diagnosing our

problem. The coalition, by

contrast, is basking paradise. I feel for Karl. I

think he ran a good campaign in very difficult circumstances. The losers - the loser is

saying, "I feel for Karl Bitar,

who ran the winning campaign.

It's weird. It's weird, and

Karl Bitar. That was a most

extraordinary address. It

seemed like he wandered off the

set of fantasy island, frankly.

He was trying to promote a set

of principles, if you

justify the previous three

years and the shocking

campaign, but he was

contradicting himself at all

times. He was talking about the comparisons or the way Tony Abbott had to compare himself

was off a fairly low base, in

other words, they were doing so

appallingly all he could do was

get better in a minor sense and he'd do all right. Still there

was the

was the fundamental argument

they went into the campaign in

a winning position, and then

the leaks happened and they

took a terrible hiding and only

just recovered to government status. But the way Labor would say, some Labor

people would say it is they

were on a worse hiding than what they were. I don't think

you can justify or Karl Bitar

or anyone can justify pinning a

couple of things like the leak

s on the previous three years,

the standards that the voters

set for the Government during the election campaign. Except

the figures he used were quite stark, there against them in New South Wales

and 9% in Queensland, within 48 hours of the leaks occurring,

David. The leaks were

devastating, but let's

forget some of the completely

ridiculous things that Labor

went into the election campaign

with. The people's assembly.

Here was a party in diabolical

trouble because it had backed

away from doing something about

global warming. That demand of

our communities that something

be done about global warming is politics of this country at the

moment in one way or another

with the resurgence of the

Greens and all of these kinds

of things. What does Julia

Gillard do? She puts up this completely ridiculous completely ridiculous notion that some randomly that some randomly picked

citizens will decide the fate of

of the nation's policies on

global warming. That was

devastatingly stupid thing to

go into the campaign with. The

leaks, of course, were dreadful

for Labor, but that was also

dreadful. There were other

dreadful things going on. It's too easy to say leaks, leaks,

leaks, this was the worst

campaign from both sides in

about 50 years. Graeme

Richardson's views. I agree to

an extent, Barrie. People tend

to forget things very quickly.

You have to remember Gillard

said it was a government that

had lost its way, they chopped the first serving Prime

Minister in the history of the

nation and what policies did they come up with to replace those which they felt were so,

they had to ditch the Prime Minister, essentially the

same Michael Kroger said at book launch during the week he had it on good had it on good information Julia Gillard had told a Melbourne businessman a week

out from that day, Wednesday,

June 23 - a week out - there

could be a leadership could be a leadership change.

How much credibility would be

give that? Not a lot. I think

that there was certainly a lot

of talk around about there

being a leadership change, not exactly then. There had

been people urging it as a

survival mechanism, but in

terms of that actual 48 hours

or 24 hours, really, that was, as

as you know, and as everybody

here knows, something that did

occur almost like some sort of spontaneous combustion. I

disagree it was that

spontaneous, because I was

speaking to a Labor Senator the

week before the thing and he

told me that it was going to

happen, I wrote about it on the

Sunday beforehand, saying that

there was to be a change,

although I didn't realise would be that week. That's

what I'm talking about, that

change that week. When I

called him back and said why

didn't you be specific, he said

I didn't want to be

there was a group of us calling

ourselves the knight's templar,

it was a joke, a Labor joke,

but they had been meeting for a

long time. He told me how in

fact they approached various

others to join their group,

including Garry Grey, made a lot subsequently about

his disquiet, but he was a very reluctant starter for that.

There was a lot of disquiet,

the actual 24-hour time frame

there. But this fellow told me

- Kerry Grey was not a

reluctant starter. He spoke reluctant starter. He spoke to

me for my book back in

March/April, his feelings were

clear then. He didn't want to

join the organised push.

What's important about what

Kruger is saying, if true, that Gillard was in on it. This is what's new about what

Kroger is saying. There have been rumours around about this

at the time. I don't discount it, but I'd like more detail,

please. Kroger talks about

one, two or three businessman, doesn't say what line doesn't say what line of work they're in, doesn't say they

spoke to him. I'd like spoke to him. I'd like more

detail. I think it's a very -

People don't normally give up their sources that easily. I'm not talking about giving up

sources, I'm little more specificity about where it came from Michael

Kroger said one other thing

that was intriguing really, the

reference to the leaks, he had

this to say. There can be no

other person than Rudd. Oakes

had two very significant leeks

and I'm in no doubt and I'm in no doubt myself,

although I haven't got this

from Oakes, that Rudd had a conversation with Oakes on the evening

evening of Wednesday, the 23rd

of June. He gave

to Oakes on 23 June, but I

don't think since. Once having given that information to

Oakes, Rudd had no control over

when, where and how it would be used. Look, this is really interesting in this sense, it's

only a theory, quite confident

about it nevertheless. He's saying that on the night after

Kevin Rudd had spoken with

Julia Gillard and he knew that

it was all over, sort of in a

sense of frustration, there was

an outpouring to Laurie Oakes, somebody he often spoke to. If

that's true, obz had all of this information on that this information on that night,

it was then in his hands when

he would use it, and he used it

at a time when it would have the the most impact. In other words, he saved some of this

material for right in the middle of the election

campaign. If that was Laurie Oakes' decision and not Kevin

Rudd's, it's not as devious an

act as maybe some people have

accused him of. You're saying

not as much can be delivered on

Rudd. Yes. I agree. But then

I think it does question Laurie

Oakes' values as a news man,

why he sat on these and why he sat on these and didn't

share them immediately with the

public. Barrie, he might have

been doing it to enhance his

own career, which is a

possibility, or to be a

strategic political player.

I'm unhappy with news people

who get what is obviously a

scoop or a series of scoops who then sit on them for

whatever reason. For maximum

political impact. We actually

have to be very careful here, that this is a theory from Kroger, it's not been Kroger, it's not been confirmed or denied or anything by Laurie

Oakes. All we can do is say,

"Well, this is the way it could

be viewed if." Indeed that's

what happened. If you were given the material, would you go with it immediately Yes, because it's a red-hot

story. Rather than split the

two and have two goes at it. You You could split it over 48

hours, but it was such a significant political time that if indeed it were significant - significant

- news stories and to sit on a

news story, if indeed this is

what happened, for your own

reasoning around having maximum political impact, particularly

in the highly political context

of an election campaign ... This makes me feel uncomfortable. There is this

whole series of hypotheticals ... Exactly, that's why we're

saying if ... Also. I

very uncomfortable about the

notion of journalists sitting

around laying down laws about

when stories should be

published. Why can't

journalists hold on to stories

and eke them out? Isn't it

something we all do? There's

too many hypotheticals in this.

I'm really uncomfortable with it. Let's actual ... I take all your

hypotheticals, but on the

position of journalists, I

think that your reading

would expect you to share would expect you to share with them a news-worthy event.

Let's not relate this to the Laurie

Laurie stuff then. No, I'm not

relating it. I've read

Barrie's book, skimmed Bob

Ellis's book, Paul Howes's - you in it. I must have missed

that paragraph. I read Paul Howes's miserable pamphlet Howes's miserable pamphlet on

the plane yesterday and why he

ever bothered doing that, which

is - is beyond me. I haven't

read Laurie's book. It may

well be that he makes some

reference to it. Has anybody

here read his book? Yes. He doesn't make reference to it?

No, he certainly doesn't clear

up that aspect of it. The

other interesting thing about coalition side of politics

they've essentially moved to

portray Julia Gillard as the

villain here, that she was the

cruel assassin. Michael

takes a very different view.

He says that Kevin Rudd He says that Kevin Rudd brought

it all on himself. He is a

brooding, potentially

ultimately destabilising force,

a man who almost brought down

this Labor Government in the most horrific political way, a

treacherous and traitorous

individual sitting there in the Gillard and the members of the

cabinet for having the courage

to go to cabinet meetings every

week and sit there and look at

Kevin Rudd, a man who they know tried his best to destroy the

Government. Zp well, Kroger can't match Howes can't match Howes forbidderness

about Rudd. Well, Kroger has

been in the political game for

two decades. When it comes to knifing leaders and Treasury,

treason and the rest of it,

there's a hell of a lot of it

on that side also. I don't think he think he can speak with

authority on what happens

within the Labor caucus or the Labor leadership. Gee, Kerry-Anne, so much

has come out from other people

within Labor. Well, let people

who have been involved in it

make those judgments. He's

just repeating what everybody just repeating what everybody

in Labor said. Not everybody.

Hovering over what Kroger says,

of course, is the judgment of

John Howard that Rudd would

have won the The big question ... Had he

adopted one policy. The big

question, the big question,

with Rudd remains this, why

didn't his party pull him into

line? He remained a great

talent. He was a weighward individual

individual and a great talent. Just a second, Piers, just a

second. Sure, sure. And the

extraordinary thing about the last

last year and a bit in

Australian politics is that

no-one in the Labor Party made

a brave attempt to pull Rudd

into line. That's because they changed gave all the power to the Prime Minister's office and he

exercised it. May I say

something now? Piers, go right

ahead. The point that

makes is the one I wish to

make. It doesn't need to be

made. Because the first thing

that Rudd did, the first thing

that Rudd did, was ensure that

he had all the power. Now,

there was no-one brave enough

to stand up to Rudd as he

trampled over them for those

two and a half years. We are what I said. As a result of all this, powerful enemies are made

all around, I gather. On that topic, just before Hillary

Clinton left the country, she did did an interview with Hamish

and Andy and that topic came

up. In your role now as Secretary of Secretary of State, you have

such high-level meetings. Have

you ever said the phrase you've

just made a very powerful

enemy? No, but I've thought

it. The High Court decision

now, and you've heard Morrison on this point, David.

What does it really mean and

was there any relevance to

2001? This is all about the

excision program of 2001. I

don't know why Scott is running

the line that he does. Piers has the judgment. That's good.

In 2008, the new Labor Government put out some

publications about how the

system was to operate. They

were used by were used by the High Court as

evidence of how the system

indeed did operate from the start. They were not a change

to the way in which the system

operated. They were simply

guidance to the assessors as to

how they would do their work. Nothing in 2008 was invalidated

by the High Court, and, indeed,

nothing about the whole system was invalidated by the High

Court. The judgment goes right back to the very beginning and

it's simple. What the judges

said was you can only detain

people in Australia for lawful purposes. I don't think

there's anybody who would disagree with that as a

principle. You have to have a lawful purpose for detaining

somebody in this country. If

you're detaining them to assess their claims to be refugees,

then that assessment has to be

done fairly and lawfully. You

can still provide A and B class

treatment to them, of course

you do, because nobody who flies for refugee protection -

they're not put in detention

and they have always been given

access to the courts. People

who come by boat can still be

put in detention, they can

still be sent off to a camp at Innisfail, still have their

lives dealt with in that way.

What the High Court is saying

is the law can reach into the

assessment of their claims and

those claims, while they remain

in detention, must be done fairly and fairly and lawfully. Yes. I basically disagree with you.

The judgment makes it very

clear, not only from paragraph

70 which Scott Morrison

referred to, but if you go to

the paragraphs 37 through 44,

which go to the Minister's

announcement on 29 July 2008

and the changes that it made to

the RSA process, the fact that

the judgment here talks about

the manuals, David. Yes, as evidence, Piers, as

these are not mine. It's from their own judgment, were to be

applied to all. It doesn't talk about 2001. talk about 2001. It talks

about the - Piers, it's all

about 2001. Well, that's your

view. I haven't noticed the

Government coming out with that

view. I haven't noticed the

Minister Bowen coming out with

that view. Lawyers can agree

to disagree. I am disagreeing with comes out in agreement with

you, then I think your case has

some validity. You'll believe

it. I will believe what the

High Court justices have said in their unanimous decision. Winding back a little bit from

this particular judgment, the

excision of parts of Australia

for the purposes of denying

people access to the legal

system in Australia is

something that is in breach of our international or the spirit of those, or is that not correct. Spirit. Yes,

Yes, the spirit of it. That's

why the Nauru solution remains absolutely in tact. We have obligations as an

citizen to play our part in

looking at the global problem

of displaced people and not

treating asylum seekers,

surely, as criminals. that the extraordinary scenes

in the hills of Adelaide and other places against asylum seekers surely is because our politicians, politicians, Labor and coalition, since the late' 90s

have been treating and

demonising - No, no, since the

early' 90s The early' 90s have

been demonising the asylum seekers. We have been discussing asylum seekers for 40

40 years in this country, and we never take an expansive perspective about the problem.

It is forever about blocking

and pushing back. It's never

about what's good for

Australia. What we as

compassionate democracy need to

do. Let's say, as a

compassionate Australian, let's

stop the people believing that

they should risk their lives in

leaky boats and pay a lot of

money and try to come here that

way. way. Let them go through the established channels that are

organised by the UNHCR - Where

they could sit in camps for five to ten years. Or they could drown with their families, which would you

prefer? It's not about us

preferring, or me preferring,

Piers, it's not. It happens to

be about - do we make moral judgments about whether they

choose to take that journey or

not? In some places in the Middle East there are no

processing centres.

to go through countries. Can I

just say, we can do a number of

things to deter people from coming by boat. Right. Giving them them B treatment outside the law has not worked. That's what we've

done since 2001 until a quarter

to 10 on Thursday morning.

That's been the system. Stop,

David. Just a minute. This

year we have in fact a record

number of people arriving by boat. Obviously that doesn't work as a very deterrent to just - what it's about is about a suite of measures which are designed to appease the Australian

electorate by being pointedly

nasty to boat people. It does

not work to deter, it does, however, make life very

unpleasant for them. What the

High Court has said last week, the first time that this part

of the system has ever been challenged -

challenged - the High Court, by

the way, has ticked off on

everything else. It's ticked

off on mandatory detention, for

which a lot of people look at

mandatory detention and say isn't that

ticked off on that. They've ticked off on the excision,

ticked off on an A and B

scheme, on the Pacific solution. All of that remains

in place. It is a very

far-reaching thing. All they

are saying is whenever anyone

in this country - that's not

just boat people - whenever

anyone in this country is

detained by the Government, it

must be for a lawful purpose

and the courts can judge whether that properly carried out. We have

to move on, we have a couple of

issues I want to cover, the

referendum on recognising that abss were the first settlers.

Tony Abbott's opening shot on

that topic, here he is. I

think it's very important that

we do try to get constitutional recognition of Aboriginal

people. I think it's best done

through the preamble. I would

counsel people against too legally ambitious here,

because it's very important

that anything that's put up

does capture the dreams and

aspirations of black and white

Australians, but the more

legally ambitious it is, the

less likely it is to

succeed. It would probably be

wise to listen carefully to

what he's saying. It seems if

there is an cystence it go there is an cystence it go into

than the preamble there will be problems and the wording ought

to be fairly basic. Certain ly

- it's a real - for something that should that should be easy, I think it's going to get bogged down

in a number of problems, in a number of problems, not

the least of which will be how

you define - well, let's just

wind it back a bit, whether

this has to be something that's substantial or whether it's

just a form of words in the

preamble. There's already so many different opinions on

that. You look at all - It

won't get bipartisan support

for something that goes beyond

very basic. Then you have to say - Surely that's worth while. I'm saying that's

what's out there, is it worth

while? Well, yes, but some

people are saying no. Others

are saying, "Well, why do

Aboriginal people have to be specifically named in the constitution when we are a nation made up of many people?" I think this is more symbolism. It may make some

people happy, but as Kerry-Anne

says we have to see the wording

and content. I am far more

deeply concerned about the ongoing situation that affects Indigenous Australians in the

Northern Territory and

outskirts of - communities in

New South Wales and South

Australia and Western Australia

and Queensland, and not too

much in Victoria or Tasmania.

We can do both. This is not

about doing both. about floating something - One

shouldn't be used as an excuse for not doing the other. That's correct. Just very briefly, the Julia Gillard coming under pressure to do the

vision thing. She says she has a vision and it's not

complicated. Here she is.

It's my Government's vision

for Australia, well, it's a strong economy and opportunity

for all. That's really it in a

nutshell. In five years, in 10

years, I want our economy to be

strong. I do believe I will convince you of my reform credentials. What do we

want? Long-term reform. Yes,

agreed. When do we want it?

Before we tape our segment. Sorry, that ain't going to happen. She's saying

you would have thought that's a fairly basic requirement, getting your economy right.

That's the basic objective.

There should be something

beyond that? Well, if you

don't have those, if you don't

have that in your sights as a

Government, there's something

wrong, a

sort of thing. The V for

vision thing has certainly

taken a bit of a battering over

the years, but it is about

actually presenting, surely, Australia something that goes

beyond the day-to-day grind and

goes beyond the heightened

hysteria around interest rates

and goes beyond the framing of

a budget coming up soon.

Surely we can talk about where

we want to be in 20 to 30 years

time. Surely we can talk about

talk about things that talk about things that actually

are expanse ive for Australia, rather than retracting. Laurie

Oakes has been on the phone. He says he did not have a conversation with Kevin conversation with Kevin Rudd on

the night of the coup - Oh,

okay. - and that he didn't

hold back any information at

all. On the day - he was given

the information that he delivered at the press club on

that day. Good And I presume

following on from that he was

given the information during the election campaign the election campaign and

delivered it on time. Now we know that 'Insiders' and Julia watches

'Insiders'. But I think that's

very important and for future

historians it clears up a very

essential argument. So

back to who's the leaker. Now,

the view from everybody but

Lindsay Tanner seems to be that

it was Kevin Rudd. The bt om

line is he says Michael Kroger

is talking nonsense. There we

go More with our panel shortly.

Now here's Mike Bowers and Talking Bowers, I'm talking pictures this morning with the minister

for racing and inside affairs, the bloke who's always inside

inside, blogger for Australian. G'day, pleasure to be with you this morning We've

snuck into the early opener

with a busy early opener. It

is indeed. A great many

drunks. Maybe they're drunks. Maybe they're kicking

on from last night. Probably

still going. Julia showed she

was back in the groove and had

soul back into her as she jetted off

the plane, on the burner that

gave Kevin Rudd the dodgy

chicken and seems to be doing

it without any complaints. The incomparable David Rowe has

them on the plane and he's put

in a disgraceful plug for the

own newspaper there. Julia is

reading G20 for dummies. The grund crew look strangely

familiar, Wayne. Gremlins, in

fact. Giving the engine a nice touch-up there. touch-up there. They are

wreckers, wreckers, we've heard that before. Here she is with

the south Korean president.

Historic photo, Mike. This is the first president from South

Korea who isn't named Kim. They

all seem to have Kim somewhere.

He's probably got it in parenthesis somewhere. As

always happens to us, Jack,

Austria and Australia seem to

be just one step too far. It

is our Desney, it is to be confused with Austria.

There we have Julia dressed up

there looking very, very Austrian. Looking Austrian,

more than a touch of the von Trapps about her. Trapps about her. The von

Trapps indeed, yes. How do you

solve a problem like Maria. Couldn't resist that one. Beautiful, Mike. The world's most powerful woman

arrived this week, I don't mean

Oprah. She's on her way still.

I loved this. It's a beauty Hillary is wandering

along, very evil panda, About

to get up. It's had a feed of

bamboo and about to go slapping

people around. Julia's first

on the list. I love the wagging

tail. Mr Rowe, very

disturbing. Best of the

week At scores in Melbourne, I

didn't know there was one, but

there you go. They have a

franchise now. Kevin has made

them huge. It must be amateur

night, do you think? I think

it's open poll night. 'S' worn

his American undies. Well, he

sure knows how to show a girl a good time. Indeed,

gats is enjoying it rather gats is enjoying it rather a

lot as well. He seems to be enjoying himself. I have to

say is that Julia there? Yep,

yep. She's seen it all before, surely. Boring,

unpleasant. Nothing she hasn't

seen before. I'm sure this

sort of thing went on prior to

the coup really. Indeed, the gang gang of four get around and Kevin gets on the poll. I

couldn't help but think

Hillary's outfit was began tan

mow base, David Hicks. Not

quite the tank suit. The pant

suit, it's the power outfit

really. Look at them. Julia

has the two buttons there, she

has the three. I'm no Trinny or

Susannah, but I think a

straight cut probably would

have worked. I think Trinny

and Susanna would have a field

day with these

police look happy to be - isn't

that an outfit? That is a suit

of armour, isn't it? Either

that or he's 25 stone, the

biggest copia I've ever seen.

Trinny and Susannah give it the

big tick. It's a always a ebb

pleasure to have you on the

program. Thank you very much

for taking the time. Good on

you, Mike, thank you very

much. Two opinion polls this

week confirms that the Victorian election is going to

be perhaps tighter than most

people expected. In fact, the

way that it's moving, it's

starting to get towards minority Government territory.

Bob Brown, of course, says that

the Greens aren't there to

preference anybody or keep the

bastards honest, he said

they're there to replace they're there to replace them.

An interesting stat out of

those opinion polls that we

saw. For every green now, there are just two Labor voters

in Victoria. That just shows

you the rise. It's going to have quite an impact. Very

worrying. If you have the

Greens in Government, in minority Government with

Tasmania, the ACT and federally -

- They're not in on alliance

federally, but one member of

the House of Representatives

who has some influence. Yes,

but the question is this, when

will the public wake up to this marxist environment list

movement and when will the

environmentalists realise

they're being taken for a ride? vote, it's just distressing,

isn't it, they keep backing the Greens. There is something in

Victoria called Victoria called Operation Guardian, basically Guardian, basically there to

keep people safe on public

transport. The police minister

Merle Merle was asked about it

in the week, make your own judgments about whether he's

across all the details. Here

he is. Operation guardian, Mr

Merlino, what's the state with

that? Operation Guardian, I

can't give you an update on that. Is it still operating?

My understanding is it is,

yes. Have there been

improvements? Yes, my understanding there has been now. Where? I can't go into the details there. Operationally, I can't comment

on those details. Do you know

what it is? Yes, I do. What?

Well, this is around ration

violence and improving a focus

on violent behaviour in those areas. What areas? areas. What areas? Operation

Guardian is based on public

transport. Oh! Oh, that's

diabolical. And through all of

this Ted Baillieu is starting

to look like the quiet

achiever. It's going to be a

fascinating result. Final prediction, observation? Well,

I'm looking forward to the rest of New South Wales Labor MPs falling

one of them. Every one