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.
Australian Agenda -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) focused on coming back to surplus.

It is almost unachievable for this

Government to deliver a surplus in

2000 that -- 2013-14, let alone on

the back of a carbon tax. The

impact of the carbon tax won't be

included in this year's Budget.

Tony Abbott says that renders it

worthless. This Budget will have a

hole in its heart that it won't

include the carbon tax, even though

the carbon tax is at least the

biggest tax change since the GFC. -

- the GST. The Government says the

tax will be included in Budget

finalised. projections once the details are

A man has died after he was pushed

out of a second story window at a popular Perth pub.

Police say there was a fight at

about 9 PM in one of the second

story rooms in Cottesloe. The man

was pushed through a window. He was

badly hurt, suffering spinal

injuries. He was given CPR as he

laid out, reading. He was taken to

Royal Perth Hospital died this

morning. Police have CCTV footage

of the incident.

It comes a week after a man was

fined $4000 for a similar result at

the same pub will stop in that

open first story window. incident a man was pushed out of an

PM Agenda is just moments away.

Thank you. After the break we will

to be in be looking at what we know is going

to be in tomorrow's budget, but a

lot of this has been overshadowed

by the so-called Malaysians

solution of the Gillard government.

We will look at that as well. Julia

Gillard today was not ruling out

children, pregnant women, the sick

and elderly being sent to Malaysia

as part of the asylum seekers she

wants to transfer their.

Welcome to the program. It is the

day before the budget, but the

guessing game about how big

guessing game about how big it

deficit will be and where the

budget axe will fall is largely being overshadowed by debate over the Gillard government's so-called

Malaysia solution. This deal, to

send 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia

and to receive 4000 refugees in

return, is being criticised by the

Coalition for being a lousy deal

and by the Greens for being too

inhumane. Does this strike the

right balance? We will explore that

later. The prime minister was not

willing today to say whether women,

children, the pregnant, sick and

elderly will be amongst those

shipped off to Malaysia, and she

would not say whether they would be

forcibly put on planes. This is

resistance. tough policy and yes, we expect

resistance. We expect protests. No

one should doubt our determination.

Unfortunately for the government it

probably wait need legislation,

which is just as well, because Tony

Abbott is convinced it will not

work. There is no Malaysian

Solution. Let's see the Malaysian

Solution, then you can ask that

question. It is just another panic,

desperate thought bubble from the

government, which is literally

drowning in problems of its own

making. Bob Brown is also unimpressed, but for different reasons. He says the differences

between Labor and the Coalition on

border protection are becoming less

obvious. It is appalling. This

policy by the cup -- gillard

government to send men, women and

children to Malaysia where, amongst

other things, people get thrashed

if the authorities don't like what

they are doing. Later on we will

talk to the Greens senator Sarah

Hanson-Young about the Greens

concerns over this solution, and

what the Greens would do about it

to stop about it coming into place.

First to the budget. The government

has spent the last week announcing

a number of goodies in the lead up

to tomorrow night's fourth Wayne

Swan budget and a few of the cuts.

Teachers will get bonus payments

for good performance. Parents will

get higher payments if they keep

their teenage kids in school for

longer. Teenage mums will get free

child care if they read in role in

school. Prisoners of war will get

extra assistance. Pensioners will

get digital set-top boxes for their

TV. Low income earners will get tax

breaks paid throughout the year

rather than as a lump sum at the

end. Some of these measures were in

election promises and are already

factored into the bottom line. We

do know some areas where the axe

will fall. The public service will

need to cough up $500 million in

efficiency. Defence will not go

ahead with plans to hire 1000

civilian staff. Fringe benefits tax

on motor vehicles will be changed,

saving $1 billion. And the

government will try again to means test the private health insurance

rebate. There are great

opportunities for Australia in the

years ahead. I'm very optimistic

about the future. That means

getting the settings in this budget

right. We are focused on coming

back to surplus in 2012-2013. The

opposition is attacking the

government for sending what it says

are muddled messages and also for

continuing to announce spending

initiatives when the economy

demands spending cuts. Joining us

is the Acting Shadow Finance

Minister. I want to start by

looking at the key theme of the

budget, getting Australia into

surplus well ahead of the rest of

the developed world. When would the

Coalition have the budget back into

surplus? The Coalition has a track

record of delivering surplus

surpluses but deliver deficits. budgets. Labor budgets talk about

This government has delivered three

deficits in three budgets. This

will be the ninth deficit Federal

Labor budget. As Joe Hockey has

said, the Coalition, within

government, we would work very hard

to bring this surplus back as soon

as possible. That is our commitment

from the last election. We outlined

$50 billion worth of savings

measures. Let's go through some of

the measures we know will be in the

budget. The measure announced today,

for the Low-Income Tax Offset to be

spread across the year rather than

a lump sum at the end. Is that a

good idea? We are going to look at

the budget in its totality rather

than to make comments about ad hoc

leaks one after the other. It looks

like a bit of an accounting trick.

It has been announced. Be that as

it may, it is still counting. We

will look at the budget in its

entirety. I guess what we want to

know from the government is when

the budget is indeed going to be

back in surplus. We have had a lot

of talk that the budget will be

back in surplus by 2012-2013. Yet

today the Prime Minister sneaks in

an announcement that the budget was

going to be back in surplus in

2013-2014. Today there was an

announcement by the prime

minister... You were talking about

an opinion piece in a newspaper

today.

today. It does have a line about

the surplus being 2013-2014. Is

that a typo? The government has

been saying else was. The Prime

Minister makes a statement in a

major national newspaper and

announced the budget will not be in surplus until 2013-2014. I don't

the know if this is a major mistake and

the governor -- prime minister

needs to clarify it, or if it is a

leak and the government is trying

to soften us up. Or it is a typo. I

can understand why you don't want

to pounce on that. Looking at more

substantive issues that they have

announced, another one is free set-

top boxes for pensioners. What is

wrong with that? (BOOING) as I said, we

we will not get into this game of

commenting on individual measures.

The point I would make is we have

had a lot of spending. The

government talks tough. Most of the

leaks released over the last few weeks, most are spending measures.

We need spending restraint. There

are also spending cuts, to defence,

to the public service,

to the public service, the private

health insurance rebate. We will

obviously see tomorrow what

ultimately is in the budget. For

the last three budgets, Labor has

talked tough before the budget, but

after the budget it was more spending, more taxes, higher

deficit, and usually peppered with some ideological attacks on some ideological attacks on those

Australians not seem to be

supportive of the government. There

is nothing they have announced that

you are opposing? We are interested

in the big picture. We want to see

if the government has a credible

plan. But it is specifics that

matter. You can vote on Parliament.

We will deal with the specifics

once we have seen the totality of the budget.

the budget. Again, there is nothing

specific you are a post to? We will

look at the detail when it comes.

The Coalition has been attacking

the government for leaving the

carbon tax out of the budget. Wayne

Swan post about John Howard did not

put the details of his Emissions

Trading Scheme in the budget, nor

did he put the GST in before he did he put the GST in before he

worked out the details. Ilyshin we

think the carbon tax should not go

ahead at all and it is bad policy.

However, if the government has made

a decision to go ahead, then it

must be in the budget. Otherwise, the budget is delivered tomorrow

and we will have the wrong revenue figures, the wrong expenditure figures, figures, the wrong inflation

figures, the wrong employment

figures. The budget will be quite meaningless if a significant

initiative and proposal that we

think is bad for Australia is not

going to be part of the plan. How

does that fit with the Coalition's

past practice? The Emissions

Trading Scheme was not policy prior

to the last federal budget of the Howard government.

Howard government. I think you will

find there were some announcements

in the lead up to the 2007 election

with a lot of provisos around

international action. Even the

government's scheme in the past

parliament was based on an

assumption the United States would

have an Emissions Trading Scheme,

that China would have won, all

things we now know are not going to happen.

happen. The government has made a

decision to introduce a carbon tax

effective on July 2012. There can

be two reasons why they aren't

putting the detail in, either

because they don't want to be scrutinised or they are not ready

yet and they have made a decision

to go ahead with it without knowing

what the impact will be on the

economy, and jobs. This is economy, and jobs. This is a specific final question. We understand the government will be shifting more skilled migrants to

regional areas in the budget from

the overall pool of total skilled

migration. You are from Western

Australia. You know about the

skills shortage problems regional

areas are facing. Anything that can

better matchup workers with wet

jobsite is a good thing,

jobsite is a good thing, but

obviously I am not be shadow for

that particular area, so I will not

go into detail. Anything that

increases workforce participation

and better matches skilled Labor

with demand for skilled people is a

good thing. Thank you for joining

us. After the break, we go to the

panel for a look at the budget, and the Malaysian Solution.

Welcome back. Before we get to the

panel discussion, let's check on

the latest headlines.

the latest headlines.

Treasurer Wayne Swan says there

will be substantial savings in

Tuesday's federal Budget. A day

before he hands down his fourth

Budget, Mr Swan says it will take

cuts to spending to bring the

Budget back to surplus in 2012-13

and build surpluses thereafter. He

was out and about spruiking the latest

latest initiative that will put

extra cash in the weekly pay packet

of low income earners. Tomorrow's

Budget will have a gaping hole in

it, according to Tony Abbott,

because it won't include the

numbers for the carbon tax package.

The Shadow Treasurer has said the

Government is playing a political

game and is not delivering good

Budget policy. Tony Abbott said

forecasting in the Budget, including revenues, including revenues, expenses,

inflation and growth, would be

wrong if the carbon tax point included. The Victorian Premier has announced

a review of the administration of

Victoria Police with a focus on its

senior command structure. It

follows concern over the sudden

axing of Deputy Commissioner Sir

Ken Jones. After seeking legal advice,

advice, the Premier says the

commission acted within his

authority in dumping his deputy.

The enquiry will be had -- headed

by Jack Rush QC in a report to be

tabled to Parliament.

As traders boxing community is

mourning the loss of Lionel Rose.

He passed away yesterday, aged 62.

He shot to fame at 19 when he

became the first Aboriginal boxer

to claim a world title in 1968. He

went on to become the first

indigenous person to be named

Australian person of the year. His

goddaughter, Ruby Rose, is calling

for a state funeral.

Carlton will be looking to continue

St Kilda's pain tonight in the AFL

when they complete the round when they complete the round of

games. In the meantime, Daemons are enjoying being on winning terms

after thrashing Adelaide. Next up is Melbourne.

Tuesday's weather:

Thank you. Let's look at the latest

polls. The essential poll comes out

each Monday afternoon. Polls go up

and down, but she was has been

stuck at the same situation on a

two-party basis at least on the

primary vote for a while. It's not

good for Labor. For four weeks we

have had the Coalition ahead in

terms of the primary vote. The

Coalition is steady at 47% Tory

primary vote. -- four the primary

vote. So nothing is moving the

party support numbers. For four

weeks with all that has happened,

nothing has budged the poll.

Looking at the leaders - both of

the leaders have gone up in terms

of their personal approval ratings

and in terms of the better prime

minister ranking. I would call this

a softening in disapproval for both

the minister and the Opposition

leader, so Julia Gillard is now at

41% approval. Tony Abbott has

improved, now at 42 approval and 44

disapproval. While Abbott has a

better position in terms of

approval- disapproval, Gillard is still ahead

still ahead as preferred Prime

Minister. The big story of the week, Osama bin Laden's death, people aren't Osama bin Laden's death, people

aren't convinced it will make the

world a safer place. Just 12% say

it will make the world safer. world a safer place. Just 12% say it will make the world safer. 19%

say it makes the world they say.

You asked about the

You asked about the impact of this

on Afghanistan, whether people

support having troops in

Afghanistan or not. As you know, it

has never been a popular battle.

Since we asked the question in

March, we have picked up an 8% drop

in the number of people who say we

should withdraw the troops

altogether, from 56% to 48%. There

is an increase in numbers of people

who say we should keep the numbers

the same. No one really agrees with

an increase in troops. There is a

sense that something might be

working. Thanks for that. We will

see how the Budget goes down next week.

Joining me in Canberra are Grahame

Morris from Barton Deakin, former

chief of staff to John Howard. And in Brisbane, Bruce Hawker from

in Brisbane, Bruce Hawker from the

Labor campaigns and indications. I

want to start with the so-called

Malaysia solution. Bruce, this has

been such a big trouble spot for

Labor, what to do on border

protection and detention policy.

For so many years it has railed

against the Howard Government's

Pacific Solution. Now it has

embraced something similar. Does it

really differ, -- if the? It comes

under the auspices of the UNHCR, the United Nations commission...

Hang on, Nauru also came under that.

The UNHCR is charged with having a

responsibility for making sure that

this works well. I don't think there is anything particularly wrong, or anything wrong with

offshore processing. If it sends a

strong message to people who would

otherwise be coming here that you

should be coming here at if you are

a legitimate refugee and you have a

real need to be her, -- be here.

Let's get this on the table, it is

very similar to the Pacific

Solution. The UNHCR will process

the asylum seekers, but the I OM

process does in Nauru. It is a

backdown, you have to admit. I

think it is Labor looking to find a

way of preserving what they always

wanted to preserve, and that is the

rights of legitimate refugees to

come to Australia whilst finding

ways of getting people who would be

prey to people smugglers and

perhaps not legitimate refugees to

not take the very dangerous route

to Australia. So it's a change from

the previous policy of processing

everyone onshore, but I don't think

that's necessarily a terrible move

at all. It's a sensible move if

it's going to try to -- it's going

to have the effect of deterring

people from trying to make money

out of other people's misery, and

that's the... With your criticism

of the Pacific Solution for so many

years, due now acknowledge that

that solution worked and this is

embracing a similar style of

thinking? Jon Halliday system --

had a system of temporary visas,

where people were coming here

having to wait... That's a separate question. I'm talking about the Pacific Solution.

Pacific Solution. Well, it had an

effect of deterring people from

travelling here, but 97% of people

were put on to Nauru then ended up

in Australia anyway. They just came

via Nauru, so I don't think it was

a deterrent at all. I think it's an

acknowledgement by the Government

that they have to be looking at

other ways of trying to deter people from making a people from making a trip to

Australia, and it's a very

dangerous trip. As such, I think it

is a legitimate thing for the

Government to doing. Malcolm Fraser,

when he was processing Vietnamese

refugees in the 1970s, did it

offshore. It was entirely

appropriate. In the case of...

Should the Coalition, given the similarities to the Pacific

Solution, back this? Two and not

sure that they should. Are not sure

that they should. Each Monday we

have listened to Bruce rail against

the system, and blow me down, the

Labor Party has done exactly what

John Howard was doing, except, in

Nauru and whatnot, we were in charge of how prisoners charge of how prisoners and

refugees and everyone else were

treated. They weren't prisoners.

Did you say... Hang on! That is the

problem with this discussion. You

just called them prisoners. They

were imprisoned, but it wasn't the

purpose of the exercise, according

to John Howard. It was in order to

assess people. Before I came on...

Before I came on, I looked at the

US Senate report into Malaysia

refugee centres, and if you reckon

they are not present, go and read

it, Tiger. You are talking about

Nauru, argue? No, Malaysia... This

is something under the auspices of

the UNHCR, David. Well, they are

not doing their job. The other

silly thing about this... The

Australian program will be under

the UNHCR. What does that mean? It

doesn't mean they will be fed,

closed -- closed and housed

somewhere nice. The UNHCR will

standing on register with them and they are

standing on a -- they are fending

for themselves. They are not a

signatory to the Refugee Convention.

They have no rights, they cannot

work. There are about 90,000, plus,

of them. You cannot argue that this

is a paradise that they are being

sent to. Of course it's not, and no

one would suggest that. The fact

that the UNHCR is involved, when

they have been refused to be

involved in other processes,

suggest that there will be a

different approach here to the one

taken by John Howard's Government

and others. The Malaysia Government

has also given undertakings... Just

one thing - explained to us, Bruce,

Hal, if you are explaining to

Australian families, we get rid of 800,

800, we get 4000, at the 4000 we

get are the dregs that Malaysia

doesn't want. Malaysia picks and

chooses the skilled refugees an day

through to Australia the dregs. How

is that good? It has just been

pointed out, both Nauru and the island had UNHCR support and island had UNHCR support and they

were run by the International

organisation for migration. So

there is no difference. I'm saying

that the important thing that the

Government is trying to do right

now is to see that people who would

be profiting from asylum seekers

going this way aren't going to be

be profiting any more. The UNHCR will

be involved in the Malaysia

Government has given undertakings

that these people will be treated

fairly and decently and humanely. I think that's important in this

negotiation that the Australian

Government has had with the

Malaysian authorities. I might just

point out, while we are talking

here about the intake of refugees,

Tony Abbott was prepared to double

the number of refugees coming to

Australia in order to get Andrew

Wilkie's vote on the floor of the

Parliament when he was negotiating

the possible Government of

Australia just a few months ago.

That's true. He shouldn't be

talking about these things in such

a pious way, nor should Grahame

Morris. Tony Abbott is on the

record saying that he supports an

increase in total refugee numbers

if they come from camps where they

have been processed, rather than jumping the queue, as jumping the queue, as he calls it.

Any Pacific Solution we had a

similar thing to what we are

talking about here. Why can't the

Coalition supported? Because in

many of the processing centres, we

decide who comes to the country. At

the moment, we don't know who will

process these people or who will

decide who comes to Australia. We

are told those details are yet to

be worked out. Chris Pyne today has

briefed Labor MPs about the policy,

as if you had concerns. We were

told some are now feeling better

about the policy after the briefing

that -- briefing Day received. They

just wanted to get assurances from

the minister about the treatment of

the asylum seekers that are sent to

Malaysia. Weekly on the Budget,

the Malaysians situation, because we have gone too long on

the Malaysians situation, on the

Budget itself, has the Government

done enough to explain what this

Budget is going to be a doubt? Or

has it been too confused with

spending announcements, cuts? Have

they done enough to explain what

it's about? I think the main point

they outlay to get across to the

Australian public, and I think the

Opposition should accept it as well,

is that we need a Budget surplus in

2012-13, and that's what this is about. There will be tough

decisions taken, but on the other

hand there will be relief given to

people who require it. Now is probably Now is probably the appropriate

time to make those decisions, so

that when the budget is in a strong

position leading up to the election.

From a political point of view, for

the Coalition, if there are decent

spending cuts, the Coalition will

have to get behind it. Yes, but it

is confusing. The government

announced a cup budget and then

announced all this spending they

will give away. It is confusing. It

seems to me... How would you

describe the budget? It is sort of

a "yeah "budget. I don't know how

you could have a budget which

doesn't include the resources tax,

the carbon tax, the NBN rollout.

Everyone will be saying," well,

that is fine, but where is the rest

of the? "The budget has not been

brought down. You will be joining

us tomorrow in our budget coverage

once we know the details. For now,

thank you for joining us. After the

break, we return to this Malaysian

Solution and will be joined by

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young.

Welcome back. Returning to the boat

people debate that has threatened

to overshadow the budget, the

announcement on the weekend that

Julia Gillard has done a deal with

Malaysia to send 800 asylum seekers

there in return for 4000 refugees

awaiting resettlement. The Greens

are outraged by this and have

condemned the policy. To tell us

why, the party's spokesperson on

border protection and immigration,

Sarah Hanson-Young, joins us. Is

this, in the mind, worse than or

equal to that elusive -- pacific

solution? It is pretty close to

being just as bad. Once we see the

actual agreement, if we are privy

to it, then we will be able to make

a better judgement. But on first

blush, it is pretty bad. The

government points out that despite

of the concerns that human growth -

- human rights groups have in Malaysia, and asylum seekers

apparently being whipped, we are

taking 4000 people out of that

situation. Surely that is a good

thing. We went to the election

humanitarian intake to 20,000 saying we should increase the

precisely so we could take some of

these people out of some of these places in Malaysia or Indonesia. places in Malaysia or Indonesia.

Taking people out, we need to be

resettling, but it should not come

at the cost of 800 other lives. Why

are we trading of one life against

another? Julia Gillard would say

this is about sending a message of

deterrence so people don't get on

the boat and make that journey,

because they will only end up back

in Malaysia. Julia Gillard is

sounding more and more like John

Howard. A few years ago the Labor

Party agreed with the Greens that

there wasn't such a queue, that we

knew the numbers were big around

the world, that it was not an

orderly process. Fleeing from

freedom for persecution is not an

orderly process. Now Julia Gillard

is saying these people, because

they were so desperate, they get

kicked back. What kind of Labor

Party is this? What kind of government is suggesting we condemn the most vulnerable and desperate

people? What will the Greens do

about it? That is the advice of the Prime Minister because she is

acting the exact same legislation

John Howard brought in in 2001?

That is the cause she will be

relying on. That piece in the

Migration Act sets out the

government has to determine that

the country where we will dump

these people, in this case Malaysia,

must be a safe country, must be

able to offer protection. I

struggle to see how they can argue

Malaysia is a safe country. But the

Prime Minister says it is, so let

us see the legal advice. The immigration minister, who has

already flagged there may be legal challenges, that already suggests

the government knows it is on shaky

legal ground. Even if you cannot

overturn this, in terms of blocking

legislation, the Greens to prop up

this government in terms of numbers.

It is a hung parliament and you

could withdraw the support. It is

hard, because on this issue the

government is pretty much the same

as the Coalition. Julia Gillard

holding hands with Tony Abbott on

this and sounding more like John

Howard every day. But when you look

at the broad spectrum, are we going

to back Tony Abbott? You could go

back to the polls and let people

decide. I did think anyone wants to

see that happen. But I think the

government needs to think more

about the promises they made to the

Australian people, to introduce a

more humane, practical and long-

term response. This solution does

not kick those boxes. Do you

acknowledge most Australians think

getting tougher on this issue is a

good thing? That is lack of

leadership. Remember at the

beginning of the election campaign,

Julia Gillard said she wanted to

tell people the facts and then have

a proper, rational debate. She has

done anything but tell people facts

on this issue. She has continued to

peddle the Mets the hard right

approach, and as a result she is in

a race to the bottom. But you would acknowledge most people would

support a tougher policy. Are you

saying people don't understand? It

is our lack of leadership. I was

asked this morning, "do you think

caning of refugees in Malaysia is

worse than the conditions in

Nauru?" When we started compared

the human rights standards of how we treat people based on whether

they are caned or not, the

political debate has sunk to a very,

very shallow point. The question

goes to the options we have on the

table from the two major parties,

Malaysia or Nauru. Which is better?

The option we should look at is

Australia taking leadership in the

region. Let's have a regional cooperation agreement where we say

Australia will take this amount of

people, we will increase our

humanitarian intake and do what we

can to help the UN HCR process more claims, encourage transit countries

to resettle, and those who arrive

on our shores, we will take

responsibility. You will end up

with an increasing number trying to

get here. That is what we have done

for decades. More than 20,000. Not

necessarily. One of our best

deterrence is geographic location.

25,000 people have fled into places

like Italy. Not all those people

will stay there long term. Some

will go back to northern Africa.

But if they know they will get a

permanent refugee Beazer, they will

come. That is not the history we

have seen. Over the last two or

three decades we have had a fairly

steady flow of migration,

particularly those coming as

refugees. Our best deterrence is a

geographical location. It was not

put in place by John Howard or

Julia Gillard. It is simply the

fact of where we are. Sarah Hanson-

Young, thank you. We are out of

time. Join us tomorrow for the

budget coverage. Live Captioning by

Ai-Media www.ai-media.tv