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) ROLLING NOISE Oh. Oh! Do you think they're OK? (GHOSTLY VOICE) Whoa! Now then, what happened? This is your fault. What's going on? Oh, no! We'll spend much more time together. Look on the bright side, Sis. Oh! list finally added to the vial, 'So with the last ingredient on their

the antidote was complete. to their plague-ravaged homeland.' Our heroes could now proudly return Now, let's keep it safe. Right. There. That's all of us immune. Onwards to Fyredor. ALL: To Fyredor! No! Are we nearly there yet? Well, um... How long's it going to take?

A little longer than you may think. you'll ever be returning to Fyredor. In fact, I don't think (LAUGHS) (CHOKES) BIRD CHIRP (LAUGHS) Adrian Tan Closed Captions By CSI -

This Program Is Captioned Live.

Good morning. New Zealand police are warning that the

warning that the death toll from

higher. The tuesday's earthquake will rise much

higher. The death toll stands at 145

and there are grave concerns for

another 200 still

buildings in Authorities say, a quarter of the another 200 still missing.

buildings in central Christchurch

need to be demolished. The Foreign buildings in central Christchurch may

Minister Kevin Rudd says Australian

from the Libyan capital Tripoli as diplomats are now being evacuated

violence there continues. The UN

Security Council has begun tough

negotiations

negotiations on how to sanction

Libya's leader Muammar Gaddafi. His government has launched a deadly Libya's leader Muammar Gaddafi. His

crackdown on protesters in Tripoli

opposition groups exert

opposition groups exert control over crackdown on protesters in Tripoli as

more of the country. Irish Prime

Minister Brian Cowen has Minister Brian Cowen has conceded

defeat in the

defeat in the general election after

his ruling party

his ruling party was crushed by defeat in the general election after

voters angry over the economy and an his ruling party was crushed by

IMF bailout. Ireland's main

opposition party has now claimed

victory but exit party will victory but exit polls indicate the victory but

party will fall short of an overall

majority and its majority and its widely expected to

form a coalition. The body of

Australian soldier, Jamie Larcombe, will make the journey home to South

Australia from Afghanistan today. Australia from Afghanistan today. he

21-year-old was killed last weekend

when insurgents attacked his patrol

in the Uruzgan Province. A ceremony

will be held at the RAAF base north

of Adelaide this afternoon. That's

the latest from the ABC TV newsroom.

Barrie Cassidy. Stay tuned now for Insiders with

This Program is Captioned

Live.

Live. Good morning,

welcome to Insiders. It was

always going to be the number 1 political issue in 2011 and

finally it's up and running,

climate change and a carbon

tax. The government has turned

rhetoric its back on pre-election

fixed price on carbon from fixed price on carbon from next

year. They will present this as

essential reform, a genuine response to climate change, response to climate change, with plenty of compensation for those who those who can least afford the

extra cost of electricity. The

Coalition will relish the

fight, on two fronts: The

election promise, and it will policy is built on a broken

mean higher prices for a whole

range of products.

Everybody is right to go?

Okay. Okay. We are Okay. Okay. We are seeking

a way of pricing carbon that

has got broad support. This is

an important step in our

efforts to put a price tag on

pollution in our economy. It's

xrieting. Woo are committed to

have having a scheme which

starts on 1 July 2012.

of the process, in my view. It This is very much the start

would be followed by a smooth

transition to a full cap and trade meets emissions trading scheme. This is nation

building It's happening

because we have shared power in

Australia. It's pretty clear

who is leading this Government,

it's Bob Brown. I do not

believe that Australia needs to

lead the world on climate change, but I change, but I also don't believe that we can afford to

be left behind. This is a negotiation. Bill Gates did

I'll leave it 10 or 15 years not sit there saying, I think

and see whether or not this computing thing catches computing thing catches on.

That doesn't mean that the game

is over. Immediately following

today's announcement, the

leader of the opposition will

be out spruiking a fear

campaign, and talking to

Australians about a great big

new tax on everything. A tax! I'll put money on that, that that's what will happen during the course of today. A hit on

the Australian people's

standard of living. Every time you turn on the will pay under will pay under Labor's carbon

tax. Every time you go to the

petrol pump, you will pay. It

has price impacts, it's meant

to. That's the whole point.

We will fight this tax every

second of every minute of every

month. Can I make it very day of every week of every

clear that in the debate that

to take will ensue, I'm not intending

to take a backwards step.

Minister to her repeated May I refer the Prime

promise before the last

election, "I rule out a carbon

tax." How can she justify Australian people have voted

for change, they voted for a

carbon price. She said, "I

think when you go to an think when you go to

election and you give a promise

to the Australian people, you

should do everything in your

power to honour that promise."

To seek to destroy and wreck

and spin and mislead: This latter

latter day Lady Macbeth will be

saying, "Out, out, foul But she said it and she will But she said it and she will be judged by it. judged by it. A performance

of hysteria.

She has no credibility left,

she has never seen a tax she didn't like, she has never seen she has never seen a tax she

a tax she wouldn't hike. The

leader of the opposition has clutched for his old slogans

like a drowning man to a

passing piece of wood. If the Australian public could not trust the Prime Minister on

this, how can they ever in the future trust her on anything at

all? He is, as always, all

about the politics and about the politics and not at

all about the policy. We will have this debate and we will

win it. Both sides, it seals, are equally sure of themselves on

this one. This morning, our

program guest is the Climate

Change Minister, Greg Combet.

Before then, we will check out the Sunday papers. Plenty of

angles on the carbon tax angles on the carbon tax story.

It looks as if the It looks as if the government

PR machine has been busy, they have shifted the emphasis to

compensation. There's a great headline for the government in

the 'Sunday Age', millions win in carbon tax plan, Labor. It

is suggesting that the multibillion dollar leave up to 2.5 million leave up to 2.5 million low

income households better off

and 1.5 million middle income

households no worse off. Julia

Gillard said it's supposed to

have a price impact, nobody is

supposed to be worse off, some

are supposed to be better off,

which is an extraordinary

result. They were saying the

same thing under the Rudd plan,

that the very low income earners might They were, and one of the

problems is that it became an

amorphous mess of tax and compensation and things. I don't think anybody ever really focussed on what they might be

getting or not getting. On

petrol, which is yet to be

dealt with, that will be a

spectacularly sensitive issue.

It is. In the 'Sunday Telegraph' they are talking about the possibility of an

offset, that every cent in carbon tax paid carbon tax paid on petrol will

be offset by a cut in petrol excise. This excise. This is exactly what

the Rudd plan did. But I think

the interesting things here are that petrol hasn't been karfd

out as having special

treatment, it wasn't kaved out by Greg Combet and Julia

Gillard on Thursday, they said,

yes, it would be in, which is

obviously a concession to the obviously a concession to the

Greens. The Greens are saying

it's got to be in there. Last

time it was sold as effectively

being cut out by question will be whether it's

this deal, which I don't think

is certain, or whether there

will be some other sort of arrangement. They haven't

confirmed it will be in. They have. They said petrol would be in as part of the transport

sector. They have pointed to the fact

the fact that have been offsetting excise deals in the

past, but the way it was portrayed

portrayed last time is it was

effectively out as a result.

Nikki, Greg Combet got a good run in run in the Brisbane courier mail, with practical advice.

In case the compensation

doesn't do the trick and make

people better off, he has a few

handy hints for people, including turning off air-conditioning, turning off

power points, and suggesting

they might get insulation,

although I thought that was

kind of off the agenda. Maybe a little fridge magnet would

help. The bright spark

headline is not the headline is not the only positive

Bob Hawke has ignited

leadership speculation in the

Labor Party. That's according

to Julie Bishop, who told the

News Ltd papers that Bob News Ltd papers that Bob Hawke

at a function in Perth was

readily spruiking Greg Combet's

leadership credentials. It was suggested he said that Julia Gillard wouldn't go the

distance. He has denied that.

Early this morning on a Laurie Oakes interview, Julia Gillard

also said that she and Bob had a bit of a what Julia Gillard had to say

on the anyone network. As it on the anyone network. As it happens, Laurie, I had

breakfast with Bob Hawke yesterday and we were laughing

together about Julie endeavours to spin this story.

Bob and I were having a good

old chuckle over some yoghurt and fruit yesterday morning.

Mr Hawke has confirmed that he

expects Greg Combet to be your

successor. Greg Combet is older

than you, so that than you, so that doesn't suggest around for the long haul. I

think Bob Hawke would happily

confirm he's a fan confirm he's a fan of Greg Combet, and no wonder, Greg

Combet is a very talented man,

and I have recognised those

talents and put him in charge

of a very big area of policy

for the nation. Nikki, it's

not hard to get a conversation started about whether Julia

Gillard will go the distance. Certainly

Certainly not. I think Bob has

been out there before saying

very similar things, in fact he

was caught at Canberra airport whispering in Darryl Mellem's ear about how Julia Gillard

might not be up to the mark.

He denied that

too. Of course he would, what

else would he say publicly? I

know he has been telling other people this, people this, and I think you

might have heard it too. Bob

Hawke is a gambler, so if he

genuinely believes Greg Combet

is a chance to take over the leadership before the next

election, look at what bookies are saying, shorten,

then Gillard, and if he wants

to get on Combet, he can get $12. He's about to be a

prominent Minister. He prominent Minister. He is, and

you canned underestimate his

political selling skills. I

think the interesting thing about this is everybody keeps mentioning Bill Shorten.

Especially Bill Shorten. Especially Bill Shorten. We all know that the contest ultimately will be between Bill Shorten and Greg Combet, they

are the two front are the two front runners for who becomes next leader.

question is: Is there any real

likelihood that this will be before the next election? I

can't see that Labor could do

that and credibly hope to win with a new leader, again. I wonder, with all seriousness,

why there is an obsession in

the Labor Party to continue talk about itself and its possibilities possibilities post-whoever

happens to be the leader at the

time. Surely it's the most destabilising it be better for people like

Bob Hawke just to cease and

desist with that sort of talk?

And Bill Shorten and others.

They are obviously worried

about the way the party is

travelling and the way the

party leadership is handling

itself. If they were performing itself. If they were performing

- you wouldn't be having this kind of talk. If you are going

to talk about it, don't do it within earshot of Julie

Bishop. Now to our program guest, the Minister for Climate Change Greg Combet who

from our studios in Canberra. Welcome. How are you, bar

ree. I want to start with the

compensation question. Why

would you give so much

compensation that you would

make some people better off? One thing is

One thing is to get straight

with this discussion about

compensation and assistance to households:

carbon pollution, which is what

a carbon price is, is directed

at the big businesses that are

polluting the most into polluting the most into the atmosphere into the economy,

and it is from there that the

carbon price is paid. The

commitment we have made is that

every dollar raised by the payment of the carbon price will be will be used to assist people, households, industries most affected and to help assist with other climate change

programs, so that we can cut in clean energy. But the point

is very important, that this is

targeted at quite a finite number of business es that are

large emitters of carbon pollution in the economy, but we we have been open with

acknowledging the fact

acknowledging the fact that

there can be price impacts with

various services and goods that

people consume. It's a Labor

Government, we will do our best to assist people such as

pensioners and low income

price impacts. The price tag is

paid by the big polluters.

That doesn't go to the point as

to why you would make them better

better off. People on are

looking at what was designed under the trading under the former emissions trading scheme that we tried to

three occasions to get through

the Senate in the last term of

Parliament. On this occasion,

all we have released is a broad framework for a carbon price

mechanism. We have put it out

there for stakeholders and members of the community to

look at, to stimulate some discussion about

seems to have certainly been seems to have certainly been effective. All of the detailed

design work on things like

household assistance package,

the phasing in potentially of various sectors of the economy

into any carbon price scheme,

assistance for those parts of industry that are high polluting and trade exposed,

and any other climate change

programs that may be supported

as a consequence of a carbon

price scheme, all of that

detailed work is yet to be

done, and it is far too

to be speculating about any

particular price impacts, and

what may be in, what may be out and Hugh it will be treated.

Somebody encouraged speculation

this morning that led to this morning that led to a

headline that 2 million people

could be better off and I still

don't understand why don't understand why you would

make them better off, rather than just compensate, than just compensate, other than to sweeten the pill and

make it easier for you politically. grounds for anyone arguing

about any particular number

being better off or worse O all

we have released is we have released is a broad

framework and are yet to do the detailed design work for a

starting price, therefore what

potential price impacts there may be, therefore may be, therefore what forms of household assistance household assistance there may

be, therefore what sort of

other assistance to support jobs in affected industries may

be. We have the detailed work

ahead of us. We will approach it it bit by bit and make available our considerations

when we reach various milestones along the way, and

there will be plenty of

opportunity for people to contribute to the discussion in

an informed way. At the moment, any discussion about price

impacts and the like and impacts and the like and how

they will be dealt with is not informed

informed because we haven't

made those decisions. You say

you are targeting the big

polluters. Does that suggest

that the every day polluters

aren't really a concern? There are important things that people can do at level, and I noted the consumer

consumer story, which I hadn't seen, in your introduction. You

can save energy can save energy at businesses can save on energy

bills by industrial efficiency

improvements. Considering just

one sector of the economy,

almost 40% of the carbon

pollution comes from the electricity generating electricity generating sector.

You can't seriously tackle

carbon pollution and make a

contribution to dealing with climate change when you 80% of electricity supply

coming from the burning of coal without dealing with without dealing with major

pollution in the electricity generating sector. large industrial polluters that

a carbon price mechanism is

targeted at, in order to bring

about changed behaviour at that

level, in order to drive the investment in clean energy

technology, to reduce pleases

in our existing electricity

generation sector, to provide business certainty for

investments to be made in things like gas-fired base load

power generation, to drive

further investment in wind

power and other renewable

energy sources. That's fundamentally what a carbon

price is about, to go for

change at a large scale, so

that over time our economy as

it grows and as our living standards grow, pollution

doesn't grow at the same time. This is a very big challenge

for an economy like ours. We have to make have to make sure we can grow

over the long term, be

competitive initially, but at

the same time cut our levels of

pollution. For sure, but concede electricity is a big contributor to it and if you give too much compensation you

defeat the purpose, it won't

change the way people behave.

But the point I'm trying to make is that the most make is that the most important area where behavioural change

will be necessary and

investment is necessary is in the large

the large scale areas where we

have pollution going into the

economy. Yes, we economy. Yes, we have acknowledged openly, of course,

there are price impacts that

flow through the economy and the households that we will design

- all that work is ahead of us

- is intend ed to help the people who need it moat. That

was our form when was our form when we

endeavoured to prosecute the emissions trading scheme

through the Senate three tiles,

which was blocked by the Greens

and the Coalition on each

occasion. On this occasion we

will revisit the same issues, but we are a Labor Government

and we will be concerned to

make sure that people who make sure that people who need help the impacts will get that

assistance. It's too early to

speculate about what that

assistance may look like. When will

will you be making the decisions - in the next weeks

on or months? In the next four

or five months in particular we

will be doing a lot of

intensive and detailed work.

The objective will be to try to

get agreement on a carbon

pricing mechanism and the detailed work that sits behind

it, to get legislation into

Parliament in the second half of the of the year, so that we can start the scheme from 1 July

next year. The second half of next year. The second half of

this year? Just one important

issue, Barrie, we need to meet

that timetable in order that

business in particular can plan

ahead and can understand and

start to make the investment

decisions that are necessary.

You are not in a rush to get this done before the Greens

control the Senate I just

don't think it's feasible to do

so, to be practicele about it.

the middle of the year, we will

have the roller skates on,

doing the detailed work on household household assistance packages,

starting price for carbon, how

it will be dealt with when we

transition to full emissions

trading scheme and a floating price dealing with the emissions intensive trade industry, and all the business stakeholders are keyed up

already and I will be busy discussing things with them,

along with my colleagues, and

any other issues we have to

deal with. That work of us in the next four or five months. In dealing with the

public, do you concede you are up against it because of the issue of trust in important is it that a poll

public can take a politician on

their word? We are serious

about this, and it has been a

Labor policy for a long time to price carbon.

price carbon. Not that far

back, John Howard took a

emissions trading scheme to the

2007 election, and so did

Labor. As I said before, we have tried last term of Parliament to get

it through. We are on the

record and committed to trying

to tackle climate change. It's a diabolically

problem and we know, and the

Prime Minister deserves a lot

of credit for her courage in

taking this issue on, I this I. It's certainly been our policy,

but she has grabbed it and will

run with it because it's such an important public policy

issue to deal with, in an emissions like ours, we are the like ours, we are the highest per capita polluters in the

world, other countries expect us to take responsibility, just

as this they are, but we know we will be confronting nothing

but a scare but a scare campaign from Tony

Abbott, who has no ideas, no policy,

policy, he would not put a

price on pollution, or cut

pollution, he will run a scare

campaign, but we will fight

that scare campaign and defeat it. Former Climate Change

Minister Penny Wong said a

scheme is better than a tax,

because it caps pollution and a tax does tax does not. What's wrong with

that? This is where facts are helpful in the current discussion. What on Thursday is roo an emissions

trading scheme. One reason we

are committed to it is for the

precise reasons Penny Wong set

out on a previous occasion. We have put forward an emissions

trading scheme, notwithstanding

all the debate about tax.

However, we have said it will

have a commencement that will start with a fixed

that will start with a fixed

price, to get the system going, to transition business and the economy in particular, through

to a floating price to a floating price fully flexible emissions trading scheme structure. But it is an emissions trading scheme

starting with a fixed price

period and it is the case, as

the PM has been very upfront

with, that during that fixed

price period it would operate

like a tax and hence a lot of

the debate. To be fair and to the debate. To be fair and to

look at the facts, we have put forward an emissions trading

scheme. But a tax in the meantime. When Senator Wong said that unfortunately a carbon tax is not the silver

bullet some people think it is,

you would agree with that?

There are two things: A carbon

tax approach or a fixed price

approach will give business in

particular the certainty about

what price they are

confronting, which is a good

thing when you are trying to

introduce a carbon price into

the economy. But it the economy. But it has less

certainty, if you like, about

the quantity of emissions

reductions. The reason the

starting with a fixed price period is to provide the

certainty, to ease the

introduction of the system, to

transition after a defined

period of time into a fully flexible ETS, so that you

have a target and you can have

greater certainty about the quantity of emissions reductions in your reductions in your economy.

That will be important for

Australia to be able to meet

its international obligations,

to reduce emissions by the year

2020. Of course, the

international context for all of this is very

so too is how we transition a carbon price into the economy, which at the end of the day is

a very important economic

change in this country, designed to designed to cut pollution levels, drive investment levels, drive investment in clean energy and clean energy and to deliver certainty for investors in important areas like the energy sector, where at the moment

investment is stalled because

there is no carbon price.

Everyone knows it's coming, business wants it to come,

think need the certainty about

how it is to be will be a difficult policy to

do the detailed work, yes, we

will confront a ridiculous scare

scare Pam pain from Tony Abbott, but it is the Abbott, but it is the right thing to do for this country's

long-term future. Senator Milne from the Greens said her

party has ownership of the

scheme, it's the one we put on

the table. Hard to argue with

that. Actually, I think it's

not that difficult to argue

with it. The first person who

came up with a structure like

this was Professor Ross Garnaut in his 2008 review. You might recall the government's proposed emissions trading proposed emissions trading

scheme in the last term of

Parliament ha had a fixed price period at the start of it. It's

not a novel idea. This is the

outcome of a set of discussions

that has been going on

involving independent MPs, the

government and the Greens, and

also the consequence of a lot

of consultation we have engaged

in with stakeholders outside of

Parliament, and we think it's

the right policy response. As you heard you heard earlier, Bob Hawke line for the Labor leadership.

How do you feel about that? I

reckon that was done over a few

glasses of red wine. It's nice

of Bob to of Bob to say news things, but

we have a big job ahead of us.

I understand that has come

through Julie Bishop, so I

don't know whether it's a

particularly reliable source,

the deputy leader of the

Liberal Party. What I know, because Bob is a because Bob is a mate of mine, the tremendous admiration for

the PM. You don't think might the PM. You don't think he

might have speculated those lines even without the

benefit of a few red wines?

You ask Bob. Why do the

bookmakers have Bill Shorten as the favourite for the next

leader? I don't know, I'm not running the

running the book. You don't get the feeling there's that

public perception about Bill

Shorten? What I reckon we will see from here is that Julia

Gillard's tremendous capacity

will become more and more

supporter of hers, she

supporter of hers, she has

wonderful capacity and the guts

to take on an issue like this,

which will be a very long and hard fight and I admire her for

it and I think the Australian community

community will do too, because

she is being frank with them and

and it's a courageous thing to

take on and it is the right

thing to do and I will give her

every support I can to do it. Rocks rocks called off

weekly meetings with the - Rob

Oakeshott, has called off Oakeshott, has called off weekly meetings. The protest stems from a recent speech

shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey

made in Mr Oakeshott's electorate, undermining the

independent in his own constituency. The three most

disappointing things about the

election were the three independents, the most

disappointing was Rob

Coalition to have a go at him for saying, if you're not going to treat to treat me with some respect

and appropriately, I'm not

going to keep engaging with

you We are all big boys and

girls and sometimes you have to

make a point very clear. Is

this going to be a mature

working relationship? I've

never witnessed any person

attack Rob, I've seen directed at his policy

position. I did think, toughen

up princess. Are you going to

name call or do business? If

someone takes it as a personal attack, that's regrettable.

When you look someone in the

eye and want to do business

with them, you don't go around

their back and start stabbing

away. I would say Rob

Oakeshott is strong and mature

enough to be able to take enough to be able to take the

hurly-burly. Rob faces a real

he seems to vote with the Labor

Party inevitably. An

independent who will deal only

with one side of Parliament,

not the other side, is no

longer an independent. It's

not about his independence but

how he views the way they have

approached this. This is a

rough and tumble world in

federal politics. He needs to

toughen up a bit.

toughen up a bit. I guess

the question is, with the

Parliament on a knife edge, why

do some in the Coalition go out of

of their way to antagonise the independents? They have taken

a decision with Oakeshott that

no matter what they do, he is

rusted-on Labor. It was no accident when Hockey went into

his election and said a vote

for Oakeshott is a vote for for Oakeshott is a vote for

Labor. It was a deliberate

strategy on his part. The other

line that got up Rob's nose is

I'm not going to be growing a

beard any time soon because I won't have to anyone. Is it a little soon to

write off Rob Oakeshott? He

voted against of the - against

the flood levy the other day.

They may have They may have had made the

decision he's rusted on, but

his seat is a classic National

Party seat, the seat of Lyne.

Rob Oakeshott is not travelling

well in Port Macquarie, I know

from being up there earlier in

the year. It's a bit like Bennelong for the Nats, they

want it back, and they think he's

he's vulnerable and he is the

independent who is the independent who is the most vulnerable because he's vulnerable because he's knew,

he hasn't been able to build up

a fernl vote, so he's easy to

knock off, much less confident

in his own skin in the federal parliament, than somebody like

Tony Windsor, who has a Tony Windsor, who has a 75%

primary vote. And won't be

standing next time anyway. Yes. Rob Oakeshott has a Yes. Rob Oakeshott has a young family

family of four little kids. I

think they are partly doing it

to keep the pressure on him

because they think they can

unnerve him. Also, they are

determined to go all out to win

that seat. Okay, he might be

voting with Labor on the

occasional issue, but there is no way when it really comes to

the crunch that he will the crunch that he will be

siding with the Coalition, so they have given up on him. that somebody in federal parliament would take offence

at a self-evident fact, that the Coalition was disappointed

when the independents went with

Labor. What are they supposed

to say, it's fantastic? That's not an insult or back stabbing

or going for the or going for the jugular. It

was a massive overreaction. We

have been looking at Tony

Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, but

now earl area says when he wants

means it. It's not just a question of the government

proposing it, he said he would

take the government

responsible. My support for the government hinges on

achieving that. Some of you

would have seen in a newspaper this morning my comment, it's a

test of leadership for Julia Gillard, but I

Gillard, but I think she's up

to the task. He is saying, if

the opposition opposes it and

Gillard supports it but it goes

down in the Parliament, he will

take that as a no. If I were Andrew Wilkie, I would

wanting to make sure I put my

markers out there, remember me,

don't forget me. There are no

indications yet that his he reforms are necessarily in trouble. It's a there is a lot there is a lot of lobbying going on from the clubs and

pubs. I think this is more of him setting out a marker, "I'm

also an independent and you can't take me for granted,"

because he is seen as locked in

with Labor. He is also not

kidding. I spoke to him about this the other day. He said,

while he might not give his support to Abbott, he will take

it away from Gillard if she it away from Gillard if she

doesn't come to the party on

the gambling reforms. The way things are going at the moment, it looks as if the Government

will have to legislate

federally to get the reforms

through, to over ride the

states. There has been a trial

in Tasmania, his home state, to limit the amount people can

spend. That hasn't been

confirmed. But it is a vexed issue because mandatory precommitment for machines, but mandatory

precommitments for players as

well. That is a pretty big

change. Let's go back to the

carbon tax. The degree of

difficulty, clearly, is

magnified because it is built

on the foundation of a broken

promise? Yes, they have a lot

of trouble there, and it's one that Tony Abbott will be exploiting. I'm exploiting. I'm not sure why

Julia Gillard insists on continuing to say that it continuing to say that it is not a

that vision of her on Channel

10 prior to the election has

been played so many times,

"There will be no Steve Bracks under the government I lead,"

and while you can understand where Greg Combet is coming

from when he says it's an

emissions trading scheme, it's not for

not for the next three, four or

five years, and also it's a

possibility of moving to an emissions trading scheme scheme. She changed her

rhetoric this morning and said,

it's a different Parliament and

I can either throw my hand in

the air and say, I can get nothing done or make nothing done or make a deal. She could have applied a Tony

Abbott phrase and said, that's what happens when you have this sort

sort of Parliament and this is sort of Parliament and this is

what we are going to do, so

let's get over it and move on.

It's the continual trying to

paint black as white paint black as white that gets

her into strife. It's not just this instant. Tony Abbott

seized on this, going back to it together as a general issue

about trust as it applies to Julia Gillard. I hear, "Just

ask Kevin." The promise ask Kevin." The promise not to introduce a carbon tax was

actually the second most solemn

pledge that this Prime Minister

made in the course of the last

election. The most solemn

pledge perhaps was the pledge

to the former Prime Minister,

"I'm with you, Kevin, I'm with you, Kevin. I back you all the

way, Kevin. I even back you on your emissions trading scheme,"

until it all gets too hard and

I'll stab you in the back on

that. She ran it - she ratted

on Kevin Rudd and now she's

betrayed the Australian

people. It's a bit like the

GST, Howard said never a GST, but but he introduced it and argued

it and won the debate is this

like that, the debate about the reality of the thing and

compensation and so on. One

thing is it will be like that.

It's never good when you look

like you're breaking a promise, but one point is how many

people voted for Julia Gillard because she said she wouldn't introduce

introduce a carbon tax? To how

many people was that a

threshold issue? Since nobody

was doing it, I don't think it was. This is all pitched at the votes Labor lost for breaking

the last promise, for breaking

the promise they would introduce an emissions trading scheme. This is all about

bringing back the left vote that went to the grbs in disillusion. That's what it's

about. A lot of people who

probably won't ever vote for

Labor, will say, there you can,

you can't trust them. If they

come up with a package that has

a time line that's credible,

they have the chance of

bringing back that vote, which they need to absolutely abysmal primary vote

they are recording now back to a sensible and reasonable

level. Of course, the history

of this is that when they

abandoned the ETS, it is said

that Julia Gillard and Wayne

Swan put the weights on Swan put the weights on Kevin Rudd. That's exactly Rudd. That's exactly right.

This is the sort of thing that

Tony Abbott will continue to

hammer, because they have a

flaw ed history, but so does the opposition have a history. Two leaders prior to

Tony Abbott foundered on the whole emissions trading scheme. Tony Abbott supported

it for a time. That's right.

So neither side are covered glory when it comes to

discussing this issue and what

it has meant to the individuals in the debate. I in the debate. I guess we are

not going to be really able to

discuss this in a proper sense until we

until we know what's on the

table. So far it's the

atmospherics of the thing. She

is fired up about this, and

went deliberately on Alan Jones

and Neil Mitchell. What did you

make of those interviews, a lot of

I don't think they reflected

well on anybody, especially her. I think she would have her. I think she would have

been much better coming up and saying, "Yes, saying, "Yes, that's what I

said. When I said it, I men it,

but the climate changed, things happened, so I had to change happened, so I had to change as

well." Instead, we have this

whole liar, liar, pants on fire

thing that went basically all

morning, where she was trying

to argue black was white.

There was that, but there was the other aspect, where these guys

guys make a lot of assertions,

and she seems determined to

challenge them, which is

unusual for politician, most of them cave into these people.

This is the exchange on 3A W.

People are feeling dudded,

unsure and insecure. Last time

I came on the show, you were there bristling

there bristling and saying to

me, the flood levy, people hate it, look at the it, look at the polls,

everybody hates it, thereby a

riot, what a

I'm happy to say, Neil, I said

to you then calmly on that

show, I believe the Australian

community will come to accept

this as the right thing this as the right thing to do. Good. Excellent. About time somebody takes on some of these

guys. They make the assertions

they speak for the country and say , everybody hates it, say , everybody hates it, a say , everybody hates it, a and they said that about the flood

levy, everybody hates it, and

the polls show it's 50/50. She

is showing, this was as much for the non-Alan Jones and Neil Mitchell audience as for

anybody else, this was to say,

I'm not frightened of these people, I'm not frightened to

argue my case. Niki is right,

there are more eloquent ways of

doing it, but it was as much

doing it, but it was as much about taking them on, on this

issue, which is right up their

street, it's a tax issue, and

they get Tony Abbott on and all

agree with each other. It breaks the cycle that you get, particularly on program, of everybody agreeing

with him and each other about something. It also gives a

view of Julia Gillard that we

don't often get. We get it don't often get. We get it in

Parliament and got Parliament and got it a lot

more before she was Prime Minister, Minister, that feisty Julia

Gillard, but a lot of her

public presentations are that

very measured, what Tony Abbott

would describe as wooden,

performances. So to actually

get her giving as good as she

got, I think good on her. Before we Abbott is becoming well known

for some of his slogans, he

gave a new one a run, but you get the

get the impression some of his colleagues were in on this,

they knew what was coming. Keep

an eye on John Alexander, who

is sitting behind Tony Abbott.

She has never seen a tax she

didn't like, she has never seen

a tax she wouldn't hike. He was doing

was doing it word for

Tony Abbott won't be happy

until the whole country is

doing that. He's using the

line of every minute, every hour of

hour of every day. We think he

can do better than that. We

will fight this tax every

second of every minute of every

day of every month. We will

fight to the beaches, we will

fight to the landing ground, we

shall fight in the fields and

in the streets, we shall fight

in the his. We shall never surrender. They haven't

surrendered yet on the flood

levy either. Is that slipping

away, does the government look

like they will get it through?

Nick Xenophon is the key vote in the Senate. He is talking

about the insurance issue, and

Anna Bligh is saying, we can't

afford the insurance. Where

does it go from here? It's in the hands of Nick Xenophon.

And Family First Senator Steve

Fielding. He is red hot about

it. He has been fed a lot of

stuff about Queensland on this

and it's hardening his decision. If Gillard wants to

get it through, he will have get it through, he will have to accommodate some of his demands. All the states will

be insured, but then there

won't be a need for a levy. It

would be enormously costly for states. Why would South

Australia, for instance, want

to insure against the sorts of

things that have happened

around the country? How around the country? How can

the federal parliament impose

It is, but there's a lot

leading on it for the

government, given the amount of

political capital they invested in this idea. To be perfectly honest, there are two competing things. The flood

things. The flood levy was a

political strategy. You can

always find $1.8 billion

somewhere or other. It sounds

like a lot, but you can always find it. It was a find it. It was a political

strategy to corner Tony Abbott,

so it's run its race. In some ways they could afford to let

it go. On the other hand, do

they want to be seen to take a defeat in Parliament at this

stage? I don't think they do. There is probably a mechanism

they can find somewhere between privately provided insurance

and what Nick Xenophon wants,

that might be able to be a

compromise. You say a political strategy to political strategy to corner

Tony Abbott. There was other

political thinking behind it, which Tony articulated. I think the

Treasurer has put himself in a Treasurer has put himself in a

difficult position with this legislation because he has

argued, and the opposition have

trapped him in a sense in the politics of surplus and deficit

Budgeting, he is trapped in

this scenario that on his own

admission now, unless he's in

surplus he will be judged as a

poor economic manager. That's true

true too. What's a couple of billion either way, billion either way, except it has

has that political impact?

Yes, and they are very strong

on that, certainly the Treasurer is, and Julia

Gillard, on the "We will be

back in surplus by 2012/13."

Laura is right, $1.8 billion is

not much at all. If they go

down on this, it will hurt their their credibility more than

their financial bottom line. She

She can't afford to this one. She hasn't actually

landed an issue yet. The mining

tax was announced almost a year

ago and it still hasn't been

nailed down, they are still

working on that. What about

the health break you through,

would you sigh that's landing

one? No, because it hasn't

been completed yet. The been completed yet. The states

have signed up - I have signed up - I wouldn't say

to an agreement, but to look at

things they might do in

exchange for the money. From what I hear from the states,

they don't think going to be able to accede to

what she wants, so she has

another ongoing problem there. Nothing has actually been fixed.

fixed. This goes to surplus point. The government

has no choice but to really nail a very nail a very big nail a very big surplus

spending cutting Budget this

year. There has always been a

reason not to do it, and like

the whole delivery thing, they

have to finish off the argument about

fiscal conservatives, they

can't run it for another term. They have to absolutely nail it

once a and for all. You

wouldn't think by 2012/13 the

wouldn't think by 2012/13 the

$1.8 billion would be the difference between a deficit

and a surplus. Given the boom,

do you think there will be more

money around than what we are

led to believe at the moment?

Certainly, but the government

is looking at big spending

cuts. Whether they have the

courage to go through with the stuff being brought particularly in welfare, is the

big question. If they squib it,

that will be the end of them.

With welfare, will it be on raising the standards raising the standards for

eligibility for some of the

benefits? I think there will

be eligibility issues, I don't

think they will wipe anything

out, because Wayne Swan is so

locked into his, this isn't

middle class welfare arguments.

They will have to hit eligibility and because of the skills crisis, they will have to to look like they are doing to

get every able bodied man and

woman into the workforce, so

there will be trade-offs and a

challenge on skills spend. How

does that work, if they are targeting welfare and

eligibility on the one hand in terms of cuts, but on the other

hand when they are funding the

compensation package for the carbon tax they are talking carbon tax they are talking

about adjusting the welfare payments, so that some of those, the compensation will those, the compensation will

come through welfare. It seems

to be a Yes, and at the same time the

people we were talking about

before on talkback radio will be reminding people about cost

of living pressures around the fact that things is going up. Yes, including possibly interest

rates later on, so that's another huge problem for them,

and petrol price increases from what's going on in the Middle East. All East. All these kinds of pressures

pressures are building up. A

survey published in the Fairfax

press on racism earlier in the

week, you can hardly say there are are no racists in the country, because 12% of Australians

actually declared themselves -

if you take the definition that

you have a prejudice against a

particular culture, that makes

you a racist. What is it all about? What is that navel about? What is that navel

gazing, looking at ourselves

and asking ourselves who we are

and what we are? There is much

more domestic violence in this country and biffo between blokes in the blokes in the pub on a Saturday

night than racist attacks. night than racist attacks. Why

can't we get on and live life.

The survey has been going since 2001. 12,500 people were

surveyed over a 10 -year period. Some of period. Some of the questions

looked open ended. The proof is

in the pudding and the way we

live and the way our

communities are. I can't see

the sense in this nonsense. Do

you see it has any impact on

the way politicians think and campaign? I think it

don't think you can dismiss it.

I think, obviously, these kinds of sentiments do exist in the community. There's no doubt about that. about that. If it does,

does it matter? What does it

matter if it's not played out

in any way in the way people

live their lives? I don't

understand why we continually

have to ask ourselves whether

we all get along. There are

times when we don't get The Cronulla riots was an example of that. Of course. You often

You often get attacks on

Muslims, and the way Muslims

are either integrating or not

integrating into Australian society. These things kind of

bubble away, and every now and

again they surface. I don't

think you can pretend that they

are not real, they are real.

The thing is to work out ways of of constructively engaging. If

you pick on Muslims, you can be described as a racist. Do you appreciate that if you appreciate that if you pick on

the Irish equally you are a

racist? Let's listen to Bill

Heffernan in Senate Heffernan in Senate sniments.

He was a guest of the

Parliament at the time, not

that he was treated as a guest,

was Alan Joyce, the head of

Qantas. Mr Justice , thank you for that long answer. I think for that long answer. I think you could talk under cement.

I'm Irish, Senator, I talk a

lost. You come from a long

line of Irish bomb makers, do

you?? Probably just as well he

didn't say that to somebody of Middle Eastern Malcolm Turnbull confronted the

issue, whether he was talking

to his colleagues or to the

country as a whole, but he was country as a whole, but he was

on 'Lateline'. There was a

time a couple of generations ago when Australians saw

themselves as being British, so

if you came to Australia from

another country you were meant

to go into the melting pot and

come out of it

recognise now that our

Australianness is port of that

diversity. We share diversity. We share in the

Chinese new year, the lunar new year

year festival, we share in the Greek and Italian fefls. It is

part of - festivals; it is part

of our way of life. Remember

Malcolm Turnbull? Wasn't he

leader at some stage? Wouldn't

he like to be leader again at some stage? I think that's what it's all about. Was he talking to Corey Barnardy and others?

Definitely talking to him and to Tony

to Tony Abbott. Last week, to Tony Abbott. Last week, when all this stuff came out about Scott Morrison, there were fingers pointing in every

direction, but most of them

were being pointed at Malcolm,

which he denies. There is a lot of suspicion about Malcolm

Turnbull and what he is doing, and definitely behind the

scenes he is

hard on his colleagues. He is

like a duck, all calm on the

like a duck, all calm on the surface. Julia Gillard took

the same approach. Here she is in the Parliament. in the Parliament. We watched

the member for Wentworth on

Lateline last night and we

could read between the lines.

It was on, back to their old days of chasing each other around about the leadership.

The member for went worth was

trying too distinguish himself

as a man who believes in the future, future, who believes in positive

positive propositions like a multicultural and tolerant

Australia, and he wanted to

leave the leader of the opposition like a dying man

clutching on to his One Nation

email. That's what is happening

in the opposition today. Some

people might have reflected on what Malcolm Turnbull said on

'Lateline' and thought, that

sound right. Also, we see

these things just through the

these things just through the

leadership prism, but it's interesting, there is a battle going on for the Liberal Party. The wets, however small in number they

are, are rearing their heads again and trying to have a say

and trying to influence the

policy debate, and that's what

politics should be about. That battle goes back for some time.

Brendan Nelson was always in

strife because he wasn't sure

strife because he wasn't sure

which way to play things, and

eventually, of course, he came

a cropper. It's just part and

parcel of opposition, and so be it, that's a good thing. But

we are talking about Malcolm

Turnbull. He is in a whole special category, I think. What

he said was quite good, quite unexceptional, but everybody

knew what he was really on

about, that was the point of the

the it. More with our panel shortly, Kerry-Anne Walsh,

Nikki Savva and Laura Tingle. Now, Mike Bowers and Talking

Pictures. I'm Mike Bowers, we have come to the Bat and

Ball Hotel in the shadow of the SCG, where you can almost smell

the Lynne amount, to talk to

Jack the Insider, blogger for

'The Australian'. The Shaky

Isles lived up to its name and

put the shenanigans of Parliament into perspective

this week. Emotional scenes in Parliament, where they paused

for a while and gave condolence motions, and quite emotional,

both the Prime Minister and the

Opposition Leader in what they

said, then basically got

straight back straight back down to it. I watched Parliament that way, there were the condolence

motions from Gillard and Abbott,

Abbott, then there was a brief pause and Question Time on and they got stuck into one another. The shenanigans of

Parliament continued all week, it was

it was a fiery week. Tony

Abbott on Thursday was in Abbott on Thursday was in full Churchillian mode, fighting on

the beaches, every second,

every minute, every hour, he

went on, we went on, we understand how time works,

works, Tony. I think he made

his point, he's going to fight this. Julia's dress has its

own hashtag on Twitter, her

white jacket is known as #awj,

which is "another white

jacket". I didn't know that.

Her jacket is tweeting? Her

own jacket is tweeting. It

won't be long before there's a

Julia's jacket on Twitter. These two, Tony Abbott looks

fit, but Julie Bishop is down to her fighting weight. There

doesn't seem to be a lot of

empathy going on. In any of these. Very

exchange going on, and the

polls came out, and Julia has

her tail up. First God poll

for a while, and as the cartoon

shows, they look like they are in a little bit

in a little bit of strife, one

or two might get wet, but Tony

Abbott is pretty safe. It's a beautiful

driven and he is putting on

what looks like the River Cam. Tony Abbott is standing on the

till. Are you surprised I till. Are you surprised I know putting terms? The putting terms? The only

punting I know is at the TAB.

I think they look like a bunch

of silly punts, framplgly.

of silly punts, framplgly. The

silliest punt of all is Mr

Morrison, who must be a bit of

a weight on them if he's managing to upstage Joe Hockey. Love Julia under parasol having a lovely punt.

Nicholson, "I never comment on

the polls, but in this case

I'll have to make an exception." Flicking the exception." Flicking the one

index finger to Tony

index finger to Tony Abbott.

Anna Bligh appears in a spread in the Australian Women's

Weekly, since Helen McCabe took

over has got a hard news angle

to it. I don't often rip it

off the shelves and have a

flick through. But I believe there's been

Some criticism she came and did

this photo shoot a couple of

days after Cyclone Yasi, but if you had worked

you had worked 72 hours

straight during the cyclone, I straight during the cyclone, I

would have thought you could

have your photo taken without

being criticised. What is amazing is she's awake, after

quite a few sleepless nights.

She looks good. She is doing

well, she was a Q&A Q&A, and

basically Captain Bligh can

walk on water. She has turned

it around in an amazing fashion. I think you are

6-for. Yes, 6 or 7, I'm happy

with that. The Government went

in hard on the Julian Assange matter,

matter, so it was a little surprising to hear comments in

Senate estimates from the head

of foreign affairs, Denis Richardson, Richardson, then Liberal Senator Helen Kroger

Senator Helen Kroger The breach in the US system, beggars belief how they and had

the arrangement they had, it

did just beggars belief. My

private view, for what it's worth, is the WikiLeaks

demonstrates how democracy

works so well. I think they

have been a real vindication of the, of democracy

the, of democracy at its

finest. But there you go.

Maybe - we are getting to

predictions - maybe you might find the their attitude towards Julian

Assange in It's not really up

to them. Kevin Rudd has been really the only one reall