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.
Lateline -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

(generated from captions) that but many people quoted bible as proof that slavery was

God's will. You can use the

bible in many ditch ways, and

yes, I am a social yes, I am a social justice, and

I do it without having to

believe in God. We can assume

that people's sense of justice

is not necessarily tied to

their religion. If it is and it

helps them be a better person, fine, but unfortunately

religion is used to persecute

people as well as to free

them. Is social justice better

applied when faith is at the

heart of it? From where I sit,

God has made us all moral beings so I

beings so I expect my atheist

friends to have as acute moral

conscious as I have. One can

join them in being interested

in justice. One place where

kissianity can help is in the

matter of our stewardship of

the environment and learning to see the creation as something

that we have to steward for our

children, grandchildren and so

on, not something simply to be

exploited, because there has been a lot of misunderstanding

there. I am encouraged to find

that one of the leading first

who is chairman of the IPCC, at

climate change, surgeon

is a very active Christian and

has done a great deal of work in promoting that stewardship

thinking. A lot of people can join together from many different faith traditions, or none, on that issue. John Safran? You can choose any

text to spin anything. We have

been talking about religious

scrip tours, but in my

supremacists in experience with white

use science and say science

says this about evolution and

we are using science to prove

that black people are not as

evolved. Science says we stick

in tribes, that's why people

should stick together. You can

read anything any way you want. Faith in social justice,

is there a strong role there?

I think so, because there is

often a drive within a faith to

help other people, and that can

be a motivation or can be one

change and of the Pim etc. pet us for

have seen that in history as

the question has nosed through

Wilberforce and in contemporary

situations, the drive to help

others, to help our neighbours

and to demonstrate love of a

certain kind to them. Susan ,

I know charity plays a big role

in Islam, which is a strong

theme, but you are charged as

someone who is devout, is faith key to true seecial justice?

It can play a useful role. As

Eva said, I don't think justice is the sole possession

of the faithful and I agree

with Eva, faith has been used

to create some of the worst

atrocities we have seen, the end I like to believe it's

the human condition, it's the

human state to want to help

fellow people. Whether we do

that because we worship God or

simply the stars or because it's

simply the right thing to do,

it doesn't matter why we do it,

it just matter that we data.

Please thank our panel, Eva Cox, John Lennox, Susan

Jacqueline Grey. Next week,

Tony Jones will be Tony Jones will be back in the

chair, when Q&A goes to Hobart.

Joining him will be Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings, Liberal Party Senate leader Eric

Party Senate leader Eric Abetz,

and gardening icon and Greens deputy Christine Milne

environmental activist Peter

Cundall. Join Q&A live from

Hobart next Monday night. I'll

be back with ABC News Breakfast

from 6:00am on Wednesday

morning. Thanks for watching.

Goodnight. Closed Captions by

CSI. Tonight - where will the

axe fall next? They're on no

holds barred. This is now going

to be a full investigation

company. going to the very top of the

This Program Is Captioned

Live. Good evening. 'Lateline'. I'm Ali Moore. More dismal polls today for the

Prime Minister. Labor's primary vote hitting a record law, a

week after launching the details of the details of the carbon tax. The government is standing its

ground though and has won the

support of a key union, the

AWU. The Australian Workers

Union had warned it would not

support the tax if it cost one

job. Now it says it's done the

economic modelling and the

government's package should not

cost a single worker their employment. AWU national

us tonight. And while the toll

continues to mount in the 'News

of the World' scandal, in

London, we will be joined in a few minutes by Lance Price, who was part was part of Tony Blair's media

British Labour Party's Director team before becoming the

of Communications. Now a writer

and broadcaster he has written

a number of books on politics

and the media. First our other

headlines. Navy Blues. A

damning report recommendings a

complete overhaul of the repair fleet. Afghan assassins kill

another of President Karzai's

inner circle as foreign troops begin handing control to local

forces.

The British Parliament

likely to an hold on emergency The British Parliament is

sitting on Wednesday to debate

the ongoing phone hacking scandal. Rebekah Brooks former

head of News International has

been arrest ed and questioned

for a number of hours. The

country's top police officer

has resigned over his contacts

World' with a former 'News of the

Metropolitan Police's Assistant growing pressure on the

Commissioner to also resign. Expect the unexpected seems to Expect

be the dis order of the past

two weeks, just in the last 24

Rebekah Brooks has been hours, the recently resigned

arrested and questioned for

hours by detectives. She is not guilty of any criminal Despite arresting her guilty of any criminal offence.

yesterday, and conducting an

interview process lasting nine

hours, the Metropolitan Police hours, the Metropolitan

showed her no documents put no allegations to her. And

connecting her with any crime. If that wasn't enough, another

shock. This time the head of

the Metropolitan Police the

nation's top cop calling it a

day over the hacking. I have

this afternoon informed the palace Home Secretary and palace Home Secretary and the

mayor of my intention to resign as Metropolitan Police Service. I have seen first hand the

distractions for this

becomes organisation. When the story

becomes about the leaders as

opposed to what we do as a

service. I was always clear I would never allow that to

happen. He says while his

integrity was never in question

the whole debate over the

police mishandling of the

original hacking inquiries has

taken its toll. With hindsight

I wish we had judged some matters involving

differently. I didn't and

that's that. But that's not

quite that. He's also facing

criticism over accepting

thousands of dollars in free accommodation at a health resort when he was recovering

from surgery, and his

association with this man, Neil Wallace, a former 'News of the

World' editor, arrested over

the hacking and also0 formerly

a ?1,000 a day PR consult issant to Sir Paul

Stephenson. Paul didn't want to

see this endless question

the nexus between Mr Wallace and senior police officers and all the rest of it distracting

him and the rest of the police from getting on from getting on with fighting crime. But there could be more

to come. There's increasing

pressure on Assistant Commissioner John Yates to resign. He conducted a review

of evidence in 2009 saying

there was no case to answer.

The next point of interest will

be the parliamentary committee that will question Rebekah Brooks and Murdoches. Some

members were furious the arrest

of Rebekah Brooks would further

limit the scope of their

questions but they're still

hoping for some substantive answers. What led people to

mislead parliament? Was it deliberate? Was it just didn't

have genuine possession of the

facts and if not, why not? And

also building on James Murdoch's statement about News

International misleading

Parliament, how does he now know that and what can he reveal to us tomorrow that

wouldn't prejudice an ongoing

police inquiry? In the

increasing atmosphere of uncertainty, the Prime David Cameron is cutting short

a five-day tour of Africa and

flying back to London. He's

proposed recalling Parliament for a Wednesday sitting. I

think it may well be right to

have Parliament meet on

Wednesday so I can make a

further statement, update the

House on the final parts of this judicial inquiry and from what's being announced

today and tomorrow. In London

and elsewhere there's much speculation about the future of

the Murdoch empire, with the share price for News Corp down

20% since this crisis erupted

two weeks ago. But the entity

itself is built around one man.

It's Rupert Murdoch's personality that holdes this

thing together. If he started

to lose his grip and events of

the last 12 days suggest that

he might be, hat that point the

whole of News Corp starts to come apart so my betting is Peter Preston, newspaper

columnist from the 'Observer'

put it this way yesterday, the

likelihood is that the next Chairman of News Corporation

will not have will not have the surname Murdoch. It would be foolish to

write off a man who has spent

more years at the helm of a

mighty media empire than most

of us have been arrive. He has

survived many crises, but never

one like this. Joining us now

from London is Lance Price a

political correspondent for the

BBC before joining Tony Blair's

media team and later becoming the British Labour Party's Director of Communications. He's the author of 'Where Power Lies: Prime Ministers versus

The Media'. Lance Price,

welcome to the program. Thank

you. After working inside 10

Downing Street, you describe

Rupert Murdoch as the 24th

member of the Blair Cabinet.

Can you give us a fly on the

wall account if you like of how Murdoch exerted his influence? When I used to

attend British Cabinet

meetings, I did have the sense although Rupert Murdoch have a voice, his views had

more influence on the Prime

Minister sometimes than those

of most of the men and women

who were actually physically

sitting around the table. Now

those views were expressed

often in private meetings, very often in meetings with

intermediaries if you like. It

wasn't always Mr Blair and Mr

Murdoch who would meet but

their key Lieutenants would meet and talk through a lot of

the issues. Tony Blair was

always being kept abreast not only personal views on key issues personal views on key issues of policy like our relations with the European Union,

immigration, some law and order

issues, but also the attitude

that his papers that his papers were likely to take were the government to announce something on one of

those key issues. You would

always be able to put two and

two together if you like? Yeah,

it was part of the sort of

background noise of Downing Street where News International stood on these things. Of

course it was part of my job. I

was a media adviser to Tony know how all the media might

react to something we were

going to do or something we

were going to say. But in that

mix, it was always the News International titles that carried the greatest weight,

for a variety of reasons. But

the main reason being that they

were a fickle bunch of newspapers. Whereas there are papers on the left as there are

in most countries, papers on

the left who would always have supported the Labour Party, papers on the right we were

never going to win over the

News International titles would political weather. They'd

supported the Conservatives in

the past. They were supporting

Labour now. The risk that they

might switch if we got into political trouble and supporting the Conservatives

again was enough for us to accord them special treatment to put it at its very least.

How did that play into your decisions and your planning and your strategies when you became Director of Communications for

the Labour Party? By the time I I was Director of Communications we Tony Blair's second general

election when he was hoping to be re-elected as Prime

Minister. By that time we were

pretty sure we'd done the

ground work, that we had News

International on board, that we

had most of the papers, most of

the papers supporting us as we

did in the general election.

One of the reasons we had that

was that a decision had been

taken very clearly during the

first time of Tony Blair as

Prime Minister not to take

Britain into the single

currency, not to join the euro and and to keep the pound. That was

exactly what Rupert Murdoch

wanted to hear. When the key decisions were made about that, it's not to say that Rupert

Murdoch had a vote on the decision, he didn't. decision, he didn't. But when the key decisions were made,

his views were certainly taken

into account and it is

significant to note that the

lead stories, the scoops that

were handed out on those sorts

of announcements always went to

News International papers. You

had a role in this. Were you comfortable with this level of influence. Did you

up? I was very surprised by it.

When I first joined, because when Tony Blair had been Leader

of the Opposition, he'd phone

all the way to Australia Hamilton Island off the coast

of Queensland to meet of Queensland to meet the News Corporation executives and

Rupert Murdoch and it was

pretty clear to me although this has never been made

public, once I started working

for Tony Blair, that a deal

that could always be denied had

been done, that both sides were

aware of. Which meant that if the Labour Government gave

Rupert Murdoch an easy ride in

terms of his commercial International papers would give the government an easy ride in

terms of their support of what

Tony Blair was doing and his program as Prime Minister.

clearly that disturbed me, and

it disturbed me enough to write

about it afterwards when I

left. When you're in there and

part of all that, this was

central to what Tony Blair and

the people around them thought

would help them reshape the

Labour Party and get them re-elected and reconnecting

with public opinion in the UK. That was wanted News International to help them reconnect with public

opinion. Now that wasn't to say that News International was

going to dictate what they

should say all the time. But

they would be very aware of they would be very aware of the

influence that News

International and other papers too but principally News International could have on

public opinion and also the way

they might reflect public opinion better than the politicians themselves. Interestingly, this didn't just

apply to Tony Blair, also Gordon Brown and David Cameron.

You make the point that you

believe all three would've won

their without the support of Murdoch.

You write of Murdoch that he

backs winners, he doesn't

create them. That's absolutely

right. He does back winners and he doesn't create them. All of

those Prime Ministers that you

talk about there, all look back

to Margaret Thatcher that towering figure of the post-war

years in Britain. She had a

very close relationship with

News International. He gave her very uncritical coverage a

of the time. It became almost

part of the political folklore

thaw needed that degree of

support in the media in order

to win. And the converse was also examined, where

leaders of the Labour Party who

failed to become Prime Minister

and they were being denigrated

in the press and the News and

the 'Sun'. People drew the

conclusion that one led to the other.

other. I don't believe that's

the case. I can't find a single

example where any media group individually or collectively

has determined who becomes Prime Minister in Britain. But

it's a bit like agnostics and

God. They're not sure that the

power isn't there. So they're

not prepared to deny that it

exists. When you were working

with Tony Blair, did you witness the friendly, very

friendly relationship between Tony Blair and Rebekah

Brooks? I saw the close

relationship that was going on

between Tony Blair and all the International titles but to be

fair to Tony Blair, he saw the

editors of all the national newspapers including papers

like the 'Daily Mail' which is way out on the right of the

political spectrum and was

never really going to be converted to Labour's cause

hand he saw it as part of his

job to do that. But a lot of

the really key stuff, we read

all these things about parties

and people going to each other's weddings and this sort

of thing, which certainly went

on and I was well aware of, but that that made the relationship

work. The serious discussions

would take place sometimes

between the Prime Minister

himself and Mr Murdoch or one

of his Lieutenants, more often

between a very small group of

people around Tony Blair who

would then have very private meetings with people who had

influence or knew the views of

Rupert Murdoch. And in that

way, the kind of - what I was

describing earlier as Rupert

Murdoch being effectively the

24th member of the that's how his views would find

their way through to Tony

access Blair. And it was a route of

access that actually a lot of

ministers who the more junior Cabinet

ministers who were supposed to be

departments didn't have the

same level. So from your

political experience, of course, David Cameron, he did

hire Andy Coulson. Do you think

he will be ride this one out? I

don't think he will resign as Prime Minister although let's

face it, there's a lot of

things that have happened in

the last two weeks that the last two weeks that I wouldn't have predicted were

going to hope. It's a phenomenally People at the very top of News

International and now at the

top of the Metropolitan Police

have had to resign. As yet

there have been no political casualties. They've had humiliate

humiliate themselves, admit to

past mistakes, but I think in

the case of David Cameron, he

showed poor judgment in making

one of Rupert Murdoch's former

tabloid editors with him into

Downing Street, making him his first Director of Communications, at a time when

an awful lot of stuff had been

published in the newspapering

saying this

to do but we also now know that the man who is his Deputy Prime

Minister and a number of other

key figures spoke to him privately and said you shouldn't do this, and he shouldn't do this,

decided to go ahead with it.

Do you think we know enough to

be confident that the game has

now changed, the rules will now change? The rules will now

change. In that it will be

impossible for those cosy private relationships private relationships to

continue but that's not to say

that there won't still be back that there

doors channels between the

media and people in power.

There always have been. You

could go back to the ancient

Greeks and anybody in wants to be able to communicate

with those who can have access

to the media of their day.

That's not going to change but

the nature of the relationship

will have to change. It will

have to be much more

transparent. I've been calling,

I'm one of those who's been

calling for much greater

in the past have said you can't transparency in in

do that because free adopt of

the press is far too important.

We can't talk about our

sources, say where we get stories from. Now we're

starting to learn where they do

get some of those stories from.

It's clear there has to be more

transparency and that isn't a

threat to the freedom of the

press at all. But the absence

and I think that's more of it is threat to democracy,

important. Lance Price, many thanks for joining 'Lateline' this evening.

A damning report into the repair and management of the

has found long-standing Australian Navy support ships

problems and has called for urgent reforms. Defence Minister Stephen Smith commissioned the report after

the navy was unable to help in

the aftermath of Queensland's

cyclone Yasi in February. When

cyclone Yasi struck Queensland in February, none of landing vessels were landing Australia's main amphibious

operational. HMAS Manoora, out of action. It was an 'Kanimbla' and Tobruk were all

embarrassing episode for the Australian Navy. Even New Zealand offered to send a ship

to Australia. By the end of the

saga, the Defence Minister was

not impressed. The maintenance

and sustainment of our amphibious capability has regrettably I will be as frank in public as

I have been in private in

expressing my disappointment at

this. The Defence Minister

ordered a review of management practices and today

an independent report was released highlighting systemic

failures in ship repairs and maintenance. The report is a

damning report of what's

occurred in the past but

importantly it provides us a

very clear pathway for the

for reform. The report also

identified poor communication

between the Defence Materiel

Organisation, which buys Defence assets Defence assets like ships and

the navy. Other problems

include what the report describes as "organisational

complexity and blurred accountabilities". The report

deals with complex and

technical issues. But our conclusions are clear that

there has been long-standing

failures in dealing with them.

Navy chief Vice Admiral Ray

Griggs admitted that the navy's ability to move currently limited by the lack

of heavy lifting amphibious

vessels. Can we put thousands

of troops ashore? No. But at

the moment, we have coverage

for the humanitarian assistance

and disaster relief which are

clearly the most pressing of those contingencies. Among the report's 24 recommendations are

more resources for maintaining

the navy's amphibious vessels and a major boost to navy

engineering. It's clear from Mr

Rizzo's report that navy's

engineering capacity has, in

recent times, not been up to

the mark. But defence experts say that boosting the say that boosting the navy's

more difficult. The mining engineering capacity may be

industry needs all the

engineers they can get.

Engineers, project managers, skilled labourers, so there's

going to be a real contest

between Defence and navy, and

the mining industry for those

people. HMAS Manoora was decommissioned earlier this

year. The future of HMAS

'Kanimbla' is uncertain. Today's report recommends using

it only for training in a position to make that

judgment in the not too distant

future but the decommissioning

of the 'Kanimbla' is a live

option. The navy plans to

replace some of its older ships

with the new Canberra class.

It's hoped the younger ships

will have fewer maintenance

issues but Defence experts

point out the newer ships are also more high tech and have

problems of their own.

The government's record

setting string of poll results

continues and not in a good

way. They're so bad one

minister admitted today it's

getting painful. But Julia

Gillard says she is looking for

the bigger pictures and

searching for chinks in Tony

Abbott's seemingly impenetrable

armour. The view from the top

isn't for the faint hearted.

The latest Nielsen poll showing Labor's primary vote on a

giddying record low of 26%. Yes

we're taking a short-term

political hit. It's a painful

short-term political hit. But

this is a reform the country

needs. An election held today

would wipe out 42 Labor seats

including eight ministers and

leave the party with nothing

but senators in Western

Australia and Queensland. It

hasn't been perfect, has it? I

mean, you know, blind Freddy

can tell you that. their job and they'll work it

out. He warned months ago the

carbon tax would cost jobs in

the steel sector. Now he says

no jobs will go, thanks

hundreds of millions of dollars

in compensation, and is backing

the Prime Minister. Of course

she had survive. She will be

the leader the Labor Party

tomorrow and the leader of the

Labor Party at the next federal

election. I've already bet my

house on it. I will very much look forward to the 2013

campaign, where I will be there

as Prime Minister. High, thank

God you're doing what

much. Tony Abbott's opened up

an 11-point lead over Julia

Gillard in the preferred Prime

Minister stakes. The problem is

not Julia Gillard. The problem

is the policy. The problem is

not just the carbon tax, the problem is the political party

that's committed to it. The

opposition says it will achieve

the same environmental benefits

without the carbon tax although today

question the value of those

benefits. It will be wiped out

by just a few days by by just a few days by the emissions increase gnat Chinese

do. If today Mr Abbott has

changed his policy and he no

longer believes in cutting

carbon pollution, then he

should say that very directly

to the Australian people. The government's banking on voters

switching off from Mr Abbott's

message as the debate

advances. Get a shake verse. The Prime Minister is still looking for a message that will connect with

voters. I won't let this country surrender in the face of the of the challenge of climate

change. Our nation will act to cut carbon

pollution. (Applause)

Thank you very much. The scientific argument for the carbon tax

carbon tax is increasingly

making way for an economic

one. It will mean we use energy for more productively.

Producing more output for every

given level of energy in-she is

pitching the carbon tax as part

of a wider plan to make the Australian economy more futuristic. But the

opposition is focusing on a

different set of numbers, a $12

million government advertising

campaign to sell the car on

tax. It's the cheapest and most

effective way to cut carbon

the moment is a government

which is taking money off

schools and hospitals so it can

spend it on ads. That could go to dentistry, to dentistry, to fix roads.

Instead they will have to deal

with this Goebbels like

propaganda machine. It's come

down to vision versus

pragmatism, a simple sell and a

complex explanation. The

government still has time on

its side but for how much

longer will voters keep listening? industrial union the Australian

Workers Union has backed the government's carbon tax saying

it's confident no jobs will be

lost because of the tax. Its national secretary Paul Howes

joins me now in the studio. You

have crunched the numbers. You

say that the government's

package won't - will ensure

that jobs won't be lost. Given

that the carbon tax is just one

of a whole raft of issues that

businesses have to deal with,

how can you be so sure that

down the down the track, it won't be the one thing that perhaps tips a

company over the cost curve and

makes them uncompetitive and

means they end up laying off jobs jobs because it's never as

simple as one factor? When we

looked at the ish you shoe of carbon

carbon pricing we said we

weren't going to support a

package which would

unnecessarily jobs the costs of

AWU members. We asked for 94.5%

compensation for most emissions

intensive trade exposed

industry in which 85% of our

members work. We say the industry needs to be paying nothing until the dollar recovers because of course

that's creating a huge impost

on that sector at The government delivered on

that. They delivered 94.5% compensation compensation for those

industries, plus a $300 million

transition fund which very disappointingly Tony Abbott

said he won't support. These

are the key issues we have to

tick off. It's a hard issue for

our union and our members but

when we look at this we have to

accept the reality that no

matter who's in government, carbon pricing inevitability. There will be a

price on carbon in this country, you may not like it

but it's going to happen. We

have to work to get the deal we can for our members.

We're confident the package as

announced by the government

will not cost the jobs of any

of our members. We'll make sure

as we negotiate with employers

they are not sacrificing our

members' jobs. That $300

million assistance package for

What happens then? It lasts for

four years with a built-in

review mechanism depending on

what the rest of the world does on carbon on carbon pricing. The same

with the compensation for emissions intensive trade exposed industries. Those

review mechanisms are very

important. Those review mechanisms were supported by

many of the members of the

coalition frontbench during the

negotiation over the CPRS. But

that $300 million for steel

will be the difference between

over. I'm wondering how far

out your economic modelling for

no jobs lost actually went. no jobs lost actually went. How

many years out? We looked at

the whole decay factor

four years. We looked at the

impact of global pricing and

whether you will have more than

70% of the world in the carbon

pricing mechanism on a

sectorial approach. Only four

years? No, we also looked at

the review processes which the government has built into the

package. Our message is the same as the steel industry's

message. BlueScope Steel and

wun still steel both welcome

this package and agree it won't

cost jobs of steel workers in

the short term. industry is under enormous pressure. Australian

manufacturing is under enormous

pressure W a carbon price or

without a carbon price, things

are going to be tough for

manufacturing when you have a dollar hovering between 105 and

110. And there's much more the government and all political

parties need to do. I tell you this, Tony Abbott

30 of our AWU workplaces across

the country, including all of our major steel producing sen

ters. He looked AWU members in

the eyes and said "I will back

you, I will defend the steel

industry". The day the

government announces the biggest investment in the

Australian steel sector since

World War II, he says "I am

voting for it." Consistently

on this issue, the guy just

flips and flops. We saw it

today. A 5% cut's good. A 5 % cut's rubbish. This this is a

very firm commitment that you

truly believe no jobs are going

to be lost. Are you talking

jobs lost or jobs forgone? I

wonder if you accept it will

potentially crimp growth in

some of the industries. There

will be jobs created in new

industries but we have said

very clearly that no job needs

to be lost because of this

carbon pricing mechanism. If you look at industries and the level of compensation they are being given you will see the

employers are saying the same. Jobs won't be lost in these

sectors. The steel hasn't expanded in Australia.

In fact the steel industry has

been contracting in Australia

over a 30 to 40 year period.

Aluminium has expanded in some

areas but in terms of labour

units it's contracted with the introduction of new technology

and new processes. When we look

at the potential for investment in

in clean can't build wind power without steel, you can't build solar

power without Australian glass

and aluminium, there is huge

potential for the creation of jobs in those sectors. What's important for us as a union now

is to look at the policy

settings that have been given

to us, get the best deal

possible and this is a good

deal. Were you ever not going

to support this tax, economic

modelling or no economic

modelling? You played a key role in putting Julia Gillard into the Prime Ministership.

This is her key big reform. Had you not supported it, wouldn't

it be tantamount to saying oops I made the right person? No, if the steel package hadn't been

announced if we hadn't got that

94.5% compensation, that is the

GFC buffering on top of the compensation in the original

CPRS, of course we wouldn't have supported it. I'm

accountable to the 135,000

members of the AWU. Many of the

members of the union will be disappointed with disappointed with today's decision. Some will be happy. Some will want us to go further. It further. It wasn't

unanimous? It was unanimous by our leadership group but there will be

around the country over the

next couple of month as we work

through this hard issue but as

a leader I'm not gonna put our

head in the sand and say we just pretend this is gonna go

away, that theed a digsal

carbon pricing is something we

can ignore and oppose. We know that a coalition government or

a Labor Government will

eventually introduce a carbon pricing. We know the coalition's record in manufacturing. Every steel mill

that's closed in it country government. We know Tony Abbott's

Abbott's inconsistencies. So I

don't take him at his word when

he says he will stand up for

manufacturing or not implement

a carbon pricing regime into the the future. You have made the

point that the government has

made that this is a very rough

reform. When you look at a

primary vote of just 26%, is in

a point where you get so far

behind you can't get

ahead? Well, I see it as a

challenge. This is a matter of

breaking or breaking through.

It's important the government reform. I'm glad we have a

government that stands for

something. You contrast it with

what we have on the other side

of politics. Depending on what

audience he goes to, Tony Abbott changes the story. If

you want a carbon price you go

to 17. If the audience is

hostile, go to page 32. You

need consistency to lead this country. This bloke has been

believing the carbon - that

climate change is absolute

crap, then saying that climate

change is real.

support a 5% reduction in

carbon emissions. Some people will say there has been some inconsistency in Labor policy

as well. Can you understand why people are getting a little

confused about why Kevin Rudd had to polls in the weeks leading up

to Kevin Rudd's removal, the primary vote was in the early

to mid 30s. It's been stuck,

now in the high 20s and it was

in the low 30s. Why is Julia Gillard different to Kevin

Rudd? If you look back at what

the learned members of the

press were saying at that time,

why were they saying Kevin had

to go? Because he'd dumped the

CPRS and the government had

lost its direction. I mean,

sure this is not a popular

reform, sure it's tough. But Minister have been very clear

here that they're going to

pursue it. They're going to follow it through. They're

doing it in a Labor way. That's

why we have given support to

this package today. Not because

we are some ratbag bunch of environmentalists and really

want to deal with this issue

but frankly because we believe

that they've developed a

package which will do the right

thing for the environment but

will also ensure that the 85%

of AWU members who work in emissions intensive trade exposed industries, their jobs will be

saying the polls had no bearing

on your decision to resist in

the removal of Kevin Rudd? The issues was whether the

government was heading in

government was heading in the right direction or not and whether the government prepared to tackle the big

issues. It's very clear that

this government is prepared to

tackle the big issues. It's

going to follow through and it

isn't going to be swayed by the

polls. Sure everyone will woo

prefer higher poll ratings but

I would prefer instead of high poll ratings a government

that's actually gonna deliver

on its commitments and deliver

on the reform that is needed. I

would rather that my union deem

with this very complex issue of carbon pricing under a Labor

Government which is committed

to manufacturing rather than

under a coalition government, a

coalition government who flips

and flops on every major point

of policy on carbon, depending

on which way the weather vane

is heading. If that's what you think of the coalition policy,

you said today that blind

Freddy could tell that the

government's sales campaign of its carbon

successful. Who do you blame

for that mishandling? People

make mistakes. I make them on a

daily basis. I'm sure you do

Ali. It's a matter of fact

a lot of the message hasn't

gotten through. I think it's important that now the detail is out there, that the

government get on the front

foot and articulates that

message pro-actively. I was one

of the parties that was

concerned, mainly concerned, when the government first announced the carbon tax

without any detail. It was a between that announcement and getting the detail and

wondering what was going to

happen to the industries which

may union so proudly

represents. Have they got the process right now? Well, process right now? Well, the

detail is there. What's

happening in the meantime

doesn't really matter. The

detail is there and what's

clear is that you have a

package which will deliver for our industries, which will

assist with the creation of new

jobs and the clean tech industries, which

industries, which will help

with that transition but won't unfairly penalise Australian industry

world has ... Is that sales

campaign now actually having an

impact, are people listening, understanding? It's only been

eight days since the

announcement of detail. This

is is a very complex process.

It's hard to get your head

around. I speak to AWU members

on a daily basis who have

constant questions. I have

questions about the impacts of

different areas. We've this to

commission a lot of research ensure we've ticked the boxes

we set ourselves on these

issues. The debate has been

confuse and has been distorted

by some which is not good, it's

not good for public policy

development in this country.

Parties should be more open and honest

honest about their previous

positions. I can't understand

how the Greens can back this

package but couldn't back the

CPRS. I can't understand how

the coalition and people like

Joe Hockey and Scott Morrison

and all those other major

Turnbull supporters at the time could back the CPRS amended

version but they can't support

this tax. That doesn't make any sense

sense to me. And there doesn't

seem to be much focus on the

inconsistencies that lie with

those parties, but I think it

is important the government articulates their message

transparently and clearly and

the people in this understand that this reform is necessary. It's going to

happen, whether it's imposed on

us from the rest of the world

or we do it domestically, and

it will be tough. But once we

get through to the detail it

won't be the end of the world. A quick question,

completely unrelated to the

carbon tax. How comfortable are

you with the fact that since the announcement of the plan

for an asylum seeker swap with

Malaysia, new arrivals are not being processed, in we're holding various people here with their refugee status

undetermined? Well, my views on

the asylum seeker question are

well known. But as I've said in

the past, I have accepted that

my view is a very small

minority of Australians and

that hasn't been - people with

my views haven't been very

articulate or convincing the rest of the Australian

population that this is an issue. Do you believe processing should be restarted? Absolutely. has always been we should have an orderly processing system.

I've never supported having

children in detention. I

understand the political

realities of this debate and I

understand the need to have regional processing centres.

It's something that I support.

We don't want to be encouraging

people to unnecessarily be

coming to this country by boat

but I also think we need to

inject some commonsense and

some rationality in this debate. debate. And I find it a

frustrating debate to talk

about. It upcements me greatly

of leadership in this country to

to articulate that this

actually isn't the huge actually isn't the huge problem

that so many people make it out

to be 'cause it just isn't.

That's on both sided -- sides of sides of politics? Absolutely.

Paul Howes, many thanks for

joirning us. Thanks, Ali.

After publicly criticising

the new industrial laws the

President of the New South Wales Industrial Relations

Commission has taken himself

off the State's first public sector wage case. In May, Justice Roger Boland accused

the O'Farrell government of

straitjacketing the IRC by

stripping it of its powers to determine

determine wage cases following this the Crown Solicitor's

office said he could be seen by

lay people as biased and suggested he stand down. Justic

Boland today announced he won't

preside over the current case

before the IRC, but the Public

Service Association is arguing

the new industrial relations laws

Look, I think it's a Look, I think it's a wise

move on the part of Justic Boland. He made some

comments which did bring into question his ability to question his ability to oversee

these matters without the

presence of some form of

conflict of interest. So I congratulate Justic Boland on

his decision in this regard.

The new laws are in trouble on

another front. Fred

considering voting to dump the

new legislation if the State

Government doesn't scrap ethics

classes in schools,. Retaining the classes was a key election

promise of the O'Farrell coalition government. US General David Petraeus General David Petraeus has stepped down as commander of

the coalition forces in

Afghanistan during a ceremony

in the capital Kabul. General

Petraeus is returning to the US

to become the chief of to become the chief of the Central Intelligence Agency. The

The handover ceremony was held

only hours after a senior adviser to President Hamid

Karzai and a member of

Parliament were shot dead by

insurgents. One of the United

States' most respected military

leaders is leaving Afghanistan.

General David Petraeus was

credited with helping to turn

the war around in Iraq but his

year in charge in Afghanistan

has been challenging. He is now

on his way home to become the Chief of

Petraeus handed over command of

coalition forces to his success

or at a ceremony in Kabul. It

is my intention to maintain the

momentum of this campaign. This

greats campaign on which we

have embarked. I will continue

to support in every way

possible the recruiting, the

training, the fielding and the

employment of the Afghan

national security forces.

after a senior aide to President Hamid Karzai and a

member of Parliament were shot

dead in the capital. Jan Mohammad Khan was a trusted ally of the ally of the President and a former governor of Oruszgan Province, where Australian

troops are based. The Taliban

took responsibility for the

attack, which went on for

several hours. When I came to

my house, the fighting was

going on and it went on until

3am. There were two suicide

attackers. They killed Jan Mohammad Khan Mohammad Khan who was our neighbour. It's the second

attack to hit car Karzai's

inner circle in less than a week. Last Tuesday, the President's brother President's brother was assassinated in the southern

city of Kandahar. The Taliban

have shown they're still able

to strike high profile targets

at will. This is a crucial time

for the coalition and for the

insurgency. Coalition forces

have begun transferring power

over to Afghan authorities in

seven districts across the country. country. At the same time, the

insurgents have launched a

campaign of coordinated attacks

and targeted killings. The bloodshed is bloodshed is expected to continue after what has already

been the bloodiest six months

on record in the war in

Afghanistan.

Britain's House of Lords has

published a cease and desist letter on its web site demanding that prominent

climate sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton stop

claiming to be a member of the

House of Lords. The move follows an interview given by

Lord monk son to Adam Lord monk son to Adam Spencer in which Monckton claimed to be

a members of the House of Lords

but without the right to sit vote. The letter sent by the

clerk of the Parliament to Christopher Monckton last

Friday and now published on the

Lords web site says that

Christopher Monckton has never been a member of the House of

Lords and calls his assertion

that he is a member but without

voting rights a contradiction

in terms of the now to the And that's all from us. you want to look back at tonight's interviews with Lance

Price or Paul Howes or review

any of our stories or

transcripts you can visit our

web site. Can you also follow

us on twits twit and Facebook. I will see you again tomorrow. Goodnight. Closed Captions by CSI This Program Is Captioned

Live.

Good evening. Welcome to Lateline Business. I'm full

full full. Tonight - on the

gas. BHP and Santos chase

they're probably looking over

their shoulder and saying yes

we need to have exposure to

natural gas. The state we're

in. We look at the latest

snapshot and the implications

of Westpac 's change of

forecast. The combination. Weak

world economy will start to

weigh upon economic activity.