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 or accept liability for the accuracy or usefulness of the transcripts.These are copied directly from the broadcaster's website.
Lateline -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

This Program is Captioned Live.

Tonight - executed in his bedroom.

The authority here was to kill Bin Laden, and obviously, under the rules of engagement, if thrown
up his hands, surrendered and didn't appear to be representing any kind of threat, then they were
to capture him. But they had full authority to kill him.

This man has been subject to summary execution and what is now appearing, after a good deal of
disinformation from the White House, may well have been a cold-blooded assassination.

Good evening. Welcome to 'Lateline'. I'm Tony Jones. Also tonight - a group of business leaders met
with the Prime Minister at Kirribilli House for what the Opposition described as a fancy described
as a fancy lobster dinner to sell her proposed carbon tax. What exactly is business lobby group on
the carbon tax? Shortly we'll be joined in the studio by the President of the Business Council of
Australia, Graham Bradley. That's coming First our other headlines. A temporary solution backlash
over a new system of visas to allow foreign workers to fill skills shortages on major resources
projects.

US admits bin Laden unarmed when shot

US admits bin Laden unarmed when shot

Broadcast: 04/05/2011

Reporter: John Stewart

The US has admitted Osama bin Laden was not armed when he was shot and did not use his wife as a
shield.

Transcript

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Pakistan's prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gillani, has rejected criticism of
Pakistan's intelligence services for failing to locate Osama bin Laden.

Speaking in Paris tonight, prime minister Gillani said that ignorance of bin Laden's hideout was
the result of an international intelligence failure.

Pakistan's foreign minister says the United States was alerted to suspicions about the compound
where bin Laden was hiding back in 2009.

The response comes after the White House changed its account of the assault, now conceding that
Osama bin Laden was unarmed.

John Stewart reports.

JOHN STEWART, REPORTER: The US administration's account of what happened during the raid on bin
Laden's hiding place has changed. Yesterday the White House said that bin Laden was armed and had
been hiding behind his wife when he was killed.

Today, it was revealed that bin Laden was not armed when he was shot dead and not using his wife as
a human shield.

JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Bin Laden's wife rushed the US assaulter and was shot in
the leg but not killed. Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed.

JOHN STEWART: The White House said that bin Laden had shown some resistance to being arrested.

The CIA chief said there was an option to take bin Laden alive, but the US Navy SEALs were also
permitted to kill him.

LEON PANETTA, CIA DIRECTOR: The authority here was to kill bin Laden. And obviously under their the
rules of engagement, if he had in fact thrown up his hands, surrendered and didn't appear to be
representing any kind of threat, then they were to capture him. But they had full authority to kill
him.

JOHN STEWART: Critics say that taking bin Laden alive was a better option.

GEOFFREY ROBERTSON, HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER: This man has been subject to summary execution, and what
is now appearing after a good deal of disinformation from the White House may well have been a
cold-blooded assassination.

The irony of this is that this is what Osama bin Laden craved. He wanted - the last thing he wanted
was to be put on trial.

JOHN STEWART: And while that may now be academic, tensions between America and Pakistan continue to
grow, with more questions today being asked about how bin Laden was able to hide in this huge
fortress-like building so close to a military base.

PETER KING, REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN: It's very hard to believe that some elements of the Pakistani
Government, whether the military or intelligence, were not aware of this.

JOHN STEWART: The US claims that bin Laden may have lived in the compound for five years.
Pakistan's powerful spy agency, the ISI, says it raided the home in 2003, before its huge security
walls were built, but they had not checked it since then.

America;s aid program to Pakistan could be reviewed if it's revealed that Pakistani authorities
knew of bin Laden's whereabouts.

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, DEMOCRAT SENATOR: I think we have to know whether they knew - if they - the
Pakistani's knew. If they didn't know, why didn't they know?"

JOHN STEWART: Today Pakistan's prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gillani, hit back at his country's
critics, calling the decade-long search for bin Laden an international failure.

YOUSAF RAZA GILLANI, PAKISTANI PRIME MINISTER: Certainly, we have intelligence sharing with the
rest of the world, including the United States, so if somebody points out that there is some of the
lapses from Pakistan side, that means there's the lapses from the whole world.

JOHN STEWART: Today the CIA director bluntly stated that Pakistani authorities were deliberately
kept out of the loop.

LEON PANETTA: We made the decision that we would not inform them, that we would conduct this
operation unilaterally.

JOHN STEWART: And a series of WikiLeaks files casting new light on the fraught relationship between
the US and Pakistan may explain why.

This week a London newspaper published details of a December 2009 cable in which the Government of
Tajikistan warned the United States that corrupt Pakistani spies were deliberately thwarting
efforts to catch bin Laden, tipping him off whenever a raid on his hideout was about to take place.

Pakistani media are reporting that senior Al Qaeda figures are meeting to decide who will replace
bin Laden.

The man thought most likely to become the next Al Qaeda leader is Ayman al-Zawahiri. The
Egyptian-born surgeon spent three years in Egyptian jails before becoming bin Laden's chief
strategist and deputy.

The FBI has a $25 million bounty on Zawahiri's head and is hoping that new information seized from
computers in bin Laden's compound will help track him down.

John Stewart, Lateline.

Israel condemns Hamas reconciling with Fatah

Israel condemns Hamas reconciling with Fatah

Broadcast: 04/05/2011

Reporter:

Rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah are celebrating a reconciliation agreement enabling
future cooperation.

Transcript

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah are meeting in Cairo to celebrate
the signing yesterday of a reconciliation agreement.

As a first step the two sides have agreed to form an interim government which will work on
reconciliation and prepare for new elections.

It'll be the first time that the leaders of Hamas and Fatah have met since Fatah was expelled from
Gaza in 2007 following the shock election win by Hamas a year earlier.

The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has condemned the deal, saying the Palestinian
authority run by Fatah must decide whether it wants peace with Israel or peace with Hamas.

Work visa proposal displeases unions and business

Work visa proposal displeases unions and business

Broadcast: 04/05/2011

Reporter: Michael Atkin

The union movement is furious about Government plans to allow companies to bring in temporary
foreign workers en masse.

Transcript

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: In coming weeks, the Gillard Government plans to announce a new labour plan
allowing companies to bring in temporary foreign workers en masse to major projects.

The current 457 scheme applies to individual workers and has been plagued by bureaucratic delays.

But the Government is facing a backlash before the first foreign worker enters Australia under the
scheme.

The union movement is furious, saying its concerns have been ignored and it intends to campaign
against the plans as they stand, but business is also unhappy, saying the proposed new scheme
doesn't go far enough.

Michael Atkin reports.

MICHAEK ATKIN, REPORTER: According to the resources industry, skilled foreign labour is the missing
ingredient needed to kick-start projects worth billions of dollars. The sector says the Gorgon
natural gas project in WA, for instance, could fall victim to the shortage.

GEOFF BULL, AUST. MINES AND METALS ASSOC.: We have at the moment roughly $250 billion worth of
resource projects on the drawing board and they will not go ahead unless the investors can be
guaranteed that the skills will be available.

MICHAEK ATKIN: The Gillard Government's solution is a new labour scheme called an enterprise
migration agreement. Lateline has obtained the Government's draft policy document. It says
companies planning mega projects worth more than $2 billion such as Gorgon and using at least 1,000
workers can now apply to bring in foreign labour en masse.

However, it does come at a cost. If employers use a semi-skilled foreigner, they will have to spend
$5,000 on training. Unions are furious.

STEVE MCCARTNEY, AUST. MANUFACTURING WORKERS' UNION: We're talking about the tradesmen's roles, the
boilermaker, welders and other skilled positions that are on those projects, which we know there is
a lot of West Australians and Australians not getting jobs on these projects.

MICHAEK ATKIN: The Enterprise Migration Agreement is an alternative to the troubled 457 temporary
visa.

But Steve McCartney maintains EMAs will also ultimately drive down wages and conditions.

STEVE MCCARTNEY: Well I think it's the first step down a slippery slope. We've already got Gina
Rinehart and the profiteers, profiteer coalition, running around saying that they want to reduce
the English on 457s, on these migration visas, and they also are saying that they should be on a
reduced rate. We believe that that's where they want to aim in the future.

MICHAEK ATKIN: The resources sector rejects the claim.

GEOFF BULL: We want to pay a good wage and we pay a good wage and we certainly don't want to be
paying less than we pay Australian workers. You can't plan for peak demands like this. There's no
point in having a workforce that is competent to meet such peak demands and then when the demand
disappears, we've got a host of unemployed employees.

MICHAEK ATKIN: Phil Lewis says the truth is somewhere in between. The Labor market expert believes
bringing in foreign workers will slow the growth of Australian wages.

PHIL LEWIS, UNI. OF CANBERRA: There's definitely going to be a push for lower wages. I mean, I
think that's the whole point of the exercise. Clearly, if you can allow migrants to do these jobs,
there's going to relieve that pressure and there's going to be lower wages than there would
otherwise have had.

MICHAEK ATKIN: Professor Lewis says the new agreements will have a positive economic impact.

PHIL LEWIS: Where there are shortages of labour holding back the mining sector, increasing the
amount of labour in the mining sector will have a beneficial effect. I'm not sure that the
migration policy that they've adopted, the enterprise system, is actually the best way to go about
it, but it clearly will have a positive effect.

MICHAEK ATKIN: But industry is disappointed, arguing that the definition of a mega project at $2
billion is too high.

GEOFF BULL: The best outcome would simply be that it applies to all resource projects where there
is a skills shortage. So, the fact that a project costs $1 billion or $10 billion does not
necessarily mean that is labour intensive.

MICHAEK ATKIN: The union movement believes their concerns were ignored and are planning a public
campaign.

STEVE MCCARTNEY: I think they should be listening to all the stakeholders and listening to the
common working people in Australia to understand that these people really want these jobs and they
want their kids to have the opportunity for skills development for the future.

MICHAEK ATKIN: Michael Atkin, Lateline.

Gillard dines with carbon-exposed businesses

Gillard dines with carbon-exposed businesses

Broadcast: 04/05/2011

Reporter: Tom Iggulden

The Government will announce details of its carbon tax in July but tonight Julia Gillard hosted a
meeting with affected businesses.

Transcript

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: The Government's announced it'll give the long-awaited details of its carbon
tax in July, and tonight the Prime Minister hosted a meeting with businesses that may be affected.

Some business leaders have been complaining the Government's not listening to their views on the
tax, so Julia Gillard's invited them over for dinner at Kirribilli House to talk about it.

Political correspondent Tom Iggulden reports.

TOM IGGULDEN, REPORTER: A dinner at the Prime Minister's table with reservations.

The contentious carbon tax was on the menu for discussion, inside and out.

The big energy producers and users do indeed support carbon pricing, but not necessarily the carbon
tax, which they say could drive business and carbon emissions offshore.

JULIA GILLARD, PRIME MINISTER: I will be talking to businesses, both talking and listening, during
the course of tonight's meeting.

TOM IGGULDEN: But she was playing down the significance of the sit-down.

JULIA GILLARD: I have literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of meetings. I meet people in
all sorts of circumstances. I meet them at breakfasts, I meet them at lunch, I meet them at
dinners.

TOM IGGULDEN: The Government's focused on winning over voters while it negotiates with business.

JULIA GILLARD: Households will get generous assistance.

TOM IGGULDEN: New polling confirms public opinion's running two to one against the tax. The poll
also asked about climate change in general, providing a ray of hope for the Prime Minister.

JULIA GILLARD: I don't normally comment on polls, but can I say this: if you look at today's poll,
it confirms very clearly that Australians believe that climate change is real.

TOM IGGULDEN: But the Prime Minister's not waiting for next year when the tax starts to begin
targeted handouts. The Budget's less than a week away and there've been a flurry of announcements
which the Opposition says contradicts the Government's warnings it'll be a tough one.

JOE HOCKEY, SHADOW TREASURER: Yet in the last few days you handed out $400 million to teachers, and
now you're handing out over $700 million to a few families.

TOM IGGULDEN: But the Prime Minister says it's more than a few who will benefit from a raise in
support for families, with a teenager at home studying for a trade.

JULIA GILLARD: This will benefit around 650,000 families, teenagers and make a difference for them.

TOM IGGULDEN: The Finance Minister's denying the handout contradicts the economically responsible
budget being promised.

PENNY WONG, FINANCE MINISTER: The Budget is a package, and I'd say to you: look at the Budget
package when the Treasurer delivers his Budget speech.

TOM IGGULDEN: But Budget talk was derailed somewhat today with more apparent problems at the
Immigration Department. During a radio interview, the minister was caught unawares about
revelations that weeks before last month's riots at Villawood Detention Centre, police confiscated
a so-called incendiary device found in the compound.

CHRIS BOWEN, IMMIGRATION MINISTER: And when you put an allegation like that to me with that sort of
information, I think I need to be able to go away and have that examined.

TOM IGGULDEN: The device is believed to be a can of fly spray wrapped in an oil-soaked cloth.

SCOTT MORRISON, OPPOSITION IMMIGRATION SPOKESMAN: I can think of a few more serious incidents than
for there to be a bomb in a detention centre and the minister not know about it, especially when it
occurred some six weeks ago.

TOM IGGULDEN: Tonight Chris Bowen's saying he's asked the secretary of his department for an
explanation as to why he was left in the dark about the discovery, though he's also saying the
department did the right thing by calling the police when it found the incendiary device.

Tom Iggulden, Lateline.

We must protect trade-exposed industries: Bradley

We must protect trade-exposed industries: Bradley

Broadcast: 04/05/2011

Reporter: Tony Jones

Business Council president Graham Bradley says the Government's carbon pricing model is okay in
principle but there are concerns over details.

Transcript

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Joining us now in the studio to discuss next week's budget and the
negotiations over the carbon tax is the president of the Business Council of Australia, Graham
Bradley.

Thanks for being here.

GRAHAM BRADLEY, PRESIDENT, BUSINESS COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA: Good evening.

TONY JONES: Now, do you agree with Greg Hunt that the Prime Minister's Kirribilli House dinner with
business leaders is sending the wrong message to taxpayers?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Well, actually, no. I think it's a very good thing that the Prime Minister's
reaching out to the chief executives of companies that are going to be most affected by her carbon
pricing proposals, as far as we understand it at the moment, and getting, from the horse's mouth,
the real impact that that will have on their companies, their jobs, their employees.

TONY JONES: I don't want to belabour this, but the implication from the Coalition seems to be that
while rich businessmen are sitting around eating lobster dinners, poor Australians out there are
suffering under the burden, or will be suffering under the burden, of a carbon tax. It's
inappropriate, according to them, for the dinner to even take place, evidently.

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Well, I think it's important that the dialogue take place, Tony, regardless of its
circumstances.

TONY JONES: OK. On the issue they're talking about, there's some confusion over whether or not the
BCA supports the Government's approach to carbon pricing. Do you support it or not?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Well what is it, to start with? I mean, that's our problem at the moment: where the
Government's announced a general direction, but none of the details on which businesses, whether
they're individual businesses or the council itself, can come to grips with what the real
implications of this are for the Australian economy, for our future competitive position, and in
fact we can't even assess whether it's going to have the kind of impact on carbon emissions that
the Government says it might.

TONY JONES: You do support, or it's written that you do, a market-based approach to reining in
carbon emissions - is that correct?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Yes, that's been a consistent policy by the Business Council. In order to achieve
the lowest cost approach for the overall economy, and therefore do the least damage to the
competitiveness of our industry, a market-based mechanism is obviously part of what is needed. But
we've also always said that this is such a big problem, it's such a big transition for our economy,
that we need a multitude of approaches to this.

TONY JONES: Do you accept the rationale that the proposed carbon tax is a transitional step towards
that market-based mechanism and a necessary one?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Well, whether it's necessary in the timing, that's a matter yet to be debated and
it depends on the size of the price of the tax and how long that transition will be and the details
which we still don't have ...

TONY JONES: But leave aside the details, which we don't know, for the moment; what about the
principle of beginning with a carbon tax to set a carbon price and then move subsequently to a
market-based mechanism that you actually want?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Well, that, in theory, is not a bad approach, but for this point: we're in a very
different environment today than we were three years ago when this approach of an emissions trading
scheme was first proposed and we had the proper green paper on it.

We're in a different environment for a number of reasons. Firstly, we don't have the international
binding agreement that's going to - into which our carbon approach is going to fit, and therefore
we can't adjudge how much that impact will impact Australian industry.

Secondly, our economy's still recovering from a global financial crisis and it's a very patchy
recovery. Some sectors are doing well, but some are not, and that should be taken into account by
the Government, including the very high Australian dollar that's a consequence of our current
commodities price boom.

TONY JONES: But in principle, you don't oppose a carbon tax as a preliminary or transitional step
towards a market-based mechanism.

GRAHAM BRADLEY: A properly designed approach to this carbon emissions scheme with a market-based
mechanism would be favoured by business.

TONY JONES: But a carbon tax is what we're talking about, because this is the controversial thing.
I mean, it's a carbon tax for four or five years leading to a market-based mechanism. In principle,
if the figures are right, you'd agree with that, would you?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: What's being proposed is actually an emissions trading approach with a fixed price
period in front of it, which is a bit of a hybrid scheme, and that's something that no other
country has put in place.

We're not moving to the ultimate emissions trading scheme where you would have buying and selling
of credits on the international market and mechanisms that we thought we would have under the
previous regime, before Copenhagen, that would give the lowest cost outcome for the Australian
economy. We're not in that position

TONY JONES: You're not moving to it immediately. As I said, the carbon tax is the interim phase.
But it sounds like you're saying it's not one that you oppose on principle.

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Correct. What we're trying to do is consult with the Government on what would be a
workable approach to this.

TONY JONES: But that does put you at odds with the Coalition, obviously, because Tony Abbott has
been talking about this great, big tax all along. So you have a different position to the Coalition
on this?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Yes. We've supported a market-based mechanism, but I think we may be on similar
ground when we say that it should not adversely affect the growth of the Australian economy and the
competitive position of the trade-exposed industries and it must also maintain the viability of our
electricity industry, which is so vital to every part of the economy.

TONY JONES: Well, sure, but you're not on common ground on the question of a tax. I mean, a tax is
something that the Coalition opposes vehemently, they call it a job killer, a great, big, new tax,
etc., etc.

GRAHAM BRADLEY: The problem with the tax, Tony, is that it doesn't cap emissions. It can put an
impost on the economy and on sectors of the economy without necessarily having a beneficial impact
on carbon emissions. It can, if it's too onerous, send jobs and businesses overseas to
jurisdictions that have lower regulation of pollution and no taxes on carbon emissions. So, it can
be itself a negative on the economy without improving the global economy.

TONY JONES: But do you have an alternative scheme? You will have noted that independent MP Tony
Windsor says he's sick of mixed signals coming from businesses. He's challenged business leaders
such as yourself to come up with a scheme that he can take to the climate committee. Do you have
one?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Well we don't have a fully resolved one, no, because there's a lot of modelling
that needs to go with these things which is in the hands of government, which we don't have the
capabilities of doing.

What we need to do, I think, is to look at all the options. Let's have a debate on all the possible
options that should be on the table to achieve the Government's objectives with regard to emissions
and let's test them, let industry test them in their particular circumstances.

TONY JONES: In your letter - the original letter, because there were several - to the Prime
Minister you said that Australia should act in tandem with international action, not ahead of it.
Now, does that include the unconditional five per cent reduction target which both sides of
politics have agreed on?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Well that's a Government policy, the five per cent. It doesn't ...

TONY JONES: And Coalition policy.

GRAHAM BRADLEY: And Coalition policy. And that doesn't tell us anything about how that's to be
achieved and what the impact on the economy should be, on how particular industries should bear
that burden. That's what we're in the process of discussing with the Government at the moment.

When we say "in tandem", what we have in mind is that we shouldn't move ahead in particular
industry sectors above and ahead of what the competitor countries with our industries are doing. It
doesn't matter what's happening in California and Denmark. It matters what's happening in China, in
South Africa, in Brazil, the countries with which our trade-exposed sectors actually compete.

TONY JONES: OK. There are two sort of plans to achieve this five per cent cut that both sides of
politics have agreed on. One is the one the Government is working on beginning with a carbon tax,
moving to an emissions trading scheme, the market-based approach. The other is the direct action
approach that the Coalition has put forward.

What do you believe, or what do you think, about that approach? It's not a market-based approach.

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Well, neither of those approaches will necessarily preserve the competitiveness of
Australian trade-exposed industries, and that should be what the Government and the Opposition are
trying to achieve.

So my letter to the Prime Minister sought to emphasise the serious concerns of the Business Council
around that particular issue that we should - whatever we do here, should not, without any benefit
to the world's environment, damage our trade-exposed industries when there is not a binding
international agreement with which we're moving in tandem.

TONY JONES: OK. Well, given that by the time any of this happens there could be a change of
government, the Coalition has committed to a five per cent cut, just like the Government. They want
to do it by direct action approach. Supposedly it's going to cost $10 billion to do that. I mean,
do - have you looked at the figures, do you think their direct action approach is appropriate?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: There may be elements of it which are lower cost than the alternatives being
proposed by the Government. But I emphasise again, Tony: look, we're as much in the dark as the
general public is on the details of what the Government has in mind. They've announced a general
framework.

We don't have any of the measures against which we can test which is the lowest-cost approach to
our objectives

TONY JONES: Alright. Now, just in terms of moving with the rest of the world: the Chinese, for
example, are said by some studies to have an effective carbon price in place already. The minister
referred to this in an interview we did with him recently, Greg Combet.

That one study at least says the Chinese have an effective carbon price of more than $14 per tonne
already. You went to China recently. Do you get the impression that they have, or that they are
about to or have begun, pricing carbon, effectively or otherwise?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Not in this - not across their economy in the way that that report suggests. In
fact, we know that there are some sectors of industry in China which are subsidised to use
coal-based electricity, and so they would have a negative price on carbon. So this is quite a
complicated analysis that's required to get these comparisons right. I'm waiting to see what the
Productivity Commission comes up with in the current report that's it's been asked to produce over
the next few months.

TONY JONES: Yes, the Productivity Commission's report on effective carbon pricing is going to be
critical to the debate, but how difficult is it going to be for them to actually do this? I mean,
have you got any inside knowledge as to in fact what countries they're going to concentrate on and
how effective it'll be, and will it influence significantly your opinions?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: My understanding is in the timeframe they have available, they've only been able to
do a limited number of countries, and they won't be doing Brazil, South Africa and many that we
compete with. And they won't be looking at the industry sector by sector; they'll try to get a
picture across a whole economy, which is valuable, but of limited value if we're looking at how
carbon price in Australia will impact particular industry sectors.

So eventually, we need to have that sector-by-sector analysis if we're going to move, as it were,
in tandem with other countries.

TONY JONES: But you can't see the Productivity Commission's report dramatically influencing the
debate with the information that you think they're going to come out with.

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Well, let's wait and see, but they've only had a very limited time to do a very
complicated - I think it's been described as a fiendishly difficult piece of analysis.

TONY JONES: Let's move on to another issue.

There's a large deficit in the number of skilled workers needed for work, particularly on major
resource projects. We've seen the Government is about to change migration rules in order to allow
temporary workers to work on these big projects. The unions oppose it. What do you say?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: We support the Government on this, absolutely. There's been a problem with
individual jobs, permits under the 457s. We advocated for the mega projects, where we know we're
going to need 500 electricians and the local market can only provide 300 or 400, that it be
important for the companies promoting those projects to have the security of knowing that they can
bring in 100 or 200 of the skills they need, which we just can't recruit locally and we can't train
as quickly.

This is a temporary thing so that we can get some of these big projects to be realised, otherwise
we'll lose them to overseas countries.

TONY JONES: What's wrong with increasing the actual intake of permanent skilled labourers as they
did with the Snowy Mountains Scheme when people came and built that and remained in the country as
citizens?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Well we also support that, Tony. We think at least two thirds of our permanent
migrants should be skill-based, they should be focused on the skills we really need for the big,
new projects, of course.

TONY JONES: But should the figures be increased? In other words, should the migration intake for
permanent skilled labour be increased?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Well I think there's a general sense in the community that there should be a
continuing high level of permanent migration. But let's not think it's that easy to attract all the
skills we need at the time we need them. So, I think temporary permits are also a very viable way
for us to get some of these big projects built that might otherwise not occur.

TONY JONES: As far as business is concerned, is this anything to do with the fact that permanent
workers would become probably permanent unionists and swell the ranks of the union movement?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Oh, on the contrary, on the contrary. The Business Council has been very consistent
in our population policy. We should have a continuing, what we would call a moderate rate of
permanent migration to Australia, and we've put our policies forward on that.

TONY JONES: OK. On another issue, the Government has linked revenue from the mining super profits
tax to a one per cent cut in company tax. Does that incline you therefore to support the tax in
order to get that cut?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: We should be cutting corporate taxes for a variety of reasons. Our current
corporate tax is now uncompetitive with countries with which we compete and that's clearly a
national priority. We'd like to see the Government move back into surplus as quickly as possible to
enable that to happen.

TONY JONES: Yes, but I think you understood my question was about the mining tax being the thing
that provides the revenue to drive a corporate tax cut. Does that make you support the mining tax?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: There's a number of complex issues around the mining tax, but - and we've yet to
see the details of that legislation either, I might add. It's been further delayed. But that tax on
a particular sector of the mining industry shouldn't be used as the basis of a general corporate
tax cut. That should go - that should be supported for other reasons.

TONY JONES: But would you be comfortable losing it if the mining tax didn't happen?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Well, look, one per cent is probably not going to make a significant difference to
the competitiveness of Australian industry. We need a cut of five, 10 and then eventually 15 per
cent to make serious difference.

TONY JONES: And how would you pay for that?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Well, over time, that can be afforded by careful economy in other parts of the
Commonwealth's expenditures over time, as well as the fact that we have the benefit of a growing
economy, and if properly supported by Government policies, will continue to grow.

TONY JONES: Coca-Cola Amatil has warned today that it may have to move some of its manufacturing
overseas if the Australian dollar continues to rise. Now, how much of an impact is the high dollar
having on manufacturing industry in particular, and is there anything the Government can do about
it? I mean, should it, do you think, try and peg the dollar so that these rises in the exchange
rate don't cripple industry?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Well there's no doubt the high dollar will have a negative impact and is already
having a negative impact on a number of sectors, including for example education, tourism and
manufacturing.

But, we have had great benefit from a floating dollar over the last 20 years. It's given us an
adjustment mechanism to allow our economy to adjust, the dollar's gone down as well as up. The
Government shouldn't be trying to peg the dollar and it shouldn't be trying to subsidise or support
companies that can't cope with a higher dollar.

But what it should be doing, Tony, is making sure our economy is as competitive as possible, that
companies have the flexibility in labour, the low corporate tax rates and of course the absence of
unnecessary business regulation that enburdens them so that they can adjust their own business. And
eventually, if that isn't enough, then certainly we're going to lose some of our industries to
overseas.

TONY JONES: As a by-product of financial and economic success, in fact.

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Yes.

TONY JONES: The Australian economy's looking so good, the dollar keeps going up.

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Yes.

TONY JONES: Is that something that you're worried about?

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Well, yes, I think it is a matter of concern because we haven't had enough time for
a number of industries to adjust appropriately. But I don't think we can count on the dollar
staying as high as it is for - indefinitely.

TONY JONES: Graham Bradley, we'll have to leave you there. We thank you very much for coming in to
join us tonight.

GRAHAM BRADLEY: Thank you, Tony.

Foetal alcohol syndrome 'as devastating as HIV'

Foetal alcohol syndrome 'as devastating as HIV'

Broadcast: 04/05/2011

Reporter: Ginny Stein

South Africa has the highest recorded rate of foetal alcohol syndrome in the world, affecting more
than 1 million residents.

Transcript

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: South Africa is being urged to take action against a preventable medical
condition, the impact of

which has been labelled as devastating as HIV.

The country has the highest recorded rate of foetal alcohol syndrome in the world.

The country's leading expert estimates that more than one million South Africans have been damaged
by their mothers drinking

while they were pregnant.

Africa correspondent Ginny Stein reports.

GINNY STEIN, REPORTER: Tisha is getting ready to go kite flying. She's almost 15, but this is not
something she can do on her

own.

The Lourens have raised Tisha since she was abandoned days after her birth. They knew something was
wrong, but it took months

to diagnose.

VIVIEN LOURENS, MOTHER: We spent so much time at Red Cross Hospital, I was made an honorary member
of staff.

PETER LOURENS, FATHER: I think people don't realise, you know, the enormity of the situation until
they meet someone like

Tisha face to face and see the things she can't do.

GINNY STEIN: For Tisha, a simple thing like dressing her dolls is frustrating.

TISHA LOURENS, FAS SUFFERER: When I put clothes on the doll, right, I put one arm in and then I put
the other arm, but I don't

get it when I put the leg in, and it doesn't even make sense when I just do it.

GINNY STEIN: Tracking down her birth mother only served to confirm the cause of Tisha's problems.

VIVIEN LOURENS: They went there and she was lying drunk in a shebeen (pub) and she told them to go
away, that she didn't want

anything to do with her.

GINNY STEIN: What have you got? Sorry?

TISHA LOURENS: (Struggling to enunciate the words clearly) Foetal alcohol syndrome.

GINNY STEIN: Professor Dennis Viljoen is the country's leading expert on foetal alcohol syndrome.
He believes South Africa's

drinking culture has caused major damage across the nation.

DENNIS VILJOEN, FOUNDATION FOR ALCOHOL RELATED RESEARCH: Well, you know, I believe that more than a
million

individuals in this country have foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. So in other words, that there's
certainly two per cent of the

population of 45 million is in that category.

GINNY STEIN: Foetal alcohol syndrome is now the country's most common birth defect by far. It's
being labelled as devastating as

the country's HIV epidemic, yet it remains very much a hidden disease.

Wine farm workers were once part paid in alcohol. It was even doled out during tea breaks.

GINNY STEIN: While the dop system, as it was called, was outlawed two decades ago, the weekend
binge drinking culture it

inspired lives on.

DENNIS VILJOEN: Now that became a scenario that I think led to the drinking impetus that happens in
these poorer communities

in rural areas in particular that has spread to a larger population.

GINNY STEIN: Cape winemakers are defensive about their workers being singled out, but this leading
winemaker believes the

problem is so big, something has to be done.

BEYERS TRUTER, WINE MAKER: That's why we started this fund that we've done, the faith fund, to get
moneys in to go to

people, especially women and younger girls that are going to become pregnant some other time, to
tell them you can't, you can't

drink while you're pregnant.

GINNY STEIN: Willie and his wife Betty were born on a wine farm and live and work on one to this
day. He gave up drinking after his

son was born.

WILLIE SMIT, FATHER (voiceover translation): The people need to strive so hard to get ahead. I
think people here drink so much

because they have given up. They don't want to move forward.

GINNY STEIN: Betty drank throughout her pregnancy and on weekends and still does. It was not just a
little, but a lot.

BETTIE MINA, MOTHER (voiceover translation): Totally drunk. I would drink until I was totally
drunk, take a break, then get up and

drink again.

GINNY STEIN: Seven-year-old Wilba is small for his age. He's struggling at school, his speech is
limited.

What do you like best at school?

TRANSLATOR: He says he likes food at school.

GINNY STEIN: Right.

For Wilba, life now is all about running free, but for his parents and those of other children
damaged by alcohol, it's the future they

most fear.

VIVIEN LOURENS: The future is very worrying, because what happens when Peter and I aren't around? I
mean, she can't fend for

herself, she can't hold down a job.

GINNY STEIN: Spreading the prevention message remains a major challenge.

Ginny Stein, Lateline.

A quick look at the weather now. A possible shower for Brisbane and Melbourne. Early fog or frost
in Canberra. Mainly fine in Hobart, mostly sunny in the other capital cities. cities. That's all
from us. If you'd like to look back at tonight's ints view with Graham Bradley or review any of
'Lateline''s stories or transcripts you can visit our website. You can also follow us on Twitter
and Facebook. I'll see you tomorrow night.