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) (Grunts) your loving Arthur. Oh my darling, it is I,

where is the gift you promised? Can we now marry? But My Lord, (Laughs) In here, my love. (Gasps) The Golden Bear of Tandoor! Mm-hm. The very same. Maximo alarm! (Swoons) I tell you. Sire! It's not my bag, being in a bag, Merlin! Merlin? transformed me into a Golden Bear. Sire, the sorceress of the forest How unfair it is to play tricks My Lord! (Bawls) on a poor defenceless pwincess. At least nothing else can go wrong. Don't worry, My Lord.

(Screams) CRUNCH where I'm from. (Fart noises) How ya doin'? It's kind of frosty Closed Captions by CSI

This Program Is Captioned Live.

Good morning, today's top stories. Thousands of anti-government

demonstrators clashed with police in

europe overnight as G20 finance

ministers wrapped up their latest

meeting in Paris. Some 200 thousand

people took to the streets of Rome,

angry about the state of the

country's economy. The mostly

peaceful march was hijacked by

radicals, who set fire to cars and peaceful march was hijacked by hooded

buildings and fought running battles

with police. The G-20 talks focused

on what many consider to be the

of the current unrest - the debt on what many consider to be the cause

crisis affecting the Eurozone.

Protestors concerned about the

economic crisis have also taken to Protestors concerned about the global

the streets in Australia. With

of people gathering in Sydney and the streets in Australia. With dozens

Melbourne last night. Inspired by

'Occupy Wallstreet' movement the Melbourne last night. Inspired by the

group plan to camp out indefinitely

in Sydney's Martin Place. Similar

gatherings were seen across the Asia

Pacific region. Queenslanders are

cleaning up after three days of wild

weather in the state's southeast.

Severe thunderstorms and hail has

battered the region, with the state

emergency service receiving hundreds

of calls for help. And the count

has begun for the Wallabies as they of calls for help. And the count down

prepare for tonight's World Cup

semi-final against the All Blacks.

The Wallabies insist they won't be

weighed down by the infamous Eden

Park hoodoo. But they'll be without

their star fullback Kurtley Beale.

Stay with us now for Insiders with

Chris Uhlmann This Program is Captioned

Live.

Good morning. Welcome to

'Insiders'. I'm Chris Uhlmann.

It's usually only in the movies

where tragedy follows so close

on the heels of triumph, but in

24 hours this week the sweet

scent of a Gillard Government victory was swamped by the

stench of defeat. On Wednesday

the carbon tax bills passed the

lower house to applause and

kisses all round. On Thursday

the plan to reboot offshore

processing collapsed in a tack

tackle debacle. It was the

week where Labor proved that a

day is a long time in politics.

Canberra, where it could be an

historic week for Julia

Gillard, but for all the wrong

reasons. Carbon tax and asylum

seeker policy going to vote.

This is obviously the start of

another important week. I

assume you're pretty ready.

The Australian people don't

want a carbon tax. It has

about 10 years of history at

least. I'd like to get it

done. Why won't she have the

courage of her convictions and

put this to the people at an

election? He'll go running

around like a headless chook in

hype active mode. They take

the opportunity to seek leave

to table some signatures of

over 1,200 people in my

carbon tax and seek an electorate who have opposed the

election. I name the honourable member for indae.

I'm not here to persecute

Sophie Mirabella. Everybody

makes mistakes. This is a

significant day for the

Australian nation. Today will

be a day of betrayal if the

vote goes through. Order, the result of

result of the division is ayes

74, noes 72. The question is

therefore resolved in the

affirmative. These bills as

amended have been agreed to.

In the midst of the snogger

amma, what the Opposition

branded the Judas kiss. Or

more like desperate mouth hrn

to-mouth resuscitation. They celebrated their betrayal with

a kiss. It's a great big green

day to Australia. You are

being marooned by the tide of

history. What incredibly

arrogant presumption from a

Prime Minister and a Government

who are on the wrong side of

truth. Tyranny has come to

Australia this day. The House

of Representatives, this very

alive home of democracy in

Australia - No mandate, no

mandate! Today's protest reminds Julia Gillard,

irrespective of what votes are

taken in here, the real problem

is out among the voters. The

next election will be a

referendum on the carbon tax. I think it will be very

difficult for the Liberal Party

to roll some of this back.

We'll be going to Christmas

with a smile on our face.

A day after getting her way

in parliament on her carbon tax, the Prime Minister has had

to concede defeat on another

major policy front. I will be

supporting the Opposition

amendments today. Bring it on.

Bring it on. If they're not

scared of the result, bring on

the legislation. I move that main committee orders of the

day number 6 relating to a

national standard for

fertiliser products - The

Government is filibustering

that vote to Question Time in

order to avoid having the

migration bill even debated

today. Why is the Prime

Minister scared of putting her

Malaysian people swap to the

vote? It is clear that the

migration law of this country

will not be amended. What's

changed over the last 24 hours?

The Prime Minister was

disappointed. The Government

is not in a position now to

have asylum seekers processed

in third countries. What's

changed, Mr Speaker? They've

decided to fold their tent and

capitulate to the policies of

the Greens. It's happened

because the Greens are here.

This is a failure of

responsibility on behalf of

Tony Abbott. He stubbornly and

arrogantly insisted that it had

to be her way or no way. We

are at real risk as a result of

Mr Abbott's conduct of seeing

more boats. Admit you don't

know how to deal with this

problem and call an election. Our program guest this

morning is the Deputy Leader of

the Opposition, Julie bishop.

Before that, let's look at

what's happening in the Sunday

papers. Fran Kelly, two

emergency cabinet meetings on Thursday and by Saturday there

was a great deal of detail in

the papers. That's always bad

for a government and it's particularly bad for a

government that you have to say

is on its knees if you look at

the polls. The authority of a

Prime Minister that was

weakened anyway. What she did

have going for her was that

most of her senior cabinet

ministers were publicly always

saying we're backing her, or

she's our girl, or quotes of

that kind. Now some within the

cabinet are leaking against

her. It's very bad for her

authority. Inex applicable

really how a government as we

see had the victory, I think a significant victory they had on

Wednesday, the fact we now have

a carbon price legislated in

the lower house that will get through the Senate is a

significant victory, to end the

week with headlines like "rats

in the ranks, civil war", is

diabolical for this Government.

There are cabinet leaks and

there are cabinet leaks, but

this one seems quite a large

one? This is shocking, because

it does show, as Fran said, the

degree of dissension and her

lack of support. Cabinet is

not behind Julia Gillard

anymore. Anybody who still

entertains a doubt that Kevin

Rudd is running for Prime

Minister is not plugged in. I

know that the Fairfax press was

very late to this and denied

the rumour for a good

fortnight, but Kevin is out

there and running now. He is ringing everybody. I wouldn't

be surprised if he picked up

the phone and smoke to me

within the next couple of

weeks. Let us know if he does,

though. The Fairfax press

broke the story of the cabinet

leaks, of course. No, I'm

talking about him running. I'd

just like to say, we broke it.

As four journalists on this

set, we're all pretty happy

those leaks have leaked, aren't

we? Absolutely. We love it,

I'm not saying it's not a good

thing for me, I'm saying it's

not a good thing for Julia

Gillard. Bad thing for Julia

Gillard, but bloody interesting

to see how that policy,

whatever that policy is, was

reached. But I think the

interesting thing - I know,

Chris, you want to talk about

the policy - but what's

interesting in this is the revelation it was Julia Gillard

almost alone, according to the

leaker anyway, who insisted on

bringing this legislation to

the House of Reps, even though

it was likely to go down. She

insisted on that strategically. It's been read as someone in

the Rudd camp. For those who

have forgotten what Kevin Rudd

was like as Prime Minister,

expect to see some more of

this. What we've tried to do

as a government for the period

we've been in since 2007 is to

make a difference on this as

well for these munchkins for

the future. Munchkins can't

wait. The munchkins are lined

up. When we looked at the policy adjustments we saw this

week, it will appear there's

been retrofitting of what the

Government said by its

department. There's a story this morning about where some

of the refugees might go.

Misha Schubert in the 'Sunday

Age' and Fairfax papers in

Sydney as well has said that

the asylum seekers released

from detention will go out into

regional Australia, where they

may help fill shortages of

labour. This is real policy on

the run, because we're speaking

about people who actually

haven't been defined yet as

refugees. These are people who

have not been through the

identification and verification

process. We're not sure on

that, piers, I don't think.

They'll be identified and

verified, not as refugees but

who they are, the fact that they're healthy and don't

present a security risk,

they're all pre-conditions to

release into the community.

But at this point they are not

refugees, David. This is what

I'm saying. I know, it's

terrifying, isn't it? I'm not

terrified. What I'm saying is

this, it's yet another lack of

policy. What we're seeing here

is the Government trying to

make this catch and release

program look as if it was all

part of a plan for regional

unemployment. I'm not sure

that Chris wants to discuss

this right at this point, but

here is something to consider.

There are 6,000 asylum seekers

on bridging visas absolutely

free in the community at the

moment in Australia and that

figure is pretty constant over

the years. There haven't been

detained, they haven't been

through any of those processes.

These are people who arrive

with identification. Yes, they

arrive by air, and there are as

many at the moment in

immigration prison simply

because they come by sea.

We'll talk about that later.

One of the people we know has

been very busy in the community

is Corrie Bernardi. In a

rather shadowy way. It turns

out - I'm reading from this

morning's 'Sunday Age' - that

Corrie has set up this web of

websites under the banner of

the can-do.org.au to advance

conservative causes, of course.

You must understand one of the

most conservative causes is to

get swearing off television.

Swearing is worse than nudity,

did you know that? Swearing

can be heard, nudity can't be

heard? I've never heard of

this program of his. Anyway, the conservative leadership

foundation run by Cory, there's

a web of websites and if you

give money to them, it's not

very clear where the money goes

to. Are they asking for money?

No, they're open to donation

s. All of this is swirling

around and it's some kind of

imitation of apparently the

American Tea Party movement,

because, as we know, Cory is a

major Tea Partier. I thought you were proud of the Tea Party. That's the papers for

now. Our studio guest is

deputy Opposition leader Julie

Bishop. While she joins us,

let's hear the Prime Minister's

explanation on why offshore

processing was shelled. There

is only one reason that we are

not in a circumstance to have

offshore processing and that's

because of Mr Abbott and his

determination to trash the

national interest. The

legislation will be there on

the Notice Paper and before the

Parliament, and if there is

ever a day when Mr Abbott wakes

up and is prepared to act in

the national interest, the

legislation will be immediately

brought on. But I believe it's

important that Australians

understand where this conduct leads us to. Mr Abbott's

conduct leads us to

circumstances where we are at

real risk of seeing more boats.

Let's be very clear here. I

have never asked Tony Abbott to

endorse the Government's

policies or plans in relation

to Malaysia. What I have asked

him to do is to support

amendments that enable the

Government of the day, this

Government and future

Governments, to make appropriate choices about

offshore processing. Julie

Bishop, welcome. Good morning,

Chris, how are you? I'm very

well. Should the executive

have the right to determine

immigration law? Chris, the

reason Julia Gillard can't get

this Malaysia swap deal through the Parliament is because her

own side doesn't support it.

She can't get the support of

her cabinet, she can't get the

support of her Caucus, she

can't get the support of her

alliance partner in the Greens,

and she can't get the support

of one of the Independents that

supports her in government. So

this is a mess entirely of

Julia Gillard's making and she

can embrace the coalition's policies, which includes

offshore processing on Nauru

and temporary protection visas

and we now know, as a result of

that extraordinary leak from

cabinet, that a number of her

cabinet colleagues now also

support the Coalition's

position on offshore

processing. Can we focus for a

moment, though, on the

Opposition. You're being asked

to back a principle, not the

Malaysia solution, the

principle the executive should

have a right to create

immigration law. Do you agree

with that? Chris, we do not

agree that Malaysia is a good

deal for Australia, for a whole

raft of reasons, and the High

Court happens to agree with us.

The High Court has found that

the Malaysia deal is unlawful.

We do not believe it's in

Australia's best interests, the

asylum seekers' best interests

to be sent to Malaysia. The

alternative we've had in place

for ten years as coalition

policy, and it's been proven to

work, is offshore processing in

Nauru. The Prime Minister

could also have offshore

processing on Manus Island and

that was her policy at one stage. But there's a question

mark over that since the High

Court decision, the game has

changed. You're not certain

that Nauru would be allowable.

That's not the case. You say

it is but you don't know it is.

We have advice from the former

solicitor-General, David

Bennett, Nauru would be doable

under the High Court ruling.

The High Court did not rule out

Nauru. Indeed, the current

solicitor-General, in a

briefing I had with him, also

confirmed that the High Court

didn't rule out Nauru. He would

say it did leave question marks

over it, wouldn't he? He

didn't say that to us. He said

it didn't rule out Nauru. We

have advice from the former Solicitor-General Nauru could

continue to be used. The

question has to be if Julia

Gillard really believes in

offshore processing, why did

she close down Nauru when they

came to government? If we look

back at Nauru under the

Coalition, can you point us to

a single statement up until

2007 where you said that one of

the conditions had to be that

the country was a signatory to

the UN refugee convention? The

circumstances in Nauru were

equivalent to them being a

signatory under the UN

convention. But they weren't,

that's clear. But we had put

in place protections in the

Migration Act to reflect the

fact that if you were a

signatory under the UN

Convention, there would be

certain protections in place.

So we knew Nauru was not a

signatory, but the asylum

seekers came into our care and

continued to be under our care,

within our care, when they went

to Nauru. Julia Gillard wants

asylum seekers to come into our

care and then dump them in

Malaysia, where we have no care

and responsibilities over them.

It's a vast difference. You're

Shadow Foreign Minister. It

seems much of the coalition's

campaign about this has been vilifying Malaysia. Do you

think that's a good idea? I

absolutely reject that. What

we have done is referred to

government statements from

within Malaysia about how they

treat asylum seekers. The

comments about the caning for

immigration offences come from

the Government's own words in

Malaysia. So we haven't

vilified Malaysia at all. We

do not think that the Malaysia

swap deal is good for

Australia, the 5 to 1 swap. We

also believe that because it's

temporary, it will be exhausted

after 800 asylum seekers are

sent to Malaysia. As we know,

already 1,000 have arrived, or

over 1,000 have arrived since

the deal was announced. Once

800 are sent, it's over, that's

the end of it. So, again, the

Prime Minister will have been

shown to have no plan B. We've

now had her East Timor plan

fail, her Manus Island plan

fail, her Malaysia plan fail,

and the Government is making it

up as they go along. So we can

be absolutely clear on this, this amendment will now sit on

the books in parliament. Do

you think that you might awake

one night, or Tony Abbott might

awake one night, and think all

of a sudden he's going to

change his mind? We've had the

same policy in place for 10

years and we will continue to

argue that the policy we had in

place, the policy that worked,

which was offshore processing

on Nauru and also Manus Island

and temporary protection visas

and the option of turning back

the boats, if they were in international waters, where

it's safe to do so - that

worked before, we believe it

will work again. On the carbon

tax, which passed this week and

should clear the Senate, how

will you go about repaying

businesses who buy credits? As

we've pointed out on a number

of occasions, until 1 July 2015

there's absolutely no need for

businesses to buy credits.

That's four years away. The

credits are non-transferrable,

they're not tradeable, so we

can't see any reason why

business would be buying

credits before 1 July

2015. Futures markets aren't

unknown, it's one of the ways

businesses keep costs down and

understandable. We're giving

notice. It's unam big wus

there will be no carbon tax

under the coalition. We'll

seek to repeal the legislation

and business is on notice. But

if they buy them, you'll have

to redeem them in some way. Not necessarily. The

Government keeps talking about

carbon credits as being a

property right. There is

considerable doubt about a

property right that is

susceptible to variation or

reduction being able to be

compensated. So you are saying

that something that was bought from the Australian Government

wouldn't be redeemable to an

Australian Government in the

future? I'm saying that you

cannot necessarily assume that

a carbon credit would be able

to attract the property right

of just compensation. Can you think of another circumstance

where that would be the case

with anything the Government

does? Water rights. They're

not redeemable once the

Government has sold them?

Chris, the point I'm making is

we are putting business on

notice that by 1 July 2015

there's no need for them to buy

these credits. The question

that you ask is based on the

premise that the Government

will still be in place on 1

July 2015 and that Julia

Gillard will still be the Prime

Minister. Well, I don't think

there would be many people who

would assume that that would be

the case, because Julia Gillard

is now on the equivalent of a

political death row. It's not

a quez of if she's going to be

replaced as leader, it's a

question of when. Household

compensation will certainly

start before the tax starts.

How will you claw that back?

Well, what we will be doing is

repealing the carbon tax, and already it's been shown that

the carbon tax is going to cost

billions of dollars over the

forward estimates, an extra $4

billion, than will be raised in

revenue. That will be $4

billion in savings. Likewise

we'll take pressure off the

cost of living increases.

That's what a carbon tax is

designed to do, it's designed

to put up the cost of living.

Well, taking that tax away, Well, taking that tax away, the cost of living should

fall. Once you've given

compensation to people and the

costs continue to rise, it's

very difficult to get that

back, isn't it? We have said

that it will be part of our

Coalition policy to have tax

reform and also to ensure that

pensioners get a fair go. Have

you told people that the cost

of electricity will go up under a Coalition government no

matter what happens? Chris,

the whole point is the carbon

tax is designed to make

electricity prices sky-rocket. They were the words that

President Obama was honest

enough to say to the American

people, that electricity prices

will sky-rocket under a carbon

price. We've certainly made

that clear, that if you put a

carbon price on top of normal

electricity rises, it becomes

such a burden for Australian

household s. We will take that

burden off, we will seek to repeal the carbon tax

legislation. And prices will

continue to rise for a number

of reasons. You can't project

that. One thing we can

definitely say is that under a

carbon tax there will be

increased cost of living

pressures. There's some

criticism this week of the

Prime Minister ringing the boy

who's on drugs charges in

Indonesia, yet her explanation

for that is she rang the

ambassador, the ambassador

passed the phone to the father,

the father passed the phone to

the son. There's nothing wrong

with that, is there? Chris, it

rings the question why is the

Prime Minister ringing the

ambassador. Surely that's a

job for the Foreign Minister. Doesn't the Prime Minister get

briefed by the Foreign Minister

anymore? Why did the Prime

Minister brief to the media

she'd spoken to the boy? I was

briefed by the Foreign Affairs

Department and by the boy's

lawyers and they made it very

plain to me that it would be in

the boy's best interests if it

were left to the consular

officials, the family and the

lawyers. So I have to question

why the Prime Minister decided

to insert herself into this

whole very sad issue. There are

50 Indonesian miners -- minors

in custody at the moment. It

would appear the Indonesians

are angry about this

intervention. The Indonesians won't

won't have screaming headlines

in their paper about how upset

they are about this meg phone

diplomacy, but I assure you

behind the scenes there is

great disquiet about the way

Julia Gillard and previously

Kevin Rudd have treated

Indonesia. They need to adopt

the Howard Government line of

mutual respect, quiet, behind

the scenes diplomacy. Julia

Gillard seems incapable of being able to achieve

that. This week we saw the Ombudsman

Ombudsman Alan Asher giving

coaching to Sarah Hanson-Young

from the Greens. Do you think

he should consider his

position? I am deeply

concerned by this. The

Ombudsman must be impartial,

must be independent. After

all, the Ombudsman investigates

the conduct of public

servantses and sets standards

for public servants. I for public servants. I wonder

why it is that he found himself

in such a position over a

budget issue that he felt he

had to collude with Sarah

Hanson-Young over the evidence

he was to give before a Senate

estimates committee. I query

why Senator Hanson-Young didn't inform the committee she'd had

a discussion with the

Ombudsman, he has concerns

about his Budget and he'd like to raise them with the

committee. But to have this behind the-scenes coaching

raises issues. Almost daily now

we see calls from the

Opposition for the Government

to resign and have an election. Are you in any Are you in any shape at the

moment to run an election

campaign, given we know what

you're against but we're not

quite sure what the Opposition

stands for at the moment?

Well, the reason that people

say we're opposing all the time

is because the Government has

given us so much material to

oppose. The Government has

given us so much bad policy to

consider and we'll continue to

oppose it. But of course we

are ready to govern. We have

been putting in place policies,

alternative policies, we have

an expenditure review committee

that's been going through the

budget line by line to cut out wasteful spending. 16 of Tony

Abbott's shadow ministry have

been Ministers in a competent

Government, the Howard/Costello Government, and we are

certainly ready to govern. We

know how to do it, we've been

there before. We have policies

that have worked before and

will work again. Julie Bishop,

thank you. My pleasure.

Until this morning, the vast

bulk of Australian voters probably hadn't even heard of

Federal Labor MP Graham

Perrett. Now they have because

he threatens to bring down his

own fragile minority Gillard

Government. This is about me keeping faith with the people

of Moreton. Graham Perrett

will quit the Parliament and

force a by-election if Julia

Gillard is dumped. I believe

they voted for me with Julia

Gillard as my leader. That's

the leader I'll be going to the

next election with. He's fired

a powerful warning shot across

those who want to re install

krudz as Prime Minister. -- Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister.

Just remain calm. Order. I

believe that I should not

switch leaders, as happened in

the past. We now have a Labor

backbencher threatening to

become some sort of political

human hand grenade in the event

that the Government decides to

roll its own leader. Graham

can speak for himself. Hello,

marran, how are you? I'm

Graham. Let's talk about what motivated his comments.

Comments for Graham are for

him. Graham is the only

novelist in the Federal

Parliament. It's not

surprising he has more creative

ways of making arguments than

some of the rest of us. I

think it's fantastic that at

least one Labor member of

Parliament has discovered his

conscience. Gee, when Tony

Abbott's praising me, I know

I'll have a tough time at the

next Labor Party branch. Government heavy weights

aren't pleased. I think in

retrospect Graham might like to

think about how this dampens

leadership speculation. You're

on double time and a half.

This has come out of the blue

really. I'm quite bemused by

the statement. He's starting

to look for a way out of this

sinking ship. No-one is ringing around. Julia Gillard's leadership is secure.

There's no coup, George. There's nothing to worry about.

Chill out. There's no coup, no

threat. No coup, no threat,

nothing to worry about. My

good friend Graham has copped a

bit of media interest. These things happen from time to

time. It's I think a

one-morning wonder. Not my smartest week. Graham

Perrett's own words, "no coup,

no threat", why on earth did he

do it? Gallantry. You know,

you don't often see gallantry

in politics in this

country. Not as much as you

should. Not as much as you

should. Here's a nice man from

Queensland being exceptionally gallant and drawing the

nation's attention to the inner

problems of the Labor Party in

a very vivid way. But I put it

down to gallantry. Is there

perhaps another reason, that's

because of what happened last

time when everyone was caught

by surprise, everyone is now

paranoid? I think "paranoid"

is not the right word. I think

he got walloped by constituents

for the leadership change last

time. They didn't like it,

especially in Queensland, and

said "how dare you do this, we

elected this guy, we wanted a

chance to unelect him if he

wanted to or re-elect him."

He's interpreted that as I'd

better not take her down or

have any part of that, whereas

perhaps the same people might

have preferred it if he'd

brought back Kevin, Kevin is a

Queensland er and they seem to

have higher regard for him in

Queensland. I think he was a

bit of a - he said "not such a

great week for him. I think he

was trying to say one thing, it

was no type of coup or trying

to be a personal hand grenade

or anything, he was just trying

to say I'm not going to do this

again because I got into such

trouble last time. It was also

reported that Julia Gillard

herself let it be known that

she might pull the pin if she

were toppled and force a

by-election in her seat. All

of this reminded me of that

vivid scene from Jemma Jones in

the Telegraph, of that scene in

blazing saddles, that classic

Mel Brooks movie, where the

black sheriff, I think played

by cleavon Little, freed

himself by putting a gun to his

own neck and hobbling off

scaffolding and saying don't

move anybody, one shot and the

African American gets it. I'm

glad you centsured yourself

there. I had to, I don't want

to wind up before federal

Magistrate's Court. We

bookended the week with talk of

leadership speculation what

should have been a great week

for the Government ended badly.

This is how Julia Gillard

explained her strategy on

asylum seekers. Why are you

going to persist with this now? Because I believe Tony Abbott

and every member of the Liberal

Party and National Party should walk into the parliament and

have their vote recorded so

that the pages of history can

show, that when they were

called on to choose between

this nation's interests in

protecting our borders and

their narrow political

interest, they chose their

narrow political interest. She

wanted every single Coalition

member's name to be recorded.

Well, now - now, Mr Speaker -

she's frightened that Labor

members of this Parliament's

names won't be recorded - won't

be recorded, because she knows

that some of them are not going

to support the Government's

legislation. A lot of people

in Parliament, a lot of people

in the Labor Party, found that

particular strategy completely bewildering, Fran Kelly, what

do you make of it? They did,

they're still angry about it,

some of those I spoke to in

recent days. They're still

angry about it, . I think

what's behind all of this, we

just heard the Prime Minister

then say she wants to basically

hang this around the neck of

every individual house of reps coalition person that coalition person that they

wouldn't support offshore

processing. She's trying

desperately to make Tony Abbott

try to bear some public

responsibility for the fact

that, in their words, he's a

wrecker, he's irresponsibly

blocking government policy just

to make political mileage, that

he's just wrecking the nation

as he does this, all in a

desperate effort to get power.

That's what she's trying to do.

But the fact is they have been

singularly unsuccessful in

hanging anything around Tony

Abbott's neck. That's why, I

think, the conversation that we

now know, thanks to the leaker,

went on in cabinet the other

night was all about. It wasn't

about, as Julie Bishop was

saying, we now know some Labor cabinet Ministers support

Nauru. They don't. They were

trying to run the strategies to

say "If we somehow put Nauru

into the solution as well, Tony

Abbott won't be able to refuse

it without looking like being

laid bare, he's blocking this

for blocking's sake". They're

trying to pin something on Tony

Abbott. He's been such a

dominant Opposition Leader

they've been unable to do that.

I think it's forcing them into

bad strategies like that one.

I think that's absolutely

right, but where Gillard is

trying the big lie on this one

is that her partners in is that her partners in this Coalition are the Greens. It's

not Tony Abbott. She's

governing with the help of the

Greens and the Independents.

That forms this current Australian Federal Government.

So she can't blame her

Government's failure on an

Opposition. That's not right.

It is right. With the Tampa

legislation, John Howard had

Kim Beasley and Labor's support

to get that through. That's

right. That's what happens in

Parliament. You bring up Tampa

because you may personally

object to it. I just remember that moment when Kim Beasley

said - They would support it.

Yes. Great tax legislation

goes through with partisan

support. I don't think there's

any similarity between the

Tampa legislation and this

legislation. I'm just saying

it's not unheard of for governments to need opposition support to get legislation

through. Even so, it is

inexplicable for Gillard to

pursue this policy. Her great

strength is to be able to say

that everything her minority

Government has put up to

parliament has got through.

And on the best possible case

with this one, the legislation

was going to be rejected by the

Senate. So why put it to the

reps, especially when the numbers were never securely

there to do so? The issue for

this was if this vote was going

to be lost and it hung on the

vote of Tony Crook - we'll come

to him in a moment - she really

risked the possibility that some Labor members weren't

going to turn up to this vote.

That's right. At least one and

maybe more wouldn't show up.

Then her leadership would have

been in really dire straits.

As you say it was fait

accompli it would go down in

the Senate. It wasn't getting

them anywhere except for the symbolic game I was just

talking about with Abbott.

Then why on the Thursday night

and the whole Thursday did they

look like a Government making a

decision in crisis on the run

when they had weeks to sort it

out. They knew it would go

down in the Senate anyway.

They must have had a back-up

policy position. This is what

Tony Crook said 148 people in

this parliament, including me,

support off shore processing,

it would appear, and two don't.

Offshore processing is a strong position of this parliament.

It needs to be sorted out

between the two major

parties It appears the

Opposition wants offshore

processing, the opportunity now

appears lost, that can't be a

tactical victory either. Well,

I think that the Nauru option,

as Julie Bishop said, they've

always had a policy that

worked. They haven't changed,

they haven't deviated from that

position. I don't think that

the onus can be switched back

to the Opposition. You have to examine everything that Julia

Gillard has said on this issue,

Chris. What she said was that

the Government would only

support offshore processing in

nations which were signatories

to the convention. Malaysia is

clearly not a signatory to that

convention. Again, she was

making policy on the run and

shifting the goalpost, to mix

all these metaphors, but there

is no coherence in this. I

think that the point that was

being made earlier was very

valid. What really strikes me

as a follow of this is who

devised the strategy to put up

a so-called tactical victory in

terms of the carbon tax

legislation this week and

follow it with what was always

going to be a no-brainer and a

loser in the migration

amendments? And people were

blaming the Prime Minister. At

the end of the week, though,

you could have gone out, if

you'd reversed the order, you

could have said "Well, we went

down on the migration bill, we

were always going to go down on

that in the Senate". But the

worst of it is that at the end

of the six weeks now since the

High Court's decision both

sides of Parliament have been

ramping up this notion that it was absolutely necessary almost

for the survival of Australia

that we have offshore

processing. To wildly

exaggerate once again what is

actually going on in this

country. Do you know, this

year the boat arrivals have

been running at half the rate

of last year. That was in the

months before the Malaysia

Solution was announced, half

the rate. The months after the Malaysia Solution was

announced, half the rate.

Since the Malaysia Solution was

knocked back by the High Court,

half the rate. The notion that we

we are inevitably opening

ourselves to a mighty flood of

asylum seekers is false. I

think you will be proved wrong

on this, David. I'm not predicting the numbers that

will come. But it is essential

to understand that the

prediction of the inevitable

invasion and the metaphors of

the last few weeks have

ludicrously reached the level

of invasion. There has been

talk of - I I don't think

you're factoring in seasonal

issues as well. Numbers aside,

we are never going to have the

numbers they have in Europe.

We know that. In Europe they

come onshore and live in the

community and work in the

community. Ask anyone in

London, they welcome the Polish

plumbers, let's face it, they

do. Look at what Andrew

Metcalf said before the Senate.

What did he say about the

situation in Europe? He said

it was absolutely chaotic and

he predicted if we had onshore

processing in Australia, the

same situation would apply

here. He was talking about

over a very vast expanse of

time. He was talking about the

complete breakdown of border

control, which we don't have. Chuckling at this notion of

people being allowed in the community and sending them to

bush areas where there's not

enough jobs, I don't know why

we chuckle at that. So many

thousands of people are coming

in on 457 visas . Does anyone

have an absolutely clear idea at the moment about what the

Government's policy is, because

I put it to you they still have

not put out a release saying

what the details are of their

policy. It appears the

department is retrofitting it

based on what they're saying in

interviews. It's very unclear.

We know the left has finally

convinced the Caucus that there

is a fundamental problem with

mandatory detention. That's

also what Metcalf was telling

the press the other day, mandatory detention doesn't

deter, we can't sustain it,

it's incredibly expensive and

it's cruel. So the left is

saying, "Let's not build any

more detention centres. If

there is a flood of people

coming in, once they fill up,

let's do what we do for people

who arrive by plane seeking

asylum, identify them are, let

them into the community on

bridging visas." That's all

that's being said at the

moment. There's not any

government statement there will

be an immediate change. But

David, Lee, the member for

Fraser - Andrew Lee - admitted

the other day that somewhere

between 500 and 1,000 people

have now died on these boats.

That's the first time I've seen

a government member actually

try to put this into some sort

of a figure. Those voyages are

terribly dangerous. Let me

tell you - No, let me just

finish. Do you think that this

undefined solution that we have

now is going to in any way

diminish that risk? Piers, let

me tell you, the toxic policy

of the boats is not driven by

those who die, it is driven by

those who arrive, it is driven

by those who arrive. Just very

briefly, I don't think it's

necessarily the left, as David

characterised it, has finally

convinced cabinet onshore

processing is the way to go. I

think it's necessitated by the

fact that the worst thing for

this Government in terms of

ramping up negative sentiment

has been riots, starvation,

self-harm, all of that. They

need to take that pressure off

the detention centres, the

overcrowding, so they need to

face up to the fact they need

to get people through more

quickly. That's where this Government has singularly

failed. If they got that

working two years earlier, they

might not be in the position

they are now. We agree the week

ended badly for the Government, catastrophically for the

Government, it appears to be

getting worse. A win is a win

and they had a win in

Parliament this week on the

carbon tax. You have to give

it to the Prime Minister,

getting that through a minority

Parliament isn't an easy task,

even if you disagree with the

policy. Absolutely. This is

appalling policy. It's based

on ideology. No matter how

Mark Dreyfus and the other

government spinners go out and

try to put it, the world is not

following Australia's lead.

President Obama will come here

in November. Will Julia

Gillard have the guts to ask

him how his carbon cap

legislation is going? No. Is

India going to follow it? No.

China? No. Yes in some

parts. This has to be

universal. This has to be

global. I'm just qualifying

you, six provinces in China talking to Australia at the

moment about how to design one.

But, Fran, the only global

consensus there is on climate

change or this sort of approach

to climate change that any

solution has to be global. Just

in terms of this policy, David,

it must be an extraordinary

relief to perhaps both sides of

politics now this is out of

parliament, because this bill

has killed two Opposition

leeders, one Prime Minister and

crippled another. I don't know

about relief, because Tony

Abbott, an Opposition Leader,

is determined to destroy a Prime Minister and her government because of this

bill. What he's saying at the

moment is that we're going to

have a uniquely three-stage

legislative process. Through

the reps last week, through the

Senate sometime later this

year, but not until the Labor

Party survives another election

will it actually firmly be in

place. That's what Abbott is

saying to the people. The

blood - has he pricked his

finger? Let's go to what stabt

told AM this week. I am giving

you the most definite

commitment any politician can

give that this tax will go.

This is a pledge in blood.

This tax will go. We can get

rid of it, we will get rid of

it, we must get rid of it. Is

he going to rip out all of the

pension increases, all of the

increases in family payments,

is he going to do that, or is

he going to stick with the

carbon package? Which one will

he do? He can't have it both

days. Fran Kelly, it must be a bit appealing to Julia Gillard

that Tony Abbott might open a

vein? Let's not go there.

That was the beginning of Tony

Abbott really ramping up this

appeal repeal. On Friday he

actually urged business not to

buy the future permits, not to

do that. We heard Julie Bishop

justifying that there. What

they're not saying is that, as

you said, there's a futures

market, well-known trading

mechanism for mitigating risk,

for mitigating costs, that's

what it's about. If the

Opposition is successful in

persuading business not to

engage in that - I don't think

they will be, because they

would be letting down their

shareholders to do that -

they're really saying that will

force up prices. If they're

not able to get the lowest-cost

permits, that will force up electricity prices. Any

discouragement for the

generators to not spend the

money to invest in cleaner

energy production is going to

force up prices, because you're

investing money in old

technologies, wearing out, it

doesn't have enough capacity.

That forces prices up now, that

will keep happening. I think

it's irresponsible. I think

power companies will invest in

new technology, as the old

technology wears out. Actually

to claim this thing as a

tactical victory is slightly

misleading, because this carbon

tax policy is so overwhelmingly

disliked by the majority of the

electorate. To present a piece

of legislation which is

stinking and say, "We did it"

doesn't work. No-one liked the

GST when it came in. They

didn't like it. No, but it was

certainly not as disliked as

this. It was pretty bad, a gorilla around the neck, I

think. The wonderful thing

about Australians is we resist

change like mad. We absolutely

fight change. But when it

comes, we accept it. The GST -

we fought it like mad as a

nation and it was accepted.

But it went to an election,

David. That is true. That is

true and that was very

honourable of Howard to do that

and very dishonourable of

Gillard to lie in the way she

did under the backing of her

backers before the last

election. But Tony Abbott's

strategy is to make sure this

settling down process doesn't

occur this time. That's the

strategy and that is what we

will be having from now until

election day, whenever it is.

Every single price rise, every

single job loss will be blamed

on the carbon tax. It's not as

if, in my view, the Coalition

has a better strategy. There

is no fans of the Coalition's

direct action strategy really.

It's not like it has a better

solution. To bring this back to

where we began, even in her

moment of victory, let's look

at the one picture which got

the biggest run. There it is.

It brings in again into focus,

into sharp focus, the Julia

Gillard/Kevin Rudd leadership

stoush. It's the hell of an

image. That is the best front

page of the year. Also it

brings into sharp focus the way

the camera can lie. Some

camera angles made it look like

a mere brushing of the cheek.

Other camera angles, like Other camera angles, like that one, made it look like a

tonguey, if I can use that

expression on a Sunday morning.

I'm terribly sorry. I withdraw

it, an intimate kiss. I'm nod

a student of this os cull atery

practice, but I - That just

opens a ghastly window on your

marriage. But it was a fabulously theatrical moment

and everybody made hay with it,

and why not? It's terrific.

What would it have been if

they didn't kiss, if she'd

turned away or he'd turned

away? Cold shoulder. The

fact we are here laughing and

joking about this leadership I

think demonstrates for all of

your viewers and for the nation

that this thing is on and it's

running and we're looking, as

you said, - Do we now believe

that in fact there is a clock

ticking on the leadership of

Julia Gillard? I believe there

is a clock ticking. Of course

there is. What about you? Do

you think it's ticking? I

think this week didn't help her

at all. I think there are some

who are still believers this

week and they were deeply

shaken by the tactical

manoeuvring. There was another

incident this week which was

interesting. The Greens have

had a very good week. We'll

come to that in a moment.

There was a misstep with the

Commonwealth Ombudsman being

seen to script questions for

Greens senator Sarah Hanson

Young. Let's look at it. How

else does the Ombudsman get to

put forward on the public

record what he's working on,

his concerns, in that really

important process of Senate Estimates unless someone has

asked him to appear? The

Australian Greens were highly

condemn natry of a particular

Coalition senator who spoke

with a witness prior to a

Senate Estimates hearing. That

was two years ago. Senator

Brown set out all the standards

that should apply. Clearly,

all the standards that Senator

Brown and the Greens said

should apply to coalition

Senators do not apply to the Australian Greens

Senators. There are a couple of

issues here, but one of them is

clearly for the Ombudsman. I

know for certain there are

members of Government who are

outraged by this, and in fact

members of the Ombudsman's own

agency who are disturbed by

this and want him to consider

his position. Yes, it's a terrible controversy for

someone called an Ombudsman to

be in, where they're meant to

be independent and overseeing

independence and ethics. I

think the mistake that the

Ombudsman made is not to want

to be represented at the

committee, not to be keen to

put the fact to the committee

they're not funded enough for the increased traffic through detention centres, for

instance, but the fact he chose

one single party to try to get

that information out. He would

have been better served to have

- I don't know how you request or get called before the

committee, but to provide all

parties with the Ombudsman's

position there is not enough

funding, they're in dire straights, they can't do the

job properly, and then trust

those questioners to ask the

questions. There are avenues

for the Ombudsman to present a

statement, he can even write a

an article for newspapers, all

newspapers will be open to him.

I'm not sure an Ombudsman will

do that. If he's independent,

then he can. He can outline

matters of his concern. But

for the Ombudsman to get into

bed with the Greens and to get

into bed wp Hanson-Young, and

having listened to that

hypocritical excuse for this, I

really have to question how

bright she is. This should not

have happened and I can't

myself see how the Ombudsman

survives it. But, on the other

hand, let's not pretend that

there isn't a lot of lobbying

to members of Parliament about

being called before an

estimates committee and the

questions that can be asked.

Also the politicians

themselves provide the questioners the questions to

ask. That's absolutely clear.

That's going on all the time.

I don't think an Ombudsman

should be involved in that

process. A difficult moment for

the Greens, but you would have

to say one of the big winners emerging from this week are the Greens. No matter what you

think of their policies,

they've come out of this much

better than the Labor Party.

Two things they wanted - a

carbon tax in place, moving to

a carbon price, and they also

have onshore processing. I

agree with you, it has been a

big week for them, but it may

well be poison chalice - Judas

kisses. What this has done is

to refocus the public view on

the sentiment that the Greens

are running this government.

Shocking. Well, I think it

is. I think - I don't think

the Greens will get a bounce

out of this. I think that

there will be general repugnance across the

community, the fact that Bob

Brown and so forth will be - I

think it's worth remembering

it's not just the Greens. I

think the multi-party climate

change committee was an

excellent vehicle for getting

something sorted out beyond the

usual Bali hoo that goes on in

what we tried as the battle.

They sorted something through

and the Windsor and Oakeshott, when they decided to support

Gillard, one of the key reasons

they did was because of action

on climate change. And don't

forget either, because I know

at heart you're a Democrat,

small D, that onshore

processing is what the majority

of Australians want and the

majority of Australians want

something done about global

warming. So the Greens are in

line roughly with the majority

of people. This does nothing

about global warming That's

another argument for another

day. More with our panel

shortly, but now Mike Bowers

and Talking Pictures. I'm Mike Bowers, talking pictures this morning with the President of

the Australian Cartoonists

Association, the current Jinger

Meggs artist and political

cartoonist Jason chatfield. It

was kisses all round in

Parliament. Not only you get

the Labor Party wanting to kiss

each other. Certainly not in

this climate either. It all

started with a kiss and the

kiss heard around the world -

not really, just around

political circles and