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.
7.30 Report -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

The bottom line is this is new to everybody, it's never ever happened in Australia's history
before.

Tonight on the '7.30 Report' - touched by fire. One year on, the Black Saturday survivors
rebuilding their lives.

It brought us all back to the basics of who we are. And yes - sorry. I find it hard to stay in
control of my emotions. They are close to the surface, and they are with everybody. It's not just
me.

I do know of a couple of relationships, yes, that have broken up. This Program is Live

Climate wars rage on in Canberra

Climate wars rage on in Canberra

Broadcast: 04/02/2010

Reporter: Chris Uhlmann

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is under attack for his climate change policy as he launches a
shopping trolley attack on the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Transcript

KERRY O'BRIEN, PRESENTER: The Prime Minister must be hoping this election year will turn out better
for him than for his cricket team today, which took a terrible pummelling at the hands of the West
Indies at Canberra's picturesque Manuka Oval.

Mr Rudd was forced to defend grimly in Parliament as the Opposition bowled up plenty of short
deliveries on the Government's emissions trading scheme, claiming it will lead to a significant
rise in the cost of living for middle income earners.

The Government returned fire with a departmental modelling that indicated the Opposition's climate
blueprint can't meet its target without billions more in spending.

And for a second day running, Opposition Finance spokesman Barnaby Joyce was the target of
Government ridicule.

Political editor Chris Uhlmann.

CHRIS UHLMANN, REPORTER: At Canberra's charming Manuka Oval this morning the Prime Minister's
hand-picked cricket team faced an opponent prepared to have a slash at anything. High-risk brought
high reward. And by the time the Prime Minister left the ground, his team was staring at a hiding.

Across town, another player chancing his arm padded up at a local supermarket to flail rises in the
cost of living, real and anticipated.

TONY ABBOTT, OPPOSITION LEADER: See, this has gone up six per cent just in the last quarter, mate.
And it'll be so much worse under Mr Rudd's great big new tax.

CHRIS UHLMANN: In the political contest over climate change, the Coalition wants to boil down
Labor's emissions trading plan to bread and butter simplicity, that it will drive everyday costs
higher.

JOE HOCKEY, SHADOW TREASURER: Watermelon. Even something like this has huge inputs associated with
electricity. Just even just wrapping it in plastic.

TONY ABBOTT: Yeah, that's right, mate.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Treasury has modelled the cost of the scheme and predicts it would drive a one-off
rise in prices of between one to 1.5 per cent, and many will be compensated for the price hikes.

KEVIN RUDD, PRIME MINISTER: The cost of living impact as advised to the Government by the Treasury
is 1.1 per cent. That will flow through to households. What we have for low and middle income
households is a compensation regime. It is clear the cost impact has been identified by the
Government as well, and that is equally clear.

CHRIS UHLMANN: But the Coalition doesn't want to engage in an economy-wide war of averages with the
Government. It wants to drag Kevin Rudd into a house-by-house battle over the detail.

JOE HOCKEY: Prime Minister, given that single income people who earn just $45,000 a year are not
fully compensated for price increases as a result of your emissions trading scheme, will the Prime
Minister now inform the Australian people how much worse off someone earning $45,000 a year will
be?

KEVIN RUDD: Mr Speaker, the Honourable Member will know full well that each family's income
circumstances differ depending on the numbers of children and the arrangements ...

CHRIS UHLMANN: For its part, the Government wants to shred the credibility of the Opposition's plan
for an emissions reduction fund and it's released two pages of analysis from the Department of
Climate Change. It shows that the fund can't meet its target of a five per cent cut in carbon
without billions more in spending. If it sticks to its spending cap of $10 billion, emissions will
be 13 per cent higher than 2000 levels by 2020. If it tries to meet the target, the cost of the
scheme will blow out.

LINDSAY TANNER, FINANCE MINISTER: If they are to meet the target they've identified, in fact,
according to Department of Climate Change calculations, they would have to spend almost three times
the amount of money that they are projecting. They would have to spend approximately $27 billion
over that 10-year period, not the $10 billion that they concede.

IAN MACFARLANE, OPPOSITION WATER SPOKESMAN: This economic analysis by the department is being done
by the person who designed the Government's model and therefore can't be seen as independent.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Talking modelling, it's worth noting that Labor's plan is based on an assumption
that the world will act in unison one day and that Australia will have access to buying permits to
pollute offshore, either from an international carbon market or under the Kyoto Protocol's clean
development mechanism. Since Copenhagen couldn't map a post-Kyoto future, the Government's
assumption on costs are on shaky ground and the international stage appears to be getting more not
less vexed.

TONY ABBOTT: I refer the Prime Minister to overnight news reports that President Obama is likely to
drop his emissions trading scheme in the United States. Given this important development, I ask the
Prime Minister why he still wants to foist upon Australia a complex, costly and almost
incomprehensible scheme?

KEVIN RUDD: In the United States, President Obama confronts an institution which is well-known to
this place as well. It's called the Senate. And the Senate in the United States ... Mr Speaker, the
Senate in the United States is not necessarily going to be accommodating of his aspirations to
introduce an emissions trading scheme.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Today the Government also went after the Coalition's Finance spokesman Barnaby Joyce
for a Press Club speech where, among other things, he confused billions with trillions and
suggested Australia's foreign aid should be cut.

BARNABY JOYCE, OPPOSITION FINANCE SPOKESMAN (yesterday): We have expenditure over the MYEFO
statements, if I'm correct, of about $1.4 billion that we're going to spend.

Obviously, I accept my admonishment. You know, I must realise that with the Labor Party you are
talking about trillions - trillions of dollars' expenditure. It's trillions - that's what they're
spending. Not billions; trillions.

LINDSAY TANNER: It's a freak show, and he has taken charge, Mr Speaker. It's the bearded lady of
Australian politics.

CHRIS UHLMANN: The Opposition Leader was forced to sweep up.

JOURNALIST: Has Barnaby Joyce become a liability to the Opposition?

TONY ABBOTT: That's it. Thanks so much.

CHRIS UHLMANN: The Barnaby Joyce gaffes play to the Government's line of attack that he and Tony
Abbott are erratic, volatile oppositionists who have no plans of any substance. But While Senator
Joyce has offered a few edges, Tony Abbott's still batting, and his team's confidence is growing.
And while the Coalition leader might dance around accepting the science on global warming, he
firmly believes the political climate is changing.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Political editor Chris Uhlmann.

IPCC scientists on the defensive as sceptics step up assault

IPCC scientists on the defensive as sceptics step up assault

Broadcast: 04/02/2010

Reporter: Kerry O'Brien

Revelations of at least one significant error in the most recent report of the IPCC, the United
Nation's International Panel on Climate Change - the exaggerated claim that the Himalayan glaciers
will melt in the next 25 years has caused great embarrassment. The IPCC and its thousands of
voluntary scientists are now on the defensive, and climate change sceptics have stepped up their
assault on its credibility. Professor Michael Oppenheimer was a lead author on the report and he
spoke with Kerry O'Brien from New York.

Transcript

KERRY O'BRIEN, PRESENTER: Muddying the waters on the Government's case on climate change is the
embarrassing revelations of at least one significant error in the most recent report of the IPCC,
the UN's International Panel on Climate Change, and that is the exaggerated claim that the
Himalayan glaciers will melt in the next 25 years. The IPCC reports have been the scientific
foundation on which countries like Australia have built their policies to combat global warming as
a human-induced phenomenon. The IPCC and its thousands of voluntary scientists are now on the
defensive, and climate change sceptics have stepped up their assault on its credibility.

Professor Michael Oppenheimer is a Professor of Geosciences at America's Princeton University and a
veteran of the IPCC process. He advised the New York State government on acid rain in the early
'80s, contributed to the second IPCC report in '96 and was a lead author on the third and fourth
IPCC reports. Professor Oppenheimer is now co-ordinating a special IPCC report on managing the
risks of extreme events and disasters, and I spoke with him from his New York office earlier today.

Michael Oppenheimer, how does the IPCC undo the damage to its credibility from the recent
embarrassing revelations on issues like the Himalaya glaciers and the Amazon rainforests?

MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER, IPCC LEAD AUTHOR, PRINCETON UNI: Well, in my view, really the Himalaya issue
was the one that carries with it some embarrassment. A mistake was clearly made. I think the way
that IPCC rectifies the damage is, number one, being as transparent as possible, letting people
know what they do and how they do it. And number two, learning from the mistake, reviewing our
procedures, making sure that the way that the review procedures, which are quite rigorous, are
followed, is by the book, and therefore reducing the chances of this ever happening again. But I
have to say, in a report with perhaps hundreds of thousands of individual facts in it, it shouldn't
be surprising if an error appears once in a while. So the point of an error is not as - that it
undermines the process. The point is to provide a learning experience so you can do better next
time. We oughta reduce the chances of something like this ever happening again, but in the real
world, with such a complicated document, once in a while something is gonna sneak through.

KERRY O'BRIEN: There have been a lot of dramatic conclusions drawn though as a result of the IPCC
report, and this was a dramatic claim. You can understand, can't you, why people will automatically
say, "Well, here's one dramatic claim that proved to be wrong." Why should we continue to have
faith in the other dramatic findings of the IPCC?

MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER: Well, first of all, I'm sure that every opponent of action on climate change
is now pouring over these reports and has been doing so now for some time, looking for other
mistakes. And the fact that others haven't turned up, I think should lend a strong note of faith.
People should have credence in the process, because IPCC does a very good job on a very complicated
subject, but then again, no person and process is perfect.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Is there, as Britain's chief scientist John Beddington said recently, a fundamental
uncertainty about climate change science?

MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER: There is fundamental uncertainty; there's a lot of fundamental uncertainty,
and no-one should fool themselves to think that scientists are giving them absolute answers. And
it's part of our job as scientists to be crystal clear with the governments and with the public
about what the uncertainties are. And IPCC has done a better job and a more transparent job than
any of the other assessment processes of any kind of issue that's this complex in being transparent
about what we know and what we don't know, so that policymakers can make informed judgments. But
this is different. This point isn't really about representation of uncertainty. It really is about
a mistake having gotten through.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But do you believe that the fundamental uncertainty that you acknowledge has been
honestly reflected in the IPCC reports?

MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER: Yes, in fact I think IPCC has bent over backwards to be cautious, to not state
things as known that were very uncertain and to be quite clear about what the risks are about how
much we know and how much we don't know. I don't know of any other assessment process on any other
problem that's nearly this complex, where the scientists lean over backwards quite so much to not
overstate the case. If anything, IPCC is conservative, as we saw with the last assessment, where
IPCC got a lot of criticism for being too cautious about its statements on sea level rise. Well, if
you have to err on a problem like this, it's better to err in the direction of caution, and that's
exactly what IPCC has done.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Well for all we know about climate science, is there still an enormous amount we
don't know?

MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER: Well, there is an enormous amount we don't know and that hopefully we'll
learn, but there's an enormous amount that we do know as well. We know that greenhouse gases trap
heat that would otherwise escape into space and that they're build-up will inevitably warm earth.
We know that Earth is warmer than it was a century ago and we know that the greenhouse gases are
very likely responsible for most of that warming, at least over the past 50 years. We can make
additional statements about the intensification of certain types of storms, about the increase in
heatwaves and the diminution in very cold weather. It looks like droughts have been on the increase
and it's likely they will in the future, and so forth. I don't want to go down the list of all the
statements, but some of these statements can be made with great confidence, like the effect of the
greenhouse gases, and some of them with less confidence, like whether current droughts or
associated - can be tied in a cause and effect way to the build up of the greenhouse gases. It's a
complicated problem, but that's what we elect political leaders for, to take the evidence, sort it
out and make sensible policy. We don't elect people to be daunted by scientific complexity. It's
our job as scientists to be explicit about what that level of complexity is.

KERRY O'BRIEN: It's fair to say, isn't it, that many of the scientists involved in the IPCC process
are also environmentalists? You yourself were chief scientist and an advocate with an NGO called
the Environmental Defence Fund. How does the IPCC adequately impose a discipline on you all to
avoid bias, conscious or unconscious?

MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER: There are many ways. First of all, for every former environmental employee
like me, there's someone who for instance is a current employee of Exxon. And when you get inside
the room and talk to each other as scientists, as far as I can tell, nobody is consciously acting
on any bias; they're just trying to be good scientists and look at the data objectively. I don't
think in all my 20 years of dealing with IPCC that I've ever seen a scientist try to make a
judgment because he or she had environmental inclinations or because he or she worked for a major
oil company. It just doesn't work like that. But in order to ensure against subconscious or
unconscious bias, IPCC has a multi-layered review process where the documents in draft form go out
to a small group of scientists to look and scrub every fact. Then they go out to a much bigger
group of scientists, hundreds of them to scrub down every chapter. Then they go to the governments,
who in turn turn them over to their own scientists to scrub it down. So that by the time you get to
producing a final document, it's not only been reviewed three times, but there's what's called a
review editor who sorts through all the comments from the reviewers and all the responses to make
sure that the authors are actually taking up on the criticisms and responding to them in a
plausible and reasonable way. This is a very, very tough review process and it takes a lot of time
to deal with it. But it's good, because in all - again, all the hundreds of thousands of facts, we
only see one, maybe there's two, errors that anybody's been able to turn up with in the last
assessment. You know, we invite that scrutiny. I think it's a good thing. Every error is a learning
experience and tells us how to do it better in the future.

KERRY O'BRIEN: There are calls for peer-reviewed dissenting scientific opinions to be published as
part of future IPCC reports. Is that a reasonable proposition from your perspective?

MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER: I've long thought that it would make sense to find scientists who are experts
in the field, who are publishing in the peer-reviewed literature, um, to formally within the IPCC
process, be able to look, take an independent look and present their own views. Now, IPCC invites
in the whole spectrum of scientists. Some of the most famous sceptics have been part of the IPCC.
You can find their names as authors of the reports. They have participated. They have partaken of
these judgments. But I think actually it could be formalised, not with a view towards getting
sceptics, particularly, but just setting up different groups in IPCC which would look independently
at the same questions - key questions like the sea level rise question or the Himalayan glaciers
question and see if groups operating independently in fact still come up with the same answers. i
think that would be healthy. And, frankly, I don't think there'd be much objection to it within
IPCC.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Hyperbole is an inevitable part of the landscape of political debate. Is there a
responsibility on political leaders to acknowledge the uncertainties of climate science, as you
have, when they're driving their climate change agendas?

MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER: There's a responsibility on the part of advocates of climate change policy and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions to be quite clear - excuse me - to be quite clear with the public
about what the uncertainties are in the information on which they're basing their judgments, and
there's an equal responsibility on the part of opponents of action on the greenhouse gases to state
the uncertainties in what they know so that the public can make its own judgments about which side
is making a proper evaluation. So it's everybody's responsibility - from the scientist, to the
policymakers trying to move action on the problem, to the policymakers opposing it to really be
honest, transparent and fully cognisant and inform the public what we know, what we know with less
certainty and what we don't know at all. That's the only way we'll get sensible judgements on this
problem. And I think the scientific community would welcome that kind of process.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Michael Oppenheimer, thank you very much for talking with us.

MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER: It's been a pleasure.

KERRY O'BRIEN: And Professor Oppenheimer will be delivering a lecture at Sydney University's
Institute for Sustainable Solutions later this month.

Black Saturday one year on

Black Saturday one year on

Broadcast: 04/02/2010

Reporter: Heather Ewart

This weekend is the first anniversary of the Black Saturday bushfires that devastated Victoria and
claimed 173 lives. The Bushfires Royal Commission won't deliver its final report until July, but
for now for the survivors there is more interest in rebuilding homes and amenities.

Transcript

KERRY O'BRIEN, PRESENTER: With the first anniversary of Black Saturday almost on us, the Victorian
bushfires Royal Commission was this week given a damning assessment of failures in the Country Fire
Authority's chain of command during the disaster that claimed 173 lives. Lawyers for the commission
claimed three the state's top firefighters were unaware that the incident control centre
responsible for managing the deadliest blazes was totally unprepared and couldn't perform essential
tasks. The Commission won't deliver its final report until July, but for the survivors, there's
more interest right now in having basic needs met and homes and public amenities rebuilt.

Heather Ewart returned this week to Marysville, the town that burnt to the ground to see how the
community was faring a year later.

HEATHER EWART, REPORTER: The rebuilding of Marysville is slow and painstaking. For a town all but
wiped out on Black Saturday, the physical and psychological scars run deep.

They've lost family, friends and their homes. Milestones like Christmas and New Year take on
special importance, and now they face the first anniversary of the day that changed their lives.

STEVE GUILFOYLE: We went through this Christmas. It was important we had Christmas. We did have
Christmas. We looked back on 2009 and said, "Yeah, thank God it's gone." 2010 is - it's full of
promise for us. The promise of a new house, a new beginning.

???: The bottom line is this is new to everybody. It's never ever happened in Australia's history
before. But it gets easier as the weeks go on.

HEATHER EWART: This Sunday, with very mixed emotions, they'll gather at the oval where some sought
shelter on the night the fires roared through.

STEVE GUILFOYLE: I'm going down there with the kids and a footy or a soccer ball and we're gonna
have a good time.

HEATHER EWART: Did you have any second thoughts about whether you wanted to take part in anything
to mark the anniversary?

CORINNE HERMLE: Yeah, I ummed and ahhed about it, but I think it's something that I need to go to.

HEATHER EWART: What changed your mind?

CORINNE HERMLE: Um ... I think it's just my way of a final goodbye.

HEATHER EWART: One year on, the general community consensus here is that the focus of the
anniversary this weekend should be on moving forward without fuss or fanfare. We revisit two lots
of survivors we met the day after the fires who were trying to do just that: move on, but in very
different ways.

It was here to the Alexandra Relief Centre that shell-shocked Marysville survivors fled after Black
Saturday.

STEVE COLLINS: Unfortunately, I lost my house. I've lost probably eight friends I knew in
Marysville that have died.

HEATHER EWART: It was here that we came across Steve Collins, a resort manager who in all the chaos
had one forlorn hope.

STEVE COLLINS: I left my cat, so Stardust, if you're there, I'm coming for ya.

HEATHER EWART: Then there was Steve Guilfoyle, the logging truck driver and his 12-year-old son
Jake, grieving for neighbours who hadn't made it out.

JAKE GUILFOYLE: You alright, Dad?

STEVE GUILFOYLE: Yeah, I'm alright, mate.

JAKE GUILFOYLE: You're shaking.

STEVE GUILFOYLE: No, I'm just cold. Just nerves.

HEATHER EWART: Throughout the past year, we've stayed in touch, tracking their progress and
welfare. When we last filmed Steve Guilfoyle he was keen to turn one remaining shed on his burnt
out block into a makeshift home for his family. He's achieved that and much more. The foundations
for a new home are in place.

STEVE GUILFOYLE: We seem to be getting through this alright. We seem to have direction, we seem to
have focus, we're happy, we're warm, we're comfortable.

HEATHER EWART: He counts himself fortunate to be so well off, as he proudly shows us the
transformation of the shed.

For Steve Guilfoyle and his family, there was never any question about moving back to their old
street in Marysville, where so many neighbours died and trying to rebuild as soon as possible.

STEVE GUILFOYLE: This is where we belong. We've got things to deal with, but we will deal with them
and we'll show the kids that you have to deal with things, you have to face 'em and work through
'em.

HEATHER EWART: And Corinne, what's your assessment of how the kids ever dealing with this?

CORINNE HERMLE: I think they're pretty good now. Yeah, I think they're over the worst. They both
seem pretty happy now and settled. Yeah, school's good.

HEATHER EWART: Steve Guilfoyle has abandoned long-distance truck driving, spent all of the school
holidays with his kids and now collects them every day from the school bus - a big change since
Black Saturday.

STEVE GUILFOYLE: It was a great leveller in a lot of different ways. It brought us all back to the
basics of who we are. And - sorry.

HEATHER EWART: Do you feel that you both know more about yourselves now?

STEVE GUILFOYLE: I do.

CORINNE HERMLE: Stronger.

STEVE GUILFOYLE: Yeah, I think it's helped me want to be a better parent. Better family member.

HEATHER EWART: Scratch the surface and do you think there's still a lot of healing for people to
get through yet?

CORINNE HERMLE: Yeah, I think so, yep.

STEVE GUILFOYLE: For everybody. Just, even talking to you, like, I find it hard to stay in control
of my emotions. They're just - they're under the surface there, they're close to the surface, and
they are with everybody. It's not just me.

HEATHER EWART: For Steve Collins, the former resort manager, a move back to Marysville is too much
to deal with just yet. He's bought a cabin at the back of a caravan park in Alexandra, half an
hour's drive away and is busy putting on a new roof.

STEVE COLLINS: I'm just taking it all in. I'm working on this place, getting it comfortable. And
once I get this is finished I'll decide what I want to do. But I'm very comfortable here and I
think that's important.

HEATHER EWART: He's developed a big soft spot for his adopted hometown.

STEVE COLLINS: The township of Alexandra took us in the day after the fires, and you were there.
You interviewed me the day after the fires. And they've just been fantastic. They've opened their
homes and hearts up to everybody. And it's just been fantastic. And so they've made us feel
welcome.

HEATHER EWART: What's more, his miracle cat seems very happy here too. Yes, Stardust was found in
the streets of Marysville several weeks after the fire and now rarely leaves his owner's side.

STEVE COLLINS: He loves it. Everybody comments that he follows me around like a dog.

HEATHER EWART: Like Steve Guilfoyle, Steve Collins proudly gives us a guided tour of his
renovations to his new cabin.

He doesn't rule out rebuilding in Marysville, where his block lies cleared and waiting but is in no
hurry, especially after hearing about bureaucratic stumbling blocks.

STEVE COLLINS: Talking to a few people, they've come up against a lotta red tape and that's
probably why I didn't want to get involved too early, because you need - I thought I was really a
strong person and ... but it's the grieving side of things.

HEATHER EWART: The grief and the frustration at red tape is shared by many Marysville survivors.
The Guilfoyles finally got their plan through towards the end of last year, but don't expect their
new home to be finished till the end of this year, if then.

STEVE GUILFOYLE: That's the common belief around the place, that the only thing that was bigger
than these fires is the bureaucracy and the red tape. It does, it just overwhelms the fires.

HEATHER EWART: This creates its own tensions. There are increasing reports of marital break-ups and
at the temporary housing village set up last year, living at close quarters can be stressful. It's
not working for some of the people that I've spoken to, but it's all they have at the moment.

STEVE COLLINS: I do know of a couple of relationships, yes, that have broken up. And, once again, I
think it's living in a confined space. Like, if you're in what they call a donga, which is like a
one bedroom place, you have to use the communal kitchens.

HEATHER EWART: But the greatest frustration of all is the shortage of amenities. Authorities say
they're working as fast as they can. Marysville did finally get a supermarket just before Christmas
and work has begun on a new school, but there's not a lot else. The lack of businesses also means
lack of jobs.

STEVE GUILFOYLE: You walk down the main street and it's just - the main street's full of nothing.
And this is 12 months later. And I think that's - that's holdin' people back.

STEVE COLLINS: It's disappointing to not see any building happening in Marysville itself. I think
the fence is going up for the - where the post office is going to go. That's about all that's
happening.

HEATHER EWART: Still, as they approach the first anniversary, there remains overwhelming gratitude
amongst bushfire survivors for what they do have and for the donations and good will that flooded
in from around the country.

STEVE GUILFOYLE: If I can kick on and come out of this on top, well then what they've sent us,
their support, their financial support, their moral support and all the rest of it, they haven't
wasted it. And at the end of is this, I'd like 'em to look back in five years time or whatever and
say, "Well, you know, that was worth it, you know. That Steve Guilfoyle was worth it."

KERRY O'BRIEN: The then and the now of last year's bushfires in Victoria. Heather Ewart with that
report.

That's the program for tonight and the week, 'Stateline' is back in this timeslot tomorrow night.
John Clarke and Bryan Dawe will be back with their satire segment next week, I'll see you '7.30
Report' Monday.