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) Can't you see we're busy? Yo, cue ball. with my homework all morning. Stark's been helping me You were inside the building. of security cameras. There are hundreds Uh, sir? I'll find out... when the power went out. The hard drives crashed it's gone. All of today's surveillance video -

two months of homework. I'm thinking... Yeah. Sounds fair.

Well, that went perfectly. Except for every single detail. Well, it was a good plan, though. for Gene, Happy, Yeah, I'm sure you meant to help us. and Stane's own daughter doesn't have the armour right... Man, it's just pure luck that Stane Tony, where is the armour? some help getting it back. Oh, that? Yeah, I may need Closed Captions by CSI

This Program Is Captioned Live.

Good morning. New south wales fire

crews are bracing for dangerous

conditions with temperatures

well into the 40s today. Hot dry conditions with temperatures forecast

winds are expected to fan the flames.

More than a thousand fire fighters

will be on the ground, battling 100

blazes across the State. Two fires

Rylestone and Kandos in the central blazes across the State. Two fires at

west are the main concern. In

contrast, Melbourne has experienced

its wettest 24 hours in November for

four years. More than 50 millimetres

was dumped on parts of the the city

overnight. The downpour reached some

of Victoria's driest areas, reducing

the likelihood of fires next month.

There have been no reports of

damage. In Britain Prime Minister, There have been no reports of serious

Gordon Brown, has travelled to the

flood-ravaged north of the country.

Heavy rains have destroyed bridges

and flooded thousands of homes and

businesses. Mr Brown paid tribute to

a policeman who was killed.

Bangladeshi twins Krishna and

are expected to have their cots Bangladeshi twins Krishna and Trishna

placed together today. Both girls

neurologically sound following placed together today. Both girls are

surgery to separate them in

last week. And in Rugby Union surgery to separate them in Melbourne

Australia's suffered its first loss

to Scotland since 1982. The

went down nine points to eight at to Scotland since 1982. The Wallabies

Murrayfield. And now Insiders with

Barry Cassidy.

This Program is Captioned


Good morning, welcome to Insiders. This week the

Coalition has to finally decide

whether it will support the

Rudd Government's climate

change legislation in the

Senate and amazingly,

confusingly, it remains a lineball, even though the Coalition Senate leader Nick

Minchin says the bill is an

abomination and you would have

to be an idiot to vote for it

before Copenhagen, yet he

implies he is prepared to be an idiot if that's what his

partyroom decides, and the

Prime Minister went out on a

climate change, no matter that limb linking the heat wave with

the believers have told the

sceptics to ignore extremes and

look at longer term trends. At

least the politics was on his

side. If nothing else, the

record temperatures and

catastrophic fire warnings

raised public awareness right

on cue. Heat here. It is 43

degrees in Adelaide today. New maximum daily temperature

records for November have

already been set. In

Melbourne, last night recorded

its highest temperature for a

November night since records

ever began. The temperature was

28.1 degrees C. You hear them,

the Great Barrier Reef is going

to dissolve, the ice caps are

all going to melt. Polar bears

are going to die and the Murray

will dry out. You don't have

to bother going to the coast,

because the coast has come to

you. The clock is ticking for you. The clock is ticking

the planet, for Australia and

also for this Parliament. It's

not about a healthy planet,

it's about Kevin Rudd's

unhealthy ego and, though, they

might be about both of a

similar size, they are not the

same. Mr Rudd's arrogance and

vanity in wanting to lead the

world on cutting CO2 emissions

is sickening. Senator Minchin

is incubating... The alumny of

east bum crack. He's in his

fatigues, he's got the bandanna

wrapped around his head. It's a

disgrace to describe CO2 as a

pollutant. The world has put

Armageddon off. He's got the

gun racks, the pick-up truck

and the stock of beer and he's

chasing global conspiracieses.

CO2 is a clear odourless gas

vital to life on earth.

Kevin Rudd the nerd from

Nambour wants to transform

himself into Kevin Rudd the

poor kid from Copenhagen. If

you thought him going into a

strip club and not seeing a

stripper was fake, you ain't

seen nothing yet. This is the

Australian people and it's greatest hoax played on the

fake. It's as if we're back

into the trial of Gallelao.

Act in the support of

Australian people and support

the CPRS. We're getting over etrekon internal squabbling

from that distinguished trade

unionist there. But do these

fundamental flaws in this

legislation mean anything to

Rudd Labor? No, of course they don't. No scheme would be better than the Government's

current proposal. I will vote

against this despicable Carbon

Pollution Reduction Scheme. It

will do absolutely nothing.

This is one of the worst

packages of bills ever

presented to the Senate. We've

got communist conspiracies,

Neo-Nazi science. If you want

to turn yourself into a nation

that takes in one another's

washing that's fine, but you'll

be broke. Senator Joyce likes

to complam the CPRS means

roasts will cost $100. I said, they would cost more than

$100. There's no point of

order. The Senate

overwhelmingly rejected this abomination in August, it

should do so again. No wonder

the Leader of the Opposition

has such a hard time. If

you're going to put up with

that mate I have sympathy for

you, I really do. That's the

issue the Government wanted to

talk about - the Opposition

preferred asylum seekers and

the 'Oceanic Viking', but now

that the boat is empty of its

cargo, what impact did it

really have on the popularity

of the Government? Have a look

at this. Blogger Andrew

Catsaras has broken down the

major polls over the last 15

months - identical. Each set

represents 11,000 people and

that's a big sample. What

about the last 6 weeks since

the 'Oceanic Viking' became an

issue? Four polls in that time,

two Neilsen, two Newspoll and

precisely the same result.

Still not convinced? Here's the

last two weeks. Two polls, one

Neilsen, one Newspoll, same

result. Non-extraordinary

really. Our blogger says

that's the feature of the poll

since the Rudd Government was

elected, more like the

Nullarbor than the Himalayas.

Our program guest this morning is the Manager of Opposition

Business in the House,

Christopher Pyne. He'll be

joining us shortly, but first

with the help of the panel we'll check out the Sunday

papers around the country and

Malcolm Farr, we'll go to

Christopher Pyne's home State

of South Australia, the lead

story there no doubt about that

and a big run elsewhere as well

is Mike Rann's latest

problems. They've got an

interesting bunch of people in

the South Australian

Government, haven't they?

What's the Treasurer's name?

Kevin folly, he recently had an

outing where he said "I wish

people would stop picking on

me, no-one loves me

anymore". And also confessed to

depression and mental health

issues which he's having

treatment for. People do lover

him, in particular a woman who

had a pretty long sexual affair

with him. This is a woman Mr

Rann originally said was just a

friend and now we're going to

see evidence from her presented

by her that they had a rather

torrid sexual affair. You

would have to think four months

out from an election that the good folk in the South Australian Labor Party are

going to find some way to paint

Mr Rann if not saint-like, at

least worthy of

forgiveness. Let's hear from

both parties now before we go

on. I'm at the point where I

feel like I have to come clean.

I'm tired of the lies and I'm

not holding it in anymore.

There was sex involved. I'm

taking responsibility for my

own bad behaviour and Mike Rann

should take responsibility for

his. What I have been told is

wildly sensational, but I will

not be admitting to things that

are not true. Just over four

weeks ago, the lawyers said she

wanted to be left alone by the

media. I understand she has

been paid a fortune to say the

things she has said publicly.

I want to find out what she's

said and I will be responding

on Monday.

REPORTER: Can you clarify there wasn't a sexual

relationship. According to this

morning's papers then, she'll

be alleging sex did happen in Parliament House and a car

outside a golf course. I

suppose it becomes an issue of

how Mike Rann deals with it

from now on? I think the

problem is he appears to have

denied any kind of allegation

and now he's not quite denying

an allegation. He seems to be

alleging that the woman's

making a comment because she

was paid to make it. There are

problems with paid interviews,

but there's no necessary causal

relationship. That's a fairly

serious allegation to make.

These are difficult times and

I'm sure in South Australia

they'll resolve this. I'd be

surprised if a Premier resigned

over this kind of allegation. I would be absolutely shocked.

Part of the issue for the South

Australian Labor Party is it

has no succession plan, Kevin Foley was believed to be the

next person who might assume

leadership there, but Mike

Rann's star presence in that

State it has shrouded anyone

else in the junior ranks of the

Labor Party from coming forward

and being groomed properly for

leadership. On one occasion, I

think Mr Foley set himself as a

potential candidate but revealed subsequently they were

having a few drinks late at

night. They have an election on

March 20 along with Tasmania.

Victoria in November and

Gerrard, quite a contrast in

Victoria, with nothing but good

news with John Brumby on page

one of the 'Age'? In Victoria

it's all dull. John Brumby is

well ahead of the rather dull

Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu

and Labor looks set for

substantial victory. The poll

in Sunday's 'Age' after the

distribution of preferences the

poll is 58 to Labor and 42 to

the Coalition. You would

expect an election that would

narrow, but it still indicates

Labor's well ahead and it

doesn't look like there's any

threat to John Brumby. As that

stands on primary votes, it

wouldn't have to go to preferences, 50% primary vote.

Mischa, in Federal politics and

tomorrow a ground-breaking

report to be released by the

Federal Government? One of the parliamentary committees has

been looking at this issue of

equal pay, women are paid 83%

of the average male wage.

They've come up with

recommendations to institute

some system-wide changes.

Julia Gillard has flagged she

wants the Government to have as

part of its legacy making

inroads on that issue and some

key recommendations are that

employers will be forced do

declare publicly what they pay

male and female employees in

aggregate I presume and also

the industrial watchdog would

be given more powers so when

they're making rulings on large

award cases or in sector by

sector cases they can take into

account if it's been a female traditional dominated industry

whether that's a reason it's

been traditionally underpaid

and make reparations there. We

can imagine this will be quite

contentious. Child care, for

example, it may make child care

more expensive? There's a

heated debate on that front as

the Government moves to reduce

quotas of the ratio of parents

to carers, whether that will

mean more costs for parents.

Reform intents carry

significant political costs if

we are to see action. That

intrusion won't work, will it?

You can't have people paraded

publicly giving what they pay

men and women. It's difficult

to do. There are some European

countries in which they make

companies do things like

publishing the aggregate

figures on how much they pay

men and women. God bless Sweden. Indeed, but it's

difficult to make - this is the

point, the industrial watchdog

has some powers to intervene in

individual case where is a

woman says "I'm not paid as

much as Fred as sits next to me

and has the same title". They

at some point say it's really time. The employer says

"Fred's got three years more

experience or is more

productive" , so these issues

are hard to get remedial

justice for everyone involved.

Not necessarily reform, what

you're talking about is another

example of re-regulation. We

are moving down to substantial

re-regulation in large areas of

the economy. Announcements,

too, on disabilitys and some

sort of national insurance

scheme for the disabled and the

carers. That's the Sunday

papers and to our program guest

now preparing to face the last

week of Federal Parliament for

the year and it's sure to be

hectic. The Manager of

Opposition Business in the

House of Representatives,

Lindsay Tanner. Here's Penny

Wong on the 'Nine' Network with

the latest on the ETS

negotiation s Having gone through our Cabinet and caucus,

we'll be in a position to put

an offer on Tuesday morning.

The Coalition won't have an

offer in time for a Shadow

Cabinet tomorrow? I think the

Coalition knows broadly or

their negotiators know boardly

where we're likely to land. We

will be putting a formal offer

on Tuesday morning. Christopher

Pyne, good morning, welcome. Good morning,

Barrie. How does that sound, a

formal offer in time for the

partyroom meeting on Tuesday,

but not in time for Shadow

Cabinet tomorrow? It does

surprise me that they've been

dragging the chain in the

Government on this final

negotiation with Ian

Macfarlane. I'm disappointed

to hear they won't be making a final offer until Tuesday

morning. I'm not sure what Ian

Macfarlane thinks about that.

I haven't had a chance to speak

to him. That's the first I've

heard. We have been negotiating with the Government

for five weeks. That's quite a

long time in the political

world. To wait until Tuesday

morning is cutting it very

fine. It wasn't the Opposition that insisted that the

Government have a 3-month delay

before they brought this

legislation back into the

Parliament. That was designed

to give them a double dissolution trigger and quite

frankly if the Senate runs out

of time because the Government

is so dragging the chain, they

won't be able to turn around

and blame the Opposition for

that. I hope that doesn't

happen. I hope we reach a negotiated settlement that is

good for jobs and good for

interest environment. But I

think Tuesday morning is pretty

much bushing out the boat. The

Government is saying they're

prepared to extend the

Parliament if you find it's too tight? Why should the

Parliament change its

legislative agenda because the

Government has been too

incompetent to organise its

legislative agenda successfully

and because they have been

looking for a dillusion

trigger. I'm not arguing for this matter not to be resolved

by the end of the week. I'm

pointing out that asking the

Opposition to make a decision

on a very important change to

the Australian economy that

needs to help the environment

but also protect jobs with

giving them no time to do it is a pretty, I think, dangerous

position for the Government to

have adopted. There seems to be

a suspicion within the

Government now you'll use lack

of time as an excuse to duck a

partyroom decision? That won't happen. That's not the

Opposition's position. Nor can

the Government turn around and

say "You've had plenty of time

to consider this" when

clearly, if the final offer is

Tuesday morning that is not

plenty of time and I think the

average mum and dad in

Australia would think "Hang on,

you've had five weeks and you're giving the Opposition no

time at all to make a final

decision" and that isn't

really acting in good faith.

But I'm not the negotiator, Ian

Macfarlane is and I look

forward to speaking to him

perhaps after this interview

and finding out what the

process has been. If Ian

Macfarlane and Malcolm Turnbull recommend supporting amended

legislation, what are the

prospects now of majority

support in the partyroom? The

process has to be gone through,

but if Malcolm Turnbull and Ian Macfarlane and the Shadow

Cabinet recommend that the

legislation be supported with

substantial amendments, I have

no doubt at all that the party

will support that. But that's

a matter for the partyroom when

it meets on Tuesday and I don't

want to pre-empt that. But we

have to wait and see, of

course, what the final deal

looks like. As one of my

colleagues sadz the other day,

it's like selling your house,

you put a price on your house,

you don't necessarily assume

you'll get the full price, but

you'd like to get as much of it

as you can and until we know

what the offer is, it would be

premature for us to announce a

final position obviously. You

said that it's not an Ian Macfarlane-Malcolm Turnbull

recommendation, it'll be a

Shadow Cabinet recommendation.

Does that mean then because

there won't be a formal offer until Tuesday morning, Shadow

Cabinet will need to meet on

Tuesday morning before the

partyroom meeting? There's no

possibility that a deal would

be put to the partyroom without

first being put to the Shadow

Cabinet. That's our process.

The Shadow Cabinet, the shadow ministry and the partyroom work

in tandem, but one I'm sure

will probably have to have a

meeting on Tuesday morning.

I'm certain that can be

arranged. This is a serious

and important area of public

and important area of public policy. If Shadow Cabinet decides to recommend support,

are all frontbenchers then, do

they have a moral obligation to

support that position in the

Senate? Our process has always

been if you are part of the

Shadow Cabinet or the shadow

ministry and that group makes a

collective decision then your obligation is to support that

decision. I've been in

Parliament for almost 17 years

and I've never crossed the

floor, I've never bucked that

process . I think that's the

way that collective decisions

should be made and that's the

best way to govern a country.

Whether each person in the

shadow ministry agrees with

that decision is a matter for

each of them. Did your Senate

leader Senator Nick Minchin go

in hard in the Senate when he talked about it being idiotic

and crazy to support the and crazy to support the bill

before Copenhagen? It's very

important to point out that

Senator Minchin and all the

other Senate colleagues are

talking to the unamended bill,

the bill that we voted against

last Monday and the bill that

we voted against three months

ago. I don't understand the

great fuss about Nick's speech

and other people's speeches because they're not actually

talking to an amended bill.

They're not talking about the

negotiation that Ian Macfarlane

and Penny Wong are conducting.

We have no idea what stage that

has reached or what has been

agreed to. They are talking to

a bill we've already voted against. We've already described as flawed. We

believe that it will cost jobs,

that it won't help the

environment and it's premature

to act before our trading

partners and competitors and

before Copenhagen. I do think

there's been a bit of

excitement about something that

is exactly a replay of the

debate three months ago. I

think Senator Minchin is saying

he doesn't want an ETS, I don't

think you're going to negotiate

an ETS out of the package? That

remains to be seen. The deal

that will be put to us on

Tuesday morning if not before

will make it clear what we have

achieved in these negotiations.

If the Government wants an

Emissions Trading Scheme it

will need to negotiate with the

Opposition. If it wants a

dillusion trigger then we'll

notice that because they won't

have given us very many

amendments. But they can't

expect the Opposition to vote

for an unamended bill with

fripperies around the edges

that are supposed to sweeten

the deal. These amendment s

that we've put are serious ones

and we believe they will save

jobs and be better for the

environment and I hope the

Government is negotiating those

in good faith. Laurie Oaks

wrote that he would do the

party a big favour if he left altogether, what do you

say? Each person has to make

their own decision about

whether they stay or go, or

contest the next election. I don't see any don't see any evidence from my

old friend Nick Minchin. We've

been in politics together for

over 20 years in organisational

politics and Parliament

together. I don't see any

evidence he's about to pull the

pin, but his decisions are a

matter for him. Tony Abbott, he seems... well, Malcolm Turnbull seems to think that Tony Abbott

is all over the place on the

issue, what do you make of his

behaviour? Tony had a behaviour? Tony had a strong

position a few months ago that

was quite the opposite to the

position he seems to have

adopted in recent days but he's

entitled to change his

mind. Why has he done it? Why

do you think he's changed his mind? That's something you

should ask him. From what I can

gather he's basically saying

the dozen or so amendments

we've put to the Emissions Trading Scheme Trading Scheme are important

ones, we're not going to be

easy to negotiate with. We're

not simply going to roll over

and say "We'll take whatever

you give us" and I think

that's a fair statement.

Tony's obviously decided that

needed to be said so that the

Government and the public know the Opposition isn't going to

take whatever deal is put to

us. We expect the Government

to negotiate in good faith,

because we want amendments that

will save jobs and will be

better for the environment than

the legislation that the Labor

Party has put to the

Parliament. Tony Abbott was

saying at one stage it would be

political suicide to go to an

early election on this issue,

now he seems to be saying, "

Bring it on" , do you get

confused with his

thinking? They say a week is a

long time in politics and that

is absolutely true and maybe in

a week's time we might see a

changed position again in

national politics. The thing

about politics as you well know

having been around it for a

long time is until the election

campaign and until election day

a lot of water can go under the

bridge and count for very

little. We are a long way from

the election. We need to

remember that. We need to make

decisions on what we think is

in the best interests of the

country and that's what the

Opposition is working

towards. What's at stake for

Malcolm Turnbull in all of

this? If he was to recommend

adopting an amended bill and

had a narrow victory in the

partyroom, would that in itself

be seen as a loss? It very much

depends on what the negotiated

settlement looks like. I

believe that Malcolm Turnbull

has managed this issue with

real integrity and with real

character. He hasn't just

walked away. The easiest thing for Malcolm Turnbull to do would have been to say "We're not going to vote for this Emissions Trading Scheme, we're

not going to put any amendments, we're simply going

to vote it down" but that would have been irresponsible

for the tens of thousands of

Australians who are relying on

their jobs being protected by Government. It would have been

irresponsible for industry and

irresponsible for the

environment. Malcolm

Turnbull's made some tough

decisions. This has been a

messy time, there's no doubt messy time, there's no doubt

about that. This has been a

difficult and messy time for

the Opposition. But we are a

democracy on our side of

politics. We do believe in

having different views and

being able to work together.

We will resolve this this week

and then we'll go forward as a

united team holding the

Government to account, because

there are so many areas of the

Rudd Government that need to be

exposed for their failure. The

border protection policies are

one, the pressure on interest

rates because of reckless

spending are another, and there

are myriad others as well.

It's very important for our

supporters and for the public

that we refocus on the Rudd

Government as soon as this

Emissions Trading Scheme issue

has been put to bed one way or

the other. What do you make of

the allegations against Premier

Mike Rann in your State.

Should episodes such as these

really matter? It really is a

matter for Mike Rann and

Chantelois. I haven't seen the

program that will be going to

television tonight obviously. I

think we need to see what that

says and how Mr Rann responds.

Generally, my view is that

people's private lives are

their private lives and

political lives are a different

matter and I think that's the

general view of the Australian

public. Then if she makes an

allegation that sex, in fact,

occurred inside Parliament

House, does that then cloud the

issue? We had allegations of a former Tourism Minister many

years ago, I think even admitted to sex in Parliament

House. He pleaded guilty,

yes. When he was a minister.

Of course he left politics not

long after, but that was a matter for him, that choice

that he made. It did involve

his wife. I think this is a

matter for Mr Rann and for

Chantelois. I generally take

the view that people's private

lives are their private lives

and I think we want to be

careful not to assume that the

voters will change their vote

on the basis of these kinds of discussions. Christopher Pyne, thanks for your time this

morning. It's a pleasure,


Hello, I'm Peter Goers from

ABC Local Radio in Adelaide.

It's been two years since Kevin

Rudd became Prime Minister and

I've come to the National Wine

Centre known here as the

'Natinal Wiiine Centre' to find

out whether he's still easy on

the palate, or he's corked?

John, Kevin Rudd's been in

office for two years, how have

you judged him? He's delivered

on some of his promises, but he

seems to, I think, want to

always come up with the right

answer. He's a little nervous

of getting on the wrong side of

the argument. He's going

alright, I reckon, yeah. Is he

what you expected? Less or

more? I think he's pretty much

what I expected. Mediocre, I

think. He's talked a lot of

the talk, but I don't think he's really walked the walk

yet. I think he's been a

little soft. Is he getting

better or worse? I think he's

getting worse and I think he's

falling into that ridiculous

political doublespeak and it's

rather like an exciting wine to

start with but by the time you

get to the end of the bottle it

becomes a little bland. Do you

think the Coalition is

committed to doing something

about climate change? I think

there is a commitment there,

but obviously they're trying to

look at it in a business sense

and in a way that's good.

We've got to weigh our options

up. I think they need to join

together first and then decide

where it is they want to go. I

think he'll show the Opposition

up for what they are,

undecided, not committed to

climate change. I think the

Coalition is determined to

destabilise the Government in

any way, shape or form and I

think they will put their

policy second to that. Do you

think the legislation should be

passed? Yes, I do. And it will

make a difference? I hope so, I

don't think it's enough, but we

have to make a start. Not

really, but I think it will

indicate to the rest of the

world we are committed and to

be in that conversation and

have some say in the way the world deals with climate

change, we need to show we're committed.

committed. Based on what we've

heard from Penny Wong, from

Christopher Pyne and Julie

Bishop earlier as well on Ten

raised this prospect it might be that the Opposition won't

have enough time to properly

consider this bill, do you sense there might be

last-minute nerves? That's

possibly sentiment uttered more

in hope than belief. Even the

most cynical observer would

have to say the Government has

pushed the timetable on this.

Not the most cynical, even the

most Polly Anne a would have to say they've pushed the

timetable. This will make it

difficult for the Coalition to

push through party processes

based on not only the drafted amendments but the description

of what they would do, which

has been a cause for some of

those in the middle who say "We

could go either way" , but I'm not sure there is some

rearguard action going on here.

There have been very clear

signs from supporters of

Malcolm Turnbull that his

intent is to try and get to a

deal. You can hear the

partyroom saying to Malcolm

Turnbull "You've been

negotiating with the Government

for weeks on this and you come

to us and you give us an hour

or two?" I can see them

building a case as to why they

can duck the issue altogether.

Is that what they want? That's

not what Malcolm Turnbull will

want ? I agree with Mischa, he

want s the thing past so he can

concentrate on other factors.

But the timetable in itself as

Penny Wong outlined this

morning is really tight if it

goes to the shadow ministry on

Tuesday morning, then to the

joint partyroom meeting. You

couldn't really expect any

legislation to be out there drafted until Wednesday morning. So you've got

Wednesday and Thursday. It

won't happen on paper on

Tuesday morning, the other

thing that Penny Wong said

Gerrard was by Monday morning

Shadow Cabinet will have a fair

idea where this will land.

This is a big piece of

legislation, is a fair idea

good enough? It would simply be

what Ian Macfarlane reports of

the outcome of the negotiation,

so that would be his

interpretation of the

Government's position. It

wouldn't be the Government's

position in writing and you'll

get to the situation like

you've got to in the United

States with this health

legislation. You'll get people

coming forward with hundreds or

thousands of pages of

legislation and being able to

say that people won't be able

to read this before they either

approve it in the partyroom or

vote on it in the reps in the

Senate. So I think it is

pushing it very late and there

is good reason why the Liberals

might say "We haven't had

enough time". Malcolm Turnbull

still may want it, but still

may be able to say quite

credibly they don't have enough

time. The writing, I think, was

on the wall even last week.

Here's what Ian Macfarlane had

to say during the week. My

partyroom went ballistic with

me when I said "My goal is to

finish this on Sunday". That's

not the phrase I'd use. Our

partyroom is always

constructive, usually lively

and constructive and lively

discussion is what we've been

having on this and on many

subjects. The partyroom went

ballistic last week. Imagine

what they'll do now. It's going

to be tough. Nick Minchin went

in very hard, do you think too

hard? As a result of what he

had to say... there was some

reports that he wouldn't

support the legislation and

some of his colleagues were

lining up to have a go at him

over that. Look at this. He

can't find a position that he

can accommodate the position

with Shadow Cabinet, Nick

should walk and say "I don't

want to be in the Cabinet" and

that's his right. But he

should do it if he feels so

strongly. I've always in my

16.5 years in Parliament abided

by partyroom decisions. He

tidied that aspect up? Not at

all. The partyroom decision,

in fact, the shadow ministry or

Shadow Cabinet decision was to

negotiate this bill. Nick

Minchin advocated scrapping it

entirely before pre-empting

those negotiations. He knew

what he was doing. He sent out

an email to all Coalition

senators and he got all National there issing and like

12 out of the 32 Liberals. He

knew precisely what he was

doing. What do you think

Mischa, what's driving Nick

Minchin at the moment? Does he

see this as the key issue

within the party where the

ideology behind it matters more

than anything else? It's an

article of faith for him. He

hasn't changed his views on

these issues, even when John

Howard was moving towards an Emissions Trading Scheme after

a decade of saying, " No, no,

no" and Nick Minchin was there

in an interview with my

colleague Catherine Murphy in

the 'Age' saying scepticism is

part of the grand Aussie

tradition. So I think this is

an article of personal faith

for him, but as Malcolm says,

we're at the window now where

this makes it enormously

difficult for Malcolm Turnbull

to have clarity on the message

he wants the public to hear,

which is that the Coalition

believe that there is an driver

for climate change and they're

committed to action on it. Is

this the most divisive issue

that the Liberals have faced in

a long time? In quite a while.

In 20 years they were divided

on economic policy, industrial

relations, it was the time when

people like John Howard and Ian

McPhee clashed within the party

and the partyroom. But this is

a substantial clash, but I think

think we shouldn't exaggerate

it. In two or three weeks

Copenhagen will be under way or

even and we'll have a clearer

idea of what's going to happen

then. If nothing much happens

there which seems the most

likely outcome, then what the

Liberals are doing this week

and next week won't seem as

important as it does now. A

lot of people said a long time

ago that the Americans would go

to Copenhagen under the Obama

Administration with a plan.

It's not going to happen.

They're completely focus on health and Afghanistan.

Climate change is not a big

issue. They're saying they will

come up an operational outcome. This would be an

administration position, not

necessarily likely to get

through the Reps in particular

the Senate. It would be an administration position which

would be very interesting, but

it's certainly not

legislation. Isn't the problem,

though, for the Liberals in

particular is that they ended

up coming down as you view it

this week it looks as if there

are two positions. There's

Malcolm Turnbull who wants to

support the Government in one

form or another and then you

get the hillbillies from

Montana. There's nothing in

between and they didn't attempt

to nuance the argument and say

"Look, we need to support an

ETS, but not this one" and

find a more credible way of

opposing the Government without

looking like the hillbillies. A

more credible way of opposing

the Government would not to go

on 'Four Corners' and talk

about. This is another example

of the Liberals being unable to

manage the media. Those 'Four

Corners' discussions were

gratuitous, they were not

necessary and that's got them

into a lot of problems a,z to be fair as Malcolm Turnbull

going on Radio National, why

would you go on Radio National

and stake your leadership?

There are better places to

stake it than on Radio National

breakfast program. The

Liberals have upped the ante.

They could have gone pretty

quiet on it, but that's not

what they did. When you look at

the way Malcolm Turnbull

reacted to what Tony Abbott had

to say, and it's really more

reporting, but there was a

suggestion that Tony Abbott had

walked and he was clearly in

the Minchin camp and Malcolm

Turnbull reacted in this way. I

read that view earlier in the

year he was saying we should

vote for it regardless of

what... well, he was saying we

should just vote it through.

Tony's expressed a number of

views, each of which is at odds

with the view he expressed

before. He's had a number of

positions. He acknowledges

that. He changes his mind on

this issue. That's fine. I

have not changed my mind on

this issue. My position has

been constructive and

responsible from the outset. He

didn't duck that, he decided he

would give Tony Abbott a bit of

a flick. He certainly did and

the other almost endearing

thing about Malcolm Turnbull this week is in the midst of

the sort of Government attacks

in the House of Reps about the

harder line sceptics in the

Coalition ranks, Malcolm

Turnbull was openly smiling at

some of them. Again yesterday

he's in such a chipper mood. Why? Going back to those

comments on Tony Abbott, I

that Malcolm Turnbull knows think the big difference is

Nick Minchin doesn't want to be leader of the Liberal Party,

but when it comes to Tony

Abbott, you can't make that

assumption in any way

whatsoever and speaking of

survival it was good to see

Bill Heffernan standing should

tore shoulder. It just happens

to be preselection for the NSW.

Malcolm Turnbull has got a lot

of political weakness, a lack

of experience, but he's got

some strengths. He doesn't

want to be loved, he doesn't

need to be loved by the media

or his colleagues. He's got a

lot of internal strengths and

that can pull him through these

kinds of situations. He's not

going to fret about what the media writes or his colleagues

say. What about Kevin Rudd had

to say, though? We're

constantly being told our

colleague Andrew Bolt is

currently told "You can't take

a 10-year snapshot, you must

look at trends". Kevin Rudd

took a 1-week snapshot and took a 1-week snapshot and then

said "There you go, climate

change" , what did you make of

that? Too good an opportunity

to miss. I don't know who it

would impress? Not too many, I

would argue. It has a greater impact on Australia's then

stories about polar bears

drowning and coral reefs

disappearing in plumes of

smoke, so I think the

temptation was too great. Let's

bring Paul Kelly in at this

stage, political analyst for the 'Australian'. Good morning. How serious do you

think the divisions are within

the Liberal Party on this

issue? No doubt they're very

serious. I thought the feature

of the week was the bold and

brazen way the Coalition

critics took their stand against Kevin Rudd's

legislation and against Malcolm Turnbull's position. They

lined up in numbers and in

depth behind their leader Nick

Minchin. The Opposition Senate

leader, he gave a powerful and uncompromising speech saying

that there was no justification

for Australia to legislate when

the United States' Congress

couldn't legislate and the

effect of Rudd's legislation

would be to have no effect on

the environment, but simply to

lower living standards in this

country. There's no doubt Tony

Abbott has defected to the

Minchin camp. Abbott has been listening to conservative

Australia. His message to

Malcolm Turnbull is the only

way you can unite the Liberal

and National Parties, the

Coalition and unite the Liberal

Party is to oppose this

legislation. Now that is not

advice that Malcolm Turnbull is

likely to find very palatable.

likely to find very palatable.

The divisions, the ideological

divisions inside the Coalition

on this issue are very deep and

it may take them a long time to

be repair. The strategic

choice they face is whether to

declare ideological war against

Rudd's bill and run the risk of

a double-dissolution election

on that, or whether they should

become enablers of Rudd's

legislation, help Rudd to pass

it, in which case they will have to explain themselves to

the conservative base, which

increasingly is opposed to this

bill. And maybe what we're

seeing this morning is a bit of

stage fright, but do you think

Malcolm Turnbull remains

determined to get something

through the partyroom? I'm sure

he does. To this point there's

Malcolm Turnbull's position is absolutely no doubt at all that

that he wants to force this

through. He wants to see this

bill passed, he wants to see

this issue off the agenda. Now

that's where he's coming from.

He's made two core judgments

here. The political electoral judgment is that the Coalition

can't afford to take a stand

and be seen to be opposing

action on climate change. The

policy position he stands for

is that an ETS is the best way

to handle this, which was the

position of the Howard

Government and that Australia

must act now, it can't simply

wait for the rest of the world.

Turnbull's tactic is to win a

recommendation from the Shadow

Cabinet for action to try to

carry a bitterly divided partyroom, to see the

legislation passed through the partyroom, to see the

Senate despite all the

depeckses, which do run the

risk of crippling or even

destroying his own leadership.

But the initial step is very

important. The initial step

is, what concessions Kevin Rudd

and Penny Wong will give

Turnbull. He needs those

concessions to increase his own

leverage in terms of going to

the Shadow Cabinet and the

partyroom, so the initial

question is, what sort of

concessions he gets from the

Government. Just finally on the asylum seekers' issue and the

Tamils are off the 'Oceanic

Viking', but as an American

basketball player once said

"It's not over till it's over"

there's still a lot to happen

in terms of the

processing? This issue has got

a long way to run. The real point about the 'Oceanic

Viking' story is that this has

given the Coalition some confidence against the Prime

Minister. It's exposed some

flaws in the Prime Minister's

approach overall. Whilever the

boats keep arriving in this

country, then the Coalition

will maintain its campaign. I

think the public expects the

Rudd Government to protect the

borders and there are limits to

how many boats the Australian

people will be prepared to

accept. The problem for the

Government is there's no easy

way of stopping the boats. So

you've got a conflict here

between public expectations on

the one hand and Government

capability and policy on the

other, to the extent this issue

continues to run, it must help

Malcolm Turnbull. Paul Kelly,

thank you. You agree with

that? You think that now the

media will certainly still pay

some attention to what happens

to the detainees now in

Indonesia and whether they

manage to meet whatever deal it

was that Kevin Rudd offered

them. There's that and the

ongoing spectacle of women and

children behind bars if not

razor wire and the political

issue of Kevin Rudd looking

like a complete dill and like a

serial dissembler by insisting

there was no special deal. The

only reason why he's done that,

and made himself so

uncomfortable in doing so, is

because he's made the political

calculation that it would be

worse for a Prime Minister of

the day to say "Yes, there was

a special deal" and thereby

confirm on the record. But he

exacerbated his problems. Have

a listen to how he tried to

explain the non-special

deal. Can I draw his attention

first of all to the

correspondence from the

secretary of the Department of

Immigration dated 16 November,

which describes the

non-extraordinary nature of the

procedures which apply here.

And secondly... Given the Prime

Minister says these 'Oceanic

Viking' arrangements are

standard, or in his own special

language " non-extraordinary"

... He got a good response to

that. But Laura Tingle wrote

on Friday that the danger for

Kevin Rudd here is he starts to

be seen as shifty and evasive,

do you think we're getting near

that point, Gerrard? We are

getting a bit near that point

and this was the problem that

finally caught up with the

Blair and Brown Government in

Britain that it became

completely obsessed with and

subsumed by spin and that's the

problem for Kevin Rudd. I

don't think he really needs to

do all of that actually. I

think it would be better to be straightforward with the Australian public. The Government has a problem, the

previous government had a

problem, this Government has a

problem that's not easy to

handle and I think the electorate would accept that. If you look at the polls

earlier in the program the

electorate does appear to be

accepting that but it's better

to be honest about your

problems rather than pretend

they don't exist and spin is a

problem. It's also been a

problem for the NSW Labor

Government and probably also

for the Queensland Labor

Government. There's also a

suggestion this is having a

longer term impact on our

relationship with Indonesia. A

presidential spokesman in

Indonesia said that in his view

it had nothing to do with the

boats. Here's he is. It's

unrealistic for us to cancel a

visit just because of the boat

issue. It's not an easy

problem, but it's not that

serious to affect our relations

to that point. Again, there's

been a lot of reporting both

here in Australia and in Indonesia explaining it differently and explaining it

as he does, supporting that,

that it's more to do, that the

postponement of the trip is

more to do with internal events

in Indonesia . I think you have

to accept that. There's

massive moves there... Having

said that I feel sorry for the

Indonesian Government. Both

Piers Akerman and David Marr got stuck into the Indonesian

Government, but they've got a

huge problem with thousands of

Tamils living there. It's not

a wealthy country and I don't

think the Indonesian Government deserves to be criticised from

Australia, because they're

handling a difficult situation

as well as they can. That is a

Coalition they should fear -

David Marr and Piers Akerman!

Marty Natalegawa, their Foreign

Minister, had this to say when

he was asked about Kevin Rudd's Asian community idea and he


Whether that's tied up in all

of this, it's just a reminder

that they're keeping Kev honest. That interview, he was

having a bob each way. That

was the quote that was replayed

a lot in Australia. Later on

in the interview he went on to

say that if ASEAN as a bloc

failed to get its act together

on an economic community, they

sure the Indonesian position is would miss the boat. I'm not

" close the door on that

Rudd Government was elected, issue". Two years since the

when you look back and think,

what do you think in three

years when we go to an

election, presumably they go to

full term, what will

characterise the Rudd

Government so far... I mean, to

handling of the global my mind it would have to be the

financial crisis. Certainly

that's the way they will try

and present it, but a lot to

run yet on climate change, for

example. In very general terms

there've been a lot of

departures and not many

arrivals, and part of that could be the global financial

crisis, and I think the

Government should get ticks for

its handling of that.

Remembering all those

expectations of two years ago,

not many of them delivered in

the bulk concrete form that we

had expected. That's true. I

think it's still the biggest

single piece of reform if they

can pull it off through this process in the next week and a half will be the Emissions

Trading Scheme. That will be

the single largest change to

the economy and the form of

structure of Government in

their time. But there are also

big reform projects in the

pipeline. I don't know that's

reform, it's certainly change, I don't know that it's reform.

It's a huge amount of

re-regulation in an ETS, a huge

amount of it. I think this

Government's done pretty well.

Obviously, and the polls show

it, but it doesn't have the

John Howard and Peter Costello reforming drive that, leaving

aside, it doesn't have the

reforming drive that Bob Hawke

and Paul Keating had. In the

short-term that won't matter,

but in the long-term it might

catch up with them. To

Malcolm's point there are the

gathering storm clouds over

that issue as to whether they

actually deliver, or whether

it's all talk and no action and

again, missing deadlines seems

to be a bit of an issue and

Kate Ellis the Sports Minister

during the week was asked about

the Crawford Report which

should have been out by now and

then responded to. This is how

he explained it. What we said

was that the report would be

handed to Government in the

second half of this year, which

it has been, and that we expect

to respond to it at the end of

the year. So we're very keen

to respond to the policy

recommendations within the

report early next year.

REPORTER: Just to clarify,

early next year? Yes. The

timeframe has slipped? Early

next year is at the end of the

year. Early next year? If you

get to the end of the year,

this is when we said we would

be expecting to respond and

what I'm saying today is that

we will be responding to these policy recommendations early in

the new year. February, March,

April? Early. There you

go. Clear as mud. The

financial year? January is one

end of the year, December's the

other end of the year. It won't

happen in January,

Malcolm. Often times it starts

having a look at an issue and

then realises that what it's

trying to bite off and chew is

a much bigger project and

things slip way past, perhaps

what they've even promised the

electorate they would stick to

by way of a timetable. I don't

know whether you caught what

Simon Crean had to say on ABC

News breakfast, but it's

unusual for a minister to take

a strong stance on an

unresolved issue, but this is

what he had to say. We've got

to continue to aim for the top.

This is too narrow a view of

sport. If we start saying

we're going to walk away and

settle for second best, I think

we're missing a great

opportunity to reinforce the

fact that whatever we do is

quality, that we punch above

our weight. The whole concept

behind branding Australia is

very much what performance and

achievement in sport is also

about. My money is on that view

prevailing. I think

politically it's too hard and

we'll be watching with interest

the 'Offsiders' where there'll

be more analysis of this

process. Malcolm Fraser went

to Montreal in 1996, got

changed for our poor

performance and changed his

mind on sports funding. They

blame the current Prime

Minister, so I think this

Government will bail. John

Coates is probably the equivalent of the book

publishers and authors, they'll

make the biggest noise. Before

we go to Talking Pictures, Nick

Xenophon opened up a debate on

Scientology and launched a stinging attack on the organisation in the Senate.

Here he is. Scientology is not

a religious organisation, it is

a criminal organisation that

religious beliefs. There are hides behind so-called

allegations of false

imprisonment, coerced abortions

and embezzlement of church

funds. I ask my fellow

senators, do these things sound

like religious activities to

you? That opens up a big issue

about how do you define a

religion and should you,

because they get tax-free

status. It's a tough

once. Hence nervousness by

major parties about going down

the path of an inquiry. Kevin Rudd shares some of the

concerns and leaving open the

door to an inquiry... that

doesn't mean too much. Sharing

concerns... I feel your

banned Scientology pain. The Victorian Government

banned Scientology four decades

ago in the '60s. They backed

away 20 years later and the

High Court said it was a

religion. I share the

Senator's concern, but a lot of

these matters are criminal and

they'd be better started off as

criminal investigations. More

with our panel shortly, but

time now Mike Bowers is back

with Talking Pictures.

I'm Michael Bowers I'm Talking