Past Programs
Monday 11 April, 2011
download episode WMV | MP4 (average size 200MB)
This Week
Transcript
Panellists
Summary
Discuss the Questions
Here are the questions our panel faced this week. Tell us what your answer would be or what you think our panellists need to say.
ADFA SEX VIDEOROSIE CONNOLLY asked: Growing up, I was always told that as a woman I could do anything. However, does the sex scandal at the ADFA and the way it has been dealt with within the defence force indicate that there are some environments in which equal access and opportunity for women is impossible?
What do you think?
RUDD – DISCUSSING THE PAST
MICHAEL CHEN asked: Government ministers spent much of last week trying to deflect the uproar from Mr Rudd's comments on last week's Q&A.; Every minister declined to be drawn on discussing "the past". Given the number of changes and back-flips to key government policies over the last 12 months, how can the government continue to expect, or hope for the trust of the Australian public if it fails to address concerns about how key decisions were changed and communicated and ultimately, questions about what the government stands for?
What do you think?
RUDD / ETS / WONG
RALPH PANEBIANCO asked: Ms. Wong, last week Kevin Rudd expressed regret over the shelving of the ETS. Given your obvious passion for this issue, and how hard you worked to make the ETS a reality, do you carry the same regret as Mr. Rudd? Would you have done anything differently?
What do you think?
INDIGENOUS INTERVENTION
EMMA BEARD asked: A question for Bess Price: as someone who rarely leaves the city, it can be very hard to understand if the intervention was the right thing to do. From your perspective what is the single most important thing that needs to happen in order to improve life in remote communities?
What do you think?
INDIGENOUS INTERVENTION
PHILIP GRAETZ asked via Web: In 2009 UN Human Rights rapporteur... said the NT intervention, however well intentioned, is "incompatible with Australia's [treaty] obligations": that's diplomat speak for "we are racist". Why has he been ignored?
What do you think?
MEDICAL RESEARCH
MEDICAL STUDENTS from Strathfield, NSW asked via video: To the Honourable Penny Wong - As students about to commence medical research we find it unimaginable that a government that is “moving forward”
would want to cut $100m a year from the NHandMRC. The NHandMRC provides funding to medical research for Australia’s growing medical needs
It currently funds 27% of applicants although 70% warrant funding. What price are you willing to pay not to lose another Dr Elizabeth Blackburn?
What do you think?
GAMBLING CAMPAIGN
BRETT HARTLEY-WILSON asked: In light of last year's ads by the mining lobby and now the campaign by clubs Australia - what speaks the loudest to the Australian People; good government policy or good corporate advertising?
What do you think?
CLIMATE – WHY TAX?
KARLY ABRAHAMS asked: I am a scientist who is not part of any political group, but I think I represent a growing portion of the average scientific community. When you include carbon dioxide emissions from the oceans and from animal respirations, burning of fossil fuels accounts for a total of four per cent of global emissions. That’s according to the latest IPCC report and Australians make up one per cent of that. So, overall that means we release 0.04 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions. If this is the case, where is the evidence that spending billions of dollars on a carbon tax will make any significant difference to the environment? And why isn’t the Australian public being allowed to vote on this important issue?
What do you think?
TONY JONES: Good evening and welcome to Q&A.; I'm Tony Jones and answering your questions tonight: political adviser turned commentator Chris Kenny; the finance minister, Penny Wong; central Australian Aboriginal activist Bess Price; race and Disability Discrimination Commissioner Graeme Innes, who has a personal experience of disability, being blind since birth; and the Shadow Environment Minister Greg Hunt. Please welcome our panel.
Q&A; is live from 9.35 Eastern Time and simulcast on ABC News 24, Australia Network and ABC News Radio and you can go to our website to send your questions and join the Twitter conversation using the hash tag that's just appearing on your screen right now.
Well, our first question tonight comes from Rosie Connolly.
ROSIE CONNOLLY: Growing up, I was always told that as a woman I could do anything. However, does the sex scandal at the ADFA and the way it has been dealt with within the defence force indicate that there are some environments in which equal access and opportunity for women is impossible?
TONY JONES: Penny Wong?
PENNY WONG: Well, I think equal opportunity is not - you know, we don't get there by one step, do we, and there are lots of environments where we still have work to do. If I think of my life just as a small microcosm, I can think of different places I've been, whether it was as a lawyer in the courts or then in politics, where there weren't that many women and it was often commented on. I think in relation to what's occurred at the AFDA, I don't think anybody would think that that kind of behaviour is consistent with community standards and, as you probably have heard today, the Minister for Defence and the Chief of Defence Force have announced a range of measures, inquiries and processes to deal with that because I think people do, across this country, believe that the standards of behaviour that have been on display do not conform with the standards we want for our defence forces.
TONY JONES: Penny Wong there are six separate inquiries underway into the incident and into the role of women in the military. I don't think I've ever heard anything quite as dramatic as this for a very long time. So I'm asking do you think there'll be revolutionary change as a result?
PENNY WONG: Well, let's see what happens. I mean change is a process and there's a lot of cultural change when you have different institutions which need to occur and I think what Stephen has announced are a range of measures, some of which are about policy change, some of which are about cultural change and others which are about making sure we find out what has occurred and how to remedy it.
TONY JONES: Here's s really puzzling aspect of all of this and that is that the Commodore Kafer, who is the head of the Academy, he's been forced to take leave. The young woman at the centre of all this, she's been forced to take leave. The six or is it seven young men who seem to be the perpetrators of the incident are still studying there.
PENNY WONG: Well, in relation to the head of the Academy, as I understand it one of the inquiries is into how this matter was dealt with, so obviously it's appropriate, given that investigation or that inquiry is underway, for him to step aside for that for the purposes of that. As I understand there is an AFP, that is a police investigation in relation to the allegations against the men involved and obviously there are different standards there. People are presumed innocent in this context and in all contexts in our society until those police investigations have been finalised.
TONY JONES: Yes, but the young woman is clearly innocent and she's had to take leave. Commodore Kafer is innocent when it comes to any sort of offence, evidently, and he's forced to take leave and these six men, or is it seven - I keep forgetting - are still studying.
PENNY WONG: Tony, I don't think anyone in this government could be accused of not wanting to support that young woman and I think what Stephen Smith has announced, as you yourself said in your question, is a very thorough and, in fact, probably unprecedented set of actions in relation to these allegations.
TONY JONES: Chris Kenny?
CHRIS KENNY: Well, Tony, I think that Steven Smith has handled this extraordinarily well, so far. It's been really a battle of wills between him and the uniforms in the military, I suppose. All defence ministers have a terrible job trying to enforce their will on the uniforms, if you like, and I think it's Stephen Smith who has singled out that the mistake here was not to look after the woman first. You know, forget about the investigations and the rest of the inquiry, they needed to see her as the victim and look after her needs first before talking about other disciplinary actions. And to go to your question, the other interesting aspect of the myriad of policies and reviews and inquiries announced today is that Stephen Smith and the Defence Force Chief have announced they're going to fast track movements to give women access to combat jobs, so they're basically saying that there'll be a few issues to deal with but in the end it's only your physical attributes and your intellectual capabilities that will define whether or not you can do a job in the defence forces. In other words women can do anything they're up to. Now, it seems a strange day to announce that, I suppose, but what they're effectively saying is we need to make sure that women are not the second of equals in the defence forces anymore and I think it's a good move and the test, of course, is going to be how he implements it. You know, it looks good now but he's got a long way to go. He's got to force a really - a really significant historical change of culture.
TONY JONES: Let's go to Graeme Innes, who has been taking Braille notes during the answers, so I presume your answer will be well informed at least. But let's go to this point: I mean, your own human rights commission is going to be part of this review.
GRAEME INNES: Well, Tony, if it's only my notes I'm not sure whether it will be well informed or not but I think, firstly, yes, my colleague Liz Broderick, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, will be leading a panel which the human rights commission will delegate authority to conduct the review. But can I say to the questioner first, I think it's great that you have those aspirations. My daughter, Rachael - my 13 year old daughter Rachael and every other young Australian woman and every man, frankly, as well, should have the aspirations that they can do whatever it is that they want to and when we have an organisation where there's been behaviour which is unacceptable, where there's a culture that must change and where many, I think, in the leadership are working to change that culture, it's important that we conduct these sorts of reviews and I have a sense, as does Liz, that the leadership, both political and military, are committed to acting on the recommendations and making some change.
TONY JONES: Just briefly on that Graeme, do you think it has been discriminatory that until now women have been, for example, forbidden from combat roles?
GRAEME INNES: Yes, and until we open up the whole process of the defence force to women's participation we won't start to change that culture because, you know, one of the most effective ways to change this sort of culture in a workplace is to allow women to become equally involved.
TONY JONES: Greg Hunt.
GREG HUNT: The first question in relation to the aspiration to anything - I think it was Rosie - you should have that aspiration. You're right to have that aspiration and I think the Australia that we're building will deliver that. I'm the father of a little girl who is six years old and we try to teach her that she has the capacity to do anything. In terms of this issue - look, this was a terrible case of abuse. No doubt about it. A real case of abuse. We have many disagreements with the government but do I think that they have handled the general approach badly? No, I don't. We'll have other points of disagreement. Do I think that maybe it could have been done a little bit earlier, yes, I do, but generally this is one of those cases where let's not confect a fight for a fight's sake. We can make real progress right now which builds on the achievements that we've seen open up the defence force to women. So there's more go and there's been a huge opening up but this is one of those cases where the two sides are in agreement.
TONY JONES: Bess Price.
BESS PRICE: Well, equal opportunity doesn't exist for our women and once the military have done their overhaul of their men and their policies and such, maybe they could come our way and sort some of our fellas out because what's happening now women just haven't had a voice to talk about any issues they want to talk about and there are women out there who want to have their opinions heard by everybody else out there and want to move forward and be respected and be seen as equals.
TONY JONES: Have you watched this case unfolding in the Defence Academy and do you have any thoughts about that specifically?
BESS PRICE: No, I haven't had much to do with it but I've heard bits and pieces but I think what happened to the young girl was not right and we expect the military to take responsibility and look after their - you know, their staff.
TONY JONES: Let me just bring Penny Wong back in here, because we've had it raised several times now this issue that may well arise. Graeme said it was discriminatory not to allow women until now. Certainly it's not even happening now. It may, as a result of these reviews, change to allow women to take part in the full range of military activities if they're part of the military, including combat. What do you think?
PENNY WONG: Well, I mean, it is, you know, in terms of the technical definition it is. I mean, it was discriminatory. It might have been discriminatory for a sensible reason, some might argue. Others may argue against that and I think the point that of the announcements Stephen made today, with the Chief of the Defence Force, is to look at how we take this further. I mean this is a process of change and it's - you know, if you look back over the last 10 years, there have been various changes to policy in this area around women's role in the defence forces and I hope what we get out of this - I mean, it's been quite dreadful to watch and awful, I'm sure, for the woman involved. If there is something that we can take forward out of this it is to make sure these sorts of things don't happen on the one hand and on the on the other hand perhaps have a different role for women - a more equal role in the defence forces.
TONY JONES: Just very briefly, do you have a settled position yourself and does the government on whether they would like to see women in combat?
PENNY WONG: Well, I think the whole point of what Steven has announced today is to look at that further and, you know, there were, as I said, a range of policy reasons why that was in place and this is a process for considering those.
TONY JONES: All right. You're watching Q&A.; As always you get to ask the questions. Our next question tonight comes from Michael Chen.
MICHAEL CHEN: Government ministers spent most of last week playing down Mr Rudd's comments on last week's Q&A; and ministers have decided not to be drawn on issues that happened in the past. Given the number of changes and back flips to government policy in the last 12 months, how can the government continue to expect or hope for the trust of the Australian public if you fail to address how key changes were made, how they were communicated and address concerns about what the government actually stands for?
TONY JONES: Penny Wong?
PENNY WONG: Well, I was wondering when we'd get that question. Thank you, Michael. Well, look, can I say in relation to the decision that was the subject of quite a long discussion on last week's program, and I do understand why many people were disappointed with that decision and, you know, I am one of those people in this country who wants action on climate change, who has spent a lot of time as climate change minister arguing for it, sitting down with the opposition negotiating this to get it through the parliament because we wanted it to happen. Can I say I think we have been given a very rare second chance to get this price on carbon up and my view is we should learn from the past and one of the things I have learnt - I think we all have learnt - is just how hard reform in this country can be and how hard you have to fight for it. We are faced with a very aggressive scare campaign from Mr Abbott. Remember, he took the leadership of the Liberal Party on a platform of no action on climate change and my view is what we have to now do is to focus on this fight to get up a price on carbon.
TONY JONES: Let me put it this way: if Kevin Rudd is correct and Julia Gillard argued for the permanent dumping of the emissions trading scheme, isn't it legitimate for the public to ask why she's had such a dramatic change of heart now?
PENNY WONG: Well, can I say about Julia, as she has said, she has always believed climate change is real. She knows that a price on carbon is the best way to deliver it and she understands also what it will take to deliver it. I mean...
TONY JONES: But...
PENNY WONG: This is important. What does she do...
TONY JONES: But it's important for people to understand why in that case she and Wayne Swan would have gone to Kevin Rudd and argued for the permanent dumping of the emissions trading scheme policy.
PENNY WONG: Well, you know, Tony and you know me well enough - I'm sure you would have anticipated this answer - that I don't discuss things that might or might not have been discussed in cabinet and with cabinet colleagues. When I became a minister, that's the decision I made. That's the decision that cabinet ministers take and that is the way I'll approach this. But I would ask you this: those people there today and those people who are watching who care about action on climate change, I again would say we do have a rare second chance. Do we think that taking this debate forward and winning this debate in the context of the sort of scare campaign we're seeing is going to be helped by simply focussing on the past or do we think we need to focus on the future and I'll say this about Julia, she has been out there. Judge her by the sort of mettle and courage she is showing today in the face of the sort of campaign, including a quite extraordinarily personally vitriolic campaign against her by those...
TONY JONES: You don't men from Kevin Rudd, do you?
PENNY WONG: No, I mean by those people - I mean by those people - this is not a joke - who turn up to parliament house with signs such as those Tony Abbott appeared in front of talking about our Prime Minister as a witch. Now, you know, understand this is the sort of campaign she is saying, "I know that I will have this scare campaign. I don't have Malcolm Turnbull as the opposition leader who, you know, unfortunately lost and so we didn't get the price on carbon up. I have Tony Abbott who is implacably opposed to this and will do and say anything to avoid taking action on climate change.
TONY JONES: Let's go to Greg Hunt. Right of reply.
GREG HUNT: I think the big thing that came out of last week is Kevin Rudd made it very clear that the current prime minister didn't believe in the system and if she doesn't believe in the system she's proposing the question is why should anybody else? On the broader debate that Penny raises, this is a choice between two different approaches: between a tax and incentives. And the two...
PENNY WONG: Oh, come on, Greg. No one believes that.
GREG HUNT: No. No. Come on, I gave you a fair hearing.
PENNY WONG: No one believes that.
GREG HUNT: And the difference between those two approaches is what it means on two fronts. Firstly, for ordinary Australian families. We now know from the Treasury modelling which was very honest, a tax of up to $863 a year and that has a profound impact in terms of electricity and petrol and gas and groceries for families and that's real and it's often dismissed by people but for families that are struggling day to day that's profound. The second big thing is the world has changed quite dramatically in the last 18 months. It is never talked about by the government but the United States has abandoned not just temporarily - has abandoned its aspirations for what they call a cap and trade scheme, the equivalent of the emissions trading scheme - similar concept to the carbon tax.
TONY JONES: Okay.
GREG HUNT: Canada and Japan have done the same thing.
TONY JONES: I'm going to bring you up on that, because we're actually - I'm sure we'll go to broader questions about carbon tax. This one was really about what was said last week and it's the political dimensions of this raised by Kevin Rudd. Bess Price.
BESS PRICE: I think all I can say about Kevin Rudd is he was in front of an audience and he just wanted to make his claim and make sure that everybody understood what he was saying and it was his last chance at having a go back at Julia Gillard, I guess.
TONY JONES: Was that how you understood what he was saying, that essentially it was a thinly guised crack at the Prime Minister?
BESS PRICE: He just had an opportunity so he used it.
TONY JONES: Graeme Innes.
GRAEME INNES: Look, this is always going to be a challenging issue when you are restricted by cabinet solidarity and Kevin Rudd is not the only one that's found himself in that position. Many prime ministers and ministers going back over our history have found that is a problem. I mean, I'm more interested, as an Australian who recognises that we do need to do something about climate change, in having a sensible discussion about what that might cost and where the cost might need to come from. I think this is, in the broader context, you know a minor political issue.
TONY JONES: Chris Kenny.
CHRIS KENNY: I think we should continue to encourage Penny to share with us her side of the arguments in cabinet. I think it's a bit of Qanda tradition now to reveal those cabinet discussions, so don't hold back. The thing that Penny has going for her is something that Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd would dearly love, is consistency. You've been consistent on this issue and as I understand it, according to reports, you argue to push ahead with an emissions trading scheme so you shouldn't be afraid of revealing these discussions. But your other point about signs and protests I think is very interesting and I think this is where the Labor Party is getting into a lot of trouble on this carbon tax issue. When concerned citizens who are facing cost of living pressures and the like are worried about a broken promise on a carbon tax and gather and protest about it, it is a bit rich for the Labor Party to identify them as nutters and extremists and denigrate their concern, especially when we find out on Q&A; there were Labor Party ministers arguing exactly that case about six months ago. That's astounding.
TONY JONES: Okay, while we've got a chance I'm going to go to our next question, which is also on this subject. It's from Ralph Panebianco.
RALPH PANEBIANCO: Ms. Wong, last week Kevin expressed regret over his decisions to shelve the ETS. Given how passionate you are about it and how hard you worked, do you carry similar regret and would have done anything differently last year?
PENNY WONG: I might not have trusted that Malcolm could do the numbers in his party room, you know, but that was at the end of the year before. Look, you know, I can understand why Kevin, you know, felt it was important that he put a view about what occurred while he was prime minister on a decision that he made. In terms of me, my focus is what we have to do and, you know, I do...
TONY JONES: But to go to the question, do you, like Kevin Rudd, regret the decision to shelve the emission trading scheme?
PENNY WONG: I think my energy is far better spent focussing on getting this through and that's what I'm going to do.
TONY JONES: So no regrets?
PENNY WONG: Well, my energy is on what we have to do. No, look, I just think it's - we can - I know this is very interesting, Tony, but we can spend a lot of time trawling over the history. That's probably what Tony Abbott would quite like. I'm sure it's what Greg Hunt would quite like. It won't help deliver action on climate change.
TONY JONES: Yes, but it's actually quite a good idea to learn from the lessons of history.
PENNY WONG: I agree with that.
TONY JONES: I think all history students have been taught that for years.
PENNY WONG: I agree with that. I agree with that.
TONY JONES: If all Labor ministers say is, "It's history. We don't talk about history, where do you go?
PENNY WONG: I think, Tony, in my first answer to - Michael was it? Yes, I in fact said that we should learn from the past and one of the things that I have learnt is just how hard it is to get reform up and, you know, I said that in various discussions with various parties - including the Greens at the time - I said reform in this country is hard. I think we've seen just how hard it is. I mean, this has been an issue - remember John Howard went to the 2007 election with an emissions trading scheme. We had a number of liberal leaders since that time with varying degrees of support for action on climate change or opposition. This is a reform that has been difficult and divisive and if I could say, Chris, and just take issue with what you were saying about my comments about the signs at the rally, I was making the point about the personal attack on the prime minister at that.
TONY JONES: I'm sorry, I'm going to interrupt you there because we've got a person with their hand up in the front row and it will probably be the last we do on this issue.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you. My question is for Mr Hunt. I think this issue has been equally divisive on both sides. The Coalition obviously had a leadership vote on this issue and obviously Mr Turnbull's leadership was terminated at that point. I'm curious, who did you vote for? Because obviously these questions are being thrown at Penny but equally for you do you see the combative street fighting style of Mr Abbott more important to the party than say, perhaps, the visionary statesman leadership of Mr Turnbull.
GREG HUNT: But there's no bias in that question.
TONY JONES: That's the good thing about voters. They're allowed to be biased.
GREG HUNT: Absolutely. Absolutely.
PENNY WONG: I just want to say I don't know him ... but I like him.
TONY JONES: So, Greg Hunt, to you, any regrets on the dumping of the emissions trading scheme which you supported, which was Howard Government policy?
GREG HUNT: No, I don't. I don't have any regrets. I do want to go back over history here and one of the things is just over four years ago I gave a speech where I set out the basis for the direct action policy and my long-held view going back many years is to try and tax electricity to change behaviour is a fundamentally ineffective thing to do.
PENNY WONG: Greg, that's just not true.
GREG HUNT: Well...
PENNY WONG: That's just not true.
GREG HUNT: Were you at that speech?
PENNY WONG: Well, you wrote a thesis that talked about a price on pollution.
GREG HUNT: And I will talk about that.
PENNY WONG: You are on the record extensively when his boss - his ex-boss was in the leadership...
GREG HUNT: No.
PENNY WONG: ...of the Liberal Party, saying you wanted a price on carbon, including through an emissions trading scheme, which puts a price, as you know, on electricity.
GREG HUNT: All right, now let me deal with the real history.
PENNY WONG: It's just not true.
GREG HUNT: Two points very briefly. I've spent 20 years...
TONY JONES: Can you make one point very briefly...
GREG HUNT: All right.
TONY JONES: ...because we're going to move on.
GREG HUNT: All right. I've spent 20 years looking at good and bad market mechanisms and there are good and bad market mechanisms. I've lived through the home insulation program, the green loans program. These were not good market mechanisms. In terms of what we're facing now, in a world where the United States and Canada and Japan have all gone a different way and rejected precisely what's on offer here, there is a better way and my long held view is that to attack electricity as the primary means to try and force the change of behaviour for pensions and families and seniors is simply not going to work.
TONY JONES: Okay. All right.
PENNY WONG: Well, I need a response to that.
TONY JONES: All right, you can give a quick reply but I think we've had that point now made twice.
PENNY WONG: Well, Greg, your policy has no credibility. No credible economist supports it and members of your own front bench don't even support it. End of story.
TONY JONES: Okay.
GREG HUNT: I..
TONY JONES: Well, come back to...
GREG HUNT: I will say one thing though, Tony.
TONY JONES: Yes, go ahead.
GREG HUNT: They do have a Prime Minister who had trouble supporting their policy just a few months ago.
TONY JONES: All right. This is Q&A.; It's live and interactive, as you can see. Our next question tonight comes from Emma Beard.
EMMA BEARD: This is a question for Bess Price. As someone who rarely leaves the city, it can be hard to understand if the intervention was the right thing to do. I'd like to understand from your perspective, what is the single most important thing that needs to happen in remote communities to improve the standard of living?
BESS PRICE: That's a big ask. Well, there's a huge amount of work to be done out in the remote communities and it's just not straightforward but education is the first one on top of the list and that's the most important issues that's now - underlying issue for our people. None of our children are educated. From six up until 18 children don't know how to write their names. If they can have that education then we would take further steps from there to get where we want to be at the level where our people should be.
TONY JONES: Bess, before I bring in the other panellists, we've got a web question on this subject - at least on the subject of the intervention. It's from Phil Graetz in Macquarie, ACT: In 2009, the UN Human Rights rapporteur said the Northern Territory intervention, however well intentioned, is "incompatible with Australia's treaty obligations". That's diplomat speak" - according to the question - that's diplomat speak for we are racist. Why has he been ignored?
BESS PRICE: Well, said the rapporteur? I think for a start I think if they had sent in a female rapporteur, I think it would have been more calm about or more calm about the approach of people, talking to people and talking to more women and what I found when the rapporteur came out to talk to people, it was all organised. It was all arranged. So he was just - he was just led around to speak to people who were against the intervention. He did not have a chance to talk to the other people who were for the intervention, so that's what you didn't see.
TONY JONES: Are you still for the intervention, by the way?
BESS PRICE: I am for the intervention because I've seen progress. I've seen women who now have voices. They can speak for themselves and they are standing up for their rights. Children are being fed and young people more or less know how to manage their lives. That's what's happened since the intervention.
TONY JONES: Graeme Innes, let me bring you in on this because the argument is that the Racial Discrimination Act, which was suspended to enable the intervention, made the intervention or gave the intervention a racist overtone. That's the sort of argument that's in that question. What do you think?
GRAEME INNES: Well, I think - and the Human Rights Commission has been known for its position of being opposed to the intervention - not opposed to the huge amount of work that needs to be done amongst remote Aboriginal communities and I absolutely agree with Bess about that. But it seems to me counter intuitive to empower people to improve their communities by taking away their rights. That just seems to me totally counter intuitive to do that and that's what was done when the Racial Discrimination Act was suspended and rights to complain were taken away from Aboriginal people. So in that sense I agree with the rapporteur. But there's still much work that needs to be done. I agree with Bess that things are improving but we still have a long way to go. I was talking to my colleague, Mick Gooda, the Social Justice Commissioner, just today and he was telling me about the Larapinta people, the local people in Alice Springs who have just bought three supermarkets up there and they're looking to put a floor price on alcohol. They're looking to breathalyse people, who they suspect of being intoxicated, before selling alcohol and these are community actions. This is the communities themselves taking action to address the problems and I think that's far more sustainable and far more likely to be successful.
TONY JONES: Bess, can I ask you what your thoughts are about the suspension of the Race Discrimination Act, which was essential to allow the intervention to go ahead.
BESS PRICE: At the time it needed to take place. It was an emergency because our people were suffering and it was so bad out there and I don't think our government is racist. That's what I remind people is that our government is not racist, you know. Just be lucky that you live in Australia. If you lived elsewhere you wouldn't be here.
TONY JONES: Let's hear from Chris Kenny on this.
CHRIS KENNY: Yeah, I'm with Bess and I've spoken to Bess about this earlier and also Alison Anderson. I mean, they tell me that, for want of a better word, do-gooders bringing up these ideas of sort of breaching UN Charters and the like on racism are only harming the intervention. They tell me that the people there want the intervention and, importantly, this concurs with experience I've had previously. In some of these communities you get quite political leadership that can play to a certain gallery, if you like. The people you need to listen to are often the women. I think that's Bess's point. Often the women are trying to hold families together and they're often hard to get to. You know, they are not going to turn up in front of the cameras when the politicians do the media call. You've got to go around and find them and sit in the dirt and find out what they want and what they want is for their kids to be able to sleep safely at night and get an education and I think, you know, if this nation is looking for the greatest moral challenge of our time, here it is right in front of our eyes. And if we can't sort of - if we can't look at some tough and some experimental and some expensive action on this, I think we're really selling our whole country short.
TONY JONES: Penny Wong.
PENNY WONG: Very quickly, obviously the intervention is no longer racially based and the suspension of the IDA has been dealt with. I understand Graeme's view but I respectfully disagree with it. I don't know if any of us have the complete prescription of what to do but I reckon we've got to try whatever we can because in this day and this age, to have Australians in the sort of conditions that Bess's people - or some of her peoples - are is not acceptable.
TONY JONES: Well, I'll go to Greg Hunt and then I'll come back to Graeme Innes for his response.
GREG HUNT: Sure. I've been fortunate to spend a reasonable amount of time in Central Australian communities and also in Arnhem Land and my view and I think we do need to be honest, is that in the last 30 years probably the greatest failure of public policy in Australia has been the failure to adequately address indigenous living standards. I think we need to accept that we have not been very successful. There has been goodwill on all sides. Now, what do I think needs to happen now? I think we need a new partnership. Now, the starting point is that many, many indigenous people, let by people such as Bess, have themselves talked about the need for urgent intervention on alcohol and drugs and substance abuse and you see it on the ground and it is devastating. The more positive long-term agenda I think is this new partnership, which is about getting kids in schools, about giving people access to housing that they can own and about an attempt to eradicate avoidable indigenous blindness.
TONY JONES: Okay, before we go on, the questioner has her hand up.
EMMA BEARD: So I'm really interested to hear Bess talk about the importance of education and what's confusing me, and I'm a city dweller, is we've just spent millions and millions of dollars on the education revolution and building infrastructure. What's preventing good quality education in remote communities?
BESS PRICE: What I would say is that we need good teachers to go out to our communities and to teach what they have been taught in universities to do and there are some good teachers but there are others who you know, have been working amongst out people but have just given up because it's just too hard and we need more good teachers to come out and work with our people, who will come and just teach and just do their job properly in a way that we all achieve what we want.
TONY JONES: Graeme, I'm going to come back to you on the question that we were discussing earlier and that is - well, you heard Bess say that when that UN rapporteur came to Australian he was led around to speak only to people who were against the intervention. First of all does that worry you?
GRAEME INNES: Well, that's not my understanding of what took place so in that sense I'm not worried. I think the rapporteur and people who were organising the visit made sure that opportunities were created for him to meet with a range of different communities. So, no, I'm not worried by that because it's not my understanding of what took place.
TONY JONES: Well, let me ask you the other logical question. When you read the Little Children Are Sacred Report into sexual abuse and other abuses of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory, did you believe at all that that warranted extraordinary action from the Federal Government?
GRAEME INNES: Look, there is no doubt that the situation with which that report dealt warranted extraordinary action but you know what the first recommendation, Tony, is of the Little Children Are Sacred Report? That is that we need to work in conjunction with Aboriginal Communities. I've spoken with people such as Rosemary Kunoth-Monks from Utopia in the Northern Territory, who tells me about the damage to communities, about the signs that have been put up outside communities saying - implying that the community generally are pornographers and are, you know, heavily into alcohol. You know, that's - so what the intervention did is absolutely counterintuitive to what Greg has talked about in terms of a partnership because the intervention actually - whilst trying to help communities disempowered communities by taking away their rights. So I absolutely agree with Bess and others on the panel that this was an issue that needed major, major action to be taking place. I just don't think that disempowerment helped the partnership that, I agree with Greg, needed to occur.
TONY JONES: Bess, well, first of all I'd like to hear you on that but over the weekend Noel Pearson, who is a supporter of the intervention, came out and said that they got it wrong in the sense that it should have been grassroots intervention where there was a bottom up approach from the communities, not a top down approach from the Federal Government telling the communities what to do.
BESS PRICE: Well, like I said earlier it was an emergency. It was just straight after the Little Children Are Sacred and it was very bad and something needed to happen drastically. We've had so many consultations. You know we're consultationed out in the communities, so this was an emergency. It had to happen and it - it made a lot of people angry about how it was rolled out. But like I've said, it had to happen immediately because our children were suffering and they have rights as well. That's all I can say.
TONY JONES: Thank you, Bess. You're watching Q&A.; Remember you can send your web or video questions to our website. The address is on the screen to work out how to do that. Our next question is a video. It comes from three medical students in Strathfield, New South Wales.
MEDICAL STUDENTS: To the Honourable Penny Won: As students about to commence medical research. we find it unimaginable that a government who is “moving forward” would want to cut $100 million per annum from the NHMRC. The NHMRC provides funding to medical research for Australia’s growing medical needs. It currently funds 27% of applicants, although 70% of projects warrant funding. What price are you willing to pay not to lose another Dr Elizabeth Blackburn?
TONY JONES: Penny Wong, the last line was: "What price are you willing to pay not to lose another Dr Elizabeth Blackburn." Obviously the question is about possible cuts to medical research funding.
PENNY WONG: Yeah, I've seen a fair bit of - there's obviously a lot of publicity and a number of protests and letters and activity around this and I'd make a couple of points. The first is we are going through a budget process. It is going to be a very tough budget for the reasons I've outlined before and I'm happy to go through them. We've not made - I'm not going to get into a rule in/rule out on this issue or on any other issue in terms of the budget. I would make this point on health research funding, that this government has actually substantially increased the amount of funding into medical research since we've been in government by quite substantial amounts. The point...
TONY JONES: Would it be wrong to reverse that because that's what people are worried about? That's what the students are worried about. They're worried, in fact, that they'll be discouraged and have to go other countries to pursue medical research.
PENNY WONG: I have heard what they have had to say and what I have said publicly is that we are obviously working our way through the budget process. There are many things on the table. There are many issues where people would say this is a very meritorious program. We have to try and make the best decisions we can as a government that is committed to bringing the budget back to surplus because we know that the long term needs of the economy will be and it's important that we meet the commitment to surplus.
TONY JONES: Okay. They're not here to ask you follow up questions but I am. So if the Greens are going to use their...
PENNY WONG: What a surprise.
TONY JONES: If the Greens are going to use their Senate votes to stop you cutting medical research as they say they are, why go through a fruitless exercise of floating the cuts in the first place if they can't happen politically/
PENNY WONG: I don't know who you are accusing of floating what, actually, but...
TONY JONES: Well, you could say now that you're not going to do that and satisfy the questioners.
PENNY WONG: Well, and then you'd say - whatever I said on this you'd then ask me a question about something else and something else and, you know, that's how the rule in, rule out budget game works. Can I just...
TONY JONES: But this question was about something specific.
PENNY WONG: It is about something specific and I'm going to answer it in the same way I have already. We are working our way through the budget. Why do we have to bring the budget back to surplus? There's a broader economic context to this. We have to bring the budget back to surplus because of the wave of investment that is coming that this country will experience and I know that may be a bit counterintuitive because there is a lot of softness in the economy at the moment. We have a high dollar that's making some firms' lives very hard. We've had the floods, the cyclone. That obviously is going to mean some short term impact. But just remember what sort of mining investment boom we're having: 35 billion last year, 55 billion this year, 75 billion estimated for next year. We have to make room in our economy for that investment and that's what the surplus commitment is about. Now, I'm not going to get into whether this or that cut is happening or not happening. We are taking a very disciplined approach. We are going to bring Labor's values of fairness and opportunity to this budget, as we do to all policies.
TONY JONES: Chris Kenny.
CHRIS KENNY: Well, I'd applaud Penny in aiming to get the budget back into surplus. There's a couple of things I want to see before I die and one is a Labor Party deliver a surplus in Australia.
PENNY WONG: Hang around.
CHRIS KENNY: But I think going to the question again - a very good question because medical research would seem to be the most short-sighted part of the budget to cut but you're going to get this about every cut, of course...
PENNY WONG: Correct.
CHRIS KENNY: ...as you deliver your tough budget and the big problem you've created for yourself is that you're now promising a tough budget cutting spending. At the same time you're still building school halls and spending millions of dollars on school halls and billions of dollars on an NBN project and these were rolled out as stimulatory measures for a global financial crisis that actually ended about a year ago. So we've sort of got the foot on the accelerator and the brake at the same time and I think Australians are confused about that.
PENNY WONG: Do you want me to get the facts on the table?
TONY JONES: Well, I think you should respond to that, yes.
PENNY WONG: The vast majority - I think it's 99 per cent of BER - that's Building the Education Revolution - projects have been commenced. Most have been finished. They were ...
CHRIS KENNY: Yep. Still spending it, aren't you?
PENNY WONG: ... they were part of a stimulus package which did ensure that we kept the economy ticking over collectively, not just the government, business and the community as well and we've...
CHRIS KENNY: But do we need stimulus now or do we need...
PENNY WONG: My turn.
CHRIS KENNY: Okay.
TONY JONES: Okay. Now, I'm just going to let Penny Wong respond to that because the question was about medical research and I'd like to stick to that but...
PENNY WONG: Well, I'm responding to some of the inaccuracies on my right here...
TONY JONES: Well, you've obviously got to respond. If you can give a brief response, that would be good.
PENNY WONG: ...politically as well as, you know, situationally. I know you're opposed to the NBN. We think this is incredibly important infrastructure for this century and what I'd say again about medical research: we are a government that has increased funding over the time we've been in government for medical research but I am not going to get into a rule in/rule out.
TONY JONES: Let's hear from Graeme Innes on this.
GRAEME INNES: Well, you know, it's hard to ask me to comment on budget issues. I think it must be one of the toughest jobs around to decide what's going to be cut to achieve a surplus budget. I think medical research is very important. I think the NBN is, frankly, the 21st century Snowy Mountains Scheme and it's a hugely important piece of infrastructure and in five to ten years time we'll wonder what all the fuss was about now because we'll just know it was the right thing to do. But to go back to medical research, very, very difficult because it's important but so is a budget surplus.
PENNY WONG: I'm interested in whether or not the opposition actually supports bringing the budget back to surplus.
TONY JONES: Well, no, I actually just want to hear quickly from Greg Hunt on medical research. If the government cut it, would you restore that in government yourself?
GREG HUNT: Well, the medical research will be the victim of programs such as the home insulation program. That was two and a half billion dollars and the medical research will be about one sixth of that. So that will be cut effectively to cover the cost of the home insulation program. I haven't heard anybody from the government defend two and a half billion dollars of expenditure in the last eight months. More generally do we support brining the budget back to surplus? Absolutely and the reason why is of our last 11 budgets ten were surpluses. Of the last eight Labor budgets, the last five under Paul Keating and the three under the Rudd/Gillard combo Shorten Government to date, they've all been deficits, all greater than two per cent. The last three - they've been 27 billion, 54 billion, 41 billion this year. Next year will be the ninth deficit and the thing they're very excited about is in year ten they may have a minor surplus. There is a huge mountain of debt that will burden every one of your children or yourselves if you're younger people and that's why we have to get the budget back into surplus, because 197 and a half billion dollars from the last eight Labor budgets.
PENNY WONG: Well...
TONY JONES: All right. Look, I think we've heard...
PENNY WONG: No, just on...
TONY JONES: Yes.
PENNY WONG: You know, Tony Abbott is no Peter Costello and his record in terms of the economy, a $10.6 billion black hole in his election costings. On the floods package, where you trumpeted that it was easy to find savings, you double counted by $700 million and now he's promoting policies which he hasn't got costings for. So, you know, if you want to lecture people about fiscal responsibility, I think the opposition had better start putting up or shutting up on that issue.
GREG HUNT: Yes, I think we should talk about fiscal responsibility because ...
TONY JONES: We should also talk about the questions. This is Q&A;, the program that gives you the chance to ask the questions. Our next question tonight comes from Brett Hartley-Wilson.
BRETT HARTLEY-WILSON: In light of last year's ads by the mining lobby and now the campaign by Clubs Australia, my question to the panel is what speaks the loudest to the Australian People: good government policy or good corporate advertising?
TONY JONES: Let's start with Graeme Innes on that.
GRAEME INNES: Well, I think Australians are smarter than good corporate advertising. I mean, I don't understand - in fact I'd go further than that. I think that the proposal by the gambling industry to spend $20 million on an advertising campaign opposing the government's proposals in this area is morally bankrupt and I think that - and I would say a similar thing about the tobacco industry trying to oppose the changes on smoking packaging and I would add to that list the mining industry against the mining profits tax. But, look, we know as Australians that these are all sectional interests doing their lobbying and I think we are smarter than that and I think we'll make our decisions on the broader - the reality and the broader politics of it.
TONY JONES: Bess Price, what do you think? The mining industry raised tens of millions of dollars to stop the mining tax; the tobacco industry, we've just heard, are doing the same; now Clubs Australia want to raise or have raised tens of millions, evidently, to protect their gambling interests.
BESS PRICE: Well, I think they should step back a bit and look at what's happening out there in the real world and see for themselves the impact that gambling is having on people and that smoking, as well, is having on our people as well before they start challenging our government.
TONY JONES: Chris Kenny?
CHRIS KENNY: Well, I think I have a little bit more respect for the intelligence of the Australian population than to think that they can have their views pushed around by large corporate advertising schemes. Obviously it helps get your message across but unless the message resonates with people it won't work and I think in the case of the mining tax, of course there was a lot of money spent but I think Australians generally were quite surprised by this. It seemed to come out of nowhere and they worried that the government was sort of going to kill the golden goose, as they say. But in this case, with clubs defending gambling, I think it's a tougher ask for them because I think people are very worried, and justifiably so, about problem gambling. But, of course, a lot of people use the facilities so they've got a more difficult task ahead of them, I think.
GRAEME INNES: But, Chris, they talk about people losing jobs in the clubs industry. Why not put the $20 million into jobs rather than into an advertising campaign?
TONY JONES: Penny Wong, there's a government deal on the table with Andrew Wilkie, who says he'll walk away from his support for the minority government if you don't continue along the path that he's proposing with the restrictions to poker machine gambling in particular. Is that in place? I mean, is the government going to go with Wilkie's policy?
PENNY WONG: Well, we're working our way through implementing that and this is what is disappointing about this campaign. Because they've really jumped the gun. There's a range of processes. You know, this went to the productivity commission. There is a parliamentary inquiry. The government is consulting with the states and with industry and we've made clear to them that those issue are still up for consultation but they've chosen obviously to take a campaign to the airwaves. I don't think anybody in this debate is being wowserish. I mean people can have a punt. People can gamble. A lot of people do. I do on occasion. Chinese New Year I try and have a flutter. It's good luck. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about the proportion of people who do have a gambling problem who lose a very large amount of money that has enormous impacts on their lives and the lives of their families and I think we should have a sensible discussion about how we can deal with that.
TONY JONES: You've heard their argument. They're saying you are creating a license to gamble. That's what the advertisements are saying and that's the message that may resonate with punters. Are you worried about that?
PENNY WONG: I think Australians are, you know, smart enough to know what is being proposed and what's not. No one is saying we want to or Mr Wilkie wants to shut gambling down. We're saying we have a problem with a proportion of problem gamblers who do have an addition problem who are not able to manage this pastime or this practice well and that has huge human consequences and, you know, as a society we should work out way through it sensibly and calmly and hopefully in a more sensible way than the carbon debate about how we can resolve this.
CHRIS KENNY: Don't get Tim Flannery selling it.
TONY JONES: We're running out of time. Let's...
PENNY WONG: Don't get Tony Abbott on the other side.
TONY JONES: Let's move along. If you'd like to join the studio audience you can register on our website. The address is on the screen to work out how to do that. Our next question tonight comes from Karly Abrahams.
KARLY ABRAHAMS: Hi. I'm a scientist. I'm not part of any political group but I think my concerns represent a growing portion of the general scientific community. When you take into account natural sources of carbon dioxide like animal respiration and evaporation of the oceans then fossil fuel burning only makes up four per cent of total global carbon dioxide emissions and Australians make up one per cent of that four per cent. These are going from statistics from the latest IPCC report. If this is the case then Australians only release a total of 0.04 per cent of all emissions and how is there any evidence that a billion dollar carbon tax is going to make any significant difference on the environment? And, secondly, why aren't Australians getting a vote on this really important issue?
TONY JONES: Greg Hunt didn't get to answer the last question. I'll bring you in first on that and I take it, first of all, that you would reject the premise of that question?
GREG HUNT: I respectfully disagree but I am not one...
TONY JONES: With what do you disagree?
GREG HUNT: Disagree with the position in terms of the science. My view is, and this is my personal view, that there is a strong case to say that climate change...
PENNY WONG: It's certainly not your party view.
GREG HUNT: ...is real and important and significant and humans are having an impact.
TONY JONES: Is just your personal view or is it the view of your party.
GREG HUNT: And our party's view.
TONY JONES: Sorry.
GREG HUNT: The next thing is you do, however, have a fundamental right to that view and there are people on the Labor side who will demonise anybody who takes your view, probably 4, 5 million Australians on the best figures we've got, are of your view. So the first thing is to say whilst I respectfully disagree, I defend your right to have that view and that is fundamental. The next point is...
TONY JONES: Keep it brief because we've got a minute to go and I want you to make that because you have been talking about the carbon tax a lot but you can make your point briefly.
GREG HUNT: It's not sadly a one billion carbon tax. Over the next four years it's going to be well in excess of $40 billion and it's not going to be in the budget. I don't think you can frame a real budget if you've got a $40 billion revenue figure and probably a similar expenditure figure that's not included and I think if we want to be honest with the Australian people, that level of revenue and that level of expenditure should be in the budget.
TONY JONES: Penny Wong, if you deal with the science first and then the issue that (indistinct).
PENNY WONG: Well, I don't agree with the view about the science and I'm happy to - we can spend a lot of time on it but I think the country has spent a lot of time on the science. I just want to respond to Greg. He accuses Labor of demonising people. When Greg was my shadow, he likened me to Saddam Hussein and then he...
GREG HUNT: That's not quite correct.
PENNY WONG: That is true. That is what you said and...
GREG HUNT: That is not accurate or correct...
PENNY WONG: ...some of your colleagues...
GREG HUNT: ...and that is misleading and untrue.
PENNY WONG: Well, I'm happy to forward you the transcript.
GREG HUNT: I know.
PENNY WONG: And some of your colleagues they have talked about the Prime Minister likening the Prime Minister to Colonel Gaddafi. SO please don't lecture us about demonising. In terms of...
GREG HUNT: Your deputy minister has currently likened
PENNY WONG: In terms of the budget...
GREG HUNT: ...the leader of the opposition to Goebbels.
PENNY WONG: In terms of the...
GREG HUNT: And it's on the ALP website. It's currently on your website.
PENNY WONG: In terms of...
TONY JONES: (Indistinct).
PENNY WONG: In terms of the budget...
GREG HUNT: I'd be pretty careful given it's your deputy minister at present.
PENNY WONG: Actually, I'm not the minister for climate change, remember?
GREG HUNT: The government's deputy minister.
PENNY WONG: I'm the minister for finance and I want to talk about the budget.
TONY JONES: Okay. I'm sorry we're really...
PENNY WONG: No, I was making the - I'd make the point the criticism the opposition makes about the carbon price not being in the budget, obviously when the decisions are made which set the price, the compensation et cetera, they will be reflected in the normal way, just as John Howard announced an ETS in June 2007 and did not reflect that in his subsequent budget updates. So, you know, I think this is just another thing.
TONY JONES: Just going back to the questioner, she asked the final part of her question...
PENNY WONG: I was about to go back.
TONY JONES: ...is why is the Australian public not being allowed to vote on this important issue and I think she got a round of applause for that.
PENNY WONG: And, with respect, you did. This is the parliament you voted for and you have people in the parliament that you had - well, it's...
KARLY ABRAHAMS: If you had gone to the election with this carbon tax, you would not be in government right now.
PENNY WONG: Well, that's your view. That's your view.
CHRIS KENNY: Well, otherwise why did Julia Gillard say no...
PENNY WONG: Can I just...
CHRIS KENNY: ...carbon tax? Why did she say it if not to get elected.
PENNY WONG: I think Julia has spent a whole Q&A; answering many questions, including that one, so I won't traverse that again. I'd make the point we have consistently argued for an emissions trading scheme as the most efficient way to deal with climate change, to transform the Australian economy. This is about a cleaner energy economy. We are a very highly polluting economy and we can hide behind the sorts of percentages you talked about and say it's someone else's job or we can say we have to be part of this and that's the campaign.
TONY JONES: All right. I'm sorry to our panellists who wanted desperately to respond to those issues. I'm also sorry to the people with their hands up but we do have a time limit and we've run out of time. So please thank our panel: Chris Kenny, Penny Wong, Bess Price, Graeme Innes and Greg Hunt.
Next week Q&A; will take a break to make way for the ABC mini-series Paper Giants but we'll be back in two weeks time on Monday, 25 April, ANZAC Day and Easter Monday. So please join us then for another live and lively Q&A.; Good night.
Q&A; is live from 9.35 Eastern Time and simulcast on ABC News 24, Australia Network and ABC News Radio and you can go to our website to send your questions and join the Twitter conversation using the hash tag that's just appearing on your screen right now.
Well, our first question tonight comes from Rosie Connolly.
ROSIE CONNOLLY: Growing up, I was always told that as a woman I could do anything. However, does the sex scandal at the ADFA and the way it has been dealt with within the defence force indicate that there are some environments in which equal access and opportunity for women is impossible?
TONY JONES: Penny Wong?
PENNY WONG: Well, I think equal opportunity is not - you know, we don't get there by one step, do we, and there are lots of environments where we still have work to do. If I think of my life just as a small microcosm, I can think of different places I've been, whether it was as a lawyer in the courts or then in politics, where there weren't that many women and it was often commented on. I think in relation to what's occurred at the AFDA, I don't think anybody would think that that kind of behaviour is consistent with community standards and, as you probably have heard today, the Minister for Defence and the Chief of Defence Force have announced a range of measures, inquiries and processes to deal with that because I think people do, across this country, believe that the standards of behaviour that have been on display do not conform with the standards we want for our defence forces.
TONY JONES: Penny Wong there are six separate inquiries underway into the incident and into the role of women in the military. I don't think I've ever heard anything quite as dramatic as this for a very long time. So I'm asking do you think there'll be revolutionary change as a result?
PENNY WONG: Well, let's see what happens. I mean change is a process and there's a lot of cultural change when you have different institutions which need to occur and I think what Stephen has announced are a range of measures, some of which are about policy change, some of which are about cultural change and others which are about making sure we find out what has occurred and how to remedy it.
TONY JONES: Here's s really puzzling aspect of all of this and that is that the Commodore Kafer, who is the head of the Academy, he's been forced to take leave. The young woman at the centre of all this, she's been forced to take leave. The six or is it seven young men who seem to be the perpetrators of the incident are still studying there.
PENNY WONG: Well, in relation to the head of the Academy, as I understand it one of the inquiries is into how this matter was dealt with, so obviously it's appropriate, given that investigation or that inquiry is underway, for him to step aside for that for the purposes of that. As I understand there is an AFP, that is a police investigation in relation to the allegations against the men involved and obviously there are different standards there. People are presumed innocent in this context and in all contexts in our society until those police investigations have been finalised.
TONY JONES: Yes, but the young woman is clearly innocent and she's had to take leave. Commodore Kafer is innocent when it comes to any sort of offence, evidently, and he's forced to take leave and these six men, or is it seven - I keep forgetting - are still studying.
PENNY WONG: Tony, I don't think anyone in this government could be accused of not wanting to support that young woman and I think what Stephen Smith has announced, as you yourself said in your question, is a very thorough and, in fact, probably unprecedented set of actions in relation to these allegations.
TONY JONES: Chris Kenny?
CHRIS KENNY: Well, Tony, I think that Steven Smith has handled this extraordinarily well, so far. It's been really a battle of wills between him and the uniforms in the military, I suppose. All defence ministers have a terrible job trying to enforce their will on the uniforms, if you like, and I think it's Stephen Smith who has singled out that the mistake here was not to look after the woman first. You know, forget about the investigations and the rest of the inquiry, they needed to see her as the victim and look after her needs first before talking about other disciplinary actions. And to go to your question, the other interesting aspect of the myriad of policies and reviews and inquiries announced today is that Stephen Smith and the Defence Force Chief have announced they're going to fast track movements to give women access to combat jobs, so they're basically saying that there'll be a few issues to deal with but in the end it's only your physical attributes and your intellectual capabilities that will define whether or not you can do a job in the defence forces. In other words women can do anything they're up to. Now, it seems a strange day to announce that, I suppose, but what they're effectively saying is we need to make sure that women are not the second of equals in the defence forces anymore and I think it's a good move and the test, of course, is going to be how he implements it. You know, it looks good now but he's got a long way to go. He's got to force a really - a really significant historical change of culture.
TONY JONES: Let's go to Graeme Innes, who has been taking Braille notes during the answers, so I presume your answer will be well informed at least. But let's go to this point: I mean, your own human rights commission is going to be part of this review.
GRAEME INNES: Well, Tony, if it's only my notes I'm not sure whether it will be well informed or not but I think, firstly, yes, my colleague Liz Broderick, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, will be leading a panel which the human rights commission will delegate authority to conduct the review. But can I say to the questioner first, I think it's great that you have those aspirations. My daughter, Rachael - my 13 year old daughter Rachael and every other young Australian woman and every man, frankly, as well, should have the aspirations that they can do whatever it is that they want to and when we have an organisation where there's been behaviour which is unacceptable, where there's a culture that must change and where many, I think, in the leadership are working to change that culture, it's important that we conduct these sorts of reviews and I have a sense, as does Liz, that the leadership, both political and military, are committed to acting on the recommendations and making some change.
TONY JONES: Just briefly on that Graeme, do you think it has been discriminatory that until now women have been, for example, forbidden from combat roles?
GRAEME INNES: Yes, and until we open up the whole process of the defence force to women's participation we won't start to change that culture because, you know, one of the most effective ways to change this sort of culture in a workplace is to allow women to become equally involved.
TONY JONES: Greg Hunt.
GREG HUNT: The first question in relation to the aspiration to anything - I think it was Rosie - you should have that aspiration. You're right to have that aspiration and I think the Australia that we're building will deliver that. I'm the father of a little girl who is six years old and we try to teach her that she has the capacity to do anything. In terms of this issue - look, this was a terrible case of abuse. No doubt about it. A real case of abuse. We have many disagreements with the government but do I think that they have handled the general approach badly? No, I don't. We'll have other points of disagreement. Do I think that maybe it could have been done a little bit earlier, yes, I do, but generally this is one of those cases where let's not confect a fight for a fight's sake. We can make real progress right now which builds on the achievements that we've seen open up the defence force to women. So there's more go and there's been a huge opening up but this is one of those cases where the two sides are in agreement.
TONY JONES: Bess Price.
BESS PRICE: Well, equal opportunity doesn't exist for our women and once the military have done their overhaul of their men and their policies and such, maybe they could come our way and sort some of our fellas out because what's happening now women just haven't had a voice to talk about any issues they want to talk about and there are women out there who want to have their opinions heard by everybody else out there and want to move forward and be respected and be seen as equals.
TONY JONES: Have you watched this case unfolding in the Defence Academy and do you have any thoughts about that specifically?
BESS PRICE: No, I haven't had much to do with it but I've heard bits and pieces but I think what happened to the young girl was not right and we expect the military to take responsibility and look after their - you know, their staff.
TONY JONES: Let me just bring Penny Wong back in here, because we've had it raised several times now this issue that may well arise. Graeme said it was discriminatory not to allow women until now. Certainly it's not even happening now. It may, as a result of these reviews, change to allow women to take part in the full range of military activities if they're part of the military, including combat. What do you think?
PENNY WONG: Well, I mean, it is, you know, in terms of the technical definition it is. I mean, it was discriminatory. It might have been discriminatory for a sensible reason, some might argue. Others may argue against that and I think the point that of the announcements Stephen made today, with the Chief of the Defence Force, is to look at how we take this further. I mean this is a process of change and it's - you know, if you look back over the last 10 years, there have been various changes to policy in this area around women's role in the defence forces and I hope what we get out of this - I mean, it's been quite dreadful to watch and awful, I'm sure, for the woman involved. If there is something that we can take forward out of this it is to make sure these sorts of things don't happen on the one hand and on the on the other hand perhaps have a different role for women - a more equal role in the defence forces.
TONY JONES: Just very briefly, do you have a settled position yourself and does the government on whether they would like to see women in combat?
PENNY WONG: Well, I think the whole point of what Steven has announced today is to look at that further and, you know, there were, as I said, a range of policy reasons why that was in place and this is a process for considering those.
TONY JONES: All right. You're watching Q&A.; As always you get to ask the questions. Our next question tonight comes from Michael Chen.
MICHAEL CHEN: Government ministers spent most of last week playing down Mr Rudd's comments on last week's Q&A; and ministers have decided not to be drawn on issues that happened in the past. Given the number of changes and back flips to government policy in the last 12 months, how can the government continue to expect or hope for the trust of the Australian public if you fail to address how key changes were made, how they were communicated and address concerns about what the government actually stands for?
TONY JONES: Penny Wong?
PENNY WONG: Well, I was wondering when we'd get that question. Thank you, Michael. Well, look, can I say in relation to the decision that was the subject of quite a long discussion on last week's program, and I do understand why many people were disappointed with that decision and, you know, I am one of those people in this country who wants action on climate change, who has spent a lot of time as climate change minister arguing for it, sitting down with the opposition negotiating this to get it through the parliament because we wanted it to happen. Can I say I think we have been given a very rare second chance to get this price on carbon up and my view is we should learn from the past and one of the things I have learnt - I think we all have learnt - is just how hard reform in this country can be and how hard you have to fight for it. We are faced with a very aggressive scare campaign from Mr Abbott. Remember, he took the leadership of the Liberal Party on a platform of no action on climate change and my view is what we have to now do is to focus on this fight to get up a price on carbon.
TONY JONES: Let me put it this way: if Kevin Rudd is correct and Julia Gillard argued for the permanent dumping of the emissions trading scheme, isn't it legitimate for the public to ask why she's had such a dramatic change of heart now?
PENNY WONG: Well, can I say about Julia, as she has said, she has always believed climate change is real. She knows that a price on carbon is the best way to deliver it and she understands also what it will take to deliver it. I mean...
TONY JONES: But...
PENNY WONG: This is important. What does she do...
TONY JONES: But it's important for people to understand why in that case she and Wayne Swan would have gone to Kevin Rudd and argued for the permanent dumping of the emissions trading scheme policy.
PENNY WONG: Well, you know, Tony and you know me well enough - I'm sure you would have anticipated this answer - that I don't discuss things that might or might not have been discussed in cabinet and with cabinet colleagues. When I became a minister, that's the decision I made. That's the decision that cabinet ministers take and that is the way I'll approach this. But I would ask you this: those people there today and those people who are watching who care about action on climate change, I again would say we do have a rare second chance. Do we think that taking this debate forward and winning this debate in the context of the sort of scare campaign we're seeing is going to be helped by simply focussing on the past or do we think we need to focus on the future and I'll say this about Julia, she has been out there. Judge her by the sort of mettle and courage she is showing today in the face of the sort of campaign, including a quite extraordinarily personally vitriolic campaign against her by those...
TONY JONES: You don't men from Kevin Rudd, do you?
PENNY WONG: No, I mean by those people - I mean by those people - this is not a joke - who turn up to parliament house with signs such as those Tony Abbott appeared in front of talking about our Prime Minister as a witch. Now, you know, understand this is the sort of campaign she is saying, "I know that I will have this scare campaign. I don't have Malcolm Turnbull as the opposition leader who, you know, unfortunately lost and so we didn't get the price on carbon up. I have Tony Abbott who is implacably opposed to this and will do and say anything to avoid taking action on climate change.
TONY JONES: Let's go to Greg Hunt. Right of reply.
GREG HUNT: I think the big thing that came out of last week is Kevin Rudd made it very clear that the current prime minister didn't believe in the system and if she doesn't believe in the system she's proposing the question is why should anybody else? On the broader debate that Penny raises, this is a choice between two different approaches: between a tax and incentives. And the two...
PENNY WONG: Oh, come on, Greg. No one believes that.
GREG HUNT: No. No. Come on, I gave you a fair hearing.
PENNY WONG: No one believes that.
GREG HUNT: And the difference between those two approaches is what it means on two fronts. Firstly, for ordinary Australian families. We now know from the Treasury modelling which was very honest, a tax of up to $863 a year and that has a profound impact in terms of electricity and petrol and gas and groceries for families and that's real and it's often dismissed by people but for families that are struggling day to day that's profound. The second big thing is the world has changed quite dramatically in the last 18 months. It is never talked about by the government but the United States has abandoned not just temporarily - has abandoned its aspirations for what they call a cap and trade scheme, the equivalent of the emissions trading scheme - similar concept to the carbon tax.
TONY JONES: Okay.
GREG HUNT: Canada and Japan have done the same thing.
TONY JONES: I'm going to bring you up on that, because we're actually - I'm sure we'll go to broader questions about carbon tax. This one was really about what was said last week and it's the political dimensions of this raised by Kevin Rudd. Bess Price.
BESS PRICE: I think all I can say about Kevin Rudd is he was in front of an audience and he just wanted to make his claim and make sure that everybody understood what he was saying and it was his last chance at having a go back at Julia Gillard, I guess.
TONY JONES: Was that how you understood what he was saying, that essentially it was a thinly guised crack at the Prime Minister?
BESS PRICE: He just had an opportunity so he used it.
TONY JONES: Graeme Innes.
GRAEME INNES: Look, this is always going to be a challenging issue when you are restricted by cabinet solidarity and Kevin Rudd is not the only one that's found himself in that position. Many prime ministers and ministers going back over our history have found that is a problem. I mean, I'm more interested, as an Australian who recognises that we do need to do something about climate change, in having a sensible discussion about what that might cost and where the cost might need to come from. I think this is, in the broader context, you know a minor political issue.
TONY JONES: Chris Kenny.
CHRIS KENNY: I think we should continue to encourage Penny to share with us her side of the arguments in cabinet. I think it's a bit of Qanda tradition now to reveal those cabinet discussions, so don't hold back. The thing that Penny has going for her is something that Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd would dearly love, is consistency. You've been consistent on this issue and as I understand it, according to reports, you argue to push ahead with an emissions trading scheme so you shouldn't be afraid of revealing these discussions. But your other point about signs and protests I think is very interesting and I think this is where the Labor Party is getting into a lot of trouble on this carbon tax issue. When concerned citizens who are facing cost of living pressures and the like are worried about a broken promise on a carbon tax and gather and protest about it, it is a bit rich for the Labor Party to identify them as nutters and extremists and denigrate their concern, especially when we find out on Q&A; there were Labor Party ministers arguing exactly that case about six months ago. That's astounding.
TONY JONES: Okay, while we've got a chance I'm going to go to our next question, which is also on this subject. It's from Ralph Panebianco.
RALPH PANEBIANCO: Ms. Wong, last week Kevin expressed regret over his decisions to shelve the ETS. Given how passionate you are about it and how hard you worked, do you carry similar regret and would have done anything differently last year?
PENNY WONG: I might not have trusted that Malcolm could do the numbers in his party room, you know, but that was at the end of the year before. Look, you know, I can understand why Kevin, you know, felt it was important that he put a view about what occurred while he was prime minister on a decision that he made. In terms of me, my focus is what we have to do and, you know, I do...
TONY JONES: But to go to the question, do you, like Kevin Rudd, regret the decision to shelve the emission trading scheme?
PENNY WONG: I think my energy is far better spent focussing on getting this through and that's what I'm going to do.
TONY JONES: So no regrets?
PENNY WONG: Well, my energy is on what we have to do. No, look, I just think it's - we can - I know this is very interesting, Tony, but we can spend a lot of time trawling over the history. That's probably what Tony Abbott would quite like. I'm sure it's what Greg Hunt would quite like. It won't help deliver action on climate change.
TONY JONES: Yes, but it's actually quite a good idea to learn from the lessons of history.
PENNY WONG: I agree with that.
TONY JONES: I think all history students have been taught that for years.
PENNY WONG: I agree with that. I agree with that.
TONY JONES: If all Labor ministers say is, "It's history. We don't talk about history, where do you go?
PENNY WONG: I think, Tony, in my first answer to - Michael was it? Yes, I in fact said that we should learn from the past and one of the things that I have learnt is just how hard it is to get reform up and, you know, I said that in various discussions with various parties - including the Greens at the time - I said reform in this country is hard. I think we've seen just how hard it is. I mean, this has been an issue - remember John Howard went to the 2007 election with an emissions trading scheme. We had a number of liberal leaders since that time with varying degrees of support for action on climate change or opposition. This is a reform that has been difficult and divisive and if I could say, Chris, and just take issue with what you were saying about my comments about the signs at the rally, I was making the point about the personal attack on the prime minister at that.
TONY JONES: I'm sorry, I'm going to interrupt you there because we've got a person with their hand up in the front row and it will probably be the last we do on this issue.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you. My question is for Mr Hunt. I think this issue has been equally divisive on both sides. The Coalition obviously had a leadership vote on this issue and obviously Mr Turnbull's leadership was terminated at that point. I'm curious, who did you vote for? Because obviously these questions are being thrown at Penny but equally for you do you see the combative street fighting style of Mr Abbott more important to the party than say, perhaps, the visionary statesman leadership of Mr Turnbull.
GREG HUNT: But there's no bias in that question.
TONY JONES: That's the good thing about voters. They're allowed to be biased.
GREG HUNT: Absolutely. Absolutely.
PENNY WONG: I just want to say I don't know him ... but I like him.
TONY JONES: So, Greg Hunt, to you, any regrets on the dumping of the emissions trading scheme which you supported, which was Howard Government policy?
GREG HUNT: No, I don't. I don't have any regrets. I do want to go back over history here and one of the things is just over four years ago I gave a speech where I set out the basis for the direct action policy and my long-held view going back many years is to try and tax electricity to change behaviour is a fundamentally ineffective thing to do.
PENNY WONG: Greg, that's just not true.
GREG HUNT: Well...
PENNY WONG: That's just not true.
GREG HUNT: Were you at that speech?
PENNY WONG: Well, you wrote a thesis that talked about a price on pollution.
GREG HUNT: And I will talk about that.
PENNY WONG: You are on the record extensively when his boss - his ex-boss was in the leadership...
GREG HUNT: No.
PENNY WONG: ...of the Liberal Party, saying you wanted a price on carbon, including through an emissions trading scheme, which puts a price, as you know, on electricity.
GREG HUNT: All right, now let me deal with the real history.
PENNY WONG: It's just not true.
GREG HUNT: Two points very briefly. I've spent 20 years...
TONY JONES: Can you make one point very briefly...
GREG HUNT: All right.
TONY JONES: ...because we're going to move on.
GREG HUNT: All right. I've spent 20 years looking at good and bad market mechanisms and there are good and bad market mechanisms. I've lived through the home insulation program, the green loans program. These were not good market mechanisms. In terms of what we're facing now, in a world where the United States and Canada and Japan have all gone a different way and rejected precisely what's on offer here, there is a better way and my long held view is that to attack electricity as the primary means to try and force the change of behaviour for pensions and families and seniors is simply not going to work.
TONY JONES: Okay. All right.
PENNY WONG: Well, I need a response to that.
TONY JONES: All right, you can give a quick reply but I think we've had that point now made twice.
PENNY WONG: Well, Greg, your policy has no credibility. No credible economist supports it and members of your own front bench don't even support it. End of story.
TONY JONES: Okay.
GREG HUNT: I..
TONY JONES: Well, come back to...
GREG HUNT: I will say one thing though, Tony.
TONY JONES: Yes, go ahead.
GREG HUNT: They do have a Prime Minister who had trouble supporting their policy just a few months ago.
TONY JONES: All right. This is Q&A.; It's live and interactive, as you can see. Our next question tonight comes from Emma Beard.
EMMA BEARD: This is a question for Bess Price. As someone who rarely leaves the city, it can be hard to understand if the intervention was the right thing to do. I'd like to understand from your perspective, what is the single most important thing that needs to happen in remote communities to improve the standard of living?
BESS PRICE: That's a big ask. Well, there's a huge amount of work to be done out in the remote communities and it's just not straightforward but education is the first one on top of the list and that's the most important issues that's now - underlying issue for our people. None of our children are educated. From six up until 18 children don't know how to write their names. If they can have that education then we would take further steps from there to get where we want to be at the level where our people should be.
TONY JONES: Bess, before I bring in the other panellists, we've got a web question on this subject - at least on the subject of the intervention. It's from Phil Graetz in Macquarie, ACT: In 2009, the UN Human Rights rapporteur said the Northern Territory intervention, however well intentioned, is "incompatible with Australia's treaty obligations". That's diplomat speak" - according to the question - that's diplomat speak for we are racist. Why has he been ignored?
BESS PRICE: Well, said the rapporteur? I think for a start I think if they had sent in a female rapporteur, I think it would have been more calm about or more calm about the approach of people, talking to people and talking to more women and what I found when the rapporteur came out to talk to people, it was all organised. It was all arranged. So he was just - he was just led around to speak to people who were against the intervention. He did not have a chance to talk to the other people who were for the intervention, so that's what you didn't see.
TONY JONES: Are you still for the intervention, by the way?
BESS PRICE: I am for the intervention because I've seen progress. I've seen women who now have voices. They can speak for themselves and they are standing up for their rights. Children are being fed and young people more or less know how to manage their lives. That's what's happened since the intervention.
TONY JONES: Graeme Innes, let me bring you in on this because the argument is that the Racial Discrimination Act, which was suspended to enable the intervention, made the intervention or gave the intervention a racist overtone. That's the sort of argument that's in that question. What do you think?
GRAEME INNES: Well, I think - and the Human Rights Commission has been known for its position of being opposed to the intervention - not opposed to the huge amount of work that needs to be done amongst remote Aboriginal communities and I absolutely agree with Bess about that. But it seems to me counter intuitive to empower people to improve their communities by taking away their rights. That just seems to me totally counter intuitive to do that and that's what was done when the Racial Discrimination Act was suspended and rights to complain were taken away from Aboriginal people. So in that sense I agree with the rapporteur. But there's still much work that needs to be done. I agree with Bess that things are improving but we still have a long way to go. I was talking to my colleague, Mick Gooda, the Social Justice Commissioner, just today and he was telling me about the Larapinta people, the local people in Alice Springs who have just bought three supermarkets up there and they're looking to put a floor price on alcohol. They're looking to breathalyse people, who they suspect of being intoxicated, before selling alcohol and these are community actions. This is the communities themselves taking action to address the problems and I think that's far more sustainable and far more likely to be successful.
TONY JONES: Bess, can I ask you what your thoughts are about the suspension of the Race Discrimination Act, which was essential to allow the intervention to go ahead.
BESS PRICE: At the time it needed to take place. It was an emergency because our people were suffering and it was so bad out there and I don't think our government is racist. That's what I remind people is that our government is not racist, you know. Just be lucky that you live in Australia. If you lived elsewhere you wouldn't be here.
TONY JONES: Let's hear from Chris Kenny on this.
CHRIS KENNY: Yeah, I'm with Bess and I've spoken to Bess about this earlier and also Alison Anderson. I mean, they tell me that, for want of a better word, do-gooders bringing up these ideas of sort of breaching UN Charters and the like on racism are only harming the intervention. They tell me that the people there want the intervention and, importantly, this concurs with experience I've had previously. In some of these communities you get quite political leadership that can play to a certain gallery, if you like. The people you need to listen to are often the women. I think that's Bess's point. Often the women are trying to hold families together and they're often hard to get to. You know, they are not going to turn up in front of the cameras when the politicians do the media call. You've got to go around and find them and sit in the dirt and find out what they want and what they want is for their kids to be able to sleep safely at night and get an education and I think, you know, if this nation is looking for the greatest moral challenge of our time, here it is right in front of our eyes. And if we can't sort of - if we can't look at some tough and some experimental and some expensive action on this, I think we're really selling our whole country short.
TONY JONES: Penny Wong.
PENNY WONG: Very quickly, obviously the intervention is no longer racially based and the suspension of the IDA has been dealt with. I understand Graeme's view but I respectfully disagree with it. I don't know if any of us have the complete prescription of what to do but I reckon we've got to try whatever we can because in this day and this age, to have Australians in the sort of conditions that Bess's people - or some of her peoples - are is not acceptable.
TONY JONES: Well, I'll go to Greg Hunt and then I'll come back to Graeme Innes for his response.
GREG HUNT: Sure. I've been fortunate to spend a reasonable amount of time in Central Australian communities and also in Arnhem Land and my view and I think we do need to be honest, is that in the last 30 years probably the greatest failure of public policy in Australia has been the failure to adequately address indigenous living standards. I think we need to accept that we have not been very successful. There has been goodwill on all sides. Now, what do I think needs to happen now? I think we need a new partnership. Now, the starting point is that many, many indigenous people, let by people such as Bess, have themselves talked about the need for urgent intervention on alcohol and drugs and substance abuse and you see it on the ground and it is devastating. The more positive long-term agenda I think is this new partnership, which is about getting kids in schools, about giving people access to housing that they can own and about an attempt to eradicate avoidable indigenous blindness.
TONY JONES: Okay, before we go on, the questioner has her hand up.
EMMA BEARD: So I'm really interested to hear Bess talk about the importance of education and what's confusing me, and I'm a city dweller, is we've just spent millions and millions of dollars on the education revolution and building infrastructure. What's preventing good quality education in remote communities?
BESS PRICE: What I would say is that we need good teachers to go out to our communities and to teach what they have been taught in universities to do and there are some good teachers but there are others who you know, have been working amongst out people but have just given up because it's just too hard and we need more good teachers to come out and work with our people, who will come and just teach and just do their job properly in a way that we all achieve what we want.
TONY JONES: Graeme, I'm going to come back to you on the question that we were discussing earlier and that is - well, you heard Bess say that when that UN rapporteur came to Australian he was led around to speak only to people who were against the intervention. First of all does that worry you?
GRAEME INNES: Well, that's not my understanding of what took place so in that sense I'm not worried. I think the rapporteur and people who were organising the visit made sure that opportunities were created for him to meet with a range of different communities. So, no, I'm not worried by that because it's not my understanding of what took place.
TONY JONES: Well, let me ask you the other logical question. When you read the Little Children Are Sacred Report into sexual abuse and other abuses of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory, did you believe at all that that warranted extraordinary action from the Federal Government?
GRAEME INNES: Look, there is no doubt that the situation with which that report dealt warranted extraordinary action but you know what the first recommendation, Tony, is of the Little Children Are Sacred Report? That is that we need to work in conjunction with Aboriginal Communities. I've spoken with people such as Rosemary Kunoth-Monks from Utopia in the Northern Territory, who tells me about the damage to communities, about the signs that have been put up outside communities saying - implying that the community generally are pornographers and are, you know, heavily into alcohol. You know, that's - so what the intervention did is absolutely counterintuitive to what Greg has talked about in terms of a partnership because the intervention actually - whilst trying to help communities disempowered communities by taking away their rights. So I absolutely agree with Bess and others on the panel that this was an issue that needed major, major action to be taking place. I just don't think that disempowerment helped the partnership that, I agree with Greg, needed to occur.
TONY JONES: Bess, well, first of all I'd like to hear you on that but over the weekend Noel Pearson, who is a supporter of the intervention, came out and said that they got it wrong in the sense that it should have been grassroots intervention where there was a bottom up approach from the communities, not a top down approach from the Federal Government telling the communities what to do.
BESS PRICE: Well, like I said earlier it was an emergency. It was just straight after the Little Children Are Sacred and it was very bad and something needed to happen drastically. We've had so many consultations. You know we're consultationed out in the communities, so this was an emergency. It had to happen and it - it made a lot of people angry about how it was rolled out. But like I've said, it had to happen immediately because our children were suffering and they have rights as well. That's all I can say.
TONY JONES: Thank you, Bess. You're watching Q&A.; Remember you can send your web or video questions to our website. The address is on the screen to work out how to do that. Our next question is a video. It comes from three medical students in Strathfield, New South Wales.
MEDICAL STUDENTS: To the Honourable Penny Won: As students about to commence medical research. we find it unimaginable that a government who is “moving forward” would want to cut $100 million per annum from the NHMRC. The NHMRC provides funding to medical research for Australia’s growing medical needs. It currently funds 27% of applicants, although 70% of projects warrant funding. What price are you willing to pay not to lose another Dr Elizabeth Blackburn?
TONY JONES: Penny Wong, the last line was: "What price are you willing to pay not to lose another Dr Elizabeth Blackburn." Obviously the question is about possible cuts to medical research funding.
PENNY WONG: Yeah, I've seen a fair bit of - there's obviously a lot of publicity and a number of protests and letters and activity around this and I'd make a couple of points. The first is we are going through a budget process. It is going to be a very tough budget for the reasons I've outlined before and I'm happy to go through them. We've not made - I'm not going to get into a rule in/rule out on this issue or on any other issue in terms of the budget. I would make this point on health research funding, that this government has actually substantially increased the amount of funding into medical research since we've been in government by quite substantial amounts. The point...
TONY JONES: Would it be wrong to reverse that because that's what people are worried about? That's what the students are worried about. They're worried, in fact, that they'll be discouraged and have to go other countries to pursue medical research.
PENNY WONG: I have heard what they have had to say and what I have said publicly is that we are obviously working our way through the budget process. There are many things on the table. There are many issues where people would say this is a very meritorious program. We have to try and make the best decisions we can as a government that is committed to bringing the budget back to surplus because we know that the long term needs of the economy will be and it's important that we meet the commitment to surplus.
TONY JONES: Okay. They're not here to ask you follow up questions but I am. So if the Greens are going to use their...
PENNY WONG: What a surprise.
TONY JONES: If the Greens are going to use their Senate votes to stop you cutting medical research as they say they are, why go through a fruitless exercise of floating the cuts in the first place if they can't happen politically/
PENNY WONG: I don't know who you are accusing of floating what, actually, but...
TONY JONES: Well, you could say now that you're not going to do that and satisfy the questioners.
PENNY WONG: Well, and then you'd say - whatever I said on this you'd then ask me a question about something else and something else and, you know, that's how the rule in, rule out budget game works. Can I just...
TONY JONES: But this question was about something specific.
PENNY WONG: It is about something specific and I'm going to answer it in the same way I have already. We are working our way through the budget. Why do we have to bring the budget back to surplus? There's a broader economic context to this. We have to bring the budget back to surplus because of the wave of investment that is coming that this country will experience and I know that may be a bit counterintuitive because there is a lot of softness in the economy at the moment. We have a high dollar that's making some firms' lives very hard. We've had the floods, the cyclone. That obviously is going to mean some short term impact. But just remember what sort of mining investment boom we're having: 35 billion last year, 55 billion this year, 75 billion estimated for next year. We have to make room in our economy for that investment and that's what the surplus commitment is about. Now, I'm not going to get into whether this or that cut is happening or not happening. We are taking a very disciplined approach. We are going to bring Labor's values of fairness and opportunity to this budget, as we do to all policies.
TONY JONES: Chris Kenny.
CHRIS KENNY: Well, I'd applaud Penny in aiming to get the budget back into surplus. There's a couple of things I want to see before I die and one is a Labor Party deliver a surplus in Australia.
PENNY WONG: Hang around.
CHRIS KENNY: But I think going to the question again - a very good question because medical research would seem to be the most short-sighted part of the budget to cut but you're going to get this about every cut, of course...
PENNY WONG: Correct.
CHRIS KENNY: ...as you deliver your tough budget and the big problem you've created for yourself is that you're now promising a tough budget cutting spending. At the same time you're still building school halls and spending millions of dollars on school halls and billions of dollars on an NBN project and these were rolled out as stimulatory measures for a global financial crisis that actually ended about a year ago. So we've sort of got the foot on the accelerator and the brake at the same time and I think Australians are confused about that.
PENNY WONG: Do you want me to get the facts on the table?
TONY JONES: Well, I think you should respond to that, yes.
PENNY WONG: The vast majority - I think it's 99 per cent of BER - that's Building the Education Revolution - projects have been commenced. Most have been finished. They were ...
CHRIS KENNY: Yep. Still spending it, aren't you?
PENNY WONG: ... they were part of a stimulus package which did ensure that we kept the economy ticking over collectively, not just the government, business and the community as well and we've...
CHRIS KENNY: But do we need stimulus now or do we need...
PENNY WONG: My turn.
CHRIS KENNY: Okay.
TONY JONES: Okay. Now, I'm just going to let Penny Wong respond to that because the question was about medical research and I'd like to stick to that but...
PENNY WONG: Well, I'm responding to some of the inaccuracies on my right here...
TONY JONES: Well, you've obviously got to respond. If you can give a brief response, that would be good.
PENNY WONG: ...politically as well as, you know, situationally. I know you're opposed to the NBN. We think this is incredibly important infrastructure for this century and what I'd say again about medical research: we are a government that has increased funding over the time we've been in government for medical research but I am not going to get into a rule in/rule out.
TONY JONES: Let's hear from Graeme Innes on this.
GRAEME INNES: Well, you know, it's hard to ask me to comment on budget issues. I think it must be one of the toughest jobs around to decide what's going to be cut to achieve a surplus budget. I think medical research is very important. I think the NBN is, frankly, the 21st century Snowy Mountains Scheme and it's a hugely important piece of infrastructure and in five to ten years time we'll wonder what all the fuss was about now because we'll just know it was the right thing to do. But to go back to medical research, very, very difficult because it's important but so is a budget surplus.
PENNY WONG: I'm interested in whether or not the opposition actually supports bringing the budget back to surplus.
TONY JONES: Well, no, I actually just want to hear quickly from Greg Hunt on medical research. If the government cut it, would you restore that in government yourself?
GREG HUNT: Well, the medical research will be the victim of programs such as the home insulation program. That was two and a half billion dollars and the medical research will be about one sixth of that. So that will be cut effectively to cover the cost of the home insulation program. I haven't heard anybody from the government defend two and a half billion dollars of expenditure in the last eight months. More generally do we support brining the budget back to surplus? Absolutely and the reason why is of our last 11 budgets ten were surpluses. Of the last eight Labor budgets, the last five under Paul Keating and the three under the Rudd/Gillard combo Shorten Government to date, they've all been deficits, all greater than two per cent. The last three - they've been 27 billion, 54 billion, 41 billion this year. Next year will be the ninth deficit and the thing they're very excited about is in year ten they may have a minor surplus. There is a huge mountain of debt that will burden every one of your children or yourselves if you're younger people and that's why we have to get the budget back into surplus, because 197 and a half billion dollars from the last eight Labor budgets.
PENNY WONG: Well...
TONY JONES: All right. Look, I think we've heard...
PENNY WONG: No, just on...
TONY JONES: Yes.
PENNY WONG: You know, Tony Abbott is no Peter Costello and his record in terms of the economy, a $10.6 billion black hole in his election costings. On the floods package, where you trumpeted that it was easy to find savings, you double counted by $700 million and now he's promoting policies which he hasn't got costings for. So, you know, if you want to lecture people about fiscal responsibility, I think the opposition had better start putting up or shutting up on that issue.
GREG HUNT: Yes, I think we should talk about fiscal responsibility because ...
TONY JONES: We should also talk about the questions. This is Q&A;, the program that gives you the chance to ask the questions. Our next question tonight comes from Brett Hartley-Wilson.
BRETT HARTLEY-WILSON: In light of last year's ads by the mining lobby and now the campaign by Clubs Australia, my question to the panel is what speaks the loudest to the Australian People: good government policy or good corporate advertising?
TONY JONES: Let's start with Graeme Innes on that.
GRAEME INNES: Well, I think Australians are smarter than good corporate advertising. I mean, I don't understand - in fact I'd go further than that. I think that the proposal by the gambling industry to spend $20 million on an advertising campaign opposing the government's proposals in this area is morally bankrupt and I think that - and I would say a similar thing about the tobacco industry trying to oppose the changes on smoking packaging and I would add to that list the mining industry against the mining profits tax. But, look, we know as Australians that these are all sectional interests doing their lobbying and I think we are smarter than that and I think we'll make our decisions on the broader - the reality and the broader politics of it.
TONY JONES: Bess Price, what do you think? The mining industry raised tens of millions of dollars to stop the mining tax; the tobacco industry, we've just heard, are doing the same; now Clubs Australia want to raise or have raised tens of millions, evidently, to protect their gambling interests.
BESS PRICE: Well, I think they should step back a bit and look at what's happening out there in the real world and see for themselves the impact that gambling is having on people and that smoking, as well, is having on our people as well before they start challenging our government.
TONY JONES: Chris Kenny?
CHRIS KENNY: Well, I think I have a little bit more respect for the intelligence of the Australian population than to think that they can have their views pushed around by large corporate advertising schemes. Obviously it helps get your message across but unless the message resonates with people it won't work and I think in the case of the mining tax, of course there was a lot of money spent but I think Australians generally were quite surprised by this. It seemed to come out of nowhere and they worried that the government was sort of going to kill the golden goose, as they say. But in this case, with clubs defending gambling, I think it's a tougher ask for them because I think people are very worried, and justifiably so, about problem gambling. But, of course, a lot of people use the facilities so they've got a more difficult task ahead of them, I think.
GRAEME INNES: But, Chris, they talk about people losing jobs in the clubs industry. Why not put the $20 million into jobs rather than into an advertising campaign?
TONY JONES: Penny Wong, there's a government deal on the table with Andrew Wilkie, who says he'll walk away from his support for the minority government if you don't continue along the path that he's proposing with the restrictions to poker machine gambling in particular. Is that in place? I mean, is the government going to go with Wilkie's policy?
PENNY WONG: Well, we're working our way through implementing that and this is what is disappointing about this campaign. Because they've really jumped the gun. There's a range of processes. You know, this went to the productivity commission. There is a parliamentary inquiry. The government is consulting with the states and with industry and we've made clear to them that those issue are still up for consultation but they've chosen obviously to take a campaign to the airwaves. I don't think anybody in this debate is being wowserish. I mean people can have a punt. People can gamble. A lot of people do. I do on occasion. Chinese New Year I try and have a flutter. It's good luck. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about the proportion of people who do have a gambling problem who lose a very large amount of money that has enormous impacts on their lives and the lives of their families and I think we should have a sensible discussion about how we can deal with that.
TONY JONES: You've heard their argument. They're saying you are creating a license to gamble. That's what the advertisements are saying and that's the message that may resonate with punters. Are you worried about that?
PENNY WONG: I think Australians are, you know, smart enough to know what is being proposed and what's not. No one is saying we want to or Mr Wilkie wants to shut gambling down. We're saying we have a problem with a proportion of problem gamblers who do have an addition problem who are not able to manage this pastime or this practice well and that has huge human consequences and, you know, as a society we should work out way through it sensibly and calmly and hopefully in a more sensible way than the carbon debate about how we can resolve this.
CHRIS KENNY: Don't get Tim Flannery selling it.
TONY JONES: We're running out of time. Let's...
PENNY WONG: Don't get Tony Abbott on the other side.
TONY JONES: Let's move along. If you'd like to join the studio audience you can register on our website. The address is on the screen to work out how to do that. Our next question tonight comes from Karly Abrahams.
KARLY ABRAHAMS: Hi. I'm a scientist. I'm not part of any political group but I think my concerns represent a growing portion of the general scientific community. When you take into account natural sources of carbon dioxide like animal respiration and evaporation of the oceans then fossil fuel burning only makes up four per cent of total global carbon dioxide emissions and Australians make up one per cent of that four per cent. These are going from statistics from the latest IPCC report. If this is the case then Australians only release a total of 0.04 per cent of all emissions and how is there any evidence that a billion dollar carbon tax is going to make any significant difference on the environment? And, secondly, why aren't Australians getting a vote on this really important issue?
TONY JONES: Greg Hunt didn't get to answer the last question. I'll bring you in first on that and I take it, first of all, that you would reject the premise of that question?
GREG HUNT: I respectfully disagree but I am not one...
TONY JONES: With what do you disagree?
GREG HUNT: Disagree with the position in terms of the science. My view is, and this is my personal view, that there is a strong case to say that climate change...
PENNY WONG: It's certainly not your party view.
GREG HUNT: ...is real and important and significant and humans are having an impact.
TONY JONES: Is just your personal view or is it the view of your party.
GREG HUNT: And our party's view.
TONY JONES: Sorry.
GREG HUNT: The next thing is you do, however, have a fundamental right to that view and there are people on the Labor side who will demonise anybody who takes your view, probably 4, 5 million Australians on the best figures we've got, are of your view. So the first thing is to say whilst I respectfully disagree, I defend your right to have that view and that is fundamental. The next point is...
TONY JONES: Keep it brief because we've got a minute to go and I want you to make that because you have been talking about the carbon tax a lot but you can make your point briefly.
GREG HUNT: It's not sadly a one billion carbon tax. Over the next four years it's going to be well in excess of $40 billion and it's not going to be in the budget. I don't think you can frame a real budget if you've got a $40 billion revenue figure and probably a similar expenditure figure that's not included and I think if we want to be honest with the Australian people, that level of revenue and that level of expenditure should be in the budget.
TONY JONES: Penny Wong, if you deal with the science first and then the issue that (indistinct).
PENNY WONG: Well, I don't agree with the view about the science and I'm happy to - we can spend a lot of time on it but I think the country has spent a lot of time on the science. I just want to respond to Greg. He accuses Labor of demonising people. When Greg was my shadow, he likened me to Saddam Hussein and then he...
GREG HUNT: That's not quite correct.
PENNY WONG: That is true. That is what you said and...
GREG HUNT: That is not accurate or correct...
PENNY WONG: ...some of your colleagues...
GREG HUNT: ...and that is misleading and untrue.
PENNY WONG: Well, I'm happy to forward you the transcript.
GREG HUNT: I know.
PENNY WONG: And some of your colleagues they have talked about the Prime Minister likening the Prime Minister to Colonel Gaddafi. SO please don't lecture us about demonising. In terms of...
GREG HUNT: Your deputy minister has currently likened
PENNY WONG: In terms of the budget...
GREG HUNT: ...the leader of the opposition to Goebbels.
PENNY WONG: In terms of the...
GREG HUNT: And it's on the ALP website. It's currently on your website.
PENNY WONG: In terms of...
TONY JONES: (Indistinct).
PENNY WONG: In terms of the budget...
GREG HUNT: I'd be pretty careful given it's your deputy minister at present.
PENNY WONG: Actually, I'm not the minister for climate change, remember?
GREG HUNT: The government's deputy minister.
PENNY WONG: I'm the minister for finance and I want to talk about the budget.
TONY JONES: Okay. I'm sorry we're really...
PENNY WONG: No, I was making the - I'd make the point the criticism the opposition makes about the carbon price not being in the budget, obviously when the decisions are made which set the price, the compensation et cetera, they will be reflected in the normal way, just as John Howard announced an ETS in June 2007 and did not reflect that in his subsequent budget updates. So, you know, I think this is just another thing.
TONY JONES: Just going back to the questioner, she asked the final part of her question...
PENNY WONG: I was about to go back.
TONY JONES: ...is why is the Australian public not being allowed to vote on this important issue and I think she got a round of applause for that.
PENNY WONG: And, with respect, you did. This is the parliament you voted for and you have people in the parliament that you had - well, it's...
KARLY ABRAHAMS: If you had gone to the election with this carbon tax, you would not be in government right now.
PENNY WONG: Well, that's your view. That's your view.
CHRIS KENNY: Well, otherwise why did Julia Gillard say no...
PENNY WONG: Can I just...
CHRIS KENNY: ...carbon tax? Why did she say it if not to get elected.
PENNY WONG: I think Julia has spent a whole Q&A; answering many questions, including that one, so I won't traverse that again. I'd make the point we have consistently argued for an emissions trading scheme as the most efficient way to deal with climate change, to transform the Australian economy. This is about a cleaner energy economy. We are a very highly polluting economy and we can hide behind the sorts of percentages you talked about and say it's someone else's job or we can say we have to be part of this and that's the campaign.
TONY JONES: All right. I'm sorry to our panellists who wanted desperately to respond to those issues. I'm also sorry to the people with their hands up but we do have a time limit and we've run out of time. So please thank our panel: Chris Kenny, Penny Wong, Bess Price, Graeme Innes and Greg Hunt.
Next week Q&A; will take a break to make way for the ABC mini-series Paper Giants but we'll be back in two weeks time on Monday, 25 April, ANZAC Day and Easter Monday. So please join us then for another live and lively Q&A.; Good night.
Penny Wong
Penny Wong is the Finance Minister and as such is at the centre of preparations for next month’s Federal Budget.
Penny was born in 1968 in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia, to a Malaysian-Chinese father and an Australian mother. She was eight years old when she, her mother and brother moved to Australia when her parents separated. They settled in Adelaide and Penny ultimately graduated with an Arts/Law degree from the University of Adelaide, where she became politically active and joined the ALP.
Penny graduated in 1992 and worked with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union before being admitted to the Bar in 1993. During the mid-1990s she worked for the NSW Government as an adviser, specialising in forestry policy, then returned to Adelaide to work as a lawyer and union adviser. She also won a position on the ALP’s State executive.
Penny won top spot on the South Australian ALP Senate ticket for the 2001 election and entered the shadow ministry in 2005. After the 2007 election she entered Cabinet with the onerous and high-profile climate change portfolio. Almost immediately after the election she accompanied Kevin Rudd to Bali for international climate change talks where the Kyoto protocol was publicly ratified. Two years later, in December 2009, she was at the Copenhagen climate change summit where the international community spectacularly failed to reach agreement on a world-wide carbon reduction scheme.
As well as being regarded as one of the most capable younger members of the Labor government, Penny is the first Asian-born member of an Australian Cabinet and the first to be openly in a same-gender relationship. She is also a committed Christian, attending the Pilgrim Uniting Church in Adelaide.
Read articles and watch reports about Penny Wong.
Greg Hunt
Greg Hunt is the shadow minister for climate action, environment and heritage.
A tenacious parliamentary performer with considerable experience in foreign affairs and environmental issues, Greg is a key part of the Opposition’s attack on the
Government and is expected to play a major role in shaping the coalition’s fortunes in the years ahead.
Greg has represented the seat of Flinders, on Victoria’s Mornington Peninsula, since Peter Reith retired in 2001. He was born in 1965 and has lived in the area for much of his life except when studying and working overseas. His father, Alan, was a State Upper House MP for the region for more than 30 years.
Greg graduated in law from Melbourne University with first class honours and won a Fulbright scholarship to Yale University in the US, where he completed a masters in international relations.
Subsequently Greg worked at the UN Centre for Human Rights, as the associate to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court and as an adviser to Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. In 1998 he was Australia’s chief observer for elections in Cambodia.
Greg and his wife Paula live in Mt Martha and have a daughter, Poppy Celeste.
Read articles and watch reports about Greg Hunt.
Bess Price
Bess Nungarrayi Price is a central Australian Aboriginal leader.
Bess Nungarrayi Price was born at Yuendumu in Central Australia. Her first language is Warlpiri.
Bess has a Bachelor of Applied Science in Aboriginal Community Management and Development from Curtin University.
She has worked in a variety of fields including education and training, public administration, media, community development, interpreting, translating and language teaching and also has experience in small business management. Bess has served on numerous management committees and boards and has represented Currently sits on the National body Violence against Women’s Advisory Council and chair’s the Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council for the Northern Territory.
Bess and her husband Dave are partners at Jajirdi Consultants, working in cross cultural awareness training, community liaison and Warlpiri language services.
Graeme Innes
Graeme Innes was appointed Australia's Disability Discrimination Commissioner and Race Discrimination Commissioner in July 2009. Graeme is a lawyer, mediator and Company Director. He’s been a Human Rights Practitioner for almost 30 years in NSW, WA and nationally.
As a Human Rights Commissioner , Graeme has led or contributed to initiatives including the Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Inquiry, achieving removal of discrimination across federal law; drafting of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and ratification by Australia; three inspections of Australia's Immigration Detention facilities; and development of a National Disability Strategy.
As a boy Graeme went to the North Rocks School for the Blind, where he learnt braille and other skills, like how to navigate Sydney's rail system by memorising a tactile map of it. He sat the HSC at Ashfield Boys High, and then went to the University of Sydney and the College of Law.
Graeme was one of the first blind lawyers to graduate from the University of Sydney, he's played state cricket in a blind and vision-impaired team since childhood, is a keen sailor and part-owner of a yacht.
After graduating he spent most of 1979 looking for a job. "I went to about 30 job interviews that year in legal firms,” says Graeme, “ And my guess is that in 15 of those positions I was the best applicant but they just didn't employ me because they didn't see how a person who was blind was going to work there."
By his mid-40s he had travelled the world several times with a white cane, but has since taken to using a guide dog. His first guide dog, Jordie, travelled with him six times to New York to work on the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. Graeme has been a consultant to organisations such as Westpac, Qantas, and Sydney Water, on disability issues. He has also been a Councillor on Ku-ring-gai local Council.
Graeme is married with an adult son and a daughter in primary school. He enjoys cricket (as a spectator) and sailing (as a participant), and relaxes by drinking fine Australian white wine.
Chris Kenny
Chris Kenny is a journalist, author and former political staffer.
He served as Chief of Staff to the former Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, and was also Chief of Staff to Alexander Downer, the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the former Howard Government. In the South Australian Government he was Director of Strategic Communications for Premier John Olsen and Chief of Staff to Premier Rob Kerin.
Previously, Chris was a leading political journalist in his home State of South Australia. After working for an afternoon newspaper, the now defunct Adelaide News, and the ABC's 7.30 Report he covered state politics for Channel 10 and then Channel 9 in Adelaide.
He has also been a successful guest presenter for talk radio station 5AA, covering morning, afternoon and evening shifts.
Chris has been a columnist for the Sunday Mail and The Adelaide Advertiser and a contributor to The Adelaide Review.
In 1993 he published State of Denial, a book about the collapse of the SA State Bank and the Bannon government.
In 1996 Chris published It would be Nice if there was some Women's Business - the inside story of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge saga. Chris's reporting had unearthed the fabrication claims and forced a Royal Commission.
He is now a columnist for The Australian.
Panellists: Penny Wong, Finance Minister; Greg Hunt, shadow environment minister; Chris Kenny, columnist with The Australian; Bess Price, Aboriginal advocate; and Graham Innes, Disability and Race Discrimination Commissioner.
The recent sex scandal at the Defence Force Academy was foremost in the minds of many audience members. Rosie Connolly said that when she was growing up she was told that women could do anything, but the ADFA case suggested there were some environments in which equal opportunity for women was impossible. Penny Wong agreed there was till work to do to achieve equality in all fields and Chris Kenny praised the handling of the ADFA scandal by the Defence Minister. Michael Chen then raised the previous week's Q&A; in which Kevin Rudd publicly regretted his decision to postpone emissions trading legislation as Prime Minister. Michael wondered how the Government could expect the public's trust when it failed to address concerns about decision-making and communication. Penny Wong said she had been expecting such a question but stayed firmly focused on the future and chose not to discuss the past. Similarly, when asked by Ralph Panebianco if she also regretted the dumping of the ETS, she declined to be drawn on her own views or Cabinet discussions despite the urging of Chris Kenny.
Emma Beard then asked about the federal intervention into Indigenous affairs in the Northern Territory, and Phil Graetz from the ACT asked why a UN report suggesting the intervention was racist had been ignored. Bess Price said she supported the intervention, that an emergency had existed which required urgent action and the UN representative had been 'led around' to speak only to those opposing intervention. Graham Innes disagreed, saying there were problems to be addressed but this should have been done in conjunction with Aboriginal communities.
A group of medical students from Sydney then asked via video about rumours of proposed budget cuts in medical research, which Penny Wong refused to confirm while saying the budget would be a tough one. Greg Hunt attacked the rumoured cuts, saying they would not be necessary if the Government had not wasted money on such things as the home insulation scheme. Brett Hartley-Wilson brought up the $20 million advertising blitz by licensed clubs campaigning against proposed poker machine restrictions, a campaign Graham declared as morally bankrupt. Finally Karly Abrahams queried the science behind the carbon tax debate and asked why the public wasn't being allowed to vote on the issue. Greg said he disagreed on the science but agreed about the tax, and Penny said there had been a vote at the last election. Karly took issue with this, saying if the carbon tax had been canvassed before the election Labor would not have won.
The Q&A; studio audience for this episode:
ALP – 34%
COALITION – 38%
GREENS – 10%
UNSPECIFIED / UNDECIDED – 8%
OTHER – 10%
The recent sex scandal at the Defence Force Academy was foremost in the minds of many audience members. Rosie Connolly said that when she was growing up she was told that women could do anything, but the ADFA case suggested there were some environments in which equal opportunity for women was impossible. Penny Wong agreed there was till work to do to achieve equality in all fields and Chris Kenny praised the handling of the ADFA scandal by the Defence Minister. Michael Chen then raised the previous week's Q&A; in which Kevin Rudd publicly regretted his decision to postpone emissions trading legislation as Prime Minister. Michael wondered how the Government could expect the public's trust when it failed to address concerns about decision-making and communication. Penny Wong said she had been expecting such a question but stayed firmly focused on the future and chose not to discuss the past. Similarly, when asked by Ralph Panebianco if she also regretted the dumping of the ETS, she declined to be drawn on her own views or Cabinet discussions despite the urging of Chris Kenny.
Emma Beard then asked about the federal intervention into Indigenous affairs in the Northern Territory, and Phil Graetz from the ACT asked why a UN report suggesting the intervention was racist had been ignored. Bess Price said she supported the intervention, that an emergency had existed which required urgent action and the UN representative had been 'led around' to speak only to those opposing intervention. Graham Innes disagreed, saying there were problems to be addressed but this should have been done in conjunction with Aboriginal communities.
A group of medical students from Sydney then asked via video about rumours of proposed budget cuts in medical research, which Penny Wong refused to confirm while saying the budget would be a tough one. Greg Hunt attacked the rumoured cuts, saying they would not be necessary if the Government had not wasted money on such things as the home insulation scheme. Brett Hartley-Wilson brought up the $20 million advertising blitz by licensed clubs campaigning against proposed poker machine restrictions, a campaign Graham declared as morally bankrupt. Finally Karly Abrahams queried the science behind the carbon tax debate and asked why the public wasn't being allowed to vote on the issue. Greg said he disagreed on the science but agreed about the tax, and Penny said there had been a vote at the last election. Karly took issue with this, saying if the carbon tax had been canvassed before the election Labor would not have won.
The Q&A; studio audience for this episode:
ALP – 34%
COALITION – 38%
GREENS – 10%
UNSPECIFIED / UNDECIDED – 8%
OTHER – 10%
