We're less than two hours away from President Biden's
global climate summit. Is Australia now being left behind
by the rest of the world as it moves seriously
towards addressing climate change? Welcome to Q+A. (APPLAUSE) Hi there, and welcome to the program. Joining me on the panel tonight,
Whadjuk Noongar woman and Network 10 journalist
Narelda Jacobs, the former prime minister,
Malcolm Turnbull, the Minister for Resources, Water
and Northern Australia, Keith Pitt, Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, and he's one of the architects
of Australia's gas-led recovery and an adviser to the Obama, Trump
and Biden administrations - Andrew Liveris. Please make all of them feel welcome. You can stream us live on iview
and, of course, all the socials and join the conversation
on Instagram and Twitter. #QandA is the hashtag.
Please do keep it respectful. We'll get to your questions
on climate in a moment, but our first question tonight
comes from Stuart Kovacs. Hi, everyone. This week in the US,
former police officer Derek Chauvin, who was responsible for
the murder of George Floyd, was convicted on both murder
and manslaughter charges. This case establishes
an important precedent with respect
to police accountability. In Australia,
over 470 First Nations people have died in police custody
since the 1991 royal commission. This is unacceptable. Where is the government's appetite for serious and meaningful
structural change regarding how First Nations people
are treated by the police? It is woefully lacking. Keith Pitt. Well, firstly,
thanks for your question. And, you know,
I really want to give a shout-out to our police enforcement, our paramedics,
our emergency services, because there is
an awful lot of them - in fact, the overwhelming majority -
who are out doing a very difficult job
in difficult circumstances, and we should be thankful for what they are doing
to keep us all safe. Now, to the premise
of your question, clearly, that's unacceptable. And in my view,
the challenge for all of us starts with our children. We are letting our kids down. The fact that they are coming
through the system and ending up incarcerated,
in my view, is unacceptable. And I think's that somewhere
we need to start and, of course, the Commonwealth
will always be ready to work with the states
and territories when it comes to law and order. But, fundamentally, we've got
to do better for our kids. Narelda Jacobs,
do you see serious appetite for meaningful structural change
here in Australia? Look, since...30 years
of the royal commission, there have been a lot
of recommendations implemented, but there are
so many more recommendations that could be saving lives and stopping the overincarceration
of Indigenous people. And that is what
the royal commission was meant to do - it was meant to stop
the overincarceration of Aboriginal people. We are still seeing
10-year-olds locked up, when attorneys-general
around the country can quite easily raise the criminal
age of responsibility to 14. We're still seeing
hanging points on cells. We're still seeing officers
using discretionary powers where they could be, you know,
driving people home, yet they're locking people up. They could be writing a fine for
fare evasion on public transport, and yet they are charging people
with fraud. You know, these are the reasons
that people, Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people,
are being locked up. The answer...the reason that there
are so many deaths in custody is because there's an
overrepresentation in our prisons, and that needs to stop. And then, there were five people that died in one month alone
this year. We didn't hear too much
about it, you know. And so I think, you know,
as a public, we need to expect more. But this is things that governments
at every level can do to change. The Minister here says the Commonwealth is ready
and waiting. Is that what you see? Well, the discretionary powers
alone - I mean, officers... ..um, they're making split decisions whether to put someone
in jail or not. And they're using that
in the wrong way. And that's what it comes down to. Stop funnelling Indigenous people
into prisons. That's what it comes down to.
Divert from the justice system. It costs over $100,000 a year
to imprison someone. That money can be so better spent
preventing in the first place. (APPLAUSE) Andrew Liveris,
you grew up in Darwin. You've worked in remote communities. You must have seen this play out
time and time again. Why can't government solve this?
30 years, we're talking about. Yeah, I mean, my Territorian roots
somewhat qualify me, but my recent experience living
and working in the United States and what just happened - the question was based
on the George Floyd verdict and what is America learning
and has learnt. And America's taken a long time to even understand
what racial equality looks like and the incarceration
of African Americans in prisons in the United States. I would tell you,
the business community in America has stepped up
because government hasn't. And I will tell you that that
partnership and that collaboration actually is already present
here in Australia. So I'm quite shocked,
as I served on Michael Gunner's Territory Economic
Recovery Commission, that the racial profiling issue
is still here. Actually, growing up
amongst Indigenous people, growing up in Darwin - you know,
I spent my young life there - a lot of my mates, OK, and I was just with them
very recently, you know,
having a barbie and a beer, as Territorians are prone to do, and the Aboriginals,
or the Indigenous people, with me were saying this is still something
they get profiled on. If they get pulled over, they automatically,
just because they're coloured or they're not white, get profiled. This is happening in America
every day. I had a board member, OK,
a very senior African American living in Los Angeles,
pulled over in Beverly Hills, driving - I forget what
the car was - but up-market car and basically being accused
of stealing that car. So, racial profiling and
unconscious and conscious bias. To truly be a multicultural
nation... I've heard Malcolm use tat term,
and I believe it. I've now been here a year. I love the notion
that Australia's multicultural and can lead from the front. We need to lead in this issue.
We need to remedy it. And I agree with you, Keith -
the police are doing a great job. But they need to do a better job
in this topic that Narelda phrased. Yeah, and interesting you say, you know,
it is a whole-community approach because we need to change attitudes
of the entire community. And, yeah, it's not...it's not
an Aboriginal problem, it's not a Torres Strait
Islander problem - it's an entire community problem. But why is it, though,
the streets burn in America when these deaths occur... ..that doesn't happen here? There is not community outrage when you hear about a black death
in custody in Australia. What's the difference? Well, I'd like to toss it
to someone else, because I've only been here a year and I don't feel
qualified to answer, but I would observe that
we're urbanites to a fault. We don't really live in the country.
I mean, some of us do. Some of us go out there, OK. And I don't see it
as an urban problem. I may be wrong. I mean, Malcolm, your dear spouse... Yeah, look... Can I...?
What is the difference? Why are we not outraged every time there's a black death
in Australia? Yeah, it is... You know, we're two different
countries with different histories. There are, you know, overlaps. But I...I mean, you know, the George Floyd murder was... George Floyd was murdered, and he was murdered,
essentially, on television. SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Yeah. You know, it was filmed
in real time. So, you know, it's...
everyone saw it. It's the most staggeringly cruel, reckless, wrong act. And, you know, it...it...
The whole nation erupted. And it's...it's not hard to see why. Look, I think the thing... I'll just go back
to what Narelda said. I mean, the reality is
the prison system, the justice system,
the law enforcement system is just one aspect of a problem of social disadvantage. You are not going to address
problems of social disadvantage and social inequity
by putting people in jail, right? That will only
make things worse, OK? So you need to have real... You need to have
thoroughgoing coordination. You need a plan.
I'll give you an example. Tennant Creek's
obviously a community, pretty tough community,
in the Northern Territory. I went there and agreed,
you know, while I was PM, on a plan, essentially modelled on
the city deal concept I developed, but for a regional area. And the idea was to get
everybody involved - Indigenous leaders,
the Indigenous community, you know, police, social welfare,
health, NGOs. Get everybody around the table
and actually work together to address those problems. Now, that gives you
your best chance. But one of the problems you have in a lot of these areas where you're
dealing with social disadvantage is that you have people
and agencies - government and non-government
and different layers of government - with the best will in the world, OK, working like ships in the night, just passing each other
as ships in the night and not actually collaborating.
SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: I think... So, one of the critical things
is to get people to work and focus. And if I could just finish, Sarah, the person that took the lead there
was a young woman police officer who, on her own bat, got out...
developed an Excel spreadsheet, and she actually started tracking the way all the various agencies
were dealing with young people. We were focused on kids, you know,
juvenile social justice problems. And you know what? Nobody, none of the higher-ups, none
of the agency heads were doing it. It was one young woman,
using her initiative, and that provided the inspiration
for the collaboration I undertook. Let's take our next question. It's a video from Louis Peachey
in Malanda, Queensland. Mr Turnbull,
following the Uluru Statement and the Referendum Council Report
back in 2017, you repeatedly asserted that having
a third chamber or an assembly would be contrary to our democracy. However, neither the word 'chamber'
or 'assembly' was used in either of those documents. You made this up. Because you assumed
a request that we never made, this completely derailed
the process of seeking recognition. Mr Turnbull,
why did you just fabricate this? Well...well, look, Noel Pearson,
who, as you know, was the... ..sort of the...
the main spokesperson for the Uluru Statement
from the Heart... And you're right,
the questioner is right - the Uluru Statement from the Heart
is a...is a piece... It's like...it's a piece of poetry. It is a beautiful piece
of evocative... ..poetry.
And you rejected it. No, no, no, but the point is,
I agreed with it totally. So why did you reject the proposal? Because what we're talking about, the proposal that I...my government
said we did not agree with - which we rejected, I suppose - was the proposition that there
would be an advisory chamber or assembly, you know, committee, whatever you want to call it,
council, which would... No mention of assembly in the
document, though, to be clear. No, no, no, but, Hamish, you can't live... You can't...we can't ignore the reality that
that was what the proposal was. But we can't ignore the details
either. And I'm just... No, no, no. But you are ignoring
the details, with great respect. The Uluru Statement was
a statement of heartfelt passion for recognition and a voice, OK? The...the concrete
manifestation of that, as set out by Noel
and as presented to us, was that there should be
an assembly, a council, an advisory body, which would be elected solely by and composed solely by
Indigenous Australians. Now, my view and the view
of my government was that... And this would be entrenched
in the Constitution. ..was that all of our elected
constitutional bodies should be open to all Australians. And so it was essentially me, insofar as I was expressing
my views - but it was a decision of Cabinet - my very strong
small-R republican views that the only qualification
you should have to be elected to a public office or
a representative body in Australia is to be an Australian citizen.
So that's the reason. Narelda, is that how you saw it? Oh, look,
the Uluru Statement from the Heart gathered elders
from all over the country. And that was the consultation
that you needed to be able to have
an enshrined voice to parliament, for the enshrined voice
to be protected by the Constitution. Because self-determination
is the only way that we're going to close the gap,
because it hasn't been done yet. And Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people know what's best for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people. The...
(APPLAUSE) The other... ..the other, I think,
indirect benefit of having an enshrined voice
to parliament, as dictated by or requested by
the Uluru Statement from the Heart, is that First Nations people are
the heart and soul of this country. And I think Australia will agree that Canberra and Parliament House
has lost its soul and, by having a presence,
having a physical presence in the halls of power in Canberra will bring back the heart and soul
that it desperately needs. Sarah Hanson-Young? Well, we've just had a... ..the first Aboriginal woman
elected, from Victoria, to join our party room -
Lidia Thorpe. And I must say
the injection of her soul... Yes.
..her wisdom, her passion, and her determination to have the
rest of us reckon with the truth has just been phenomenal.
Mm. The conversations that we are having
in our party room around everyday issues
that we're debating are presented and debated,
even already, even just with one extra person
in our room, in a different way,
in a more holistic way. And I can only speak
from that experience. But if that is of a group
of 10 of us, imagine the impact if we had
more First Nations people elected to our parliament...
Yes. ..and in our parliament.
Yeah. I think, above all else, and Lidia is extremely
passionate about this and... We have to be listening
to First Nations people much more, their voice is essential
in all of this. And when we...
You know, whether we're talking about how Australia is responding to the incarceration rates
of young people, sure, you know, let's take
some government reviews and advice. But, actually,
let's listen to the mothers of the young Aboriginal men who are
being locked up for petty crimes. Let's listen to the children of
the mothers who are being locked up because they didn't pay
a parking fine. I just... There is so much
we have to reckon with. And, I mean,
I'm a true believer in a treaty. Yes, we need a voice, but we desperately need
to reckon with the truth. Yes.
And we need to... And I say that as a...
as a white Australian. I wasn't taught the history of
this nation when I was in school. And I went to school
with lots of First Nations kids. I grew up in East Gippsland. There was a mission
only 20 kays down the road. We weren't taught
about their history. They were led into the classroom and we...you know, we didn't even
talk about their culture. And they were living with us. They were my friends. You know, we learnt together, but we didn't learn anything
about their culture. And it's time we did.
Yeah. OK.
(APPLAUSE) Our next question tonight
comes from Madeleine Johnston. A couple of days ago, Scott Morrison
mockingly claimed that net zero will not be achieved in the cafes,
dinner parties and wine bars of our inner cities. This reflects a dangerous
and persistent trend where the climate crisis is framed
as an issue of identity politics rather than as a scientifically
proven existential threat. The rest of the world is rapidly
waking up to this reality, so when will Australia follow? Keith Pitt.
Well, thanks for your question. And cafes and wine bars
of regional Australia are pretty good too,
I've got to say. We've got plenty of people out there
that utilise those facilities. So why target people
that live in the cities? Well, look, the Prime Minister
makes his own comments, as I do. Do you think he was making fun
of people that live in the cities? Well, the point I want to make
is quite simply this. MALCOLM TURNBULL: He does,
but he can't say it. It is people in...
It is the people... SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Yeah.
(LAUGHTER) Just helping you out, mate. And, you know, Malcolm,
I was actually going to defend you on the last question too,
because that was how I read it. I wasn't in the Cabinet at the time.
Yeah. But, look,
back to the fundamental point. This is about who pays,
and who pays is regional Australia, because they are the ones
that rely on the mining sector, the gas sector, the agricultural
sector, our big exporters, our intensive industries in terms
of where we deliver our product right around the world. Now, the people I represent, they have one of the lowest
per capita incomes in the country. It's about $32,000, $33,000
a head per year. And every time I step
into the parliament, and I step into the Cabinet, they are first and foremost
in my mind about what I do for them. And that is a critical piece
of why I go there. And I've got to tell you, they can't afford to pay,
and they will not pay anymore. So we need to take an approach
which is balanced, which is based on technology,
which doesn't leave them behind, which ensures that the cost for them
is not something they can't afford. And that is the position
I have always held. And I'm sure Malcolm's
well aware of that. And we've had these discussions
many times over a number of years. Well, they can't afford
a dead Murray-Darling Basin either and a dead river. You know? Like... (APPLAUSE) They can't afford our country
on fire every few years because of dangerous climate change. And we have to...get realistic about the fact
that climate change is here and it's here because we have
polluted the atmosphere, and we have to stop polluting. We have to get out of fossil fuels,
which is making our planet sick. And I know, you know,
it's hard for you, Minister, because you've got the portfolio, you come from that area, you've been given this job
from the Prime Minister. What he said about trying to divide
the cities and the countries is just lazy, lazy politics. It is not... This issue is not going
to be won and...and dealt with by dividing the nation.
NARELDA JACOBS: Yeah. You know? A real leader actually
brings people together, educates, leads, and actually
speaks the truth. And every time the Prime Minister
talks about climate change, his weasel words ring out. He's just...
He never speaks the truth. If he spoke the truth... Was it identity politics at play,
as the questioner asked? MALCOLM TURNBULL:
You're speaking to me? Yeah.
Yeah, totally. That's...that's what Keith
couldn't say. But...but the fact is it was a... (APPLAUSE)
..it was a... I'll make my own comments, Malcolm.
No, I'm just looking after you. But there is a divide.
No, no, hang on, hang on. No, no, listen.
Keith, we understand that. But the bottom line is this. The questioner was absolutely right. An issue of physics, i.e. the impact of greenhouse gases
on global warming, has been turned, in Australia
and in the United States - here largely by right-wing politics, Murdoch media
and the fossil fuel lobby - into an issue of identity
or values or belief. NARELDA JACOBS: Yes.
It's nuts. Saying you believe or disbelieve
in global warming is as intelligent or sensible as saying you believe
or disbelieve in gravity. So we've got to stop
the ideology and the idiocy, focus on engineering and economics and make this transition to
the clean energy economy we need. And I'll just say, Keith... So, where does Keith Pitt
fit in this, then? Listen, hang on. Just...just...
let me answer this. Keith, seriously, you are... I don't want to get personal
like this, but the views you're expressing
are abandoning people in regional Australia. SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Oh,
it's setting them up for failure. Absolutely setting them up
for failure. I mean, we have got...
here in New South Wales, there's a by-election
in the Upper Hunter, right? In the Upper Hunter Valley. The...the...John Barilaro, the
Deputy Premier of New South Wales, wants to have unconstrained
open-cut coalmining, cutting up that beautiful valley
with, you know, horse breeding, agriculture, cattle, you know, every form...
wine, you know, vineyards. He wants to keep... Up near where you've got a farm?
Yeah, absolutely. That's right. I've had it for many years.
(LAUGHTER) But the point of the matter is,
the point of the matter is we know that the demand for coal
is going to decline. It has to.
That's not the numbers I've got. Otherwise we're in a lot of trouble.
And we know that's going to happen. And what are we going to do? How much more of our great country are we going to just throw
into the maw of the coal industry, and what will be left? No jobs and no future. We've got to make that transition
for the SAKE of the regions. And we can have
the strongest regions with cheap, affordable,
clean energy and great jobs. But we've got to stop the denialism. (APPLAUSE) Mate, you've got to give me
a chance to respond. Very briefly, if you could.
I want to move on. Briefly. Very briefly. Malcolm,
that's not the numbers I've got. Demand continues to increase. But,
once again, we're talking about... Keith... Keith...
Hang on, I'll give you a go. Keith...
We are talking about fuel. Once again, we're talking
about fuel, not emissions. Now, the numbers
are straightforward - 19% reduction since 2005 level. So we've actually outstripped
Japan, New Zealand, Canada, the US. We've done better than all of them
in terms of emission reductions. And why can't technology
be utilised for the resources that are in Australia, which are
gifted to the Australian people for their benefit? Now, whether that is gasification,
whether it's CCS, whether it's combined with hydrogen
or gas doesn't really matter because emissions come from
the back end. It's not the fuel. Do you think we have
to reduce pollution? Oh, that's crazy.
Well, we're doing that now. We're not, Keith. It's not true.
We're not. Well, 19% reduction is the number. So Alan Finkel was wrong today -
is that what you're suggesting? The US has just announced
that they're going to double their reduction targets
by 2030. The UK is going to triple
what Australia is doing. We are, like, left
in the wilderness here. And yet, we're in front. It is... You are crazy.
This is bonkers. It is absolute bonkers.
Seriously, this is bonkers, Keith. Alan Finkel today -
19% reduction since 2005. No, no, no. I want to bring Andrew Liveris in.
It's fairyland. Just as we've gone to air tonight, most of our studio audience
won't know this, but President Biden
in the United States has just announced
a new emissions target. The US is going to work
to reduce emissions by up to 52% on 2005 levels by 2030. Is Australia now left behind? Look, I'm totally gobsmacked at the politicisation
of this discussion in Australia, and the extremism of it. I'm probably... I think
I'm the only engineer on the panel. Not true.
You're an engineer too? Yeah. I grew up in a... And you both love fossil fuels,
so I don't know what that proves. That is absolutely, totally... (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)
That... I got told that
you could intervene anytime. That's wrong, and I can show you why
in a minute, OK? Yeah. Let's just stick to
the question I put to you. You're the gas man!
What are you talking about? I am an energy policy man...
Oh. ..which is all of the above. Do you know what that means? That means
what President Obama did... (GROANING)
OK? What President Obama did... I don't know if
you are pro-Obama or not, but what President Obama did... You just keep going, mate.
..was he read a book I wrote - and I'll send it to you -
called Make It In America that had an energy policy
that was all of the above. So, the extremism
of the conversation, as just shown, is wrong. You actually have
to put it all in place. And if you don't put it
all in place, you'll never get
the emissions reductions on a sustained basis. You'll get it as economies
go up and down, as we've just seen in COVID,
so you're meeting targets falsely. So, you actually have
to have trajectories... Let me just...
..and plans. I want to be clear on this.
(APPLAUSE) What should Australia's target be,
in your view? We should be net zero by 2050,
absolutely. Should we be more than that?
We should be more than that. What should we be, then? OK, so, I would like the Alan Finkel
Technology Roadmap plan. I would like to see coal
defined in its three forms, not just one form. I'd like us out of thermal coal
as fast as we can, low-grade. But I don't want the Chinese building all thermal coal
while we get out of it. So, we've got
to enable a transition. And the word 'transition'
may be a strange one, but it's a transition
that enables us to do the four things well. And if you know the four things,
great. If you don't know them,
I can talk about them now. But President Obama
put these in place, OK? Now, I was very vocal
against President Trump when he abandoned Paris. In fact, we and 100 CEOs in America wrote a letter and published it
in The New York Times and The Washington Post - I'll send it to you
if you're interested - basically saying...
(GROANING) ..basically saying that
the US should not leave Paris. And Malcolm knows I did this, OK? So, the US business community
has got a plan, and President Biden is now
putting that plan in place. Yeah, so, this is where I want
to draw you back to Australia, right? Yeah. Because there is no
clear commitment on 2050. You are...
We should absolutely have it. Should we, though,
commit to net zero before 2050? Yeah.
And when should it be? I believe... I don't have a great answer for that because I don't know
the Australian inputs as well. This is an input question...
OK. ..and then an output question. Now, carbon sequestration
is very key to this. That was announced just yesterday. But business... Just so we're all clear, business needs a clear commitment
to a target of net zero by at least 2050. Totally. Totally.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah. The entire Australian
continent needs that... And can we...?
..because of the effects of climate. I don't deny that. I absolutely, totally believe in climate science.
Yeah. I've never said anything
opposite that. But, Andrew... But we need a migration plan
that doesn't kill... ..parts of the Australian economy. But, Andrew, it's not...
That's the part... (APPLAUSE)
Andrew... That's the part that, unfortunately,
the theory doesn't address. We need a pragmatic plan that enables us
to put hydrogen in place, to put batteries in place, to put another Snowy Hydro in place, to absolutely, totally
put pipelines in place, to use fossils not as fuels,
but as feedstocks. 95% of the stuff you consume -
your house, your car, what you wear, what you walk on -
is based on carbon. You can't get carbon out of
the economy. You cannot. And if you want the engineering
around that, I'll show it to you. So, do we...? So, to do all of this,
do we need a price on carbon? I... Four things. The fourth was a price on carbon. So, you believe we need that?
I'm a total supporter of that. I worked for President Bush
and President Obama with a team of business people
doing USCAP. Go look it up. It's an emissions trading scheme
that the Europeans put it in place. OK, so...
So, you're on the COVID Commission. You've designed this
gas-led recovery. You say we need a price on carbon. Keith Pitt, your response. Well, firstly, I've just assisted
with some of the gas-led recovery. There's a lot of that
still going on, which we are doing with
Angus Taylor and others. And, once again, I mean,
anyone can announce something and then pretend
they know how to do it. This is about ensuring that
the technology is in place. Sounds like what
the Prime Minister does every day! (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE) It's about ensuring that
we know the path, how much it's going to cost,
and who's paying. Now, that hasn't yet
been established. Now, if you talk about the UK,
well, the UK has a nuclear industry. They've tapped into France. They can utilise nuclear energy,
which is zero emissions. We don't have that option
in Australia. Gasification is under way
using brown coal in Victoria with the HESC plant in combination
with our partners out of Japan. And there are any number of options which are being assessed
and considered. But right now,
60%-plus of our energy, in terms of electricity,
is delivered by coal-fired power. It is reliable, it's baseload,
it is there. But there is...
And it's polluting. There is an absolute need for us
to understand the technology, how it will be delivered
and how much it costs, and that is not there yet,
and I think Andrew made that point. Quickly, Malcolm Turnbull.
Very quickly. Can I say, this is... All of those
numbers... We know how to do this. The cheapest form of generation
is renewables. Yes.
Solar and wind, backed up by storage. The gas has a role to play,
but a diminishing one, as a peaking fuel. Coal has... We've got to get out of coal,
and the world's getting out of coal. And the longer we pretend we're not, the more we're putting at risk
the jobs and the future prosperity of the people who work
in that industry. It is literally telling people
in the resources sector lies about their prospects. That's untrue.
We have... Malcolm, there are 200 power plants either under construction
or under design, and there is demand
for Australian coal because it's high quality...
Keith, this is a fantasy. ..it's efficient,
we can deliver it efficiently, and that's why people buy it.
Do you read the news? I mean, have you noticed
what's going on in Washington? (APPLAUSE)
I mean, seriously! I mean, I...
I mean, you... Seriously, Keith,
what are you doing? You're just reading
The Daily Telegraph and watching Sky News?
(LAUGHTER) I mean, is this some kind of...
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) ..coal-hugging bubble? Mate, I work all day and all night.
I mean, it is literally... It is literally... It's literally nuts. I mean, the... You know, we talked about
the Hunter earlier. There's 250 million tonnes of coal
licensed to be able to be produced from existing mines. They're producing
100 million tonnes less, and there are people who still want
to open up new mines. This is how mad it is.
We need a plan. We've got to approach this
rationally, recognise coal is on the way out.
NARELDA JACOBS: Mm. And what we have to do is plan that to protect the jobs of people
in the industry, but above all, put in the cheaper,
cleaner, new sources of energy, which are renewables plus storage, backed up by things
like Snowy Hydro, to create the jobs of the future. Otherwise, we're going to end up
with no coal jobs and no new jobs... OK.
..and that is a disaster. We've got a question
on that very matter. (APPLAUSE) Our next question comes
from Peter Rowed. Good evening. Australia is planning
a massive expansion of coal and gas extraction. Given that our major
trading partners in the G7 and at the USA and China
appear to be coming to an agreement on strong and imminent action
on emissions reduction, there is the risk that
the world's most powerful economies will not tolerate people like us getting in the way of
their unwavering commitment to prevent catastrophic
climate change. It would leave
Australia's economy threatened if major trading partners
find our agricultural and manufactured exports
unacceptable due to the contribution
of fossil fuels in their production, and tax them accordingly. With its commitment to fossil fuels, is the government taking
a risky gamble with our future prosperity? Narelda. It's going to be embarrassing for Australia at this summit,
I think. It's going to be
really embarrassing. The rest of the world is
going to be saying, "OK, so, what are your targets?" "Oh, well, we kind of...
We don't really have targets." "What are your new industries?" "Oh, well, we've got, you know, "all these hundreds of millions
of dollars that we're investing." "Well, OK. What are they?" "Oh, well, we don't know yet.
They're being developed." This is from a Prime Minister
who has just alienated pretty much half of the country,
or even most of the country, because he's delivered
his impassioned plea to the suits of this country. You know, he's really good
at rallying the suits. But when it comes to asking
all Australians to modify your behaviour,
he alienates us, because he says, "It's not... "You aren't going
to change the climate. "It's the big end of town.
It's the industry. "It's the factories. "It's the producers of fossil fuels
and the exporters." You know, "These are the people "that are going to have an impact
on climate change." It's not the inner-city people
who are having dinner parties who are very worried
about your future living in this country. It's... You know, he's saying
it's not in cafes and restaurants. It's... Everyone is worried
about the climate in this country. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Mm. Yeah. Torres Strait Islanders
will soon not have a home because their islands
are being inundated by water. I mean, for goodness sake, bring the rest of the country
on this journey with you. Don't just leave it to the suits. Yeah.
(APPLAUSE) Well said. Andrew Liveris, you've promoted
this gas-led recovery. Many take the view that
you're committing us to fossil fuels for much longer than we need to. Explain it. Justify it. Let me teach you a new term -
fossil feedstock. OK? Let me...
Let me teach you a term. Yeah, please. If you believe there's a future
in fossil fuels, then you are a fossil...fool. Narelda... (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)
Thank you. I take it as a... I take it as a badge of honour
that you would call me that. Fossil feedstock is
all of your modern life. You want to live a modern life,
you need a fossil feedstock. You can't get carbon any other way. If you want a chemistry lesson,
I'll help you out the back. (GROANING)
What you've got to do... Andrew...
Man, you're just... Listen.
You're so patronising. Like, just... (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
Seriously. Let's just try and keep it respectful
amongst all of us... And you're not?
..and stick to the policy... Well, I'm not the one shaking
my finger at people, mate. Folks, let's just keep
to the policy, if we can. Yeah. Well, you're yelling. Why is it that Australia... Why is it that Australia needs
a gas pipeline, for example, across the Nullarbor to bring it
to the east coast from the west? Can you just justify this promotion
of a gas-led recovery? There's 850,000 Australians
employed by industries that use gas as a feedstock. 850,000. At the current pricing levels,
they're paid Japanese spot price. Spot price. So, Japan gets cheaper gas
than we do for our industry. Those industries
you need for everyday life. And I'll take the commentary that
I'm patronising and I'm yelling, 'cause I'm passionate about this, 'cause there's a gap
in our knowledge base. I'll buy Malcolm's discussion
on gas as a firming fuel anytime. I totally agree with that. Gas as a segue to hydrogen,
I also agree with that. That's the fuel part. The feedstock part
is not well understood and it absolutely, totally
makes me... Try to understand why
is it not understood in this wonderful country of ours? These jobs need to be
not only protected, but we need to grow them. So, we...
This sequester of carbon... So, how long do we need gas for
as a transition fuel, then? So, again, you use the word 'fuel',
OK, and I'm trying to actually... Yeah, I understand the point
you're making about feedstock, but... You do?
..ultimately, this is a question that's been put to you about a commitment to fossil fuels
longer-term. So, remember... So, I'm just trying
to understand what you... ..what period you see us
using gas as a transition for. The National COVID Commission work
we did was for manufacturing, OK? It wasn't for electricity. It wasn't for doing
the power balance, or any of that. The work we did was totally based on using the carbon
for manufacturing. That's the work we did. OK? I have no skin in the game
to keeping natural gas for power, for anything other than
a transition. There's no reason to do that. Because it is an emitter. It's not as big an emitter as coal, but it certainly is an emitter. So you've got to use it
as a transition. That's it. Until batteries become affordable
and scalable, until we can actually get more
Snowy Hydros. And why you need a gas pipeline
is as much to provide that transition for that,
but more for industry, which is why I'm trying to bring it
back to the feedstock conversation. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Andrew,
where are the 850,000 jobs that use gas as feedstock? Fertilisers, plastics,
chemicals, explosives... And there are 850,000 people working
in Australia making plastics? Yes, yes.
Is that right? Not plastics - all those
industries I just said. I don't think that's true.
No. It is true. I can send you the data.
I think you've exaggerated. I honestly think you're way out
of... You're way off the chart. Malcolm, I use the same people
you used for research as when you were prime minister. So, go talk to the people
in Canberra. I mean, they're the same... I don't mind you mansplaining me.
That's alright. (APPLAUSE)
I'm not. I'm not, Malcolm. You are, but that's OK.
But that's a pretty... It's OK.
That's a pretty cheap blow. It's OK. It's OK. It's alright.
Keith Pitt... I don't want to bust up
the party, but... No, no, no. It's alright. Why does Australia need gas
as a transition fuel? Well, look, a couple of points.
I want to come back to the question that was asked as well around
potential for tariffs worldwide. Well, we sign up to
free trade agreements. We do multilaterals and bilaterals,
and we expect our trading partners to meet the terms and conditions
of those agreements. Now, whether it is a border tax
or anything else, my view is that is against
the agreements we've signed. It's a tariff,
which they're putting... ..potentially putting in place. And in my view, that would be
against those agreements, which have been in place for some
of those countries for a very long period of time. Now, to come back to
your question about gas, as the electrical engineer
up the front, really rough and ready. Solar panels life, roughly,
depending on how new they are, 10 to 20 years. Wind turbines, about 20. GTs, gas turbines, about 20. Coal-fired power stations, depending
on how much maintenance and changes you do,
go for a long period of time. Hydro, traditional hydro, I know of
some that are six decades-plus. So that gives you a bit
of a rough idea. Nuclear, my understanding,
it's 80 to 100, potentially. So that's just rough and ready
about what's going round. Gas is a critical feedstock. It's also critical
to our potential success to drag manufacturing back onshore,
which I want to see. I want to see more of our resources
used downstream, in terms of the processing
before they leave Australia to go somewhere else.
That drives jobs into this country. To do that, we need
the fundamentals right. That is the price of gas,
the price of electricity, the availability
of the skilled workforce. Government needs to get out
of industry's way, to be frank, because the cost of doing business
here is much higher than some of our competitors. We are politically stable. This is a great place to invest. And I've got to tell you, and I think everyone
in the crowd will agree, Australia has done a magnificent job
in dealing with the pandemic. There is nowhere in the world
you would rather be than here. And industry sees that. And there is opportunities
for us across the board. But in terms of pipelines, the challenge is, manufacturing
is currently not where the gas is. The Bass Strait... Are we going to
build a pipeline or not? Well, that's been worked on
between me and Angus and, of course,
in consultation with states - it is one of their responsibilities. $5 billion.
Would it be worth it, Malcolm? Well... Well, look, my-my-my concern is that we're going to see
a classic exercise in industry rent seeking and billions of dollars of
taxpayers' money being transferred to the fossil fuel sector in assets
that will be shortly stranded. So I'm really worried
about what is... ..what's happening here. Because I tell you that you can... You know, you start getting
this...this... ..the fossil fuel sector,
the gas industry, saying, "Oh, all we need to make this
worthwhile is "for the government to build
this pipeline and that pipeline "and another pipeline." And suddenly,
you've got a wealth transfer from the taxpayers of Australia
to an industry whose prospects are time-limited. Now, you know, I do disagree
with what Andrew said about jobs, but I just want to make this point -
there is no cheap gas in Australia. That's the fundamental problem. And this is...
You basically need to have gas... It's measured in a gigajoule, but it's a term
of...description of... ..you know, a quantity of energy,
if you like. You need to have gas at $4
a gigajoule or thereabouts... It's a lot cheaper in WA
than it is on the East Coast, right? Well...well, yes.
So, it's not entirely true. No, no, no, but... Yes, that's true. But the problem is you've got
to move things around. And...and the fact is
whether you've got to move it in an LNG carrier or a pipeline,
you know, there's a cost. Now, we used to have cheaper gas
on the East Coast, but the cheap gas has been
largely exploited. We set up an export industry,
which I think was probably a mistake in Curtis Island, in Queensland,
and we now have expensive gas here. And my only point is
the gas-led recovery is a slogan. It's not a plan. And it... And...and, you know, that's what the Australian Energy
Market Operator's conclusion was. You know, there's been
a lot of work done on this. And I... Andrew's an old friend, but I just have to say,
I do disagree with you on that. And I...
And I respect that. I respect that. And I... And I'm not...
You know, I'm not... I just... It's not just me
that disagrees with you. It's AEMO. It is a lot of people in the energy
sector that think this is a fantasy. There are people who got
off the COVID Commission, as you know, because they felt
it was heading in the wrong direction and in this sort of gas...gas... ..gas-led recovery. It is a gas slogan. It's not a plan.
(APPLAUSE) I disagree with that.
(APPLAUSE) $5 billion announced by Santos
in the last couple of weeks for a project
in the North-West Shelf - I think that's confidence. Let's take...
Let's take our next question. It comes from Rowan Hanley. My question's for Keith Pitt
regarding PEP 11, the gas mine proposed offshore
between Sydney and...and Newcastle. I'm a Northern Beaches resident
and a passionate ocean lover. And I was absolutely appalled
and gobsmacked that there was going to be a gas mine
proposed off our coast. Nobody in our coastal communities
wants PEP 11 to go ahead. There are federal Liberal
and Labor MPs, all local councils, the New South Wales government, and even the Prime Minister has
stated that he's opposed to PEP 11. Nobody seems to want it. We don't need it. So does the Minister support
gas mining off our coast or will he scrap PEP 11 for good? Keith Pitt, this decision
does rest with you. Well, that's correct. And look, at the first point
I want to make is there are probity issues
around any of my comments. So, there are companies which are
ASX-listed on which what I say has a direct impact
on their share prices. So...so I'm very cautious
with what I say. A little bit of context. That's a petroleum
exploration permit. It's managed through the regulator, which I'm responsible for,
which is NOPTA. And there is a proposal -
and this is longstanding - for an extension
of an existing permit off the New South Wales coast. There is about
4,000 square kilometres. If there was to be
an exploration well, it's about the size of
a kitchen table. To give some context, the proposal
is roughly 30km offshore. You can't see it. But this is an industry
which has been in place in Australia for more than five decades. I make decisions on petroleum
exploration permits regularly, two or three or four times a year
right around the country. It's an important part,
not only of our economy, but our fuel security. And for me, as...when I make
a decision, it'll be one which is balanced, based on
the facts that are provided, the advice that I have,
what is in the application and what the law says. Sarah Hanson-Young, in February,
Keith Pitt described the permit as a needle on a football field. What would you say on the question of whether this exploration licence
should be renewed? Well, it shouldn't. And this is the whole problem
we've got, is that we are facing
catastrophic climate change, we've got world leaders tonight
gathering, meeting to discuss how we turn this ship around, and one of the fundamental things
we have to do is to stop expanding
the fossil fuel industry, to stop expanding gas wells,
oilwells, coalmines. We have to start leaving
those fossil fuels in the ground and transitioning to renewables. Renewables are here. They are cheaper. Solar, wind, battery storage,
other storage options are far outstripping, now, gas and certainly coal. Any...any of those new plants
coming on. And it is crazy that we have
a situation in Australia where we've got politicians
prepared to sign approvals for new coalmines
and new gas wells. It is nuts. Sarah Hanson-Young, given... (APPLAUSE) Given where we're at now, do you regret voting
against an ETS in 2010? (AUDIENCE MURMURS) In 2010? You mean the CPRS?
Yeah. You know, one of the things
that obviously... And, you know, the fellow over here talked about the politicisation
of this whole debate. And one of the things that I think
that has been really missed is that that whole period
was putting to the parliament a system that was going to lock in
failure on climate change. And what we were able to do
was come back, with Julia Gillard in that minority government,
and actually put a price on carbon. And we saw for the first time
a real drop in carbon pollution. And I think we need
to do that again. But, come on, that moment
was a turning point in this nation's history. And the Greens took a decision
that put us on a particular path that we've been on ever since. Do you regret it?
No. I... I understand why you ask
the question, Hamish, but we came back
and actually put in place world-leading legislation
that did its job. And who ruined it? Tony Abbott. But it helped create
the politics around it, didn't it? Oh, come on. I mean,
the politics of this issue... ..has dominated for decades. And the reason it dominates
is because we've got a lot... ..we've got a few people making
a lot of money out of fossil fuels. And we've got a media empire
in Murdoch, working hand in hand and politicians who keep taking
their political donations. (APPLAUSE)
That's why we've got a problem here. It's not because...
(APPLAUSE) It's not because the Greens stood up
for the planet and the environment and wanted to put in place
a scheme that would work and to reduce pollution. We've got a problem because some
people refuse to follow the science. We just heard before
from the Minister here how well Australia has done
during the pandemic. Incredibly well.
And we have. And you know why we have? Because we've listened
to the experts. We've listened to the science, and we've put in place
what they've said. And we've worked together
to do that. And I think, you know,
we're at a point now... ..we are in the last decade where
we can really make a difference. And you've got our biggest
trading partner in China. We've got our most strategic
ally in the US. We've got the UK, Boris Johnson, all saying Australia's got to get
on the same page here. And I... I'm a bit...
So, you don't regret... I just...
No. No, I don't regret... It's been a wasted decade.
And the Greens played a part in that. Hamish, what... I don't regret it.
It's not all Sarah's fault. What I regret...
Sure. But she's the one here.
(LAUGHTER) No, I mean, look...
It's easy... It's very... It's a very nice, easy line,
but I'm sorry. We've had prime minister after prime minister after
prime minister in this country fail to take seriously the climate threat
that faces the planet. And why? Because they keep taking donations
from the fossil fuel industry. Oh, no, that's not right. I should, at this point,
point out that we invited four Labor frontbenchers
onto the program tonight and none of them agreed to come on. Our next question is a video
from Edward Carroll in Brisbane. The Cashless Debit Card trial
in your electorate has been a metaphorical
knee to the neck of single parents and disability pensioners, and what many are calling
a form of financial abuse. Bundaberg has one of
the fastest-rising populations of homeless in Australia, and a private company having control
over people's finances is unconscionable. With stories of bills
being missed and not paid, despite having money
in people's accounts, how can you support this card? We should point out that
Edward Carroll ran as an independent in the 2020 Queensland election. Before we go to Keith Pitt,
Narelda, your view? So, the cashless welfare card.
The cashless welfare card. There's a lot of... It's not working. It's not working. And it only creates stigma
around it. There's embarrassment around it. There's a lot of shame
that goes with this card. And it should be about
empowering people to manage and determine
their own destiny, you know? And, like I said before, you know, divert, reinvest, use the same money to stop
the welfare kind of handout, that kind of mentality,
because that's not the future. No-one wants that for their future. We all want to be able
to spend the money, our money, however we like. The cashless welfare card
does not work. Does not work, Keith Pitt. Oh, look, I completely disagree. My electorate
is one of the trial sites. We are a different cohort
compared to the others. This is for under-35s,
only on four payments, none of which are the
disability pension, by the way. And all of the feedback
we get locally from front-line service providers
and our Indigenous community members is strongly supportive, because
it's made a significant difference. Now...
Difference to what? It makes a difference because
there are other services... If that's what you're saying,
that it does make a difference. Well, I was about to say something. Because other services are
operating in unison with it. So, there's actually... While the trials are under way,
it looks like the card is working. It may well be the other services
that are provided to that community
that is actually the most effective. Yeah, so just to finish. I have the largest trial site
in the country. We are not a majority
Indigenous location. It is under-35s. And within a short period of time... One of my big challenges
is in youth unemployment. It was outrageously high - 27%.
That's unacceptable. Within some months,
that was down to 17%. The feedback from people
who were providing food baskets and a pile of other things... This is very tough policy.
I absolutely acknowledge it. You're stripping people's autonomy. It's tough but necessary, and it matters
and it makes a difference. And the people I represent,
they want me to do something. And the option... What is
the option put up by others? Is to do nothing
and let this continue. I'm just not up for that. Now, you know, we cop a fair bit
of flak, as do others, and I understand that. But if I'm ensuring that one kid,
10 kids, 50 kids are getting fed every single week and getting
the fundamentals of life, I'm willing to have the fight. Andrew Liveris, if the data
suggests that, is it worth it, stripping people's autonomy away? Look, I am totally not an expert
in this area at all, and so I would like
to defer to the people who know something
about the subject. Malcolm Turnbull?
Well, I've...you know, obviously, I haven't been in
politics for nearly three years now. But while I was there, I went and spent a lot of time
with several communities where the Cashless Debit Card
was being used, and I had very positive feedback
about it from communities. I remember
one of the most evocative, eloquent speeches I've heard
was actually in Kalgoorlie from meeting with
Indigenous people there, from a woman, a grandmother,
who spoke about, you know, what...the lives it was saving. So, I guess all I'm saying is, and, you know, between Narelda
and Keith, it's complex, people are complex,
situations are complex. They are trials, and I think it's really important
to get the feedback from them. But in terms of
the anecdotal information I got, it was really heartfelt
and actually positive. So, Narelda, if it is
improving the data, if it is getting people into jobs... KEITH PITT:
There's no single solution. ..is it justified? Well, no-one ever wants a handout - you only ever want a hand up. And this card is all about handouts. And that's...
Well, that's not quite true. We need to change up the narrative
that we're hearing. Narelda, if I may just... The card is basically designed
to ensure that people can't spend the money, you know,
whatever the welfare payment is that's covered by it,
on, well, you know, on... KEITH PITT: Well, 80%
is quarantined on the debit card. You can't purchase alcohol,
gambling products, and with the reduction in cash,
illicit substances. SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: You can't
go to a farmer's market... So, that's what it is.
20% goes to your normal income. You can't buy direct
from the producer. I mean, you can say
it's nanny state. It's, you know...
Well, isn't it? I mean, it sounds like
the kind of thing that happens in an authoritarian country.
Well, no... Well, look, people are dealing with very raw, desperate,
terrible social problems, and it was an idea
that was trialled, and I guess all I'm saying is... You know, you asked me. Keith's had his experience of it
as being positive feedback. The experience I had
as prime minister - and it wasn't curated or
stage-managed - was very positive. But I do recognise
there is plenty of criticism. So that's why you need
to assess it objectively. KEITH PITT: It is only one tool. SARAH HANSON-YOUNG:
Sorry, Narelda... NARELDA JACOBS: You go.
I was just going to say look, I've had a lot of feedback
come into my office about it. We've got cashless welfare card
in Ceduna. The Senate has also had to vote on
the extension of the card recently, and the overwhelming feedback
that we've had from people who are actually
being put on the card is that it is demonising to them. It's shameful.
Mm. They feel it's discriminatory. And overwhelmingly the vast majority
of people on these cards in other places
are in fact First Nations. But I must say, the thing that
I'm mostly worried about right now, Hamish, is what it does to women
who are trying to get out of terrible domestic violence
situations. I think it really locks them in, and it's very dangerous
for them and their children, and the government is just
not looking at that at all. KEITH PITT: That's certainly not
the advice we've had. Can I just say
that this is a prime example as to why we need to have
a voice to parliament, to be able to give a definite,
"Yes, we can do this," or, "No, but there are
better solutions out there." If I can cast our mind back
to some of the history books here. Where I come from,
Whadjuk Noongar country, traditionally people were born
knowing exactly their purpose, exactly where they belong,
their identity. Women were equal, if not the leader
of their families and their mob. Sister girls, brother boys,
non-binary people were all completely accepted
as living their purpose. Everybody was born in the body
that they were meant to be. You were there because
you were meant to be there in the form that you were born, and you were all living
your purpose. When the colonisers came
and invaders came along, they brought with them
the patriarchy and the symptoms
of the patriarchy and colonialism is misogyny, sexism,
racism, discrimination, homophobia, transphobia. None of those things existed
before the colonisers came. So, that is why having a presence and having the
visibility in our communities... And until Australians stop saying, "I've never met
an Aboriginal person - "they don't live in my community," then we need to work harder
to make sure we see the Aboriginal people
that live in your community, because that's when we will change
this country for the better. SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Yeah.
(APPLAUSE) Our final question tonight
comes from Rebecca Clarke. Over the last four years,
the government has spent $50 million to detain one family,
including two young girls, which contravenes
the United Nations convention on the rights of the child,
of which we're a signatory. How can this be justified
on either economic or moral grounds, particularly when
there is huge support from the community of Biloela
and the wider Australian community for them to return home? Keith Pitt. Well, firstly,
thanks for the question. And secondly, do I feel for them?
Of course I do. Do we have tough policies in place?
Yes, we do. And, you know, the two individuals,
the advice I have is they arrived illegally
by boat separately, they later married. They had children,
as many families do, but were advised all of the way
that they would be returning home. It's been tested
internally, externally, all the way through the High Court, supporting
the government's position. Is it worth the tens of millions of
dollars that we've spent in keeping them behind bars
and transporting them around and moving them to Christmas Island? Well, the alternative is
more than 50,000 arrivals, more than 1,000 people
lost their lives, $11 billion in cost. Is that what's at stake with
this family? Thousands of children in detention. And these are the issues
that we've had to deal with. There are no easy issues
in government. That is just not true.
That is just not true. Well, it happened.
It's been reported. It's factual. This family have been
to hell and back, and it's time that this country
gave them a bit of compassion and gave them a fair go. They did everything right. They... Once they got to Australia, because they were fleeing
persecution, because they were...
they came here as refugees, which, by the way,
is not a crime at all. It's totally legal to do.
(APPLAUSE) And when they got to Australia, they became members
of their local community. They got jobs. They integrated. They became part of a community
that loved them. And to use them as an example... The Prime Minister has overseen them
being ripped out of Biloela, sent over to Christmas Island. There's two girls here,
two little girls. And, you know, the Prime Minister
likes to talk about his family - well, what about this family,
and what about their daughters? Malcolm Turnbull... We are running out of time.
You'll have to keep this brief. There is a new Home Affairs Minister,
Karen Andrews. There is ministerial discretion that is used in all sorts of refugee,
asylum, migration cases. Given that Australia's crying out
for new migrants, given that these people have
a community that wants them, is there a case for
a different approach here? Yeah, look, of course there is. I mean, Hamish,
there's a lot of discretion with the Minister for Immigration. And all of these policies
have got to be... You know, and what Keith says about
border protection is, you know... ..I agree with that -
we do have a tough policy, and that's how we've kept the
people smugglers out of business. But...but...there's a difference
between scratching your ear and ripping it off,
as my late father used to say. And you need to have
a bit of subtlety, you need to have compassion,
you need to have some humanity. That family should be back
in Queensland and I hope the Minister
takes the opportunity of the change of minister -
she's the new minister - and she can now look at
the file anew, use her discretion and bring them back to Queensland
to the community that wants them. And that would be
the right thing to do. (APPLAUSE) Well, that is, unfortunately,
all we've got time for tonight. I think this panel
could probably talk all night. Narelda Jacobs,
Malcolm Turnbull, Keith Pitt, Sarah Hanson-Young
and Andrew Liveris - please thank all of them. Well, next week,
we are in the Sydney studio. We'll hear from the Nationals Senator
Bridget McKenzie, the Shadow Health Minister,
Mark Butler, and the one and only Courtney Act
will be here, joining the panel
and performing live. We'll see you then. Goodnight. Captions by Red Bee Media Copyright Australian
Broadcasting Corporation
