TONY JONES: Good evening and welcome to a new season of Q&A and another year of lively and entertaining political debate. Tonight, something special. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd joins us at the Museum of Australian Democracy in Old Parliament House. Please welcome the Prime Minister.

We're standing in the old House of Representatives chamber, where past leaders, such as Curtin, Menzies, Whitlam and Fraser stood to address the nation and answer questions from the floor. Tonight the Prime Minister will face questions, without notice, from this audience of 200 young Australians all aged between 16 and 25.

Now, remember, Q&A is live from 9.35 Eastern Time, so join the Twitter conversation. Send your questions by SMS to 197 55 222 or go to our website at abc.net.au/qanda. That's "qanda".

Our young audience have outdone themselves with hundreds of great questions. We won't get through all of them, but the Prime Minister has agreed to keep his answers short and concise - that's true, isn't it - and help us get through as many of them as possible.

KEVIN RUDD: Thanks.

TONY JONES: So let's get cracking with our very first question, which comes from Steven Lee.

STEVEN LEE: Hi. My question to you is in regard to the 2007 campaign win, which got you the Prime Minister role. In that campaign you had the slogan "Kevin '07" and I was wondering in the upcoming election if you could give us a sneak preview or some sort of insight into your new slogan.

KEVIN RUDD: Right, thank you for that. No. Next question? I suppose if we had an election in 2011, which would cause the eyebrows to go up, it could be Kevin '11, but...

TONY JONES: I thought about this a bit. If you campaigned heavily on the stimulus package you could call it "Manna From Kevin".

KEVIN RUDD: No, we're still a ways away from an election, so we really haven't given any thought to that, so the key thing is to do what you committed to doing and people will make a judgment. They're hard judges but they're fair.

TONY JONES: Let's move along quickly, and we've got another question in the audience. It's from Matthew Laing.

MATTHEW LAING: Prime Minister, last week the newspapers ran a series of stories detailing a long list of promises that the ALP made the last election, which remain unfulfilled after more than two years in government. Given the amount of young people who got behind the Kevin '07 Campaign, on the basis of its reform and change agenda, is it any wonder why idealistic youth become cynical adults when it comes to politics?

KEVIN RUDD: I think the key thing is to actually go through the list of what we undertook to do. There is, I think, about 600 or so undertakings we gave to the Australian people before the last election. I think you'll find the vast bulk of those have either been implemented or are being implemented. Look, I'm not going to stand here and say to you we haven't changed our mind about a number, but it's a relatively small number overall. Key thing that we faced in year number one though, in answer to part of your question, was how do you deal with this global economic catastrophe and, frankly, for governments right around the world, this just was a missile coming from the right and the left at the same time. So you had to deal with the crisis. What we managed to do at the crisis, however, when so many economies were tumbling over around the world, was inject this national infrastructure stimulus strategy of ours and, guess what: we kept the economy afloat. We're the only economy of the major advance economies not to go in recession. We're the only economy of the advanced economies to have generated positive economic growth last year. So your question about the commitments, fair question, fair cop. I'm not going to stand here and pretend that we're purer than the driven snow, we're not. But if you go through the whole list, 600 odd, going to things like we said we'd pull our troops out of Iraq. We pulled our troops out of Iraq. We said we'd ratify Kyoto. We've ratified Kyoto. We said we'd bring in a carbon pollution reduction scheme - an emissions trading scheme. Well, we've tried. There's another mob up the road there are preventing that from happening. Can I say, on so many of the big things that we undertook to do, including an education revolution, it's rolling out there. But keeping the economy strong in the midst of that crisis last year and protecting jobs and jobs for young people, frankly, was a huge task and we're not through it yet.

TONY JONES: Very briefly, Matthew wasn't alone on this. We've got a lot of questions about unfulfilled or broken promises.

KEVIN RUDD: Yeah.

TONY JONES: Now, I'm wondering, you talked about problems with communicating.

KEVIN RUDD: Yeah.

TONY JONES: Have you failed to communicate this issue of promises? I mean, you saw the daily telegraph. A huge list of unfulfilled or broken promises they claim.

KEVIN RUDD: Yeah, but as I said, you go back to our entire list of undertakings. As I said it's something in excess of 600, and they cover every field from the economy, through education, through health and the rest, and we're proud of our record. On the question of communication, it's always tough. You know what it's like out there. There's always a celebration of the things that go wrong, as opposed to the things that go right. That's kind of news. That's politics. That's reality. That's what we deal with. Have we been the perfect communications of a message? Of course not, including myself. But you know something, the record is not a bad one, given what we've been up against with a global crisis, which has seen unemployment go into double digits in many of the other advanced economies around the world and we in this country have managed to keep unemployment so far at 5.8 per cent. That has been number one priority for us, because it's about protecting jobs and supporting working families.

TONY JONES: Let's go to another question on this. I note someone's got their hand up. We'll come to you in a minute. We have another question on this subject. It's from Angela Samuels.

ANGELA SAMUELS: Mr Rudd, I'd like to know how you expect us to trust you - our generation, the ones that got behind you in the Kevin '07 - and now you expect us to trust you on everything you're saying and you broke promises like the laptops ones and the health ones and all the ones that were important to our generation?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, let's go to the two that you've raised. Laptops, which is computers in schools, we said we would have a computer for every young person at secondary school from year nine and above by, I seem to recall, 2013 or thereabouts. We are on track to doing that. We have about 260,000 computers out there in schools now. Well, you're shaking your head. Can I just say that is a fact, and if you ring up principals from around the country it's happening. But our commitment was not to have it done by this year. It was to be done over a period of time and that has still a couple of years to elapse. On the second point that you raise about health, as I said today in the parliament here, what's the record we inherited? Well, our predecessors took a billion dollars out of the public hospital system. In our two years in office, and our predecessors were there for 12, we've increased investment in hospitals by 50 per cent. That is a huge increase. We've increased the number of GP places for training. We've increased also the number of nurses for training. On the two examples you raise, that's not right and on the future on health in hospitals, as I have said before, if the states and territories do not accept the government's reform plan for the future of health and hospitals, then we will go to the people and seek a mandate to take over overall responsibility for the system. That's what we said we'd do. That's what we intend to do and, frankly, the record on both those things is okay. But I go back to the answer to the person who began the question before. I'm not going to stand here before you and claim that we're purer than driven snow and did not have to change things. Bear in mind, we have had the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression and that was last year.

TONY JONES: Okay. Angela, we've got to people with their hand up. One is the questioner. We'll take her first and then we'll come to you.

ANGELA SAMUELS: I just wanted to know, though, you said about the health system. You said you were going to take it over. What happened to you taking it over in July last year? Now, you're saying you're going to take it over in the future. When is that going to be? How can we trust you if you keep giving us different dates?

KEVIN RUDD: What we said was that we'd put a reform plan to the states and territories and what we said, if the states and territories didn't agree to that, we would then go to the people and get a mandate to take it over. We're not at the next election yet. That's due by the end of this year. That's what we said to do. The place where we went last year was to commission an independent commission of inquiry, headed by a medical expert, Dr Christine Bennett, across - guess how many hospitals in this country? 750 public hospitals in Australia. If you're going to do health reform, you've got to get it right. You've got to get it absolutely right. So many people depend on it on a daily basis. That's what we intend to do. That's what we're adhering to. But I go back to what we've done in two years alone. My predecessor ripped a billion dollars out of the public hospital system. We have increased our funding to the public hospital system by 50 per cent in just two years. Can I just say, that's not a bad foundation, but there's a hang of a lot more to do.

TONY JONES: All right, we've got another questioner down the front had his hand up.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Didn't you say when you were going to reform the health system that the buck would stop with you, yet you've made two references to the previous government's decisions, and I note you didn't reference the previous governments surplus they left you in terms of the economic crisis. But you said the buck would stop with you, so will it or are we going to keep hearing that the previous government did this, the previous government did that?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, you know, life just doesn't start afresh. Life - it's a fair point to ask in terms of take your responsibility to the future, but equally acknowledging where you've come from in the past. You know there wasn't just a line drawn across reality at the end of 2007. You're dealing with a health system which, for a long period of time, had a whole lot of people in the previous government taking money out of it. That's just a reality. What we undertook to do was to take responsibility for the system and as far as the buck stops with me concern I don't back away from that one minute, but I go back to what I said in response to the earlier question and that is to make sure that you've got the detail right, therefore the plan we're putting for the long term reform of the system we are confident in. If the states and territories reject it, we will seek from the people a mandate for the Commonwealth, the Australian Government, to take overall responsibility for the system and the buck, therefore, stops with me. That's entirely consistent with what I said prior to the election and, frankly, it's the responsible way to go but you've got to get it right.

TONY JONES: Okay, this is Q&A, the live and interactive forum, as you can see, where you get to ask the questions and, as you may have noticed, Q&A has moved to half past nine on Monday nights every week. Our next question comes from Fleur Cribb.

FLEUR CRIBB: Hi, Mr Rudd. My question is regarding P Plate drivers and increasing road toll. Given the inconsistent rules across the country, I was just wondering if there is potentially a role for the Federal Government in the next decade to implement a national road rules scheme?

KEVIN RUDD: There's been a lot of discussion between the transport ministers on this very subject. What we've tried to do, by the way, at a national government level, is to improve road safety by some other specific regulations, one of which goes to some of the systems used in motor vehicles themselves. Nationally consistent regulations for the quality control of cars. That's just one thing. We've also invested in a new way of encouraging young people to learn how to drive in the first place. I don't have the numbers on me, but we have. But on the question of nationally consistent approaches, can I say the transport ministers are pretty seized of how bad it is out there in terms of road safety, young people, but I've got to say there's a fair bit of booze involved in this as well, and that's a real problem.

TONY JONES: Here's a grim statistic from New South Wales. A P Plate driver dies in that state every six days. Sixty-six per cent of deaths amongst 17 to 20 year olds are from car crashes. A case for a national intervention?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, you've got to get the car safety standards right. That's the basic step involved in this, and there have been a few problems with car safety standards around the country. The second thing is new automatic systems to go into cars to help cars manoeuvre on the road better and more safely. That's the second thing we've done by regulation. You talk about nationally consistent rules though. The means we do this through, which is the Australian Transport Ministers' Council is run by the Australian Government Transport Minister - in this case Anthony Albanese, and the key thing is to get agreement across the states to do it. Now, I can't tell you here and now how far that's got and when we're going to deliver that in terms of a final outcome, but that's our approach. I feel about this personally. My son has just turned 16. He's just got his learners here in Canberra. I think about this a lot. I think about it a hell of a lot and, I've got to say, if there's practical stuff still to be done we'll be in there.

TONY JONES: Our questioner has her hand up. We'll go back to her.

FLEUR CRIBB: Yeah. I looked it up to try and have some background research for asking the question and it seems that since 1948 Australia has been trying to implement a national road rule scheme and in the 1990s the National Transport Commission - I think that's what it's called. Yeah, they implemented one, but the states just sort of adapted it to their own rules and so if you get pulled over in New South Wales and you're an ACT driver, it's very confusing about what's going to happen to you.

KEVIN RUDD: I think...

FLEUR CRIBB: So I was just wondering...

KEVIN RUDD: I'm sorry.

FLEUR CRIBB: Yeah.

KEVIN RUDD: Certainly I think the fines regime differs in all the states and there are certain aspects of the rules. Ever tried to drive in Melbourne recently with that funny turn left, turn right thing? I've never quite understood it but any Melburnians here will get offended. So there's some work to be done but getting motor vehicle standards right and the maximal installation of the technologies in new vehicles which help the stable management of cars, particularly in difficult situations, that's important too. But there's still a whole lot of work to be done and I feel personally concerned about this, as any parent of young person would, when you've got a young fellow out there taking his first driving lessons.

TONY JONES: Okay, you mentioned alcohol and we actually have a question on that subject. It's from Linna Wei.

LINNA WEI: Hi, Mr Rudd. The Australian Medical Association in Queensland has said that 100 lives a year could be saved if we lifted the legal drinking age to 21, the same as it is in the US. Teenagers start driving when they're 18. Coincidentally, this is the same age as the legal drinking age in Australia. Mr Rudd, have you ever considered lifting the minimum legal drinking age in Australia?

KEVIN RUDD: We've had a few discussions about that because, you're right, in certain places in the United States that's been considered and embraced. The key thing is to work out what actually works. One of the things that we've had a few problems with, and it won't be popular, probably in an audience like this, is the ready accessibility of sweet alcohol intensive drinks, like alcopops. We took a pretty controversial decision, which is to increase the price of alcopops, which drove a whole lot of young people quite mad, because we're making it harder to get. But you know what happened? Just in this category of drinks, huge impact in drinking rates of young teenagers going through the roof, because it was sweet, highly alcoholic and hugely affecting their ability to, frankly, manoeuvre a car, if they were at that age as well.

TONY JONES: But the tax hasn't stopped binge drinking.

KEVIN RUDD: (Indistinct) but there are a series of practical measures that you can put in place to try and reduce the problem. You know, you can't wave a magic wand and say, "Tomorrow everyone will drive responsibly. Tomorrow a whole bunch of people will stop drinking." What you can do is put in place some practical things which make it more difficult. Since we've taken this measure on alcopops, the consumption of alcopops, I think, has gone down by about 33 per cent. Then people say, "Oh, they just go and drink other stuff." That's partly true, but the overall alcoholic consumption among young people, I am advised, has gone down by eight per cent (indistinct).

TONY JONES: Right. Let's get an answer - a specific answer - to Linna Wei's question about raising the drinking age - the legal drinking age - to 21. Would you consider it?

KEVIN RUDD: I don't have the evidence in front of me to say whether we can or whether we can't. I'd just rather be straight up with you and say...

TONY JONES: Would you like to?

KEVIN RUDD: Of course. I mean - you mean would I like to?

TONY JONES: Would you like to raise the drinking age to 21? Of course.

KEVIN RUDD: I believe in something called evidence-based policy, which is if the evidence is there and it's capable of being proven that it works, then we look at these things and make a decision. But you're asking me for a personal impression. You don't run policy that way, Tony.

TONY JONES: Sometimes.

KEVIN RUDD: Well, you don't. You actually - if you're doing the serious thing, how many of you are in the category of 18 to 21 here? Okay. How many of you want the drinking age raised to 21. Okay. Well, I'm just saying there's got to be a debate about this and it would be an informed debate if we had evidence in front of us which said you do this in State X of the United States and the overall car accident rate and mortality on roads goes down. But I don't have that in front of me.

TONY JONES: So it's an interesting experiment though, policy by popularity. That's - I actually haven't seen that done before.

KEVIN RUDD: No what I mean is if you've got some evidence based policy, is it a uniform view in the community, point one. Point two, is it effective? So nice try, mate, but both are relevant.

TONY JONES: No, I just keep remembering that when I first asked the question you said, "Of course," and then you changed. Anyway, you're watching Q&A. You're watching Q&A.

KEVIN RUDD: What did I change to?

TONY JONES: Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is facing 200 young Australians. The next question comes from Georgia Lourandos.

GEORGIA LOURANDOS: I'm aware that the French Government is currently trying to ban the wearing of the burka in public buildings. Do you think that it is a core part of western and, indeed, Australian values, that women should show their faces in public, just like men?

KEVIN RUDD: I don't, again, have any evidence in front of me which suggests that that helps one way or the other. People have different cultural and religious traditions and I think broadly they should be accepted. Why the French Government is doing what it's doing, a matter for the French. But from our point of view, we don't see any reason for such measures to be brought in here. This is a pretty diverse country that we've got and, look, there's always going to be problems at the extremes of any society. That's the truth. But we've got to be respectful of diversity. People have different religious traditions. They come from different ethnic backgrounds. You're not going to just enforce some sort of, you know, one size fits all approach to, you know, public behaviour and public dress, otherwise you're going to have people marching on parade grounds at 6 o'clock in the morning, because the state says so and I don't believe that's the right way to go.

TONY JONES: Yes, we've got hands up in the audience. We'll take this one first.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Do you believe that the state does have a right to intervene in cases where diversity clashes with repression, as in burkas and oppression of women, as they could be seen?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, in the challenge of civil liberties on the one hand and your right to free choice, your right to express yourself in different ways and maintaining security, which is a common concern and a common right of everybody, you know something, there's no magical solution. If I were to say to you in terms of people's right to protest peacefully, as opposed to violently, where and when is that line crossed and when, therefore, do the authorities step in? These are often difficult choices. So I wish there was a magical answer to that. But I'm giving you, in response to the earlier question, my overall preference, which is this is a free country. A lot of the folk who have participated in this parliament over a long period of time have taken big decisions to defend the freedom. John Curtin, back in the war, deciding to - the measures necessary to defend Australian liberty and democracy, and that was the freedom to choose. The big debates here in the 50s about whether to ban the Communist Party, and Australians voted that people should have the right to choose what their political persuasion was. But you know at the end of the day it's very hard to draw the precise line because if I was standing here today and there had been a terrorist attack yesterday in a part of Australia, and given our security warnings that's always possible - if you look at the security ratings in this country - then the tonality of this debate would change and people would say, "Well, are we doing everything we could?" The balance is hard to get but I'm saying my instincts are always on the side of preserving the liberty which we spent so many decades centuries here building.

TONY JONES: Do you want to continue your cross-examination?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Indistinct).

TONY JONES: Okay, let's move onto our next question. It's on a very different subject. It's from Jeff Shen.

JEFF SHEN: Policies regarding to permanent residence for international students are constantly changing and consequently many of the international students are overloading courses so that future policy changes doesn't affect their intentions to stay in Australia. So could you please explain why international students are being singled out? Why can't they be part of Australia's future or is international students studying here just a revenue raiser?

KEVIN RUDD: No, it's not - look, this has been a challenge for governments over a long period of time and will be into the future. But, you know, there's a responsibility we have to many governments and many countries who send folk here or have folk come here to study in the first place, which is having obtained a bunch of skills, a lot of those countries actually want them back home from the place where they've come from. That's one thing you've got to bear in mind in setting your future immigration policy for students studying in Australia. The second thing is this: we are always going to make hard judgments in this country about what skills we need at a particular time in Australia. There's been a debate in the papers today about...

TONY JONES: Well, your immigration minister has come out today and listed a new set of rules for what is acceptable in terms of the courses you study to get permanent residency here. I think that's partly being alluded to in that question.

KEVIN RUDD: Yes, that's what I'm saying is that we will make a hardline judgment each year, on a rolling basis, about the skills that you need for Australia for the future.

TONY JONES: So there's no...

KEVIN RUDD: And that will change.

TONY JONES: There seemed to be an undercurrent there that perhaps the government thought some international students were rorting the system to get an easy run to Australian residency.

KEVIN RUDD: Well, Australian residency and ultimately Australian citizenship is a privilege, therefore you've got to be very careful about how you construct your immigration system. These are hard decisions. They're very practical decisions. But the good thing is, frankly, basically since the war we have been a country which has encouraged people to come here from right across the world, including students, and it may be, to go back to the basis of your question, that having come here, picked up your qualification, the best thing that you decide to do and it may be in the interest of your country to spend a couple of years back home and then apply afresh to come here. In terms of the skills that are relevant to Australia, that will always be made independently by people looking at where our economy needs people for the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years and that skills profile changes from year to year. I know that's a tough message for many folk who, having studied here, want to stay here but I've got to say it's a balance message if you're looking at our long-term immigration policy.

TONY JONES: All right, we've got a few hands up in the audience. Let's take this young lady in the second row here first.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Despite the recent changes today made by Chris Evans regarding permanent residency, how can you ensure that Australian citizens such as myself, in their final year, can graduate knowing that there will be a job there for them, because it seems to be changing with your immigration law. You seem to be softening up than hardening up. How can you guarantee we will get a job in the Australian job market?

KEVIN RUDD: You're an Australian citizen?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, I am.

KEVIN RUDD: Okay, fine. There's two things to say in response...

(AUDIENCE LAUGH)

KEVIN RUDD: Well, no, the question asked by this person over here was on the basis that they were not. I just wanted to be clear about the basis upon which that question was asked and you're asking about yourself.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I was born in Australia. I was born here.

KEVIN RUDD: Yeah, sure.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: But my parents are from overseas and they have integrated just as much as other Australians who were born...

KEVIN RUDD: Absolutely.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: So I just want a guarantee that when I finish my degree I'm not going to be working odd jobs just to survive. I'd like to be guaranteed a job. Yeah.

KEVIN RUDD: That's why I asked the question back, which was the question of how the employment market in this country is unfolding or whether it was a more fundamental question about immigration policy. That's why I was seeking clarification. On the employment market, I just emphasis a point I made back here to the question asked by this fellow up the back here about pre-election commitments and the reality we had to face in the last 12 months. Unemployment here - it's still too high. It's 5.8 per cent. It's also the second lowest of all the major advanced economies in the world. With youth unemployment, 16 to 24 year olds, which I think is the age bracket here. Is that right, Tony? The unemployment...

TONY JONES: 25 year olds, but close.

KEVIN RUDD: Yeah. The youth unemployment rate in Australia is, I think, about 11.5. Youth being defined as that bracket of people. In the United States and France at the moment, it's about 20 per cent. Can I just say what we have done in the last year - not perfect, this is the national infrastructure stimulus strategy - it to try and make a difference - a real difference. If you look back to the recessions of the early nineties and the early eighties, what happened there, when our unemployment for the whole community was in double digits, you can shell out an entire generation of people without opportunity. We didn't want that to happen again. So when people will criticise us, for example, how we went about funding the national infrastructure stimulus strategy by increasing the budget deficit and by temporary borrowings, we did it deliberately with the objective in mind of protecting jobs into the future. That, for us, has been so fundamental and I'd really encourage you to compare the unemployment and the employment data of this economy with any other advanced economy in the world. We've managed to make it better - not perfect, better - in terms of entering the job market in the year ahead.

TONY JONES: Very briefly I gather you are not going to guarantee all university graduates jobs, which is what you were asked.

KEVIN RUDD: No, I don't think I was asked for providing a guarantee for everyone to get a job. That's never been the case. It wasn't the graduated university either.

TONY JONES: No, of course not. Okay.

KEVIN RUDD: Nor you.

TONY JONES: Indeed. We have another question from an international student. It's from Om Perkash Butra.

OM PERKASH BUTRA: Yes, Mr Prime Minister, Australian Universities are encouraging international student to study in Australia, where racism is increasing day by day, creating a big problem for international students. I have been victim myself. So what are your plans to overcome this issue?

KEVIN RUDD: It's a really good question and it's really topical because of the problems particularly in and around Melbourne. When I speak...

TONY JONES: Can I just interrupt you for one moment? Because he just said, I think, that he had been a victim himself. Could we just hear what you're talking about?

OM PERKASH BUTRA: Oh, actually I was on New Parliament House on Australian Day, where teenagers - drunk Australian came in and pushed me and actually asked me - said that curry munchers and some of them misbehaved badly, which I can't explain even so that kind of problems are happening around and this was first of my experience, which probably changed my mind a bit of Australia, as well.

KEVIN RUDD: How long have you been in Australia, if I can ask that?

OM PERKASH BUTRA: I think seven months only.

KEVIN RUDD: Okay. Well, that's a really awful story and makes me sick. It really makes me sick that anyone would treat you, as a guest in our country, like that. It's wrong. It shouldn't happen. In terms of what we're doing about it, the work that we are currently - have underway with the Victorian Government is to deal with each of the teaching institutions, where some of the students, for example, from India are coming, and to look at the practical questions concerning transport, work after hours and getting safely from where people are working off to where they are staying and then back to where they are studying. Remember, in big cities there is, right across the world - there are violence rates. They're unacceptable. They're not good and they often apply to all people, whatever their ethnic background, but I'm really concerned that this has happened to you just up the road. But, at a practical level, your question is, "What are we doing about it?" With the Victorian Government and the Victorian teaching authorities now looking at those series of practical recommendations. We commissioned a guy called Bruce Baird, former member of parliament from actually the conservative side of politics, who is just completing a report to us - completed a report to us on what we do specifically about the concerns which Indian students have. That's just (indistinct).

TONY JONES: Very briefly, the police in Melbourne in particular keep saying these attacks or very few of them are actually to do with racism, but you've heard differently here. Do you fear there is an undercurrent of racism in this country?

KEVIN RUDD: My experience of Australia over many, many years, that it's a very, very, very tolerant country. I'm really concerned when I hear these stories. My son-in-law is Chinese from Hong Kong. I hear stories from him from time to time, which make me really worried about what might be going on out there. But his overall story is that he is completely accepted and part of the Australian family. But we've just got to keep a weather eye on any of this stuff every taking hold, because this country, Australia, is an shall be a tolerant country, and we have a combined responsibility - politicians of all sides, community leaders, young people, old people - to keep it that way. But it's tough and other countries around the world have failed miserably on this score.

TONY JONES: All right, we've got a few hands up. Let's go to - there are two of you down there with your hands up. We'll hear from both of you, if that's okay. Start with the gentleman on the right.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: With the rate of racist acts going up every single day, would you ever consider, like, teaching in school for, like, societies to, you know, merge, kind of thing? Like back in one of my friends is in US, so their school runs a program where they give them diverse knowledge about different cultures, so that they become acceptable. So would you ever consider that in school level?

TONY JONES: Okay, just take that onboard and we'll hear from the other young man sitting beside you.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Actually, I am from India, as well, and this is my third and a half year in Australia and I'm proud to say that I have never experience racism myself and this is just a comment to say that you have bad people in every single country, but that doesn't mean that the entire country is racist. So I just want to put that point up to every international student, that Australia is not a racist country at all and I'm happy to be here and I would love to live over here.

KEVIN RUDD: It's actually good and important to hear both these stories. It really is. That is the Australia I know and these are the stories I am from time to time hearing. Both of these are realities. So to go to your specific question, there is always room in our school curriculum for young people to understand more comprehensively the different cultures of the world. One of my big passions in life has been the study of foreign languages - Asian languages in particular. In part because it simply provides young people - people generally - with a vehicle to understand vastly different cultures around the world; see how realities are seen differently and for me that's really important. Whether it's Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, Malay. Whether it's Hindi, whether it's Urdu, this is important stuff. But here is one note of encouragement. Proportionally there are more Australian kids studying foreign languages in our schools - Asian languages - than you'll find in any other western country. This is a good thing but its yield will not be had for a long, long time, because you may not turn out a whole generation of, you know, simultaneous interpreters but I'll tell you what you will do is cause people to understand reality from someone else's perspective and that builds respect.

TONY JONES: Before we leave this question, let's go to someone with another perspective on the same issue, Moses Aduot.

MOSES ADUOT: Prime Minister, thank you. My question is: the United State of America has invested in its own black African Americans and President Barack Obama is a living example of real inclusion - real, practical reconciliation, real sorry to African Americans. My question is: why is Australia more than happy to receive President Barack Obama, a black man, when Australia is ashamed of its own black, whether Indigenous or African Australians.

KEVIN RUDD: I think my attitude with that would be a bit different and that is - you know something, here at the beginning of 2008 just up the road when we delivered the national apology to Indigenous Australians, this was one step towards achieving real reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. It's not perfect but, you know something, until we had crossed that bridge of mutual respect, given the centuries of abuse and exploitation of Indigenous Australians by non-Indigenous Australians, then you couldn't get to the next step, which is our policy of trying to close the gap between these two parts of the Australian family. That's why we're dead set serious about this. I'll be delivering the second annual report on the closing the gap targets we set for ourselves with the apology. How do you narrow the gap in terms of infant mortality? We've committed to halving that over time. How do we narrow the gap in terms of year 12 equivalent achievement between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians? How do you make sure that employment opportunities are the same? These are the basic things. Closing the life expectancy gap, which is currently obscene. So engaging in a way which acknowledges huge past errors is the first step. That's what the apology was all about, but it counts for nothing unless you do the practical stuff on the ground with the hundreds of thousands of Indigenous Australians whose lives still don't have the same opportunities as non-Indigenous Australians. That's our policy. It will take a long time to work through. We've made a start. As for African Australians or other residents from other parts of the world who are not Indigenous, I am always disturbed, as I said to our friend from India before, to hear of any stories of racial prejudice. Racial prejudice has no place in modern Australia. Let us make sure that we all work together on that.

TONY JONES: Okay. I appreciate there are a few people still with their hands up, but we're going to move on again. You're watching Q&A, the show where you get to ask the questions. If you'd like to ask a question in person, go to our website and register to join the audience, just like these people have done. Our next question comes from Ceridwen Radcliffe.

CERIDWEN RADCLIFFE: Prime Minister.

KEVIN RUDD: Ceridwen.

CERIDWEN RADCLIFFE: It's so easy to download music and movies on line and difficult to determine whether it's legitimate and I was just wondering what is your government's position on the balance between young people's desire to access affordable entertainment and artists' desire to protect their creative output?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, it's a hard one. It's almost like the question before about civil liberties. What is intellectual copyright? What is the rights of artists to own their property and what are the laws which prevent the sort of free dissemination of that? Look, I can't, you know, divine from or say from here, "Here is the dividing line up the middle." I really understand how important downloading is to your generation. My son does this himself, I hope lawfully, and if not we're in deep trouble. So...

TONY JONES: Okay.

KEVIN RUDD: ...getting this balance right is important. Do we have any - I'm not aware that we have current changes to the laws in mind. I just wish to be frank about that.

TONY JONES: Well, I've got ask you that, because only last week there was a landmark case in the Federal Court. Iitnet(sic), an internet service provider, won a case that the movie industry took against them. People were downloading pirated movies using their website - Iinet - and the Federal Court has effectively said you can't stop them doing that. They won that case. You're going to be lobbied heavily by the movie industry. What will you tell them?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, the first thing I'll say to them in the persistent - consistent with the tradition of evidence-based policy is I'll read the decision of the court and see what they actually had to say because it's usually not as black and white as is presented. But secondly, look, this is an open culture. It celebrates the fact that you can access different sources of culture and music from right around the world and from artists who you love and enjoy. If the laws are, through the courts, being interpreted in a particular way, if I take what Tony Jones has said accurately - and being from the ABC I'm sure he wouldn't be inaccurate - then we'll have a look at the decision and see what we can do, but I don't want to, frankly, make any pronouncement on area of policy. I just don't have the evidence in front of me. I'd just rather be careful about that.

TONY JONES: All right. Let's change subjects again. The next question comes from Nicky Vreugdenhil.

NICKY VREUGDENHILL: Hi. I'm from the UN Youth Association. President Obama appears to be abandoning his scheme to put a price on carbon in the United States, but you've committed to introducing an emissions trading scheme in Australia. When Obama comes to Australia in March, will you lobby him to fight for a similar cap and trade system in the United States?

KEVIN RUDD: The key thing here is to action on climate change. You know what's great about America under President Obama is they've suddenly entered into action. The previous US administration said that it wasn't anything for them. Now we have America at the table and it makes such a huge difference. So when it comes to the targets that we have been discussing recently about bringing down greenhouse gas emissions, now you have America fully engaged in the global negotiations for the future. That's the first thing. The second is how do you go about realising those targets? Our conclusion, as the government of Australia, is that the most effective way and the least costly way of doing it is through an emissions trading scheme. That's been our approach. We, in Australia, like the Americans, face something called a political constraint and - I can't quite see you now, mate. There's someone in the road. There you go - and it's called the senate - the US Senate and the Australian Senate - and they have both put this huge roadblock in the way and so obviously President Obama is looking at the possibility of how you mix a response to the targets which America must realise as the second biggest polluting country in the world after China and how you mix that with the future possible introduction of an emissions trading scheme there. So he's got political realities to deal with.

TONY JONES: Isn't it going to be a serious problem for your government if the United States rejects a global carbon trading scheme and, to go back to the question, will you be lobbying President Obama...

KEVIN RUDD: No.

TONY JONES: ...to actually make sure they do get a carbon trading scheme?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, I was speaking to the US ambassador about the president's upcoming visit just the other day and my best understanding is that the US is looking still at how it wrestles this cap and trade system to the ground. When they can do it and when they can deliver it is a separate question. I look forward to talking to him about it. The key thing is real action. You say...

TONY JONES: That's what Tony Abbott says, direct action. In fact, he says - he now says - he now says that his plan is more similar to what the Americans are going to do than your plan is.

KEVIN RUDD: No, what Tony Abbott says about - now that you've raised him - about climate change is, quote, "It's absolute crap", unquote. That's what Tony Abbott says about his view on climate change. That's not Barack Obama's view and it's not my view. There's a big difference, because that's the foundation stone. You either believe the science or you reject the science. We, the government, believe the science. The US government believes the science under President Obama. The next question is what you do and in terms of the different schemes. What do we do? We say we charge the biggest polluters. Secondly, we use that money to compensate working families for any costs which flow through to them and, thirdly, that gives them the money also to invest in energy efficiency measures themselves. That's what a cap and trade system is about, because you are ultimately also putting a cap on carbon pollution. His system doesn't do that.

TONY JONES: No doubt you've seen all the hands going up in the audience. Before we come to some of those people with their hands up, we do have another question on this topic. You've alluded to it already to some degree. Let's go to Blaise Joseph.

BLAISE JOSEPH: Prime Minister, given the climate-gate email scandal, given the fact that the IPCC claims on Himalayan glaciers melting and Amazon rainforests disappearing both have been proven to be fabricated, and now given that the Dutch government is reviewing all claims of the IPCC, do you still have full confidence in the IPCC and is it still necessary to rush ahead with your ETS?

KEVIN RUDD: The first thing I'd say is...

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Indistinct)

KEVIN RUDD: As you can see there is a bit of division on that in the room, like the chamber up the hill. The first thing I'd say is the IPCC - International Panel on Climate Change - scientists has 4000 essentially humourless scientists in white coats who go around and measure things and have been doing so for about 20 years. They reached a conclusion about, first of all, climate change happening and, second, the high likelihood, defined as 90 per cent plus, of it being caused by human activity sometime ago. I'm saying that's actually what the IPCC has concluded. The second thing is this: here in Australia the government has been in receipt of advice from the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, the Chief Scientist, that that's what's happening here. So as the Prime Minister of Australia you stand back and you say, "Well, the 4000 scientists in white coats are all wrong, the CSIRO is all wrong, the Australian Chief Scientist is all wrong and also the Bureau of Meteorology is all wrong." Well, I'm not prepared to take that risk. I'm not prepared to take that risk for your future in 20 years time, 40 years time, 60 years time. My view is this generation of political leaders has a responsibility to act - has a responsibility to act. And you can play the easy game of retail politics, which is to say this is all too hard, go round and use loose language, like, you know, the climate change science is incapable of being trusted and take a massive risk with the future. The government I lead will not do that.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right. A lot of people - hold on. We've got a lot of people with their hands up. What I intend to do here is go around and just get comments from a number of you, okay? We'll start with this gentleman in the - no, back there. Second row in the black shirt.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr Rudd, regarding climate change, can Copenhagen be deemed as anything but a failure?

KEVIN RUDD: Am I answering these?

TONY JONES: Well, I think you better answer that one.

KEVIN RUDD: You've just changed your rules after one question. The...

TONY JONES: Okay. No, we'll take a few questions.

KEVIN RUDD: No. No. I'll answer...

TONY JONES: All right. All right. Go ahead.

KEVIN RUDD: ...so it's not forgotten, because you're going to have this whole pile of things. Firstly, four things were achieved at Copenhagen. One, first time the world community said, "We cannot allow temperature increases to go beyond two degrees centigrade." That was not part of global concord before. Second that they said was this - the second point they said was this: that developed and developing countries for the first time must contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In the past the big emerging economies, like China and India, were not in the play. And the third thing is for the first time a global system of measurement - that is to make sure that the commitments and targets which are agreed to by governments actually happen on the ground. Did it achieve everything that we wanted to achieve? Absolutely not. But if it didn't achieve those three things, frankly we would be even further behind than we are now and I go back to what I said. This government is committed to action on climate change nationally and globally because the future of the planet and your generation depends on it.

TONY JONES: Okay. We've actually got another question in the audience, before I go to the rest of you with your hands up, from Kane Wishart. Where's Kane? Wait for the microphone there, Kane.

KANE WISHART: Hello, Prime Minister.

KEVIN RUDD: G'day, Kane.

KANE WISHART: Given, as we've heard, there's a climate of denialism around and the opposition have been attacking your ETS as a great, big nasty spooky tax or whatever they're calling it, isn't it time your government looked afresh at other measures that are evidence based, such as a consumption side carbon tax, which can be revenue neutral, which won't affect international competitiveness and can go to a scientifically credible outcome?

KEVIN RUDD: Look, there are three broad categories for acting on climate change. One is the market-based system, which is called an emissions trading scheme. The great irony of current Australian politics is the Labor Party supports the market-based system and the conservatives are supporting the command and control system of handling this, but I'll leave others to wrestle with that little dilemma. You go to the third option, which is to use a carbon tax itself. We've looked at this and looked at it very hard. From our point of view it does not create the incentives necessary to change behaviour in the same manner that an emissions trading scheme does.

TONY JONES: Can I just interrupt you, because you did look at it and look at it very hard, and you hired Professor Garno to do that looking for you, to a large degree, and advise you and now he's advising you to go for a carbon tax for the next two years because he doesn't believe an emissions trading scheme is going to work in this country. It's not going to happen. It's not going to get through the senate.

KEVIN RUDD: Well, his argument, yeah, is a political one and that goes to the question of the future of the emissions trading legislation in the parliament. Still a few hoops to go through up the hill on that but his argument is not a substantive one. He says that by far and above an emissions trading system is preferable because it does this: it puts a cap on carbon. It charges the polluters and as a result of that provides compensation from that charge to working families. What we've got with the alternative scheme on offer is one which does less. In fact, the current scheme proposed by Mr Abbott increases greenhouse gas emissions by 13 per cent, costs more, tax payer pays three times as much and is totally unfunded. That is the basic difference.

TONY JONES: Okay, what about just very briefly on this Bob Brown - Tony Abbott says you don't have a plan B. When that doesn't get through the senate, Bob Brown is offering you a plan B of a two year interim carbon tax. $20 per tonne. That's what the Greens are offering to vote for and to help you get the extra votes in the senate. You are actually talking to them. At least Penny Wong is. Are you seriously talking to them? Is this a potential plan B?

KEVIN RUDD: If your question goes to the carbon tax question, which was raised over here before, the answer is no. Secondly, your point about the Greens goes headlong into mathematics. The Greens don't control with us the numbers in the senate. You've got three independents there and some of you may have read the writings of Senator Fielding on the question of climate change. It's all - and you worry me if you applaud that, because let me tell you it's all one global communist conspiracy and watch out and lock up your friends. It's going to come and get you in the middle of the night. We have a different approach, which is this is happening, it's real and sensible political leadership lies in how do you best deal with this in a way which works, which works environmentally, because the consequences of this country, which is among the hottest and driest continents on earth, would be one where the effects of climate change are felt first and hardest. That's why this government is determined to act.

TONY JONES: All right. Let's hear some quick comments from the audience. I stress this, comments, because we don't have time to answer a whole series of other questions and still get on to the other subjects. So if you want to comment, keep your hand up. The young lady down the front.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, you keep saying that, you know, your government keeps acting on climate change. Do you think that, you know, it's feasible that because you also say that, you know, you're supporting a big Australia. How realistic do you think it is to have a big Australia and reduce your carbon emissions at the same time?

KEVIN RUDD: The first thing is just to look at the reality and it goes back to questions which have been raised already about immigration and the fact that this country has been open to immigration since the war. The population projections for Australia, which have been discussed recently, are there in the intergenerational report produced by the Treasury, as it was under Mr Costello on two occasions prior to us and it's simply taking the natural fertility rate in the country, adding to it the historical levels of migration. And you go out to the projections for 2050, which has been talked about, and producing a population of 36 million. Guess what? That assumes a population growth in Australia slower in the next 40 years than it was in the last 40 years. So let's just keep all this into perspective. The second point is the big challenge with population is how do you plan effectively in terms of the infrastructure needs of the future, and that is one of the big future challenges facing Australia. Acting on climate change, planning our infrastructure needs, making sure that we're building the skills base for the Australian economy for the future, because we want to be a world competitive economy, an open society, but it means grabbing these future challenges, not pushing them to one side.

TONY JONES: Just a couple more, and I stress comments here, because we don't have time. Let's hear from this young lady at the back with her hand up.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: In the absence of international agreement, how confident are you...

TONY JONES: Oh, that's a question.

(AUDIENCE LAUGH).

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Sorry, I'll try to rephrase it. But how confident are you in the effect...

(AUDIENCE LAUGH)

TONY JONES: That's all right. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Keep going.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: ...in the effectiveness of the implementation of an Australian ETS, both strategically and financially.

KEVIN RUDD: Well, the virtue of an emissions trading scheme domestically within Australia is that it's a market-based scheme but which caps carbon pollution. One of the problems with the alternative scheme is that it doesn't. That's the big difference. You also talk about international measures. As I said before, in response to the question about Copenhagen, for the first time governments around the world agreed on a global monitoring and measurement system. Prior to that we had no such agreement. So you would be right to be sceptical about the future in the absence of a mechanism to measure what people are doing. None of this is easy. It is all really hard, but there are two big strategic options in the future: bury your head in the sand and hope it all goes away or act. We're in the business of acting.

TONY JONES: Okay. You're watching Q&A. Remember, you can send your web or video questions to our website. The address is on the screen, or join the Twitter conversation. And in just a matter of interest tonight - we have a matter of interest here. Apparently tonight's program has peaked as the number one trending topic on Twitter worldwide. That's hard to believe, isn't it? Okay. But apparently it's true.

(AUDIENCE APPLAUD)

KEVIN RUDD: I'd like to know how you knew that?

TONY JONES: I didn't know that but someone has told me that, evidently. Our next question tonight comes from the floor of old parliament house. It's from Kate Campbell.

KATE CAMPBELL: Prime Minister, the school performance measures cited on the My Schools website clearly show that those schools situated in lower socioeconomic areas generally achieve poorer results than their counterparts with a higher socioeconomic index. Rather than the current crude method of naming and shaming, what tangible efforts is the Rudd Government going to make to support the students, teachers and parents in these disadvantaged areas?

KEVIN RUDD: Okay. Three quick points. One is we believe in transparency. That is that every school in the country, and there are 10,000 of them - primary schools, secondary schools, government, non-government - should be answerable to the parents of Australia how the school is performing against very basic skills tests - literacy, numeracy, spelling, grammar, stuff like that. Secondly, the virtue of having the information also enables the government, through Julia Gillard, Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister, where to intervene and provide support. If you simply are in the business of putting up a list and saying "Gee, there's a problem over there," and then walking away, it wouldn't make any sense. But if you're in the business of saying, "Here's a problem and here is an investment fund of $2 billion to be made available to disadvantaged schools, then you know where it's to go, what specific literacy and numeracy programs may be useful to overcome problems at year three, year five through year seven and provide the resources to it. The last thing I'd say about the measure itself is simply bear this in mind: this is the first time we've done this. On top of it we intend also in the year ahead, if the government is returned, to have tested the attitudes of parents about the overall performance of the school. What sort of culture is in the school? Are they community engaged schools? Are they schools which are really being innovative in the way in which they bring the best out of their children. In other words a rounder view of the school. This will go up on the website, as well.

TONY JONES: How is that going to be tested? Are you going to bring them in to do their own little NAPLAN Tests in school halls? How are you going to do that?

KEVIN RUDD: You mean the surveys? They'll be...

TONY JONES: No, the parents.

KEVIN RUDD: No, the parents will be surveyed by normal means by a survey company. If you've got a school community of 500 kids, you've got, you know, a bunch of parents in that community and therefore you'll survey them. The details of this will be sorted out during the year, but the question goes to how do you provide a balanced view of the school? One is the intrinsic performance on literacy, numeracy and the basics and the second is what sort of school is it in the eyes of those who entrust their kids to it? Nothing is perfect but we want to help create in this country what we describe as an education revolution and that means making sure that our young people have all the skills necessary to properly participate in the workforce of the future and to have the tools to do that as well.

TONY JONES: Just a quick follow up on that. This fund you're talking about which will direct billions of dollars, I think you said, to the disadvantaged schools who are identified by these tests, how are we going to know it's as a result of the test? Is there going to be some sort of measure for that?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, I've discussed this with Julia, as well. All these things will be measured, befores and afters, but do you know something? You couldn't get to first base until you've got an initial set of measures. There are going to be inaccuracies. Let's just accept that. But I'd much rather have a national education system where our 10,000 schools know how their schools are performing and if you've got, for example, a real problem at a - consistently at a year five, seven and nine level but no such problems at a year three level, well, what's happening in that school? If there are problems just emerging at the year nine level, which weren't evidenced in the earlier years, what's happening in that school? These are questions to be asked but, frankly, the objective is about how you improve the quality of what we do but it adds up to nothing unless you are actually providing schools with extra resources to make it happen.

TONY JONES: All right. We need to do this for two hours next time, because we are almost out of time. Let's go to our final question, which comes from John Casey.

JOHN CASEY: Mr Prime Minister, tonight has mostly been about us giving our vision for the future of Australia. I think it's now your turn. Where do you see Australia in 20 years and what are your hopes, dreams and plans for the future of Australia?

KEVIN RUDD: Thanks for that question. It's really important. Part of being where you guys are is to think about your futures and have your views to us about where you want the country to be. So in summary it's a bit like this. Number one is this: I want this country, Australia, in the future to have a strong economy, which enables us to provide the jobs of the future which have been described before. You don't have that, you don't have much. Second, how do you build that? You make this country as productive as possible and there are two ways you can make that happen. Investing in what we've just been talking about: the education revolution. In preschools, in schools, in TAFEs, in universities, in research institutes, which is what we're doing right across the spectrum through a 100 per cent increase in the overall education budget. The third thing is to make sure we've got modern, state of the art, 21st century infrastructure. It stinks that we've got a broadband system in this country which is probably the third slowest in the OECD and probably one of the most expensive. That's what we've got. That's why we're going to roll out a National Broadband Network, the information highway of the 21st century. But the last thing is this: to make sure also that this future Australia, which is prosperous, which is strong, which is creating jobs of the future is also one where we have made the right decisions to ensure that this is a sustainable country, as well. Sustainable environmentally but the questions of tolerance and harmony and shall I say our unity are preserved in the future. That's the sort of Australia I want for the future. Five broad objectives but none of them work unless you get in behind them with real, practical policies which make a difference. What we're doing is not perfect but that's the direction we're trying to take the country in.

TONY JONES: I'm sorry to you who still have your hands up, because that is all we have time for tonight. Please thank our guest, the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. Okay. And can you also thank our hosts, the Museum of Australian Democracy, who lent us this amazing chamber in Old Parliament House. Okay. You've got one more chance to clap. Give yourselves a round of applause for being a night of great questioners. All right. Next Monday on Q&A we'll have a panel of very lively guests: the Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner; the Shadow Minister Finance Spokesman Barnaby Joyce; author and business analysts Satyajit Das; commentator Melinda Tankard Reist; and social researcher Rebecca Huntley. If you'd like to know more about our panellists, you can visit our website, abc.net.au/qanda or send your questions in so - if you'd like to get an answer to them obviously. So until next Monday night at the same time, I bid you goodnight.