TONY JONES: Good evening and welcome to Q&A. I'm Tony Jones. The former Liberal leader John Hewson unfortunately can't join us tonight. To answer your questions in his place Former Liberal MP and Head of the Christian Schools Australia, Stephen O'Doherty; Finance Minister Penny Wong; the inspiration for the ABC TV series RAKE, barrister Charles Waterstreet; the head of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Liz Ann Macgregor and West Australian Senator and Assistant Treasurer Mathias Cormann. Please welcome our panel.

Q&A is live from 9.35 pm Eastern Time and simulcast on ABC News 24, News Radio and Australia Network and you can go to our website to send your questions in now and you can join the Twitter conversation using the hash tag that's just appearing on your screen. Well, Sydney City Council recently decided to describe the First Fleet as an invasion, rather than a European arrival. Our first question tonight is on that subject. It comes from Jakomi Matthews.

INVASION

JAKOMI MATTHEWS: Yes. It is a historical fact that we invaded and dispossessed the Aboriginals from their land. In some cases we actually committed what is regarded as genocide when it comes to Tasmanian Aboriginals. So how can Sydney City Council be criticised for its decision to term the arrival of Europeans in Australia as an invasion?"

TONY JONES: Liz Ann Macgregor, let's start with you on that.

ELIZABETH ANN MACGREGOR: Well, "invasion" is always a difficult word but we have invasions of plants, which is somehow more benign. So my point really is that terminology is something we can all argue about. This is NAIDOC week. I'll far rather see the focus on the fantastic things that are happening within Aboriginal communities. Because I do think that when we focus on words, we're all just going to end up arguing about it and I'd like to move forward.

TONY JONES: Do you think it's a semantic argument, nothing more than that? There's nothing to the symbolism?

ELIZABETH ANN MACGREGOR: I think it's symbol. It's symbolic, and symbols are important and I know many Aboriginal people that feel very strongly about it but I still feel that perhaps this one really should be laid to rest and we should move on and look at more positive things.

TONY JONES: Charles Waterstreet?

CHARLES WATERSTREET: Well, I think it's a bit of a joke, really, because I think although it carries great significance as a concept, I would have thought that the way we're selling our land to international companies and international nations that we're really only caretakers of it for a little while, so it's hardly an invasion. We're really just sitting on the land, waiting for it to rise in value before we sell it off.

TONY JONES: What do you think about the idea - I'm sure we'll come to that question later, because I know that people are very interested in that, but what do you think of the idea that it was an invasion, as opposed to a settlement?

CHARLES WATERSTREET: Well, it was peaceful invasion of sorts but there wasn't all that much resistance but ...

JAKOMI MATTHEWS: How was it peaceful though, if they actually went and actually killed every pureblood Aboriginal in Tasmania?

CHARLES WATERSTREET: Without a doubt - without a doubt the Tasmania incident was disgraceful, as was the rest of the incident. But how does one historically deal with it by calling it "Invasion Day"? I'm still getting over the loss of Empire Day, which I grew up with. It suddenly disappeared and there was one less holiday and then it became Commonwealth Day and that disappeared and it was Guy Fawkes Day before all that. So there is a symbol but it can be made by other means. I think it focuses on a negative rather than fostering a positive.

TONY JONES: You're missing the opportunity to let off explosives in your front yard, are you, Charles?

CHARLES WATERSTREET: I still admire fireworks.

TONY JONES: Let's go to Stephen O'Doherty. The question was really about whether Sydney City Council deserves to be criticised for this.

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: Well, I think it's good to have the debate, Tony. It's very good that now that they've raised the matter we're able to discuss the very question. What's someone's invasion was colonisation for somebody else. Look, in schools we've actually been discussing this for 20 years. It's nothing new that the council has suddenly discovered the word "Invasion". This is about what happened in Farm Cove in 1788. The were a lot of things going on there and with the hindsight of history, you can call it an invasion. You can call it a lot of things but the important thing now is that we move forward together. Even in those early days in 1788, there was at some level down there at Farm Cove a degree of sharing. The Aboriginal people showed the white settlers where the water holes were. There was a degree of co-stewardship of the land. It didn't go well and we were in very different times. Don't mishear me. But I think the council has done this way too late. It's now only a matter of creating greater division rather than bringing our cultures together.

TONY JONES: Penny Wong?

PENNY WONG: I think the question is what the purpose of it is. Obviously it's a matter for the Council what it wants to use in its documents and so forth but, you know, what are we trying to do here? Are we trying to recognise what has gone before and is this the best way to do it? Are we trying to reconcile and does this contribute to that? You know, I think this is a debate where I'd been keen for us to focus less on the words than on what we're actually trying to achieve.

JAKOMI MATTHEWS: I agree but I think it's more the shock jocks and the right-wing sort of media who have been actually pushing the negativity line on it and creating the furore more than the actual - the issue actually warrants.

TONY JONES: Let's go to Mathias Cormann?

MATHIAS CORMANN: Well, I think it is an unfortunate and divisive term to use. I mean I think that what is important is that we all move forward together and I don't think that the cause of Aboriginal people and that the issues and challenges faced by Aboriginal people is helped by using that divisive and unfortunate language like this. So, really, it's a matter of going past the symbolism and actually focusing on practical issues that are going to make a real different.

TONY JONES: Let's move forward together to a different subject. You're watching Q&A, where you ask the questions. The next question comes from Frank Kaiser.

CARBON TAX / JOBS

FRANK KAISER: Directed for Penny Wong. As a manufacturer and an employer of 23 people, we're confronted with the costs of the carbon tax or proposed carbon tax. We've got raw materials in steel increasing. Fuel costs, electricity and then on top of that a proposed 3% increase in the superannuation. What compensation are we going to get as an employer and if there is none, can you recommend a good liquidator?

PENNY WONG: Well, first, there are many reasons, some of which you've alluded to, that manufacturing is under pressure and obviously the high dollar is amongst them, which I assume is impacting on your business, just as it is on many others. One of the reasons we want to put a mining tax in places is to fund a range of things, such as a reduction in the company tax rate, because we recognise we've got a lot of investment in mining that's having an effect on things like the dollar, which obviously, for people who are not in the mining boom, creates some pressures. So this is about how you try and use the resources from that boom and put it into sectors like yours. Look, I understand there's a lot of fear out there about pricing pollution and I understand that it's very easy for us to find a reason each time to not do it. What I'd say is this: it's quite clear that climate change is real. It's quite clear that it is being contributed to by what we put into the atmosphere. As long as pollution is free we will continue to pollute and unless we start to put a price on pollution that gives the signal across the economy to move to cleaners ways of doing business, cleaner ways of generating energy, then we'll simply continue to be one of the world's highest polluting countries on the face of the earth.

TONY JONES: Penny Wong, Cabinet has decided to release details of the carbon pricing deal this coming Sunday.

PENNY WONG: That's right.

TONY JONES: We know that big trade exposed industries are going to get compensation. The question here is whether small industries facing a range of flow on extra costs are going to be compensated?

PENNY WONG: Well, I will say first that obviously we have said that Sunday we will be announcing the policy that has been put together through a pretty exhaustive process of negotiation and obviously you'll be able to see then how we have looked at all the different issues. You mentioned the emissions intensive trade exposed sector. That is, you know, companies who are operating in world markets and can't pass the price on and that's obviously been something we're very clear about, that we need to support jobs. I mean the whole way in which we're approaching this is you have to price pollution but you also have to support jobs and you have to protect household budgets. They're the priorities and that's what we'll be putting out on Sunday.

TONY JONES: Well, let's go back to our questioner. Are you satisfied with what you're hearing? I mean, you're going to get the details on Sunday but are you satisfied with what you're hearing now?

FRANK KAISER: There's nothing that I'm hearing is giving any confidence in the marketplace for people to come and buy from us. Everyone is sitting on their money waiting to see.

PENNY WONG: And I think that ending - there's a lot of uncertainty out there. There was uncertainty also because we were unable in the last parliament to put a price on carbon and that has really meant various investors have not continued to invest. The power industry is an obvious example. There has been an investment pause there in terms of base load power because of the uncertainty that the lack of a price on carbon provided. So what I'd say to you is I understand people are concerned. I'd invite you to look at the package which is announced but I'd also say this to you: if we continue to say this is too hard, it ain't going to get any easier because we'll wait.

FRANK KAISER: But how can you offer compensation to family households and not businesses?

PENNY WONG: Well, as I said, I'd invite you to wait till we set out the policy and the reasons we want to support household budgets, as well as jobs, is we do recognise there is a cost. There's always a cost to doing something like this. There's a cost because we are saying something that was free, polluting, is no longer going to be free. I mean there's a cost in Tony Abbott's policy of $720 per household. You can't deal with climate change without imposing a cost. The actual question is how do you do it most fairly and that's what we're focussed on.

TONY JONES: Let's hear from the Coalition before we come back to more detail on this.

MATHIAS CORMANN: What we've had tonight, of course, is announcement that on Sunday there will be an announcement and it's good that we're finally going to get some detail. I mean the problem with all of this is, of course, that the government is proposing to impose a price on carbon through a carbon tax and then an emissions trading scheme, when most of our overseas competitor countries - trade competitors - are not going down the same path. So what the government is proposing to do is to make overseas polluters more competitive than even the most environmentally efficient equivalent business in Australia. So what that will see happen is we will shift emissions overseas. We will shift jobs overseas and all of that without actually helping to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and to ask people, to ask businesses, to ask households and to make a sacrifice without it actually making a difference in terms of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions is just completely inappropriate. And, I mean, the minister talks about our direct action policy. Our direct action policy will actually reduce emissions in Australia in a way that delivers a net reduction in global emissions for the world.

PENNY WONG: (Indistinct), Mathias.

MATHIAS CORMANN: The Government's policy will just shift emissions to other parts of the world where overseas businesses stand ready to take market share from businesses like yours.

TONY JONES: A quick question. If you win government in two years you'll - as we now know there's a deal been struck, so you'll inherit the whole box and dice. You'll inherit a carbon price and probably an incipient emissions trading scheme. Are you just simply going to dismantle it?

MATHIAS CORMANN: Well, we've said that we will oppose the carbon tax in Opposition and let's not take anything for granted. There's still a long debate to go through the parliament and we will rescind it in government and, you know, that's our very, very firm commitment.

TONY JONES: And if you can't rescind it because politically the Greens will not let you do it, what will you do with all the revenue that's coming in?

MATHIAS CORMANN: I know that Bob Brown is assuming that he will have the balance of power for the next 20 years but the reality is there is going to be an election. We will be putting our proposal to rescind the carbon tax front and centre of our policy going to the next election.

TONY JONES: Let's assume you can't do it. What will you do with the revenue?

MATHIAS CORMANN: Well, I'm not going to...

TONY JONES: What Finance Minister or Assistant Finance Minister or Assistant Treasurer will suggest he's going to just leave the revenue in a pool sitting there?

MATHIAS CORMANN: We will be putting to the Australian people a very clear policy in the lead up to the next election. We will have a mandate. If the Australian people vote for us, if the Australian people vote us into government, we will have a mandate to rescind the carbon tax and we would expect that the Parliament would respect the demand of the incoming Australian Government.

PENNY WONG: What was...

MATHIAS CORMANN: This government doesn't have a mandate.

PENNY WONG: Hang on, Mathias.

MATHIAS CORMANN: Because, of course, we've got a Prime Minister who went to the last election saying "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead. Today she's telling us there will be no carbon tax on petrol under the government I lead.

PENNY WONG: When you've finished waving your hands around Mathias, if I could respond.

MATHIAS CORMANN: Well, Penny, you know, it's my migrant way. I talk with my hands, Penny.

PENNY WONG: I'd make this point about mandates, Mathias: I put an emissions trading scheme into the senate on at least three occasions. We had gone to the 2007 election, as had you, with a policy for an emissions trading scheme and you were one of the people who led the mutiny against Malcolm Turnbull voting for it. So if you want to talk about mandates, why don't we talk about how often you have turned your back on the thing you told the Australian people previously you would do with it. The second point I...

MATHIAS CORMANN: Okay. I'm very happy (indistinct)...

PENNY WONG: No, I just want to make a very - you've made two points, which are just wrong. First, the assertion that the Coalition to continue to participate in that internationally nothing is happening and we're on our own is just wrong and it is irresponsible to keep saying it, frankly, because it just makes the debate at a far lower level than it ought be. That is incorrect.

MATHIAS CORMANN: (Indistinct)

TONY JONES: I'm just going to interrupt you for a minute. Those of you who have your hands up, keep your hands up. Before I bring in the rest of the panellist, we've got a question on a related topic. It's from Joe Dore. We'll bring in Joe Dore first.

CARBON TAX / PETROL

JOE DORE: Penny Wong said a moment ago that it's important to price pollution across the economy. In light of this is the decision to exempt petrol from the carbon tax a purely political response to Tony Abbot's effective scare campaigning on price pressures, rather than a substantive policy response to climate change?

TONY JONES: Let's hear from Stephen O'Doherty on this first.

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: It is undeniably. I mean the problem that the Prime Minister has now is that because of the previous problem that Mathias referred to, no one will believe her when she talks about petrol. She has now lost the position of credibility on the issue and that's not just a problem for the Labor Party, it's a problem for the country. I mean what we're just witnessed, Tony, is a perfect example of why this questioner over here is worried about his business, because we've been in a policy stall for several years. We know that Penny and Kevin Rudd worked hard at Copenhagen. We know that that didn't work. We know that this is an issue that won't go away. If Mathias is elected with his colleagues, it won't go away. I mean, I think reasonable people are convinced...

TONY JONES: So given it won't go away in your view, are you happy with the way Tony Abbott has been handling this?

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: No, I'm not happy with the way either side is handling it at the moment and I actually think, you know, with due respect to my former Liberal colleagues that the political role being played by the Opposition at the moment, the spoiling role, is not making it easier to settle something that has to be settled in due course. It's making the environment, the economy for business much, much worse. It's causing this massive slow down in confidence. It's the reason we won't have an interest rate rise, which is a good thing, by the way, but it's actually stalled reform. It's stalled confidence. It's stalled the economy. That's what's causing the trouble and surely just to have seen a demonstration of how it is, we need to get two sides together to find a reasonable position that we can all agree on as people to take the country forward.

TONY JONES: Why do you think that's not happening though? Because, I mean, it's pretty clear, isn't it, that Tony Abbott has decided to stake his future on opposing this tax.

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: Yeah, it is. Yeah. Well, I tell you (indistinct)...

MATHIAS CORMANN: Which is a responsible way, for our record. It's not a spoiling way. It's a responsible way.

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: Okay. Well, I mean, I was a shadow minister for seven years and I just know the discussions that go around the shadow cabinet table. Will we engage in the debate and find a way through and assist in a good policy process or will we just say no and promise to repeal it. Now, clearly the shadow cabinet said the latter. We know that several people within the Liberal Party federally, including Malcolm Turnbull, had a different way of approaching it that would have eventually led Australia to a point where we had a solution for this problem. It's not a problem that's going to go away and sticking your head in the sand is not going to help. So the political process itself, Tony, has let us down.

TONY JONES: I want to hear from our other panellists before I bring the politicians back. Charles Waterstreet?

CHARLES WATERSTREET: I know so little on this that it won't take me long. I consulted the collective knowledge of the world on Wikipedia and I discovered, to my horror, that climate change is real and universal and after that I just glazed over and I was thoroughly convinced when Penny put the position. I was thoroughly convinced when Mathias put the position and now I'm in a quandary now that Stephen's put the position.

TONY JONES: Well, if, thanks to Wikipedia, you now believe that climate change is real, do you think that a carbon price should be put on petrol, which is the original question we were asking?

CHARLES WATERSTREET: Well, yes, but not on sniffing it. No, any tax is bad. We were told when GST came in that income tax would go down. Now, we're told...

MATHIAS CORMANN: And it did.

CHARLES WATERSTREET: It did? Speak for yourself. But, no, I think obviously the scheme that's going to come into effect, which is not a carbon tax but an emissions trading scheme, is going to be much better but I know so little on it that I can hardly contribute.

TONY JONES: Let's go to Liz Ann Macgregor. Are you listening to this debate acutely as well?

ELIZABETH ANN MACGREGOR: Well, you just shake your head, don't you? I mean, this is such a complex problem and in a way I feel it's too important to be left to politicians. We've somehow got to get back to some kind of bipartisan agreement on it, whether you think it's been caused by people or whether it's been caused by natural causes, there is definitely something happening, that is absolutely clear and there needs to be some way forward here. And we have gone into this incredibly negative cycle and we're in this situation where we take opinion polls and we say are you for it, are you against it, yes or no, quick grab and then somebody has to kind of respond to that. So I think it is actually one of the worst examples and when you say things like scientists are getting death threats. I mean we have got ourselves into a real mess when that kind of thing is happening, that people feel so angry about this issue, understandably if they think it's going to affect their livelihoods, but it is not being put into the position of what is for the greater good, what is the public policy that is necessary to deal with this issue and I think it's a failure on all sides right now.

TONY JONES: Let's hear from Mathias Cormann and I'll come to some of our questioners in the audience who have got their hands up after that. But you hear a fellow Liberal there basically saying why on earth can't the two parties get their heads together? After all, not so long ago you did agree to an emissions trading scheme so and you do believe in climate change.

MATHIAS CORMANN: Well, we went through a very thorough process internally, actually, in thinking this issue through and I mean, just to make the point, we voted against Labor's carbon pollution reduction scheme, both when Malcolm Turnbull was the leader in August 2009 and when Tony Abbott was the leader in December 2009 and the reason we said - the reason we said...

PENNY WONG: (Indistinct)

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: (Indistinct)

MATHIAS CORMANN: The reason we said to the government...

PENNY WONG: Mathias, tell the truth.

MATHIAS CORMANN: The basis for our position was that we said to the parliament we should not be voting on this before Copenhagen, when countries from around the world came together to decide what they would do about pricing carbon and, of course, Kevin Rudd has described very colourfully what a failure the Copenhagen conference was. There was no agreement. So that changed the debate. In the absence of an appropriately comprehensive global agreement to price emissions, to put a price on carbon in Australia will make Australian businesses less competitive. It will push up the cost of everything in Australia without actually helping to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. So we can talk about reform. Reform is only good if you actually make the situation better and the government can't actually tell you by how much its carbon price will reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. They can't tell you.

ELIZABETH ANN MACGREGOR: So why have the conservative leader of the British Government, the conservative leader, set some of the highest targets for a reduction in emissions? So other countries in Europe are working together to make this, on all side of politics. It is not a party political discussion.

PENNY WONG: And if I can...

MATHIAS CORMANN: Well, I'm happy to talk about the European situation.

PENNY WONG: If I could make a point. There's been a call for bipartisanship. I agree with that. I spend a lot of...

MATHIAS CORMANN: I'm sure you do.

PENNY WONG: Well, I do.

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: You do tripartisanship now, by the way.

PENNY WONG: Yes. No, I mean, I spent a long period sitting down with Malcolm Turnbull to negotiate a bipartisan agreement and there were a number of reasons why we did that and one of them was I do actually think a reform of this scale should be bipartisan between both parties of government. But as Tony Abbott on 7.30 report tonight made clear, when it comes to the Abbott leadership, when it comes to the Abbott leadership he will take pragmatism over policy every time. Politics over policy every time. You cannot negotiate with someone who simply wants to put forward slogans and stunts when presented with this very, very significant challenge. And what I'd say to people is this: if you think about five or ten or 15 or 20 years from now, and that's always a good thing to do, I think, in politics, as in life, and think about whether you would look back on this debate and think, gee, we should have done something, that really tells you something about what we should do.

MATHIAS CORMANN: Doing something is only better if the something you do makes things better. Reform should make things better. Reform...

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: Mathias, we used to ...

TONY JONES: Okay. Can I...

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: ...pump sludge into the ocean and in Sydney Harbour you still can't catch fish because of the dioxins that were put there by previous generations. Now, there was an economic and policy fix that everybody agreed on in the 80s that prevented that from happening so maybe my grandchildren can finally go fishing in Sydney Harbour. Are we going to look back on that, you know, in the same way in terms of air pollution and the carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide and so on that goes into the atmosphere? I think we will.

MATHIAS CORMANN: Well, there's a very simple point...

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: Why is it different from clean water?

MATHIAS CORMANN: If you would (indistinct)...

TONY JONES: Okay. Sorry, no, I'm going to stop that argument there because we've got people with their hands up and I'd like to hear what our audience are thinking. You can make a comment or a quick question.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: If the issue is global greenhouse gases, then wouldn't the best way to reduce it as a country which has a small population and doesn't contribute a great deal to global emissions. Wouldn't the best way forward be to have direct action and research to decrease the supply curve? I'm an economics student, by the way.

TONY JONES: Okay.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: And to increase our GDP and have a green economy at the same time?

TONY JONES: All right. Well, I'm going to actually put that to Mathias Cormann. You have a direct action policy, which is set to, well, attempt to reduce Greenhouse emissions in Australia by 5%. It's going to cost $10 billion of taxpayers' money. What happens if you have to increase the percentage to let's say 10%? How much will that cost?

MATHIAS CORMANN: I mean, the great benefit of the direct action policy that it will actually reduce emissions in Australia in a way that decreases emissions around the world. The government's policy will reduce emissions in Australia in a way that will increase them, arguably by more in other parts of the world. Our policy is fully funded, is fully costed. It is obviously focussed on better soil management, more trees, better technology, cleaning up our coal fired power stations, for example. There has hardly been any investment in cleaning up coal fired power stations in recent years because everybody is just completely frozen now because the Government has created so much uncertainty with the way they've handled this debate for the last three or four years.

TONY JONES: All right, but let me just interrupt for a quick question because direct action does require taxpayers money be used to purchase credits and so the question is if it costs $10 billion to cut by 5%, what will it cost to cut higher?

PENNY WONG: Well, actually it will cost 30. 30 billion is the actual cost.

MATHIAS CORMANN: Well, direct action will not push up the cost of electricity. It will not make Australian businesses less competitive internationally.

TONY JONES: But what will it cost?

MATHIAS CORMANN: Well, under the direct action policy, I mean, we've got the costing there. It's 3.2 billion.

TONY JONES: Malcolm Turnbull, who used to be your leader, says it will bankrupt the economy?

MATHIAS CORMANN: Well, I don't think that he said that and I know that Malcolm Turnbull is not in favour of a carbon tax incidentally either. You know, Malcolm Turnbull very clearly is on record as not supporting what the government is putting forward so, I mean, I don't think that...

TONY JONES: But he's on record also of not supporting your policy.

MATHIAS CORMANN: I think you'll find - I think you'll find that Malcolm Turnbull supports our policy.

TONY JONES: Well...

PENNY WONG: I just wanted very quickly - the direct action doesn't work. That is why not a single...

MATHIAS CORMANN: How do you know? Try it?

PENNY WONG: Not a single...

MATHIAS CORMANN: Everybody else - China does it. USA.

PENNY WONG: Hang on. I did listen to you Mathias.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: The reason why Europe is pushing for a carbon tax is because they import carbon. We export it. It's beneficial for us to make it cheaper. It's beneficial for them to make it more expensive.

PENNY WONG: What I was going to say was direct action doesn't work, which is why here is not a single economist - you're an economics student...

MATHIAS CORMANN: You should try it. Don't be so negative.

PENNY WONG: There's not a single economist who actually backs their policy. It is...

MATHIAS CORMANN: Well, there's one.

PENNY WONG: He hasn't finished his studies. He'll learn the error of his ways at some point. The second point I'd make is the costings that the same - the Department of Climate Change has done indicate that their policy will cost $30 billion. Not 10 but $30 billion. There isn't...

MATHIAS CORMANN: Well, that's just not true.

PENNY WONG: Well, these are the same people, were you ever to win government, that would advise you, Mathias, and, you know, these are public servants. They're not political people.

MATHIAS CORMANN: Yeah, depends on your assumptions.

PENNY WONG: So $30 billion of taxpayers' funds that magically appears without you paying more tax that is then given to polluters in the hope that they might do something to reduce their pollution.

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: Tony, we need a lever, you know. This student is right. We need an economic lever and I reckon one way or another within five years we're into an ETS, which is where we ought to be, where we should have been at Copenhagen and, you know, the idea about petrol is nonsense because it's got to be factored in otherwise you don't get the structural adjustment that's required. Direct action won't work on its own. Carbon price on its won't work. We need to find a tripartite agreement on a proper ETS. We need to research things that work, like carbon sequestration and alternatives to the base load power problem so we've got to find a way to fund that research but then you've got to let the market forces, you know, which is the modern...

TONY JONES: Okay. All right.

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: ...the modern way of mediating things is through economics and (indistinct).

TONY JONES: Just a quick question for Penny Wong, because I'm sure there are an awful lot of journalists and others who'd be very interested to hear what you're going to do about this. Stephen O'Doherty says you need a lever. The lever you're choosing is a carbon price. We're going to find out what that is on Sunday. Here's a question I have for you. Are you going to take the pragmatic approach and set it very low so that no one feels any pain or are you going to take the idealistic approach and set it very high so that it actually achieves something?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Indistinct) Bob Brown anyway, isn't it, not you?

PENNY WONG: We're the government and we'll put forward the government's legislation and, well, look, this has always been about a transition and it's always been about how you shift the economy over time to producing less pollution per person than we do and the reality is if you think the world is moving as it is to lower carbon goods and services then we've actually also got an economic interest, not just the environmental interest in being able to compete in that world.

TONY JONES: But are you going to set it very low...

PENNY WONG: Well, I think we'll have to have...

TONY JONES: ...so that no one feels any pain or are you going to set it high so that it achieves something? That was the question.

PENNY WONG: Yeah, and I've said it's about a transition and so there's obviously...

TONY JONES: That sort of indicates...

PENNY WONG: No. No. No.

TONY JONES: That sort of indicates it may start very low and then transition upwards over years.

PENNY WONG: Well, I'm obviously not going to make the announcement that the Prime Minister is proposing to make on Sunday today.

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: Oh, go on.

PENNY WONG: I know that you would like me to do that but the point I was trying to make was that it isn't just what the price is in the first year or the second year or the third year. It's about having a mechanism in place that gives the signal to business to do business with less pollution. It's about a signal to the whole of the economy that we can do more in terms of clean energy and do less in terms of pollution. That's what this is about. So it is, you know, you can talk about the first year and you might have a go about that from either the two perspectives that you just outlined but I think the key is over time to make sure you make sure that transition occurs.

TONY JONES: So we'll start low and then move up.

PENNY WONG: Tony, I'm trying to help out here but I'm hardly going to talk to you about that.

TONY JONES: Okay. We might move on to other subjects. Sorry for those people who still have their hands up. You're watching Q&A. Remember you can send your web or video questions to our website. The address is on the screen. Our next question is a video on a very different subject and it comes from Sarah Taylor in Newcastle, New South Wales.

MISOGYNIST LOVERS

SARAH TAYLOR: This one's for you Charles. Some men masquerade a love for women for their own benefit, including sexual. Their fraud is revealed when they then want to control our minds and bodies. In my experience the best lovers are those men who like and respect women in all our shapes and sizes and varieties. I put you in this category with your well documented respect for such women as Germaine Greer. Can a misogynist ever be a great lover?

PENNY WONG: Good one.

CHARLES WATERSTREET: I'll have to eat my words, if nothing else. I find the best lovers, and I have no experience on this, are those who recognise that real pleasure is the giving of pleasure, rather than the receiving of it. So once you've recognised that, then I think you've got the key to the way ahead.

TONY JONES: I appreciate we've made a large...

CHARLES WATERSTREET: That's a large gap but there's...

TONY JONES: No, I appreciate we've made a large jump from carbon tax to this.

CHARLES WATERSTREET: This is carbon dating. This is about the only dating I'm doing lately.

TONY JONES: What about the formulation that some men make a masquerade out of love because what they really want to do is control the bodies and minds of women?

CHARLES WATERSTREET: That's undoubtedly true and I've been cashing in on that masquerading, as one who sees through that, for a long time.

TONY JONES: All right. We'll take you off the hook. I'll go to Liz Ann Macgregor. What do you think?

ELIZABETH ANN MACGREGOR: Goodness, what a question.

TONY JONES: Can a misogynist be a great lover, I think was the final question?

ELIZABETH ANN MACGREGOR: I wouldn't know. I don't normally hang out with misogynists, I'm afraid, so I'm afraid I don't...

TONY JONES: Not even accidentally from time to time?

ELIZABETH ANN MACGREGOR: Not even accidentally from time to time. No, I mean, I think this is one of these generational questions, isn't it? Aren't we kind of over all that? Aren't we able to talk about men and women in a more equal sense now rather than thinking about misogyny? They do exist, of course. I come across them from time to time, but, no, I think relations between men and women have come on a long way.

TONY JONES: Steven O'Doherty, I know we're taking you into strange territory here but...

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: Like the government, I like to start low and then...

TONY JONES: Look, we could just perhaps contemplate the nature of love, if you like.

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: Well, I tell you, I mean, there's a serious edge to it. I read a fascinating article in the weekend's press about young women - men and women who - and I'm talking about, you know, 16 to like 25, who will go out and get plastered in a nightclub and sexual conquests are then what they talk about on Facebook the next day. There's a distinct lack of respect that's being shown there. Now, I don't know that it's misogyny per se but it's just a lack of respect for the other sex or for their partner, a lack of respect for themselves in the end, and I think it's a very serious issue that's emerging for our young people.

TONY JONES: Penny Wong, you're off the hook. You're not talking about climate change. You're not talking about carbon tax.

PENNY WONG: You want me to talk about that? You reckon this is easier? I think you should ask me another question.

TONY JONES: The question was: can a misogynist ever make a great lover?

PENNY WONG: I have no idea.

TONY JONES: No thoughts on the subject whatsoever?

PENNY WONG: No, really, I'm not qualified.

TONY JONES: I'm not sure that misogyny necessarily takes sexual preference into account.

PENNY WONG: Well, I don't know how to answer this question. I wish someone from...

MATHIAS CORMANN: (Indistinct) approach to this.

PENNY WONG: Yes, I'm waiting for Mathias to jump in. He's not going to interrupt me on this one, I don't think.

MATHIAS CORMANN: (Indistinct).

PENNY WONG: I don't think. Look, I would hope that respect is - respect for the other is a part of how we interact in our most intimate relationships as in the rest of our lives.

TONY JONES: Mathias Cormann?

MATHIAS CORMANN: Way beyond my area of expertise, Tony, so there's...

TONY JONES: Yes, everyone wants to say that but funnily enough humans are quite common among people.

MATHIAS CORMANN: Yeah.

PENNY WONG: (Indistinct) sex with misogynists.

TONY JONES: We're going beyond the political now, Mathias.

MATHIAS CORMANN: Yes, indeed.

TONY JONES: Delve into your own personal experience to answer this one.

MATHIAS CORMANN: And the answer, I guess, would be no.

TONY JONES: Okay. We've got another question that comes from Cassandra Giudice.

WATERSTREET / 'RAKE'

CASSANDRA GIUDICE: Thanks, Tony. I've got a question for Charles Waterstreet. How much was the boozing, womanising and drug-taking of the protagonist in Rake based upon your own misdeeds?

CHARLES WATERSTREET: Well, that sounds very much like a question my son asked me when the character was snorting something off a toilet seat and I've never been near a toilet seat that close, I told him. But, no, it was all myth. It was observations I made while at a bar of barristers who were doing things and up to things and up to no good. So it's all not person experience but observation.

TONY JONES: Charles, people do want to know, having seen the series, whether you are, in fact, a mythological creature. Now they've got you hear in real life, so you could perhaps reflect on what the character got right and wrong?

CHARLES WATERSTREET: I know. Richard plays a character not unlike me but he's much shorter and that doesn't cross as well as I wanted it to.

TONY JONES: Okay, let's move on. Our next question comes from Gregory Abbott.

GAY MARRIAGE

GREGORY ABBOTT: My question is for Penny Wong. If the ALP National Conference in December changes the party's stance against same-sex marriage, how quickly can we expect to have a bill that amends the Marriage Act accordingly?

PENNY WONG: Well, we first have to have the National Conference and I've made clear what I'll be advocating for at that conference but that's obviously going to be a debate that has to occur so I wouldn't...

TONY JONES: Just remind the audience here what you'll be advocating for?

PENNY WONG: Well, I told the state conference in South Australia that I'd be advocating for a change to the platform to enable equality in all things, including marriage. But I also said that I'd be ensuring that I did that, as I always do, through party forum, which includes the National Conference and the Prime Minister has made clear we will have that discussion then. It's obviously an issue on which people in our party and people in the community have a range of different views so I wouldn't want to be talking about what might happen after that. I think that debate is going to have to occur.

TONY JONES: It's a hypothetical question, yes, but it's a serious one and that is if the party changes its position, how quickly could we see legislation?

PENNY WONG: And I've said I don't think I can answer that because I think we've got to go through the party processes and I wouldn't want to pre-empt that. People know that what the party has done in government in terms of same-sex law reform. I think it's some 80-plus laws which now recognise same-sex relationships that never did previously and I think that has been a very important set of reforms but this is obviously that's going to be debated within the party at the end of the year.

TONY JONES: Mathias, would you like to see a change to these laws?

MATHIAS CORMANN: I support the current definition of marriage in the Marriage Act, which is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman entered into to the exclusion of all others for life.

TONY JONES: Why is that, by the way?

MATHIAS CORMANN: Well, that's just - that's my view. That's my belief as...

TONY JONES: Yes, but what's it based on. Is it based on reading of the bible? Is it based on some other view?

MATHIAS CORMANN: No, it's based on a view that marriage is special and that it's something that it's a union between a man and a woman. So obviously different people have got different views. That's my view. That's the view of the Coalition and it's, at present, the view of the Government so obviously don't know what the Governor is going to do in the months ahead but that's very much my view.

TONY JONES: I'll bring in Liz Ann Macgregor but first we've got a questioner with his hand up.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: My question is for Penny Wong. How much will the carbon tax be on a gay wedding cake?

TONY JONES: Well, we'll take that as a comment.

PENNY WONG: Where's Hewson when you need him? Sorry.

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: He sent me and I can't answer that.

ELIZABETH ANN MACGREGOR: Well, wouldn't it be wonderful if we had a policy that went through without 100 opinion polls telling the government why they shouldn't pass it? I mean it would be wonderful to have a bit of leadership from our current government on this one and the greens and get it over with. Because I think once it happens it happens and we'll see people around the country will adapt and embrace it and if people chose not to take it up, well, that's fine but I don't really see why we should deny gay people that possibility in this day and age. It seems to be ridiculous.

TONY JONES: Steven O'Doherty, (indistinct) hearing mentions of opinion polls there because if the government followed the opinion polls, they would actually legislate for gay marriage.

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: Maybe they would maybe they're not. It depends what question you ask, Tony. Marriage has a very specific meaning in law and I agree with Mathias. The meaning is quite plain to me and I don't see the need for it to include same-sex unions. We recognise same sex-sex couples. We recognise same-sex unions. There's been substantial law reform. I was involved in some of it when I was a member of parliament back in the 90s, you know. This is not a new thing but marriage specifically has a particular meaning and I don't think the community in general supports changing that.

TONY JONES: Charles?

CHARLES WATERSTREET: Marriage has a meaning in law? I mean you change laws. It has no meaning in law except what you pin to it. You can change the meaning immediately to absorb gay marriages. I think it's a boon for lawyers: gay divorces. Who gets the Kylie Minogue collection?

TONY JONES: I'm just thinking about the gay divorcee. We've already heard that phrase, haven't we?

CHARLES WATERSTREET: Yes.

TONY JONES: Okay, we'll move on again. You're watching Q&A where you ask the questions. Our next question comes from John Shin.

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP

JOHN SHIN: In an article from last week's Economist they showed the results of a poll by the BBC World Service where people around the world, including Australia, were becoming increasingly worried about the eastward shift in economic activity. The Chinese Investment Corporation (CIC) are reportedly investing another $100-200 billion dollars in reserves to invest. Should Australia be worried about these movements, such as the recent buyout of the 43 farms in Gunnedah by a Chinese firm?

TONY JONES: Let's start with Mathias Cormann?

MATHIAS CORMANN: Well, I mean foreign investment is very important for Australia. I mean we can't generate enough capital domestically in Australia to really grow our economy to its full potential so that's the first point I would make. Clearly there are national interest considerations that come into play and there are process in place to assess those. In relation specifically to the issue that you raise around farms and so on, I mean there is obviously the additional issue around food security. There are questions as to whether we do have enough information, whether there is enough transparency around the investments that are made at present, so that is something that we are currently looking at, as the Coalition, to make sure that there are better processes in place to track more transparently some of the activity that goes on, however as a general point and in particular there were some comments last week around foreign investment in the mining industry, for example. If we want to maximise the opportunities from a mining industry, if we want to maximise the opportunities across a whole range of economic sectors, obviously foreign investment is going to be very important for us. It has been important for ever and it will continue to be important into the future and, no, we shouldn't be scared of it.

TONY JONES: Penny Wong?

PENNY WONG: Well, two issues. First in terms of the eastward shift that you referenced, that actually holds enormous opportunities for us. If we think about where we are in the world and what we sell and what we can additionally sell, we are living through a shift in market power east towards Asia that is enormous. We will see not only is this going to mean people will pay more for our resources. We're already seeing that. But we will also see in the decade to come hundreds of millions of people in China and India moving into the middle classes, which has never happened before and there are enormous economic opportunities for Australia if we can grasp them. In terms of foreign investment, yes, I actually agree with Mathias. Foreign investment is very important to our country. It would hurt our economy very significantly if foreign investment were not allowed. There are always national interest issues. There is a process through the FIRB, the Foreign Investment Review Board and that's as it should be but we do need to keep this in perspective that, in fact, investment by foreigners in Australia has meant Australian jobs and has meant more economic activity in Australia than we would otherwise have had.

TONY JONES: Charles Waterstreet?

CHARLES WATERSTREET: Well, I was brought up with the map of the world and the Chinese coming to invade us but now they're coming to buy us and I think we could sell to the highest bidder but I noted that the farms around Gunnedah were being sold to, I think, Chinese interests and they're renaming it Gunshin instead of Gunnedah but I think it's a very serious topic if it's taken out of proportion. The Foreign Investment has a level where under which you can buy one farm at a time so I think that's what happened in Gunnedah, so I think it has to be watched very carefully, otherwise we just become a bucket for the rest of the world, rather than an exploiter of our own resources.

PENNY WONG: Can I just make this point? I do understand the concerns that some people have raised but I would just say this: the vast majority of our farms are owned by Australians, are owned by families. There's a very small proportions which are owned by either, you know, institutional investors or an even smaller proportion which are owned by foreign investors and, you know, we have said we do think we need to keep better track of it and Bill Shorten, I think, has spoken on this program before about the need to get a better database so that we can see, you know, who is buying what and we're in the process of developing that. But I think we just need to keep it in perspective.

TONY JONES: The database doesn't exist at the moment, so you really don't know the answer. Is that right?

PENNY WONG: Well, I think that's true. I think...

MATHIAS CORMANN: It's something we suggested some time ago and the government is finally following up on it, yeah.

PENNY WONG: You always have to make a political point, don't you Mathias? I could say, 11 years in government and you never did it but I'll try not to. Oops. Sorry. Yes.

CHARLES WATERSTREET: That was before he came.

PENNY WONG: But we have asked the ABS and the rural R&D Corporation to try and do a bit of work on putting a better set of data together on this because it is true.

TONY JONES: Because you said we don't know the answer.

PENNY WONG: It's true. It is true because a lot of these titles are held by state governments or possibly by local governments so you don't necessarily have a national database and we should get that done.

TONY JONES: Stephen O'Doherty.

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: I think the state government in New South Wales is doing a similar thing and it's a bit scary to think that we don't have that information. Foreign Investment is absolutely essential in Australia. We know that. The question is whether we can still guarantee the security of our food, the security of our clean water and so on, the agricultural assets that we need to feed this nation. But I worry that this issue becomes a dog whistle issue for a Xenophobia that's driving a lot of policy debate in Australia at the moment, including, ironically, you know, linking into the carbon debate itself. I'm just worried about the tone of the national debate and we've got to keep it on sensible issues but not just become, you know, afraid and go back to the days of the White Australia Policy.

TONY JONES: Let's hear from Liz Ann Macgregor.

ELIZABETH ANN MACGREGOR: I think looking at it in a wider sense, we've talked about the carbon pollution reduction necessity but also the necessity to have more sustainable lives and land is clearly going to be a very important part of that and we should be going back to growing things closer to home rather than importing, you know, green beans from Kenya or whatever, you know, and polluting the atmosphere. So this is going to become a bigger issue. I suspect it's not huge yet and I agree that the discussion of it around, you know, the Chinese are coming is very unhelpful but I think we need to make sure that we do continue to have control over our land, because the supply of food is going to become one of the most critical issues (indistinct)...

TONY JONES: Okay, let's go to another question. You're watching Q&A. You can go to our website if you want to send in a question but many of our questions come from the studio audience, like this one, which is also related to problems farmers are facing at the moment. It comes from Emma Watts.

CATTLE BAN

EMMA WATTS: To Penny Wong. So if the livelihood of your family and surrounding community depended on the live cattle export trade, would you be happy with the way the government has handled the indefinite banning of live exports and the compensation you have been promised that, in many cases, does not even cover a week's worth of work? Why is the government suddenly penalising Australians for Indonesia's lack of regulation of this trade and why does the government believe that the welfare of Australian people is second to those of the cattle they were exporting?

PENNY WONG: Well, we don't believe that. What we do believe is that the sort of footage that we saw, that Australian's saw, is not something we can accept and we need to put in place the mechanisms, the supply chain insurance, to make sure that isn't what happens when Australian cattle are exported. So we have announced a suspension, we have announced some assistance and we are working as quickly as we can to put those supply chain insurances in place so that we can restart the trade as soon as we can say to Australians, "We believe we have agreements with Indonesia which will ensure that what was publicised on Four Corners doesn't happen again."

TONY JONES: Mathias Cormann?

MATHIAS CORMANN: I mean the government's handling of this live cattle export, the export issue has been just completely appalling. I mean they've essentially shut down overnight a $700 million industry through a blanket ban and, of course, what should have happened is they should have targeted those abattoirs in Indonesia where there were clearly problems. All of us agree that the footage on the Four Corners show was terrible but you don't impose a blanket ban and shut down a whole industry, a legitimate industry overnight and, of course, like, the real question here is Kevin Rudd has been travelling five continents over the last month but yet he hasn't been able to find his way to Indonesia to deal with the serious diplomatic problems that have been caused by the way the government has handled...

TONY JONES: He was speaking to the Indonesia foreign minister at one of those meetings only a few days ago.

MATHIAS CORMANN: Well, it's very little too late, quite frankly. I mean the government - this is an important industry. This is a legitimate trade and, of course, this whole market in Indonesia is at serious risk now for the long term.

TONY JONES: Can I just go back to Penny Wong on this. Tony Abbott made this point again tonight: why didn't the government simply use the abattoirs which are operating under international standards, keep them going and therefore keep a flow in this trade, not shut it all down.

PENNY WONG: Because if you don't have supply chain assurances you don't know - you can't say to Australians "We are sure that the cattle that go to Indonesia are being dealt with in this way. I mean, I don't know anybody who could condone the sort of footage we saw. I thought it was quite horrific and so the question is how do you try and ensure that you put the right policies in place, the right agreements in place to make sure that doesn't happen again.

TONY JONES: Okay, we've got time for just one more question. It comes from Anna Kovacs.

MENTAL ILLNESS / LAWYERS

ANNA KOVACS: We have heard a lot of public debate recently around the law and mental illness and more specifically, whether a judge with depression can fairly adjudicate on a consistent basis. Do you think that judges and magistrates with existing mental health issues should be allowed on the bench?

TONY JONES: Charles Waterstreet?

CHARLES WATERSTREET: I have a dog in this race because I've suffered depression myself and if we were going to ban judges and magistrates from sitting then there'd be no one left on bench because it's a very depressing job. I go nearly every day to a place called "The Drowning Centre". There is no good news - there's very little good news in criminal law, which I practice in, so it does attract a certain amount of depression and a certain amount of self observation so it's little wonder that it has a high toll. But with medication et cetera, why should anyone who suffers from depression be in any different position than someone who suffers from diabetes? It's a matter of control and I do think that the last two candidates who had the disgraceful object of having to go before parliament to plead their jobs is just nothing short of horrific on any way of dealing with this sort of matter and it just makes us look like middle ages.

TONY JONES: Let's hear from Stephen O'Doherty. You were in that parliament.

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: I was, yeah.

TONY JONES: How did you feel watching those two magistrates be dragged in front of the parliament as if it were a sort of giant court?

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: Well, I mean, in a sense it is the - it's the biggest court. It makes the laws, as Charles has reminded us, but it's demeaning, isn't it, in these days. They shouldn't be in that position and I think we need to ask ourselves why are they in that position? As I understand it there is no legitimate or easy way that doesn't jeopardise themselves that a magistrate or a judge can actually declare that they have depression and that they're being treated for it. So the system itself mitigates against them seeking assistance. There's a process of disclosure of other things but once they disclose there's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy that they have to be prevented from continuing to work in that role. So we need serious law reform in that area. I mean we understand that so many people in our communities suffer depression and the worst thing that you can do if you have depression is to not seek assistance and what we've done is create a system where these people making, you know, really important life decisions are not able to themselves seek assistance and then just get on with doing their job, which they do well.

TONY JONES: Does that actually create a fundamental problem for judgment?

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: Well, it does, if you've...

TONY JONES: If people are too frightened, in fact, to actually explain to the world and to go and seek treatment they might be making critical decisions while they are mentally ill.

STEPHEN O'DOHERTY: Yes, they may well because the system doesn't allow them to disclose, treat it and deal with it and move on. We've got to do that Tony.

TONY JONES: Liz Ann Macgregor?

ELIZABETH ANN MACGREGOR: Isn't it part of the wider problem about the stigma that is attached to mental illness within society and that is a bit problem we have to face and if people don't feel able to talk about it and share it - it is an illness. It's not a behaviour so they can't modify it themselves. It's not about choice so to say that somehow magistrates have to behave in a different way if they have a mental illness I think is completely wrong and we really need to be having more of a debate about what we can do about people in important positions who are dealing with these terrible situations.

TONY JONES: We're nearly out of time. We'll just quickly hear from our two politicians. Mathias?

MATHIAS CORMANN: Well, it's obviously a significant issue and one that needs to be addressed sensitively. The Law Society in Western Australia actually released a very significant report a couple of months ago with a whole series of recommendations on how the processes and the support mechanisms can be improved. It is quite concerning that across the legal profession it does appear to be the case that there is a disproportionate amount of professionals that do actually suffer depression and we do need to make sure governments, policy makers, law societies that there are proper support mechanisms in place to deal with the matter better than what we're doing.

TONY JONES: Finally, Penny Wong.

PENNY WONG: I don't think there's any person in Australia who hasn't been touched by mental illness in some way, either, you know, because they, you know, have one themselves or have friend or family who has suffered and, you know, I think it was really good - I was really proud of the fact that we funded a mental health package in the budget. On this issue, what I'd say is I don't profess to be across the detail of how this came to pass. I think we should try and not be punitive in how we approach people with mental illness and each workplace will work out, you know, how we deal with it, some better than others. But we need to try and manage this far better as a society than we have to date.

TONY JONES: I'm sorry to those who have got their hands up we haven't been able to get to but that is all we have time for. Please thank our panel: Stephen O'Doherty, Penny Wong, Charles Waterstreet, Liz Ann Macgregor and Mathias Cormann. Thank you very much. Next week on Q&A Prime Minister Julia Gillard, she'll face your questions the day after announcing her carbon pricing policy. Lack of action on climate change brought down Kevin Rudd. Now, it's defining Julia Gillard's Prime Ministership. With the details on the table, will she be seen as a liar who misled the electorate on the carbon tax or a skilled negotiator leading Australia to the most significant economic and environmental reform for a generation? Well, next Monday night on Q&A you'll get the chance to ask questions and form your own judgment. Join us on Thursday too, at 8.30, for the Leaky Boat Documentary, followed by a special Q&A debate. Until then goodnight.