TONY JONES: Good evening and welcome to Q&A. I'm Tony Jones and answering your questions tonight, the former leader of the Liberal Party, Malcolm Turnbull; editor of the Spectator Australia Tom Switzer; the Deputy Leader of the Greens Christine Milne; Minister for Climate Change and Water Penny Wong; and Labor Minister turned lobbyist Graham Richardson. Please welcome our panel.

Q&A is live from 9.35 Eastern Time and you can send your questions by SMS to 197 55 222 or via our website, abc.net.au/qanda, that's Qanda, and you can join the Twitter conversation using the Qanda hash tag that's on your screen. Well, it was a big weekend for chefs and political leaders. Let's go to our first question, which comes from Natalie Jozelich.

NATALIE JOZELICH: Hi. Based on last night's performances, I have a better idea of Adam the MasterChef winner's vision for food than I do of either party's vision for Australia. My question for the panel is this: beyond the superficial motherhood statements, is there any real difference between Labor and the Coalition this election?

TONY JONES: Let's start with Graham Richardson?

GRAHAM RICHARDSON: That's a very good question. I think industrial relations still represents a difference. Always will. I'm hoping climate change represents a difference once Labor have a policy. I'm waiting for that and I'm waiting anxiously. I'm sure it will come. So, yes, there is a difference. But I think, you know, for most people now elections are about competence, who will run Australia better. Who can run the economy better? I think that's what - if you're going to get anything out of the debate, it's who do you think is going to run the country better? Mind you, you didn't find out much last night but there'll be other times.

TONY JONES: Graham, did you get anything out of the debate? I heard you describe it as two leaders on Valium: over-staged, over-scripted, dull and awful without passion.

GRAHAM RICHARDSON: I think Mogadon, I think was the actual drug to which I referred but it was, to me, so staged. Not just because the leaders are scripted, Tony, but it seems to me the rules of the debate, where you can't interrupt and I think everyone is going to break out cucumber sandwiches and a cup of tea and like you're sitting in an English garden having a lovely discussion - it was never going to be a debate under those rules and it turned out to be very, very boring. Even I reckon the most interested, fanatical political aficionado would have been sleeping by half way.

TONY JONES: Penny Wong, feel free to interrupt at any time.

PENNY WONG: I was being polite. Look, obviously people have their own views about the debate. They are, I suppose, managed in a certain way in terms of how the debate is undertaken. I do think there are differences. I think there are clear differences on education, where we want to continue to invest and Tony Abbott wants to reduce funding for computers, to cut trades training. We want to get, you know, trade cadetships into schools so that kids do get a choice of going down the academic path or getting a taste of what it's like to do trades and to get a career path in that way. There's differences on health in terms of our investments, increased funding, GP super clinics, the latter which Tony wants to cut. So I think there are significant differences. I think it's always difficult in that kind of staged debate to get, sometimes, a sense of the differences but I think Julia did demonstrate that and I hope that over the coming weeks of the campaign that will become clearer.

TONY JONES: Christine Milne?

CHRISTINE MILNE: Well, I don't think there's very much difference between the Liberal and Labor parties and, in fact, you're quite right: there has been no sense of what they are aiming to have in Australia by 2050 and the Greens have got a very clear view. We want to have moved to a low carbon, zero carbon economy. We want to see ecological sustainability. We want to see a more compassionate society. We have a very clear set of policies to do that and on climate change we're the only party now saying we will have a carbon price and we'll have it straight after the election.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, why did you people vote against it in the senate? The ETS...

TONY JONES: Okay. We'll get a microphone to you, sir. Just hang on. We'll get a microphone over here. Sorry, what did you say?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'd like to know why did you people, Christine, and all due respects to the Greens - and Graham knows me well enough by now - why did you people vote against it in the senate when two Liberal senators crossed the floor? Had the Greens voted on the ETS legislation, that would have become law today, Christine, and all due respects to your party.

CHRISTINE MILNE: That's absolutely right and had that happened - had that of happened we would have locked in...

PENNY WONG: Oh, come on.

CHRISTINE MILNE: ...a very low target out to...

PENNY WONG: Oh, come on.

CHRISTINE MILNE: No, out until beyond 2020.

PENNY WONG: Yeah, because what we've got now is really good, isn't it?

CHRISTINE MILNE: And we would have had...

PENNY WONG: Oh, give us a break.

CHRISTINE MILNE: ...we would have had a 20 billion dollar waste of money, as the Grattan Institute said, because Penny and Malcolm got together and they went and talked to the coal industry...

PENNY WONG: This is just...

CHRISTINE MILNE: ...and they browned it down to such a point and then when it blew up in their faces they came back to the Greens and said, "Now, you pass it." The only reason those two Liberals crossed the floor was out of loyalty to Malcolm. It had nothing to do with whether it was economically effective or, in terms of the science, actually achieving what we needed to do. There's no scientists out there supporting this.

PENNY WONG: It's not economically effective to shut down the electricity sector and to disrupt security of supply, Christine, and...

CHRISTINE MILNE: Nobody is shutting down the electricity sector.

PENNY WONG: Well, hang on. I mean, part of your policy has been, although I notice you've now backed away from that in recent weeks, has been to say, "We don't want to give any assistance to the electricity sector." The reason we had to do that and that Malcolm agreed with the government's propositions around that is about security of supply, because I don't think climate change is going to be fixed by ensuring that major cities run out of electricity.

MULTIPLE SPEAKERS TALK AT ONCE

TONY JONES: Can I interrupt, because we have gone off the original question and I'd like to get the rest of the panel on that. We'll come back to climate change. Tom Switzer?

TOM SWITZER: Well, on the issue of the real difference, well, I think there is a difference. Tony Abbott is sincere about his conservative credentials, whereas Julia Gillard is trying to be a conservative. She is. She's running as a centre right candidate. She quickly distanced herself from Kevin Rudd's unpopular mining tax. She's gone way out of her way to toughen up or try to pretend to toughen up the nation's borders. In many respects she's browner than John Howard. She's completely distanced herself from the emissions trading scheme and she's talking a very muscular, hawkish language about the war in Afghanistan. So I think that the difference between the two is in the sincerity. They're both running as centre right candidates. Abbott is sincere. Gillard, she's a lady of many masks. Who can say they've seen her real face?

TONY JONES: Let's hear from - hang on. Let's hear from Malcolm Turnbull?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, I agree with what Tom said but I also agree with the point Richo made that the real difference is one of competence and capacity. The big issue in the election is who is capable of managing our country's economy? Now we have a government that has manifestly failed to do so. We've had billions of dollars wasted. We've had a huge national debt run up without any good reason. We've had billions wasted in the school halls program; billions wasted and tragically lives lost in that appalling home insulation debacle. The reality is the Labor Party has demonstrated they are not capable of managing Australia. They are not capable of governing. The Coalition is capable of governing. We have done it before and done it well and that, I believe, is the key difference in this election.

TONY JONES: All right, we're going to move right on. We're going to move right on into the issues. Our next question tonight comes from in the audience from Nicki Bowman.

NICKI BOWMAN: A question for Penny Wong. Penny, why then, if you're so committed to climate change, why is the Government seeking to abrogate its electoral mandate and its leadership responsibility to a citizens' assembly, and what is it that you expect these citizens to tell you that the IPCC and Ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery have not?

PENNY WONG: That aspect of our policy has certainly had a lot of discussion, hasn't it?

TONY JONES: Not surprisingly.

PENNY WONG: I'll leave that for you, Tony. And in some ways, you know, I hope also that people will look at the other things we've announced: a billion dollars to connect renewables to the grid, tax breaks for business so we can get more energy efficient commercial buildings.

TONY JONES: I promise you we will come to those but...

PENNY WONG: Yeah, let me finish. Let me finish. I'm going to answer the question.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: This is the look over there approach to policy, you know.

CHRISTINE MILNE: Yes, it's a sham policy.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Don't look at my policy, look over there.

PENNY WONG: No it's not. Oh, Malcolm. I mean, seriously. Shall we talk about what Tony really thinks about climate change? But I want to answer this woman's question. You know, we've announced policies around standards for power stations, so we don't get dirty, inefficient power stations built and a policy which also says...

CHRISTINE MILNE: But you will get new coal.

PENNY WONG: ...a policy which also says we will give an incentive to early movers - that is people who look to become more efficient and energy efficient before we get a price on carbon and a limit on pollution - and also mandatory fuel emission standards to come in. Now, those are a range of measures. The citizens' assembly is one aspect of what we want to do and it's important to remember what it's for. It's in the context - I can understand your question if you thought all we were saying was, "They can talk about it and we'll listen to them and if they decide, that's great," but that's not what Julia said. If you read her speech and you listen to what she said she said, "I will lead this debate. I will prosecute the case to put a limit on pollution," and that - if you want I'll go back to the question asked earlier in terms of an - and I don't count Malcolm in this...

CHRISTINE MILNE: (Indistinct)

PENNY WONG: I don't count Malcolm in this because I think he's made his views very clear. We want to put a limit on pollution, the Liberal Party don't. She said, "I will prosecute this case. I will have this debate because it is the only way we can meet our targets and unlike Tony Abbott we're not going to lie to you and pretend we can." But what she's also said is the lesson of last year, where Malcolm and I had a deal and it was blown apart because Tony Abbott changed his position again, speaking of sincerity and then...

TONY JONES: Can I just say I'm sorry I'm going to have to interrupt you because the question was quite specific. It was about the citizens' assembly.

PENNY WONG: And that's what I'm talking about. And I'm saying to you...

TONY JONES: Well, no, you've gone a lot beyond that now.

PENNY WONG: And I'm saying on the citizens' assembly it is one of the ways in which Julia believes we need and I believe we need to work to build a better consensus, because I think the lesson of last year is we need more than the political consensus within the parliament. Some people in the parliament, we need a deeper consensus in our community, like we have on Medicare. So this is one of the ways in which we'll seek to build that.

TONY JONES: A quick follow up question...

CHRISTINE MILNE: It's just Spac-Filla.

TONY JONES: Quick follow up question: are the citizens in the citizens' assembly allowed to tell you the policy is wrong and they don't want it and if they say that will you ditch the policy?

PENNY WONG: Well, look, you can't have a - I've got to say and I also - I don't think it's such a bad thing to let people have their say. I don't actually think that's such a bad thing and I think - and I think also the other thing to remember - people talk about mandates. Well, the Liberal Party and the Greens didn't respect the mandate the Labor Party had the last election either. So we do have to work out what is the different way of developing the political consensus around this (indistinct).

TONY JONES: And to answer my question, can the citizens' assembly tell you the policy is wrong and ask you to ditch it?

PENNY WONG: Well, this is not some sort of group think. I mean, what we're saying is we should engage with ordinary Australians and we should take them through the science and the way forward and we should use that as part of the engagement with the community that Julia has said she'll lead.

TONY JONES: All right, let's hear from the rest of the panel on this. First of all Graham Richardson?

GRAHAM RICHARDSON: Well, I think if one thing good can come out of it is that over the course of 2008, 2009, in my view, Labor vacated the field of argument on climate change, concentrated too much on whether they could convince Malcolm and whether they'd convince their own side. It became a debating society within the parliament but they forgot that out there in the real world that there's been a tremendous effort by climate change sceptics, of whom, of course, Tony Abbott is one of the leaders, to try and undermine the whole of the science and Labor was strangely, eerily silent on that for a long, long time and I think a lot of people lost faith, started to wonder if it was all true. So what I hope can come out of this, you know, because I think it's still reasonable odds that Julia Gillard is going to win, then I hope we get an assembly where we actually have the proper debate and out of it Australians can learn something about it and maybe reaffirm our faith. That's what I'd like to see happen anyway.

TONY JONES: All right, I want to hear from Tom Switzer, because I think it's true to say you are rather sceptical? I'll come back to you.

TOM SWITZER: Well, we can get onto that later, but the key point here, I think, when it comes to Penny Wong in answering your question, and now we'll come at it from different perspectives, but I've always believed that politics is ultimately a battle of ideas and say what you like about Paul Keating or John Howard, they obviously looked at the political landscape from a completely different perspective but they were conviction warriors and this point is made very well by Paul Kelly in his excellent book The March Of Patriots. They're conviction warriors and to succeed in politics you not only need superior ideas you need to make those ideas in a convincing and compelling manner. The problem with this lot in the Labor Party is they rang this scare campaign for two whole years, saying the delay was denial, that people like Brendan Nelson and Nick Minchin and Barnaby Joyce were deniers and radicals and extremists and that they must sign up to the climate change legislation by 3.30 on a certain Friday afternoon or else double dissolution. But when Tony Abbott called their bluff, what did they do? They went to water. They lacked leadership. Gutless, weak and hypocritical.

TONY JONES: Okay. Christine Milne?

CHRISTINE MILNE: Well, the citizens' assembly is just an excuse. It's really Julia Gillard not demonstrating leadership in the climate debate. She knows that the Greens are campaigning for balance of power in the senate in our own right at this election. If Labor is returned, we would have the numbers to have a carbon price right there and then. This citizens' assembly is just a cop out. It's a way of saying, "Regardless if we've got the numbers, we're not going to do it," and I put to the prime minister she didn't have that kind of consensus she's talking about to roll back WorkChoices. She went to the people and she said, "This is what we're going to do," and after the election moved to do it and the Greens helped her deliver that. Equally, John Howard didn't have a consensus on the GST but he went out there and said, "This is what I'm going to do," and he brought it in and he did it with the democrats, not with a consensus in the parliament. If Julia Gillard was serious about a carbon price, she can have one after this election, but she isn't. This is the basis on which she actually persuaded Kevin Rudd to dump a carbon price and now is saying she won't do it herself until after 2013 and as Penny Wong has said many times, if you are not prepared to put a price on carbon you have a sham of a climate policy and both Labor and the Coalition have a sham on a climate policy.

TONY JONES: All right. Okay. Before we hear from Malcolm Turnbull, let's take another question that's right on this topic. It comes from Owen Kavanagh.

OWEN KAVANAGH: Oh, thank you. For me, the debate itself highlighted a lack of leadership from both sides. For example, the citizens' committee and the toing and froing over asylum-seeker policy just demonstrated the antithesis of leadership. On the other hand, Malcolm Turnbull arguably paid a very high price for demonstrating leadership. Can we now expect anybody to demonstrate leadership and take the hard decisions necessary for all Australians?

TONY JONES: Malcolm Turnbull?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, I think - look, you go into public life and you go into public life because you've got convictions and you are expected to have and you should have the courage of your convictions. I believe that climate change is a great challenge for all of us and I believe we have to take effective action. I supported the emissions trading scheme because I thought it was the best policy response that we could have and I was very sorry that I was deposed as leader of the Liberal Party and my party took a different position. But I have to say this, that the Labor Party now has no policy. They don't have a policy, they have a notice for a meeting. The citizens' assembly is an extraordinary cop out and I remember - I remember in November last year there was a senator who said this - the senator said, "Every year of delay makes more ambitious targets more difficult. Every year of delay makes the economic change that we have to engage in more expensive. Every year of delay means that we are less likely to reduce our contribution to climate change." Now, that senator is Penny. That's what she said in November last year and the Labor Party has walked away from all of that. This is a party, this is a government that is lacking both in competence and in conviction. They cannot manage anything and they do not stand for anything and that's why people are walking away from them today.

TONY JONES: All right, Penny Wong?

PENNY WONG: Well, that's just...

TONY JONES: (Indistinct) right of reply there.

PENNY WONG: Yeah, well, Malcolm we actually haven't walked away from it. Your party did. Your party walked away from its election position and the position you, as leader, held and the...

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Why didn't you go to a double dissolution?

PENNY WONG: Well, hang on. Hang on.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: You could have gone in February.

TOM SWITZER: Exactly.

PENNY WONG: Your part walked away from it, just as the Greens - and I like the way Christine says, "Oh, you should have had a mandate." We had a mandate which you didn't respect after the last election. We had the mandate...

CHRISTINE MILNE: No, you had a mandate to take action on climate change and you didn't.

TONY JONES: No, hang on a sec. I think that (indistinct).

PENNY WONG: Parliament has not - regrettably, parliament has not been up to the task on this and I wish it were not the case. I wish we were not in this position where we were talking about what had to happen next because the Greens voted against it and Malcolm lost the leadership of the Liberal Party, but that's where we are. So the only question now is how do we go forward? How do we actually ensure that we can get the limit on pollution Australia needs, and I think Julia is right. What she is saying is that what happened last year demonstrates we need a far greater degree of consensus in the Australian community so just like the Liberals used to oppose Medicare, they now no longer do. We need the same sort of political consensus and backing for a limit on pollution through a price on carbon because if we don't, we know it's in the hands of Tony Abbott and others inside the Liberal Party who will never let it through.

TONY JONES: Penny Wong, a quick follow up. I heard a woman, just a voter, make this comment at the weekend: "Didn't we vote for a government to take these hard decisions?"

PENNY WONG: And I make the same point I've made. I think that it is critical we get better consensus in the community to carry this through because the parliament, particularly with Tony Abbott leading the Liberal Party - I mean, if Malcolm takes over again - if we win the election and Malcolm takes over again, you know, then the Liberal Party's position will change, but the Liberals position at the moment is that they do not want to act on climate change. Now, we have to deal with that because I don't believe a mandate at this election will be any better than a mandate previously unless we change the political circumstances and that's what we want to do.

CHRISTINE MILNE: And if the senate changes. That's the point and that's what's different this time.

PENNY WONG: Well...

CHRISTINE MILNE: If Labor and the Greens have the numbers in the senate, we have the capacity to put all this through. So what is the excuse for a delay for another three years?

PENNY WONG: Well, you had the capacity in...

GRAHAM RICHARDSON: But the problem, Christine, is you always insist that it's your way.

PENNY WONG: Correct.

CHRISTINE MILNE: No, that's a nonsense.

GRAHAM RICHARDSON: The problem with the greens is you have one policy. Unless everyone absolutely agrees with us, nothing happens. If you'd voted the other way...

CHRISTINE MILNE: Look, it's a great line but it's not true.

GRAHAM RICHARDSON: If you'd voted the other way there would be an ETS in operation today. There would be a price on carbon. It would be reduced and you didn't. You just didn't.

CHRISTINE MILNE: We would be having emissions from coal fired power stations not coming down until 2034 according to the deal that you did and new coal fired power.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right.

PENNY WONG: Oh, that's not true.

TONY JONES: Tom Switzer wants to get in then I'm going to move onto another question.

TOM SWITZER: I just think what distinguishes me from the other four guests here and perhaps even Tony is...

MULTIPLE SPEAKERS TALK AT ONCE

GRAHAM RICHARDSON: You don't believe in climate change at all.

TOM SWITZER: No, I don't.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Your youth and good looks.

TOM SWITZER: See, this debate - this debate...

MULTIPLE SPEAKERS TALK AT ONCE

TOM SWITZER: If you think so Malcolm.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: What is it? What is it? What is it?

PENNY WONG: He thinks it's a left wing conspiracy that you've signed up to, Malcolm.

TOM SWITZER: My editorials about you in the Spectator.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh, really.

TOM SWITZER: This debate, I think, has been conducted for the last two years in a reality vacuum. The debate is always about do you believe in the science of climate change or manmade global warming. Now, my view is this: however much there is a consensus on climate change, two things are clear. There is no policy consensus on climate change and, more importantly, there is no global consensus. I just spent the last three weeks in Washington and I spoke to republicans and democrats. Just late last week the bill to legislate a cap and trade model, which is essentially an emissions trading scheme, went nowhere. They couldn't even debate it on the senate floor. Cap and trade is dead in the United States and remember you've got democrats in the White House, super majorities in the house of representatives and the senate and they still couldn't get cap and trade through the senate. Sarkozy can't get a carbon tax through his courts. The Canadians won't have an ETS. The Japanese won't have an ETS and, meanwhile, China and India are chugging along the smoky path to prosperity. Why on earth in that environment...

TONY JONES: All right. Okay.

TOM SWITZER: No, this is the key point.

TONY JONES: No. No. No. No.

TOM SWITZER: Why should Australia (indistinct) price carbon?

TONY JONES: You'll get a chance - you'll get a chance to continue your point. I just want to hear Malcolm Turnbull respond to that, particularly on the case of the Americans because, as I understand it, you still strongly favour putting a price on carbon through an emissions trading scheme, as you said earlier?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, you won't find an economist anywhere that will tell you anything other than that the most efficient and effective way to cut emissions is by putting a price on carbon. There is a debate about whether you should just have a tax on carbon emissions or whether you should have a trading scheme and there are obviously big debates about the design of how an emissions trading scheme would work. Tom talked about China and India. I just tell you that the Chinese have announced that they are going to set up an emissions trading scheme. China is doing more on clean energy than either the United States or Australia and I think...

TOM SWITZER: Well, if that's the case why did they, in Kevin Rudd's language to David Marr, a rat F the Copenhagen talks? Because they know it's costly. That's why.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, I don't want to shock the editor of the Spectator but on that point Kevin Rudd or "Lu Kewen" as he's known in Beijing was actually mistaken and, you know, China is trying to accommodate both a move to clean energy and providing massive amounts of energy to a rapidly growing economy. I mean, China is lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and I might just say this: you know, it's fine to sort of poke fun at the Chinese, as Tom has done, but...

TOM SWITZER: No, I'm not picking fun of them. They're quite rightly within their interests. They want to reduce poverty and grow their economy.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, but let me just say this. Let me just say this: our greenhouse gas emissions on a per capita basis are about five times - four or five times China's and about 10 times India's. So the reality is that both those countries are very well aware of the challenge and are working hard to promote clean energy solutions and as far as China is concerned, they are doing more than either us or the United States in their efforts to move to cleaner sources of energy, and that's a fact.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right. We'll move onto another question and, by the way, if Lu Kewen is watching out there in Brisbane, you're welcome to come on the show anytime. And we'll go up to Noel - Leon Ashby, I should say.

LEON ASHBY: Okay. Just getting back to the citizens' assembly, climate sceptics don't deny that there's climate change, but they do deny that carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are the cause. Will the citizens' assembly address that question because or, you know, this is really the elephant in the corner of the room and is it going to be ignored in the process.

TONY JONES: Okay. I believe Leon is in the Climate Sceptics Party and is standing as a candidate in the election, but that should be stated. Penny Wong?

PENNY WONG: Well, Leon, hello.

TONY JONES: It's really quite a simple question. Will the citizens' assembly, as you envisage, be addressed by climate sceptics?

PENNY WONG: I think we should have credible scientists in this debate, whether it's to the citizens assembly or generally and one of the other things that Julia announced was a climate commission, which would include credible scientists and others to do two things: one is to talk about the science and also to talk about where international action is going, because I think it's important we track that.

TONY JONES: Was that a yes or a no to climate sceptics addressing the people's assembly.

PENNY WONG: Well, if they're credible scientists.

LEON ASHBY: Yeah, how do you define credible scientists, Penny?

PENNY WONG: Well, I have to say I don't - my personal view is that many of the people who have a range of theories on this are not always scientists with credibility in this field but there may be - there may be some. I personally have no qualms at all about having a debate about the science, because my experience is if you take the time with most Australians to take them through the scientific evidence and the reasons why we need to act, most people get it.

TONY JONES: Okay, Tom Switzer, quickly on that subject and then we'll move on.

TOM SWITZER: Well, I think, to answer your question, manmade global warming, the science of it, it's a bit like the Da Vinci Code. There's a grain of truth but there's a mountain of nonsense and the problem is - the problem is the alarmists - the alarmists in this debate are totally incapable of understatement. Totally incapable of understatement and we've seen that in the course of the whole Climategate scandal.

PENNY WONG: And your language is so neutral at the moment.

MULTIPLE SPEAKERS TALK AT ONCE

TOM SWITZER: But my point, Tony, quite frankly, actually I concede that there has been some global warming. There's no question in the last quarter of the 20th century there was substantial warming and there's no question that carbon emissions probably played a role in that, but it's more murky in the last five to 10 years. But my point is simply that the policy consensus - the policy consensus is not there and the global consensus is not there and if you don't have a policy consensus or a global consensus...

TONY JONES: Okay.

TOM SWITZER: ...you might as well just adapt.

TONY JONES: Graham Richardson wants to come in on that.

GRAHAM RICHARDSON: I'd like to say two things about this. I just listened to what Tom had to say and you talk about a mountain of nonsense. It would be hard to jump over that one, pal. That's a shocker. But that having been said, I believe in a democracy. Everyone, including Tom or our questioner, has a right to be wrong and I think it would be impossible to have a citizens' assembly of this kind without the alternate argument being put. It would be a joke and I'm certain that the government, once it starts up its citizens assembly, will recognise that because to not do so would, to use the word "mountain", I think bring upon it a mountain of criticism from which it would not recover. So I think your arguments will get put. Hopefully they won't be accepted but they will get put.

TONY JONES: All right, let's move on to another aspect of this policy, the new policy. It's from John O'Donnell.

JOHN O'DONNELL: Hello. While it sounds good to have tighter regulations on our power station emissions, I'm concerned about how the government is actually going to replace the existing coal fired base load power stations, many of which are reaching the end of design life within the next 10 to 15 years.

TONY JONES: Penny Wong?

PENNY WONG: It's a very good question and it's, I think, one of the more difficult things in this policy area is how do you manage the transition in the energy sector, ensuring continuity and security of supply, but at the same time transitioning to cleaner forms of energy. So there are a number of things you do. One is you have to invest in renewables. We're doing that. We passed legislation with the support of the senate for a 20 per cent renewable energy target, which will increase by four times the amount of renewable energy in Australia. At the same time what we've announced in this election is two policies, one of which relates to coal fired power that says if you're going to build a new station you're going to have to build it to new standards, so we don't get a highly emitting, dirty power station built in this country. We've also said in relation to existing stations that they're going to have to improve their energy efficiency or monitor their energy efficiency and the second thing we're doing is, as I said, a billion dollars to connect renewables to the grid. This is a transition. If there were a switch that we could flick that said we're suddenly going to all move to no emissions energy, that would be great because it would solve a substantial amount of the policy challenges people have been grappling with over years.

TONY JONES: Can I just...

CHRISTINE MILNE: Can I just...

TONY JONES: Yeah, I'll come to you in a moment, Christine. Victorian premier, John Brumby, put out a climate change white paper today. They evidently want to close down their dirtiest coal fired power station at Hazelwood. Apparently it's going to cost hundreds of millions or perhaps a billion dollars or more to do it. They want Federal Government money. Are you prepared to give them the money to make this transition, as you call it?

PENNY WONG: Well, can I say what the PM said is that the carbon pollution reduction scheme, which included assistance for the energy sector as the starting basis for negotiations going forward to get a limit on pollution...

GRAHAM RICHARDSON: Moving forward.

PENNY WONG: Moving forward. Yeah, thanks. It's good that he's here. It keeps me on track.

TONY JONES: Do you have any idea what it's going to cost?

PENNY WONG: No, I don't, but I do know that people will always ask for a fair amount and I think the issue here is what is the most economically efficient way to make the transition so that taxpayers are not paying too much for the transition and if we do make this transition if we're getting - if coal fired power stations are moving out of the energy sector, we have to make sure that there's an overall reduction and that what we're moving to is cleaner forms of energy.

TONY JONES: Okay, but just confirm you have no idea what it's going to cost?

PENNY WONG: Well, sorry, what do you mean?

TONY JONES: You don't know how much it's going to cost?

PENNY WONG: Which bit: Hazelwood?

TONY JONES: Yeah, well, Hazelwood in particular.

PENNY WONG: Well, I don't know what they're asking for. I haven't seen any propositions.

GRAHAM RICHARDSON: What are they transitioning to?

TONY JONES: All right, I'm going to hear from both the politicians on this then we'll move to the next question, starting with Christine Milne and then Malcolm Turnbull.

CHRISTINE MILNE: Well, just on the issue of coal fired power, there just is no vision in Australian at the moment to move to 100 per cent renewable energy and we know that we can do that and we should have a plan to do that out to 2050. What we've heard from the Prime Minister is a lot of headlines but when you unpack the detail you find that there are 10 to a dozen new coal fired power stations in the pipeline right now and these new guidelines won't apply to them. Now, we shouldn't be building new coal fired power stations in Australia. What is carbon capture and storage ready mean? That is a nonsense. It just simply means there's a space in the car park where if at some point they get the technology we'll build it there or it means we'll put the pipeline there to take the carbon dioxide somewhere else. We need to have a completely different vision here. The prime minister has talked about taking out the transmission lines. Yes, we agree with that but unpack the detail and it's only 25 million a year for the next four years. That is about 25 kilometres. That is a ridiculous amount of money. You need to go into the billions for this new infrastructure and that's what we need to be planning for.

TONY JONES: Malcolm Turnbull?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, the virtue of putting a price on carbon is that the market works out what the best technology is and you don't have governments picking technologies and over time, you know, the energy generation sector moves to cleaner and cleaner and then ultimately to zero emission sources of generation. But as it happens, as far as Premier Brumby's proposal to phase out a quarter of Hazelwood, which is the dirtiest brown coal power station in Australia and replace it with gas fired technology, which would certainly reduce the emissions. The only party that has a policy that has the capacity to fund that is, in fact, the Coalition. The Labor Party has no funds in their policy that is capable of supporting an initiative like that and the Coalition does. So what John Brumby has done, Labor Premier, mentor of the prime minister Julia Gillard and in a political scene rich with ironies, has announced an initiative that can only be funded by the Coalition.

PENNY WONG: This is the Coalition policy you described as a recipe for fiscal irresponsibility Malcolm, because you said it would mean government would pay too much, you wouldn't guarantee reductions in pollution and I think you were right. You know and I know that picking winners and picking people who you are going to buy out or do things with doesn't ensure that you get a reduction over time in the country's emissions. To do that you have to have a cap on pollution.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: But you see, Penny, see we agree on this. We agree that you've got to have a cap on pollution, you should have a price on carbon. The difference is neither of us...

CHRISTINE MILNE: Neither of your leaders do. That's your problem.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Neither of our - no, but, Christine...

PENNY WONG: It's a good line but it's not true. It's a good line but it's not true.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, Christine...

CHRISTINE MILNE: It is true. It is absolutely true.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, Christine is absolutely right.

CHRISTINE MILNE: It's true.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Neither of our leaders do.

CHRISTINE MILNE: That's right.

PENNY WONG: That's not - that's not right.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: But again - but again it's a two horse race.

PENNY WONG: Julia says this is what...

MALCOLM TURNBULL: And at the moment the Coalition...

PENNY WONG: Tony says it's crap.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: ...does have a policy that at least is capable of supporting the initiative of Premier Brumby. You, sadly, on the other hand, have a vacuum.

PENNY WONG: I don't agree with that. I do not agree with that.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: You do not have a policy, you have a policy vacuum.

PENNY WONG: What we're saying - well, I don't agree with that.

TONY JONES: You want to put a few...

MALCOLM TURNBULL: You have a notice for a meeting.

TONY JONES: Do you want to put a billion...

PENNY WONG: That is not true.

TONY JONES: Do you want to put a billion dollars on the table right now?

PENNY WONG: No, that is not true and you know that's not true and you know a number of the measures we've announce are about preparing for...

MALCOLM TURNBULL: But what measures?

PENNY WONG: Well, a reward for early movers. You know what that's about. You know what the coal fired power stations is about. It's about giving the signal in the sector that you can't invest in these sorts of operations anymore. The reality is the policy you're now defending you criticised vehemently early this year as a recipe for fiscal irresponsibility.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right. Now, we've gone back to your original point.

PENNY WONG: Yeah.

TONY JONES: This is Q&A, the life and interactive show where you ask the questions. Go to our website to find out how to join the studio audience and ask a question like Kuppal Palaniappan.

KUPPAL PALANIAPPAN: I'd like to know what Kevin Rudd would be thinking if Julia Gillard actually lost the election?

TONY JONES: Graham Richardson? We don't even have to ask you to be mind reader, because I'm sure you know the answer.

GRAHAM RICHARDSON: I think that secretly somewhere in the deep, dark recesses of his soul there would be some glee but...

MALCOLM TURNBULL: That is the understatement of the 21st century.

PENNY WONG: Would you like to tell us?

GRAHAM RICHARDSON: But Kevin Rudd is a long term member of the Labor Party and, you know, I've been in the Labor Party since I was a kid and basically you have to cop what you don't like sometimes in politics and Malcolm just copped it in his side. Happens all the time. If you're not tough enough to wear it, you shouldn't be there...

TOM SWITZER: You've done it twice now, Richo.

GRAHAM RICHARDSON: ...and I have no doubt he'll vote Labor and I have no doubt he still wants to be foreign minister so I dare say he'll be hoping that they win and he'll do all he can to ensure it happens.

TONY JONES: Malcolm Turnbull?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah, look, I think all jokes aside, I think Richo is probably right. I think there would be a touch of schadenfreude - you know, rejoicing in the misery of your enemies - if Julia Gillard were to lose the election but I think Kevin Rudd has indicated that he wants to serve as a cabinet minister in a Gillard government, so I'm sure he will be voting Labor because he'll be voting for himself.

TONY JONES: Can I...

MALCOLM TURNBULL: I wouldn't count on his senate vote, however. I think that's a...

TONY JONES: Just on the question of schadenfreude, will you be feeling the same sort of thing if...

MALCOLM TURNBULL: I'm...

TONY JONES: You'll be (indistinct).

MALCOLM TURNBULL: I'm just filled with love and affection for all of my colleagues.

TONY JONES: Penny Wong, do you want to answer the question about what's in Kevin Rudd's mind if you lose the election?

PENNY WONG: No, I'm just thinking that that just means Tony is prime minister so I don't know what we think about that. But, no, I don't know.

TOM SWITZER: Well, of course Kevin Rudd will be very happy if Julia Gillard wins. He has, after all, been knifed in the most brutal and bloody manner but a bunch of union thugs who still control the Labor Party.

GRAHAM RICHARDSON: What?

TOM SWITZER: Well, it's true. Absolutely. Well, Richo, mate, it's absolutely right and, you know, it reminds me of this movie Clint Eastwood played in as Dirty Harry many years ago and he said, "Revenge is the oldest motivation known to mankind" and I think that what we'll see in the next four weeks is absolutely Kevin Rudd revenge. Read Mark Latham's column. This bloke is leaking and leaking and leaking and he'll do everything to undermine Julia Gillard.

CHRISTINE MILNE: Well, it's no wonder that John Howard says you're the authentic voice of the right.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Tony, can I say something about revenge?

MULTIPLE SPEAKERS TALK AT ONCE

TONY JONES: Yes, you can say something about revenge.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: I'll say something about revenge (indistinct).

TONY JONES: Because I'd quite like to hear you on the subject of revenge.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: There was a moment many years ago when I was working with Kerry Packer when Kerry was promising, you know, death and destruction to his opponents and Jim Wolfenson, who was with us, said, "Remember, Kerry, revenge is a dish best eaten cold," to which the great man replied, "Better eaten hot than not at all."

TONY JONES: At what point does Tony Abbott look cold to you?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, he's full of life.

TONY JONES: Okay. Indeed.

TOM SWITZER: Well, he's full of something. I'll give you that.

TONY JONES: This is Q&A, the program that gives you the chance to ask the questions and have a spirited debate; the sort of debate we haven't seen a lot of. We've got a lot of people who are interested in asking this question, many in fact. It comes from Danielle Raffaele.

DANIELLE RAFFAELE: My question is directed to Penny. Penny, you say that you support your party's decision to be against gay marriage, even though you are gay yourself. How can you sit idly back and allow yourself to remain silent about the obvious inequality that you are kept in?

PENNY WONG: I'm glad you asked me this question, because I think it's important for me to explain to you how I approach this issue and politics and the first thing I wanted to say to you is that by virtue of who I am, prejudice and discrimination are things I have some firsthand knowledge of and when I entered the parliament, I did actually think very carefully about how to handle being Asian and gay and in the parliament, because it hadn't been done before, and I thought a couple of things. One of them was about how I would handle it personally, and that was to be absolutely open about who I am, to never shy away from that and try to be dignified, even when it might be difficult and part of the reason I did that was I thought it was very important to show that you should never be ashamed of who you are, even when there are people who would try to make you be, and I thought that was one of the best things I could do in terms of how I handled it. On the issue of, I suppose, reform, there are a number of us in the party - Anthony Albanese, Tanya, others, who have worked very hard to try and improve the parties position and policies on gay and lesbian Australians and I can remember in 1998 at a national conference I was at, I think Richo was there, was the very first time we actually had in the platform any reference to discrimination on the basis of sexuality. And since that time I think you've seen progressive improvements, modernisation in the Labor Party's platform and at the last election we went to the election with the most comprehensive set of law reform in relation to gay and lesbian rights that the country has ever seen and we have delivered them all. We have delivered them all and they are important things. They are things such as parental recognition of children of same sex relationships under the Family Law Act. They are recognition of same sex relationships as de facto relationships in federal law, in Veterans Affairs, in terms of Medicare access. These are things which make a real difference to people's lives. Now, I accept that you and some other people in the community would like us to have a different position in terms of marriage. That isn't the position in the party but what I would say to you is do take a moment to consider what we have tried to do, what we have advocated for and what we have delivered for gay and lesbian Australians.

CHRISTINE MILNE: Well, this is a lack of leadership, I have to say. This is a real lack of leadership and this is another example of the prime minister's lack of leadership. Virtually as soon as she became the prime minister she ruled out going to marriage equality. She ruled out getting rid of this vestige of discrimination and she went on to say it's not religious. So is it historical? Is it cultural? And if it's historical and cultural, it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister to lead this country to a better place and that is what we need to be doing and we'll have legislation - we have legislation. We put it to the parliament before. It was voted down by everyone except the Greens. We will be putting it in there again in balance of power in the senate and we are hoping that this time whoever is in government will go to a conscience vote on this because I'm confident that the Australian community really wants to see this change and Julia Gillard should offer leadership in this regard.

TONY JONES: All right, I'm going to throw that back for a brief response to Penny Wong and I suppose the key question there is whether a conscience vote under the circumstances...

PENNY WONG: Yeah, I don't agree with conscience votes and I'll tell you why, and that's also from a feminist perspective. If we'd had conscience votes in the Labor Party on a range of issues - well, we obviously have on abortion, but on other issues, there are many reforms which would not have been achieved. I have a view that you join a team, you're part of the team and that's the way, you know, we operate and people sometimes like that and sometimes they don't but that's...

TONY JONES: We've got one quick response from the audience there.

GRAHAM RICHARDSON: I...

TONY JONES: Sorry, just hang on, Graham.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah, just Malcolm Turnbull openly disagrees with Liberal policy on ETS. Why can't you openly disagree with Labor policy on gay marriage?

PENNY WONG: Well, because, as I've said...

GRAHAM RICHARDSON: (Indistinct)

TONY JONES: Yeah.

GRAHAM RICHARDSON: Look, I'm amazed somewhat by these questions, really. You would not have had many of the things that have now happened that she's already referred to if people like Penny weren't in the Labor Party and weren't pushing for them. There are a lot of people in the Labor Party who don't agree with this stuff. At the moment there's nowhere near a majority but there will be. There will be over time because Penny will work for it and it will get up in the end. But give her a break, for God's sake. She's part of a caucus. There's a whole lot of them. She doesn't run the government, she's a part of it. A part of it. There's a think called cabinet solidarity...

AUDIENCE MEMBER: She can have an opinion.

GRAHAM RICHARDSON: ...and if she wants to break it she gets nowhere. You'll lose someone who fights for your cause. That, my friends, is dumb. Big time dumb.

TONY JONES: No, sorry, I'm going to draw a line under that now, because we have got other topics people want to get onto. You're watching Q&A and remember you can send your web or video questions to our website. The address is on the screen. Our next question comes from in the audience from Laura Scrivano.

LAURA SCRIVANO: Thanks, Tony. Much of Australia's economic stability has been built on the back of immigration and my question is to Malcolm Turnbull. As a businessman, are you worried that Tony Abbott's policy of a small Australia and reducing immigration is going to stall economic growth in Australia?

TONY JONES: Well, start with you, Malcolm.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Okay. Well, look, I wouldn't characterise Tony Abbott's policy like that. I mean, let me tell you what I understand our policy to be and why I think it's right. I think we should calibrate our immigration to our demands of our labour force. In other words we should ensure that immigration is matched by demands for labour in Australia. Now, over the last few years we have seen higher levels of immigration but we've also seen high levels of employment and the fact of the matter is we would not have had as strong an economy as we have today, let alone as diverse and successful a country if we had not had the immigration that we've had. We are a nation of immigration. We are a multicultural nation. Immigration is part of our DNA but it is important that it is matched to the demands from our labour force. In other words that people come to Australia. They come to Australia when there are jobs available and there are things for them to do and that is - you know, that is common sense and, frankly, I think the coalition's policy of referring those immigration targets to the Productivity Commission which, as you know, is the Federal Government's top economic think tank, is a very sensible approach to take.

PENNY WONG: That's no longer your policy.

TONY JONES: Okay. Sorry, we've got a questioner from the audience, down the front here.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: But then wouldn't it make more sense to limit immigration by skills rather than a numerical quota?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, but again, you see, I think you've got to recognise that, again, what Tony said was that the skills program, the immigration...

AUDIENCE MEMBER: But it's still based on a number.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: No. No.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: It's based on getting the number down.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: The reality is immigration levels fluctuate depending on the demand for labour.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah, that's right.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: The big change - I tell you there has been a big - I don't know if we've got some time for this but there's been a big change...

TONY JONES: No, we have a little - you can have 30 seconds.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Okay, so I'll just say very briefly the bottom line is this: we are a nation that's been built on immigration. Immigration has built Australia. That's a good thing. We just simply have to make sure that the rate of immigration is based on the demands from our labour force. When people complain about overpopulation, very often what they're complaining about is congestion and the fact that governments, particularly state governments but also Federal Governments, have failed to invest in the infrastructure in our cities to enable us to maintain our amenity of life at the same time - at the same time as we are - you see, the key thing to bear in mind is this: density of, you know, of habitation in our cities - density in itself is not a problem. Density supported by the right infrastructure can actually increase amenity. What we have failed to do, in my view, is provide the infrastructure to support the growth of our cities and that's something in the context of this debate we have to focus on. This debate should be focussed on the investment of infrastructure for our cities and of course for our regions. But above all for the cities, because that's where most of the growth has occurred.

TONY JONES: Penny Wong?

PENNY WONG: Well, I'm actually no longer sure, having listened to that, what your immigration policy actually is, Malcolm, because what you and Tony say seem to be different things. I understand he's come up with a figure which he says is now your figure, which appears to simply be the figure that's projected as a result of government policy changes. Leaving all that aside, I do think the issue is, and we've spoken about a sustainable population, which is talking about actually one of the issues Malcolm referenced. I think this is a different issue in different parts of Australia and some areas have skill shortages and some areas have housing shortages and then other areas we have too many - you know, too much congestion and we know that we have to look at ways in which we can improve things like infrastructure, water and our regional cities. So I think this is a complex debate and it is a debate that we have to, I think, engage in carefully, sensibly and maturely.

TONY JONES: All right, we're running out of time. Let's have one more question. It comes from Luke Brand.

LUKE BRAND: Richo, this is probably one for you. We've seen total lack of forward thinking from both sides of politics throughout this entire campaign. We've got the Greens saying no for the sake of saying no, just so they can save baby lizards and small tree frogs...

CHRISTINE MILNE: Well, saving the forests would be a fantastic way to start in this election, don't you think?

LUKE BRAND: Richo, where are visionaries? Where are the great minds of politics? Where is the forward thinking for this nation; the grand schemes to move forward, like high speed rail, like Snowy Mountains style schemes.

CHRISTINE MILNE: (Indistinct)

LUKE BRAND: Where are those people that can show me, as a voter, how we're going to move the country forward?

TONY JONES: All right. I'm not going to throw it straight to Richo, as you put it. I'm going to put it to Christine Milne.

CHRISTINE MILNE: Okay. Well, first of all the Greens have a policy to invest in high speed rail and I absolutely think we need to be going forward on that. But one of the issues we really haven't talked about in this election is the protection of Australia's forests, biodiversity, the Great Barrier Reef and it would be fantastic to see our forests protected as carbon stores and if the parties are not prepared to go near a carbon price, will they protect our forests in this election. It is time we did that.

LUKE BRAND: Sorry, Christine. Sorry, Christine, but that's not a scheme moving forward, that's another environmental policy and it's all good and well for us to get bogged down in environmental policy but how are we progressing the nation. That's going backwards. That's not creating jobs.

TONY JONES: All right, yeah, a very quick response, because we need to hear from the whole panel on this subject.

CHRISTINE MILNE: Creating jobs into the future is moving to the low carbon economy and by doing that you are investing in 100 per cent renewable energy. You are creating jobs in the manufacturing sector, which have been hollowed out as we have actually gone backwards into becoming a quarry. We can become a country with large investment in education, new manufacturing, new amenity in our cities, redesigning those cities, sustainability in food production but protecting our biodiversity, our water, our land, keeping farmers on the land. All those things are really important for the future and they are central to Greens' policy. You can't have an economy if you don't look after your environment. We all know that.

LUKE BRAND: Show us some policy, Christine.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right. Hold on.

LUKE BRAND: Put it out there.

TONY JONES: Okay, hold on. I'm going to put your question to Graham Richardson, where you directed it originally, and the question ended, "Where are the great visionaries?"

GRAHAM RICHARDSON: I've got to say at the moment I don't think visionaries are in great supply. That having been said I think that in this era what you've got to look for are committed politicians: people who actually believe in something and have a commitment to it. Even if it isn't a grand vision, at least it's some sort of vision and if you look on the panel today there's two of them. Because while I mightn't agree with everything that Malcolm has, he believes in things. Malcolm will fight for them. Penny is the same thing and as far as Christine is concerned if the Greens would listen to her and focus on forests and not on every other thing then I think they could go back to being a great party. But what it requires is a bit of focus and sometimes I think that's lacking. At the moment, though, look for the commitment in them and there are some. I'm not saying the parliament is full of them. It can't be. It's full of a lot of people who shouldn't be there, in my view, but some of them that are there are wonderful and I think you've got to support the ones that are good. There are some on both sides. I mean, I've got a view about which side has got more of them but that's just my view.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right.

GRAHAM RICHARDSON: As I said before, you have a right to be wrong.

TONY JONES: We're really running out of time. A quick response from Tom.

TOM SWITZER: I'll be very quick, and I hate to be a Cassandra but it's a good question. Harold McMillan, the British prime minister, once said, "If you want a vision, don't consult a politician, consult a saint," and unfortunately that's the obvious response to your question. The nature of politics is - the nature of politics is that it comes down to nitty gritty issues of the day, lawmaking, it's very difficult to think and actually execute in those big picture visions.

TONY JONES: All right, St Malcolm?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Thank you. Well, I'll leave you - I'll just leave you with something to ponder on. We all know how much the New South Wales Labor Government has done for public transport in Sydney in the last 15 years. In 1995 Bob Carr was elected and that began that government. It was also the year that the Shanghai Metro opened with one line. It now has 420 kilometres of track, 269 stations, carries six million people a day and by 2020 will be twice that size. So you can have the infrastructure you want. You don't have to be, you know, a China. You don't have to be a communist state to do it. You can do it if you've got the leadership and commitment and the scarcest natural resource we have in Australia at the moment, there's two: leadership and courage.

TONY JONES: And Penny Wong?

PENNY WONG: So your question, I think you asked about jobs and I'd point to two things which I think are important. One is education, because I think that investing in our people, ensuring that all young Australians get the opportunity to be the best they can be. Whether it's in the trades, or other, education is important, so I think the way in which we have focussed so much on education, that's been very much a hallmark of Julia's activities as a minister and now as prime minister is really important. The second thing is I do think we need to diversify our economy more. We haven't talked about the mining tax tonight but what is important about that is additional funds from the mining sector, but what we are also doing is investing in a reduction in company tax for other parts of the economy and I think that is important.

TONY JONES: Okay, we've run out of time and on the visionary tax we'll have to leave it and thank our panel: Malcolm Turnbull, Tom Switzer, Christine Milne, Penny Wong, and Graham Richardson. Thank you. Next week, Q&A will hit the campaign trail to visit Queensland, the state that could decide this election. Joining us in Brisbane will be a panel of Queensland political players, including the Minister for Small Business, Craig Emerson; National senator Barnaby Joyce; the Shadow Health Minister Peter Dutton; and Queensland Greens candidate Larissa Waters.

Before we go tonight, an election treat. We're already being bombarded with political ads. Most of them are as mind numbing as last night's debate, quite frankly, so how should it be done? A few weeks ago the Gruen Transfer showed an ad they described as perfect.

OLD SPICE AD PLAYED

TONY JONES: All right. Well, few political ads come anywhere near that sort of creativity but we'll leave you tonight with a video animation from Small Poppy TV that applies the Old Spice strategy to Tony Abbott's campaign. Maybe it's worth trying. Good night.