TONY JONES: Good evening and welcome to Q&A live from Founders Theatre at Federation University in Ballarat. I'm Tony Jones and here to answer your questions tonight, the Opposition Leader Bill Shorten. Please welcome our guest. Thank you very much. Now, David Marr's Quarterly Essay paints Bill Shorten as a consummate backroom party man who's risen to the top without ever really being tested by Australian voters. According to the polls, eight days ago he was coasting towards The Lodge in front of one Australia's most unpopular Prime Ministers. Now he's facing Malcolm Turnbull and a much tougher challenge. But tonight it's the testing questions of both Labor and Coalition voters, who want to know more about the alternative Prime Minister. Let's go straight to our first question. It's from Steve Theodore.

TURNBULL ASCENDANCY

STEVE THEODORE: With due acknowledgement to Bill Hayden, a drover's dog could have led the ALP to electoral victory over a government led by Tony Abbott. Do you acknowledge that the ascension of Malcolm Turnbull has made your job a lot harder and that your leadership is now a lot less secure?

BILL SHORTEN: Let me state at the outset that I'm not going to be mealy-mouthed about the rise of Malcolm Turnbull replacing Tony Abbott. I think it is a good thing for this country that Tony Abbott is no longer Prime Minister of Australia. Now, of course...

TONY JONES: Now the boost to Malcolm Turnbull?

BILL SHORTEN: I've pretty much covered that. Of course, though, I would liked to have been the one who replaced Tony Abbott because whoever did that was going to get a boost in the polls, as they say. But what I'm looking forward to is a change not in the personalities of who the Liberal Leaders are, but a change in the way we do politics in this country. Now, I understand that the last two years have been deeply unsatisfactory to Australians. Labor has been making that point for the last two years and, to some extent, we take some, you know, satisfaction that because we stood strong against the 2014 Budget and the 2015 Budget, because we didn't cop the pension cuts and the broken promises, that put more pressure on a first term Liberal Government than I think the experts were saying would occur and certainly Mr Abbott. So now, what I'm hoping with the rise of Malcolm Turnbull, is not just a change in salesman, but a change in direction for this country and we will have a debate about who has got the best plan for the future, because that's what I think really matters, and let's have a debate about ideas and not some of the negative shouting, the dividing of this country that we've seen. Really, I think the last two years has underestimated Australia.

TONY JONES: Okay, Now, I read in David Marr's essay that you admire Napoleon, especially for his maxim, "Find your enemy's weakest point and concentrate your attack there." Is that true, first of all, that you admire Napoleon?

BILL SHORTEN: I admire Napoleon. I think he's a great figure of history, yes.

TONY JONES: So Malcolm Turnbull's weakest point, what is that?

BILL SHORTEN: I'm not sure that will be yet. I think the challenge...

TONY JONES: You only see his strengths at this time?

BILL SHORTEN: Well, no, I just think he has been there for six days, that's all. Well, I don't think that, actually, I know that. What I believe is the challenge will be for Malcolm Turnbull will be can he move his party, which is more right wing than the Liberal Party has been in decades, can he move it through its policies back to the centre of Australian politics? See, I'm up for a debate about the future. We will have arguments, Malcolm Turnbull and I, but there will be things we agree on, too, but I think it's really important that Malcolm Turnbull doesn't change his views that he had when he was the sort of Liberal gadfly giving Tony Abbott a hard time and that I hope that he sticks true to his views about climate change about marriage equality, about making sure that we can have a debate about ideas and we don't just get back into the politics as usual.

TONY JONES: Okay. Our next question will take us to some of what you are mentioning there. It's from Belinda Jones.

POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY

BELINDA JONES: Malcolm was last ousted as Leader of the Liberal Party due to his support for a world leading carbon trading scheme, yet now he thinks that our joke of a Direct Action plan is sufficient. Mr Shorten, you were famous for your role in the Rudd Gillard Rudd fiasco, flipping allegiance to make, then re make a Prime Minister. At what point does pursuing political survival become more important than upholding your own principles and values?

BILL SHORTEN: Well, I actually think - well, there's two parts to your question or two points in your question and I would like to answer them both and I will try to do it as succinctly as I can. The leadership instability in Labor in the last six years that Labor was in, I think, caused a lot of harm. Now, it was done to try and prevent Tony Abbott and a more extreme view of Australia come to the fore but, ultimately, that failed, too. So Labor it was very difficult. It was very difficult, but I think that Labor has learned its lessons. For the last two years, one thing you haven't had out of Labor is a whole lot of discussion about our disunity and division, when I think a lot of people thought that would be the case. But you ask the question about, you know - about principles. I know that for Labor to get elected at the next election, we have to say what we mean and mean what we say. Well, there is no short cut. I think this is going to be the greatest conundrum or problem that the Liberals face. Are they a party of the centre? Or are they a party of the right? And no issue illustrates that more clearly, I believe, than climate change and an emissions trading scheme. One thing I admired about Malcolm Turnbull when he was Leader of the Opposition, he said he didn't want to lead a party which wasn't fair dinkum on climate change. I don't think he used those precise words, but that was the dense sense of what he meant, and that involved having an emissions trading scheme; letting the market set a price on carbon pollution. Now when we ask him questions about this in Parliament he has changed his tune. That will be up for Malcolm Turnbull and for Australians to work out if they're satisfied with that but for Labor on climate change, we've made it very clear and we made it clear when Tony Abbott was full of his carbon tax rhetoric when he was Prime Minister, we made it very clear we want to put a price on it. We will have an emissions trading scheme. We are going to push for 50% renewable energy by 2030 as part of our energy mix. Labor can't afford to backflip on its core policies, and we won't.

TONY JONES: Now, I'm going to just press you on part of the question that was about you that you avoided essentially and the principle talked about here could be loyalty to the leader that you helped install in this Rudd Gillard Rudd fiasco that was mentioned there. Do you think people are confused about you and your loyalty because of your role in two coups: the coup to put Julia Gillard in, the coup to take her out?

BILL SHORTEN: Well, as I said earlier in answer to the question, so I didn't really think I was avoiding it that was very difficult. Labor believed a lot of people in Labor believed that the Government had lost its way and we thought that Julia Gillard would do a better job, and then much more recently when it was clear that Labor was heading for a very big defeat, there was a view which formed that Kevin Rudd would at least help save the furniture, which he did. But what Labor learned from that, what we did learn from that, all of us, every party member, every member of the parliamentary party, is that you can't treat this as business as usual and that politics is all just about the next opinion poll. That would be a mistake. So now I've watched the Liberals do exactly what we did. They've done exactly what we've done. The difference is that the Labor Party has learned and we are two different things to what happened then. One, we are much more united and, two, we introduced rules which make it a lot harder to do. So, we know what we've got to do. We've got to be united. That's the sort of initial thing that Labor has to do. Then we've got to develop policies and that's what we've been doing this year and, along the way, I think we've been a very strong Opposition to Tony Abbott. The Opposition, we're still here and Mr Abbott is gone.

TONY JONES: Okay. We're going to go to another question, again related to what we've been talking about, it is from Mary Hollick.

BIPARTISAN BILL?

MARY HOLLICK: With the end of Australia's failed experiment with US style Tea Party politics, and the Government and Opposition now offering more centrist policies, could you, Mr Shorten, specify which issues you would work with the Government on to arrive at consensus for the good of the nation?

BILL SHORTEN: Yes, I can, actually, and I think that's a really important question, Mary, because whilst there will be things that we disagree on, I agree and we said when Joe Hockey brought down his second Budget that the future of Australia's economy needed to be based around science and technology. It would appear that the Government, the Liberals, are now saying the same thing, so he we will work together on that. One issue which I think we can work together on is climate change. I do believe that we need to encourage the Government to have a renewable energy future, to perhaps be bolder than their current policies on tackling climate change. Now, what Malcolm Turnbull was in Opposition is he worked with the Government of the day, Mr Rudd, on climate change and then his own party tore him down. I can make this promise to Mr Turnbull, that if he wants to go back and be fair dinkum on climate change, my party will back it. You know, in some ways my job is easier on climate change than Malcolm Turnbull's. My party believes in it. So there is climate change we can work together. Another issue I would like to work together is the issue of domestic violence. In Mr Abbott's last week, or - I think, sorry, the week before, three women were killed by former partners who once upon a time said they loved them. Now, I don't think we need to wait to an election to really tackle domestic violence. I would also like to say through this audience to Australians that we could work with Mr Turnbull on marriage equality. We are happy to have a conscience vote right now. We don't need to have an ongoing debate over the next number of years to have a taxpayer funded opinion poll of $160 million which we know was designed by Tony Abbott to delay marriage equality. Let's just have a conscience vote. Let's just do it. If there is not a majority in the Parliament to do it, so be it. At least we found that out and we don't have to spend $160 million. So marriage equality, climate change, domestic violence we can work with Mr Turnbull and also the priority of science and research. That's something Labor fundamentally believes in our DNA

TONY JONES: All right. You're watching Q&A, where we encourage political leaders to express their opinions but stick to the facts. So if you hear any dodgy claims on Q&A tonight, tip us off with a tweet using the hashtags Fact Check and QANDA and keep an eye on our Twitter account for those fact checks. Well, the next question comes from Jim Liaskos.

TRADE UNION ROYAL COMMISSION

JIM LIASKOS: Integrity is always a key attribute for any Prime Minister. With your involvement in the downfall of two former Prime Ministers, the stench of the Health Services Union, the CFMEU and unanswered questions from the royal commission colouring your years as a key player in the union movement in Australia, does the high standard your party has set in regard to perceptions about Royal Commissioner Heydon mean that your leadership is likewise damaged, or is there a different standard for potential Prime Ministers?

BILL SHORTEN: There's a few assumptions in your question, which I'm going to take issue with. I mean, we're not here just to, you know, just agree with each other for the sake of it. The royal commission was set up by Tony Abbott to go after his political rivals. If you want to deal with issues of criminal behaviour in the workplace, then we use the police and there is measures we can do there. In terms of the Royal Commissioner, who saw nothing wrong with attending Liberal Party events whilst he is hearing matters investigating the political rivals of the Liberal Party, that just doesn't pass the common-sense test. But when it goes to, I think, the broader issues about integrity and change in leadership, what Australians want is they want to focus on the policies. What I can promise people here and now is that when we commit to a policy, that's what you are going to get, and what I can also commit to Australians is that when we talk about issues at the highest possible standards, the Labor Party is committed to maintaining those standards.

TONY JONES: Okay. Now, look, the questioner referred to unanswered questions from the royal commission. One of them is whether you demanded side payments from for the AWU to the AWU from employers while you were negotiating EBUs on behalf of workers. Did you do that?

BILL SHORTEN: Well, actually there's two points you just made there. The gentleman did say "unanswered questions". I answered over 900 questions at that royal commission.

TONY JONES: Did you answer that one?

BILL SHORTEN: Yes. But I'm just going to the point...

TONY JONES: So what's the answer now?

BILL SHORTEN: Well, Tony, you make a serious issue so I'm going to treat your question with the seriousness that I actually think you expect.

TONY JONES: No, I hope you do.

BILL SHORTEN: So the first thing is over 900 questions asked of the Opposition Leader, yet, when you look at how the royal commission has managed to ignore other people who have gone there and ask them far less diligent questioning and, indeed, was helping prepare witnesses they like to answer questions, I don't think this royal commission has been a level playing field. But going to your specific question, the answer is no, I didn't.

TONY JONES: Okay, so 2005, a deal was struck with Thiess John Holland to pay the AWU $100,000 a year for three years during the course of the giant EastLink project.

Did you negotiate for that $100,000 to be paid each year to the AWU?

BILL SHORTEN: The EastLink project that Tony is referring to was the single largest civil construction project that had been built in Australia. It was worth something like $3 billion in terms of the cost to taxpayers. I negotiated an agreement which saw the best payment of construction pay rates to construction workers ever negotiated in Australia. As part of that, I have a philosophy. I had a philosophy then and I still have a philosophy now. That workplace relations doesn't just have to be us versus them, the bosses versus the workers. Now, sometimes there is conflict and you've got to be willing to, you know, represent your corner or your group as strongly as you can, but I believe that the EastLink project, which saw not a single worker seriously injured, which saw the best pay rates and saw taxpayers' money being well spent and finished ahead of time, was a good deal. In terms of the relationship of the company working with the union, there has been an argument put somewhat bizarrely by some conservative commentators that a company and a union having shared interests is something to be suspicious of. Now, I don't have that view. So it is correct that when we negotiated with this company on behalf of our members, we would also ask the company to train our delegates in health and safety, that we would also ask our company to release workplace delegates to be able to learn more about how to do their jobs and resolve matters, so certainly that is the case.

TONY JONES: Okay, but specifically, because it can't be magic that each year for three years they gave the union $100,000, so there must have been a deal, a quid pro quo deal where you do this, we do that?

BILL SHORTEN: So our point about all of this, working with companies and working with the construction companies and other companies is this: We think that workplace relations works best when a union is making sure that our delegates and workplace reps are well trained. So certainly we would charge the company money for the training of our representatives so they could do their job better on the site. No, but there was no...

TONY JONES: Yes, but did you strike that deal. But did you strike that deal while you were negotiating the EBA, that's the critical question, because people wonder whether that's a conflict of interest, asking money for the union while simultaneously negotiating a pay and conditions deal with the company?

BILL SHORTEN: My first priority at all times, as it is with union reps generally, is to get the best deal for your members. In addition, we also would work with the company to make sure they provided training to the union reps so that they could do their job very well. This has been the case well before that project and well after.

TONY JONES: So I'm going to interrupt you there again. So was there a specific deal to give the union $100,000 a year for three years and was that deal made during the negotiations for the EBU?

BILL SHORTEN: No. Well, the answer - sorry, I thought I had said that earlier, but, sorry, the answer is no. The arrangement which is entered into quite often is that the union will ask the company to help pay for the training of their workers with time off and the payment of training services and we certainly did that, yes, but in terms of a specific arrangement to somehow do a worse deal for your members, absolutely not, categorically not.

TONY JONES: Okay. The next question is from Bruce King.

CLEAN EVENT TRADE OFF

BRUCE KING: Bill, I love that word "integrity" by the way, it's something I live by. Bill, the EBA agreement you made with Cleanevent was well under the Fair Work Australia award conditions, including weekend penalty rates, which I thought Fair Work was there to save people from that. This placed other contractors trying to compete for the same work in a bad position. Will this practice go on to other awards such as retail or even maybe hospitality?

TONY JONES: Well, there is an assumption in your question, which isn't quite correct. In terms of negotiations done by unions, they have to get their agreements - certainly under most of the time, most of the laws except for Tony Abbott's WorkChoices laws - they have to be approved by the members, they have to be voted upon and, secondly, they have to pass the various no disadvantage tests which are put forward by the industrial relations law and, specifically, in the case of Cleanevent and arrangements which I am involved in, we were made sure that people were paid properly. Anyone who has ever worked in event cleaning or if you've ever seen the cleaning at the end of the day at a race track or a dog track or the shows, knows there is a lot of fly by night contractors. So the assumption that this agreement was disadvantaging unscrupulous contractors is not correct. In terms of the extension to retail and other awards, the way in which penalty rates are negotiated is either through enterprise bargaining or through the award system, and that's been the case for a long while, and Labor is certainly very sceptical of proposals to simply get rid of the safety net which exists to protect people

TONY JONES: Sorry, I'm just going to quickly I will go back to our questioner because he threw his hand up there.

BRUCE KING: Bill, once again we talk integrity here. As far as voting goes on award, those members were signed up without even knowing, so I don't know how they can vote on an award when it's that case and it's my belief you only need a certain number of people to do that vote. So I have been involved with event clean up, in fact I was involved with Skilled Stadium and I know that mob. Cleanevent come in to take over that contract, which also took away local Geelong jobs, because they all came down from Melbourne to do that job.

TONY JONES: Keep it brief, if you can, Bruce. Okay, thank you very much. Do you want to respond to that?

BILL SHORTEN: Well, in terms of voting, agreements have a process to go through and at no stage has any argument been led with any evidence that that process isn't pursued.

TONY JONES: Okay. Let's go to our next question. It's from Veronica Levay.

ADVERSE FINDINGS?

VERONICA LEVAY. Opposition Leader Shorten, if you receive an adverse finding from the trade union royal commission, will you immediately resign as leader, and allow Anthony Albanese to take Labor to the next election?

BILL SHORTEN: In terms of the royal commission and its findings, I said a bit earlier and I'm trying to move through questions so people get the chance to ask as many questions as possible, but I want to come back and look at this royal commission again, I will just state some facts here. The royal commission, in my opinion, was set up for a range of motives. On one hand it is to look at particular arrangements in the construction industry and also, I believe, it was set up to smear its political rivals. So, I do not believe I do not believe automatically that because the royal commissioner if, and you stressed it was a hypothetical question, if they're to make an adverse finding, no, I don't accept that automatically I am going to allow that royal commission, which is set up on a political basis, to start dictating what the Labor Party does or how we run our politics in this country. If there is criminality found by this royal commission, well, then, that is a matter which needs to be looked at, but I don't accept that everything that this royal commission is doing is started with the best of motivations, nor do I believe that this process has been entirely fair.

TONY JONES: Let me, a quick follow up on that: What happens if former company represent reps, like Stephen Sass from Thiess John Holland, come forward and give evidence to the royal commission which contradicts what you have said about what happened in those behind closed doors negotiation?

BILL SHORTEN: Well, that won't be correct then but, again, you're talking about a hypothetical. Listen, I'm very happy with the record I have for looking after workers in Australia and the workers I represented. Now, we've spoken about a couple of agreements. I probably signed off on around 700 agreements. In my time, I know that we lifted the wages faster than the inflation rate for workers. I know that we made workplaces safer. I know that from time to time we'd have to make decisions to make sure that people were able to work co operatively with their management and we would always give people a voice in what was happening, so I stand by my record. At the same time I was representing, along with hundreds of other people, workers in Australia in the union movement, we had a Liberal government winding back conditions for workers, for millions of workers, taking away the safety net. You know labour relations has always been a controversial area where there are strong views. But one thing I will not do is allow a royal commission or a conservative government to undermine the safety net for Australian workers. You know, if we want to see what the world looks like if you want to take away the capacity of unions to represent workers, have a look at 7 Eleven. You know, these are not issues of the last century. When people say that unions no longer have a role in Australian society, well, I say they don't quite understand the nature of our democratic society. I am proud of being a trade union representative. I am proud of my record and I will contrast standing up for literally thousands of workers against Mr Abbott's record or Mr Turnbull's record. At the same time I'm negotiating for cleaners or representing construction workers, these gentlemen were sitting at the Cabinet table of John Howard voting to take away conditions en masse from millions of Australians.

TONY JONES: Okay, a quick follow up on the royal commission. Are you suggesting that Dyson Heydon, because of the fundraising Liberal fundraising scandal, will not have any findings which you will accept?

BILL SHORTEN: No, I'm not saying that, but I've been asked two hypothetical questions in a row...

TONY JONES: Well, I'm just asking you about that because you were talking about the royal commission being political. Obviously the fundraising issue fed into that. Are you going to accept anything the royal commissioner says?

BILL SHORTEN: Well, I put two caveats on what I said. One is if there is criminal matters, well, no one has got any tolerance for that in the Labor Party. No one has come forward to me from the union movement and said that if someone is found to have broken the law, to have behaved in a criminal fashion, no one is saying they shouldn't be charged, no one is saying that they shouldn't feel the full consequences of the law but this...

TONY JONES: But I'm talking about if he makes adverse findings against you, which are not necessarily criminal.

BILL SHORTEN: Okay. that's a different question you're asking. The first question you're saying is if Dyson Heydon made any findings, are you saying automatically we put them all in the bin and ignore them.

TONY JONES: Let's stick with the findings about you.

BILL SHORTEN: But then you've asked that latter question. You (Indistinct) yourself. I know what I've done. I know that I've stood up for workers. I know that I've been happy to accept scrutiny for what I do. I offer myself for the highest position in the land in our democracy, so I accept scrutiny, but what I don't accept is that it's worth $60 million to second guess whether or not you pay someone a casual rate or a penalty rate on a Sunday and have every sort of industrial negotiation second guessed by barristers who are paid $3.5 million. It's nonsense. You know, it's all very well everyone says, oh, it's a royal commission, therefore everything it does must be respectable. That is not true. A royal commission is not a court. It is an extension of the Executive Government of Australia. I don't believe it is the best use of $63 million, to investigate gossip and innuendo when, in fact, there are other mechanisms to investigate criminality. I don't buy that. I imagine what could have been done with those tens of millions of dollars. I don't accept that counsel assisting - who gets to ask questions, who is paid $3.5 million of your money, to ask questions - I actually don't think that is the best use of taxpayer money. And, yes, Tony, I do think the royal commission is politically motivated, and so I'm not going to simply just give up and say, oh, well, there is nothing you can do about it. I don't buy that.

TONY JONES: Okay. You're watching thank you very much. You're watching Q&A, live from Ballarat, with Opposition Leader Bill Shorten. The next question comes from Lisanne Doyle

WHY TRUST LABOR & UNIONS?

LISANNE DOYLE: Having lived in the Latrobe Valley for 15 years from 1985 to 2000, I experienced first hand the negative effect the unions had on that economy. I'm now seeing within the Victorian economy under the Labor Government, an increase in the number of strikes and industrial disputes. This suggests to me that the unions seem to have a freedom under Labor where they can easily gain the upper hand. Please give me one good reason, Mr Shorten, why I should not be afraid for Australia's economy should Labor win the next federal election?

BILL SHORTEN: If you lived in you live in the Latrobe Valley, I think you said, between 1985 and 2000. For people not have Victoria, that's in sort of central West Gippsland, it was a powerhouse region of the economy. Sir John Monash was put in charge of setting up the State Electricity Commission after the First World War. So it's not dissimilar to the Hunter Valley in New South Wales, for instance. It was a coalmining province. I mean, it's much more than that but that was certainly the State Electricity Commission. But if you lived there between 1985 and 2000, it wasn't industrial relations which caused the dislocation of Latrobe Valley, it was Jeff Kennett privatising the SEC and thousands of people lost their jobs. Now, I do not condone every form of industrial militancy. I was a moderate union leader. You know, we were talking about earlier working with EastLink. I was determined that you could have good industrial relations. I don't agree with every wild cat strike. I've had more arguments, I suspect, with the militant elements of the trade union movement than probably anyone in this room because I believe that industrial relations works best when there is cooperation. You should never be afraid to have a disagreement but you should never be in fear of negotiating either. So when you talk about your concern about unions in Victoria, I also have to say this: industrial disputation in this country is far down on what it was in the 1980s in the Latrobe Valley. Productivity, unfortunately, is down even though there is less industrial action. What concerns me in this country isn't that the 12% of Australians in the private sector who belong to unions are about to take over the country. What concerns me is that real income growth in this country is flat lining. See, what we actually need in this country is a new discussion about workplace relations. Yes, there have been times when unions have done the wrong thing, and, yes, there have been times when employers have done the wrong thing, but the truth of the matter is that that example, those examples of workplace relations don't describe, in my opinion, 95% of people's experience going to work. So I do believe in a strong safety net and if you believe in a strong safety net at work, you're more likely to vote Labor than Liberal, that's the truth of the matter because Mr Abbott, Mr Turnbull and the rest of them -I've never really heard them get excited about lifting the minimum wage in this country. They keep voting against lifting compulsory superannuation. You know, the compact in this country, what makes the Australian economic story so special is we don't have vast disparities of the working poor, like you see in perhaps the United States, and the super rich. We do have a good safety net. So I want to reassure you, because you asked give you a reason. The future of work in this country, the future of economic growth in this country, a better future, is not going to be determined by a scare campaign about trade unions which has a lot more to do with what happened 30 years ago than it does today. What will make Australians better off in the future, is a proper education system, is a decent safety net of health care and wages, is a commitment to innovation and I'm telling you don't worry about the unions per se.

TONY JONES: Let's move on to - let's move on. I'm sorry to interrupt you but we will move on to some of those issues.

BILL SHORTEN: Excellent.

TONY JONES: And the next question comes from Jean Flynn.

PRIVATE SCHOOLS

JEAN FLYNN: Two years ago I stood in the hail with my two children and a group of other protesters to show the then Premier, Denis Napthine, that we gave a Gonski but

do you think that allocating government funding for education according to individual student needs is enough or should Australia look to Finland for inspiration and do away with private schools altogether?

BILL SHORTEN: Thank you for standing up two years ago with your kids. It's one of the great broken promises of this Liberal Government. Before the last election, for all the difficulties Labor had through its division, there was one issue time and time again people rated Labor better than Liberal on. It was proper funding of schools according to need. Now, you referred to the Gonski campaign. That's named after the chap who chaired a review set up by Julia Gillard to talk about what should the future of schools funding be. And we came back with an answer, which I support. It's individual needs based funding. So schools should be funded based upon a series of criteria and it is a bit more scientific, but to save time I will just go through what the needs based funding that Labor has always supported. You know, is the school in a low income area? Does it have a lot of, for instance, children from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background? Is it a small school? Does it take children with disabilities? These were some of the criteria. I like that needs based funding because, traditionally, what's happened in education over the last 40 years is the Commonwealth has funded private schools and the states have been left to fund government schools. Now, I think that that private government debate is not the right debate to have, so I will just disappoint you a bit slightly with the second part of your question. For me, I'm not fussed about private and government, I'm fussed about needs based funding. Now, I think though, that there's a lot from Finland and its education that we can learn from and one of the key things is the central role of teachers. Supporting our teachers, making sure they're getting the best quality training, making sure they are given respect in society and they are paid properly, I think Finland has plenty to teach us about that. What annoys me a little bit about two years ago is both Liberal and Labor said we would fund according to need, but the Liberals have backslid ever since on needs based funding in schools. So I can promise you Labor will do needs based funding in the schools. That will be our policy at the next election. Kate Ellis, my shadow spokesperson and others, we're finalising our approach. Labor is still committed to the principles which you stood in the hail for and at the next election, I have to say if the Liberals say they are on a unit ticket with us, Christopher Pyne and the rest of them, they didn't do it last time so why do we think they'd change next time.

TONY JONES: Very briefly, have you figured out how to pay for it yet and will you tell the public how you are going to do that, along with the increased cost of the NDIS, along with the increased cost of health care, in particular hospital care, which is requiring billions of dollars of new funds.

BILL SHORTEN: I'm just making a note: health care, NDIS and schools. You're right, Tony, it isn't easy. It's not straightforward because in the last two years the current government have doubled the deficit. I think they promised two years ago that they'd be a government of adults. Now we've got a new government of adults to replace the last group of adults. But in terms of the budget position, we are going to need a bigger discussion over the next number of months about what the true numbers are, because I don't think the Government has been straight with us. But, yes, we will have costed policies for the next election. Now, on the NDIS ...

TONY JONES: Will they include tax increases?

BILL SHORTEN: Well, I'll just try and - I know you want to move me...

TONY JONES: Inevitably they will have to, won't they?

BILL SHORTEN: I know you want to move me along with your first question but just on the National Disability Insurance Scheme in particular, I just want to - you mentioned it. I just want to come to it. I'm disappointed the new Prime Minister hasn't make a Minister for disabilities. I think that that is important because the National Disability Insurance Scheme is a real reform, which will provide packages of support to families with family members who have severe and profound disabilities. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is already paid for in the Budget. So when we talk about health care in schools, I don't want to see NDIS automatically lumped into that, because that is paid for already in the existing Budget.

TONY JONES: Well, for the next three years, that's true, and beyond that it gets much more expensive and so does everything else.

BILL SHORTEN: Well, just on the National Disability Insurance again...

TONY JONES: No.

BILL SHORTEN: Okay.

TONY JONES: So, but we'll come to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. There are questions on it later.

BILL SHORTEN: Oh, okay.

TONY JONES: But the real question is are you going to raise taxes in order to pay for all these promises?

BILL SHORTEN: Well, we have proposed that there are taxes which can be raised, so, yes, but what I say is that the first two which we've looked at involve dialling back the excessive loopholes in superannuation tax concessions which currently the very, very, very well off enjoy. I mean, if you've got a couple of million dollars in superannuation and you've got an income stream of interest of a couple of hundred thousand dollars, I don't see why that should be tax free income when someone else who is going to work earning far less, still pays more action tax. So, yes, we are interested in clamp down on some of the loopholes at the top end of superannuation, and also there are more taxes we think can be raised from multinationals who do business in Australia.

TONY JONES: Okay. I'll just make the point - we may come back to this later, but none of the things you've talked about there are going to pay for the huge deficit in funding which we're talking about. But let's move on because we've got a question on - effectively on tertiary education from Anne Sced.

TERTIARY EDUCATION

ANNE SCED: Hi, I am a teacher and since the Coalition Government proposed the deregulation of tertiary education, I've been in the unfortunate position of having to speak to some of the kids that this is going to affect in a real way very shortly, or they are afraid it is. So I've had to counsel them and console them and try and reassure them that things will be okay. But they're really, really concerned - a number of them are concerned that they will no longer be able to afford a tertiary education and they are great kids. They're talented. They're enthusiastic. They're hard working. They're astonishing and they've got so much to offer the country if they can get their foot in the door. And so, on their behalf, my question is: what are you going to do to make sure that our tertiary system remains fair, affordable and merit based?

TONY JONES: I want to clap that, too. Labor has been really strongly opposed to what the Liberal Government have proposed in higher education. In a nutshell I mean, before the last election, the Liberal Opposition said there would be no changes and then, after the election, surprise, surprise, they've decided to cut 20% from university funding and fully deregulate the price setting by universities. I think this has been a disastrous proposition for universities. On one hand, you take 20% out of university funding - Federation University, right here, would lose $52 million. Okay, the problem is if you take 20% away from universities, what are they going to do to recover that loss? Charge students more. And that's the deregulation. Now, I always understood that deregulation was positive where it would increase competition and decrease prices. But this would have the exact opposite effect. So, today Labor announced our policy for higher education. We've decided that with some of the money we would raise from multinational taxation and superannuation loopholes that we would commit to put a floor, that's an F-L-O-O-R, in university funding and that would be more generous than what the Liberals are proposing. So we've proposed to basically take away the 20% cuts that the Libs are doing and restore it to as it was. What that means is that universities don't have the same pressure to increase prices. So the first part of my answer to your question is that Labor will you tell a government and a political party by the choices they make. We have decided that if this country is to have a bright future, we need to have people being able to go to university from all backgrounds, so we've decided that we will find the money in a difficult economic circumstances, as Tony said, and that's just our priority. See, one thing I don't think this Government understands about young people and, indeed, not so young people who want to go to university, is that - you know, young people today have to pay 9.5% into super. They've got to pay their HECS debt. The only way most young people can hope to get a house is if their parent - if they inherit it from their parents and now the Liberals want to put a GST on and they want to charge you more to go to university. The answer in Australia is not always to increase the price of everything. In terms of the equity, we've made it very clear that in return for providing guaranteed funding, we expect the universities and we'll sit down and work it through with them, to have equity as one of their criteria. I want to see more mature aged students who are brave enough to seek to change their career to be able to do it without being discouraged by higher prices. We want to make sure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island kids who currently don't get the same access, get more access to higher education. There is a 6% gap in completion between kids from regional Australia and metropolitan Australia. We think that's an important gap to bridge and we are asking our universities to focus on quality, on improving completion rates and, of course, to prioritise support for teaching in universities. It is a good equity platform on higher education.

TONY JONES: Okay. Thank you. Let's change tack again. Our next question comes from Wayne Harbour.

BALLARAT BUSTS BUST

WAYNE HARBOUR: Mr Shorten, the Ballarat Botanical Gardens have a fine avenue containing 27 bronze portraits of every Australian PM.

BILL SHORTEN: Oh, yeah.

WAYNE HARBOUR: The last bust unveiled being that of Julia Gillard. However, the bequest has run out of money and there is insufficient funds for additional busts. If you are elected Prime Minister, will you allocate funds to allow Tony Abbott's bust to be cast and placed on the avenue looking into Julia Gillard's eyes and standing to the left of Kevin Rudd?

TONY JONES: Well, you should, shouldn't you?

BILL SHORTEN: Do I take that as a comment? Absolutely. Let's not wait until the next election to do that. I will ask Malcolm. I think he'd probably be up for funding it, anyway. He should. He helped put him there.

TONY JONES: I suspect he'll have the first option to fund that. Now, the next question is from Andrew Young.

CHINA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

ANDREW YOUNG: As a regional development consultant working with a number of regional development businesses who are awaiting the signing of the ChAFTA agreement, those businesses collectively will be looking at over $100 million of new investment and 400 new jobs. You're telling us that we need to change that agreement because somehow those businesses...

TONY JONES: Let's just make it clear to everyone watching...

ANDREW YOUNG: Yeah, I'm asking the question.

TONY JONES: No, no, no, sorry. You're talking about the China...

ANDREW YOUNG: Free trade agreement.

TONY JONES: ...Australia free trade agreement.

ANDREW YOUNG: Free trade agreement, yes.

TONY JONES: Yep. So what I'm hearing from the Labor Party and yourself is that somehow these businesses are going to be obliged to employ Chinese workers in these regional businesses. There is a lot of confusion. They are sitting on this money waiting to invest and so are the regional communities that they represent, with new jobs. I'm interested in your view, please.

BILL SHORTEN: Thanks, Andrew, and when I say thank you for that question I really mean it because the debate - oh, I meant it every other time for every other question too. But in the case of the China free trade agreement it is a really important public policy debate, so it's a chance for me just to spell out what Labor thinks. We support having a China free trade agreement, so that's good. Our position has been misrepresented in parts of the media and not surprisingly by elements in the Government. The treaty has been negotiated. The idea that we expect our negotiators to go back to China and vary the actual terms of the treaty is not what we are saying. The only proposition, and it is a pretty reasonable proposition, I hope you'd agree, once I go through it, is that we are concerned that there are matters arising from the treaty which need to be belt and braced, and I'm talking about the use of temporary labour coming into Australia and that there should be appropriate safeguards around that. Now, when I talk about appropriate safeguards, with the previous PM negotiating with him, frankly, was a waste of time. Once they had decided there was a political game to play here, I couldn't get them to negotiate. I've already raised with Malcolm Turnbull that we need to talk about the legitimate concerns which have been raised and the concerns are very simple. They're three.

TONY JONES: Have you got a compromised position, though?

BILL SHORTEN: Oh, of course.

TONY JONES: Because there are a number of people here who have asked about this and people want to know in this region and in other parts of the country when Labor will sign the agreement, when Labor will vote to allow the agreement through the Senate?

Well, the agreement doesn't come to the Senate. There is enabling legislation which deals with some of the administrative matters arising from it. Labor's position is very straightforward. For projects over $150 million, there has been an arrangement entered into, not in the actual treaty, but in related matters which would say if there is an investor who is putting in more than $150 million, they can bring people in from China to do the jobs on it. Now, our view is that they should ask and ensure that Australians who could do the work get first crack at the work. That is not an unreasonable proposition, and that is what exists in other free trade agreements

TONY JONES: But Andrew Robb consistently says the conditions under which Chinese workers or other foreign workers could come into the country under this agreement are exactly the same as Labor has agreed to in the past.

BILL SHORTEN: Well, I thought you would raise that. I've got here the Korean agreement, the Malaysian agreement, the Chile agreement and the ASEAN agreement, New Zealand agreement. They all do have different conditions to the China agreement. But be that as it may, it is not a template of other free trade agreements. This $150 million clause has not been in other trade agreements. Furthermore, we would just like them to do labour market testing. We just want to be satisfied that if we are going to do a trade agreement that Australians, not just some Australians, but Australians - all Australians - get a benefit from it. Now, this is not a deal killer. It doesn't involve changing the treaty. I'm optimistic that there is a compromise, as you say, so, you know, I don't think this will be the concerns which you, Andrew, are raising.

TONY JONES: Can you guarantee - can you guarantee to business people like that and others in the audience who are waiting for this agreement to be signed and ratified so that they can go ahead and make these investments, can you guarantee this won't be allowed to drag on until the next election, simply because it makes a good election issue?

BILL SHORTEN: I certainly don't think it should drag onto the next election. Just for the record, the Government only presented the legislation last week, so and there is - and they know that there has been a Senate inquiry set up to review - and there's, sorry, a joint committee of Parliament reviewing the circumstances and the detail of the arrangements and so there hasn't been any undue delay.

TONY JONES: So how quickly do you reckon it could be resolved?

BILL SHORTEN: As soon as the Liberal Party sit down and work through our concerns. Like, I'm not running for the Liberal Party. It is not my job to be a rubber stamp for Tony Abbott. Imagine if every time the Liberal Party of Australia said, "You must do as we say." You'd have a GP tax, your pensions would have been cut, you'd have $100,000 degrees. But don't get me wrong, Labor has always, when it's been unfashionable, supported developing our links with China, from Gough Whitlam through to Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. Now, a lot of people say, oh, the 1980s was when all the good reform was happening. That's when Labor was, you know, doing all the reforms. But the point is, at the same time that we were floating the dollar, at the same time as we were creating independent monetary policy through the Reserve Bank, it was Labor who were saying and we want a strong minimum wage, and we want to introduce compulsory superannuation and we want to have Medicare. It's now our turn to step up to the plate for reform.

TONY JONES: Okay.

BILL SHORTEN: I'm on board for a China...

TONY JONES: No, we've got a lot of other...

BILL SHORTEN: This is a really important...

TONY JONES: There's a lot of other...

BILL SHORTEN: I appreciate that.

TONY JONES: Briefly, go ahead.

BILL SHORTEN: No, because you said so many businesses are interested. I'm up for reform, we are up for a China free trade agreement. I just want to make sure that some Australians don't get done over when there is a simple administrative remedy available. If the Government says there is nothing to fear from this arrangement, then our compromises will be very easy to agree to.

TONY JONES: So can you guarantee it won't go through to the next election?

BILL SHORTEN: I certainly believe that with the change in leadership in the Liberal Party, the chances of having an intelligent discussion and negotiation, I certainly hope they've improved. Okay?

TONY JONES: All right. Let's move on. Our next question - thank you. Very little time. Our next question comes from Brendan Johnston.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

BRENDAN JOHNSTON: Mr Shorten, as a secondary schoolteacher I have observed continuous cutbacks to youth services, especially in employment training and VCAL programs.

BILL SHORTEN: Yeah.

BRENDAN JOHNSTON: With Ballarat's youth unemployment currently at over 20%, if you are trusted by the Australian electorate to become PM, what will your government do to the youth unemployment in regional communities like Ballarat?

BILL SHORTEN: That's a good question. First of all, you talk about cutbacks in the school system. Only Labor is going to have policies to deal with needs based education which will improve your task as a secondary teacher and the people you can help. Secondly, what we've got to do is have - I think there has been too much when it comes to TAFE, trust in private providers. The pendulum has swung too far in favour of private providers. I mean, don't get me wrong, there are good providers of training in this country. There are excellent, outstanding providers, but I want to go and restore funding to TAFE, because I think that if kids are getting the best opportunities in terms of their trades qualifications, that gives kids who go through the VCAL stream the best chances in life. I think the other thing we can do is we can also make sure that there's more jobs being created. And how do you create more jobs? You do it through not just relying upon mining and not just relying on financial services but making sure that we have manufacturing. One of the big challenges in Ballarat - and I know that Rivers shed 100 people last week, we've seen the car components industry hit - is that you start backing in manufacturing. The way you back in manufacturing, you get behind climate change and renewable energy. There's a lot of car component makers who could start making solar products. We need the government of Australia, the Liberal Government of Australia, to drop its unreasonable, unscientific, really stupid anti-renewable energy policies and then we can create more manufacturing jobs.

TONY JONES: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. We've got another question on a different subject from Jayson Tayeh.

DIVERSITY & BENDIGO MOSQUE

JAYSON TAYEH: Within the regional Victorian city of Bendigo in recent weeks we've seen violence and racism shut down the CBD for an anti immigration rally against the building of a mosque in Bendigo. As a local, and as a Bendigo business owner, I feel this is both harmful to our community, our local economy and our reputation as a diverse and inclusive city. With the success of the re settlement of Karen refugees in rural Victoria and the discussion of resettling 12,000 refugees from Syria, how do we, as a regional community, remain confident that our nation's message of inclusion and diversity is echoed through our regional cities and businesses?

TONY JONES: Try and keep it brief.

BILL SHORTEN: I've been appalled at some of the protests against the mosque and no doubt that will trigger some hate mum from parts of Australia for me saying it. All I say to people who are intolerant of other's religion, just remember where you came from. My mum grew up in Ballarat. She grew up in the late 40s, early 50s. She got knocked back for a job in a supermarket here because she was Catholic. All I say is that when we start treating minorities poorly, then remember whatever majority you're in, you can turn into a minority. This is an immigrant nation. Other than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people we all came from somewhere else. The first of my ancestors came here looking for gold. They didn't find any so the others got here as convicts. The point about it is intolerance demeans us all, and I really admire all those citizens of Bendigo and the small business whose have said that, you know what, let's have a bit of tolerance for diversity. You should be very proud of what you and others have been doing.

TONY JONES: Thank you. Thank you very much. You're watching Q&A. We're live from Ballarat. The next question comes from Joanne Kermond.

WIND FARMS

JOANNE KERMOND: My family has been forced out from our home by intrusive sound waves, proven by acoustician Steve Cooper to come from nearby wind turbines at Cape Bridgewater. Many others have had to abandon their homes. There is no compensation, just cruel denial. My husband and I live in a battered old bus. Our children have been unable to stay with us? Is this fair? And why does the ABC love these dangerous and unsafe machines so much?

TONY JONES: Bill Shorten, you don't have to answer the ABC part of it or you can attempt to if you like, but that's the other side of the renewable energy story, as far as some people is concerned?

BILL SHORTEN: I am sorry that you are in the difficulties that you and your family are in. But I can't I don't agree with the general view that wind farms are, as I think you said, dangerous and, by implication, very bad. I think that wind energy has proven around the world in terms of delivering jobs, more climate friendly energy and income for farmers who have them on their properties. I'm not going to tell you that what you are going through is good or right for you for you but I don't believe that wind farms are causing the sort of collective menace which you and other sceptics of wind farms believe they are.

TONY JONES: Just for the record, I don't think the ABC has a specific policy on wind farms, although there is awful lot of hot air generated in some of our studios. That is true. The next question is from James Hogben.

EUREKA REPUBLIC

JAMES HOGBEN: Mr Shorten, 161 years ago the seed for a Republican Australia was sown. When a person turns 21, they get the keys to the house. Do you think it's time that the Australian people got the keys to Government House and had the option of directly electing their Head of State? Thank you.

TONY JONES: He was talking about Eureka Stockade, obviously.

BILL SHORTEN: No, no, some of my family helped to hide Peter Lalor when he was on the run. Yes, I think we should become a Republic. I do, I think, in 2020 it will be 250 years since Captain Cook made first landfall in Australia. In that time we are ready, we are ready to have an Australian Head of State. I take nothing away from the Queen and her service, it is incredibly distinguished. But, you know, we've got Asia rising. We're an independent nation. I actually think constitutional reform would give this country more, like, sort of lifeblood energy when we deal with the rest of the world. So, yes, I do think we should become a Republic. I'm looking forward to having discussions with Malcolm Turnbull about that. He said that it's not the most important issue. I think Australians are capable of doing more than one thing at a time. In terms of your second part of your question or observation about direct election, I'm not sold on that yet. I think the first thing that we need to do is...

TONY JONES: You say you are not sold on it. Do you oppose the model specifically because that was the model that the vast majority of Australians wanted at the last referendum, according to opinion polls?

BILL SHORTEN: Yeah, I see some of the case for it in that how do you select people, and I would rather have it people being more involved in the decision than just members of Parliament. But I think there are issues around how do you avoid it becoming some sort of, you know, celebrity survivor like contest and the fact that Donald Trump could be anywhere near becoming President of America - goodness me.

TONY JONES: Are you equating the Republican candidates to survivors?

BILL SHORTEN: Oh, no, for the sake of foreign relations, I will just let people work out what they think. But I do think, you know, your point does contain a grain of what I think Australians are concerned about. I think that Australians want to see more from their politicians and their media about debates. Now, I include myself in that, I include you in that, too. I think what people are looking for is more depth of argument. So on an issue like the Republic, it is not simple, but I do think that what we need is leadership. You know, I think that in the next five years - well, first of all, we should set up a constitutional commission so that Australians learn more about their Constitution. This argument that it was written drafted in the 1890s and can never be changed, I don't buy that argument.

TONY JONES: Okay, well, our questioner has got his hand up again.

JAMES HOGBEN: Mr Shorten, with all due respect, the politicians have tried to have leaders - five leaders in the last five years.

BILL SHORTEN: Yeah.

JAMES HOGBEN: If we are going to have a President or a Governor General that is elected by the people, I think we can do a better job than what politicians have done in the last five years.

TONY JONES: Okay.

BILL SHORTEN: Hang on.

TONY JONES: No, no.

BILL SHORTEN: No, no, there's an obvious (indistinct). Come on. Come on.

TONY JONES: I'm going to take that as a comment.

BILL SHORTEN: All right. Take it as a comment, but I tell you, the same people also vote for us, and thank you. Okay.

TONY JONES: Okay, the next question is from Luke Gahan.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

LUKE GAHAN: Yeah, the front page of this morning's Brisbane Courier Mail had the headline 'Ride with Mal' announcing Turnbull's plan to free up hundreds of millions of dollars for public transport projects. Here in Ballarat our train has gone off the tracks. Will a Labor Federal Government join Turnbull in prioritising public transport, particularly here in the regions?

BILL SHORTEN: Short answer yes. Slightly longer answer is Labor went to the last election with a public transport policy. We haven't had the sort of fatwa against public transport that the Liberals have had for the last two years and I tell you now, I think in the next five years work should start on cross river rail in Brisbane, start on work on a railway link for Badgerys Airport in Sydney. I think Melbourne should have and Victoria should have a metro, a Melbourne metro. I also think South Australia, Adelaide should have light rail. I think Western Australia and Perth should have a Perth metro rail plan. In terms of public transport infrastructure, one thing Mr Turnbull could do is it's good to catch the train, but what's more important is reverse the 4$.5 billion cuts that they took away from public transport infrastructure. So we back it. Don't worry about that. We are the public transport party and we are looking forward to Mr Turnbull converting the Liberals into being a little more pro public transport than they have been for the past two years.

TONY JONES: Just very briefly, you didn't mention high speed rail which, of course, is Anthony Albanese's baby. Are you going to back that as well?

BILL SHORTEN: We support funding the feasibility study, having a look at how it works. Ten years ago I wrote that Australia needed an inland railway tracking up the western side of the Dividing Ranges. But the reason why I spoke about the public transports in the big cities is there is $4.5 billion which the current Liberal Government have cut. If you really believe in public transport rather than just social media memes, what we need to do is see some of that money come back into public transport, and if Malcolm Turnbull wants to do it, we will work with him, that is our promise.

TONY JONES: Okay, we've got time for one last question. We're running out of time so save your applause for later. It's from Denise Fitzpatrick.

ECONOMY - WHAT MUST CHANGE?

DENISE FITZPATRICK: Forty per cent of the workforce or five million Australian jobs are at risk of being taken over by computers in the next 10 15 years. Climate change will bring significant challenges to our economy. When Malcolm Turnbull took over the leadership of the Liberal Party and the country last week, he articulated a positive vision for Australia, but stated our need to be agile, and to take advantage of the opportunities this new century brings. Mr Shorten, what are the fundamental changes that you think will need to be made for us to take advantage of the opportunities that these changes are going to bring?

BILL SHORTEN: Thanks, Denise. Five things I think we could do. Got to make sure our education system is working well. Got to make sure we have needs based funding in our schools, that we get TAFE having its funding restored, that we get higher education properly fund, not this deregulation which the current government has been proposing, so education is one. I mentioned infrastructure earlier tonight, public transport. I think if we become a nation who can make generational decisions on our infrastructure, that makes our cities and our regions more liveable. I also believe that we need to be a science base nation. I said in my budget reply speech back in May that, as a nation, we should commit to three per cent of our GDP being spent on science and research. Science, infrastructure, education. I also fundamentally believe in fairness. You know, let's talk about inequality. It doesn't always get the coverage it should. Australian statistics show that we are at the most unequal we've been in 75 years and some of the ways we can deal with inequality, a proper health care system, a proper system which tackles discrimination against older people, and I think a fifth area that we can really make this country sing, just treat women equally. We will start in Labor, by 2025, half of our MPs, at least half, will be women. We want to see 50% of all government boards, the positions being at least women, and also we think it's long overdue to tackle domestic violence which is if this nation does nothing else in the next 15 years but treats women equally, we are home. We've got a good future.

TONY JONES: Okay. Thank you very much. I'm afraid that is all we have time for. It seemed to go very quickly. Please thank tonight's guest: Bill Shorten. And naturally we will be issuing a similar in fact, we already have issued a similar invitation to the new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to come and join us in the same format and our thanks to Ballarat's Federation University. It's a great audience here. Please give yourselves a quick round of applause. Thank you. Now, next Monday Q&A will be joined by the author of the Quarterly Essay, profile of Bill Shorten journalist David Marr. The Minister for agriculture and water, Barnaby Joyce, the Shadow Minister for Health Catherine King, Executive Director of the Institute of Public Affairs and school mate of Bill Shorten, John Roskam. Until next month's Q&A, goodnight.