institutions accepted by society. and also obviously at home. it can be done and in the u.k. within the broader program of strengthening our collective identity prevent the role of persuading people from being drawn by the message of violence. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for a remarkable set of remarks. i would like to begin with an issue raised about the role of integration in national identity. you nicely complemented americans on a strong sense of national identity and great pride americans have in incorporating immigrants into society and because of that for many years americans, they were

immune from the rest of homegrown radicalization. but recently we have and forced to grapple with this problem. but you think it is that americans are facing this challenge given that it has what you are incorporating? >> it is not sufficient. we don't have enough of it. the framework within which you deal with that specific problem. that is what we put emphasis on that framework. it is not sufficient because as i tried to make clear a healthy democracy has a really strong trust and it is a very important part of living your belief. but if you get -- when comes to

people preaching to potentially rather closed communities who have successfully drawn people away from listening to the democratic debate or participating in the democratic debate, being willing components of society than it is important to carry out specific intervention designed to get at that kind of community and that is where we feel we have to have a specific program. works best when conducted by muslims themselves. on of the things we have to do is gain the confidence of the muslim community so they are willing to work on these programs. in a sense we pilot tested what

we need to do. we know it works but it has to be much broader and that is in the end if muslims are willing to do that they must feel two things, that they're part of a border society and writes a of rollins duties and they are regarded this people and what they're doing is valued. it is partly -- it in your leadership. getting into a that little corner you have got to get into which is important. that response to american experience, certainly where we feel you have to underpin the values of democracy by doing that in a special program. >> i take it from your remarks it is challenging doing that and

doing it well. the spoke of dignity in creating it and obviously american context as the issue emergeds, a great deal of fear of what americans will do, what the english government will do and actually make the problem worse rather than better. a little bit about your thoughts, from your perspective, the british perspective for the lessons you learned. how do you avoid -- >> we didn't avoid it. we have this problem. and will give you one example of where different parts of a strategy do damage to each other. as you know we have had -- we have to have given the nature of the kind of smallpox we had to deal with, of vigorous strategy alongside that dealing directly with counterterrorism and those

things are entangled so that is one danger. second danger is exploited wittingly. there have been mistakes. one example is the police force in one area in the country in front of tv cameras. >> on television? >> it gave rise to big brother. you have to be transparent about what you are doing. government does have to constantly explain what is happening and that the end of the day you only do it locally. it is only on the ground where the community is operating and where there is confidence. a key component in this conference, there has been erosion. we believe that you can't just

-- having made a mistake, abandoned the objective. we tried to reshape the framework and put what we believe to be the dominant thing which is getting the country together as the overall framework and -- change the way the money is spent and put the integration strategy into the hands from a different government so it is quite clear but i come back in the end saying we have to gain confidence and were carefully at the whole business of individual intervention. i believe that it is a very granular thing. you're dealing with people. you're dealing with individuals. the best people to deal with individuals of those close to them. those who they have some regard

for. is there that we have to go. we have to build this strategy. >> that is the birth of your channel program to engage friends, family and the community. more about how that works in practice. >> it literally works in long sessions with individuals debating issues. are doing. going over -- coming back to the issue. it is hearts and mind stuff but particularly mind stuff. what is this world about. about what people think they are there for. would you want to in short is that they have a job and they feel their family has a future. the series of other things need to accompany that. start not just changing the

mindset balsa reintegrate. multi agency working can be very important. >> of this point, bring the audience into the conversation. i would ask you to please wait for the microphone and please speak into it. stay your name and affiliation and keep questions concise and short. >> i promise the minister i will keep her on schedule. >> what can you tell us about 400,000 pakistani to go back and forth between the u.k. and photog or other parts of pakistan and how do you persuade those people, those who live in england permanently?

>> the single largest in the u.k. is continental's. and there is a lot of coming and going. we should be quite clear that it is a tiny fraction of those people who travel backwards and forwards. if you ask the average pakistani what you think of that they will give you the answer that has nothing to do with this. what we have to establish is a willingness of individuals to come and say there's a problem in our local community. that is the gap we have to bridge and if that happens, the most important pieces of information the authorities have received has come in the

community. that is precisely what we want to encourage. it is a feeling that i can be on site. i am not going to be with these guys. that is the but we have to try to accomplish. i think we have a real opportunity at the moment. there is acute tide that we ought to do something about. preaching the kind of messages we want to get across. these western values ride together. part of the way we go about this is to our own society or the way they see and fit in so not enough time to go into all these issues but howard explained and defense foreign-policy plays an important part of overall

mindset particularly when it comes to an issue like this. the british made it clear that we have a strategic relationship with the pakistan government in a cooperative enterprise against terrorism. so we set them as our partners and it is a difficult task as we know. a think we got our message is right and that. we just have to get the link up where people say right. i'm going to talk to the imam and do that. >> sir? >> i am to with the router and neither did you say two things that some like they might be in tension with each other. one is you talked about the narrative that hawkeye's other

organizations put forward that first muslims are embattled and under attack from the world and second that the response since violence. now you just talked about the fact that britain has a strategic relationship with the pakistani government. how do you take apart the narrative that you talked about for those who believe the pakistani government is part of what is oppressing muslims in that part of the world and now you have an explicit policy of backing them on a number of issues? how do you explain that? thank you very much. >> having a relationship with the government doesn't necessarily mean you back every single thing that happens in that country. on the other hand i would vigorously defend the pakistani government in its attempts to

deal with terrorism and its own soil. indifferent problem. and the difficulties are not going to be dealt with at all easily and is part of our policy to try to help. the situation is very complex. and because it is difficult that is precisely why we need to try to help in different ways including helping the underlying structure of pakistan societies a lot of money in education and trying to make the underpinning of pakistan such that both education and economic activity are available to more people. we need more absolute fundamentals for getting us stable society in that part of

the world and it is an important part of it. i don't think we see any contradictions. that kind of long term, that kind of long-term support and working together against -- >> we have time for one more question. i want to remind everybody that this session is on the record. in the back of the room the first two questions came from the front and the young lady all the way at an end, last wrote >> kimberly hamburg with the department of state. what is the u.k. government's approach to engaging with moderate voices or maybe not so moderate forces but nevertheless leaders who espouse a non-violent approach to maybe viewed as part of policy ideology? >> it is the question about the

attitude of nonviolence. right? i think -- clearly what we are concerned with is the transition of violence and it is there that we prevent money. i did make clear that one of the things -- a difference between ourselves and our predecessor is we do not believe it is right to work through the agency those who are themselves on the separatist tendencies or extremist -- simply because they are not violent. we do believe -- with people who share your values. we do believe that muslims have to share our values will help and we will be together in office but we are not of the notion that somehow you can

easily get the right results by trying to work through the agency or those who comes over share your values system. it goes to your analysis on how relationship between extremism and extreme values and other values, how the violence works. we don't trust the notion that somehow you can effectively deal with preventing it and discouraging violence working through those who do not share your values system. >> i know you have a busy schedule today. i want to say on behalf of all of the sponsors of today's event thank you very much. [applause]

>> route the month of april we featured the top winners of the c-span student can competition. 1500 middle and high school students submit documentaries on the theme washington d.c. through lions. watch the winning videos every morning on c-span at 6:50 a.m. on washington journal and meet the students who created them. stream all the winning videos any time on line at studentcam.org. >> this weekend on booktv in new york times op-ed columnist david brooks on how our unconscious mind shapes our character, and intelligence from the social animal. afterwards white house correspondent ken walsh on the long history of african-americans serving in the white house. on in-depth your calls and tweets for ishmael reed. look for the complete schedule at booktv.org and get our schedule e-mail to you.

sign up for art booktv alert. >> next highlights from question time in the australian parliament when prime minister giulio ago large answers questions about the carbon tax to cut greenhouse gas emissions. she is accused of breaking a promise not to levy a carbon tax. she answered questions on board for solace and communities affected by recent floods. this is 40 minutes. >> over the next half-hour we will bring highlights of the australian parliament sitting in march. prime minister giulio gillard unveiled her plans for a carbon tax to combat climate change. this is resisted by the opposition leader on the conservative side. in march the government had to defend its border protection

policies for riots on christmas island where the detention center houses 2,000. during march the government and opposition also declared support for japan after the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster. >> deputy leader of the opposition. >> i refer the prime minister to the conference on the 24 of february where she committed the government to a, quote, full cap and trade in mission. is the prime minister aware president obama has stated a cap and trade scheme will cause electricity costs to skyrocket? why is the prime minister's promise on skyrocketing

electricity more believable than her promise to deal with the no carbon tax? >> prime minister? >> thank you very much. i can say to the deputy leader of the opposition i watch channel 9 too. i have channel 9 on the tv and watched that interview and the statement about president obama. yesterday i think it was the sunday before action will be that that went on here. we are seeing the usual degree of research and the opposition we have come to expect because of the lazy approach to politics and their lazy approach to policy. i will talk to the deputy leader of the opposition and answer the question she asked me. if she is absolutely right i did say before the last election campaign i wanted a full cap and trade emissions -- we will get a

full cap and trade emissions trading gain. i thank the deputy leader for verifying that to the house. in referring to the statements from president obama, note that it was some time ago, and she would know if president obama committed his nation to a clean energy future. president obama is in a situation where we see congress, the american people -- he is not in a position -- [talking over each other] >> why would we have that? the reality is and i will explain it, i am someone who shows a great deal of admiration for the united states of america. that was on display when i traveled there. they may not realize we are not

americans. we make decisions for our own country. every economist of any repute is telling us that -- [talking over each other] >> why ask prime minister what i deny this nation the most efficient, least costly way of dealing with carbon solutions because president obama has made a different decision? why would i do that? i would not. if nations determined to have the least cost way of dealing with carbon solutions, that is exactly what we will do. initially through a fixed price of larger tax, losing to and emissions trading gain as i outlined on behalf of the government and on behalf of the multi-party climate change committee.

on that side what do we see as the alternative? it has taken a $30 billion out of the wallets of australians and given it to big polluters. on this side we will take money from big polluters and give it through generous assistance. >> the prime minister will resume her place. deputy leader of the opposition not a point of order. >> the question was about president obama's skyrocketing--prime minister no longer directly relevant to the question. >> order. order. order. order. prime minister has the call.

>> thank you very much. as i was indicating, the decision is the price on polluters and gives assistance to households. you want to take money off of households and give assistance to polluters. we will put a price on pollution. that will be paid by polluters. for the price impact that they will experience. being very of front about that. what the opposition wants to do is take money off of australian households and give it to big polluters and the opposition should complain about that. they're price tag is $720 straight out of their purse streets and out of their wallet. >> welcome back and congratulations. >> thank you. my question is to the prime minister.

the prime minister's statement on march 13th and response to the breakout on christmas island this is a situation that is well in hand. in 24 hours a series of rolling riots break out. the facility was set on fire. federal police had to raise the facility by force. can the prime minister guarantee that the damage commonwealth property of with these rods be granted? >> the prime minister? >> thank you very much. i thank the member for is question and glad to see that he is the spokesperson on this issue. on the question he has asked me about christmas island, what i can say to the minister for emigration is first and foremost

criminal charges can be laid by the director of public prosecutions following a police investigation into this kind of violence and destruction is wrong and criminal behavior and just as we would expect in any other part of the nation's someone has to engage in criminal behavior than investigate and charges can follow a proper investigation process. on the migration act as the member is probably aware character is an important consideration in determining whether or not someone mentioned the granted the ministry of immigration that this will be considered on a case by case basis. the migration act requires consideration of cases one at a time and have these decisions turn on the facts of an individual case but as the

minister said, matters are considered on a case by case basis, considerations will be taken into account for those on christmas island who organized and perpetrated these sorts of activities. can i say generally to the member and the house, what i am happy to repeat, this kind of conduct by individuals on christmas island is grossly wrong. this kind of conduct can and should cause criminal charges to flow following a police investigation. we know from our ordinary understanding of the law that acts of violence and destruction are criminal acts. this command of violence and conduct can and will be taken into account under the proper procedures of the migration act. what i would say to the member

is as i have said publicly, no one who engages in this kind of conduct will profit from it. no one who does it will profit from it. the minister for immigration made that absolutely clear and i am happy to -- >> the leader of the opposition. >> supplementary to the prime minister. will she guarantee the asylum seekers who have been engaging in this behavior will never get into this country? >> order. prime minister. >> thank you very much. the mr. speaker. something not in accordance with the law and i won't do it. the laws of this country apply -- [talking over each other] >> maybe the members might want

to study that if the time outside the chamber. the laws of this country apply to everyone. the migration that is the law of this country and requires the minister for immigration to deal with cases on a case by case basis. it requires the minister for immigration to look at the facts of each case but as the minister for immigration said publicly and as i have just said in the parliament in considering questions of character the conduct engage in by the individual can certainly be taken into account for unquestioned of character. what the leader of the opposition meant to do is not in accordance with the migration act. it is not in the best interest of holding to account the people who have engaged in this conduct. includes arguably legal ground to contest at the decisions and the minister may or may not like

to make. rather than engage in that kind of -- we will continue to go for crew -- do a proper investigation. the minister for immigration will consider case by case as he is required by the law taking into account questions of character and certainly the kind of bad conduct we have seen on christmas island can be taken into account in that character determination. >> to joyce. >> my question is to the minister representing the minister of climate change. can the government please explain the statements by economics professor ross and garneau in his upgrade report that australian farmers will only be exempted from a carbon tax quote back from the

beginning and, quote, ahead of coverage the government by the carbon emissions from the farm sector. does this government have another plan apart from the australian people to include violence in its carbon tax measure? >> minister representing the minister for climate change and energy efficiency. >> thank you, mr president and thank you for your ongoing interest in this issue. the senator is quoting a senior from one of the 7 updates -- that professor garneau stated in his report and i again emphasize that these are reports which the government has sought at the request of members of parliament

in the multi-party committee on climate change and they are intended to inform the debate on an important public policy issue. we believe that climate change is real and something needs to be done. we are determined to ensure we work through various policy issues associated with this very difficult public policy problem through the multi-party committee and more generally. so professor garneau's reports are contribution to that discussion. a contribution which is important and goes to a whole range of issues. coverage is one of them but more recently we saw a discussion about the means by which households can be delivered. we saw discussions of how much assistance should be provided to industry by way of transition.

these are all issues professor garneau has announced but not issues the government has made final decisions on. we will work through this process dealing with various policy questions and various policy questions that present themselves when you look to put a price on carbon. in terms of the carbon farming initiative that was an election policy announcement. >> time has expired. >> thank you very much. i thank the minister for the initial answer but is the election policy announcement we are clear about, will be government -- will the government now commit to not introducing a carbon tax before the next election and promise any proposal to introduce the carbon tax if they change the election commitment will be

taken to and election before its adoption. >> minister? >> i say the carbon farming initiative announcement, we are proceeding with that. the carbon farming initiative, election policy announcement. >> ignore -- brought to the attention of the interjection of disorderly. continue. >> it will enable when the owners to generate opposites. the first question, the government's aspects, what its policies in the announcement the

prime minister made, the indication that agricultural and ignition sources would be exempted. >> my question is to the treasury. why is it important to address the cost of carbon pollution? >> the deputy prime minister of the treasurer? >> very important question. the governor believes climate change is a real. and transform the economy. this is a big report for the economy and a big structural report. one reason is 20 years of continuous growth. government and members of this house has signed up the fundamental market based reform

which have given us strength and resilience which served us well and has given us 20 continuous years of progress. this is to ensure we have another 20 years of continuous growth and do not fall behind the rest of the world. that is why he economists like ralph garneau are telling us there is a fundamental problem here that must be fixed and the problem is the largest polluters continue to pump pollution into the atmosphere. that have cost to the environment and the community and our economy. that is why we must have a market-based approach to deal with this. we need the largest polluters to reduce carbon pollution and that is what we want to do. that is why we describe it as a fundamental market based reform. we are not alone in this.

that is what the treasury believes we must do and what the productivity commission believes we must do. all the oddballs on the other side of the house are in climate change the nile. >> the treasurer should be careful. >> it has become very clear in the house today that there are many on that side of the house who are climate change skeptics. >> the treasurer states that the member serves on a point of order. >> as i have been asked to withdraw pinocchio in the past the treasurer should be asked to withdraw oddballs. >> order, order. order! order.

the minister for defense will withdraw. >> i withdraw, mr. speaker. >> not, and the deputy prime minister to withdraw, be point that he has in his response is starting to be hard to see how it is directly relevant to the question as it was asked. order. the treasurer has the call is directed relevant to the

question. >> they do not believe in the science of climate change, mr. speaker. that is a powerful destructive combination. not believing in climate change, not believing in global warming and not believing in markets. to the central planners of russia. in the nile, not believing in the basic science and not believing in the basic economic. this is what the treasurer has to say in 2010. he said this and the quote. acting industry minister in 2002, when david kemp and i argued that we should have -- we

should have an ets in the house as in 2002. i believe a market mechanism is the best way. that is what the treasury believes. in 2002 that is what he told a couple prominent sources about the power of markets. that is -- the british conservative publication. they don't believe in the power of markets and they don't believe in the science of climate change. they're somewhat embarrassed by the country he now -- someone embarrassed about that. mr. speaker there are plenty on that side of the house in the same category. [talking over each other]

>> time is expired. >> order. order! order. very tranquil and calm. >> the minutes of the official meeting -- [talking over each other] >> the member will return to his seat. the member from north sydney will return to his seat. order. order. order. order. the treasurer and the member must be given the opportunity to

have a discussion outside. the angelic member from north city will get back to being quiet. he hoodwinked me by his angelic presence and he approached the dispatch box, the procedures are a lot. >> my question to the prime minister i ask on behalf of thousands of people who gathered outside -- [talking over each other] >> the prime minister, will she speak a mandate for her carbon tax before introducing legislation to this house?

will she speak to the make the next election referendum on the unnecessarily new tax? [talking over each other] >> the prime minister has the floor. >> thank you very much and i thank the leader of the opposition for his question. on the question of attending a rally outside parliament i am not aware of was inflated but as i understand it the leader of the opposition did not arrest -- he had a redheaded friend and would not invite me. the question he asked me about talking to the australian people and campaigning for climate change action let me remind the leader of the opposition who

seems to have forgotten everyday -- a truly remarkable thing. he has declined prime minister howard as the political main source. he sat in the cabinet day after day making decisions for the government. and despite the assertion the government made it went to the 2007 election arguing for an emissions trading game and the labor party in 2007 arguing for en emissions trading -- we went to the 2010 election arguing for an emissions trading scheme. we understand the leader of the opposition -- [talking over each other] >> he only knows one thing which is to try to make people afraid and the night the future. he does not have a policy or

plan. what is remarkable is not his politics. what is remarkable is he would march away from the legacy of the howard government, march away from the commitment to an emissions trading game. march away from the liberal party philosophy about the power of the market. will the leader of the opposition, in his denial, he may be stuck in his inability to make a policy for the nation's future but we will not. we will get on the job of leading this nation through a clean energy future. if you care about the jobs of the future, if you care about the environment, that is precisely what we will do. >> the member for capricorn.

will the prime minister, and recent natural disasters. thank you for your question, she was one of many members. for weeks of summer assisting community. and to quite an extended period of tower and. members on both sides of the house assess their community. in that time of flooding in other parts of a country being called upon to assist communities that suffered flooding in recent days. in that period as we emerge from the summer of natural disasters, we made our pledge on the nation's behalf and that pledge was we would not let go. we would assist the community in

this period to rebuild. all australians would be with them in the rebuilding and recovery. we would get on with it with good judgment and common purpose so we could assist communities to rebuild and get on with their lives. two bills passed the senate. the 50 first and fifty second to do so in this parliament. was the latest on the reconstruction and recovery effort. these came at a terrible human cost and cost to the economy. the only piece of the economy and early treasury, have -- lower than would otherwise have been the case. it was an $1.2 billion. three hundred million dollars lengthening tours of and coal production could be six million

tons. as we go about this recovery and rebuilding we do know that despite the setback from natural disaster, the underlying economy is strong. to as we go. as the economy trends back to capacity with me and a light like the soft option. that is why the government took this decision to engage in savings. it wasn't easy. and it wasn't easy. and ask the australian people, it was very much constructive. fairly constructive.

and taxpayers are paying less than $1. of course, we made tough decisions. rather than climbing into this. we didn't play the politics of fear. we didn't cut programs. and the methodical decisionmaking. [talking over each other] >> it goes to relevance. i wonder if the prime minister -- not that she taxed the victorian people with the plan is for the $500 million.

[talking over each other] >> it is hard to me to they side whether they should know on the basis of the knowledge that that was not a standing order. but indicate the next time that he interrupts proceedings in that manner he will be dealt with. but over the generous to a number of people whose cries i hear, since he returned, does not give any special privileges. and indicated the first prime minister. the prime minister has the call. >> you would recall -- the house

would recall that, it was made by the politics of fear. it was led by the leader of the opposition. mr. speaker, of that campaign was silent now. what i learn from that example is the leader of the opposition carbon pricing and fall silent. it has already fallen some because fear cannot stand up -- [talking over each other] >> to the minister representing the minister of climate change. i refer the minister to his statement in february of 2008 in which he says, quote, the introduction of the carbon price

can lead to such industries or so -- there was no point imposing the carbon price which results in production frames for no environmental gains. i also refer to research showing china's copenhagen offer will see its carbon dioxide emissions rise by 496% by 2020 on 1990 levels. given china is responsible for 23% of global emissions does the government agree with this, and at another time? >> climate change representing the minister of climate change and energy? >> the same question that was

previously asked, and -- i like the point that the february speech, and it is part of the justification putting forward for enjoying transitional assistance to expose the sector. we take account of the rest of the world. and support australian jobs and that is what we did. that is we put in side in the reductions came through negotiation and consultation with industry. and put it close to this and what i say, we do have a fundamental difference between the two parties and --

[talking over each other] that is the difference. what we said very clearly is we should ensure that we go through the process of designing mechanisms and deny the national interests and continue to support jobs in the transition for creating jobs in the clean energy sector. when it comes to china and other countries, on the other side very clean and no one else was doing anything. low facts don't step up to the coalition on climate change. the productivity commission, the reports about what is occurring in other countries and i look forward to that because it might inshore this will be more on fact and less on fear.

>> the member from latrobe. >> to the member of climate change and ministry efficiency. how does the government planned to take action? and is based on sound judgment and leadership? is -- and what is the government's response? >> order! order! order! >> minister for climate change and energy efficiency. >> i thank the minister from latrobe for her question. the governor requests -- respects the climate science and pollution. and the representatives of climate scientists in australia who reiterated toomey as they have done to many others the

need to take action on climate change. the forum was organized by members of the chisholm on the climate signs for the benefit of -- they attended the forum. there are of course others who contested the science and action. [talking over each other] >> like the rally yesterday. which the leader of the opposition encouraged as part of the people's revolt the following sentiments were held by the protesters on the issue of science. carbon is not pollution. no carbon tax rejected junk science. carbon dioxide is not pollution.

say no to carbon tax for global governance and people's agenda 21 genocide. as we saw on television it is much worse. the so-called people's revolt against carbon pricing has attracted supporters such as one nation, the lead of riots and a number of climate change skeptics. it is important for leaders of the community and particularly -- [talking over each other] >> major political parties to not be associated, not be associated -- [talking over each other] >> refuse to clearly dissociate himself from these groups but last night on abc tv he said,

quote, that was a representative snapshot of middle australia. you must be kidding. i am sure there would be many on the opposite bench that did not find it representative of their own views or of the values and traditions of the liberal party either. the fact is, mr. speaker, it was not be fitting someone who wants to be leader of our nation. it goes to character and judgment. leadership on -- [talking over each other] >> warning the member, i remind people it is the first step under standing order 94 for future naming the and the practices of the house that some were not aware of.

>> mr. speaker, all of this is important in this debate because what we see from the leader of the opposition is lots of aggression and not much courage when it really counts. it is worth while reflecting on the words of prime minister john howard to the mel bourne press club in july of 2007 when explaining the need to act on climate change through an emissions climate scheme because it is the tradition of the liberal party and he said as follows -- formidable actives to this challenge and indicated can do and adaptable people among flexible economy, world-class scientific expertise, global engagement and an enviable reputation for institutional building and reform. no great challenge ever yielded to fear or guilt and i