26-May-2009
Portfolio Media Releases, Emissions Trading Scheme
Topics: Emissions Trading Scheme
DAVID SPEERS: First to the Shadow Minister for Emissions Trading, Andrew Robb, he joins me now from Canberra. Mr Robb thanks for joining us. What about this accusation that Malcolm Turnbull has caved into pressure from the right of the Party and from Peter Costello in particular, what do you say to that?
ANDREW ROBB: It’s patently nonsense David. Clearly Malcolm has expressed concern about the way in which the Government has gone about creating its scheme over the last 18 months but more particularly what they have ended up with. He has been saying this for months, he has been saying in fact since the election that we should wait until Copenhagen so that we can see where the rest of the world is going to go with this issue, that we should wait and see what President Obama does and now we are seeing a Bill being developed in the United States at some pace which is demonstrably different to our Bill here, the Bill the Government has in front of us. So Malcolm Turnbull has been totally consistent. The Prime Minister I think sounded a bit shrill this afternoon, he is getting a little bit desperate. He made no case really, all he did was attack and smear and that’s the first sign, when a politician starts to go for the man and not the ball, you know he is under pressure, you know you have him on some key points.
DAVID SPEERS: Well you are right in saying it was a political attack from Kevin Rudd rather than so much as a policy defence in Question Time at least but when you say Malcolm Turnbull has been arguing since the election we should wait until Copenhagen to legislate an Emissions Trading Scheme, in July last year your then leader, Brendan Nelson suggested that Australia should wait until the rest of the world had taken action and Malcolm Turnbull at the time made it pretty clear that the Coalition policy was that Australia should act unconditionally of international action. What’s happened since then?
ANDREW ROBB: I am just saying to you, Malcolm has been totally consistent through all this. We have been saying now for a long, long time, even under Brendan’s era, that the outcome of Copenhagen was very material to the nature of any scheme that Australia might consider and now that President Obama….
DAVID SPEERS: His position was that Australia should not be waiting until the rest of the world acts. Now that is what he is saying.
ANDREW ROBB: No, he was saying that certainly we could progress the development of a scheme and that there’s lots we can do like the former government, we in fact supported the United States and other countries to form the Asia Pacific group of 6, the only international agreement with China and India and the United States to try and bring about innovation and technology to reduce CO2 emissions. That’s the sort of leadership that was shown by the former government. Malcolm was certainly referring to the capacity for Australia as a wealthy nation to play a part, a significant part in helping the world reach conclusions but all along we have been concerned to see that there is a global solution. There is no Australian solution, we can’t do this by ourselves and secondly, since last year, since we have had President Obama elected, there has been a whole new complexion in the United States in terms of the pace at which that country will proceed and being the biggest emitter in the world, they will dictate terms to the world and it just seems to be a total folly, irresponsible behaviour of the Government to push ahead with the scheme when the United States will have something settled within months, will take a firm view to Copenhagen, will really establish the way in which the world falls into place on this issue. For us to have a scheme which is out of step with the United States and, already we are seeing that our industries will be at a major disadvantage, jobs will be threatened by the tens of thousands if our scheme comes in and the US one which is on the table is introduced we would already be at a major disadvantage.
DAVID SPEERS: Ok, well if the US does go to the Copenhagen summit with a firm position, what are you saying Australia should go to Copenhagen with?
ANDREW ROBB: Well this is the thing; we came down today with a very positive, a very constructive but a cautious approach to the development of this scheme. It is the biggest structural change, deliberate structural change ever in our history. In today’s deliberation we said to the Government we will give you united support so you can take an Australian position to Copenhagen on targets and the Copenhagen conference is really all about whether the world can agree to some target in going forward.
DAVID SPEERS: Yes, but what should Australia’s position be going into the talks on that target. Surely you have to have some position to go into the talks with?
ANDREW ROBB: Well we did. We gave support to the targets that the Rudd Government proposes to take to Copenhagen. We said we will support an unconditional 5% and conditional target up to 25%. We have supported the position the Government has arrived at. That is what is important at Copenhagen, not to arrive with some half baked scheme which will be derided by many senior business people around the world because of its flawed design and by many Greens around the world because of its flawed design.
DAVID SPEERS: Well let’s just break that down Andrew Robb because you are saying you support the targets but not the scheme so therefore how do you achieve those targets? You are worried about the jobs. How do you achieve those cuts in emissions without an emissions trading scheme?
ANDREW ROBB: Well this is the point; you don’t want to put the cart before the horse. The first thing the world has to consider is whether the world… and we need a global solution to this issue, is whether the world is prepared to commit to some objective, to some target. Once you have established the target then you look at how you deliver it. I had a meeting recently with the Danish Minister….
DAVID SPEERS: But aren’t you delaying this inevitable question about how you achieve those targets? You might be putting it off until next year but you are still going to have a row within the Coalition with some in the Nationals saying we don’t want an emissions trading, some in the Liberal saying we do, you are putting off the tough decision.
ANDREW ROBB: No, we are not, we are not. We are saying it is total folly for Australia to act months ahead of what will be the major determinant in the years ahead. The action by the United States will determine where the rest of the world goes. That is the biggest emitter, along with China in the world; they are the wealthiest country in the world. Where the United States goes with their design, which is being quickly developed in the United States, if we come out with something demonstrably different to the United States, I can tell you one thing, the only certainty out of passing the Government’s Bill in June would be that they have to make major, major, major amendments to it after Copenhagen, there’s not certainty associated with that.
DAVID SPEERS: Just finally Andrew Robb, are you worried about an early election on this issue?
ANDREW ROBB: David, this is too big an issue to play politics with. Again, I think the fact that the Government is trailing it’s coat on double dissolutions and all the rest suggests to me that they are very concerned that people will realise that they have failed so badly on the debt issue, they have mishandled this issue, most of what they have touched so far in terms of implementation, it turns to custard and they want to go to an election quickly before people realise what a mess they are making of our economy and that includes the flawed scheme they have got in front of us now with their Carbon Reduction Scheme.
Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620