23-February-2009
Portfolio Media Releases, Emissions Trading Scheme
Topics: Emissions Trading
TONY JONES: Joining me now in our Parliament House studio is Andrew Robb, the Opposition spokesman on Emissions Trading. Thanks for being there.
ANDREW ROBB: Pleasure, Tony. Great to see you.
TONY JONES: Is it my imagination or are you getting greener by the day?
ANDREW ROBB: No, Tony. Look, we've put a lot of work into this over the last several years, in fact. Even, you know, our government, it came in for a bad wrap, but I think the records stand for itself. We did a lot of work in Government, and we've done a lot of work since. And we're now started to look very seriously at the Government's white paper, and clearly, it is deeply flawed. And it forced us to start looking at a whole range of alternatives or additional measures that might be taken. And it's clear that there are great opportunities to capture more carbon in lots of different ways which have not been in any way explored by the Government. There's been almost an obsession with the emissions trading scheme. And they've failed in its design. And you can see that; there's no-one - I can't name anyone - who supports it. And what we're saying is that there does now need to be, you know, a look at the other tools in the climate change tool box and not just the singular approach of an emissions trading scheme, which has so demonstrably failed in terms of the Government's design of it.
TONY JONES: Presumably, you agree with Malcolm Turnbull that the Government's target for cutting emissions is much too low?
ANDREW ROBB: Well, we're convinced that in fact we can hit a higher target, and we can do it if you do widen the scope. If you look at the suite of ways in which you can deal with soil carbon and with energy efficiency measures, with the built environment - you know, the commercial buildings and the homes - with revegetation. There are ways in which there are hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO2 that can be captured each year by looking more widely. None of these things - none of them - are included in the design of the scheme. The scheme itself will cost jobs, it will kill investment and at the same time, we'll not see any significant reduction, if any, in CO2 emissions.
TONY JONES: So how high a target would you anticipate, that you would go for? I mean, how much higher, for example, than the Government's target?
ANDREW ROBB: Well, we're not going to set it at this stage. We - from the work we've done, we ...
TONY JONES: Just give us a rough idea.
ANDREW ROBB: Well, they've given a range.
TONY JONES: I mean, if the Government' too low, it's five to 15 per cent, depending on circumstances, what's your range, roughly?
ANDREW ROBB: Well, the Government's had five to 15, depending on what the rest of the world does. We're confident whatever the Government pitches its target, using the sole mechanism of a flawed emissions trading scheme, that we can quite easily exceed their targets at whatever level they're setting them depending on what the rest of the world is doing.
TONY JONES: By how much, though? I mean, are you talking five per cent extra cuts, or 10 per cent extra cuts? I mean, what's the range that you're talking about?
ANDREW ROBB: Well, we are still completing our full analysis. We're still trying to get - come to grips fully with the white paper. We've commissioned, at some expense, our own independent inquiry so that we can in fact make proper judgements there. When we've finished that work, when we've finished other work that we're doing, when we've seen the Government's legislation, we'll have a better idea. But what I'm saying to you is, from the work we've already done, we can see that we can set targets which exceed the Government's targets.
TONY JONES: Alright. Have you and the Greens yet come to an agreement on the terms of reference for the Senate inquiry?
ANDREW ROBB: No, we haven't. The Greens have provided a range of terms of reference that they'd like to see, and we're keen to have a discussion with them and with the Independents, and in fact, with the Government. I mean, the Government itself should adopt the terms of reference that we've laid on the table because they're exactly the terms of reference that Wayne Swan introduced to that surprise inquiry two weeks ago. So, the Government would be hard-pressed to oppose this.
TONY JONES: Here's an important thing: will it include an inquiry into whether there should be a carbon tax as opposed to an emissions trading scheme?
ANDREW ROBB: Well, what, Wayne Swan brought down was that ...
TONY JONES: No, I want to know what you're going to do.
ANDREW ROBB: Well, we are putting into the Senate exactly the same terms of reference that Wayne Swan introduced. What he was looking at was whether an emissions trading scheme now still does provide the best means of tackling CO2 emissions compared with a range of other approaches, including regulation, he nominated a carbon tax, so all of those things will be able to be assessed against an emissions trading scheme.
TONY JONES: OK, because you've run the carbon tax idea up the flagpole just a short time ago. Can I just - well, you talked about it. Let me just continue here for a moment.
ANDREW ROBB: Yeah, in the context of what Wayne Swan had introduced, yes.
TONY JONES: Alright, but one of your major objections in Government to the Kyoto process was that big polluters like China don't have to take serious cuts to their own emissions. Now would a carbon tax be able to address that?
ANDREW ROBB: Well, I'm not advocating - we're not advocating a carbon tax. All we said in terms of a carbon tax was that, along with a range of other possibilities, regulation and other approaches that could be taken by the Government in addition to or competing with an emissions trading scheme was that a carbon tax was one of the suite of things that could be looked at. So, ...
TONY JONES: The reason I ask - well, it is because of China that I ask. And we've gotta get this straight 'cause you couldn't only apply a carbon tax to goods and manufacturers within Australia, exporting things out of Australia and not equally apply it to things coming into Australia, could you? You'd actually have to put a carbon tax on imports from high polluting countries.
ANDREW ROBB: But, Tony, look, we're not advocating a carbon tax. It's not the only way ...
TONY JONES: Well, you want a debate about it and this is part of the debate.
ANDREW ROBB: Well, we want it because of the Government scheme is so deeply flawed, because it will not achieve any of the objectives that they promised leading up to the election and have promised ever since, because it is demonstrably, you know, a failure, because no one supports it. Wayne Swan himself introduced a terms of reference which said we should look at whether an emissions trading scheme is still the primary means of attack against carbon dioxide. And he said other things were carbon taxes, right?
TONY JONES: Well, you've gone through that, and you talked about carbon taxes on the radio the other day as a possibility. So I'm asking you, would a carbon tax - by its very nature - let's just debate the issue, since you ran it up the flagpole.
ANDREW ROBB: No, well I didn't run it up the flagpole, Tony.
TONY JONES: Would it by its very nature require a tax on imports from high polluting countries?
ANDREW ROBB: Look, what we know is, what we know is that all of these schemes, whether it's a carbon tax, an emissions trading scheme - there are many types of emissions trading schemes, too, by the way. So, they all seek to set a price on carbon. Even regulation in a way sets a price on carbon, because you restrict other activities. So you are by - you know, you are, in a default way, putting a price on carbon. All of these ways of intervening, including a carbon tax..and the ultimate objective is to put a price on carbon and try and make that consistent around the world. Now, the problem with the Government's scheme is that it will put a significant price on carbon for local export and import competing industries, when the rest of the world won't face it. Now, the Government said in the lead-up to the election that it would bring in a scheme by 2010, it would be a scheme that would result in deep cuts in CO2 and it would not disadvantage export and import competing industries. The Government has failed on all of those promises.
TONY JONES: Well, I mean, except, you can't rule out that a carbon tax would require taxes on imports from China.
ANDREW ROBB: Tony, I haven't ruled in or out anything. That's why we wanted the inquiry, so experts could come and tell us what the details were, what the relative merits were and how they compared with the Government's flawed emissions trading scheme.
TONY JONES: Alright, Andrew Robb. We'll have to leave you there. We thank you very much for joining us.
ANDREW ROBB: Thanks, Tony.
Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620