23-February-2009
Portfolio Media Releases, Emissions Trading Scheme
FRAN KELLY: The Opposition is now promising a more ambitious and more effective climate change policy than the Government’s and in an attempt to stay on the front foot the Opposition will ask the Senate to conduct an inquiry into alternatives to an Emissions Trading Scheme. This is the inquiry that was cancelled by the Treasurer, Wayne Swan last week. Andrew Robb is the Coalition spokesperson on Emissions Trading and he joins us also in our Parliament House studio. Andrew Robb, welcome to Breakfast.
ANDREW ROBB: Good morning Fran
FRAN KELLY: Andrew Robb, what exactly is the Coalition’s new climate change policy and how will it be better than Labor’s?
ANDREW ROBB: Fran what we have sought to do today is to revive the inquiry scrapped by the Government. The Government’s own inquiry. An inquiry just announced two weeks ago by the Treasurer, Mr Swan and the reason that he announced that was that the Government for two years has been saying that they can introduce an emissions trading scheme which will not cost jobs but will seriously reduce CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. And yet, from what we have seen of their policy and what industry has seen and the Green movement has seen is that the Government’s plan is deeply flawed, in other words it’s going to cost jobs, its going to kill investment and it’s going to have little if any impact on the amount of CO2 that’s going into the atmosphere. Now on those grounds there is a deep responsibility for the government, because they are split, the reason they have brought on this inquiry is because there are deep splits within the Cabinet and within the Caucus. They do see that their policy is a dog and they need now to start to canvas and look at the other alternatives, the additional things that can be done. What we are saying as an Opposition is that there are more tools than just an ETS in the Climate Change toolbox and Malcolm Turnbull sought to start to spell that out in a speech in late January and we want this inquiry to look at what things can be done in addition to an ETS and what can be done to the government’s ETS scheme in order to deliver the sorts of results that the Government said were possible.
FRAN KELLY: OK, Well the quote from your Leader is that “we are committed to a more ambitious target”. What is the target you are committing to?
ANDREW ROBB: We will specify that in clearer terms later on. What we have said..
FRAN KELLY: Later on today or later on…
ANDREW ROBB: No, we have got a detailed process, we have an Inquiry at the moment that we commissioned to look at the Government’s scheme. That is still to be delivered to us. We have got the Government’s own legislation to be presented. We need to look at all these things but what we have said Fran is that things such as soil carbon, capturing CO2 in the soil, there is enormous capacity, enormous capacity, it has been totally ignored by the Government, totally ignored. Things such as the built environment, or all of the commercial sector across Australia. They have been coming to us now for months and months and saying that all of the target that the Rudd Government has set through until 2020 or 2030 is achievable within that environment by itself. It is excluded from the emissions trading scheme that the Government has brought down. The Government has taken a very blinkered, narrow view and seems to doggedly seem determined to stay with a deeply flawed scheme that is going to cost jobs and not achieve any CO2 reductions. It is quite irresponsible, quite irresponsible especially at a time when we have got the financial meltdown that industry is trying to cope with. We need to step back, the Government, because of a politically inspired target of 2010, it is driving everything they are doing in this space and it is quite irresponsible and we need to take a big deep breath, go back and look at the suite of things that can be done to effect CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere without costing jobs and without killing investment.
FRAN KELLY: Ok lets be clear though, you need to step back but you are not stepping back away from an ETS you still committed to an ETS but just with a later starting date still around 2011?
ANDREW ROBB: We, our preference all along and our policy is for a properly structured emissions trading scheme in fact we took that to the last election. The scheme we took the last election would not have cost jobs and would not have killed investment. The Labor scheme is going to do that and it is not going to achieve any co2 reductions.
FRAN KELLY: Just remind me the Opposition’s policy is committed to an emissions trading scheme to begin by is it no later than 2011, is that it?
ANDREW ROBB: Our policy remains, that we would have an emissions trading scheme properly structured, starting no latter than 2012. We always felt and the advice we received before the last election from a major committee of inquiry which informed us about our plan in the first place. Was that things such as measurements issues are going to take tens of millions of dollars and two or three years minimum to properly calculate what levels of emissions are coming from a whole range of industries across this country. A whole host of issues to be settled before you can properly put in place a scheme which the market can truly manage. Now the Government because of a politically inspired target of 2010, Kevin Rudd before the election wanted to have a target which was sooner than John Howard’s. It was no more complicated than that, it was a politically inspired target. And it has driven their whole process and now here we are in the middle of financial meltdown and they’ve got a scheme which is going to seriously cost jobs and not reduce emissions, they’ve got their head in the sand, there are some cabinet ministers…
FRAN KELLY: With respect Andrew Robb at least the Government has a target I mean if you don’t have a target this remains a Clayton’s policy doesn’t it?
ANDREW ROBB: Fran, they’ve got a target which is undeliverable, which everyone says, one it’s too small and makes no real effect on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and two it’s undeliverable and three it’s going to come at the expense of exporting jobs overseas, exporting emissions and in many respects many people think that the Government’s current scheme in net terms could increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere because so many industries would end up in developing countries, leaving Australia with higher inefficiencies and greater concentrations of CO2 going up in the atmosphere. This scheme is deeply flawed and Government needs to accept that. Wayne swan accepted it but he has been rolled and been forced to withdraw his enquiry. They will not look at a range of alternatives and until they do they will continue to come under serious pressure from ourselves and many others in the community.
FRAN KELLY: Can I just ask you finally Andrew Robb? The Opposition had a pretty horror week, last week in terms of political infighting. Peter Costello’s name was in the headlines constantly. And now over the last 24 hours or 36 hours we have had two former Liberal Party leaders John Hewson and reportedly Alexander Downer now as well both saying that Peter Costello should go. Should he?
ANDREW ROBB: Peter is entitled to stay and participate in his seat and to determine his own career future.
FRAN KELLY: It that in the best interests of the Party?
ANDREW ROBB: Peter has enormous, has an enormous amount to offer our party and the country going forward and I think it’s quite appropriate for Peter to work through how he sees himself playing that role and you know, I think we just be well served by you know those from the past keeping their opinions to themselves. We will work this out internally; we will get out on the front foot and we will provide very powerful opposition and alternative government coming into the next election.
Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620