05-May-2009
Portfolio Media Releases, Emissions Trading Scheme
Topics: Rudd Government’s flawed ETS.
DAVID SPEERS: Andrew Robb thank you for your time. Can you clarify for us, is the Coalition willing to compromise with the Government to negotiate with the Government or not?
ANDREW ROBB: David, with the scheme that was outlined yesterday or the tinkering that went on and what’s now on the table as we understand it we would not find that acceptable.
DAVID SPEERS: Ok but you are willing to sit down with the Government and try to find a compromise?
ANDREW ROBB: Well, they have had lots of opportunity, at the moment they are saying they are not going to make any fundamental changes, the trouble with this today David is that not withstanding the tinkering that went on yesterday, the fundamental flaw, the big problem, the key problem to do with the design of their scheme remains and that is that there are Australian companies who employ millions of Australians who will face a huge tax that none of their competitors are facing and that means increased costs and that means workers being put off, many of those in key regional centres around the country. This has been the issue all along. The design of the scheme does not allow for other countries not coming into a scheme and it is deeply flawed and until the Government gives some indication that they would look to address that issue I don’t see where there is any common ground.
DAVID SPEERS: So, Andrew Robb, your bottom line therefore would be that any trade exposed industry should be fully protected from the impact of an emissions trading scheme.
ANDREW ROBB: Well that is certainly a key element of our concern from day one, there are many other issues but that is a key element but of course David, our bottom line really is for the Prime Minister to deliver the promise that he made on many occasions before the last election, a promise that he hasn’t repeated, I might add, since the election but he did say then that he would deliver a scheme which would produce deep cuts in emissions but which would not disadvantage our export and our import competing industries. Now when they come up with a scheme that can meet those parameters then we will be interested.
DAVID SPEERS: Ok, but just to be clear on this. Are you saying that any trade exposed industry should have 100% free permits to pollute until the rest of the world has a scheme in place?
ANDREW ROBB: What we are saying is that the design of the scheme must be robust enough so that if we don’t find other countries come on board in the next 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, how stupid would we be to have a scheme in place which imposes billions and billions of dollars of tax on our export and import competing industries with no capacity to pass it on, competing against other countries which don’t have that tax, how stupid would we be if in 15 or twenty years time, most of our competitors still don’t have a scheme. This scheme is not designed to cope with those sorts of circumstances and as such it is fundamentally flawed, it will put at risk 10s and 10s of thousands of jobs, it will not lead to any significant investment and it won’t do anything about CO2 emissions, so it fails on all counts.
DAVID SPEERS: It sounds like you are saying no scheme in Australia at all until there is an international scheme in place.
ANDREW ROBB: No, we are saying, get a design of a scheme which will not put 10’s of thousands of jobs at risk.
DAVIID SPEERS: And how do you do that?
ANDREW ROBB: Well let’s, the Government said that they would do that, let them design the scheme.
DAVID SPEERS: They’ve put forward their plan, they’ve amended it to come towards your demands, what exactly are you demanding?
ANDREW ROBB: No they haven’t, this is the great myth that is being perpetuated over the last 24 hours. They have come nowhere near. They just tinkered yesterday, it was politics. They played a little bit of politics. They deferred the scheme beyond the next election because they knew that in their Labor heartland in regional centres around the country they would be killed at the next election if they went ahead with this scheme. It is a very cynical political exercise.
DAVID SPEERS: How do you then achieve what you say is the goal here, to protect those jobs until there is an international scheme in place?
ANDREW ROBB: Well, David, they are the Government, they are designing the scheme, they have laid down the parameters, we agreed with those original parameters, and that is, don’t disadvantage, they said they could do it. Don’t disadvantage our export industries and all of those….
DAVID SPEERS: But surely you must have an idea, you’ve looked at this….You’ve had an independent inquiry into this.
ANDREW ROBB: The millions of Australians that work in those industries. I am not going to sit here today and map out chapter and verse what the Government, and design a scheme for the Government. We are responding to their scheme. Their scheme as we see it…..
DAVID SPEERS: But how is the Government meant to progress from here if you are not putting forward ideas, how are they meant to get agreement?
ANDREW ROBB: But we are putting forward ideas. We are putting forward a very clear objective, design a scheme which protects all of those companies that are either exporters or competing against imports. I thought that was the united objective …
DAVID SPEERS: But how do you do that?
ANDREW ROBB: Well, David, there are 800 pages in the Scheme, often there are multiple ways in which you provide that protection. Right so, there could be 30 different elements of a scheme which actually give you that outcome, so to come up with one magic bullet to solve all those problems often is not possible, and certainly, it is the Government’s job, they are the ones who are designing this scheme, they have got the responsibility, they won office, they are the Government, they are the ones with the document on the table, it is up to them now to work through and come up and deliver on the promises they made before the last election about the design of this scheme.
DAVID SPEERS: Well, with respect Andrew Robb it sounds like you are saying it’s too hard for the Opposition to put forward detailed proposals of its own.
ANDREW ROBB: No, I didn’t say that all, we will, once we have considered the Senate Committee of Inquiry which is completing its work now, which did go to a lot of issues that the Government has not looked at over the last 18 months. Once we have considered that, once we have looked further at the Report provided to us last week by the Centre for International Economics, we will put on the table a scheme that we believe will not cost jobs but will also deliver significant cuts, very significant cuts in CO2 emissions. Now that is the ultimate objective. We have said all along that there is more than one tool in the climate change toolbox and this is the problem. The Government is trying to do with one scheme, one emissions trading scheme, it is trying to, in many respects, do the impossible and that is get deep cuts, not cause job losses, 10’s of thousands of job losses when the rest of the world is not involved. Now we have said to them all along, if you employ a lot more tools in the climate change toolbox you can get to that objective. Now we will lay that out but I am not going to lay out our policy prescriptions today. We will do that when we have finalised and properly considered them.
DAVID SPEERS: Ok, but the Coalition but has been saying since 2007 and I have got a list of quotes here, “that we’ll set out both medium and long term targets after the Garnaut Review”, “we won’t set out any figures until we have seen the Government’s modelling”, well all of those things have been done. “We’ll wait until the White Paper”, that’s been done, “we want to see what the Government’s targets and objectives are”, that’s been done. Again and again, the Coalition has said, we’ll tell you what we are going to do, so exactly when will that be. You are now saying after the Senate Inquiry, so in June will we see your detailed response?
ANDREW ROBB: Well David, the Government’s programme has been a moving feast, we got to the end of Garnaut and they have virtually picked up none of the Garnaut Report despite 3 volumes and nearly 12 months of work. We have had to continue to reassess what the Government is doing. They have changed their mind on many occasions and now we have seen yesterday, another back flip and so all of these things require us to consider these things before we put down our programme but we will have a programme in place before the substantive debate or by the time the substantive debate starts in the Senate when the Government has presented it’s legislation.
DAVID SPEERS: Ok, so that will happen presumably therefore in June?
ANDREW ROBB: In the coming weeks that will happen David.
DAVID SPEERS: In the comings weeks we will see that detailed response.
ANDREW ROBB: By the time the substantive debate begins we will have our thoughts on the table.
DAVID SPEERS: Alright, just another matter if I can Andrew Robb. One of your backbench colleagues, Bronwyn Bishop has spoken to her local newspaper, the Manly Daily. She has had a shot at Malcolm Turnbull suggesting and I quote “basically the big bucks stop flowing from donors when they don’t know what the Party stands for and have no confidence the Leader can take us to Government. She goes on to say that when Brendan Nelson was Leader he was at 19% approval but moving upwards and now Malcolm is moving backwards. What is you response to that?
ANDREW ROBB: David I am not going to get into comments from colleagues. What I will say though is that I think Malcolm has dealt with a number of really major and critical issues in a very strong and determined and clear fashion. The fact that many Australians are now totally bemused and concerned and frustrated at the unsustainable debt that is being built up by this Government owes much to the case that has been laid out and the strong position. It is a matter of great strength to oppose $42 billion stimulus package. That showed a clear direction where we would take the Party, where Malcolm would take Party so I would dispute the claims that have been or the comments that have been made and just say to you that Malcolm on both the major issue, and that is the economy and now on the question of emissions trading, much of the Government’s panic and back flip and all of the rest of it is due to sustained pressure on this issue, sustained exposure of the Government’s failure to deliver an effective scheme, so on the two big issues confronting the country at the moment I think Malcolm has been very effective.
DAVID SPEERS: Andrew Robb thank you very much for joining us today.
Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620