25-June-2009
Portfolio Media Releases, The Economy, Emissions Trading Scheme
Topics: Emissions Trading scheme, Opposition research on alternatives with Senator Xenophon, OzCar and emails.
DAVID SPEERS: Well for more on this we’re now joined by the Shadow Minister for Emissions Trading, Andrew Robb. Mr Robb welcome.
ANDREW ROBB: Thanks, David
DAVID SPEERS: You’ve commissioned Frontier Economics to look at different emissions trading models. But isn’t this a waste of money given the Government is the Government and it’s already made up its mind and it isn’t about to change models?
ANDREW ROBB: Well, this is the biggest deliberate structural change that this country will face or has faced in our history. So it’s absolutely critical to get this policy right and everyone is saying, other than the Government, that the model they’ve got on the table will cost tens of thousands of jobs, will kill a lot of investment and won’t do anything for the environment. So it..
DAVID SPEERS: Not some studies though. Some studies say it will generate jobs.
ANDREW ROBB: But in the Senate the Greens are saying it won’t do the work; the cross-benches, the Coalition, much of industry is saying that the scheme is flawed. Even those who say there should be consideration to passing a bill say it will still need radical, radical changes to it. So we’ve got a situation where this model, this policy is not right and one of the reasons is that there’s been so much information that should be on the table, could be on the table, must be on the table, has not been done.
The Government, as Nick Xenophon has said very aptly, it’s like going to a car yard and being only allowed to test drive one car and then being required to buy that car. So all the other options have not been explored. This work is critical so that we can have an informed debate.
DAVID SPEERS: But didn’t the Liberals in Government agree with the Shergold report and recommendations that a cap and trade emissions trading scheme is the best way to go?
ANDREW ROBB: What we are modelling are various forms of emissions trading schemes, cap and trade schemes.
DAVID SPEERS: So explain the difference from what the Government’s put forward to what you’re now going to look at?
ANDREW ROBB: Well, there are lots of other versions of an emissions trading scheme. There’s an intensity target scheme, all quite complicated. It’s one of the problems. No one’s got the foggiest idea out there. We’re going to try and provide some clarity and data. But the scheme that we’ve looked…
DAVID SPEERS: This energy intensity model. I know it is complicated but it’s based on achieving a target of energy intensity.
ANDREW ROBB: That’s right, that’s right. It should have been modelled. It has got ..
DAVID SPEERS: But didn’t Ross Garnaut look at this and reject it?
ANDREW ROBB: Look in Ross Garnaut’s report, look in the green paper, look in the white paper, I think you’d find less than half a page out of, collectively, 2,500 pages. Half a page in each report dismissing all of these alternatives. There are even others such as taxation, and McKibbin’s model and others which again have got very legitimate support, very strong rationale. We haven’t got the money to go through all those.
We are looking at various forms of emissions trading schemes because that’s what the US is bringing in, a version of that. We need…the Government has made everyone feel that this is the only model that’s appropriate and yet it would not do, and could have done because it did all the modelling, once you’ve done all the modelling that’s the hard part, plugging in alternative types of schemes, even alternative to the CPRS, different design features, is quite an easy process.
We’ve been asking; we’ve been pleading for months and months and months. They have refused point blank. They’ve embarked on a political exercise. They want to get to an early election. They want us to vote against this scheme. Well the scheme they’ve got on the table we will vote against. What we are trying to do though is go out there and do some constructive work to find out what would be an effective and appropriate model for Australia.
DAVID SPEERS: So the scheme that’s on the table currently you would vote against? Now the Government is going to put that same scheme up in August when you do vote on it. So you’re saying you will vote against it unless there’s a change?
ANDREW ROBB: Again, the Government’s political agenda will be exposed if that’s what they just blandly do. If they just go ahead and ignore the work that we’re undertaking now and the work we are commissioned with Nick Xenophon. We are doing it in good faith. We are doing it with an organisation that is very well versed, especially in the electricity market. They’ve done years and years and years; helped set up the g-gas model in NSW; know their stuff back to front, know modelling back to front. We will identify what will be the cost to regions, what better outcomes would come from different types of schemes.
DAVID SPEERS: At the end of the day if that’s ignored by the Government, if they stick with what they’ve put on the table, you’ll vote against it?
ANDREW ROBB: We’ve taken that decision. It is deeply flawed and the Greens have taken that decision. So they will vote against it. And I suspect the cross-benches will vote against it if the Government just ignores again, for the fifteen hundredth time, advice that they’ve been given.
DAVID SPEERS: But why not vote against it..why didn’t you vote against it this week? You’re obviously holding out hope that may not be there, that the Government’s going to shift its position.
ANDREW ROBB: Our view is that so much is happening in the United States, they are developing a scheme at a pace. So much is happening around the world in preparation for Copenhagen. This delay…we’ve asked for a deferment of the vote that’s what we sought to get, a deferment of the vote while the Government took on board what’s happening in the US – they’re 30 percent of all emissions in the world; we’re one percent!
We will have to fall into line eventually with them or otherwise kill tens of thousands of jobs in this country. So we say why not wait? It is just commonsense to spend a few more months, do the work that we’ve asked for, look at what the US is proposing and what they’re putting in place, which already looks demonstrably different to our scheme, look at Copenhagen and then we can make an informed decision as a community. Not one which is predicated on a political objective, getting to an early election before the massive debt issues that they’ve now lumbered and imposed on the country, the impact of those is recognised by the community.
DAVID SPEERS: Can I turn, Andrew Robb, to the fake e-mail affair that has dominated this week? There are some serious suggestions now being made in the media and indeed by the Government about your leader that he met with Godwin Gretch and indeed saw the email before Godwin Gretch gave his explosive testimony on Friday. Have you established yourself whether that is correct?
ANDREW ROBB: David, I haven’t pursued this. What I’ve witnessed all week in the Parliament is the Government have embarked on an attempt to defame and smear Malcolm Turnbull all week. Really, the fake email was really resolved before we even went into the Parliament on Monday.
What this week has been about, from the Government’s point of view, is ensuring Wayne Swan is not held to account about his management of hundreds of billions of dollars of Government assistance.
This is about managing your money, taxpayer’s money. This is a very serious issue that we’ve been embarking on. Again, today got no answers from Wayne Swan and your intro showed that he is not answering to anybody, This is a matter of great moment in terms of management of hundreds of billions of dollars of debt they’ve built up. How they manage the spending of that is critical.
DAVID SPEERS: Your pursuit of Wayne Swan has been lost in the controversy over the email turning out to be fake. Did you advise Malcolm Turnbull not to use this email to attack the Prime Minister?
ANDREW ROBB: I wasn’t last week involved. I don’t think anyone had much idea of this until we were all back in our electorates on Friday.
DAVID SPEERS: You weren’t consulted about the strategy on this?
ANDREW ROBB: Well it happened on Friday. The Senate hearings occurred; explosive evidence and leaders they need to make decisions and Malcolm did make decisions. Malcolm…
DAVID SPEERS: Was it the wrong decision?
ANDREW ROBB: Look I think Malcolm Turnbull has been holding this Government to account in very effective way.
DAVID SPEERS: But on the email, was it the wrong call?
ANDREW ROBB: Well it’s not for me. I don’t know the circumstances of all this. I don’t know the circumstances. But, you know, we’ve had the community now well aware of the very damaging effect of billions of dollars of debt that have been built up. That’s Malcolm Turnbull prosecution of that case after the Budget and I think he has..this episode is a difficult one. It’s a lovely diversion for the Government from Wayne Swan’s exposure in that same Senate inquiry of a whole lot of emails that are not under dispute which put a real question mark over the Treasurer and his management of taxpayer’s money.
DAVID SPEERS: Just finally, Andrew Robb, how would you sum up the last week for the Liberals? You said earlier today that it hasn’t been the best week for you?
ANDREW ROBB: It’s been a frustrating week because we know that here we have a Treasurer of the country and a Government that’s responsible for spending, and are spending, billions, hundreds of billions of dollars of borrowed money. We want to know that it’s well spent. That is the core of the issue this week. Is Wayne Swan carrying out his duties or are they looking after cronies? Are they mismanaging Government monies, borrowed monies, taxpayer’s debt . This is the issue that has not been confronted and its deeply frustrating for us that we have not been able to cut through on that issue.
DAVID SPEERS: Andrew Robb, thank you.
ANDREW ROBB: Thanks, David.
Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620