20-February-2009
Portfolio Media Releases, Emissions Trading Scheme
DAVID SPEERS: So where does this all leave the Liberals after a week of wrangling and also after some questions over its position on climate change this week. I spoke a short while ago to the Shadow Minister for Emissions Trading, Andrew Robb.
Andrew Robb, welcome to the program. How would you describe the week the Liberal Party has had?
ANDREW ROBB: Well we’ve had better weeks, I can say that David. But these things happen and we are still a group that’s in transition from an administration of eleven and a half years. And you’ve got to expect that as we move to create a formidable opposition that you’re going to get these sorts of weeks from time to time until we have things properly balanced. And that’s, I think, what’s happened this week.
The thing is we are determined in many respects to take it up to the government. We’ve not only got an important political need to do that but, you know, such is the difficulties that are going on out there and that are coming down the line at Australia, we’ve got a great responsibility to the community to really put the wood on the government. They are in disarray on a number of fronts and we’re looking forward to the opportunity to keep them to account.
DAVID SPEERS: OK, I’m keen to get to those fronts but what about yourself? Are you disappointed you missed out on the job of Shadow Treasurer this week?
ANDREW ROBB: Well, we’re all entitled to be ambitious. I would have liked the position. I feel I would have been confident to do it but I think we’ve got in the new Shadow Treasurer , we’ve got one of our best performers and I’ve got enormous respect for Joe. He’ll have my every support and I think he’ll be very formidable in taking on Wayne Swan.
DAVID SPEERS: Now I must ask you about Peter Costello as well, of course. Malcolm Turnbull today saying that Peter Costello has told him that he’s not interested in the leadership. Peter Costello, however, is pointedly refusing to say this himself. You know Peter Costello fairly well; do you think he is interested in the leadership?
ANDREW ROBB: Well, I can only take what Malcolm has said today. He’s obviously had these conversations with Peter; I haven’t. And Malcolm was quite clear about it today. Peter has said to Malcolm that he’s not interested in a front bench position or leadership and I accept that.
DAVID SPEERS: Would you welcome Peter Costello clearing this up himself and ending what must be painful, endless speculation for the Liberal Party?
ANDREW ROBB: Well Peter’s entitled to sit where he is and to represent his seat. And I think he has obviously made it clear to Malcolm and I accept what Malcolm has said has been the nature of their conversation and I think we can move on.
DAVID SPEERS: What about some of the other former Howard Government Ministers who do seem to want another term in parliament? I’m thinking about Bronwyn Bishop and Philip Ruddock; Philip Ruddock has been in Parliament since 1973. Is it time for some of them to show the sort of renewal that Brendan Nelson is talking about? He is going to leave at the next election.
ANDREW ROBB: I hear all the talk about renewal. It’s always important to be injecting new blood and ... but you’ve got to bear in mind we’ve got Kooyong coming up, we’ve got Brendan Nelson’s seat; two of our safest seats in the country. We’ve had a lot of young ones come in in the last two elections in the Senate and into the House of Representatives. If you look at the composition of our ministry, I think, almost a majority are under 42 years of age.
We’ve got a wealth of young people coming through, I think it’s one of the great things, it’s given me encouragement, is the energy and the youthfulness but relative experience of some of those people.
We’ve got the makings of a very strong government and I do think when we talk about renewal we’ve got to also remember that you need some institutional knowledge around the place. You have to get that balance right and I do feel that we have injected a lot of new blood into the Parliamentary Party, mores’ coming, and I’d hate to see a mass exodus of all of the institutional knowledge that we’ve got around the place.
DAVID SPEERS: There’s been a spat between some of the young blood in the party though. Malcolm Turnbull yesterday had to sack one of his Parliamentary secretaries, Cory Bernardi, for criticising an unnamed MP, who we now know was Christopher Pyne, and not retracting it. Do you think this was an over-reaction from the leader to sack him for this or was this an appropriate way to deal with it?
ANDREW ROBB: I think any Leader is very entitled to lay down some standards and insist that they be adhered to. So I’m very supportive and I think Malcolm lay down a sensible standard and he wanted it adhered to and if it wasn’t he acted appropriately, so I think that is the role of a leader. You’re looking for someone to spell it out as it is, how it should be under his leadership and then the rest of us have to fit in with that and I think that issue has been appropriately dealt with.
DAVID SPEERS: Let’s get onto your portfolio. Does the Coalition still support an emission trading scheme?
ANDREW ROBB: Our position is still ... our preference and our position is the one we took to the last election. That is an emissions trading scheme which does not disadvantage all of our export and import competing industries. That was the model we took to the last election. That’s the one we had started to introduce in legislation in fact before the last election. That is still our preferred position. What we have done is commission the Centre for International Economics to review the Government’s White Paper against all the alternatives so that we can be best informed when we respond formally to the Government’s White Paper.
DAVID SPEERS: You’ve expressed concerns for exporters there. Another concern about the Government’s proposed scheme is that any actions households take, be it installing solar panels or riding their bike to work, that will not make a jot of difference when it comes to reducing the overall national emissions. That it will simply free up the ability for the big industries to emit more. How can that be dealt with under an emissions trading scheme?
ANDREW ROBB: Well look, I’ll get to that David. This scheme the Government has put forward; from what we’ve seen it is deeply flawed. It is imposing a two and half billion dollar tax, at least a two and a half billion dollar tax, on exports and import competing industries despite the government promising before the election that import competing and export industries in Australia would not be disadvantaged. So there’ve broken that rule. They have designed a scheme which will not allow, as you say, the actions of individuals to count towards any reduction in CO2 in the atmosphere. They’ve excluded what’s called the built environment, the commercial buildings and all the rest, where there are enormous possibilities for reduction of CO2. They’ve excluded agriculture. There’s no capacity for offsets from any of those sectors. Now, there are ways in which you can design a scheme which enables some of that to happen.
The Government have failed on all those fronts; they’re going to cost jobs, they’re going to kill investment and they’re not going to see any reduction in CO2 of any consequence. They’ve failed on all fronts. Penny Wong calls that balance; I call that total failure. If you have everyone on each side of the argument totally appalled at the outcome; that is total failure and Penny Wong’s position here is on the line, I think, as a Minister. She has failed in delivering an adequate scheme and I think there’s going to be a very heavy debate in the months ahead to try and see if we can make some sense out of this deeply flawed scheme that the government’s trying to put before the community.
DAVID SPEERS: Well I know you’ve been toying with the alternative idea of a carbon tax, which is supported by a number of environmentalists, economists, scientists, Al Gore amongst them. Would that, a carbon tax, would that address some of those concerns that you have?
ANDREW ROBB: No, we haven’t been, as you say, toying with it. What we did do was ask our commission of review to look at the government’s white paper against all the alternatives; one of which is a carbon tax. We’ve never advocated a carbon tax. Our preference is still for an emissions trading scheme but one that doesn’t disadvantage our industries, our import competing and our export industries. It’s the government itself ; the reason carbon tax is being discussed in the last week ... the government itself implemented an inquiry, a surprise inquiry last week which of course they’ve now abandoned, they’re all over the place, they are in disarray on this issue. They introduced an inquiry to look at whether an emissions trading scheme is still the appropriate way to go after all these years and millions of dollars of expense, whether it’s still the appropriate way to tackle CO2 reductions. And they looked at, they were going to look at whether a carbon tax or a host of other approaches may be preferable. They’ve raised this issue of a carbon tax; not us.
DAVID SPEERS: All right, a long way to go in this debate it seems, Andrew Robb. We’re going to have to leave it there but thank you very much for joining us.
ANDREW ROBB: My pleasure. Thanks David.
Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620