Topics: Carbon tax, authorisation of political material in election campaigns, economic indicators, MYEFO, Tony Abbott, free trade
E&OE …
PATRICIA KARVELAS
First up Scott Ryan joins me. He is in our Canberra studio. Scott Ryan, welcome.
SENATOR SCOTT RYAN:
Good evening Patricia.
KARVELAS:
Alan Finkel’s report says that an emissions intensity scheme has the lowest economic cost and the lowest impact on prices than the alternatives. So how can the Government claim it will drive prices up, to look at an emissions intensity scheme, when the evidence says that it won’t?
SENATOR RYAN:
Patricia, first, it is important to note, that as the Prime Minister described on Friday, that was an interim discussion paper around a whole range of issues. But the simple point is this – and I was here when this issue was debated in the Coalition Party Room in 2008 and 2009 – we are not interested in further forcing up already rapidly increasing electricity and energy prices. This is a country where we don’t want to compete on lower wages, we don’t want to lower environmental standards, but one of our competitive advantages for investment, for exports, for jobs in Australia, has always been cheap energy. We can’t afford to drive energy prices higher, economically, or indeed, for the households of Australia.
KARVELAS:
But Alan Finkel says the opposite. That if you don’t embrace this kind of scheme we will see higher energy prices. So what you’re saying is not supported by the evidence.
SENATOR RYAN:
No, no. To be fair, people are painting various scenarios, but Labor’s policy and the policy proposed by the Greens, is to put a tax on energy. You can’t put a tax on something, that is designed to make it more expensive, and not hit households and not hit Australian businesses. People can paint various scenarios but one thing is true, a tax on energy will increase energy prices. The Prime Minister and the Minister Josh Frydenberg have spoken about several elements of energy policy. It has to be about security because – and this is one of the points that Alan Finkel’s report is addressing – we can’t have a situation where energy policy leaves a state of the country, as South Australia did, losing power. That is simply not acceptable for the Australian people, not acceptable for business, not acceptable for households.
KARVELAS:
Sure, but you can’t cherry pick that element of his interim report without looking at the other recommendations and all of the other arguments he makes actually point in a different direction. I wonder, given the fact that he is the chief scientist, the Government asked him to do this work, he didn’t come up with the idea on his own, he has delivered an interim report, do you have confidence still in Alan Finkel?
SENATOR RYAN:
I was present for a briefing from Alan Finkel on issues that occurred in South Australia and I thought it was incredibly informative. It’s a discussion paper, it’s an interim discussion paper. The other problems with our energy policy need to be after security. Affordability is a key test, and then we need to address the emissions issues in order to continue to meet, because we are already meeting our targets for 2020, but to continue to meet our targets for 2030. But these are decisions that the Parliament has to make. We can commission a report and in this case, the report, the interim discussion paper, is one that is very wide ranging so I don’t think it is fair to characterise it as you mentioned, as cherry picking, because it is a very wide ranging discussion paper.
KARVELAS:
So you do still have confidence in Alan Finkel?
SENATOR RYAN:
It’s not for me to express confidence or otherwise, but on a personal level, absolutely.
KARVELAS:
South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill warned the Prime Minister’s job could be on the line over the issue and, of course, we know that the Prime Minister’s job has suffered because of this issue before. Doesn’t the Prime Minister suffer from a lack of credibility, given he has argued for this policy before very strongly obviously – he lost the leadership over it – he is now being given advice from the Chief Scientist to go down this road, which he is ignoring because of an internal political backlash? I mean, how does he manage the issue and maintain credibility?
SENATOR RYAN:
It’s not that at all Patricia. I’m not going to take advice from Jay Weatherill, whose policies actually saw his entire state lose power. Jay Weatherill is just trying to deflect blame from the outrageous incident that happened in South Australia. On the other issue, as the Prime Minister has made clear on numerous occasions, that debate was eight and a half years ago. The world has moved on. The world has changed. He has explained on numerous occasions that as the world changes and other countries undertake different activities, as certain countries move ahead with meeting targets and other countries don’t, that it is entirely appropriate that the Australian policy environment respond to those. That’s why the debates of 2008 and Labor and the Greens’ policies of taxing energy and forcing up costs to households, isn’t the way ahead that will help us meet both our energy and economic objectives, as well as our environmental ones.
KARVELAS:
The Business Council of Australia has slammed your Government for ruling out any prospect of a scheme being used to reduce carbon emissions, that’s the BCA, they’re usually a friend of the Government, they are usually very much in favour of reforms that you’re in line with. Doesn’t that speak volumes about how far you are moving from the consensus on these issues?
SENATOR RYAN:
Actually, Patricia, the consensus was decided by the Australian electorate that decided it didn’t want a carbon tax. We’re a democracy. That’s the consensus.
KARVELAS:
The emissions intensity scheme is not a carbon tax, is it?
SENATOR RYAN:
I take the point, but it is unfair to say there is somehow a consensus on a very technical nature of energy policy and how some people propose – not the Government – how you move from an ETS to an emissions intensity scheme. But if people are going to criticise me or the Government for not wanting to increase taxes on business and households then go right ahead.
KARVELAS:
Senator Cory Bernardi used the opportunity this week, with all this discussion around this emissions intensity scheme – which I’ve got to say, the Government left on the table for a couple of days – he used the opportunity to say Australia should withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. Is there a strong view in the Coalition backbench that Paris is something the Government should now abandon?
SENATOR RYAN:
No. Cory, who is a friend and colleague, has well-known views on this. He is a member of the parliamentary party. One of the great things about the Liberal Party is that members of our party, who aren’t in the ministry, are free to speak on issues that concern them. I like that about my party. But that’s not Government policy. Our Government’s policy is to meet the targets that were set, I think it was in August last year, which are, on a per-capita basis, some of the highest in the world.
KARVELAS:
Just moving to something very much in your own portfolio as Special Minister of State: political advertising laws might be changed to take into account new technology, such as text messages and Twitter after that Medicare/Mediscare, however you like to call it, text message during the election. A bipartisan Parliamentary committee has recommended this interim version, and also this idea that impersonating a Commonwealth entity could be made a criminal offence. Is that something you’re going to be moving towards early next year?
SENATOR RYAN:
One of the things I did prioritise in the reference I gave that bipartisan electoral matters committee was to look at the issue of messages in the campaign, which were quite notorious as we know, that purported to, or could easily be seen as coming from Medicare and were, in fact, quite misleading. They were basically political lies.
So the committee came back in December, as I requested it to, and recommended that the laws be changed so that authorization be required on all political material because, truth be told, when these laws were drafted and updated a decade ago, SMS messaging wasn’t really part of the communications arsenal of a political party. It wasn’t really used in political campaigning, but the report also goes through some detail in what happened, and, as the Prime Minister and my colleagues have spoken about previously, this loophole was one that was exploited, or rorted, by the Labor Party and it is one the Government has stated its intention to close so that everyone knows, when you get a message from a political party, you know from whom it comes.
KARVELAS:
Just moving to the economy, which has been, as I said in my opening, I think the biggest issue, even though carbon pricing certainly dominated the news cycle. NSW Premier Mike Baird went into COAG nominating infrastructure as a key priority, saying governments needed to set a target. There is a view from the states that you need to stimulate the economy, given the downturn we’ve just seen in the latest national accounts. I know the Prime Minister has said the Commonwealth isn’t an ATM, but by the same token, is your strategy of a National Economic Plan and corporate tax cuts really the only thing you’re going to offer the electorate when it comes to trying to stimulate the economy in dealing with what we are looking at here, which is a potential recession?
SENATOR RYAN:
First of all Patricia, the corporate tax cut is not the only thing we are offering. One of the most important measures is budget consolidation. Every period of sustained economic growth in Australia has either coincided with or been proceeded by balancing the budget and making sure we are not constantly wracking up debt. Now that’s been true as long as I’ve studied economics. That is a very important part of the Government’s plan.
We’ve also talked about – and Michaelia Cash has achieved a number of things over the last few weeks – construction is nearly 10 per cent of our economy. Making that more competitive, freeing up thousands of small businesses from the problems in the construction sector because of a rampant, radical union, that makes a big section of our economy more efficient. So the economic plan is about a whole range of issues. The issue of the economic accounts that came out last week, that highlighted the need to continue to move ahead with that agenda. Labor’s agenda about increasing taxes, increasing spending, increasingly regulation, all that will do is take us down the path of Europe, which as we’ve seen, more borrowing, more taxing, more regulation, does not empower an economy to provide long-term, sustainable job growth, which people expect.
KARVELAS:
So Minister, are you still committed to returning to surplus in 2020-2021?
SENATOR RYAN:
We’re only a week and a bit away from the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook update that the Treasurer and Finance Minister will release. The Government has always stated its commitment to bringing the budget back to balance. In fact, if the Labor Party didn’t walk away from some of the things they said during the campaign, if the Labor Party didn’t block what we took to the people and sought a mandate for and were re-elected upon, then that would be easier. But those are questions I’m sure everyone will have the chance to address to Scott Morrison and Mathias Cormann next week.
KARVELAS:
Sure, but already today, as has been reported here on Sky as a result of Mathias Cormann speaking this morning, that the Government is walking away from that commitment to return to surplus in 2020-2021. Are you walking away from it? Are you softening the electorate up for a departure from that position in the MYEFO?
SENATOR RYAN:
Patricia, I’m not going to comment on reports of what the Finance Minister said. I saw most of his interview, I don’t see where those reports came from. It is only a week until the mid-year budget update is released, there will be an opportunity to see all the numbers laid out then.
KARVELAS:
So you won’t recommit to that 2020-2021 schedule for returning?
SENATOR RYAN:
Patricia, I’m not the Finance Minister or the Treasurer. It’s not appropriate for me to comment on that level of detail, especially when the mid-year budget update is only a week away.
KARVELAS:
Just one philosophical question. That’s how I’m at least asking it. Tony Abbott, he seems to be coming out more and more often. As you would know, and as people who watch this show would know, I am a keen observer of politics. I watch pretty much what they all say, every moment of the day. Tony Abbott’s coming out a lot more frequently, slamming Government policy. He is getting a pretty strong hearing, saying that he will be more and more outspoken if he is not given a frontbench position. The latest example is obviously the Green Army and the reported abandonment of his policy there. How are you going to manage Tony Abbott in 2017 because every time you have something to say, Tony Abbott seems to be getting more airtime than sometimes, the Prime Minister?
SENATOR RYAN:
Well it is not up to me to decide who gets airtime, that’s up to you and your colleagues in the media and in the press gallery.
KARVELAS:
But it is up to you to get the Government’s strategy in place, as one of Malcolm Turnbull’s key supporters and key frontbenchers.
SENATOR RYAN:
Every member of the Parliamentary Liberal Party, and indeed the Coalition, has the right to speak out on issues they see fit to speak out upon. It’s a right I cherish, it’s a right I exercised myself before I was a member of the frontbench team. But the way government works on my side of politics is that, while members of the Parliamentary party are free to speak, it is the ministry, with the consent of the party room, that determines policy. The Government has been getting on with the job over the period you talk about. We passed the Registered Organisations Bill, we passed substantial savings …
KARVELAS:
Yeah, but I’m asking, do you have a strategy to deal with Tony Abbott or is it just to wait and see what happens?
SENATOR RYAN:
Get on with the job. I’ve got a lot to do next year, so do my colleagues, that’s exactly what we’re going to focus – after we come back, hopefully from a break at Christmas – on.
KARVELAS:
Just one other sneaky one, really. Philosophically, some of your ideas – and you’re known as a real strong defender of free markets and really deregulation in an extreme way, if I can say that politely to you. Aren’t your ideas being completely repudiated by the world right now – Brexit, we’re seeing Donald Trump’s victory and his platform, the rise of One Nation, particularly in polling now? All of your ideas are being rejected by the electorate aren’t they?
SENATOR RYAN:
The ideas I came into politics for, are the ones we essentially grew up with. They were the ideas of the 80s and 90s.
If I could reflect though on events this year, I think one thing that myself and liberal free traders – I wouldn’t use the word extreme for free traders – if I think there is one thing we may have forgotten over the last decade or so, particularly after the GFC as people are feeling more economic hardship and the economy hasn’t provided all those jobs and opportunities that it did for the previous decades mainly in other countries of the world because Australia has still been relatively successful, is that the battle for free trade, the arguments for free trade, weren’t won at Davos, they weren’t won in the boardrooms of our banks, they were won over cheap food for working people, for middle classes.
I think we need to relate – and people like myself need to relate – our arguments about why these economic ideas actually work. It is not about ideology, it’s because history has proven they work. We need to relate them to people’s everyday lives. We need to explain that when the Labor Party say they want to protect the car industry, that means you’re either going to pay thousands of dollars more when you buy a Mazda not a Holden, or people are going to pay more tax to subsidise multinational companies. We’ve forgotten a bit – personal reflection here – we need to make the argument about people’s everyday lives, their household budgets, their jobs, what they need to survive and prosper. I think that’s something that people of my world view need to turn our minds to.
KARVELAS:
Thank you so much for joining me tonight.
SENATOR RYAN:
Thanks Patricia.
(ENDS)