Topics: Emissions reduction target, climate change, Speaker.
E&OE…
KIERAN GILBERT
Good morning and welcome to the program. The Government will announce its much anticipated post 2020 emission reduction target, this is in the lead up to the Paris talks at the end of the year, and we can confirm this morning as we have been reporting over the last couple of hours it will be a range starting at 26 per cent. So, 26 to 28 per cent, this is by 2030. The difference with the United States with a similar range, but the US going to meet that target by 2025, five years earlier. If we just have a quick look at some of the other targets to get a sense of where this leaves Australia in terms of comparable developed nations, you can see Australia well behind. The only country which has less than Australia is committing to by 2030 is Japan, but of course its economy and energy supply has been dramatically affected by recent natural disasters in the last couple of years.
With me this morning to discuss this is Mark Butler a bit later in the program, the Shadow Climate Minister. First though, Labor frontbencher Matt Thistlethwaite and the Liberal Party’s Scott Ryan. Senator Ryan, first to you on this, this would leave Australia well behind the pack when it comes to the targets to take into Paris.
SCOTT RYAN
Let’s also put out track record out here, the important point is that Australia is one of the only, if not the only country, to have met all of the commitments it made in the last round. So, track record here is as important as aspirational targets and Australia’s record is one of meeting its commitments. I will take a commitment that is met over a commitment that is not met any day of the week. The details of this will be brought to the Coalition Party Room later this morning, and I think it is important to see all of the detail. However, what this is about is about balancing the competing interests of Australian households and particularly small businesses because every move we make down this path will have a cost. And, unlike the Labor Party, we are not going to put out targets that simply won’t be met without massive imposts in tax and costs on Australian households and that is what Labor is committing to do out of its national conference.
GILBERT
Ok Matt, you can respond to that in terms of the Labor Party approach, I know Mark Butler is saying that the conference commitment wasn’t a specific target but you can elaborate yourself on that but the point to make is what Senator Ryan is saying is true, that Australia has met the targets, or commitments, that it has made previously. Isn’t it better to have a credible target as opposed to one which is going to damage the economy if met?
MATT THISTLETHWAITE
The need for concerted action Kieran over recent years has become more urgent, that was something that was identified as long back as the… Review. They said that the longer that you take to take concerted action the higher the cost will be. The world is now getting to that tipping point, if we are going to meet a 2 degree warming scenario, more urgent action needs to be taken and the rest of the world has identified that, as you pointed out in your earlier graphic there Australia is well below the rest of the developed world if we are going to go with a commitment of 26 per cent. The Climate Institute say that that won’t, 26 per cent won’t get us to a 2 degree constraint on warmings. So, the Government will now need to demonstrate to the Australian people, and presumably by releasing the modelling associated with these numbers, how are you going to restrict warming to 2 degrees with a 26 per cent scenario. That is the problem I think they are going to have.
RYAN
Australia, if it had 100 per cent target couldn’t meet a global target that Matt has outlined there. We have got to put in context here what Australia’s percentage is, and it is below 2 per cent of global emissions. So, don’t mislead people to try and imply that somehow moving to your higher cost carbon tax is going to achieve some global target, it won’t.
GILBERT
Isn’t it about doing Australia’s share?
RYAN
Yes, exactly, and you know what we have done? Australia has done its share by meeting its commitments. Out of all the developed economies, Australia has met the commitments we have made in Kyoto one and by 2020. Targets that are credible and that have met are targets that deliver change. What Matt wants to talk about here is how he wants to do more but he doesn’t want to talk about the costs. And I will give some advice to Matt: stop chasing the Green vote at your left heel because they are not going to vote for you and care about Australian households and businesses because under your plan of a two hundred dollar carbon tax, there is not going to be any compensation for people on pensions, there is not going to be any tax cuts. But you don’t want to tell people honestly what the cost of your slogan…for the Green vote is…
(Interrupted)
GILBERT
I will get Labor’s response in a moment, but I do want to just drill down into the Government and its handling of this because it is the Government that is going to have to stump this up in Paris at the UN talks, are you worried that you will be laughed out of the room, given the other commitments that we have seen? Even Canada, Stephen Harper’s conservative government in Canada has a much stronger target than what Australia has given.
RYAN
Australia’s record is one of meeting its commitments and that will ensure that our target is treated with credibility. Because unlike all of the other nations who haven’t met their commitments, we have, that is the single most important determinant of the credibility of a target: have you met your previous promises. Now, no one else has done that to the extent that Australia has and that is our credibility going into Paris.
GILBERT
Alright, Matt?
THISTLETHWAITE
Well, Labor’s commitment is much more credible because under our proposal we will have an emissions trading scheme. It won’t be a carbon tax, it is not a carbon tax at all, it is an emissions trading scheme. All of the economists in Australia that are worth their salt have recognised that the cheapest and most efficient way to reduce emissions within an economy is through an emissions trading scheme by putting a cap on emissions and then allowing businesses to do what they do best, to trade and to make their own decisions about how they reduce their emissions. That is the best way to do it. Under the Government’s Direct Action Plan you are going to see taxpayers pay for the big polluting companies to hopefully reduce their emissions. And this is the other point about the 26 per cent scenario, the Climate Emissions Fund will run out of funding by 2020, so if you are going to improve the reduction in emissions beyond 2020 the Government hasn’t laid out a pathway about how they are going to do that, that is going to cost the economy more money. So, the argument that Scott raises about Labor’s plan being more expensive is a fallacy, ours will be cheaper and it will be more efficient.
GILBERT
Now, my understanding is that the Foreign Minister and Environment Minister as well as the Prime Minister had negotiations to nut out the final number on this right up until the last moments before yesterday’s Cabinet meeting. So, right up until the last stage negotiating on what this number should be. Has the Prime Minister been dragged kicking and screaming essentially to this figure?
RYAN
Firstly Kieran, I am not in Cabinet so I cannot comment on what happens there and if I was I still wouldn’t comment. The discussions about Cabinet Ministers, about what comes to Cabinet, that is the way the system is meant to work, it is meant to be a…
(Interrupted)
GILBERT
But if the Prime Minister does not believe this and if he has been dragged to a credible number…
(Interrupted)
RYAN
I think again, Kieran, I have said this before, and that this is the cynicism of this building jumping to a conclusion. The Cabinet process is meant to be iterative and deliberative and I would hope that the Minister’s involved would have discussions right up until the point that Cabinet makes a decision. That is the way it is supposed to work.
GILBERT
The point is though, is the Prime Minister a believer in this area, or is he being dragged to have some sort of credible target. And some are saying already that, the Climate Institute is saying that the target you have come up with is not credible.
RYAN
Well the Climate Institute will say that about anything the Government comes up with, it has got a long standing history of beating up on the Coalition. Again, we don’t get credit for the fact that we have achieved our targets, the only developed country in the world to have achieved its targets until 2020. I have not seen nor heard anything about the point you allege their Kieran, I think the Prime Minister will bring this Cabinet decision to the Party Room today, and I am sure the Coalition Party Room will endorse it.
GILBERT
It is not an allegation, just a statement of fact that they negotiated on this, and that Greg Hunt is clearly a supporter of action on climate change as is the Foreign Minister, but there are questions as to the Prime Minister’s, whether or not he actually thinks that this is a waste of time.
RYAN
Balancing competing interests is actually one of the key challenges of Cabinet, every time we move towards imposing higher costs. Despite what Matt says there, an ETS is a tax just with a floating charge, because if someone emits more than they promised to, the truth is the government charges them a tax, it is a floating tax…
(Interrupted)
THISTLETHWAITE
It is not a tax at all, because you can trade away your liability. There is a cap put on emissions, and a company does either one of two things: they install new technology to reduce their emissions or they buy a permit. If they do reduce their emissions they can trade that permit. Now, nowhere in the system if you have got a tax can you trade away your liability. You cannot trade away your liability of a tax, you can under an emissions trading scheme because it is not a tax.
RYAN
The effect of it is exactly the same; it is a forced tax with a floating price. Now, I understand that is your policy, it is not our policy, but balancing the various claims and commitments of government is actually what Cabinet is supposed to do, so I hope they were having these discussions right up until the last moments.
GILBERT
Given Labor is talking about buying international permits; this could be actually a much more affordable approach to this than the Government’s Direct Action Plan. Because if you are buying international permits at very low price right now across Europe and other certified permits, you can actually have a very low abatement…
(Interrupted)
THISTLETHWAITE
A cheap abatement.
RYAN
And there is also a lot of questions that remain about the international permit market, as well as the fact that I don’t think Australian taxpayers ever show a willingness to see hundreds of millions of dollars of their taxpayers money sent overseas for trading in permits where markets in some cases have been dubious at best.
GILBERT
Do you accept that the Labor Party is vulnerable once again on this issue given that your approach will inevitably lead to an additional cost for industry? That is the bottom line.
THISTLETHWAITE
The Government is going to run a scare campaign, we know that but at the end of the day what Labor is proposing is the cheapest most effective way to reduce emissions in our economy. All of the experts understand that, that is why Europe has moved to such a scheme that is why China, our largest trading partner is moving to such a scheme. Instead of us talking about potentially linking an Australian emissions trading scheme with a Chinese emissions trading scheme to create a carbon market, to create the expertise in research and development in renewable energy and the commercialisation and the investment of, the jobs that would be associated with that, the jobs of the future, we are instead talking about, under this Government, paying big polluters, using taxpayers money to pay big polluters in the hope that they will reduce their emissions over time. That is an inefficient scheme, it is an ineffective way to reduce emissions and as the Climate Institute has identified it won’t get us to the targets we need to meet.
GILBERT
Let’s finish up with a discussion on the new Speaker, yesterday Tony Smith off to a good start you would have to say, although Question Time will be the first test this afternoon, but you must have liked what you heard yesterday from Mr Smith?
THISTLETHWAITE
Well Tony’s commitment not to sit in Party Room meetings is welcome, and to consult with the Leaders of the respective parties on the conduct of the Parliament is something that is welcome. But at the end of the day Kieran, we have no confidence that the chaos and dysfunction of the Government is going to end, and at the end of the day Tony Smith does not sit in the Cabinet, he is not making decisions about hundred thousand dollar university degrees, about cuts to pensions, about cuts to health and education. That is the reason why the Government is in the mess that it is in, it has got no vision for Australia and we have been seeing that over the recent weeks.
GILBERT
And Scott Ryan, your fellow Victorian Tony Smith elevated to quite a senior role in the Parliament, he has got a big job ahead of him to try and improve the standards and be a less partisan Speaker than his predecessor.
RYAN
I will be careful because Members of the House don’t necessarily like Senators commenting on their Chamber. I’ve known Tony for…
(Interrupted)
THISTLETHWAITE
You were in their yesterday mate.
RYAN
I was, because I am really proud of my old friend Tony Smith. I think he will do a fantastic job. He respects the Parliament, he also respects the role of political parties, and I think we saw from his statement from the Chair yesterday his understanding of the challenges of the Speakership and also his commitment to making sure that he will deliver on what he promised his colleagues in the Parliament.
GILBERT
Even though he is a Carlton fan.
RYAN
That is his only flaw as a person, yeah.
GILBERT
Alright, with that we will leave it there. Matt Thistlethwaite and Scott Ryan, thank you. After the break, Mark Butler.
(ENDS)