http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.auRSS feeds for Malcolm Turnbull MP60http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/710/Copenhagen-and-an-ETS.aspx#Comments182http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=710http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=710&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/710/Copenhagen-and-an-ETS.aspxWell, Tim Flannery says he is "not dissatisfied" with the Copenhagen Accord and Kevin Rudd says the world has pulled back from an abyss of total failure at the conference. I have a couple of preliminary thoughts about the Copenhagen Accord. First, the fact that India and China agreed to taking action to reduce emissions and to be accountable for doing so is a major step forward. It is obvious that there can be no effective global effort without action by China (in particular) and India but until recently their negotiating position was that the developed world had a long way to go before they, with so many hundreds of millions still struggling to get out of abject poverty, had to act. Second, Copenhagen reminds us of the difficulty of getting agreements reached in just a few weeks with hundreds of nations in the room.  President George W Bush recognised this back in 2007 when he established the Major Economies process where the fifteen largest economies regularly met to see if they could hammer out a climate deal in advance of Copenhagen. These economies, which included Australia, represented, as I recall, 80% or more of global emissions. This process was continued under President Obama but clearly did not make enough progress. I suspect it, or something like it, will be revived. As we saw in the final formulation of the Copenhagen Accord the key players are the US and China. They represent half of global emissions, more or less, and without their taking effective action, accepted as such by each other, there will not be an effective global agreement. Having said that they are much closer to achieving this following Copenhagen than they have ever been. And that is a very good development. Third, Copenhagen was a victim of its own hype. The expectations, from both sides of the debate, of huge strides at Copenhagen were always unrealistic. My own view was that it would neither result in a new treaty nor collapse in total failure and that some form of political consensus would emerge. I had hoped we would see more substance in the outcome of the conference, but on balance I would agree with Tim Flannery and regard it as a useful step forward. I thought President Obama's summary of the accord was a sober and balanced one. The next question will be what should our response be to all this in Australia. Some people have argued that because a global agreement did not spring fully formed out of Copenhagen we should abandon the emissions trading scheme. Without going over ground covered in previous blogs, I support an ETS in the form previously originally agreed to by the Coalition with the Government because it offers us an efficient means of reducing our emissions in a way that is economically responsible and environmentally effective. The fact that we do not yet have a legally binding global agreement to cut emissions is not a bar. Indeed when we were in Government under John Howard's leadership our policy was to introduce an ETS in advance of and with a view to promoting as a long term goal a global agreement to cut emissions. I notice some people have suggested the Howard Government's commitment to an ETS was contingent on a global agreement. That is quite false. The Howard Government's ETS was based on a May 2007 report of the Task Group on Emissions Trading. A copy can be found here. and no doubt in other places on the web. It was chaired by Dr Peter Shergold the head of Prime Minister and Cabinet Department and other leading bureaucrats and business figures from all affected industries. The Report, which was adopted by the Howard Government, recommended that an ETS be set up in advance of a global agreement. It noted that, given our dependence on cheap fossil fuel fired energy, we should "proceed carefully in taking on emissions constraints ahead of concerted international action." But the Report went on to say: 'However, waiting until a truly global response emerges before imposing an emissions cap will place costs on Australia by increasing business uncertainty and delaying or losing investment. Already there is evidence that investment in key emissions- intensive industries and energy infrastructure is being deferred. "After careful consideration, the Task Group has concluded that Australia should not wait until a genuinely global agreement has been negotiated. It believes that there are benefits, which outweigh the costs, in an early adoption by Australia of an appropriate emissions constraint.....it would position us to contribute further to the development of a truly comprehensive international framework." In my view, the arguments which underpinned the ETS policy of the Howard Government are as compelling and persuasive today as they were in 2007. We are certainly a lot closer to an international agreement today than we were back in 2007 and the ETS, as amended following Ian MacFarlane's very successful  negotiations with Senator Wong , deserves support.malcolmSat, 19 Dec 2009 18:45:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:710http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/707/Reflections-on-the-season-and-modern-communications.aspx#Comments153http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=707http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=707&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/707/Reflections-on-the-season-and-modern-communications.aspxThe previous blog certainly generated a lot of comments - over 1100 at present count. And as expected they ranged widely from observing I was dead right, dead wrong, noble, vile, wonderful, dreadful etc. And quite a few in between. But it is for the most part healthy commentary. While you do have to have, or acquire, a thick skin to be in the political line of business, I remain surprised by the sheer nastiness of some communications I, and other poltiicians no doubt, do receive. Often when these come by email e.g "You are a filthy, [many expletives deleted] fascist bastard, I hope you die a miserable death in a gutter." I reply courteously only to get something like this "Oh, my God, I had no idea you read this stuff. Sorry, you aren't that bad and in fact my Aunt Ethel quite likes you...."  Sometimes several emails later the author of the venomous spray is offering to hand out how to vote forms for me at the next election. So why do people write really poisonous things to politicians in language so vicious and nasty they would never utter it to someone's face or probably wouldn't utter at all? Among the many Christmas cards I receive are a few which include really vicious sentiments handwritten eg "I hope you rot in hell you leftwing bastard." this around a typical printed Christmas greeting such as "May the Peace of Jesus fill your family with happiness" Now it is one thing to write a poisonous email filled with hate, but to handwrite sentiments like that on a Christmas card?? The only explanation I can find for this is that for some people writing vicious emails is a bit like letting of steam by standing under a railway bridge when a train is passing over and shouting out curses and profanities. (I haven't done this, but apparently it is therapeutic and nobody can hear you because of the noise.) Anyway, I digress. thank you all very much for your comments - even the snakey ones, hope they made you feel better - I will mull over this and other issues over the holidays when I take a much needed (if not much deserved) break. This is a very special time of year. In my electorate most of us will be celebrating Christmas, the birth of Christ and the hope of Peace and salvation from sin.  Our Jewish friends and neighbours here in Sydney's East are celebrating Channukah the festival of lights which celebrates the indomitability of the Jewish people and their refusal to be bullied into submission. Chag sameach. Chazak u baruch! Peace and strength good messages for us all and particularly, perhaps, for members of Parliament.    malcolmFri, 11 Dec 2009 20:03:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:707http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/145/Climate-Change-and-an-Emissions-Trading-Scheme.aspx#Comments4http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=145http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=145&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/145/Climate-Change-and-an-Emissions-Trading-Scheme.aspxUpdate; On December 1, 2009 the Liberal Party Room voted to replace me as Leader with Tony Abbott. The final margin was 42 votes to 41. This had the consequence of a major change in the Party's policy on climate change and the agreement to support the ETS with the amendments negotiated by Ian MacFarlane has been reneged on. That is a matter of considerable regret to me and I have spoken about that elsewhere on this site in a more recent FAQ, several Blogs and a Wentworth e-eletter. What follows below relates to the policy position of the Liberal Party during the time I was leader. Mr Abbott is yet to declare what the climate change policy of the Opposition will be but has indicated he will do so by February. There are varied opinions about the causes and consequences of climate change, but the majority of the scientific evidence supports the argument that our planet is warming, partly due to human-caused emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Prudence requires that we give the planet the benefit of the doubt and work to reduce emissions of these gases. Dealing with climate change is a complex challenge and involves a number of areas of policy: For information about the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) which will place a cap on Australia’s annual emissions of greenhouse gases, click here. For information about the Renewable Energy Target (RET) legislation passed in August, which over time will greatly increase the share of Australia’s energy generated from renewable sources, click here. For information about the Copenhagen climate change talks next month, read on below.   Copenhagen Treaty There has been a lot of recent commentary on a possible treaty which could be concluded at the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit in December. It is clear that no treaty will be concluded at Copenhagen itself, but the talks may result in a more general political agreement on a global response to climate change, and to further discussions that lead to a treaty at some later date. The Coalition has sought advice from the Government, which is engaged in the international climate change negotiations, on the status of the document which has been referred to by some commentators in the media as a ‘draft treaty’. This is a summary of the Government’s advice: Is there is a draft treaty on climate change on the UNFCCC website. No. The current negotiation texts on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) website are not a 'draft treaty'. While a handful of commentators such as Lord Monckton claim there is a draft treaty to establish 'a transnational government' and impose massive financial transfers from developed to developing countries, this is simply not correct. In reality there are a number of different negotiating texts. Many individual countries have made proposals, all of which are available on the UNFCCC website. These do not represent agreed text and none could be characterised as a 'draft treaty'. In May 2009 all the existing proposals were compiled into a single document to facilitate the negotiation of text. In June and August more proposals were added to this document. Nothing was removed. The result was a lengthy, unrefined and necessarily internally inconsistent document that included every proposal, no matter how unlikely to gain consensus. The 200 page negotiating text has since been split into 12 negotiations around shared vision, mitigation, adaptation, technology, finance, REDD, sectoral approaches, market mechanism, capacity building and so on. The 12 sections will be compiled into one document prior to Copenhagen. As noted, all texts are available on the UNFCCC website Is there a plan for ‘World Government’? No. Some have claimed a reference to 'government' in the text seeks to establish a world government. The reference is part of a Tuvalu proposal for a financial mechanism. The proposal is not agreed. The term 'government' simply refers to a governing group for the proposed financial mechanism. All countries need to be involved and decisions are made by consensus, meaning that any single country can veto any proposal, including that put forward by Tuvalu. In no way can the UNFCCC negotiations be characterised as proposing a world government. Is the negotiation text agreed? No. The negotiating text is a compilation of all proposals by all countries – a ‘wish-list’. Every proposal has been included even if only one country supports it. At Copenhagen, 193 countries must agree to the final text. Any one country can object and block a proposal. Is there an agreement to give developing countries money? No. Countries have universally acknowledged the importance of financial support for climate change action in developing countries. Countries are yet to settle on the scale and governance of any new finance arrangements.   Emissions Trading Scheme The Opposition has saved tens of thousands of Australian jobs, protected vital industries and secured energy supplies by forcing significant improvements to the Rudd Government’s flawed emissions trading scheme. The Shadow Cabinet and Joint Party Room have agreed to a package of changes to the CPRS that will provide proper support to key Australian export industries, including coal mining, food processing and natural gas. The package will protect farmers by permanently excluding agriculture from the scheme, whilst providing them with significant financial and land management opportunities by including agricultural offsets from 2010. Assistance to electricity generators will be more than doubled, ensuring electricity supply is not threatened. Furthermore, the Opposition has secured $1.1 billion in direct support to small and medium mining and manufacturing businesses to assist in their transition to the CPRS.  An additional $1 billion will be made available to businesses in other, less exposed, sectors. By including voluntary measures, the environment will benefit from households taking early action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The key changes that the Opposition has secured are outlined here.   Renewable Energy Target (RET) On August 19 a compromise was reached between the Government and the Coalition on a 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target (RET) for Australia by 2020. The agreement was a victory for common sense and the environment. The Coalition welcomes the Government’s flexibility in relation to our key concerns, which included: A full decoupling of the RET from the proposed ETS. Appropriate protection for key energy-intensive trade-exposed industries such as aluminium. Protection of existing investment and jobs in the coal mine waste methane power generation industry. Scope for industries which may be affected by the RET, such as food processing, to refer their treatment to the Productivity Commission. A tightening of regulations relating to RET eligibility for heat pumps. You can read more about this here.    malcolmTue, 08 Dec 2009 10:27:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:145http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/705/Celebrate-Summer-with-this-years-Summer-eCard.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=705http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=705&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/705/Celebrate-Summer-with-this-years-Summer-eCard.aspxThe Federal Member for Wentworth Malcolm Turnbull MP today announced the Summer e-Card is now live and awaiting submissions. After the outstanding success of last year’s Summer e-Card, Malcolm once again is collecting artworks from students and budding artists from across Australia to assist in building this year’s e-Card. This year, artworks can include any sort of traditional holiday theme, festive symbol or favourite summer scenes. They can be colourful paintings, drawings, photos or even videos.   “The Summer e-Card is a great way to dynamically showcase Australia’s artistic talent and of course, to celebrate our favourite season. We are hoping to include hundreds of artworks, so if you would like to contribute, all you have to do is simply upload your artwork to www.summerecard.com.au,” Malcolm said.   Once the image is uploaded and approved, the Summer e-Card can also be forwarded on to family and friends.   “This is an exciting and fun way for everyone, especially kids, to celebrate Summer. I strongly encourage everyone to make a contribution to showcase your favourite theme or spot for summer,” Malcolm said.malcolmTue, 08 Dec 2009 05:44:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:705http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/702/Time-for-some-straight-talking-on-climate-change.aspx#Comments1619http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=702http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=702&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/702/Time-for-some-straight-talking-on-climate-change.aspxWhile a shadow minister, Tony Abbott was never afraid of speaking bluntly in a manner that was at odds with Coalition policy. So as I am a humble backbencher I am sure he won't complain if I tell a few home truths about the farce that the Coalition's policy, or lack of policy, on climate change has descended into. First, let's get this straight. You cannot cut emissions without a cost. To replace dirty coal fired power stations with cleaner gas fired ones, or renewables like wind let alone nuclear power or even coal fired power with carbon capture and storage is all going to cost money. To get farmers to change the way they manage their land, or plant trees and vegetation all costs money. Somebody has to pay. So any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr Abbott, "bullshit." Moreover he knows it. The whole argument for an emissions trading scheme as opposed to cutting emissions via a carbon tax or simply by regulation is that it is cheaper - in other words, electricity prices will rise by less to achieve the same level of emission reductions. The term you will see used for this is "least cost abatement". It is not possible to criticise the new Coalition policy on climate change because it does not exist. Mr Abbott apparently knows what he is against, but not what he is for. Second, as we are being blunt, the fact is that Tony and the people who put him in his job do not want to do anything about climate change. They do not believe in human caused global warming. As Tony observed on one occasion "climate change is crap" or if you consider his mentor, Senator Minchin, the world is not warming, it's cooling and the climate change issue is part of a vast left wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the world. Now politics is about conviction and a commitment to carry out those convictions. The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is "crap" and you don't need to do anything about it. Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing. After all, as Nick Minchin observed, in his view the majority of the Party Room do not believe in human caused global warming at all. I disagree with that assessment, but many people in the community will be excused for thinking the leadership ballot proved him right. Remember Nick Minchin's defense of the Howard Government's ETS was that the Government was panicked by the polls and therefore didn't really mean it. Tony himself has, in just four or five months, publicly advocated the blocking of the ETS, the passing of the ETS, the amending of the ETS and, if the amendments were satisfactory, passing it, and now the blocking of it. His only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with "Mate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weather vane on this, but....." Third, there is a major issue of integrity at stake here and Liberals should reflect very deeply on it. We have an Opposition whose current leadership dismisses the Howard Government's ETS policy as being just a political ploy. We have an Opposition Leader who has in the space of a few months held every possible position on the issue, each one contradicting the position he expressed earlier. And finally we have an Opposition which negotiated amendments to the Rudd Government's ETS, then reached agreement on those amendments and then, a week later, reneged on the agreement. Many Liberals are rightly dismayed that on this vital issue of climate change we are not simply without a policy, without any prospect of having a credible policy but we are now open to the charge that we are also without integrity. We have given our opponents the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we cannot be trusted to keep our word or maintain a consistent position on the issue of climate change. Not that anyone would doubt it, but I will be voting for the ETS legislation when it returns in February and if my colleagues have any sense they will do so as well. If the legislation is passed, incorporating as it does the amendments Ian MacFarlane negotiated with Penny Wong, then the issue will be settled. It is manifestly in the national interest and in the interest of the Liberal Party that it be so.    malcolmSun, 06 Dec 2009 21:53:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:702http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/701/Wentworth-Summer-eLetter.aspx#Comments2http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=701http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=701&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/701/Wentworth-Summer-eLetter.aspxView my Summer eLetter here. Sent out on December 3 2009. If you would like to join the eLetter database, visit my contact page. malcolmThu, 03 Dec 2009 05:45:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:701http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/698/Is-there-a-costless-way-to-cut-emissions.aspx#Comments5http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=698http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=698&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/698/Is-there-a-costless-way-to-cut-emissions.aspx  On Tuesday 1 December, the Liberal Party abandoned its longstanding climate change policy involving the establishment of an emissions trading scheme (ETS). On Wednesday 2 December, the Senate voted to reject the ETS legislation and the new Leader Mr Tony Abbott said that he is now working on a new policy which, the media reports he says will involve cutting emissions but without any tax, ETS or increased electricity prices. Many people have asked: is this possible? Is there a costless way to cut emissions? While there are some energy efficiency measures which pay for themselves over the long term, the simple fact is that there is a cost of moving to a lower emission economy. That is because the cheapest form of generating energy in Australia is by burning fossil fuels which emit a lot of greenhouse gases. And the cheapest coal, brown coal, is the dirtiest. To give you an example; one of the major generators recently told us that their brown coal power station in Victoria produced 1.3 tonnes of CO2 per megawatt hour of electricity. A new combined cycle gas turbine generator produced 0.3 tonnes of CO2 per MW hour. So if you substitute wind, solar, nuclear or even gas for coal your electricity will result in less emissions but will cost more. However, by putting a price on those CO2 emissions the cleaner, less emissions intensive forms of generation become more competitive because they have a lower carbon price to pay.    Similarly with the great opportunities for CO2 abatement by increasing green carbon or agricultural offsets, there is a cost. If a farmer is to plant trees as a carbon sink or change his land management to raise soil carbon levels, somebody is going to have to reward him or her for doing so.  By the same token, an Indonesian farmer is not going to protect the rainforest if there is money to be made by cutting it down and no reward for leaving it as it is, let alone replanting it. Now whether these carbon abatement techniques are driven by an ETS, a tax, regulation or by massive government subsidies they all have a cost and we will have to pay for it. The reason an ETS is the preferred approach around the world (and indeed was the policy of the Howard Government) is because it is more efficient and offers the lowest cost abatement. So if we rule out an ETS or a tax what are we left with? We could pass regulations to require power stations to clean up their act or use more renewable energy (that is what the Renewable Energy Target does now). This increases the cost of power and so electricity prices go up. We could pass regulations to make farmers plant more trees and change the way they manage their land. That increases the cost of food and fibre. How do we address these price rises? Well if you dont want to pass them on to consumers, presumably a Government would  raise taxes so that either subsidies can be paid to generators to offset their increased costs or compensation paid to households for the higher electricity prices. Whichever way you look at it, going green is going to cost money and the challenge for any alternative policies to an ETS is to demonstrate that it will deliver lower cost abatement. In other words there is no point cutting emissions by regulation if the cost to the economy is greater than by using an ETS. While I look forward to what emerges from the the new policy development efforts, I note in passing that many of us would find it incongruous if a free enterprise party, the Liberal Party, abandoned a market based means of pricing carbon and reducing emissions and replaced it with heavy Government regulation and the increased bureaucracy to administer it. Without traversing any further the last, very difficult few weeks I do want to pay a special tribute to my colleague Ian MacFarlane who handled the negotiations with Labor’s Senator Penny Wong, the result of which saw the Government making very substantial concessions which on any view gave us the bulk of what we were seeking to achieve in the amendments we had presented to the Government on the 18th of October. The concessions made secured tens of thousands of jobs by providing protection for workers in the Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed Industries (EITEIs), protected and provided new opportunities for agriculture as well as securing electricity supply.malcolmThu, 03 Dec 2009 02:49:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:698http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/697/Senate-Rejects-ETS.aspx#Comments244http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=697http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=697&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/697/Senate-Rejects-ETS.aspxToday the Senate rejected, for the second time, the Government's emissions trading scheme legislation. This is a very disappointing result, contrary to the national interest and the interest of the Liberal Party. Australia needs to get on with the business of cutting its greenhouse gas emissions. We recognised that in Government and started legislating for an ETS. As Mr Howard has observed, the Rudd Government's ETS is very similar to the one we, as Liberals, took to the last election. We had a number of objections to the legislation and back in October the Party Room approved us proposing amendments to the Government which were, in large measure, accepted by the Government. The Party Room last week accepted the Shadow Cabinet's recommendation that an agreement be reached between the Opposition and Government to pass the amended bill. These amendments would have protected thousands of jobs and ensured Australia's ETS was more environmentally effective. For more on that agreement click here. Since then of course there has been both a change of Leader of the Opposition and a decision to renege on the agreement with the Government. Hence the rejection of the legislation. I set out my arguments for supporting the amended legislation last Thursday night and the transcript of that press conference is here.    malcolmWed, 02 Dec 2009 02:13:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:697http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/696/Doorstop-Interview-Canberra.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=696http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=696&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/696/Doorstop-Interview-Canberra.aspxSubjects:  ETS E&OE MALCOLM TURNBULL: Now it is manifestly in the national interest that the emissions trading scheme legislation currently in the Senate is passed. It is improved – it is Mr Rudd’s legislation, but it is improved as a result of amendments agreed to between the Government and the Opposition. Those were amendments which were taken to the Government with the authority of the Coalition party room and negotiated over five weeks in good faith between Ian Macfarlane and Senator Wong. They protect thousands of jobs and vital interests, in particular the interests of farmers and provide great opportunities for reducing CO2 emissions through agricultural offsets. So the package as it stands is worthy of support and it is the Coalition’s policy that it be supported. Any questions? QUESTION: Did Mr Hockey tell you this morning that he intends to challenge you tomorrow? MALCOLM TURNBULL: You can ask Mr Hockey about his intentions. I can only tell you about my intention. I will standing tomorrow. I am the leader and I will be standing tomorrow. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull yesterday you were willing to say that you had Mr Hockey’s support. Why are you not willing to say that having met with him now? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well why are you not willing to ask me the question first? It is a long time since I was a reporter at Channel Nine. I tell you what Tim, I will help you out. The question is: when Mr Hockey came to see you today did he say you had his support? That’s the question. Well you ask it. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull do you have the support of Mr Hockey….. MALCOLM TURNBULL: No you have got to ask me: did Mr Hockey tell me I had his support? QUESTION: Okay did Mr Hockey tell you that he is supporting you in tomorrow’s leadership ballot? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah he is definitely, he told me he would support me tomorrow in the spill. If there is a spill moved – well there will be a spill moved – he told me that he’d vote against a spill. QUESTION: And if the spill is successful will he stand against you? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well that is a matter for him. If the leadership is vacant, anyone can run. You have got to ask him. QUESTION: What did he tell you about his intentions though in that scenario? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well you should ask Mr Hockey that because he will give you reliable first hand testimony. QUESTION: Would you consider that he’d be free of any obligation to you, to be loyal to you if there is a spill that declares it vacant, would you consider that would release any obligation he had had to you? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look I will leave all of those metaphysial questions you can address to Mr Hockey. QUESTION: We have tried to address those questions to Mr Hockey and he is just having a coffee and getting a bit of fresh air so if you could enlighten us it would make our jobs a lot easier. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I have many heavy duties as Leader of the Opposition – holding the Government to account, improving the emissions trading scheme – but making your life easier is not one of the highest priorities so I think you should speak to Mr Hockey yourself. QUESTION: Are you surprised at the level of difficulty you’re having in getting the party, the Liberal Party to embrace your position on the ETS? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well let me just say this to you: the Liberal Party has embraced my position, which is the shadow cabinet’s position, on the emissions trading scheme. Let’s just go through the chronology. I just want to get this straight with you. On the 18th of October, the Coalition party room overwhelmingly endorsed the recommendation of the shadow cabinet that a set of amendments be taken to the Government, a set of amendments which was an offer that if the Government would meet them or meet them to our satisfaction, we would pass the legislation. Last week the Government came back with its response which did not meet all our requests obviously, but met them substantially. The Government made substantial concessions and many of you reported those concessions as being a great win for the Coalition. Indeed, the Government has been criticised for giving up too much. There was a Coalition party room meeting which approved the recommendation of the shadow cabinet that an agreement in effect between us and the Government be arrived at. There was some criticism of that, as you know, from some quarters and there was a spill motion moved against my leadership the next day which was defeated. So within 36 hours of that, there has been, because the people that were unsuccessful in overturning my leadership on Wednesday were unhappy with the fact that they did not have the numbers, they are now seeking to do it again. QUESTION: What do you think about the way Mr Hockey is conducting himself now? As a senior member of your front bench he would have us think that he is not doing anything to destabilise your position, that he is standing back and that if the party wants to draft him, then he will be willing to be drafted. What’s your view? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I am not going to run a commentary on Mr Hockey. I will leave that to you, Mark. QUESTION: Do you believe you have the numbers to see off the spill motion yesterday and should that… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Tomorrow. QUESTION: Tomorrow... see off the spill motion tomorrow and, should that motion be successful, do you believe you have the numbers to maintain your leadership? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yes and yes. QUESTION: Does Mr Hockey support your stand on the ETS? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah, absolutely. Joe is on the record regularly, frequently, in multimedia forms supporting the position of the shadow cabinet. Look there is… QUESTION: Did he reaffirm that support today? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look, I am not going to go into the conversation I had with Mr Hockey but, as far as I am aware, he hasn’t changed his mind. Look, it is manifestly in the national interest for Australia to take action to cut its CO2 emissions. This is not a novel proposition. It was the policy of the Howard Government. An emissions trading scheme was the policy of the Howard Government – John Howard’s government not Kevin Rudd’s government. The first legislation to set up an emissions trading scheme was introduced by me as John Howard’s environment minister. We took that policy to the last election. Now a well-designed emissions-trading scheme is a very effective means of reducing emissions, CO2 emissions. We had objections to elements in the Government’s scheme. We addressed them in our amendments, and they met, I have to say, most of our concerns. I think Ian Macfarlane did an outstanding job in his negotiations. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, one of your backbenchers said that you were worse than Mark Latham in your efforts yesterday on the Nine Network in your interview. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well look, I’ll leave that to you to run the commentaries. QUESTION: [Inaudible] some of the language that you used in that interview? MALCOLM TURNBULL: What particular bits of language did you object to? QUESTION: Intimidating bullies who are wrecking the party… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well look, I have to say to you, the Liberal Party has to be a party of today and tomorrow. If it is going to be a relevant, credible political organisation, it has to be a progressive political movement. It has to be one that has credible policies on vital matters of public importance, and there are few issues of more importance than the challenge of climate change. Now the fact is you cannot be a policy-free zone on climate change and be credible, and you all know that, the Australian people know that, and that’s the point I have made again and again. Now we have the opportunity to settle this issue of the emissions trading scheme in a manner which achieves significant gains for jobs and for the interest that we are particularly concerned about, agriculture especially. We have the opportunity to do that by passing the legislation that is currently in the Senate. I’ll just take two more questions then we’ll go. Matt Franklin first – what was your question, Matt? QUESTION: Isn’t it possible, your critics say, that you are very narrowly defining this – that you could oppose the CPRS, this system, and that doesn’t mean that you have a do-nothing policy on climate change? Isn’t that the case? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well you could certainly have another policy, but what is that other policy? So that’s the question. Look, there are many ways you can reduce CO2 emissions. The general view around the world is that an emissions trading scheme, a cap-and-trade scheme, is the most efficient way of doing it. You can of course have a carbon tax.  You can raise income taxes and give enormous bonuses to people who have low emissions forms of energy generation.  You can have a renewable energy target – we have one of those.  You can have regulations.  There’s a whole host of measures you can have, but the fact is that moving from a high CO2 emission intensive economy to a lower emission intensive economy is costly – it has a cost – and the question is what is the least costly way of doing it? And the view that we took in government, the view that the Europeans have taken, the Americans are taking, the New Zealanders for that matter are taking, I mean right around the world, is that there are benefits from trade and so having that trading element is advantageous.  So that’s the reason for it and it’s set out, you know the arguments for an ETS versus a carbon tax etc are well canvassed in Peter Shergold’s report which was published when we were in government or Ross Garnaut’s report which was published under the current government. QUESTION: Who initiated this morning’s meeting, was it you or Mr Hockey? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Joe came around to see me but Joe and I have talked – we actually had a meeting on the weekend which amazingly didn’t find its way into the press because neither participant rang up a journalist beforehand.  So Joe and I are very good friends as I think you all know.  We talk a lot.  We have very similar views on most issues and we’re very good friends.  Our families are very close so he’s a very good friend of mine, he’s a good man. There’s one more question.  You sir, the man from Brisbane, The Courier Mail. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, the fight within the Liberal Party, is this just about the ETS or is it about something broader do you think? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, look, I think it is primarily a policy issue.  I know it’s easy to turn this into an issue about personalities, but it is primarily I think a policy issue.  The real difficulty that we face I think as a party is that the Australian people overwhelmingly – overwhelmingly – expect their political leaders to take action on climate change. Now everyone has different views about what’s the best form of action and no doubt everyone could design their own perfect emissions trading scheme, but you’ve got to get on with it.  Now this debate has been going on for years and years and years.  And we had a proposal for a scheme when we were in government, as John Howard has said.  Kevin Rudd’s scheme is very similar to John Howard’s scheme.  We had some criticisms of it, some objections to it if you like.  We addressed them in our amendments and some very major concessions were made. And that was approved by the shadow cabinet, by the party room.  There were some objections to that as you know.  There was another party room meeting with a spill.  That spill was defeated. The reality is the bill that is currently before the Senate has the support of both the Government and the Opposition. Now obviously if the Opposition party room or the Liberal party room were to change its mind on that the Government would be able to say that we’d broken our word – they would.  And they would say that and, I’m afraid to say, they’d be right. Thanks very much. [ends]malcolmMon, 30 Nov 2009 00:40:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:696http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/695/Doorstop-Interview-Rose-Bay.aspx#Comments1http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=695http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=695&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/695/Doorstop-Interview-Rose-Bay.aspx  Subjects: ETS.   E&OE   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well next week is an important week in the history of the Liberal Party. We have the opportunity to honour the agreement we entered into with the Government – and we should do so. It was an agreement to pass the emissions trading scheme which has been amended at our request with very substantial concessions made by the Government which will protect tens of thousands of jobs. They were negotiated over a period of five weeks by Ian Macfarlane and Senator Wong. They will make the scheme more environmentally effective. So it will do a better job at cutting emissions and also it will protect, as I said, tens of thousands of jobs.   I recognise there are many people, particularly in my party, who do not believe that climate change is real and naturally do not see the need to do much about it. I respect their views and that of other climate change sceptics. But the fact is we should approach this issue from a risk management basis. Conservative leaders, centre-right leaders from around the world do that. I am not aware of any major political party in the world that has a do nothing approach to climate change, that has a policy of climate change denial.   Margaret Thatcher herself, back in 1990, nearly 20 years ago, said we should take action to cut greenhouse gas emissions as a matter of “risk management”, and of course, as Rupert Murdoch so famously said, “we should give the planet the benefit of the doubt.”   Because what we are talking about here is not just an issue of today, this is an issue for today, tomorrow and the years to come. It is about protecting our planet, protecting the future of our children and their children. It is a vital challenge for all Australians and everybody sharing this planet with us. We should move on. We have got a good agreement with the Government. We should honour it.   QUESTION:   Will you be leading your party to that decision though?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   I certainly will be.   QUESTION:   How do you know?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well I was reindorsed as the leader of the Liberal Party on Wednesday. It wasn’t very long ago. Now I recognise there are some people who are unhappy with the decision of the majority of the party room and immediately started to undermine it. But I respect the wishes of the party room. The party room overwhelmingly endorsed us taking our proposed amendments to the Government back in October. They endorsed the agreement that we had reached with the Government – the shadow cabinet recommended it – and then when those who were unhappy with that decision sought to overturn my leadership, we went back to the party room and they were beaten again. And now of course, unhappy with the decision of the majority, they want to have another go.   But at some point this undermining has got to stop. We have to be a party with a credible policy on climate change. We have to be a party that people will say is a party of integrity and integrity means that when you reach an agreement you stick to it.   QUESTION:   The LNP today in Queensland has got a motion before it to change the Coalition’s position on climate change. Is that a mistake?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well I don’t know what the motion is and the LNP is a branch or a division of the Liberal Party and in a way a division of the National Party as well. It is an amalgam, but they are free to pass what resolutions they wish. But the fact is policy is decided by the parliamentary party. That is the practice. We certainly take advice from and listen carefully to the views of the party organisation but the party policy is determined by the party room.   QUESTION:   Do you believe you are loosing support from key members in the party, have you had phone calls, have you been tapped on the shoulder this morning?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Certainly not.   QUESTION:   Joe Hockey today [inaudible] and refused to say that he supported you, does he support you?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   He certainly does. Joe Hockey has again and again and again endorsed the policy that I stand for and the shadow cabinet stands for. Joe Hockey is on the record more times than you could mention supporting this agreement, supporting the decision of shadow cabinet. He spoke strongly for it in the shadow cabinet. He and I have been absolutely at one on this. I cannot imagine Joe Hockey would allow himself to be a mouth piece for the climate change sceptics. That would be a denial of everything he has stood for, for many years.   QUESTION:   It is not as big as the Labor Party’s split, but I can’t recall a bigger split in the Liberal Party. Is this the lowest ebb?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well I will leave you to run the commentary. We have obviously got to unite. It is quite clear what we should do. We should honour our agreement with the Government. The emissions trading scheme should be passed with the amendments we secured. Remember this scheme we criticised, we put up amendments, the Government agreed to much of what we’d asked for, they made concessions that many thought were much greater than they’d expected. It was initially written up as a huge win the Coalition and I think it was. We should pass that scheme, the Senate should pass that scheme and then, having got that issue behind us, we should then focus on unity and working together and holding the Labor Government to account.   QUESTION:   How far away does your dream of being Australia’s next Prime Minister feel right now?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   I’ll leave you to speculate on that sort of introspective. Are there anymore substantive questions?   QUESTION:   What’s your message to your detractors?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well I have just given that message. My message to all members of the Liberal Party and indeed all Australians is that we have a duty to our country, to our planet, to our children to take effective action on climate change. I respect the views of those who believe we don’t need to. You know I respect Senator Minchin when he says that he does not believe the planet is warming, that he does not believe in human induced climate change. I respect his view, he is entitled to that view, but it is not responsible to proceed on the basis that there is nothing to be concerned about.   This is a risk management exercise. I mean I hope none of us imagine our house is going to be hit by lightening tonight but I am sure we have all got insurance. This is, as Margaret Thatcher said nearly 20 years ago, a question of taking out insurance, of risk management.   QUESTION:   The Government is pretty frustrated with how things have gone in the past week. Do you appreciate that considering you did cut a deal?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well I can readily understand the Government’s frustration because there was an agreement reached and the negotiations were conducted in good faith. The Government made very substantial concessions and they did so on the basis that if agreement could be reached the legislation would be passed. That was the agreement.   Now what does it say about the character of the Liberal Party if having entered into an agreement we were to simply say, ‘oh we have changed our mind, we are going to renege on that deal’. How could you trust us? We have to be a party of integrity and that means when you make a deal, when you reach an agreement, you stick to it.   QUESTION:   Kevin Rudd is the big winner out of this week is he not?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Again, you can run the commentary. If the legislation is passed Australia will be a big winner, the world will be a big winner. It is important that we get on and take effective action. We have been talking about this for many years. Remember the first legislation to establish an emissions trading scheme was introduced in to the House of Representatives by me as John Howard’s environment minister. It was our policy. We were committed to an emissions trading scheme and while we have criticised aspects of the design of Mr Rudd’s scheme, and of course sought to remedy them with the amendments we presented, John Howard himself said that Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme is similar to the one he had and took to the 2007 election.   QUESTION:   What will you do if you are beaten on Tuesday, will you stay in Parliament?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   I will win. I will be confirmed as leader. Let’s just remember this, we had a vote in the party room on Wednesday, that is not very long ago, just a few days ago – an attempt to overturn my leadership and it was unsuccessful. I was confirmed as the Leader of the Liberal Party and I am confident that my colleagues will maintain their support for me, but it is of course up to them. The leadership of the Liberal Party, as every leader has said, from Menzies to Howard to me, everybody has said the same thing – the leadership is in the gift of the party room, to grant and withdraw as they wish.   QUESTION:   On that point how tight are the numbers, do you have any sense of what they are like?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   I’m not going to speculate on that. I am confident that the position of leader will not be changed on Tuesday morning.   QUESTION:   It seems pretty unrealistic at this stage though?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Any other questions? Okay, thank you.     [ends]  malcolmSat, 28 Nov 2009 06:54:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:695http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/694/Press-Conference-Canberra.aspx#Comments1http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=694http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=694&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/694/Press-Conference-Canberra.aspxE&OE MALCOLM TURNBULL: Now I think we all recognise that most Australians expect their political leaders and their political parties to take effective action on climate change. This is about the future of our planet and the future of our children and their children. It is one of the great challenges of our time. Now I know there are many people, including many people who are supporters of my own party, who have doubts about the science and grave reservations about it. I understand that and I respect it. But as Margaret Thatcher said, right back nearly 20 years ago in 1990, this is about risk management. Or as Rupert Murdoch said, we have to give the planet the benefit of the doubt. Matt Franklin smiles, from The Australian. He is very pleased when I quote his boss. But the fact is we have to take a prudent approach to this. Saying that we are not going to do anything about climate change is irresponsible, and no credible, responsible political party can have a ‘no action on climate change’ policy. It is as simple as that. Now the Liberal party room meeting here, Coalition party room in fact, meeting here and, of course, the shadow cabinet asked Ian Macfarlane and I to negotiate a package with the Government, to take amendments approved by the party room to improve the Government’s emissions trading scheme. And we did that with the full, the overwhelming authority in fact, of the Coalition party room. And it was a set of amendments that were designed to make the scheme more environmentally effective and to save tens of thousands of jobs. We achieved enormous concessions from the Government and indeed when they were announced many of you wrote it up as an enormous win for the Coalition. Many of you were surprised that the Government made such big concessions as they did, and those concessions, those improvements will save tens of thousands of jobs and, in addition, make the scheme more environmentally effective. Then the shadow cabinet endorsed that deal, the party room endorsed that deal. Now this has now become a question not simply of the environmental responsibility of the Liberal Party but of its integrity. We agreed with the Government on this deal. We must retain our credibility of taking action on climate change. We cannot be seen as a party of climate sceptics, of do nothings on climate change. That is absolutely fatal. And we also must be seen as men and women of our word. We entered into a bargain. There was offer and there was acceptance. Now I know, and I just repeat this, this is a difficult issue for many Liberals, many Australians. But I repeat most people who doubt the science also know that it makes sense to take out insurance, to manage the risk, to give the planet the benefit of the doubt. Now at the moment, as you know, some of my colleagues have found it necessary to resign from ministerial positions so they can cross the floor on the issue. That is their right and I respect it. But I believe we must maintain this course of action. It is the responsible thing to do. It is the honourable thing to do. Australians expect their political leaders to act responsibly, to take action on climate change, to protect and safeguard the future of our planet, the future of our children. That is the challenge for us now and I am committed to it. We must be a party committed to action on climate change. Anything else is irresponsible. Any questions? QUESTION: Will you commit yourself to the leadership of the party? Will you stand and do you intend to remain the leader of the Liberal Party? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I am the leader of the Liberal Party and I was confirmed as such little more than 24 hours ago in this very room. QUESTION: Are you prepared to face a new ballot if these frontbenchers who have resigned and gone to the backbench chose to try to trigger one? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well the fact is that people can move a spill… it is not often that people move a spill motion within a few days of one already being resolved but if people wish to move a spill motion it is a matter for them. QUESTION: Do you think you have the numbers over Tony Abbott, Mr Turnbull? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I have no doubt that the party room will make the right decision. But let me just say this – it is not a question, I know you guys love getting into the personalities and the numbers and it is terrific fun. Can I tell you something? I came here to make Australia a better place. I came here because of my commitment to political action to make Australia a better place for my children and your children to grow up in. And one of those issues is action on climate change, just as the historic reforms we achieved in the Howard Government on water policy and water management were part of that agenda. I am committed to real reform. I am committed to real environmental action. So you guys write about the numbers. I am focused on the policy. I am focused on our children’s future. QUESTION: It would be unprecedented, would it not, for a leader to face such a series of front bench resignations? Do you seriously think that you can continue to lead the Liberal Party under those circumstances? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I am very serious about everything I do. Yes, Dennis. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, at issue here is the numbers not of the leadership but of that Coalition room... Many of your colleagues dispute your call as a majority and say that they did not endorse it, that it was evenly split. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Dennis, I think I said this yesterday or the day before. There was a clear, albeit a slender majority in the joint party room in favour of the shadow cabinet’s recommendation – that included the Nationals. Now the Nationals on this issue don’t regard themselves as bound by the views of the joint party room as we know. There was a very substantial majority in the Liberal party room and I think, as many of my colleagues have said, and they’re right, it was very similar to the numbers in the ballot yesterday. QUESTION: What’s the position in the Senate Mr Turnbull, will you need a new Senate Leader and Deputy Leader? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I’ve met with Nick Minchin. As you know, he has conveyed to me his offer to resign and that of his deputy Eric Abetz and the Opposition whip Senator Parry. They have undertaken to continue to fulfil their positions in the Senate until the rising of the Senate – that is to say until we finish for the year. Nick has given me a solemn undertaking not to frustrate the passage of the legislation and he will use, he has assured me, his best endeavours to see that it goes through its final, to its final committee stage by I think 3.45pm on Friday. He has said that if there is a motion to defer the legislation he would vote for it and he would vote against the bill, assuming that wasn’t carried and it then came back to the House, passed in the House, went back to the Senate he would then vote against it. So he is, well I don’t think any of us had any doubt about this position. QUESTION: Does that then leave the numbers in the Senate to carry the bill? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well look the position is that there are certainly more than enough Coalition senators who have supported the shadow cabinet’s recommendation for the bill to be carried but, you know, the party made a decision, it was if you like confirmed yesterday in the ballot here over the spill, but you know there are obviously some people who don’t agree with it. But can I just say to you, if where we are heading is for an election on the issue of should Australia take action on climate change or not, and if the Coalition is on the take no action side then it will be a catastrophe for us – and that is perfectly clear. We cannot be a responsible or credible political party unless we are committed to taking responsible action on climate change. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull is sounds from there as if you are not absolutely certain yourself tonight, standing here that the ETS in its amended form will pass? MALCOLM TURNBULL: No I am confident it will pass. There has been no change to the decision of the party. We had a meeting in the party room here earlier in the week which endorsed the shadow cabinet’s recommendation and as you know there was a spill motion moved to spill the leadership and that was soundly defeated. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull what do you think it says about your leadership authority and the powers [inaudible] that so many of your backbench but also now these senior frontbenchers have not accepted your argument and your right as leader to tell the party what you think it should do? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well there was a vote in the party room yesterday. It was 48–35, supporting my leadership. QUESTION: But you have to admit things have changed Mr Turnbull since then? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Nothing has changed as far as the leadership is concerned. My leadership was confirmed only yesterday but it is, as John Howard used to say, always something in the gift of the party room and on that… QUESTION: So you wouldn’t call this a crisis of your leadership? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I’d love to award a prize for somebody that asks a question that isn’t inviting me to comment on myself. QUESTION: Have you accepted the resignations, how many have been offered to you and when and will you conduct a reshuffle? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we have to have a reshuffle anyway because a number of people are not recontesting the election and so forth. What I am going to do is assess all of that after the Parliament rises and I will let you know in due course and on that note have a great night. [ends]  malcolmThu, 26 Nov 2009 10:48:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:694http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/693/Address-at-White-Ribbon-Day-Launch-Swear-the-Oath.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=693http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=693&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/693/Address-at-White-Ribbon-Day-Launch-Swear-the-Oath.aspx Thank you very much General Gillespie and Mick and all the White Ribbon Ambassadors. Prime Minister and all my parliamentary colleagues, including my Deputy Leader and the Shadow Minister for Women, Sophie Mirabella.   I am very pleased to be here today to support the White Ribbon Foundation on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. This is one of those causes that unites all political parties, where we rise above politics and join together to send a common message to all Australians that we will not commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women. Violence and abuse of women and children in any form is totally unacceptable. Now this cause is one that I have been passionate about all my life. I have seen men who have committed violence against women go without opprobrium in society.   We have to recognise there is no privacy in violence. People who want to characterise violence against women as just a private matter or a domestic matter – it is not, it is a crime and we have to stamp it out. We need to provide, we men have to provide a positive example of respect to women. The way we deal with our wives and as fathers with the other women in our lives is an example to our children, and in particular to our sons. We have to remember that exposing children to domestic violence is in itself a form of child abuse.   Now as the White Ribbon Foundation’s Report “An Assault on Our Future” reminds us, domestic violence has a clear and negative impact on children’s lives, including their behavioural, cognitive and emotional functioning and social development. Sadly almost 60 per cent of all women who had experienced violence by a current partner reported they had children in their care at some time during that relationship.   But this is not just a statistic. We have to stand up. We men in leadership roles particularly, but all men and say no we do not accept it. We will not turn a blind eye to it. We must never say this is none of our business, it is a private matter. I cannot tell you how important that is. There is nothing private about violence. Violence against women is a crime and it must be stamped out.   Now we must empower women in dealing with violent situations to ensure our children have the best chance possible of developing their own stable and fulfilling relationships and friendships, free from violence and assault. And I am happy to see the current Government is working towards action in this area which carries on from the legacy of the former Coalition Government, something I am pleased the Prime Minister acknowledged in his speech last month to the White Tie Dinner for the White Ribbon Foundation. Because the cost of violence runs into the billions but the personal cost is countless. The cost to our children, to our families, to our society in general is infinite. It has to be stamped out. And that’s why today I will swear this oath and encourage all men here to do so because by taking personal responsibility we can prevent violence against women.   So let me say this to you all now: “I, Malcolm Bligh Turnbull pledge not to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women. I will actively challenge attitudes and behaviours which encourage or condone violence against women. I will engage in respectful relationships with women within all areas of my life and I aspire to be an exemplary role model to other men within the community in relation to eliminating violence against women. This is my oath.”   Thank you very much.   [ends] malcolmWed, 25 Nov 2009 07:24:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:693http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/692/Interview-with-Kieran-Gilbert-Sky-News.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=692http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=692&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/692/Interview-with-Kieran-Gilbert-Sky-News.aspxSubjects: Rudd Government’s policy failures; ETS – Securing Jobs and Reducing Costs. E&OE……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. KIERAN GILBERT: Mr Turnbull, thanks for joining us. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Kieran, good to see you. KIERAN GILBERT: Yeah, you too. You’ve won the vote. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yes. KIERAN GILBERT: Are you confident that this will be enough to move forward without any sort of challenge into the future? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well look we have spent a lot of time talking about ourselves and the public aren’t interested in that. They want us to get on and hold the Government to account for its many failures in policy, border protection being probably the most graphic and immediate here at the moment. But the failure to manage our economy, the incredible wasteful spending on the so-called Building the Education Revolution, the failure to do proper analysis on infrastructure spending – right across the board, Kevin Rudd has failed to deliver. Where is the great plan to save our hospitals? This guy said he was going to fix the public hospitals by 30 June or take them over. He has done none of those things. So we have got to hold him to account for all of those issues. KIERAN GILBERT: But 35 is a large number for a leader to move ahead with. Were you humbled by that result and will you change your ways to a degree? MALCOLM TURNBULL: We recognise that we have had a very, very tough process and these things can get a bit scratchy and I am sure even somebody as quiet and unassuming as myself can improve. We have all got to work on our interpersonal skills. But the reality is we have had a wide range of views and I respect all of the views of my colleagues that have been raised and some of them diametrically different from mine. But as a political party we have got to come to a decision. We have got to move forward. We have achieved enormous progress for jobs in Australia with these amendments that the Government has accepted to their scheme, which will save tens of thousands of jobs. Now that is the Coalition’s work. All of those opportunities for Australian farmers that come about from exempting direct emissions from agriculture and including agricultural offsets – all of that is the Coalition’s work. So we have done great work there in improving the scheme, but it is Mr Rudd’s scheme and we will hold him to account for the management of it. But the bottom line is, Kieran, that we have got to focus on the Government, hold them to account and present our own alternative policies. KIERAN GILBERT: There is a sense, though, that this vote wasn’t just about the ETS, that it was about you and that there is animosity towards you among some of your colleagues. How will you deal with that? MALCOLM TURNBULL: We had a very heated debate that had gone over some weeks and you guys reported on it, and it was a heated debate and strong feelings were held which is very fair enough. These are big issues. But the debate has been resolved now and what we have got to do is reunite, come together and move forward and hold the Government to account. And now on that note, I had better go to Question Time. KIERAN GILBERT: Thanks for joining us. Thanks Mr Turnbull. All the best. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Okay. See you. [ends]malcolmWed, 25 Nov 2009 04:26:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:692http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/690/Interview-with-Melissa-Doyle-and-David-Koch-Channel-Seven-Sunrise-Program.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=690http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=690&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/690/Interview-with-Melissa-Doyle-and-David-Koch-Channel-Seven-Sunrise-Program.aspxSubjects: ETS: Securing Jobs and Reducing Costs. E&OE MELISSA DOYLE: Mr Turnbull joins us now.  Good morning to you.  Thanks for your time. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Good morning, Mel, good morning, Kochie. MELISSA DOYLE: Now, why wait until Thursday?  You’ve got a shadow cabinet meeting at eight o’clock this morning, why not bring in the whole party room and call a leadership spill then? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we had, as you just said, we had about eight hours of meetings yesterday and there were many occasions, in fact I invited those who disagreed with my leadership to move to a spill if they wanted, as indeed did others.  So the reality is there was no move to do so.  There were plenty of opportunities yesterday and it wasn't taken up. Now the fact of the matter is I am the leader. I have made the call. There is a majority of the Coalition in favour of accepting the deal the Government has offered to us, which is the result of our offer to them, our amendments to them, and they will save tens of thousands of jobs and they will make the emissions trading scheme both more responsible economically and better and more effective environmentally. Look, Mel, Kochie, I say this to you and all your viewers; we have to be a credible party on climate change. We have to be credible. You know I believe passionately that Australia should take action responsibly on climate change and if the public see us as being credible and responsible on climate change then we can win their confidence. If we don't, we won't. DAVID KOCH: Absolutely, but they see a party divided at the moment.  You just look at the front pages all around the country this morning.  The West Australian calls it a ‘Liberal revolt’.  The Australian says it’s ‘your last stand’.  Commentator Michelle Grattan writing in the Melbourne Age says it’s time for Joe Hockey to take over.  Now both Joe and Tony Abbott have both ruled out a challenge.  Kevin Andrews is still an unknown.  So you’ve got a party split. You get criticised for being too weak.  Now you are being criticised for being too strong. How can you continue to lead a party that is so divided? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well you’ve got to really ask yourself, how can a party be credible in the 21st century if it doesn’t have a policy on climate change? How can we be credible if we are not going to say to the Australian people - we are committed to taking effective action on climate change? We did that when we were in government. Sure, we didn't ratify the Kyoto Protocol, that was a mistake, but we had an emissions trading scheme. We started legislating for it. We had a whole range of other measures. Now the fact is that what we’ve got now is an emissions trading scheme courtesy of Kevin Rudd which John Howard himself said was very similar to the one he proposed when he was in government. We had a number of objections to it in terms of its design. We addressed that with amendments that had been proved by the party room. We had good faith negotiations which went on for five weeks. We got most of what we asked for.  I think everyone acknowledges that.  And closing that deal enables us to resolve that issue. But, you see, if we want to keep on arguing about whether climate change is happening or whether you need to do anything about it, the reality is – and you guys know this better than anyone - the Australian people want action on climate change. I am committed to the Liberal Party being credible and relevant on climate change. MELISSA DOYLE: But then you’ve also got a lot of confusion in the community between the public voters who are split.  Many believe you, many are saying they’re quite sceptical. Now we are seeing your party, the same sort of open defiance – they’re either for or completely against and calling you mad, etc, etc.  So how do you convince your party to accept the deal?  How do you convince voters that this is the way to go when we’re seeing so much open defiance, I guess, from you guys? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, look, we’ve got to come to a landing now.  There are some people who say we should just defer it again, not deal with it now.  The public will see through that as just a delaying tactic.  The reality is this issue has been actively debated for years, for years and years; from actually 2006 when the Shergold report reported.  So we’ve had plenty of time to debate this.  It’s about time we dealt with it. Now, as far as the public is concerned, I mean I think you guys have done some polls yourself but there is an overwhelming majority of the public want to see Australia take action on climate change.  There will always be debates about how you do it but at some point you’ve got to make a decision.  You can’t keep on deferring and deferring particularly when what you’re really doing is just avoiding making a decision. DAVID KOCH: Why do it now when we’ve got…why not delay until February which was an option because Copenhagen is next month?  We’re going to see what the world is going to do about it.  The United States hasn’t made a decision yet, China hasn’t made a decision.  Why do we have to be amongst the leaders?  We might get it wrong. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Kochie you’ve got to remember that we crossed that bridge when we were in government.  We decided that we would have an emissions trading scheme to put a price on carbon to enable renewable energy and all those other measures to come into play. You do need a price on carbon.  And we decided we’d do that in advance of and in order to promote a global agreement but we’d keep the price low and slow and then crank it up as other countries came on board. Now we’re not the first country to move.  The Europeans have been doing this for years.  The Americans are well advanced.  They’ve got a bill that’s through the House of Representatives.  The President is completely committed to it.  The Chinese are actually taking considerable action to reduce their emissions and improve their emissions efficiency.   So the idea that we’re out there miles ahead of the pack is simply not true. Now the fact is that nothing is going to emerge out of Copenhagen that is going to change anybody’s mind.  There’s not going to be an agreement there. All the countries have basically said what they’re going to do.  I think it will be, Copenhagen will be a modest step forward.  And the debate that we have had in our party room between people who believe in action on climate change and people who don’t will be exactly the same in February as it is today.  This is a good time to move on, get it resolved and then move on to other issues. MELISSA DOYLE: This whole thing though, it’s almost as though the leadership and your party has taken over a little bit of the argument about climate change at the moment and as Kochie was saying the headlines and all the papers everywhere.  Andrew Robb, his change in view clearly floored you from looking at your reaction.  I understand that one of the reasons he spoke out against you yesterday was because you showed exclusive Frontier Economics research to the Government before your own party room.  Did you? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, again, that’s not right.  I mean Frontier did a report for us which we shared with the whole world.  As an effort to get additional…as an effort to persuade the Government to take this particular approach I commissioned Frontier to do some more modelling really as an effort to persuade the Government. Now we weren’t successful in that respect but the whole purpose of Frontier was to have a smoother transition of electricity prices so they didn’t jump up in one big hit, and so smooth that trajectory.  And the Government came back and dealt with it in a different way with a subsidy for small and medium businesses that would effectively smooth that transition. But I just say this apropos Andrew.  Andrew has been very ill so he stepped back, as you know, but he was very closely kept aware of all of the negotiations.  His staff in particular were intimately involved and were at most of the meetings, so he knew exactly where the negotiations were heading and really was, even if at one step removed because we didn’t want to hassle him given his condition, he was fully aware of where we were heading.  So, yes, his remarks yesterday did come as a surprise to Ian Macfarlane and I. DAVID KOCH: I must admit, I’m a bit bored with all the politics of this emissions trading scheme.  MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, that’s right, you know something Kochie, I think most Australians are.  The question is, are we going to take climate change seriously or not? DAVID KOCH: Okay, that’s question number one.  Question number two – you’re agreeing because you got big changes through that gave concessions to the big polluters to the detriment of all of us ordinary individuals.  We have research out today that says everybody sitting at home having breakfast, what this scheme means is that you will pay $1,100 more a year out of your household budget for this.  Now, have you sold the general public out in favour of the big polluters? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Kochie, again, there’s a bit of a fallacy there because the big ‘polluters’ are the same power stations that provide the electricity that’s running the television sets that we’re all watching, or if you’re a green activist, the electricity that’s coming into the computer that you type your protest letter on is coming from a big power station. What we’ve got to do – it’s not a question of looking after big polluters, it’s a question of making sure that we make the transition from a very emissions intensive economy today… DAVID KOCH: We wanted to change from coal to windmills and solar panels… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yes but you’ve got to make that transition, Kochie, in a way that doesn’t destroy needlessly, or at all, tens of thousands of jobs.  So it’s also a question of protecting our emissions intensive trade exposed industries.  Now you talk about the rest of the world.  One of the concessions we won from the Government was that the protection for the emissions intensive trade exposed industries – these are the guys, you know, like aluminium, that are making a product that is sold in the global markets, it’s got a global price, it’s very energy intensive, hence it’s emissions intensive – and they can’t pass on the price increases because they’re selling a global commodity.  So what we’ve secured is a commitment from the Government that their protection, in the case of aluminium, would come down by 2020 I think about 91 per cent, still a very high level but then would not go down any further until 70 per cent of their competitors around the world have a comparable carbon price. DAVID KOCH: Okay but we’re spending more on protecting big polluters and less on cushioning low income households, pensioners, normal Australian families aren’t we? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well there is a lot of money and this is one of the criticisms of the Frontier model by the way, that there was not provision for household assistance.  So that is one of the issues that we had with that but as far as the Government’s scheme, there is a, I think, an adequate and fair and sustainable level of assistance for households.  It is somewhat less than had originally been proposed by the Government because the carbon price is assumed to be lower. But the fact of the matter is Kochie, again, you’ve got to remember we talk about assistance to households.  Many of those households have mums and dads who are working in emissions intensive trade exposed industries.  So if you have a scheme that puts the mums and the dads out of work it’s not much good either. DAVID KOCH: Yeah, fair point. MELISSA DOYLE: Malcolm Turnbull, thank you for your time this morning.  We know you’ve got a big day ahead. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah, great to be with you. MELISSA DOYLE: You’ve got a meeting in half an hour, we’ll let you go. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Okay, thanks a lot. [ends]malcolmTue, 24 Nov 2009 23:27:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:690http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/688/Press-Conference-Canberra.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=688http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=688&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/688/Press-Conference-Canberra.aspxSubjects:  ETS – Saving Jobs and Reducing Costs. E&OE MALCOLM TURNBULL: The Opposition has today saved tens of thousands of Australian jobs, protected vital industries and secured energy supplies by forcing significant, substantial improvements to the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme. Now the shadow cabinet and the party room have agreed to a package of changes to the CPRS that was negotiated by Macca here after five arduous weeks of negotiations in good faith, and they will provide substantial support to key Australian export industries, including coal mining, food processing and natural gas. It will protect farmers permanently by excluding direct emissions from agriculture from the scheme, by legislation – so that can only be changed by a future Parliament – while providing them with very very substantial financial and land management opportunities – biosequestration, green carbon opportunities – by including agricultural offsets from 2010. And this is good for the environment – as many of you now it’s somewhat of a passion of mine. It’s good for the environment, it’s good for farmers, and it offers us one of the best – many of the Wentworth Group would say the largest – near-term opportunity for CO2 abatement. We have ensured the security of energy supply, which was put at risk by the very poorly designed Rudd Government scheme, by doubling the assistance to the electricity generators, and of course providing a mechanism, a safety net if you like, to ensure that energy supply will be maintained. We’ve secured $1.1 billion in direct support to small and medium businesses in the mining and manufacturing areas, predominantly, to assist in their transition to the CPRS.  And there will be an additional $1 billion made available to businesses in other, less trade exposed, sectors. And of course we have included, or the Government’s agreed at our request, to include voluntary measures, to ensure that the environment benefits from households taking early action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What this demonstrates is our commitment, our genuine and sincere commitment to action on climate change. We are committed to an emissions trading scheme, as we were in government, that will be environmentally effective and economically responsible, and these amendments will enable us to do both.  Any questions? QUESTION: Mr Turnbull how can you say the party room is committed to it when the final vote as I hear it was forty-seven, forty-six. That’s a finely balanced number. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well the party room is committed. I’m the leader. I’ve made the call. QUESTION: Are you a dead man walking Mr Turnbull? MALCOLM TURNBULL: You’ve got to do better than that.  Yes, Matt? QUESTION: How about this then… Wilson Tuckey says he’s writing a letter tonight to trigger a spill. Is this outcome going to be achieved at the loss of your job? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well look I’m not interested in Wilson Tuckey either in his correspondence or in whatever he’s been saying to you. He’s made a contribution here; we sat with him all day. He made a contribution all day, and we listened to it, we’ve heard it many times. The only jobs we’re focused on, Julie, Ian and I, are the jobs of the tens of thousands of Australians that have been protected as a result of these changes.   QUESTION: Mr Turnbull do you accept that a majority of people today spoke against supporting the ETS? That there were more people speaking against than in favour? MALCOLM TURNBULL: No look, Steve, I’m not going to go into the numbers with you, and you’ll get no doubt various tallies, but there is no question…. QUESTION: What’s your tally? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I’m not going to go into that. I’m the leader. I’ve made the call. There is no question that a majority of the party and indeed of the joint party room support the recommendation, the very strong recommendation of the Shadow Cabinet to accept the offer that came back to us from the Government in response to the negotiations that Ian had conducted.    QUESTION: Will your Senate leader now pursue the party room’s will as discerned by you the leader in the Senate? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I have no doubt that he will. QUESTION: Some of your colleagues still don’t accept that it was a majority and are still very unhappy. What do you say to those people who are still agitating and disputing what you’ve just said? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look, I’m the leader, and  if people are unhappy with the leader they can do whatever, take whatever steps that they deem appropriate. But I am the leader and I have made the call. Let me just be quite clear about this: we entered into these negotiations with the Government with the overwhelming endorsement of the party room. In those negotiations we achieved substantially our objectives – 75 per cent, 80 per cent, you guys all wrote about it, it was a very substantial concession from the Government. It was an excellent job by Mr Macfarlane here and we are very pleased with him, aren’t we Jules? He did a great job. But the fact is that having got that offer in good faith, having made that approach to them in good faith, having got that response, we’ve accepted it. QUESTION: [inaudible] that Mr Macfarlane’s predecessor Andrew Robb was going to do what he did today? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I am not going to comment on that. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, the emissions trading scheme now becomes your policy as well, that’s what you’re saying. Do you undertake not to make any changes to it and what is your climate change policy… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Hang on, again, you are smarter than that. QUESTION: No I’m not. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Okay, alright. I hope you got him. Alright, you’re not as smart as I thought. Let me answer your question. The emissions trading scheme will no doubt be amended in the light of experience and developments by this government and indeed by us when we return to government but you have got to remember we went to the last election when an emissions trading scheme and, as John Howard himself said, Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme is similar to ours. Now it is similar but it is not the same. It is different, and there are a number of flaws in it, some very substantial flaws in it, that we identified publicly. The treatment of agriculture and offsets being one I have gone on at great length – I don’t think any of you have got to the end of some of my speeches on that topic. It is pretty detailed stuff. But the point is we have pointed out substantial criticisms. We took a set of amendments, with the blessing of the party room, and we achieved substantial concessions. In some areas, such as agriculture, they gave us everything we asked for. In other areas, they gave us nearly everything we asked for. We would have liked to have done better but we did pretty well as I think you all know. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, how did you get to the calculation that you have a majority in the party room? Did you count the votes of the Shadow Cabinet separately and did people dispute that that’s how it should have been tottered up? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look, Lenore… QUESTION: But isn’t that what they’re arguing about? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Lenore, you obviously spend a lot of time talking to my colleagues and that is terrific. I envy you. But the fact of the matter is I am the leader, there is a majority, clearly a majority in favour of the position that the Shadow Cabinet recommended and I have made the call and we will proceed with it. QUESTION: I am asking how you counted the majority. MALCOLM TURNBULL: The Shadow Cabinet are members of the party so… QUESTION: Warren Truss said he doesn’t agree. He’s in Shadow Cabinet. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well the Nationals have always said they are not going to vote for it. There is no surprise about that. QUESTION: So you excluded the Nationals when you decided, when you made the call as leader? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Dennis, this is the last thing I will say about the numbers. The Nationals have always said they will vote against it, right. They have been saying that for a long time. They were part of the joint party room meeting.  The collective, the numbers, Nationals and Liberals, altogether there is a majority in favour of the shadow cabinet’s position.  That is the fact and that is my call.  And that includes the Nationals even though I don’t think they obviously, as you know, don’t consider themselves bound by that decision and always made it clear they wouldn’t be. QUESTION: If that’s a fact that there’s a majority clearly in favour, why not simply put it to a vote. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we don’t do that Misha.  The only votes in the party room are leadership ballots and you don’t put policy matters to the vote.   I’ll take two more.  You are just so excited there.  Maybe it’s just sitting next to Malcolm Farr that gets you so excited.   QUESTION: Are you confident that there will be a vote on the ETS this week and that it will be in favour [inaudible]? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, yes.  The Senate will have to sit longer hours obviously to facilitate that but clearly the Government made the offer to us on the basis that it would be passed this year and that’s certainly what we expect the Senate to do. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, do you believe you’re capable of healing the divisions within your party any time before that Senate vote? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, we’ll just have to do the best we can. QUESTION: Miss Bishop, do you support Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership come what may? JULIE BISHOP: There was a discussion in the shadow cabinet this morning and the shadow cabinet supported the leader’s call on this.  There was a party room and the party room supported the leader’s call on it. And I support the leader. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, you made the call on your authority as leader, do you think that the senators, the Liberal senators and National senators will now recognise your authority and vote for it in the Senate? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Dennis they certainly should. QUESTION: Are you confident that the Coalition will stay together?   MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yes, yes, absolutely.  Any more questions? QUESTION: When are your drinks going to be held? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Don’t tell me in my absence you didn’t drink?  Honestly, as a former journalist I’m appalled. QUESTION: …you can’t guarantee that when this goes to the Senate that your senators will vote for the Government’s…this deal that you’ve come up with. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look, you know as well as I do, some of the senators have said that regardless of what the party room decided they would cross the floor, but I am confident that enough senators will comply with the wishes of the shadow cabinet in the party room that the legislation will be passed. QUESTION: If you had your time over again in handling these negotiations and the internal sales campaign would you do anything differently? MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, not all.  Let me be quite clear about this.  Every single one of you, and I think most Australians know, that I am serious about taking effective action on climate change.  An overwhelming majority of Australians expect their governments to do that.   Now I did not have an argument with the Government about the existence of climate change or whether they should take action.  My issue was the design of their emissions trading scheme.  And of course the first legislation to establish an emissions trading scheme had been moved in the Howard Government period while I was the environment minister.  So we’re very familiar with it, the three of us are – Macca perhaps now more than any of us, with all of this.  Ian was the energy minister in those days.  So we’re all involved in this, right.   But the question is getting the design right and there were some major flaws there.  We addressed them with some very responsible, well thought out amendments.  The Government responded.  We didn’t get everything we asked for naturally, one rarely does, but they made some very, very substantial concessions, as I think many of you have already written, which will save tens of thousands of jobs and, in particular, because of the agricultural offsets, enable us to achieve better environmental outcomes.  So it’s good for jobs, it’s good for the environment.   But it’s Labor’s scheme.  It is Labor’s scheme.  If Julie and Ian and I were in government the scheme would be somewhat differently designed but we’re working with the design they have, we’ve made some detailed amendments, they have responded in a way that we have resolved to accept those amendments.  I think that is a good outcome, a good outcome for jobs in particular.  I mean the changes on jobs that Ian secured, changes for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries will literally save tens of thousands of jobs.  I think you all know that. QUESTION: Why then are there so many recalcitrants in your party room and is that not more a statement about your leadership? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look, I’ll leave you to comment on that, Steve.   Just one more, Hugh. QUESTION: Assuming all this goes through, how will you feel when Kevin Rudd flies off to Copenhagen to swan around as a global climate change hero and when all the kudos that goes with that, when he’s essentially done it only thanks to the support you’ve been able to deliver, how [inaudible]? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Can I tell you Hugh, this may come as shock to you, but I hope Copenhagen is a great outcome and I hope that we get – you’re obviously going to get a global agreement there, but that’s obvious – but I hope we take some steps forward to a global agreement. And just remember the policy of the previous government, John Howard’s policy, was to have an emissions trading scheme designed to be established in advance of and in order to promote a global agreement. Ultimately we all know, you know we can all do the math right, Australia is one and a half per cent of global emissions. It doesn’t matter how much we do, if the rest of the world does nothing it’s not going to achieve anything. Having said that, if we sit back and say we’re going to do absolutely nothing until everybody else acts and everyone else does that, then nothing happens. So we took the view in government that we should provide leadership, move forward, not get too far ahead of the pack, and that was the right decision then and you know we believe that that would be the right decision with this government. Now the fact is Kevin Rudd will no doubt want a grandstand, he likes that, he will… I mean Ian and I represented Australia at these international climate conferences and it is amazing, I don’t think Kevin Rudd’s estimation of his influence is quite up to the reality. But anyway the most important thing is to get a good outcome. I mean the reality is a global agreement is vital, Copenhagen hopefully will be a positive step along the road, but it is not going to be the last word on the subject. [ends]  malcolmTue, 24 Nov 2009 11:46:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:688http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/447/People-Smuggling.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=447http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=447&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/447/People-Smuggling.aspxLabor’s Failure The Rudd Government is failing the Australian people in one of the most fundamental responsibilities of any sovereign government - to secure and protect our borders. Labor’s softening of our laws has undermined the strength and integrity of Australia’s border protection policies, placed the lives of numerous people at risk and out-sourced Australia’s generous humanitarian immigration program to people-smugglers. The weakened policies have resulted in thousands of asylum seekers falling victim to people smugglers and making perilous ocean journeys in often unseaworthy vessels. This increased people smuggling activity is placing extraordinary pressure on our defence forces, police and customs officers. Since the Rudd Government weakened Australia’s border protection polices in August last year, we have seen a dramatic increase in unauthorised boat arrivals - 54 boats carrying more than 2400 people (as at 24 November 2009). The Coalition has warned for some time that people smugglers will use the Rudd Government’s changes to our laws and policies as a marketing tool.  The Australian Federal Police, the Indonesian Ambassador to Australia, the UNHCR Regional Representative, the New Zealand Immigration Minister, the Sri Lankan Ambassador to the United Nations, asylum seekers themselves and even people smugglers are all on the record claiming that Australia is now a soft target as a result of Labor’s policy changes. The Oceanic Viking The Prime Minister has not been honest with the Australian people about the special deal offered to entice the asylum seekers to disembark the Oceanic Viking in Indonesia. For weeks, Mr Rudd repeatedly claimed that no special deal was offered, but the facts speak otherwise, and a broad range of commentators have condemned the Prime Minister for his dishonesty about the preferential treatment offered to the Oceanic Viking asylum seekers. By offering this special deal, the Prime Minister has sent a clear message to people smugglers and asylum seekers that if you hold the Australian Government to ransom, you will get what you want. This serves to further weaken our borders and will again boost the marketing by people smugglers across the region. Our Position In the past, the Coalition has taken the tough decisions to stop the boats. This was not always popular but it worked. And throughout, we continued to accept a generous intake of refugees through the normal orderly processes. On 13 November, I restated the core principles of our border protection policy. Further information is available here. Only a Turnbull Government can stop the boats and secure our borders. A Compassionate and Fair Approach. The only fair and humane approach is to stop the boats coming and end the people smuggling trade. By keeping our borders secure, we not only maintain security, but also help to retain public support for Australia’s large immigration program, which includes over 13,000 refugees every year. Every asylum seeker arriving courtesy of the people smugglers pushes other deserving people further back in the queue, extending their wait to be processed through the proper channels. The Coalition will continue to hold the Government to account on border protection.   malcolmTue, 24 Nov 2009 11:38:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:447http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/687/ETS-Saving-Jobs-and-Reducing-Costs.aspx#Comments7http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=687http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=687&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/687/ETS-Saving-Jobs-and-Reducing-Costs.aspxThe Opposition has today saved tens of thousands of Australian jobs, protected vital industries and secured energy supplies by forcing significant improvements to the Rudd Government’s flawed emissions trading scheme. The Shadow Cabinet and Joint Party Room have agreed to a package of changes to the CPRS that will provide proper support to key Australian export industries, including coal mining, food processing and natural gas. The package will protect farmers by permanently excluding agriculture from the scheme, whilst providing them with significant financial and land management opportunities by including agricultural offsets from 2010. Assistance to electricity generators will be more than doubled, ensuring electricity supply is not threatened. Furthermore, the Opposition has secured $1.1 billion in direct support to small and medium mining and manufacturing businesses to assist in their transition to the CPRS.  An additional $1 billion will be made available to businesses in other, less exposed, sectors. By including voluntary measures, the environment will benefit from households taking early action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The key changes that the Opposition has secured are outlined below. Trade Exposed Industries Assistance for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries (EITE) will now continue at a higher rate than previously after 2014-2015. There will be an independent Expert Advisory Committee review in 2014-15 to assess international action on carbon price. Assistance to EITEs will not be lowered further until at least 70 per cent of relevant international industry competitors also face a carbon price. A $610 million package for the Liquid Natural Gas industry will ensure all announced projects in this fast-growing Australian industry receive at least 50 per cent effective assistance.  This will protect investment in this source of cleaner energy. Food processing The Opposition has secured $150 million in targeted assistance for food processors, and in particular abattoirs and the dairy and malt industries. Agriculture Agricultural emissions will be permanently excluded from the CPRS.  The sector will be able to earn offsets for emissions abatement from 2010 via a voluntary scheme and offsets will be included in the CPRS after 2012. The Opposition has also secured $50 million for research and development on green carbon opportunities such as biochar and soil carbon. Coal Assistance to the coal industry has been doubled to $1.5 billion, comprising transitional assistance of $1.23 billion over 5 years to the most gassy coal mines and $270 million of matched funding for coal mine abatement projects.  This will ensure jobs are protected in Australia’s largest export industry. Small and Medium Businesses The Opposition has secured $1.1 billion in transition assistance to reduce the impact of the CPRS on electricity prices paid by potentially trade-exposed manufacturing and mining businesses that do not qualify for other transitional assistance.  There is a separate funding stream of up to $1 billion available to other businesses for investments in more energy-efficient equipment. Support for Electricity Generators The Coalition has secured an increase from $3.3 billion to $7.3 billion in assistance to electricity generators. This will address loss of generator asset value and provide energy security for the community.  Generators will also be able to buy permits in future years and defer 90 per cent of payment during the first 3 years of the scheme, helping their working capital. Given the written advice received from relevant energy market regulators, the Coalition is confident that the substantial changes to generator assistance negotiated with the Government will ensure the continued security of Australia’s electricity supply in the period where the CPRS is introduced. Voluntary Action Voluntary action by households will be taken into account. There will be a voluntary carbon market from 2010. Household Assistance and Budget Impact   The Coalition believes household compensation is at a sustainable level, and is fair, reasonable and sufficient compensation. The net fiscal impact of all of the above changes is to add approximately $0.8 billion over the period 2011-2020. The Opposition set out to save thousands of Australian jobs and limit increases in electricity prices for small businesses and household. These goals have been achieved – significantly improving Kevin Rudd’s flawed CPRS and delivering the same environmental benefits with less severe economic costs.  malcolmTue, 24 Nov 2009 11:15:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:687http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/686/Joint-Doorstop-with-Paul-Fletcher-Sydney.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=686http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=686&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/686/Joint-Doorstop-with-Paul-Fletcher-Sydney.aspxSubjects: Bradfield by-election; emissions trading. E&OE MALCOLM TURNBULL: We've just seen today what a great candidate the Bradfield Liberals have selected in Paul Fletcher. That was a  really great speech, high impact and had the room applauding and laughing and very committed. This is a great campaign and it's got two weeks to go and we're right behind Paul to ensure that he is the next member for Bradfield. QUESTION: Can you juxtapose this event for us against the backdrop of you under ETS pressure negotiations?  You get to come to a launch with the Liberal Party balloons and some of the Liberal royal family, as you say.  Is it a welcome relief? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look, I'm relaxed and comfortable and full of confidence and really so pleased that the Bradfield Liberal Party selected Paul. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, what do you expect the Government to offer tomorrow regarding the ETS? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I know this has disappointed you but I'm going to stick to my discipline of not providing a running commentary on the negotiations. They have been proceeding in good faith, they have been proceeding constructively but we will not know what the outcome is until we get to the end of them. And then when we do, for our part, and the Government finalises the best position it's able to offer us in response to our demands, then we will form a view on how we vote. QUESTION: For your colleagues without that sort of discipline, would you confirm reports that you might consider frontbench sackings in the wake of this? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I am just going to be continually...I will just continue to disappoint you in that regard I'm afraid. QUESTION: Are you disappointed with Nick Minchin and do you find his comments this week destructive to the party? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I just refer to my previous answer which I know you find disappointing but persistence is a virtue in journalists. When I was a political journalist I was just as persistent as you. But I will be tenacious in resisting the charm of your questions and the enticement to provide a commentary. I'm not going to do it. QUESTION: What have you said to those that have given until tomorrow to… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Another one, another one. Look, sorry, I'm not providing a running commentary. We're having good faith negotiations and when they are concluded we'll know where we are and we will then make a decision. Okay, I'll give you something, there you go - you ready? We are focused on the Liberal Party’s part, on the Coalition's party, we are focused on jobs, on preserving thousands of jobs. Our amendments seek to preserve tens of thousands of Australian jobs and to enable an emissions trading scheme to be much more effective, in other words to enable us to cut our emissions much more effectively and at much lower cost. So that is our goal. Now, whether we're able to achieve that will depend on the Government's reaction and we won't know finally what that is until the negotiations are concluded. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull and Mr Fletcher, you’re sounding confident about the upcoming by-election. We’ve got a few things, table cloth ballot paper, 22 candidates – Paul’s sixteenth on the ballot paper.  How concerned are you about these factors working against the Liberal Party? PAUL FLETCHER: Well we're certainly running a strong and effective campaign here in Bradfield. We've been campaigning for a long time, and the Liberal Party and as the Liberal Party’s candidate, we're offering a full-service party. We're not a single-issue party. We're addressing the concerns of the people of Bradfield on the full range of issues that concern them - local planning issues, local transport issues, health issues, economic management, the Labor Party's attack on private health insurance, the Labor Party's attack on the capacity of people in Bradfield and other areas to build up their superannuation balances. And this by-election will be won by the candidate who demonstrates that he or she is listening to the concerns of the people of Bradfield and will form part of a parliamentary party and, in due course, government which has the capacity to respond to the issues of the people of Bradfield across the full range of issues. And so therefore while we do have a large number of candidates, I'm confident that's the right approach to be taking. QUESTION: Aren't you worried that the Liberal Party's internal divisions will set you back in this by-election? PAUL FLETCHER: I am focused on delivering outcomes for the people of Bradfield. When I talk to people, when I go door-knocking, on the railway station platforms, in the shopping centres, people talk to me about issues of concern to them. They don't talk about arcane political issues. They talk about the issues of concern, as they bring up a family, as they seek to build up their superannuation balances for retirement, as they seek to have fulfilling lives. And so those are the issues that in the Liberal Party we are focused on addressing and that is what our campaign in Bradfield is about. QUESTION: What's the internal polling saying about performance in Bradfield, much of a swing for, against? PAUL FLETCHER: What we're focused on is delivering outcomes for the people of Bradfield, not getting into arcane issues of polling. And as you would know, Andrew, we would never ever comment on those issues. QUESTION: Well what's your view on the ETS? PAUL FLETCHER: I have consistently said that I'm a strong supporter of Malcolm Turnbull and the parliamentary party in engaging constructively on the ETS but, as Malcolm has said, it's a matter for the party room and the response post a process of negotiation. A process of negotiation is just that, and you have to wait and see what the outcome of the negotiation is. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, you’ve talked about Mr Fletcher’s expertise in the communications area.  Is the position of Opposition communications spokesman going to be vacant soon? MALCOLM TURNBULL: All of the positions are filled at the moment by very able people. And Paul will bring a lot of talent to the Parliament and we can always do with new talent, fresh talent, and he will be a great addition. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, are your dissenters spreading rumours of a reshuffle? MALCOLM TURNBULL: You guys are great. Look, it's your job, you are paid handsomely by your media companies to write all this speculation so I encourage you to write as much as you like but I'm not going to add to it. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, do you think that your leadership can survive these negotiations within your party? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I'm sure that my good humour and patience will survive you asking the same question in different forms, and me giving you the same answer. QUESTION: Do you think Tony Abbott has leadership ambitions? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look, I'm sorry, running a commentary on this stuff is for you. It's not for me. My job is to focus on protecting tens of thousands of Australian jobs and ensuring that we have an emissions trading scheme which is environmentally effective. That's my commitment. That's why we're engaged in these amendments and, as Paul said and as I have said, we won't know what the outcome of their negotiations is until the negotiations are concluded. And it's getting very close to conclusion and then when they are concluded then we will respond. QUESTION: Malcolm, we all agree that debate’s healthy but surely the longer it drags on, the more damaging it is. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look, again, this is all stuff for you guys to write. This is your job. You're the commentator, I'm the participant.  So I don’t write… QUESTION: ...[inaudible]… MALCOLM TURNBULL: You can write whatever reviews you like about us and speculation is up to you but I'm focused on thousands of jobs and ensuring that we have an emissions trading scheme, in so far as I can - we're not in government - but in so far as we can, ensuring that we have a scheme that is environmentally effective and economically responsible. That’s what I'm seeking to do. That's what Ian Macfarlane and I are seeking to do in our negotiations. We will not know what the outcome of those negotiations is until they are concluded. When they are we will then form a view as to how we respond. Okay, thanks a lot. [ends]  malcolmSat, 21 Nov 2009 01:36:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:686http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/685/Opening-of-Liberal-House-Queanbeyan-NSW.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=685http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=685&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/685/Opening-of-Liberal-House-Queanbeyan-NSW.aspxE&OE Stephen Beer, President of the FEC, Senator Bill Heffernan, the patron senator, my parliamentary colleagues – there’s Alby and Gary Humphries and Connie Fierravanti-Wells. Any other of our parliamentary team here? Bronwyn, there you are. Good to see you. And Chris Back, Senator Chris Back. There’s a lot of support. Senator Trood, Russell Trood, that’s good. Any others of our team? Good, right, we’ve got them all. Now thank you all for being here and above all thank you very much to the people of Eden-Monaro, of Queanbeyan, for being here supporting Bill and all of us in opening this office. There was a time when Eden-Monaro was represented by a man who had a deep commitment to this community and worked tirelessly for the people of this community, and he is here today. His name is Gary Nairn. Eden-Monaro does not have a representative like that any more, but that will change. We will endorse in due course a candidate that will carry Gary’s values forward of commitment above all to the local community, because all politics is local and the best representatives, whether they are arguing cases at the national level or dealing with local constituency matters, have their feet firmly planted in the ground of their local community, understanding the needs of every community, every suburb, every family that they represent. And that is the calibre of the leadership that we will once again bring to Eden-Monaro at the next election. Now we need your support to do that. You are here in great numbers and we thank you for that. It is hot, as Stephen said, so I won’t go on any longer other than to say this: Australia desperately needs a change of government, just as Eden-Monaro needs a change of representation. We have got a Prime Minister whose policies are failing one after the other. The catastrophic failure on border protection policy is as devastating to our national security as his persistent refusal to tell the truth about it is incredible. Yesterday in the Parliament we moved a censure motion censuring him for his failure and I particularly sought to censure him for his refusal to admit the truth, which is that a special deal was offered to the people on the Oceanic Viking. He had objected to some criticism of him in The Australian newspaper a few days before on the basis that it was a right wing newspaper, so he had great pleasure to read exactly the same criticism from the ABC and The Age itself, which not many people would regard as a right wing newspaper. So the fact is the Prime Minister on this issue is believed by nobody, and that is because his policy has comprehensively failed. And of course it’s not just on border protection. What about hospitals? He was going to fix them, remember that? He was going to fix them and if he hadn’t fixed them by the 30th June, he would take them over. Well he has done neither. This guy is all spin. We know it, the Australian people are beginning to recognise this is a government of spin not of substance. It deserves better. With your support we will deliver a better government to Australia after the next election, which will include in that team a Liberal Member for Eden-Monaro. Thank you very much for your support today.     [ends]                         malcolmFri, 20 Nov 2009 05:22:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:685http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/684/National-School-Chaplaincy-Program.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=684http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=684&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/684/National-School-Chaplaincy-Program.aspxThe Coalition has today committed to continuing support for the great work chaplains are doing in our schools through the National School Chaplaincy Program. The Rudd Government has refused to rule out cancelling funding for this program past 30 June 2010, despite figures released in October’s Estimates showing 97 per cent of school principals who have engaged a chaplain strongly support the program and recognise the benefits for their school communities. Chaplains play a valuable role in schools, supporting students and school communities by offering pastoral care and guidance across religious denominations and beliefs. The Prime Minister has been walking on both sides of the street on this issue.  On the one hand he takes great pains to agree with the Coalition about the valuable role of chaplains in our schools – saying “they actually are providing the glue which keeps school communities rolling”.  On the other he and his Government are threatening to abolish the program that pays their wages.            The National School Chaplaincy Program was introduced by the former Coalition Government and enabled schools to employ a part-time school chaplain, with the purpose of providing pastoral care and non-denominational spiritual guidance in schools. If elected, the Coalition would continue funding for the program at its present levels – $165 million over the forward estimates. Chaplains’ beliefs are representative of the school communities the chaplains work in and do not hinder chaplains from working with those of other beliefs or none.  The program operates in 1,915 schools where the local community has sought to be involved with the program, and enjoys strong support among principals, schools and in the community generally. The chaplaincy program has been particularly successful in helping students with behaviour management issues and those that may have difficulties in their social relationships. If Julia Gillard were to get her way and the program were to cease, this decision would most disadvantage those students that battle with loneliness or bullying at schools and students who have difficulties in their families. Sadly, despite the Prime Minister’s rhetoric, the Labor Party has always been opposed to this very successful initiative and couldn’t wait to kill it off as soon as they could.  If Kevin Rudd wants to prove that he means what he says, he must announce the Government’s continued support for this program past 1 July 2010, at the level that it is currently funded. 20 November 2009  malcolmFri, 20 Nov 2009 03:20:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:684http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/683/Censure-Motion-House-of-Representatives-Canberra.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=683http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=683&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/683/Censure-Motion-House-of-Representatives-Canberra.aspxE&OE Mr Speaker, I move that so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would enable the Leader of the Opposition to move the following motion forthwith: That this House censures the Prime Minister for losing control of Australia’s borders with badly thought through policy changes that have dramatically increased the number of unauthorised boat arrivals and handed control of our immigration policy to the people smugglers. In particular, for failing to be upfront and honest with this House and the Australian people about the nature of the special deal done for the asylum seekers on board the Oceanic Viking, for the Prime Minister’s inept handling of the diplomatic relationship with Indonesia, and for trying to abrogate his responsibility to take charge of this latest border protection crisis by hiding behind a wall of spin, his own staff and the bureaucracy when, as he said himself, he is the Prime Minister and the buck stops with him. Mr Speaker, only a moment ago the Prime Minister said that it was so many days since a question had been asked on jobs and so many days since a question had been asked on the economy. I don’t know whether that calculation is correct but the one thing we do know is that it is more than two years since a Prime Minister in this House answered a question straightforwardly on any topic. We have seen the most extraordinary spectacle of a prime minister standing up, looking the Australian people in the eye and unblinkingly saying black is white. Here is a situation where obviously a special deal was done in order to entice the asylum seekers off the Oceanic Viking. It was a special deal. It has no counterpart. It went to the Border Protection Committee of the Cabinet. It went there because it was such a special deal. Now the Prime Minister says, of course, that he knows nothing about that and he says his staff didn’t advise him about this deal either beforehand, before the Committee meeting, or subsequently, and one just has to note how incredible this sounds to us all given the comments by Cameron Stewart recently which I think sum up most people’s view of the Prime Minister, certainly most of his colleagues’ view which is “that he craves control, which means too often he tries to do everything. He likes to delegate and he is loath to rely on the work of others..” Well apparently on this minor matter of the Oceanic Viking, he became a laid back, relaxed kind of guy, happy to delegate everything to his staff. If you believe that, you will believe anything. But there it is. But the one thing that is beyond question is that the Prime Minister’s claim that there was no special deal has been comprehensively, universally disbelieved. I don’t believe there has ever been a statement by a Prime Minister in this House in respect of which nobody, nobody is prepared to give agreement or endorsement. We just work through some of the commentary in the media. We had Dennis Shanahan in The Australian. He said the Sri Lankans “will disembark because they have wrung a special deal from the Rudd Government”. Greg Sheridan, the same newspaper – “for some bizarre reason Rudd keeps saying the people on the Oceanic Viking have not got a special deal. This simply defies the ordinary meaning of language and common sense.” Paul Kelly – “he seems to think almost any line can be spun and will be believed, even when it is nonsense.” But I am afraid to say the disbelief extends past that centre-right newspaper which the Prime Minister is so unhappy with at the moment. Tony Wright in The Age – he says “there was no special deal for the Sri Lankans, Rudd insisted. Which is, presumably, why the last of them were content to leave the ship yesterday after refusing to budge for more than a month.” Annabel Crabb in The Sydney Morning Herald – not many people would say that was a right wing newspaper – she wrote on the 18th, “against this crowded palate of lunacy, it’s almost possible to overlook lesser offences against human intelligence such as the Prime Minister’s insistence that the Sri Lankans passengers disembarking the Oceanic Viking have not received any sort of special deal”. Or today, the same writer notes, “a denialist so shameless that he can stare bare-facedly back at the electors and his parliamentary opponents and deny again and again and again that a bunch of Sri Lankans currently being processed in record fast time in Indonesia are not in receipt of any special deal.” But Mr Speaker the Prime Minister’s spin hasn’t been able to fool anyone, even in his own town. Dennis Atkins wrote in the Courier-Mail today “the consensus view that the Rudd Government provided a special deal for the seventy-six asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking is now stronger than the much-trumpeted world scientific agreement on the causes behind climate change”. Michael Gordon yesterday in The Age – now surely, surely Prime Minister that is not a right wing newspaper – The Melbourne Age, Michael Gordon: “The truth is that the group was offered a special deal to leave the boat…” But the disbelief extends even to another. Apparently, I’m afraid, it’s the ABC. This reluctance of the Australian media to accept this spin seems to be spreading. Barry Cassidy: “just to say there’s no special deal is silly.” But Mr Speaker probably the neatest summary of all of this was in the editorial in the Financial Review today, and it said “Mr Rudd’s refusal to give a straight answer to opposition questions on the asylum issue follows a consistent and unattractive pattern of behaviour”. Now Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister’s pattern of behaviours is consistent and it is unattractive, but not simply because it involves saying black is white, for saying that no special deal was done when plainly a very, very special deal was done for a very special reason. It is unattractive because it has resulted in the collapse of border protection policy. The Prime Minister may think he can spin his way of his problems here in the House, but the real challenge is on our borders. We used to have a border protection policy that sought to achieve and did achieve two goals: the compassionate and fair reception and treatment of refugees in accordance with the UN Convention. Secondly, the security of our borders and ensuring that as far as possible people smuggling was stamped out and there were no unauthorised arrivals. Both of those goals were achieved, and the record is there from 2002-3 until the change in the border protection policies by this Government last year there was, relative to the current situation, a very, very small number of arrivals. In some years zero, in other years only a few boats. And now we have had since those changes fifty-two boats and over 2300 arrivals.   So how does the Prime Minister defend this? He defends it firstly by denying another fact of life. He defends it by saying that Australia’s border protection policies have absolutely no influence on the number of arrivals. This is as big a denial, as bizarre and absurd a denial, as his denial about the nature of the deal offered to the asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking. He has been told, not simply by the Opposition but by the Federal Police, by the International Organisation on Migration, by the Indonesian Ambassador, the Sri Lankan Ambassador, by the New Zealand Immigration Minister that our border protection policies are sending a very strong signal. This is a strong pull factor. And indeed as the Sri Lankan Ambassador to the UN only recently said, and it sums it up, he said and I quote: “if the pull factors are addressed, attempts to enter Australia will cease”. That’s what the Sri Lankan Ambassador said. But the Prime Minister will have none of this. They are all wrong. Now the difference between the Government and the Opposition on this issue is simply this: when we were in government we stop the boats. They stopped. We protected our borders. We complied with our international obligations and our borders were secure. And we have set out clearly the changes we would make to the policies he has instituted that will ensure once again a strong signal is sent to the people smugglers so they can no longer market the absolute certainty of permanent residency in Australia to their customers in return for the large fees they charge, ten to fifteen thousand dollars. We are prepared to undermine their business. We are prepared to undermine the people smuggling trade and protect our borders. The Prime Minister is not.     [ends]        malcolmThu, 19 Nov 2009 06:49:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:683http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/682/Matter-of-Public-Importance-Parliament-House.aspx#Comments1http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=682http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=682&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/682/Matter-of-Public-Importance-Parliament-House.aspxE&OE Day after day, week after week, Australians have watched anxiously as Australia’s border protection policies unravel before their eyes. All the while, Australians have been seeking straight answers to simple and uncomplicated questions.  Why is this happening?  What’s changed?  What is the Prime Minister going to do to stop the boats coming?  And what do we get from this Prime Minister – a daily diet of weasel words, obfuscation and blame shifting.  We have seen a Prime Minister, in an abject abdication of leadership, washing his hands of the responsibility for his own colossal policy failures.  We’ve heard a Prime Minister who refuses to give straight answers as recently as Question Time today, straight answers to simple, straightforward factual questions and instead a Prime Minister who is tying himself up in tighter and more complicated verbal knots as he tries to slip and slide away from the answers to the questions he cannot bring himself to answer.  It all began with his fanciful claim that the surge in unauthorised boat arrivals has had nothing to do with his own weakening, deliberate weakening, of our border protection through policy changes he introduced in August last year.  Since then the Rudd Government has deliberately unpicked the policies of its predecessor, the Coalition, and trumpeted his own superiority, his own moral superiority for doing so.  He does a great line in sanctimony – I think we all recognise that here.  It is his forte, indeed The Prime Minister has boasted that you can weaken the policies of the previous government without sending a signal to the people smugglers that Australia was a softer target.  He has been proved manifestly wrong.  The facts speak for themselves – 53 boat arrivals carrying more than 2,300 people since August last year.  Now the Prime Minister can’t say he wasn’t warned.  He was warned by the Australian Federal Police, the International Organisation for Migration, senior Indonesian officials – all sounding the alert that the changes introduced by his Government would deliver a powerful marketing tool to the racketeers and criminals charging vulnerable people $10,000 and more for a seat on an unseaworthy vessel all too often bound for Australian waters. Now those warnings have been proved right, just as the Prime Minister has been proved wrong, and yet he remains in complete denial.  Now as the boats keep coming, a boat a day for the last four days no less, he wants to shirk and shrug off responsibility for this colossal policy failure.  He refuses stubbornly to acknowledge what everyone else knows to be true, that it is through his misguided and naïve policy blunders he has laid out the welcome mat, rolled out the Rudd carpet indeed to the people smugglers and their customers. Now faced with this chaotic saga surrounding the Oceanic Viking the Prime Minister and his ministers announced with much fanfare a special arrangement reached with the Government of Indonesia to disembark the 78 asylum seekers in an Indonesian port.  The Prime Minister stood here in this Parliament on the 21st of October and made the following claim, and I quote: “The President of Indonesia and I have made no secret of the fact that we intend to continue to develop a framework for further cooperation on people smuggling.  This is what we intend to do.  That will mean providing additional assistance to our friends in Indonesia to help with the resettlement task and to help with all the associated functions which they might undertake in the future to assist Australia and other countries in dealing with this regional problem.  There is nothing remarkable in that.  It is the right thing for Australia to do.”  So spoke the Prime Minister. The headlines were big and bold and spoke of his “Indonesian Solution”.  We now know this was to prove yet another Rudd mirage; nothing more than a hollow sound bite created to cushion the Prime Minister through the next day’s media cycle and now another bout of weasel words and obfuscation, misleading claims, misleading explanations, never giving a straight answer to a clear question.  A month after the Oceanic Viking picked up the 78 asylum seekers in the Indonesian search and rescue zone, we have the farce of this Prime Minister denying point blank that there has been a special deal, a special offer to persuade these asylum seekers to leave the boat. He comes into this Parliament and makes this ludicrous assertion of no special deal despite the existence of incontrovertible documentary evidence in the form of a written offer by the Australian Government to the people on board the Oceanic Viking. The letter proves not only that a special deal exists but specifies in detail the generous and unique terms for resettlement in Australia which have been offered to not one other refugee in one other Indonesian detention centre. Yesterday in Parliament the Prime Minister said, and I quote, “these are not preferential arrangements”. “They are consistent with normal processes.” “There is nothing remarkable about the time frames.” Well, let’s go through some of the details of the offer and I am quoting from the offer document itself – “The Australian Government guarantees that mandated refugees will be resettled.” “If the UNHCR has found you to be a refugee” – the document reads – “Australian officials will assist you to be resettled within four-six weeks from the time you disembark the vessel. If you have already registered with the UNHCR, Australian officials will assist with your UNHCR processing. If you are found to be a refugee, you will be resettled within 12 weeks from the time you disembark this vessel. If you have not yet registered with the UNHCR, Australian officials will assist you with your UNHCR processing. If you are found to be a refugee, you will be resettled within 12 weeks from the time you disembark the vessel. When you are safely onshore in Indonesia an Australian immigration officer will be in contact with you every day until the resettlement process is finalised.” Now, Mr Speaker, does the Prime Minister seriously, honestly expect us to believe that this special deal is what every asylum seeker and refugee is offered in Indonesia? Does every asylum seeker, does every refugee now in Indonesia get the assistance of a highly professional team of Australian officers every day to assist them in processing their claims? Is every refugee in Indonesia guaranteed resettlement within four to six weeks? Is every asylum seeker guaranteed resettlement within 12 weeks? This is not just special treatment. This was a gold plated inducement to persuade the 78 asylum seekers to leave the vessel. It is obvious that this was a very, very special deal. But when we asked the Prime Minister how many other refugees in Indonesia would be offered resettlement here in four to six weeks or whether he could identify a single other refugee there to whom the specific promises in this deal would apply, he offers no answer because we know from the data there has never been a deal like it. The UNHCR’s own figures indicate there were 2,107 people registered as asylum seekers in Indonesia as at the 26th of October 2009. Yet the figures from Australia’s own Immigration Department indicate the following resettlement numbers from Indonesia over recent years – in 2008-09, 35. 2007-08, 89. And what does this tell us? It tells us that the resettlement of refugees into Australia from detention centres in Indonesia is a slow and painstaking process occurring over many months and many years. We know from these figures alone that the offer accepted by the asylum seekers on board the Oceanic Viking is without any precedent. And we know why that is so because what other reason could they have had to have stepped off the boat they had refused to leave for the best part of four weeks other than the guarantee, the guarantee no less of a fast track entry into Australia. The Prime Minister will not admit to any of this. He simply stands up and says a special deal was not a special deal, and yet the fact that it has not been offered to any other asylum seeker in Indonesia or indeed any other asylum seeker in any other country, indicates that it is a unique and special arrangement and the Australian people are incredulous that he cannot bring himself to tell it for what it is – a special preferential deal. And he knows that this offer makes a nonsense of his claim to be tough on the people smugglers. It sends out a signal to the people smugglers a mile high that Australia is a soft touch, that the Rudd carpet has been rolled out, that Kevin will fix you up, come on down. This is the politics of weakness and capitulation. So he comes into the Parliament now and when asked some simple questions about how this offer came to be made; refuses to provide any detail. He says that this offer – this momentous and unique offer, which has never been extended to any other people, any other refugees – this unique offer was formulated by the border Protection Sub-Committee of the Cabinet. He said that he had no knowledge of it being made. He said that he was not aware of it before it was being made. He said his staff were on the committee. So he is asking the House and the Australian people to believe that an offer as important as this, as central to the resolution of an immigration border protection crisis which has been on the front page of every newspaper in Australia day after day for a month, that this special and unique offer was made by a committee of the Cabinet, on which his own staff were present and that he was not consulted about the terms of that offer nor was he told about the offer prior to it being made to the asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking. It strains credulity. This is a Prime Minister who is known for his workaholism, who is said to be a control freak, who is said to have his fingers in every pie and yet here, here is the biggest political challenge he is facing and yet the offer to resolve it he says was made by a committee, with his staff upon it, and yet he was not consulted or advised about it. Well Mr Speaker I suppose it is possible but it is hardly credible. The reality is this; we are dealing with criminal people smugglers who are running businesses. Those businesses involve them offering a product and that product is the near certainty of permanent residence in Australia. That is what they are asking people to part with 10 or 15,000 dollars for. That is what they are marketing. And so the more certain that outcome is, the softer Australia is seen as a target, then the more seats on more boats that they can sell. It is as simple as that. Now the approach the Prime Minister has taken to the Oceanic Viking has sent precisely the wrong message. I mean the New Zealand Immigration Minister, Jonathan Coleman, spoke plainly about his government’s attitude and he spoke for consistency, consistency of policy. He said, “the New Zealand Government does not believe that an ad hoc approach to dealing with individual cases like the Oceanic Viking will send the right message”. And if he didn’t like that advice he could have regard to the Sri Lankan Ambassador to the United Nations who went further and said – contradicting the Prime Minister – he said, ‘the policy changes we have made here are the main factor in this surge.’ And he said and I quote; “if the pull factors are addressed, attempts to enter Australia will cease. The lucky country is a magnate and many will seek to enter it.” Mr Speaker we have a Prime Minister who has rolled out the Rudd carpet, sent up a big signal to the people smugglers. He is promoting, promoting the trade that we should all be trying to prevent by having a weaker, softer border protection policy, he is inviting people smuggling instead of stamping it out. [ends]  malcolmTue, 17 Nov 2009 08:56:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:682http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/681/Doorstop-Interview-Canberra.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=681http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=681&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/681/Doorstop-Interview-Canberra.aspxSubjects: Kevin Rudd’s failed border protection policies; President Yudhoyono. E&OE MALCOLM TURNBULL: Mr Rudd has got to come clean and tell us what other special deals he has offered the remaining 56 asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking. Yesterday and last week, he said the 22 who left the vessel had not been offered any preferential deal. He said that again and again. But the text of the written offer from the Government itself demonstrates that it is a preferential deal because it offers any of those asylum seekers who have been determined by the UN High Commission on Refugees to be refugees, it offers them resettlement within four to six weeks. Now there are thousands of refugees in Indonesia and no others are being guaranteed resettlement in Australia within four to six weeks. So it is absolutely plain it is a preferential deal and Mr Rudd’s attempt to say it isn’t is completely and utterly unconvincing and lacking in all credibility. And of course… QUESTION: Is it still your view that he misled the House? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well saying that a deal which is clearly preferential is not preferential is plainly misleading. There is no question about that. It is like saying black is white. Mr Rudd seems to have the capacity to look you in the eye and say something that is patently wrong, patently false. The fact is it is a preferential deal, and if it were not a preferential deal then every other asylum seeker in the same situation in Indonesia would have access to the same guarantee of resettlement. That is plainly not the case. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, can I just clarify – yesterday we were taking your comments to mean that Mr Rudd misled the House because he had said no and no to you, and then come back and clarified the record about his staff being on that committee. Is that what you were accusing Mr Rudd of having misled the House on? MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, if you see what I said yesterday, I was quite clear about it. He has misled the House, he has misled all Australians by saying a clearly preferential special deal was not preferential. His statement that he did not know about the… well, if we go back to it, we asked him whether he knew about the special deal and whether he approved it. He said he did not know about it in advance and he did not approve it. He then came back half an hour later and said that it had in fact been approved by a Cabinet subcommittee on which sat members of his own staff. Now, as I said yesterday, I suppose it is possible that this 24-hour-a-day workaholic, said to be a control freak, was not told by his staff about the offer being made. I can’t say that without smiling because it seems so incredible – and you are all smiling too – and we read today that the minutes of the Cabinet Committee were circulated to all ministers including the Prime Minister immediately after the meeting. So look, it strains credulity but we will see. No doubt the Prime Minister will have more to say about it but… QUESTION: And you’re confident you didn’t overreach again? MALCOLM TURNBULL: The only charge of misleading that I have made against the Prime Minister relates to his claim that a preferential deal was not preferential. As I said yesterday, there is a very – what I would call – low level of possibility that such a momentous decision would have been made by members of the Prime Minister’s staff without discussing it with him, but we will let the Prime Minister explain that. Perhaps more events will come out. Can I just say this, the other thing we have to bear in mind in terms of events that have occurred in the last 24 hours, we have seen yet another boat arrive so “another boat, another policy failure” to quote Julia Gillard. We are now up to 51 boats and over 2,200 arrivals. The last minute cancellation of the President of Indonesia’s visit is an extraordinary slap in the face for Kevin Rudd and Kevin Rudd’s claims to be the great Asia-Pacific diplomat. This is an extraordinary event for an Indonesian President having made a commitment to come to Australia to speak to the Parliament to then at the last minute cancel it and all of us saw on television the body language between them at the APEC summit. Our relations with Indonesia are clearly very strained and they are strained because of Kevin Rudd’s colossal failure of policy and his failure to manage effectively our relationship with our largest and closest neighbour. QUESTION: On credibility, Government MPs have come out saying that there had been no confirmation of a visit by SBY. Does that sound credible to you? MALCOLM TURNBULL: That doesn’t sound credible to me and I don’t think that will withstand a great deal of scrutiny. QUESTION: Do you have information… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well you have only got to see that it was confirmed by the Indonesian Government and I think there are many people in this city that know that the meeting, the visit was confirmed and was planned and was expected. QUESTION: Does it worry you that none of these colossal policy failures, as you call them, seem to be resonating that much with the Australian people if today’s poll is to be believed? MALCOLM TURNBULL: If I paid as much attention to the polls as you do, I wouldn’t have any time to think about anything else. QUESTION: But it is worrying that voters aren’t… they are still sticking behind Labor even though this is such a damaging issue for them. MALCOLM TURNBULL: The voters will form their own judgments and they will make their decision at the time of the election. The simple fact of the matter is this – the object of Australia’s border protection policy with respect to asylum seekers is to stamp out people smuggling and prevent, as far as possible, the unauthorised arrivals of asylum seekers into our waters. Mr Rudd says that is the object of his policy. It is the object of every government’s policy. By that measure, his policy has been a colossal failure. It is about time he owned up to that failure, conceded the consequence of his unpicking the border protection policies of the previous government that had been effective and then, for him, having admitted that failure to then tell us how he is going to rectify it. Thanks very much. [ends]  malcolmTue, 17 Nov 2009 07:01:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:681http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/680/Doorstop-Interview-Canberra.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=680http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=680&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/680/Doorstop-Interview-Canberra.aspxSubjects: Kevin Rudd’s failed border protection policies; President Yudhoyono. E&OE MALCOLM TURNBULL: Mr Rudd has got to come clean and tell us what other special deals he has offered the remaining 56 asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking. Yesterday and last week, he said the 22 who left the vessel had not been offered any preferential deal. He said that again and again. But the text of the written offer from the Government itself demonstrates that it is a preferential deal because it offers any of those asylum seekers who have been determined by the UN High Commission on Refugees to be refugees, it offers them resettlement within four to six weeks. Now there are thousands of refugees in Indonesia and no others are being guaranteed resettlement in Australia within four to six weeks. So it is absolutely plain it is a preferential deal and Mr Rudd’s attempt to say it isn’t is completely and utterly unconvincing and lacking in all credibility. And of course… QUESTION: Is it still your view that he misled the House? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well saying that a deal which is clearly preferential is not preferential is plainly misleading. There is no question about that. It is like saying black is white. Mr Rudd seems to have the capacity to look you in the eye and say something that is patently wrong, patently false. The fact is it is a preferential deal, and if it were not a preferential deal then every other asylum seeker in the same situation in Indonesia would have access to the same guarantee of resettlement. That is plainly not the case. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, can I just clarify – yesterday we were taking your comments to mean that Mr Rudd misled the House because he had said no and no to you, and then come back and clarified the record about his staff being on that committee. Is that what you were accusing Mr Rudd of having misled the House on? MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, if you see what I said yesterday, I was quite clear about it. He has misled the House, he has misled all Australians by saying a clearly preferential special deal was not preferential. His statement that he did not know about the… well, if we go back to it, we asked him whether he knew about the special deal and whether he approved it. He said he did not know about it in advance and he did not approve it. He then came back half an hour later and said that it had in fact been approved by a Cabinet subcommittee on which sat members of his own staff. Now, as I said yesterday, I suppose it is possible that this 24-hour-a-day workaholic, said to be a control freak, was not told by his staff about the offer being made. I can’t say that without smiling because it seems so incredible – and you are all smiling too – and we read today that the minutes of the Cabinet Committee were circulated to all ministers including the Prime Minister immediately after the meeting. So look, it strains credulity but we will see. No doubt the Prime Minister will have more to say about it but… QUESTION: And you’re confident you didn’t overreach again? MALCOLM TURNBULL: The only charge of misleading that I have made against the Prime Minister relates to his claim that a preferential deal was not preferential. As I said yesterday, there is a very – what I would call – low level of possibility that such a momentous decision would have been made by members of the Prime Minister’s staff without discussing it with him, but we will let the Prime Minister explain that. Perhaps more events will come out. Can I just say this, the other thing we have to bear in mind in terms of events that have occurred in the last 24 hours, we have seen yet another boat arrive so “another boat, another policy failure” to quote Julia Gillard. We are now up to 51 boats and over 2,200 arrivals. The last minute cancellation of the President of Indonesia’s visit is an extraordinary slap in the face for Kevin Rudd and Kevin Rudd’s claims to be the great Asia-Pacific diplomat. This is an extraordinary event for an Indonesian President having made a commitment to come to Australia to speak to the Parliament to then at the last minute cancel it and all of us saw on television the body language between them at the APEC summit. Our relations with Indonesia are clearly very strained and they are strained because of Kevin Rudd’s colossal failure of policy and his failure to manage effectively our relationship with our largest and closest neighbour. QUESTION: On credibility, Government MPs have come out saying that there had been no confirmation of a visit by SBY. Does that sound credible to you? MALCOLM TURNBULL: That doesn’t sound credible to me and I don’t think that will withstand a great deal of scrutiny. QUESTION: Do you have information… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well you have only got to see that it was confirmed by the Indonesian Government and I think there are many people in this city that know that the meeting, the visit was confirmed and was planned and was expected. QUESTION: Does it worry you that none of these colossal policy failures, as you call them, seem to be resonating that much with the Australian people if today’s poll is to be believed? MALCOLM TURNBULL: If I paid as much attention to the polls as you do, I wouldn’t have any time to think about anything else. QUESTION: But it is worrying that voters aren’t… they are still sticking behind Labor even though this is such a damaging issue for them. MALCOLM TURNBULL: The voters will form their own judgments and they will make their decision at the time of the election. The simple fact of the matter is this – the object of Australia’s border protection policy with respect to asylum seekers is to stamp out people smuggling and prevent, as far as possible, the unauthorised arrivals of asylum seekers into our waters. Mr Rudd says that is the object of his policy. It is the object of every government’s policy. By that measure, his policy has been a colossal failure. It is about time he owned up to that failure, conceded the consequence of his unpicking the border protection policies of the previous government that had been effective and then, for him, having admitted that failure to then tell us how he is going to rectify it. Thanks very much. [ends]  malcolmTue, 17 Nov 2009 05:14:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:680http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/678/Doorstop-Interview-Canberra.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=678http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=678&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/678/Doorstop-Interview-Canberra.aspxSubjects: Kevin Rudd’s failed border protection policies; emissions trading scheme. E&OE MALCOLM TURNBULL: Last Friday the Prime Minister said no preferential deal had been offered to the asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking. He tabled today in the House a copy of the proposal put to them and it said, in the first point, ‘If the UNHCR has found you to be a refugee – Australian officials will assist you to be resettled within 4-6 weeks’. When we asked him whether there were any other refugees in Indonesia who had been guaranteed resettlement within four to six weeks he had no answer because no others have been. This is plainly a preferential deal. When we asked him whether he knew about this offer of a preferential fast track deal, a Rudd carpet to Australia, when we asked him whether he knew about it beforehand or had approved it, he said “no and no”. And then at the very end of Question Time, he came back to the despatch box to say that in fact it had been approved by a committee on which sat members of his own office staff. So the fact is that the Prime Minister has not been straight with the Australian people. Clearly this is a preferential deal. There are no other refugees in Australia that are being guaranteed resettlement within four to six weeks. And secondly, he knew all about this deal or at least his office did because they were part of the committee that approved it. The Prime Minister has not been straight with the Australian people about his border protection policy failure and the way he is rolling out the Rudd carpet to the people smugglers and their customers. QUESTION: Are you accusing him of misleading Parliament? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look there is no question that he has misled the House, there is no question about that. The fact is it is a preferential deal. He chose to hide behind a public servant, a letter from the Secretary of the Department of Immigration dated today which said that the offer was consistent with the arrangements being… the group I should say… I will read it precisely. The secretary said “the group” – being the people on the Oceanic Viking – “is being treated in a manner consistent with that afforded to any other asylum seeker or refugee in Indonesia”. Now that of course was written after the Prime Minister had said no preferential treatment had been given. But it is perfectly obvious that it is not consistent with the treatment offered to other refugees in Indonesia. There are no other refugees in Indonesia who are being guaranteed resettlement in Australia or anywhere else within four to six weeks. So that statement to the House and his attempt to hide behind a public servant – once again to use a public servant as a human shield – is completely and utterly unconvincing. Everyone can see straight through that. But then to say that he had no knowledge and did not approve the offer being made, only to come back and let us know that in fact it had been made and approved by a committee on which sat members of his own office staff. QUESTION: It’s possible they didn’t tell him. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Possible, yes, possible. A low level of possibility I think you would say, wouldn’t you. QUESTION: Kevin Rudd would be fairly sensitive about misleading Parliament, given what happened back in June. You think he’d… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Mr Rudd’s… there is no question that Mr Rudd’s staff approved the offer. He said as much. So the only basis on which his statement could be correct is if his staff did not tell him. I grant you that is a possibility. I think most people would regard it, on a matter as important as this, as being very unlikely. So we will see. Time will tell on that score. As far as the deal being preferential, of course it is preferential. The suggestion that it’s not is absurd. There is no other refugee group in Indonesia that is being offered a fast track to Australia. That’s perfectly plain. So to say that the people on the Oceanic Viking were not offered a preferential deal is plainly false. QUESTION: So you’re accusing Kevin Rudd of lying to the Australian people? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I’ll leave all those accusations to you. The fact of the matter is you know and everybody else knows that there was a special deal offered to the people on the Oceanic Viking in order to persuade them to leave. That is confirmed in writing today. We have asked Kevin Rudd several times whether any other refugees in Indonesia have been offered the same fast track resettlement access and he has been unable to nominate any others. And of course there are no others. So this is plainly a preferential deal, a special deal, and he should simply be straight with the Australian people and confirm it for what it is. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, confirmation on the weekend that there’s going to be no binding targets at Copenhagen. Does that take the sting out of these next couple of weeks? Can you not now use that as a point to argue there’s no point negotiating the scheme in the next couple of weeks? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we have always said there is no necessity to finalise the design of the scheme before the Copenhagen conference, but you know I have to say that I think most people have expected for a long time that Copenhagen would result in a political agreement or a political settlement and any treaty, binding international agreement would take some time to negotiate. But unlike Mr Rudd I don’t want to running a commentary on the negotiations other than to say they have been proceeding well, they will reach a conclusion ad when they do we will then decide as an Opposition how we are going to respond to it. QUESTION: [Inaudible] MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we are going to proceed with the negotiations and take them through to their conclusion… QUESTION: And you’re still as committed to them as you were? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I’m certainly committed to having good faith negotiations Michelle, but I am not committed to voting in a particular way… QUESTION: But you’ve committed to trying to reach an outcome? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well everyone who enters into negotiations in good faith should be committed to reaching an outcome. Now whether… QUESTION: [Inaudible] MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, but if you were as committed to letting me finish my answer we would be able to get o the end of the sentence. We are committed to good faith negotiations which means we are committed to the negotiations running their course. They will have an outcome. Whether that outcome is one which we support or not remains to be seen, and really anything else is just speculation. QUESTION: Do you expect the final position to be determined tomorrow or next Tuesday? MALCOLM TURNBULL:  Well we don’t expect it to be determined tomorrow but it is obviously, time is marching on and I know that Mr Macfarlane and Senator Wong are proceeding as quickly as they can, but the speed in large measure is obviously determined by the Government because they are the ones from whom we are seeking concessions.   QUESTION: So is an agreement more likely than not? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I’m not going to run a commentary on the negotiations. QUESTION: A couple of Liberal senators have pre-empted the party room meeting and vowed to vote against the ETS.  Doesn’t that make the party room meeting a farce? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I’m not going to comment on it… QUESTION: Are you prepared for that scenario, though, of many MPs, as Dennis Jensen told us this morning, crossing the floor? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look, we’ll see.  I’m not going to run a commentary on other people’s comments and that’s really all I’ve got to say.  The negotiations are proceeding, they’ll have a conclusion, when we get to the conclusion we will decide how we’re going to vote. QUESTION: Just back on your comments about Kevin Rudd and the boat.  Probably most people would accept your argument that it’s clearly a preferential deal.  What do you think is in Mr Rudd’s mind as he tries to claim it’s not? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I don’t know.  It’s about as convincing as standing up and saying black is white.  But he does have a habit of, well he seems to have a habit of saying things which are patently not correct on the basis that if you say it often enough people will believe it. Now the fact of the matter is there are thousands of refugees, possibly tens of thousands of refugees in Indonesia who have been granted refugee status by the UNHCR who are in exactly the same legal position as the people who are on the Oceanic Viking.  None of them have been offered a four to six week fast track passage to Australia, whereas the people on the Oceanic Viking have.  So plainly it is a preferential deal. So why does he keep on saying that it isn’t?  It’s baffling, it’s unconvincing – it raises real questions about the Prime Minister. QUESTION: [Inaudible] MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I don’t know.  I’m the Leader of the Opposition. I’m not here to psychoanalyse the Prime Minister.  I’ll leave that to you. QUESTION: Should he revoke the deal? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, look, he has made an offer to these people and if they’ve accepted it I guess there’s been an offer and acceptance and there’s a question then of the integrity of the Australian Government at stake.  But we do not believe special deals should have been offered.  We do not believe special deals should be offered in the future and the reality is that this is all a consequence of a colossal failure in border protection policy. QUESTION: If you can’t offer special deals how are you going to get the remaining Sri Lankans off the boat? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, really, that’s a matter you should be addressing to the Prime Minister.  The Prime Minister was the one who decided to take them to Indonesia.  He says he had an agreement with the President of Indonesia that they would be able to disembark but apparently this workaholic, master of detail, this supposed control freak was so focused on the matter that he didn’t turn his mind to how he would actually persuade them to leave the vessel.  And that seems to be at the root of this problem.  The fact of the matter is it’s just one of a series of colossal policy errors in this border protection shambles that Kevin Rudd has created.  This is a colossal policy failure on any view and the sooner he owns up to it, takes responsibility for it and starts to fix it, the better. Okay, thanks very much. [ends]  malcolmMon, 16 Nov 2009 07:16:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:678