http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.auRSS feeds for Malcolm Turnbull MP60http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/145/Climate-Change-and-an-Emissions-Trading-Scheme.aspx#Comments4http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=145http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=145&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/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/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/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=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=698http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=698&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/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/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/447/People-Smuggling.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=447http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=447&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/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/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/146/Global-Financial-Crisis.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=146http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=146&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/146/Global-Financial-Crisis.aspxThe global financial crisis (often abbreviated as the GFC) is a series of disruptions, upheavals and failures in international financial markets that began in the United States in early 2007.  The crisis deepened and spread across the rest of the world over the next two years, especially after US investment bank Lehman Brothers was bankrupted in October 2008.  Now, in mid-2009, it is continuing to cause financial firm insolvencies, sharply reduced economic growth and rising unemployment across many of the world’s major economies. Fortunately, Australia has largely been spared the huge bank losses and insolvencies that have been a signature of the GFC in other economies. This is because Australia’s banks are very strong by world standards and Australia has a robust, carefully designed system of financial regulation that was put in place over more than 11 years of Coalition government between 1996 and 2007.  Nevertheless, the Australian economy is being affected by the global downturn, which has slowed economic growth and increased unemployment.   ORIGINS OF THE CRISIS   The GFC was triggered by investors fleeing from what in early 2007 was a little-known segment of the US financial markets – the market for securities backed by ‘subprime’ home mortgages.  But the origins of the crisis go much deeper, and arguably extend back a decade.   One important factor behind the recent problems was a lengthy period of very low interest rates and relatively relaxed bank lending standards in many major world economies, including the US and the UK, after 2001. Cheap credit contributed to the GFC by encouraging lenders to make loans to borrowers whose prospects of repaying these funds were not strong. Low interest rates also encouraged some borrowers to take on larger loans than they could afford, and contributed to a rapid rise in the values of many assets (such as residential properties) in many economies in the period between 2001 and 2007.   A related factor underpinning the recent crisis, in the eyes of many economists, was the persistence of large external account imbalances between a group of so-called ‘surplus’ countries (China, Japan, the Gulf states and others) and a group of so-called ‘deficit’ countries (in particular the US, UK and Australia). Over many years there was an outflow of savings from surplus countries and an inflow of savings into deficit countries. While some of the inflow of funds into deficit countries was used for investment in productive assets (particularly in Australia, where foreign capital contributed heavily to our resources boom), in economies such as the US it appears the influx of money may have been largely used for less productive purposes such as bidding up housing prices and financing consumption.   A third contributor to the GFC, at least in the US and UK, was poor government regulation of financial systems. Regulators were a step behind the rapidly evolving financial markets, and often lacked the resources and expertise to understand the impact of innovative financial technologies on the way the financial system works and on the location and dimensions of systemic risk. Regulators also failed to keep pace with the explosive growth of the so-called ‘shadow banking system’ – the hedge funds, investment banks, private equity firms and other unregulated or lightly regulated financial entities that accounted for an increasing share of financial activity over recent years.   Finally, an important contributor to banks taking on too much risk and behaving in ways that ultimately cost their shareholders billions of dollars was a misalignment of the interests of various stakeholders – particularly the owners of financial institution shares, and the executives that managed those financial institutions. Financial industry executives were often paid heavily (in some cases excessively) for delivering short-term earnings from risky activities that in the longer term turned out to not be profitable at all. There were also misalignments in interests between financial institutions in some economies – for instance, in the US, the company that made a home loan to a risky borrower was often not the same as the entity that ended up owning that loan and having to collect on it.   THE U.S. SUBPRIME MELTDOWN   All these issues – low interest rates, poor regulation, complicated financial markets and instruments, misaligned interests, and risky lending – came together in the US ‘subprime’ meltdown of early 2007, which saw investors and banks around the world suddenly become far more reluctant to own or make risky loans. This was the catalyst for the GFC.   The subprime crisis was caused, in large measure, by banks in the United States lending money to people to buy homes whose prospects of repaying that loan were poor. These subprime loans accounted for more than 15 per cent of home loans in the US by 2007 (but less than 1 per cent in Australia, where the financial system was better supervised).   Accelerating the problems in the US was a steep fall in house prices, which left many borrowers with negative equity in their homes.  The US regulatory system also contributed – not too little regulation, but the lack of appropriate and effective regulation and supervision. Indeed in some respects excessive US government involvement (such as through the government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac which ultimately stood behind most American mortgages) probably exacerbated the problem.   THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS SPREADS   While the flight by investors from risk first affected subprime mortgage-backed securities in the US, the turmoil soon spread to other complex and hard-to-value instruments used by banks to transfer lending and risk or to hedge against default. The sudden re-pricing of risk rapidly affected other types of debt beyond US mortgages, and spread to Europe and Asia. All around the world it became far more expensive and difficult to obtain credit, and for some borrowers it became impossible.   At the same time, banks and other financial institutions around the world came under pressure as investors sold their shares and bonds, fearful the loans these banks had made in the past might not be able to be paid back. Banks suffered huge falls in the value of the assets (mostly loans and debt securities) they had on their balance sheets, and most banks had to raise extra capital as a result. In the US and Western Europe, many banks suffered such large losses that they had to seek additional capital from governments to stay afloat.  More recently, this trend has seen huge banking groups such as RBS and Lloyds-HBOS in the UK and Citibank and Bank of America in the US come partially or substantially under the control of governments.   When the US government was forced to step in and take control of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the insurance company AIG in mid-2008, and Lehman Brothers collapsed in October 2008, what had until then been largely a financial crisis started having a far more severe and immediate impact on the rest of the economy, particularly in the US and Europe. Since that time, economic growth has slumped and unemployment rise in most of the world’s major advanced economies including the US, Japan, and Western Europe.  Growth has also slowed in emerging economies such as China, Russia and India.   AUSTRALIA’S RESPONSE TO THE GFC   Australia is fortunate to have a well regulated and supervised financial sector.  The 1996-2007 Coalition government legislated for Reserve Bank independence and created our prudential regulator – the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority – with the explicit mandate to closely supervise deposit-taking institutions.  By comparison with much of the rest of the world, our banks are well-capitalized and sound.  They have remained profitable through the downturn. However, Australia’s economy has felt the effects of the global financial crisis in the form of lower prices and volumes for our exports, slower growth, higher unemployment, and less available credit. Unfortunately, the Rudd Government made this difficult situation worse than it needed to be when in October 2008 the Prime Minister announced an unlimited bank deposit guarantee.  This went much further than comparable countries, and caused severe dislocation and hardship to thousands of Australian with accounts in unguaranteed funds such as mortgage funds and cash management trusts.  These accounts were frozen. Even after the guarantee was subsequently capped at a still-excessive $1 million, the confusion and loss of confidence in our financial system continued. The Rudd Government also made a poor choice when it decided to hand out $23 billion in ‘cash splash’ payments to individuals as the centerpieces of its fiscal stimulus packages of October 2008 and February 2009.  While the money was no doubt welcomed by those who received it, most of it was saved – and so had little impact on economic growth.  In April 2009 the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, Oliver Blanchard, publicly confirmed what the Coalition had long asserted – the cash splashes were a very ineffective and poorly targeted stimulus measure.  Instead, Blanchard agreed with the Coalition’s argument that a far larger share of the stimulus money should have been spent on economic infrastructure – projects such as ports, highways and rail links which add to Australia’s long-term economic potential. A final concern over Labor’s response to the GFC is the vast public debt and contingent liabilities to which taxpayers are being exposed. While the ‘automatic stabilizers’ (the natural tendency for an economic downturn to reduce tax collections and increase outlays on welfare) would have caused a budget deficit regardless, the size of the deficits and debt over the next few years has been greatly enlarged by Labor’s heavy spending. In fact since November 2007 Labor has announced policies that have increased Commonwealth spending by $124 billion – which in turn accounts for about two thirds of the $188 billion in net public debt the 2009 Budget predicts that Australian taxpayers will owe by 2012-13. This represents the largest increase in public spending since the mid-1970s. And the debt will not stop at $188 billion. Already, since the 2009 Budget, Treasurer Swan has admitted the actual ‘peak net debt’ figure will instead be at least $203 billion, and gross debt will rise as high as $315 billion. These figures also don’t account for the additional borrowings Canberra will take on to pay for Labor’s off-Budget ventures such as $28 billion for RuddBank and $43 billion for the national broadband network. It took a decade of Coalition leadership and hard work by the people of Australia to pay off Paul Keating’s $96 billion debt legacy after 1996. Mr. Rudd and Mr. Swan plan to run up two to three times as much public debt over less than half as many years. The ultimate consequences of that borrowing frenzy will be higher real interest rates for Australian borrowers, higher levels of foreign debt, and higher taxes or lesser services in the future. The global financial crisis is without a doubt a major challenge to governments everywhere, but Australia would be far better off under the sound economic management of the Coalition.  malcolmTue, 09 Jun 2009 23:56:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:146http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/480/Cuts-to-the-Private-Health-Insurance-Rebate.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=480http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=480&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/480/Cuts-to-the-Private-Health-Insurance-Rebate.aspxKevin Rudd has not been honest with the Australian people. He promised again and again that he would not touch the private health insurance (PHI) rebate. That emphatic promise has been shattered in this year’s Budget. All Australians will now pay the price for the Rudd Government’s sustained attack on private health insurance. - Insured Australians who earn over $75,000 will pay more because of the cut to the PHI rebate, and if they drop out altogether they will still pay more due to an increased Medicare Levy Surcharge. - Insured Australians who earn under $75,000 will pay more because of increased premiums due to “younger and healthier” people dropping out. It is estimated that premiums could increase by 10% or even more a year compared to around 6 per cent per annum now. - Uninsured Australians will be waiting longer in the public hospital queue for essential treatment because of the influx of people into a public health system already under extreme pressure. Every Australian knows that the cost of health care is growing as are the waiting lists for public hospitals. This savage cut will drive up premiums and place unsustainable pressure on the public health system. The changes to the private health insurance rebate are just the latest phase in Labor’s unrelenting war against private health insurance - Labor hates private health insurance. The Coalition believes in the right of all Australians to take charge of their own health care needs and plan for the future - We have always worked hard to deliver incentives to promote the uptake of private health insurance and take the pressure off Medicare. We remain firmly committed to Medicare as the cornerstone of our health system. In fact, the Coalition is the best friend Medicare ever had. Over the term of the previous Coalition Government, Medicare funding increased by 48 per cent in real terms. We also lifted private health insurance levels from 34 per cent to 44 per cent. Australians deserve a strong and well balanced health system that supports Medicare but also encourages self-reliance. We have provided Mr Rudd with a credible alternative to cutting the PHI rebate that will not to drain essential resources from our health system – an increase to the excise on tobacco. Mr Rudd is now faced with a tough decision - take billions out of private health insurance or increase the excise on tobacco. Australians are now paying the price for the Rudd Government’s reckless spending.  malcolmTue, 19 May 2009 23:19:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:480http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/465/An-Australian-Republic.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=465http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=465&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/465/An-Australian-Republic.aspx There are a lot of lessons from 1999 and I have learned at least a few of them. The republic should not be put up for another vote unless there is a strong sense in the community that this is an issue to be addressed NOW. That may have been the case in the lead up to the centenary of federation, but it is not the case at the moment.   In addition, in order to be successful a republic referendum needs to have overwhelming support in the community, bipartisan support politically and, in truth, face modest opposition. A republic referendum should not be attempted again unless the prospects of success are very, very high.   Losing a second time is a waste of time, money and political energy that could otherwise be spent on more pressing and immediate issues. So the minute one political party tries to make the republic a partisan cause of its own, it is likely to set it back. Keating's support for a republic was definitely a case of one step forward, two steps back.   The republic, if and when it happens, has to be owned by everyone. So what is the right time? Well, in 1999 I said that No meant No for a very long time. Those people who said that we could vote No and then have another referendum with another model in a year or two were, as I said at the time, either insincere or very naive.   But what is a long time? My crystal ball is as cloudy as the next person's but I do struggle to see how a republic referendum could get the level of support it needs to win during the reign of the present Queen. Not only is she much admired, but a lot of people quite reasonably will say that the vote in 1999 should last at least until there is a change of monarch.   I recall that Bob Hawke, more than ten years ago, was quite adamant that it was a mistake to have a referendum during the reign of the present Queen. He may have been right then. Certainly he must be right now.   malcolmMon, 11 May 2009 21:57:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:465http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/431/Alcopops-a-tax-grab-not-a-health-measure.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=431http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=431&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/431/Alcopops-a-tax-grab-not-a-health-measure.aspxAlong with all Australians, the Coalition is deeply concerned about the effects of binge drinking on young people. The so called ‘alcopops tax’ introduced by the Rudd Government is not a health measure designed to tackle alcohol abuse. It is a badly thought through tax grab on one alcoholic product that has proven to have no effect on binge drinking. Increasing taxes on one alcohol product in isolation is ineffective in addressing alcohol abuse and related harm. In fact, the Government has been unable to point to any evidence that the increased tax on ‘alcopops’ has had any impact on binge drinking. It could actually make binge drinking problem worse by pushing problem drinkers into more lethal alcohol products. The last thing the Australian economy needs now is new taxes - especially blatant tax grabs dressed up as health measures which do nothing to address binge drinking. Any serious attempt to counter binge drinking would involve a wide range of measures designed to change behaviour including education, law enforcement, industry involvement and rehabilitation measures. We will support any real and genuine measures to reduce alcohol abuse that have a real impact. The Coalitions calls on the Government to implement a comprehensive strategy to deal with this significant social problem.  malcolmFri, 17 Apr 2009 06:00:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:431http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/385/RuddBank.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=385http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=385&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/385/RuddBank.aspx  The Labor Government’s Australian Business Investment Partnership (usually referred to by its informal title of RuddBank) is a taxpayer-funded lending vehicle which will purchase up to $30 billion of loans to commercial property developers.   RuddBank has initially raised $2 billion from Australian taxpayers, and a further $2 billion from contributions of $500 million each by the four major Australian banks (ANZ Banking Group, Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank and Westpac). A further $26 billion is available to RuddBank via Commonwealth-guaranteed borrowings – leaving taxpayers potentially on the hook for $28 billion in total.   RuddBank is claimed by the Labor Government to be needed so its loans can take the place of some foreign banks as they exit from Australian commercial property lending– even though there’s no sign of any significant withdrawal by offshore lenders as yet according to official statistics.   Introduction of legislation for RuddBank to Federal Parliament revealed that Labor Government has misled the public about the scope of this proposal. While Labor had promised RuddBank would be restricted to lending to completed or nearly-completed commercial real estate developments, it turns out there is no such restriction in its charter – the vehicle can lend to anyone or anything.   Similarly, while Prime Minister Rudd and Treasurer Swan promised taxpayers that RuddBank was simply a contingency plan against the possibility of a small number of foreign banks reducing their activities in Australia, it turns out the legislation contains no such limitation. Instead, RuddBank can replace existing lenders of any variety – foreign or domestic, bank or non-bank – other than the big four banks themselves.   This stealthy broadening of the scope and ambitions of RuddBank should set off alarm bells across the Australian community, given it dramatically increases the potential risks to taxpayers.   The last time Labor politicians decided to get into banking and the property lending game – back in the 1980s and early 1990s – it ended up being a disaster for taxpayers.   Back then the State Bank of South Australia (SBSA), State Bank Victoria (SBV), SBV’s Tricontinental subsidiary, and a couple of the state government insurance corporations got involved in commercial property. SBSA and SBV were eventually bankrupted, and taxpayers lost billions.   Just as dubious is Labor’s decision to hide from taxpayers both the identity of the commercial real estate developers that their money will be helping, and the terms and conditions under which their money is being invested.   Details of individual loans will not be made public. Instead, the people of Australia will have to make do with occasional reports to Parliament which will exclude any information on which deals and which companies are enjoying the hospitality of Australian taxpayers.   One might imagine the Labor Government would observe the utter fury in the United States over the lack of information provided on which institutions benefited from the use of taxpayers funds in bail-outs such as the $300 billion rescue of AIG, and adjust its plans accordingly. But apparently not.   It has always been deeply dangerous to taxpayers when governments arrogantly assume they are skilled enough and smart enough to match it with bankers, and to involve the public purse in commercial lending. It’s led to disastrous losses in the past. The very strong possibility that RuddBank will lead to similarly damaging losses in the future is why the Coalition opposes this misuse of public money.   You might also like to read my speech in parliament on RuddBank here  malcolmThu, 19 Mar 2009 05:02:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:385http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/395/Where-do-you-stand-on-funding-for-public-education.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=395http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=395&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/395/Where-do-you-stand-on-funding-for-public-education.aspx The Opposition is committed to supporting a strong education system, promoting excellence in both the public and non-government sectors. During the previous Government’s term in office, funding was continually increased to all Australian schools – in its last year $3.5 billion was committed towards public schools and students, a 122% increase over 1996 funding levels. In Government the Coalition introduced the “Investing in our Schools” program – $1.2 billion that went directly into supporting the projects that local schools identified as priorities, to make up for state government shortfalls.  The Opposition started the development of a world-class National Curriculum that will be available for all schools.  And we have always supported a focus on improved literacy and numeracy, introducing testing at years 3, 5, 7 and 9 to identify those students needing extra help. Our record demonstrates a commitment to education.  We continue to believe that access to a great education is the most important factor in allowing all Australian children to achieve their potential. malcolmFri, 27 Feb 2009 05:56:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:395http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/402/SBS-Funding.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=402http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=402&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/402/SBS-Funding.aspx The Coalition recognises the important role that SBS plays in Australia as an independent national broadcaster providing multilingual and multicultural radio and television services.   While in Government, the Coalition ensured that the SBS was well-resourced and able to meet the challenges of the future including the transition to digital radio and digital television.   Funding for the SBS increased by 126% under the Coalition, in recognition of the unique and valuable contribution of SBS to Australian broadcasting. The Coalition also provided increased funding to SBS for the purchase of sports rights and in preparation for the switch-off of the analog TV signal.   In 2006, the Coalition announced the current base-level of funding for the SBS under the triennial commitment, which included funding for the current year of some $190 million.   SBS’s triennial base funding will need to be renewed by Labor in the context of the next Budget.   The Coalition continues to support funding for the SBS to allow the broadcaster to fulfil its core obligations to the Australian community.   Particularly, the Coalition believes that it is vitally important to ensure that the SBS is prepared for the transition to digital radio and television transmission.   The Coalition will continue to push the Government to ensure that the next triennial funding commitment shows due recognition of the challenges facing SBS.   malcolmSun, 15 Feb 2009 03:18:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:402http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/396/How-does-your-ENewsletter-work-How-did-you-get-my-email-address.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=396http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=396&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/396/How-does-your-ENewsletter-work-How-did-you-get-my-email-address.aspx Normal 0 false false false EN-AU X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} Its pretty straightforward. Everyone who writes to me by email goes onto my email list. A lot of people subscribe to the list from my website as well. Also when I exchange cards with others I normally put them on the list too. Some people subscribe their friends on the list as well. It is very easy to get off, of course. Just click unsubscribe. Typically in every send a little less than 1% of recipients unsubscribe. I find the newsletter a very efficient way of staying in touch with my constituents and supporters. It goes straight to the desktop for a start. Also it acts as a good reminder service. Occasionally someone will write to me and ask me a question which I forget to answer. We do get a lot of emails and inevitably some will be overlooked. But if they are sent a newsletter they will often write back and say: Thanks for the newsletter, but what about my earlier email? All replies come straight to my inbox and generally about one half of one percent of those sent the email reply with a comment or a question.         malcolmTue, 20 Jan 2009 05:58:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:396