http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.auRSS feeds for Malcolm Turnbull MP60http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/663/Doorstop-Interview-Brisbane.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=663http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=663&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/663/Doorstop-Interview-Brisbane.aspxSubjects: Meeting with Vice Premier Li; Kevin Rudd’s chaotic border protection policy; Australian dollar.   E&OE  MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well with my colleagues, Senators Brandis and Trood, we have had a very productive meeting with Mr Li visiting here, the Vice Premier, a very productive meeting, discussed a range of important issues to both Australia and China – trade, climate change and a range of other issues of great importance.  It was a very productive meeting and we can see with Mr Li a very deep commitment to a stronger and deeper and more productive relationship in the future. QUESTION: And moving on from that, the Christmas Island detention facility looking to boost…the Federal Government is looking to increase that to double the size its capacity.  What do you think about that? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Kevin Rudd used to denounce Christmas Island as a white elephant on the basis that there was no need for it.  Now his policy failure is so colossal that he is going to have to double its size.  It is a testimony to the fact that he has lost control of our borders.  His policy is in chaos, it is a shambles.   QUESTION: How do you think this is going to be received by the Australian people? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well the Australian people will see this for what it is.  This is an admission that his policy has failed.  He said he would be able to keep our borders secure.  He said he would be able to stop people smuggling and yet what we have seen since he unpicked, recklessly unpicked the policies of the previous government without regard to the consequences of doing so, we have seen a surge, a growing surge, in unauthorised arrivals, and of course that is why he is having to double the size of Christmas Island.  This is a monument to his own policy failure. QUESTION: I mean there’s no concession that international factors are increasing asylum seekers around the world and that this is a problem that many countries are facing. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Mr Rudd really should have a motto and the motto is, ‘it’s not my fault’.   He will take the blame for nothing.  The fact is that the push factors in pushing people or encouraging people to move to come to Australia as refugees seeking asylum, those push factors are enormous, they always have been enormous.  Sadly I suspect they always will be enormous, so that’s a given.   What Mr Rudd refuses to do is to accept that his changes to our own domestic policy have acted as a powerful incentive and provided a very effective marketing tool for the people smugglers to their potential customers.  And so what he has done is change those pull factors.  Now he refuses to acknowledge that this surge has got anything to do with him but when he was in Opposition, when his party was in Opposition and Julia Gillard was the shadow immigration spokeswoman, what did she say?  Whenever a boat arrived – and they didn’t arrive very often in those days because we had secure borders – she would say, “another boat, another policy failure.”  Well we’ve had 46 policy failures since Kevin Rudd softened our border protection policies. QUESTION: So what’s the solution then?  If not to accommodate the people that are coming here on Christmas Island, what should we do? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well if Mr Rudd is unable to do anything to stop this surge in arrivals then he does have to increase accommodation at Christmas Island.  But this is really a testimony to the failure of his policy.  Remember, what is the policy objective of an Australian government?  Firstly, to keep our borders secure and as far as practicable, eliminate people smuggling and unauthorised arrivals, number one; number two, to treat refugees generously and compassionately in accordance with the UN Convention on Refugees.   So Mr Rudd is now in a situation where he has a shambolic, chaotic policy failure which is neither tough nor humane.  He is not achieving either goal. QUESTION: But it’s a difficult one, isn’t it?  I mean the Howard Government didn’t necessarily succeed either with their… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh well, that’s not, with great respect… QUESTION: …in terms of stopping people coming here certainly but in terms of the popularity with the Australian people of the Pacific Solution it is a tough question to deal with, is it not? MALCOLM TURNBULL: These are all tough questions and that’s why we elect governments to deal with them.   Now Mr Rudd has to face up to the fact that his policy has failed.  If his objective was to eliminate people smuggling then he has failed to meet his objective.  His policy is a failure, it’s in chaos, it is a shambles and the doubling of the size of Christmas Island is a monument to that policy failure.  QUESTION: What do you think about the Government’s handling of the situation in Indonesian waters with the asylum seekers refusing to leave the ship? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well again, it is a chaotic situation.  It seems to be a situation where Mr Rudd has completely lost control.  Really, Mr Rudd has got to acknowledge that his policy has failed and he has to address it but at the moment he is simply pretending that it’s got nothing to do with him. That’s why I say, his motto is, ‘it’s not my fault’. QUESTION: Can I just ask about ETS?  Government figures released today show the rise in the Australian dollar could undermine your amendments by reducing the revenue that would be received through the ETS. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well the Australian dollar as we all know goes up and down and that’s actually one of our great strengths, having a flexible currency.  A floating exchange provides a shock absorber as we saw over the last year in the wake of the global financial crisis.  In terms of our amendments they are practical amendments that will save thousands of jobs and enable a redesigned emissions trading scheme to be both more economically responsible and more environmentally effective.  And a floating exchange rate is a given, that’s just part of the economic landscape that an emissions trading scheme will operate in. Okay, thanks. [ends]  malcolmSat, 31 Oct 2009 06:44:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:663http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/668/Interview-with-Greg-Cary-4BC-Brisbane.aspx#Comments1http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=668http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=668&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/668/Interview-with-Greg-Cary-4BC-Brisbane.aspxSubjects: Asylum seekers; emissions trading; cataracts surgery rebate.    E&OE GREG CARY: We’re here with Malcolm Turnbull, and it’s good to see you. Welcome. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah, great to be here in Brisbane. GREG CARY: OK, and the lines are open. If you’d like to have a chat to Mr Turnbull you can on 13 13 32. Just before we get into all kinds of other matters, um, we’ve been looking to finish our big Anglican cathedral in town for years and years and years. MALCOLM TURNBULL: A hundred years, about. GREG CARY: Well it is. More. And you were there last night… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah, it was a wonderful service. And it was two-and-a-half hours, so as the Archbishop said it was a marathon service, but it took a long time to complete the cathedral too. But it was beautifully done, it was inspiring, the music was extraordinary, the choir was magnificent. I wouldn’t have ever thought I would say that I sat through a two-and-a-half hour church service and really been uplifted and inspired and enjoyed every minute of it, but it was fantastic. GREG CARY: OK, to other matters you may not enjoy quite so much. The standoff continues of course with the seventy-eight Sri Lankans on board the Oceanic Viking. They’re refusing to go on shore Indonesia. What should we be doing? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, really that is a question Mr Rudd has got to answer. We would not be in this position were it not for Mr Rudd recklessly unpicking the fabric of the Howard Government’s border protection policies that worked. Every government has got to achieve, seek to achieve, two goals. One goal is to keep our borders secure and to stop people smuggling and eliminate as far as practicable unauthorised maritime arrivals by asylum seekers. That is one objective. Mr Rudd agrees with that – every government should agree with that. The other objective is to treat refugees humanely and compassionately and in accordance with the UN Convention on Refugees. Now Mr Rudd’s policy is a complete shambles. It is in chaos. He has unpicked that policy. There has been a surge in boat arrivals. Twenty-one hundred asylum seekers have come to Australia since Mr Rudd changed the policies in August last year. And of course the only thing he has got to say, Greg, and this really should be the motto of the Rudd Government – it is not my fault. That is Mr Rudd’s new slogan – it is not my fault. He says it is not my fault that the boats started coming in bigger and bigger numbers after I changed the policy.          GREG CARY: So you are saying it is his fault? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well of course it is his fault, because that was the big change. You see, John Howard inherited a policy of mandatory detention from Labor. You know, the whole business of mandatory detention was set up by the Labor Party. It wasn’t a Howard Government initiative. John Howard inherited that and he made changes in response to different situations, and for example, there was a lot of criticism of women and children being kept in detention centres. They were taken out by the Howard Government in 2005. So there were a lot of changes made, but we got to a point where for many years, going right back… You have to go right back to 2001 before you have numbers comparable to what we are having at the moment. GREG CARY: Quite right. MALCOLM TURNBULL: So for a long time the boat arrivals were nil or negligible, and that was because John Howard’s policies were working. Now Kevin Rudd recklessly unpicked them, and said changing these policies will have no impact on boat arrivals. And then of course what have we seen? This dramatic surge. GREG CARY: OK, I understand all of that, but given all of that, if you were Prime Minister today – and I accept your point that had you been Prime Minister prior to now this may not have happened. But had this happened, you’re confronted with this situation, they’re next door to Indonesia, we want them to be sorted out in Indonesia – what do we do? Do we forcibly remove them?  MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Greg, again, if I was Prime Minister today I would not be standing up in the Parliament and pretending as Kevin Rudd did that he had very little involvement with this. I mean, he… GREG CARY: What should he do? MALCOLM TURNBULL: The difficulty is, in answering that, is neither you nor I have access to all the information about what’s going on on the boat, what the real position with the Indonesians is, what the real position in Sri Lanka is. You know, there is so much we don’t know and Kevin Rudd is not telling us. Now remember, at the beginning of the year, when these arrivals started to get more and more, and we said hang on, we have got a big problem here. We warned you about this last year. You brushed us aside and said we were wrong – you knew best. The boats are coming. You should quickly have a thorough public inquiry into this so we can actually see what policy changes precisely have had the biggest, you know, damaging impact, and what we can put in place. Kevin Rudd dismissed all that. GREG CARY: Sure, I understand all that. MALCOLM TURNBULL: He doesn’t want to be accountable. You see, this is what I say: the slogan of the Rudd Government is it’s not my fault. GREG CARY: If he were today to make a decision that they’d use moderate force to get those folks off that boat and onto the soil in Indonesia, would you criticise him for that? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Greg I’m not going to run a commentary on a hypothetical situation.  GREG CARY: But it might happen. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well look, it may happen there. He has got a problem. I don’t want to run a commentary on what he should do without having access to all of the facts. The bottom line is this; he has created a chaotic, shambolic situation due to a colossal policy failure. Look, he is out there saying, criticising the Howard Government for having women and children in detention, asylum seekers in detention, forgetting the fact that Labor put them in detention and we took them out. They were there for a while during the Howard years, that is true, but then the policy was changed. So we said to him in Parliament, are you proposing, are you going to insist or arrange or whatever that asylum seekers in Indonesia taken off this boat would not be, the women and children would not be kept in detention. He said no, they will not be kept in detention. I have arranged that they will be in housing outside of the detention centre. The Indonesian authorities have contradicted him and said no, no, they will be in the detention centre. GREG CARY: Critics of both of you will say that you are making, for political reasons, way too much out of all of this. How do you respond? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well this is a big issue. This is border protection. This is the security of our borders. It is the integrity of our immigration system. I mean, do we really say it is a small issue that Kevin Rudd has outsourced our immigration program, or the humanitarian portion of it, to people smugglers. What he is saying is, he has put out the welcome mat and he is saying to the people smugglers and racketeers and criminals that take the ten, fifteen thousand dollars a head to put these people on these boats, he is saying to them, I am outsourcing Australia’s refugee program to you. You decide, instead of us deciding who comes to Australia, he’s saying to the people smugglers, you decide who comes to Australia. GREG CARY: Michael Danby, a Labor MP, much-respected, said a little while ago there was every chance of terrorists, Tamil Tigers being on board the boats. Wilson Tuckey came out and said the same. They were both pretty much criticised for saying that. We have had a variety of Sri Lankan experts on the air this week saying it is stating the obvious that clearly there are Tamil Tigers on that boat. How do you feel about that? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Greg, there’s always a risk, right, that particularly coming from a region like that where there has been, you know, a war going on, and a very vicious and bloody war for a long time, there is always a risk that there will be people seeking to enter Australia who have, you know, been involved in criminal activities or terrorist activities, conflicts of one kind of another. There is always that risk, and that is why security checking should be absolutely rigorous. But the one thing we have got to be very careful to do is not to categorise asylum seekers as a class, or say, you know, asylum seekers are bad for this particular reason. We have just got to be very disciplined about this and recognise yes, there are security risks – of course there are, and Michael Danby has spoken about that and Wilson has spoken about that and others have, and that they have got to be checked very, very carefully. But, you know, we have a long tradition in Australia of being very objective and thorough in our security checking, and not seeking to stereotype any particular group. GREG CARY: OK, Malcolm Turnbull our guest, the Opposition Leader, and any calls, 13 13 32. Nick from Highgate Hill is there. Now go right ahead Nick.           CALLER: Yeah, hi Malcolm. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Hi Nick. CALLER: I have some questions for you. Um, firstly, what policy changes would a Turnbull liberal Government make to ensure the number of arrivals would decrease? Would we see a return to the proven Howard Government policy? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well look, I think we have got to look at all of the policy options. The Howard Government’s policies, and indeed the previous Labor government’s policies, changed and evolved over time in response to changing conditions. That is why….We know that the previous policies of the Howard Government certainly worked, in the sense that there were for many years very few, little or no arrivals. So they worked. Putting them all back in place exactly as they were, would that be effective or are there refinements and changes that would be more effective? That is something that we have got to look at. We are certainly, you know, very keen to have an informed debate about that. The first thing that Mr Rudd should do, frankly, because so much of this depends on the intelligence information and the security information that is current. What Mr Rudd should do is have a thorough public inquiry. Now we know the Immigration Department is having its own internal inquiry into this, so at least internally they recognise their policies have failed, and they are having a look at alternatives. We believe that should be done publicly so that we can all be better informed and we can frame the policies that will work. But let me say this to you: I guarantee to you that a Turnbull Government will put in place policies that will over time stop this surge in boats. Our policy is our record. We have done it before and we will do it again.           GREG CARY: OK, let’s now talk about policy on ETS, and we will get to more of your calls on 13 13 32. Story today says this – you’ve no doubt seen it – Liberal Party frontbenchers have begun to dump their support for carbon emissions trading after receiving party research showing voters are increasingly skittish about putting a price on carbon. This based on information out of Europe, Britain’s Taxpayers’ Alliance, which says their scheme hasn’t worked, that there’s a windfall profit going to the electricity generators. Income earners at the lower end and the elderly are paying more. A few questions out of that, I suppose. Let’s start with, are you getting that kind of feedback form your own frontbench. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well actually no. The report in the Australian, insofar as it refers to, you know, a report form our Federal Director Brian Loughnane, is quite inaccurate, and Brian has confirmed that himself.  Let me just say this: we recognise that we have to take effective action to combat climate change. We are committed to that. We went to the last election with an emissions trading scheme. Rudd has got an emissions trading scheme which has a number of very serious design flaws that will make it economically damaging without being environmentally effective. We have moved, proposed a set of amendments, common sense amendments that would address those deficiencies. Ian Macfarlane, as Shadow Energy Minister, is conducting good faith negotiations with the Government. At the end of those negotiations we will know what we can or cannot agree with the Government, and then we will make a decision. We may be able to support it in an amended form, or it may be that the amendments the Government is prepared to agree to do not go far enough. GREG CARY: This is all based on this notion that the science is settled. I was reading a Nobel Prize Laureate this week who has given evidence to, and has been accepted by, the IPCC. Ken Caldeira is his name. He says… MALCOLM TURNBULL: What did he win a Nobel Prize in? GREG CARY: In this are related to… The same area as Al Gore. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh right. GREG CARY: You see? MALCOLM TURNBULL: But Al Gore’s not a scientist. GREG CARY: Well isn’t that important? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well exactly, that’s right. But OK, keep going. GREG CARY: But this bloke is. He says his research tells him that carbon dioxide is not the right villain in this fight. For starters, as greenhouse gases go it’s not particularly efficient. Now he’s not saying it doesn’t play a role, but the point he goes on to make is the doubling of carbon dioxide traps less than two per cent of the outgoing radiation emitted by the Earth. The point he’s making is this: the science is far from settled. The great scientists of the world disagree on the models. Are you at any time concerned that we are going too far too quickly with this? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Greg, I think the first thing is there are very few areas of science that are entirely settled, in the sense that absolutely nobody disagrees. There is no question that the overwhelming majority, if not a consensus, the overwhelming majority of scientists in this area support the proposition that, you know, human activity, burning fossil fuels etcetera, deforestation, is causing climate change, causing the globe to warm.  Now the question then is what do you do about it, notwithstanding that there are some people who say that is wrong. This is really a risk management exercise, and I come down with, you know, pretty conservative people like Margaret Thatcher twenty years ago, or even Rupert Murdoch, who said you have got to give the planet the benefit of the doubt, and that’s why every government around the world, as far as I am aware – I do not know one government that doesn’t take this view – is saying we have to take effective global action to reduce emissions. And it may be, 20, 30 years from now, that the gentleman you are quoting is proved to be right, but if he is proved to be wrong, and we have done nothing, then we are really in very hot water in every respect. GREG CARY: Malcolm, just on this notion, however – and our guest is Malcolm Turnbull, our number 13 13 32, more of your calls in just a moment. Would you sign anything before Copenhagen? It just seems to most of us that there seems little logic in that.     MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well there is no question that is a political agenda of the Prime Minister’s. When you say sign anything, you mean pass an emissions trading law. Well our view is that it should not be finalised before Copenhagen. That is just common sense and I can say to you with complete sincerity as a practical, pragmatic politician, if I was in Kevin Rudd’s shoes today, if I was Prime Minister I would be working very hard on the design of this ETS, I’d be having all of these negotiations and drilling into all these issues but I wouldn’t finalise it until after Copenhagen because you’ll just be that bit more informed after it. Having said that, he’s the Prime Minister, it’s his bill – if he is determined to force it to a vote before the end of the year we have to decide how we’re going to respond to it…he’s driving the agenda. You see, one of the problems with Kevin Rudd is - or one of the issues with Kevin Rudd is - he always tries to make the Opposition the issue so his asylum seekers policy has completely failed; it’s a shambles – neither tough nor humane. But what does he want to do? Focus on what the Opposition might do. Emissions trading scheme – he’s rushing the agenda and what does he want to do? Focus on what the Opposition would do, and he is… every issue he is ducking responsibility. That’s why I say, the motto of the Rudd Government – they should put it on some of those Julia Gillard School Halls – it’s not my fault. GREG CARY: Malcolm Turnbull my guest. Julia, Cairns, go right ahead. CALLER: Good morning Malcolm. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Good morning. CALLER: Good morning. I’ve been listening to what you say. Look, I just want to say help. Please stop the madness of this carbon dioxide myth, the myth that carbon dioxide is changing, is causing global warming. I’m here to tell you that I’m actually surrounded by people here in Cairns who just feel that Australia has been brainwashed into thinking this and every show I see, Q&A, all the interviews, particularly young people, they’re scared. They just think that unless this ETS happens, we’re just going down the gurgler and I’m just relying on you to stand against it and we’re just tearing our hair out up here. When I say we, I’m talking about the people that I know, the people that I’ve heard talk, talk on talkback radio, at my daughter’s work – she works with 20 people. GREG CARY: Julia, if you don’t mind I’ll leave it there. I think the point’s made. I guess the point, Mr Turnbull, is this – a lot of people are feeling disenfranchised about all of this because there is a solid body of opinion out there that has serious question marks about the whole issue, very serious question marks about an ETS, serious questions about signing it around the time of Copenhagen and they just feel like they don’t have a voice right now. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Let me step through the issues one by one. The first issue, the first question is is human activity causing global warming, and that’s the so called anthropogenic global warming thesis, right. Is that correct? Well we discussed that a minute ago. There’s no question there is a gigantic body of scientific opinion saying that it is. That’s been the case for a long time. GREG CARY: The question mark, to be fair however, is to what extent. MALCOLM TURNBULL: That’s right. There is a question mark but the issue really is one of risk management. I mean neither of us believe I hope that our houses will be hit by lightning tonight but I’m sure, Greg, that we’re both well insured.  So there’s a risk management issue. So that’s the first question and that’s the argument for giving the planet the benefit of the doubt. The way we have proposed to amend the emissions trading scheme, by the way, would involve a much greater emphasis on measures I call least regrets or no regrets. You see the biggest opportunity for Australia to offset its carbon emissions is through improvements in the way we use land, whether it terms of tillage or for cropping or grazing, environmental forestry, biochar, all of these technologies which have an enormous additional environmental benefit so if you spend, you know, billions of dollars improving the productivity and health of your landscape, taking CO2 or carbon out of the atmosphere and then you discover 30 years from now that the thesis was wrong, well you say, okay, we haven’t wasted all the money. So there is a more prudent way to approach it. The next question, can I just say this, on the ETS, should you have an emissions trading scheme. If you want to move to a low emission economy, it’s going to cost you money. And so whether you do it by way of a carbon tax, by way of regulation, by way of a renewable energy target, it is going to cost you money so the question is what is the most efficient means of doing it and the market based element in the emissions trading scheme again has become the norm, accepted around the world as being the most cost effective. GREG CARY: They’re talking about efficiencies and the economies and all of this and we touched on it last time round and I had Ziggy Switkowski on the program for an hour last week. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh good, he’s terrific, isn’t he? GREG CARY: Well he’s good and he said and The Australian editorialises about the need for a thorough cost benefit analysis of when, not if, when Australia should capitalise on its vast uranium deposits – as you know, 38 per cent of the world’s known reserves – by investing in nuclear power. 64 nuclear power plants are expected to be commissioned around the world in the next six years. Europe, which is at the forefront of pushing for action on climate change. Gordon Brown, for heaven’s sake, he’s for them, they’re expanding. So why won’t we at least have that discussion? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, you’ve got to ask Kevin Rudd that. That’s one of the… GREG CARY: Would you like to have the discussion? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Absolutely, and we’ve promoted it. The reason Ziggi has got the profile on nuclear power that he does is that we commissioned him to head a committee that wrote a really outstanding report on nuclear energy. Of course it should be part of the debate. Now let me just say to you though, being a practical man and there’s no point just theorising here, you will never get nuclear energy in Australia until there is very strong public support for it, like there is in frankly most developed countries now and when there is bipartisan political support. GREG CARY: But isn’t that a factor of political leadership, yours and the Prime Minister’s? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well exactly but what Labor says is they will not countenance any discussion on it. GREG CARY: That seems to be changing though, doesn’t it? You hear Mr Ferguson, you hear Mr Howes, you hear various others. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Ferguson, Martin Ferguson’s always been a fan of nuclear energy but he’s pretty much alone as far as we can see. You see, here’s the fascinating contrast – in the last Presidential election in France between Nicholas Sarkozy who was the conservative candidate who won obviously and Ségolène Royal who was the socialist candidate, they had a debate. There was a guy like you, a journalist moderating it and he asked a question, and the question was what percentage of France’s electricity comes from nuclear power. Neither of them had the faintest idea. They both had a stab at it and got it wrong. You know why? It’s not a controversial issue. GREG CARY: It’s 80 per cent. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Correct. Everyone in Australia knows it. GREG CARY: I could be President of France! MALCOLM TURNBULL: Vive la France. GREG CARY: Doesn’t that make the point though? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I’ll call you le président. GREG CARY: But they’re past the debate. They just take it for granted. MALCOLM TURNBULL: That’s exactly the point and so you see the fact of the matter is that Labor is, Labor’s position on all of this is completely hypocritical. They will not even have a debate on the issue and we recognise that you’ve got to have a fully informed debate. This is a journey that you’ve got to begin. Labor won’t even begin the journey but they want to sell uranium to the rest of the world at growing prices because everyone else is building nuclear power stations. So Kevin Rudd is like a teetotaller who owns a brewery and is going around saying to everyone, drink up, drink up. He’s not prepared to touch the stuff himself. GREG CARY: So you’re urging or at least suggesting today that there be bipartisan talks about… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well there should be… what we should have is a fully informed debate and we kicked that off with a number of reports but particularly with Ziggy’s report when we were in government but I just hasten to add, because what Labor does is whenever I talk about this they say, oh Malcolm Turnbull wants to build nuclear power stations all around the country. GREG CARY: Scare tactics MALCOLM TURNBULL: Completely but let me be quite clear about this – there will never be a nuclear power station built in Australia unless the community strongly supports it and there is solid bipartisan support and the practical reason for that is that these projects take so long to design, to permit, to build that they’re going to go over the life of different governments. So it’s something… you’ve got to get to the point where France is basically… GREG CARY: It’s not an issue. MALCOLM TURNBULL: It’s not an issue and this is why France is so far ahead in the whole carbon dioxide emission abatement business because they get 80 per cent of their electricity from nuclear power. GREG CARY: Richard at Albion, go right ahead with Mr Turnbull. CALLER: Malcolm, Greg, good morning. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Morning. CALLER: Look I’ll declare myself as a bit of a climate change sceptic but I can appreciate the need to change our outputs for polluting the atmosphere but I’m bewildered by why we have to have a tax. Why can’t we just introduce the legislation to prohibit emissions but not tax it and then go the next step and make it a tradable commodity? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well you’re almost saying… the minute you talk about trading it, you’re basically back with an emissions trading scheme. It’s the same deal. GREG CARY: It’s not as if it’s just a tax, isn’t it? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Let me give you an example. Let’s say you have a carbon tax and you say it’s $20 a tonne. Okay, everyone has to pay it; every big industry has to pay it. And then what about a farmer who says I’ve got a farm management plan which will result in offsetting ten thousand tonnes of CO2 and I want to get some credit for that, I’d like to be able to sell that. Well, you’d want him to, wouldn’t you? I’d rather the money went to the farmer to improve his land than goes to the government, frankly. So then, the minute you’ve got the farmer being able to sell those credits then the tax is starting to become like an emissions trading scheme. So the truth is, an emissions trading scheme is a tax but it is a tax that allows trading, obviously, and it should be actually called an emissions tax trading scheme. It should be ETTS but that trading of course means that the revenue does not necessarily have to go to the Government and what I would like to see, if we end up with an emissions trading scheme is as much as that revenues as possible for the permits going into investment in our landscape to make it more sustainable. If we do that, then it may be that regardless of what the scientific outcome is 30 years from now, we’ll all think it’s a good idea. GREG CARY: I want to ask you about cataracts in just a moment too. A lot of our audience will be interested in that. Just ahead of that though, related to agriculture, Martin rings in from Roma wanting to know would you rule out agriculture. Well you have… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yes. GREG CARY: But this is part of your negotiations with the Government? MALCOLM TURNBULL: In a nutshell – this is Martin, is it? GREG CARY: Yes it is. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Martin, in a nutshell, what we have proposed is that direct agricultural emissions be excluded from the scheme forever. That is the position in the US and in Europe so that has got plenty of precedent. Secondly, we believe there should be the full range of agricultural offsets which are carbon abatement measures which increase the carbon in soils and obviously also in the trees and plantings and so forth so all of that, and there are a wide range of measures there, they are front and centre of what the Americans are proposing to do. Kevin Rudd to date has shown no interest in it but that should be our primary objective. Now I think we’re trying to win a bit of ground in the debate on that because I see the NFF has come out supporting what we’re doing and the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, who are some of the leading environmental scientists in Australia, they have said based on some work the CSIRO did in Queensland that by changing our land management practices, by environmental changes, all of which have enormous payoffs for farmers I might say, we could, Australia could offset a trillion tonnes of CO2 a year. Now if we only did 15 per cent of that, that’s a quarter of our annual emissions. So really, the key focus, my focus is on what I call green carbon, what scientists call terrestrial carbon and it’s got [inaudible]. GREG CARY: We literally have 90 seconds but I did want to raise this on behalf of our listeners who have emailed me. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yep. GREG CARY: This is the change to the rebate for cataract surgery, the most basic form of cataract surgery which was going to see the rebate drop back by, what, 45 per cent or figures thereabouts. What’s going on? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well what happened was Julia Gillard [Nicola Roxon] decided to slash the rebate in half from $623.70 to $311.85. That was going to dramatically disadvantage senior Australians who of course are the bulk of people who get cataract treatment. We disallowed the regulation and moved legislation in the Senate to reinstate the old table. Of course we can’t get that law passed without the support of the House which the Government controls. Julia Gillard [Roxon] has now been left with no regulation. She’s now reintroduced, reinstated a regulation which cuts the rebate by 45 per cent instead of 50 per cent but the bottom line is… GREG CARY: But why the cut? Is this a hit at the ophthalmologists? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well she is trying to hit the ophthalmologists… GREG CARY: But it’s hitting the wrong people. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it hits their patients and the difficult is that she has mishandled this so dramatically, she’s been unable… what she needs to do if she was a competent or a more competent Health Minister, she would be getting to an agreed position with the ophthalmologists and with representatives of their patients, representatives of senior Australians, so that you got to an agreed ground but the difficulty is she’s failed to reach agreement with anyone and the only people that will suffer are older Australians who will have to pay a lot more out of their own pocket to be able to see. GREG CARY: So the negotiations continue, it’s not all over yet, a better outcome’s possible? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well one would hope so. We are in there fighting for senior Australians and their eyesight. GREG CARY: Okay. Thank you Mr Turnbull. Always good to see you. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah, great to see you Greg. GREG CARY: And you’re always welcome and we covered a lot of ground there and we’ll do it again soon. [ends]  malcolmFri, 30 Oct 2009 05:39:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:668http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/647/Amendments-to-the-CPRS.aspx#Comments3http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=647http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=647&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/647/Amendments-to-the-CPRS.aspxMr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Leader of the Opposition) (9.16 am)—I move this second reading amendment to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2]: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “the House: (1) believes that the Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme is flawed and in its current form will cost Australian jobs and investment, and simply export rather than reduce global greenhouse gas emissions: (2) supports the Coalition in again calling on the Government to defer consideration of this legislation, which will impose the single largest structural change to the Australian economy, until after the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit has concluded in less than 50 days time; (3) notes that as the Government remains determined to keep an utterly artificial and self-imposed deadline of this Parliamentary year and as such before the world meets to address the important issue of global action, the Coalition has proposed changes to the Government’s ETS to ensure the following critical matters are addressed: (a) that emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries remain on a level playing field with competitors in other advanced economies; (b) that agriculture is excluded from the scheme, rather than included after 2015, and farmers have access to agricultural offset credits; (c) that the impact of higher electricity prices on small businesses be moderated; (d) that the coal industry is required to reduce fugitive emissions as technically feasible, but not be unfairly financially penalised: (e) that transitional assistance to coal-fired electricity generators is sufficient to ensure that electricity supply security is maintained and the generators remain viable; and (f) that complementary measures such as voluntary action and energy efficiency are encouraged”. There are varied opinions within the community about the causes and the consequences of climate change but most scientific opinion holds that our planet is warming because of human caused emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Therefore as leaders around the world have held for many years, starting with Margaret Thatcher nearly 20 years ago, prudence requires that we give the planet the benefit of the doubt and move as a globe to reduce the emission of these greenhouse gases. Most economists and policymakers agree that a well-designed emissions trading scheme is the most economically efficient means of reducing greenhouse gases. That is why in 2007 the Howard government commenced work on an Australian emissions trading scheme. It was based on the Shergold report, the report of the committee chaired by the then permanent head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, with other secretaries represented as well as industry. It is why both the coalition and the Labor Party went to the 2007 federal election promising to implement an emissions trading scheme. But it is important to note that whether this emissions trading scheme, or indeed any emissions trading scheme, is effective will depend on its timing and its design— above all its design. It will depend on the availability of low-emission technologies and cost-effective carbon sinks. In other words, an emissions trading scheme is a piece of economic plumbing to be assessed objectively and pragmatically and practically for its effectiveness in reducing emissions without destroying Australian jobs. Now caps and emissions trading schemes are emerging as a key instrument for emissions abatement in other advanced economies, and obviously we have seen prototypes of the ETS here in Australia already, in New South Wales in particular. The European Union implemented an emissions trading scheme in 2005 and is currently in the process of widening its coverage and greatly increasing the proportion of emissions permits to be auctioned rather than given away. The United States has also been considering a national emissions trading scheme, and there are schemes operating in a number of its states already, with the Waxman-Markey bill already passed by the United States House of Representatives and the Kerry-Boxer-Graham bill going through committees in the Senate. On 13 August this year the coalition joined with all the other non-Labor senators to vote down the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme in the form of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation. The reason for our stance was very clear. As it was designed the CPRS was flawed and it would unnecessarily harm Australian exports, jobs and investment. The introduction of the scheme would simply lead to emissions being exported rather than reduced at the global level. This is the key problem that we face in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. It is unlike other forms of environmental action where there is an immediate local, tangible benefit. Reducing pollution in a river, for example, has an immediate tangible benefit and is not dependent on action anywhere else in the world. What if the only consequence of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Australia is that the industry which produces them ceases to operate in Australia and operates somewhere else—to give the most graphic example which has been the subject of so much debate? If the consequence of this scheme is that less coal is mined in Australia and so there are fewer coalminers’ jobs in Australia, less investment in coalmining in Australia, less exports of coal from Australia, less revenues at every level—private sector, public sector—from coalmining in Australia but demand for coal globally remains the same and more coal is mined in Colombia, South Africa or Indonesia then there has been absolutely no benefit at all to the level of global greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, if one assumes that the environmental standards overseas are not as rigorous as they are in Australia or the mine from which the additional coal is produced in Indonesia, for example, is more gassy than a mine in Australia then it may actually be a net increase. So therein lies what Ross Garnaut described as the ‘diabolical problem’ of managing climate change. Nothing will be effective without a global agreement. We had some discussion in the House yesterday about the recent report, by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, on the impact of rising sea levels and other consequences of climate change on coastal communities. I have looked at the report. It appears to be a very good piece of work, as one would expect with a very experienced chair and the deputy chair, the member for Moore. But the fact is that, even if Australia were to reduce its emissions to zero, unless that is matched by action elsewhere it would have absolutely no impact. So the critical issue—we are told about the critical need for action on climate change, and I accept that call to action without hesitation—is that unless it is global action it will be ineffective. The government is bringing the bills back now, obviously in search of a double dissolution trigger. The government is committed to having the bills voted on before the end of the year, prior to the Copenhagen summit, so that the Prime Minister can go to Copenhagen with a completed statute. The United States of America, unquestionably the most influential player in this whole global debate, followed closely by China, will be going to the conference without concluded legislation. A lot of work has been done and the US House of Representatives has obviously passed a bill but there will not be concluded, finalised legislation from the US prior to Copenhagen. The Prime Minister himself has said that this is no disadvantage; it does not create any problems for President Obama. But apparently the lack of a statute will create a great problem for the Prime Minister of Australia. The inconsistency there is obvious. The coalition still believes that the government’s emissions trading scheme is flawed. For that reason, last week, we proposed a set of common-sense amendments to the scheme and we are currently engaged in good faith negotiation with the government on them. The member for Groom, as the shadow energy minister, is leading our efforts in those negotiations with Senator Wong. These proposals demonstrate that Labor’s emissions trading scheme can be improved to better protect jobs and investment, without sacrificing environmental objectives. The most important amendments and changes that we are advocating are, firstly, placing Australian emissions- intensive trade-exposed industries—the EITEIs—on a level playing field with their competitors abroad; secondly, excluding direct agricultural emissions from the scheme and providing a mechanism for farmers to earn offset credits when they abate carbon; thirdly, ensuring Australian coal producers reduce their fugitive emissions but are not unfairly financially penalised compared to their competitors; fourthly, moderating the impact of higher electricity prices on small businesses; fifthly, providing more assistance to the coal fired electricity generators to ensure they remain financially viable and the lights stay on; and, finally, encouraging complementary abatement measures such as voluntary action and energy efficiency in buildings. With these changes, the CPRS could deliver exactly the same environmental outcomes—the delivery of the bipartisan carbon abatement targets that the Rudd government will take to the Copenhagen climate change talks in December—with much less economic cost and dislocation. I will now address these areas in a little more detail, turning firstly to the question of the EITEIs—the emissions- intensive trade-exposed industries. It has always been our view that the response to climate change must be part of coordinated global action. If we put a price on carbon in Australia without a comparable cost being imposed on the countries that our export industries and trade exposed industries compete with, the simple result is that we end up exporting Australian jobs and he emissions—economic pain, no environmental gain. It is that simple. That is why we have proposed these changes to the way that the CPRS treats the EITEIs. This would involve combining the two levels of assistance proposed in the CPRS into a single band, slightly lowering the emissions intensity threshold for assistance and continuing assistance to Australian emissions- intensive trade-exposed industries at a steady rate until 80 per cent of their international competitors also implement carbon abatement measures. What we mean by that is that, if you take any given Australian industry at the point where the Productivity Commission determines that 80 per cent of the market for that particular product is subject to a comparable carbon price or carbon constraint—it does not have to be by way of an ETS; it could be some other mechanism—the level of protection can start being wound down. There is a powerful argument in relation to these trade exposed industries—LNG is a very good example. While we all understand that we propose to have national caps because only governments can impose the regulations and laws that enforce them, nonetheless, with these trade exposed industries, in an ideal world—and this is certainly what the government should be working towards; it is certainly what the member for Groom and I were working towards when we were part of the previous government—we should have sectoral agreements so that these industries, as global industries, have their own targets and their own carbon constraints. Plainly, if you take the case of LNG, for example, the more LNG we produce in Australia the more greenhouse gases are emitted by the LNG industry here, but the savings of greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere in the world are stupendous and outweigh by a factor of eight any emissions in Australia because, naturally, that is a cleaner fuel that replaces burning coal in the markets where it is introduced. These changes we are proposing for the treatment of the EITEIs are not designed to provide Australian industry with a new form of assistance. We simply seek to ensure that Australian workers and firms are treated comparably with those in trade exposed industries in the United States and the European Union, given the assistance envisaged under the proposed United States and phase 3 European Union emissions trading schemes. Some of the industries that would be assisted by our proposals include steel, aluminium, natural gas, primary food processing and cement, to name just a few. I will now turn to agriculture and green carbon. Our proposals protect farmers by exempting agriculture from the scheme rather than including it after 2015, as Labor has proposed. This is the only logical approach to agriculture given the current absence of viable abatement technologies for most of this sector, which accounts for about 16 per cent of Australia’s total emissions. Exempting direct agricultural emissions also brings Australia into line with decisions in other advanced economies, such as the United States and the European Union, to exempt direct agricultural emissions from the emissions trading schemes and instead address agricultural emissions in different ways—with regulation. On the other hand, the coalition’s proposed changes would also include agricultural offsets, including carbon sequestration in soils and vegetation, here there is the opportunity for enormous financial and land management benefits in the rural sector. This is a win-win for farmers and the environment and again brings the Australian scheme more closely into line with the proposed United States and phase 3 European Union schemes. I have long argued that Australia’s greatest opportunity for low-cost abatement lies in exploiting our comparative advantage—that is, our enormous land area. The existing CPRS treatment of afforestation and reforestation activity is just the first step in recognising this opportunity. Contributors to the climate change policy debate—ranging from Tim Flannery on the one hand to the National Farmers Federation on the other and including the Wentworth Group of Concerned scientists—all agree, as do the drafters of the Waxman- Markey and the Kerry-Boxer-Graham legislation in the US House and Senate respectively and the phase 3 EU ETS. All of those envisage providing farmers—and other landholders, of course—with offset earnings from a very long and comprehensive list of offsets. I will quote from a recent paper that was sent to both the Prime Minister and me, and no doubt to others, by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. As the House knows, this is as distinguished a group of environmental scientists as one could find in Australia. This is what they said about what I have called green carbon, what have been called elsewhere agricultural offsets and what they call terrestrial carbon. They say: The power of terrestrial carbon to contribute to the climate change solution is profound. At a global scale, a 15% increase in the world’s terrestrial carbon stock would remove the equivalent of all the carbon pollution emitted from fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The multiple public policy benefits for Australia in adopting full terrestrial carbon offsets are enormous, but here are also significant risks of an unregulated … carbon market to other areas of public policy. In a report recently commissioned by the Queensland government, Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Carbon Biosequestration Opportunities from Rural Land Use, CSIRO estimate that the Australian landscape has the biophysical potential to store an additional 1,000 million tonnes of CO2e in soils and vegetation for each year of the next 40 years. If Australia were to capture just 15% of this biophysical capacity, it would offset the equivalent of 25% of Australia’s current annual greenhouse emissions for the next 40 years. The literature on this is gigantic. I will make one other reference. The Garnaut review itself estimated that just improved management practices on Australian cropping and high-volume grazing land had the potential to remove around 350 million tonnes of CO2 per annum for 20 to 50 years. This is a gigantic opportunity, but it needs appropriate economic incentives via offset credit creation. You can understand a government that sees an emissions trading scheme as a beaut new tax being a little bit sceptical about this, because if the credits are created by farmers the money will go to the farmers rather than to the government. Instead of buying a permit from the government, they will be buying a credit from a farmer. We on our side say there is a massive national interest in investing in the health and the productivity of our landscape. I say, as I have said many times to those who are sceptical about the science of climate change, if at the end of 20 or 30 years from now the science has been disproved but we have invested billions of dollars into making our landscape healthier, greener and more productive that will have been money well spent. A key part of this—and this is a point that we made at extensive length earlier in the year, in January, and the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists have made this point too—is that it is absolutely vital that the Australian government ensures that all of these agricultural offsets are included in the successor to the Kyoto protocol because many of them are not at the moment. The United States congress is making no bones about it. I will not read this into the Hansard but I refer honourable members to section 733 of the Kerry-Boxer-Graham bill in the US Senate and to section 503 of the Waxman-Markey bill in the House. The list of proposed agricultural offsets there is comprehensive but is not exhaustive. So this is plainly an area where currently the Rudd government’s CPRS is not simply out of step with the science but out of step with what the major comparable developed economies are doing, most notably the United States. I simply ask the House: how can the government possibly defend living Australian farmers less opportunity to abate CO2 emissions than the United States or the Europeans are proposing to give their farmers? It is indefensible. Let me turn now to fugitive emissions from coalmining. Fugitive emissions—meaning essentially the methane that is released through ventilators as coal is mined or as coalmines are prepared for mining—are a very challenging part of the current debate. The government has excluded the Australian coal industry, our largest exporter, from emissions intensive trade exposed industries, or EITEI, assistance because most direct emissions from coalmining arise at a handful of gassy mines and the majority of mines would not need assistance. The coalition understands that reasoning. But at present the CPRS requires coal producers to purchase permits for fugitive emissions. While fugitive emissions have been excluded from the European and proposed US schemes—although it is worth noting that in each of those jurisdictions they account for a lower percentage of overall emissions than they do in Australia— there are nonetheless several feasible abatement technologies currently available to the owners of gassy mines, but they are costly. Unless these mines are assisted, most of them are likely to close. The approach that we have taken, which would put coalmining in exactly the same position as it is in America and Europe, is simply to exclude fugitive emissions and then regulate fugitive emissions in such a way that over time we will achieve a massive reduction in fugitive emissions—a 30 per cent reduction by 2020. My colleague the member for Groom, who obviously, because of his background in energy, is very familiar with this area, has worked very closely with the coal industry and reached a position which they support which will have the result of achieving a much greater reduction in emissions from coalmining than is proposed for the rest of the economy. We do not believe coalminers should be given a free ride in terms of the emissions reductions targets. Where they currently capture and use methane in an economically useful manner, they should do so and, as better technologies come forward, they will be encouraged to adopt those methods. Our proposals are practical and they will achieve the objective of a dramatic reduction in emissions. Let me turn now to electricity prices. In August the coalition, together with the Independent Senator Nick Xenophon, commissioned research on the economic impact of the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme by the respected consultants Frontier Economics. I know they have been the subject of some criticism from the government side, but it is worth noting that Frontier Economics have designed and completed one more emissions trading scheme than the Department of Climate Change. Their expertise is unquestioned. Their study showed that the government’s emissions trading scheme would unnecessarily drive up electricity prices, hurt regional Australia and unnecessarily expand the size of government. They ut forward an alternative: a revised emissions trading scheme which was greener, cheaper and smarter. The proposal suggested that deeper cuts in emissions were possible at a lower economic cost and with a far less severe increase in retail electricity prices—two to four per cent over the first two years rather than the 21 per cent forecast by the Treasury to result from the CPRS. The work by Frontier suggested that with modest changes, especially in the way the ETS treats electricity generation, Labor’s proposed scheme could be made far less harmful to jobs, investment and the broader economy. So far, the government has failed completely to respond in any detail at all to these proposals other than to indicate its disinterest in pursuing the Frontier model. We will continue to advocate an intensity based cap-and-trade approach to the electricity sector, as this more than halves the initial increase in electricity prices, greatly reducing the economic costs of achieving emissions cuts. If the government refuses to consider the intensity based approach, it must clearly explain why and release the complete details of any Treasury or Department of Climate Change modelling of the Frontier alternative approach to the cap-and trade scheme proposed by the government. If it will not accept Frontier on any basis, it also has to demonstrate that it has an alternative strategy to cushion the initial impact of higher electricity prices on small businesses, who are the hardest-hit electricity consumers under the currently proposed CPRS. I turn now to the compensation for electricity generators. The coalition believes—and this was certainly the policy set out in the Shergold report—that the incumbent coal fired generators must be fairly compensated for the loss of value they experience from the CPRS. This is to ensure security of supply, to equip those firms to transition to lower emission energy sources and to address the sovereign risk perception, which will arise from an arbitrary change in the rules that destroys value in existing businesses. The CPRS offers coal fired generators 130 million permits over five years, worth $3.6 billion. Yet three respected private sector analysts estimate their losses at three times that amount. In the absence of access to the government’s secret Morgan Stanley report on this question, which should be published, the coalition’s best estimate of a fairer level of generator compensation is assistance of 390 million permits over 15 years. Assistance should be allocated to all generators in proportion to the losses they suffer. I turn now to the complementary measures. By including voluntary measures, by creating genuine incentives for voluntary action, the environment will benefit from individuals, businesses and community groups who develop their own initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The coalition favour increased incentives for energy efficiency. This is the lowest of the low-hanging fruit in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We favour the creation of a voluntary offset market in advance of the introduction of the CPRS— and we set that out earlier in the year. We support the principle that genuine voluntary abatement should lead to a lower overall level of national emissions. In light of the fact that the Copenhagen conference is only a month away and new information about the likely design of a US scheme and phase 3 of the European ETS continues to emerge at a rapid rate, the coalition has argued for some time that it would be premature to finalise the design of an ETS prior to Copenhagen. All of these issues will be just as relevant after Copenhagen as they are now—and of course we should be working and negotiating—but why should we finalise the design prior to Copenhagen? The government, nonetheless, control the timing of this debate, and it is clear that they are determined to force a vote before parliament rises for the year. It is nonsense to suppose that, whether or not the scheme is passed this year, the parliament’s vote on it will be the last word. It is inevitably going to be simply the first step in what is likely to be a long process of refining and modifying the nation’s policy response to climate change in response to evolving international developments and agreements, progress on our own understanding of the science, practical experience of the operation of the ETS and the emergence of new technologies. Given the government has made it clear that it will insist on pushing these bills to a final vote before Copenhagen, the coalition has engaged constructively in the debate, regardless of our very deep misgivings on this timing. We hope the government will accommodate our common-sense proposals and amend its scheme. They will protect thousands of Australian jobs and in addition and in particular, by reason of the comprehensive inclusion of agricultural offsets, provide the greatest opportunity, as the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and indeed American legislators have recognised, for a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time improving the health of our landscape. In conclusion, I will quote the Leader of the Opposition in the United Kingdom, David Cameron, who published a paper on the low-carbon economy earlier this year. He said: Our starting point in thinking about the low carbon economy is hope, not despair. We are talking about a technological transformation that will enable us to fulfil the aspirations of our people for a rich, varied and prosperous life with vastly reduced dependence on hydrocarbons. … … … … they will pay dividends even if the gloomier predictions about global warming are not fulfilled—dividends in the form of more stable energy costs, improved economic competitiveness and increased energy security. All of those goals will be advanced by the government’s adoption of our amendments.  malcolmWed, 28 Oct 2009 00:41:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:647http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/645/Censure-Motion-border-protection-Parliament-House.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=645http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=645&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/645/Censure-Motion-border-protection-Parliament-House.aspxMr TURNBULL—I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving immediately the following censure motion: That this House censures the Prime Minister for softening Australia’s border protection policies, for denying that his changes have caused a surge in people smuggling, for refusing to take urgent action to address this policy crisis of his own making; and with each boat, another policy failure is exposed, further weakening our nation’s borders. What we have seen from the Prime Minister today is another desperate attempt to distract attention from his own colossal failure of policy. We have seen an extraordinary failure in policy. It is the government’s stated objective to bring an end to what the Prime Minister has called ‘the vile trade of people smuggling’ and prevent unauthorised maritime arrivals of people smugglers into Australian waters. That is the Prime Minister’s objective, as it was the objective of the previous government—and I have no doubt it would be the objective of any and every Australian government. The fact of the matter is this: the Howard government took hard decisions to stop the flow of people smugglers—and it worked. In 2001-02 there were 19 boats with 3,039 people. In 2002-03 no boats arrived. Over the next five years there were a total of 18 boats carrying 301 people. On average, 60 asylum seekers arrived by boat each year. Since the government’s changes in policy in August last year, we have seen 43 boats arrive, carrying nearly 2,000 people. Today we saw the Prime Minister confronted with another boat arrival. When his Deputy Prime Minister was the shadow minister for immigration, she used to issue press releases which said ‘Another boat, another policy failure’. By that measure, there have been 43 policy failures since the Rudd government changed the border protection policies of the Howard government. We saw today the Prime Minister’s desperate attempt to distract attention from this matter. The more he bellows and shrieks with his confected outrage, the more he confirms his own failure to protect our borders. He drew attention to some remarks by the member for O’Connor. Let me say this. I reject any statement which suggests that asylum seekers are, or are likely to be, terrorists—full stop. I made that perfectly clear today. I make no criticism of asylum seekers. I note that the member for O’Connor issued his own statement today in which he said that he did not state that asylum seekers were terrorists. The member for O’Connor and I do not always agree—that is well known. The fact is that the person with control over our borders at the moment is not the member for O’Connor; it is not anyone in the opposition; it is the Prime Minister of Australia, and he seeks constantly to find distractions from his own colossal failure of policy. We come back to this fundamental point: we have two objectives and we should address them in a calm and measured way, as I did earlier this week in the House—and I was complimented for doing so by the Attorney-General himself. This is no place for hysteria; this is no place for any type of hyperbole. We have a simple factual problem here—the Prime Minister’s policy has failed. The Prime Minister says that the changes to domestic policy, the so-called pull factors, have had absolutely no influence or impact on this huge surge in arrivals—over 2,000 people—since August last year. That is his contention. He pulls statistics out of the air. It is misrepresenting statistics to suggest that there has been an extraordinary increase in the push factors. The fact is that the push factors are enormous. They have always been enormous. There are millions of refugees around the world, each and every one of whom would love to come to Australia. According to the UNHCR, the number of refugees and people in refugee-like situations over the course of 2008 declined by eight per cent, but it is still an extraordinary number and an incredible toll of misery and tragedy. That is the enormous push factor that exists all the time. And so every Australian government, regardless of its political persuasion, has to try to balance two objectives. One objective is to protect our borders and ensure that there is an end to people smuggling and that we do not have unauthorised arrivals of asylum seekers coming into our waters and onto our shores. That is a clear statement of policy. The other objective is to treat asylum seekers humanely and compassionately in accordance with the UN convention on refugees. Balancing those two challenges, those two objectives, is the work of every Australian government. The challenge for the Rudd government is this: they say that nothing that they have done has affected the low of refugees. They say there is no pull factor at all. And yet we know, insofar as the enormous push factors are concerned, that the enormous pressure from refugees around the world has changed over the last 12 months. The numbers have, according to the UNHCR’s own report, declined somewhat. I concede that the push factors are enormous and that they will always be enormous. So the question then is a factual one. This is why we should approach this issue in a calm and rational way—not with the hysteria, the character assassination, the venom and the viciousness that the Prime Minister displayed today. Let us simply look at the facts. The push factors are huge today and they will always be huge. They may be somewhat larger in some years, but they are massive. That is a given. We know from reports, and also from the AFP report that the government is so reluctant to publish, that people smugglers would market recent changes to Australia’s immigration policy to entice potential illegal immigrants. That makes perfect sense. People smugglers are demanding thousands of dollars—this is a large sum even by Australian standards, let alone by the standards of desperate people, whether they come from Afghanistan, Iraq or Sri Lanka—so they have to be able to promise with credibility that they can deliver residency in Australia. So, plainly, that is a marketing tool. On 22 April, Indonesia’s Ambassador to Australia said that he thought the traffickers may use this—that is, the government’s change in policies—as a trial to organise more flows of refugees, because they get more money for it. We saw the UNHCR’s regional representative, Richard Towle, confirming that Australia’s changed immigration policies are a marketing tool for people smugglers. On 16 October, he said: … I think perceptions of policy can certainly play a role in people smuggling. They have a product that they need to market, and to show that Australia is a place where refugees can get fair and effective refugee protection is something that is understood. Finally, we have seen in the media so many reports from interviews with asylum seekers themselves. On 24 April an Iraqi refugee in Indonesia told the ABC: Kevin Rudd—he’s changed everything about refugee. If I go to Australia now, different … Maybe accepted but when John Howard, president, Australia, he said come back to Indonesia. So there is no question that these pull factors have been absolutely critical. The Prime Minister’s policy has failed and no amount of hyperbole, of hysteria, of venom and of vicious personal character attack will distract Australians from the fact that this government’s policy objective of protecting our borders has comprehensively failed.  malcolmThu, 22 Oct 2009 00:55:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:645http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/644/Matter-of-Public-Importance-Parliament-House.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=644http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=644&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/644/Matter-of-Public-Importance-Parliament-House.aspx  MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE   People-Smuggling The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wentworth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The consequences of the Government’s policy failures that have increased the people-smuggling trade. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Leader of the Opposition) (4.41 pm)—This government is failing the Australian people in one of the most fundamental responsibilities of any sovereign government: to secure and protect our borders. It is failing because of the changes to our immigration laws, which have had the effect of increasingly outsourcing Australia’s generous humanitarian immigration program to the predations of people-smugglers; it is failing because it is exposing the vulnerable victims of this pernicious trade to the great danger of making perilous journeys across the ocean in unseaworthy vessels; it is failing because of the unnecessary stresses and dangers this places on our defence forces, our police and our Customs officers as they attempt to do their job and stop this illegal trade; and it is failing because an outcome of these policies is to relegate further back in the queue thousands of deserving people waiting to have their claims for asylum processed legally. The government’s policies are not tough or hardline, as the Prime Minister states they are—nor are they fair or humane. This government’s border protection policies are none of these things because they are not working. They are not working because they have led to a perception that Australia has softened its stance. This vital issue of people-smuggling and the integrity of our borders and our immigration policy is one which deserves and demands calm and rational debate. The simple fact is that the object of government policy should be to eliminate people-smuggling so that, as far as practicable, there are no unauthorised maritime arrivals of people seeking asylum in Australia. To say that is not racist—nor is it heartless or lacking in compassion. People-smuggling is a vile trade. Millions of dollars are made by the people-smugglers as they put at risk not just the lives of their often desperate passengers but the lives of the Australian defence personnel who have to intercept them, or indeed rescue them, on the high seas. This issue is not about refugees or whether Australia should accept refugees into our community. As honourable members know, Australia has a substantial and generous humanitarian program, where some of the most disadvantaged people in the world are sought out and brought to the safety and the opportunities of life in Australia. We accept around 13,000 refugees every year. This, relative to our population, is one of the largest humanitarian programs in the world. In 2008, based on the figures of the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, Australia alone accepted about 10 per cent of the 121,000 refugee claims submitted by the High Commission on Refugees for resettlement. We were exceeded only by the United States of America. So let us not have anyone pretend otherwise: Australians have always brought a generosity of spirit to the principle of providing refuge to those fleeing persecution around the world. We are a nation of open minds and open hearts. But we must always be clear-eyed about the balance to be struck in this debate. There are two goals to be achieved here. One is to be compassionate and welcoming to refugees in generous acknowledgement of our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on Refugees. The other goal is to ensure the processing of the refugee intake is orderly, fair and just so that the integrity of the system is not able to be compromised or thwarted by those who seek to circumvent the rules. And, as we have learned over the decades, across governments of both parties, it is not always easy or straightforward to strike an effective balance between the two. Let us just recall the heartbreaking example of nine year- old Brindha, the Sri Lankan girl aboard the boat in Merak, Indonesia. She was apparently flown to Malaysia from her home in Jaffna, to spend a month in a jungle camp, only to be put aboard a crammed fishing vessel and then set sail across the waters of the Indonesian archipelago, destined for Australian territorial waters hundreds of kilometres away. Do any of us consider it compassionate to countenance the idea of a nine-year-old girl being subjected to that extremely hazardous journey? And, as we know only too well, many of these boats are unseaworthy—some of them capsize, some of them sink. The plain and simple truth of it is that the criminal syndicates who run this trafficking in human cargo are prepared to gamble with the lives of those on board, having made the cynical calculation that the Royal Australian Navy will come to the rescue. As we have seen with the case of SIEV 36, these pernicious practices not only can lead to serious loss of life but can endanger the lives of our service men and women who go there to save lives. And what are the people-smugglers doing? They are busy counting their profits. Their normal practice is to depart from the people-smuggling vessel just before it reaches the Australian zone. Captain Bram, who is now in custody in Indonesia, apparently missed his rendezvous— but that was his plan. The Australian Navy will tell anyone who cares to inquire into this that they will come onto those boats and find all of the electronic navigation gear taken out. It is taken out by the people smuggler, the captain, when he disembarks and leaves some junior people on the boat to be arrested. This is a pernicious trade. Yesterday we heard the Australian Workers Union national secretary, Paul Howes, offer this view: One man’s people-smuggler is another man’s liberation hero. I find it hard to imagine a more reckless statement than that. With the best will in the world towards the vulnerable, we should not, as Mr Howes was doing, ever seek to justify the people-smugglers’ vile and pernicious trade. Australians expect their governments to protect their borders against this trade. In doing so we protect the interests of the passengers and we protect the interests of the thousands, indeed millions, of people who are in refugee camps around the world and who would love to be able to come to be resettled in Australia. It should not ever be controversial to state, as a matter of policy and principle, that Australians have the right to decide who comes to this country, our country, and the manner in which they come. The previous Prime Minister, Mr Howard, was criticised for saying that, but the fact is that that is what every Australian expects of their government. Under the Howard government it took a range of strong measures and years of vigilance to halt people-smuggling. The Rudd government, on the other hand, has quite deliberately, and with dangerous naivety, unpicked the fabric of that suite of policies, sending an unmistakeable message to people-smugglers that our borders are open for business. In short, Labor has lost control of our borders. We heard a lot of numbers today from the Acting Prime Minister. So let us have a look at the numbers and at some facts. When the Howard government was faced with a growing tide of asylum seekers arriving by boat, it took hard decisions to stop the flow. In 2001-02 there were 19 boats, with 3,039 people on board. The following year no boats arrived. Over the next five years there were a total of 18 boats, carrying 301 people. On average 60 asylum seekers arrived by boat each year. In just over a year, since the Rudd government began dismantling the immigration policies of the Howard government, we have, as I remind the House, had 41 boats arrive, carrying nearly 2,000 people. If the object of policy is to prevent and discourage these unauthorised maritime arrivals, this enormous upsurge in arrivals must be a failure of policy. Of that there can be no question. The government’s response, the Acting Prime Minister’s response today in particular, is that this has nothing to do with the government’s changes to policy, the so-called pull factors; it has nothing to do with the fact that people-smugglers—and we can rely on the media, the Federal Police report or any range of sources—are out there marketing Australia as a more certain target. Because they are selling a service. Their service, after all, is to say, ‘Pay us your $10,000’—or your $15,000—‘and we will guarantee that we will get you to Australia and that you will get permanent residence.’ So the more certain that outcome, the better a proposition they have to sell. The government says: ‘It’s got nothing to do with that. It’s all push factors.’ Mr Speaker, the push factors have always been there. There are millions of refugees in the world. The tragedy of the case of refugees around the world is such that it is almost demeaning to talk about it in terms of statistics—this enormous total of millions of people, in positions of terrible suffering around the world. This is a gigantic push factor. There are millions of people who are refugees who would dearly love to come to Australia. So the push factor has always been there. Without wanting to diminish the scale of this human tragedy of refugees around the world, I want to address the misrepresentations and inaccuracies that the Acting Prime Minister recited in the course of question time today. Here are a few facts and I will draw all of these from the UNHCR publication 2008 global trends: refugees, asylum-seekers, returnees, internally displaced and stateless persons, dated 16 June this year. Firstly, page 7 states: In 2008, the refugee population under UNHCR’s mandate dropped for the first time since 2006. According to the UNHCR, at the start of 2008 the total number of refugees was 11.4 million people. What a toll of misery that is. At the end of the year, the figure had decreased by eight per cent, which is still an incredible number, but the fact is it had not increased. The Acting Prime Minister spoke about pressure from Afghanistan. To again quote the UNHCR: Afghanistan has been the leading country of origin of refugees for the past three decades with up to 6.4 million of its citizens having sought international protection during peak years. As of the end of 2008, there were still more than 2.8 million Afghan refugees. The figure is significantly below the number it had been previously. The Acting Prime Minister also should have drawn attention to this very important point: less than one per cent of the world’s refugees benefit from resettlement— coming to a country like Australia. Over 10 years 807,000 have been resettled versus 11 million refugees who were repatriated. So, the goal of policy—our own and global policy and the UN’s policy— should always be focused on repatriation, because that is frankly where the greatest difference can be made. The Acting Prime Minister drew attention to the fact that in 2008 there had been a 28 per cent increase of the individual applications for asylum or refugee status. What she did not tell the House was that this was almost entirely the consequence of the dramatic number of asylum applications in South Africa, because of the tragedies in southern Africa. The UNHCR notes that if South Africa alone is excluded—this does not include the other big increases in applications for protection in the rest of Africa—‘the global increase in 2008 would have been only four per cent’. It is still an extraordinary toll of misery, but the proposition that she was putting to the House that there had been a sudden increase in the push factors since the election of the Rudd government, or since August last year, is just untrue and it is proved to be untrue from the very document that she was misrepresenting. This Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, unpicked the fabric of the policy measures that had been carefully developed and refined and changed over many years. The policies were controversial and much criticised. Many of the aspects of them that were the subject of the greatest criticism had been changed under the Howard government. But they worked. At the same time, the Prime Minister, in choosing to meddle with this policy mix, claimed that there was no change that he had made that would have any impact on arrivals. He cannot credibly maintain that position. He has to first acknowledge that his policy has failed and then tell the Australian people how he will address his own failure.  malcolmTue, 20 Oct 2009 02:30:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:644http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/643/Interview-with-Lyndal-Curtis-ABC-Radio.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=643http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=643&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/643/Interview-with-Lyndal-Curtis-ABC-Radio.aspxSubjects: Coalition plan to save jobs and reduce costs. E & O E LYNDAL CURTIS: Mr Turnbull, welcome to AM. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Good to be with you. LYNDAL CURTIS: You said at the start of this month you weren’t prepared to lead a party with nothing to say on the issue of emissions trading, you said you were asserting your leadership and authority, does the outcome you got yesterday satisfy your requirements? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it is the outcome I sought, so it certainly does. What we are presenting are a set of responsible, practical amendments to Mr Rudd’s flawed emissions trading scheme that, if accepted, will save thousands and thousands of jobs. That is what this is all about. At the moment Mr Rudd’s scheme, for no environmental gain, will destroy thousands of jobs and undermine the strength of our economy. Now he can fix that, he can fix that if he accepts our amendments. LYNDAL CURTIS: You put out your amendments for negotiation, in any negotiation some things will be agreed and some will be given away, does your party room understand that it won’t be able to get everything you put before it yesterday? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I think we’re all familiar with negotiation and you are quite right, you very rarely get everything you want and you also happily very rarely get nothing that you want. So at the end of the negotiations we will consider where we have reached. We will decide on the basis of that and the other circumstances, developments both here and internationally at the time, whether we will support the amended bill. LYNDAL CURTIS: What’s core? Is there anything you are not prepared to give away, such as an amendment on agriculture? MALCOLM TURNBULL: All of these issues are important Lyndal, but the worst thing that either Ian Macfarlane or I could do is flag our negotiating position or our bottom line if you like in advance of the discussions. So we are going to engage in good faith negotiations and that’s all I have to say about it. We have set out a set of practical amendments which will save thousands of jobs. That is what this is all about. The jobs of Australians. LYNDAL CURTIS: The Government will be introducing the legislation to the Lower House this week and says you have indicated that you won’t need more time, are you prepared to vote at the end of November? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we will ensure that the Parliament, as far as we can - of course we certainly can’t control the business of the House and we need the support of Independents to have a majority in the Senate - but from our point of view this matter should be debated thoroughly and it should take as long as it needs to take to conclude the debate. So…in the absence of an agreement with the Government, if that means that the debate continues in the normal course of a thorough consideration by the Senate into next year, then so be it. LYNDAL CURTIS: Have you looked at any ways of pushing out the timetable if you need to? It maybe asking more questions in the Senate or moving for a delay of the vote in the Senate? MALCOLM TURNBULL: There is absolutely no intention or interest in any type of artificial delay or filibustering. This is a very complex bill. This is the biggest single structural change to our economy in our lifetimes – introduced by the Government in one legislative package. So it is an enormous issue. It is extremely complex as everybody recognises. So it does need very, very thorough debate and if that takes us into next year then so be it. I mean Penny Wong’s deadline for having this; that this must be agreed before Copenhagen is completely artificial and when she was asked that question of why don’t you take more time, wait until after Copenhagen and spend more time getting the design right, just a moment ago on this program, her answer was completely unconvincing, it was just waffle – with great respect to the Senator. So they have got a political agenda. We understand that. They want to have it passed before the end of the year, they may be able to force a vote before the end of the year. So that’s why we have to engage in the way we can. But in the absence of an agreement I would expect the debate would roll into the new year. LYNDAL CURTIS: You said yesterday that your amendments will save jobs, ensure people don’t face massive electricity price rises. The Government too believes its scheme won’t force prices up much, isn’t the point of an emissions scheme to change peoples’ behaviour and how do you do that if you are not causing some pain? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, Lyndal, the important thing is to ensure that the transition is a smooth one. The problem with the Government scheme is that it will increase prices dramatically in the first few years; wholesale electricity prices up by 40 per cent and retail prices up by 18 per cent – that’s according to their own White Paper. Now that is a very big shock to the economy. Demand for electricity cannot change overnight so it takes time for it to adjust both in terms of it being more efficient in the use of energy on the demand side, and of course moving to lower emission sources of energy on the supply side. The different model we’ve proposed, which is based on the Frontier report – what we call the intensity baseline approach – that has been demonstrated to deliver lower electricity prices. Now I might say that’s why the Government doesn’t like it. The Government would prefer to have a scheme which jacks up electricity prices quickly, which generates a lot of revenue and then enables the Government to distribute that revenue to the constituencies, sections of the community that it wishes to benefit. Now we believe that the economy will be better off overall, everyone will be better off overall, if there is a transition from where we are today to say 2030, with a more gentle gradient of increase in electricity prices. It gives industry a lot longer to adjust and you will get the same cuts in emissions, in fact you could arguably get greater cuts in emissions, but you will not get the same damage to the economy and damage to jobs. At the moment the Rudd Government scheme is anti jobs and it is in particular anti small business. LYNDAL CURTIS: Have you delivered your amendments in writing to the Government yet? MALCOLM TURNBULL: We will be delivering them in a formal letter later today. Obviously they are aware of what they are because we’ve set them out in the press release. There won’t be anything surprising in the correspondence. LYNDAL CURTIS: You’ve had the first stage of what is effectively a two-stage party room process. Any outcome of those negotiations will have to be taken back to the party room. The Nationals are unlikely to back any decision and some Liberals won’t. Are you prepared to lose a few Liberals along the way if you can get the majority of the Liberal Party with you? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well there are plenty of occasions where the party room has agreed on a certain policy or approach and a number of individuals have chosen to exercise their right, which we allow in the Liberal Party, to vote against the vote in a different way. Obviously we would prefer everyone to vote the same way but occasionally people do cross the floor, as it were. LYNDAL CURTIS: But you’re happy if they… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I wouldn’t say I’m happy but it is a fact of life. It’s happened on many issues and there are many distinguished members of the Liberal Party room, past and present, who have crossed the floor on occasions. We have a much greater respect for individual freedom of conscience if you like on our side. LYNDAL CURTIS: The long time party servant, Graeme Morris, told Lateline on Friday that it’s time party presidents started to say to those members and senators who are publicly bucketing their party that their pre-selection or position on the Senate ticket should be looked at. Should the organisation be prepared to deal with the mavericks if they’re hurting your cause? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I’ll leave that to the organisation. I just simply say that it is absolutely vital for political parties to be seen to be united. Where there are differences of opinion, that they should be ideally expressed within the confines of the party room and whether inside or outside the party room they should always be expressed with great courtesy and respect for each other’s opinions and for each other. LYNDAL CURTIS: Malcolm Turnbull, thank you very much for joining AM. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Thank you, Lyndal. [ends]  malcolmMon, 19 Oct 2009 01:23:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:643http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/642/Joint-Press-Conference-with-Ian-Macfarlane-Canberra.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=642http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=642&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/642/Joint-Press-Conference-with-Ian-Macfarlane-Canberra.aspx Subjects: Coalition plan to save jobs and reduce costs.

 
 E&OE MALCOLM TURNBULL: Tonight we are putting the ball back into Kevin Rudd’s court. The Coalition party room has agreed to sensible amendments, practical amendments which will save thousands, thousands of Australian jobs and which will ensure that business, particularly small business, is not unnecessarily slugged with massive price hikes in electricity and of course everything else that uses electricity, including groceries.
 
So the fact of the matter is, now is the time for the Rudd Government to get real about its emissions trading scheme. They have a scheme that is almost friendless, that has been criticised by every other political party and pretty much every other interest group and every industry. 
 
Now we’ve done the hard yards, Ian in particular with Andrew Robb have done the hard yards in talking to many Australian industries and businesses right across the country, finding out what they see as the real flaws in this scheme. And so we’ve set out a number of practical measures that will protect jobs in manufacturing, in mining, that will lessen the price hikes in electricity, that will protect farmers and will unlock the opportunity to achieve substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through agricultural offsets which are a central feature of the emissions trading schemes being proposed in the United States, but for some reason or other are neglected here in Australia.
 
 IAN MACFARLANE:
  
The detail of the scheme is laid out. It covers the key areas of agriculture, food processing, electricity generation, electricity cost to consumers and also the treatment of energy intensive trade exposed industries. As Malcolm said, we will stay on the target of five per cent reduction and if the Government accepts our amendments as they currently stand it will be done within budget of the scheme.
 
 QUESTION:
 
 Mr Turnbull, every negotiation has an end but what in this is negotiable or is it a take it or leave it offer to the Government?
  
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
 
 Well Ian is going to be heading up the negotiations so we’ve set out our amendments. They have set them out in some detail and we have a great deal more detail obviously to provide to the Government and ultimately to move in the Parliament. So really the onus now is on the Government. Are they genuinely prepared to engage in good faith negotiations?
 
 QUESTION:
  
Mr Turnbull, can you explain how you can fund these amendments within the revenue of the scheme if you’re drastically increasing the compensation for generators, increasing EITE assistance etc, etc, how that works and whether you mean that it will be self-funded every year or sort of broadly over time?
  
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
 
 Do you want to address that Ian?
  
IAN MACFARLANE:
  
Yes, sure. Starting with generators – there will be no added compensation in the first five years of the scheme. We need to be aware there is a clear surplus of credits after 2015 running forward to 2025 estimated at around $50 billion in unallocated credits. 
 
Secondly that in terms of the emission intensity cap and trade scheme we’re proposing to flatten out the price rise in electricity prices, that will free up money out of the amount of money required for compensation to households. But I need to be emphatic that households will be no worse off under these amendments than they would have been in net terms under the current government amendments. There are significant areas there where these emissions can be also offset through offset schemes and ensure that we reach the target.
 
If the Government rejects any component of this then obviously we will have to look at an accrual basis where if you look over the life of the scheme, or certainly over the life of the scheme to 2025, the scheme will absolutely still be self-funding. You may run at a loss in a couple of the first five years but you will be back in surplus from there on. And with $50 billion to play with, the losses that we are talking about will be easily ameliorated.
 
 MALCOLM TURNBULL:
  
Can I just add something to Ian’s point there. You’ve also got to take into account that the reason we’re moving, or proposing these changes, is because we want to protect thousands of Australian jobs and vital Australian industries.
 
Now if those industries are lost and those jobs are lost of course that also has a big impact on the Government’s revenues. So you have to look at the revenue situation of the Government overall. You can’t just look at the scheme itself as though it was independent of every other head of government revenue. And there are very big, what economists would call, dynamic revenue issues associated with this.
 
I mean the problem, the fundamental problem with the Government’s scheme is that it will destroy thousands of Australian jobs and you don’t have to take our word for that. You know there is widespread consensus on this. It is a poorly designed and flawed scheme.
 
I know what the Government wants to do and they have been pretty clear about it. They want to have high electricity prices and high emissions trading permit revenues so that they can then redistribute the money to the beneficiaries of their choice. Right? Now what we want to see is a scheme that does not destroy Australian jobs, does not destroy thousands of Australian jobs in vital industries and that as far as practicable keeps electricity prices low, particularly during the period of transition from what is unquestionably an emissions intensive economy to a less emissions intensive economy.
 
 QUESTION:
 
 Mr Turnbull, even though you’ve been given the all clear by this meeting today to go away and negotiate, many or some National senators for example made clear they don’t care what you negotiate, they’re still not going to vote for this at the end of the day. Have you resigned yourself to not being able to turn those people or do you think that you will be able to come up with an outcome that will swing them your way?
 
 MALCOLM TURNBULL:
 
 All we have committed ourselves to do is what we said at the outset. Ian and I have been completely consistent about this. We have set out a series of amendments. We have sought the support of the party room to negotiating in good faith with the Government on the basis of those amendments, and when we get to an outcome, when those negotiations reach an outcome, as they undoubtedly will, we will consider them, Shadow Cabinet will consider them and the party room will consider them.
 
 QUESTION:
 
 Sure but can you answer the question?
 
 MALCOLM TURNBULL:
 
 Well what is the question?
 
 QUESTION:
 
 The question was, have you resigned yourself to not being able to provide the leadership to turn around the Nationals or others or do you think that in your negotiations…
 
 MALCOLM TURNBULL:
  
But this presupposes that we would be disagreeing with the Nationals. You see, Matt, with great respect, you’re missing the point. The whole point here is good faith negotiations which will have an outcome which we will then consider what our response is and indeed the Government is in exactly the same position.
 
 QUESTION:
 
 Mr Turnbull, to put the question a different way, if you get all of your amendments passed by the Government are you confident that you will get at least a majority of your party room to support passage of the ETS before Copenhagen?
 
 MALCOLM TURNBULL:
 
 Look we’re not going to speculate on the outcome of the negotiations here tonight…
 
 QUESTION:
 
 [inaudible]
 
 MALCOLM TURNBULL:
 
 Well, look, if we get all of our amendments then we would be delighted and we will certainly be recommending support for it; Ian and I would be recommending support for it and I would be confident we would secure that support but the fact that…
 
 QUESTION:
  [inaudible]
 
 MALCOLM TURNBULL:
 
 Let’s just have a question and answer. You have asked me that question. Of course, that is the basis of good faith negotiations, but we will come back to the party room when we have got an outcome from our negotiations.
  
QUESTION:
  
How is the environment better off under your amendments? You have continually criticised the Government for not making deep enough cuts so where are you making more cuts in emissions?
 
 MALCOLM TURNBULL:
 
 Well I don’t think we have criticised the Government for making deep enough cuts.
 
 IAN MACFARLANE: We have said we will reach the same… QUESTION: Andrew Robb has said on many occasions that… IAN MACFARLANE: Sorry, with all respect to Andrew who has done an enormous amount of work on this and came forward to this room with the work from Frontier, this is not the plan that was presented to you two months ago. This is a different plan. It has a completely different make up across the energy sector. It has some commonality with what was discussed last time, but in terms of the target we are saying the target is five per cent. That is the Government target.
 
We are on for that target and the way we will do it is firstly, even though for instance we’ve exempted fugitive emissions from the scheme, they will be dealt with through regulation and I will guarantee you that in terms of the actual emission reductions that Kevin Rudd could produce from his scheme and the actual emission reductions that we could produce from our scheme in the coal industry, they are exactly the same because our carbon reductions are the ones that you can achieve with technology. So there is no walking away from emission reduction in that area and what we are doing is adding to the scheme a number of areas, particularly things like soil carbon, which Kevin Rudd has completely ignored. When our trade competitors like Europe and like America adopt carbon abatement through soil carbon and agriculture, we will be at a disadvantage if we don’t do that and if it is an internationally recognised process of carbon abatement then it will be included in our scheme and it will ensure we reach the target.
 
 QUESTION: So what percentage of the targets will be made up of agricultural offsets? IAN MACFARLANE: Well we have got to sit down and do the sums on that but I am saying, why don’t you go and ask Kevin Rudd what part of the abatement is going to come from the electricity industry? Why don’t you ask him what part of the abatement is going to come from the coal industry? Because he cannot perform miracles.
 
This concept that he has got that zero emission coal is going to suddenly wipe emissions out of the stationary electricity-generating industry is a complete myth. There is no likelihood. Treasury’s own modelling says the first commercial scales of multiple zero emission power stations won’t be built under the late `20s. That is Treasury’s words and the first commercial – as in without any government subsidies – won’t be built until the late `30s. So you are talking about something that is not even going to happen in the next 20 years. And so Kevin Rudd’s carbon abatement is no different to ours. We will be using the same technology under our scheme as he will be under his.
 QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, you’re now on a good faith negotiation path. Will you, as part of that good faith, in the Senate support extended sittings if they’re needed to get this through? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well what we will do is first conclude our negotiations with the Government. Now, as we have said right – Ian and I have said this consistently – if the question is how will we respond to the bill when it comes up for a vote in the Senate, whenever that may be, we will respond in the light of the extent to which the Government accepts our amendments and in the light of the political developments and circumstances at the time both here and internationally. There is quite a lot going on internationally. Now we talked about…
 
 QUESTION: That wasn’t the question. …if the question was. The question was specifically will you vote in the Senate for an extension of time if you feel you need it to get it through? [inaudible] MALCOLM TURNBULL: We will consider that at the time. There is no reason why other than in order to achieve an agreed outcome. I mean, clearly, one thing that we could do, notwithstanding our very strong view that it is more prudent to finalise the design of the scheme after Copenhagen rather than before it, one thing we can do is we can enable the Government to finalise the legislation before Copenhagen. But that is something, that is a matter that we have to consider very, very carefully and that is one of the chips, if you like, in the negotiating. It is one of the issues in the negotiations. If this bill were to be debated and there were to be no negotiations, if it were just simply to be debated with amendments coming up in the normal way, the normal debate of this in the Senate would run well into the new year.
 
 QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, is it the case, just to clarify, is it the case that even if the Government were to accept holis-bolis this package of amendments, you would still have to bring them back for a party room vote. And if that is the case, why should the Government negotiate with you when you can’t even promise to deliver it? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Ian said it is a bizarre question and I wouldn’t say it is bizarre but we have always said that is the case so that is a… QUESTION: But you can’t even promise that you will deliver the amendments that you are putting up tonight. I mean we have got Liberal MPs saying to us, ‘oh I think we should take them out and test them but I will never vote for a carbon… IAN MACFARLANE: I have got the list of who said that and I tell you it is a small minority of this party room. I can tell you. I know exactly who said what and the thing that surprised me… QUESTION: Well they say it’s not a small minority. IAN MACFARLANE: Well I have got the numbers and they are in my little black book. QUESTION: [inaudible] MALCOLM TURNBULL: Hang on, we have just got to be very practical and businesslike about this. We have a set of amendments which the party room has endorsed which we are taking to the Government. We will have discussions with the Government and no doubt we will reach some conclusion or other. We will then consider the best we can negotiate with the Government and they will no doubt consider it as well. QUESTION: [inaudible] talk about them, not to pass legislation if they were accepted. IAN MACFARLANE: That’s all we asked for. QUESTION: Because that’s all you could get? IAN MACFARLANE: No, that’s all we asked for, that’s all we were ever going to ask for at this meeting. QUESTION: How would you characterise the debate in the party room then and are the amendments that came out of the party room identical to the ones you took into it?
 
 MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well the debate was robust and courteous. It was a very good debate. It was a lengthy debate but it was a very good debate and it included many, many… a large percentage of the members and senators present spoke, and the amendments that were approved were exactly the ones we brought in.
 
 QUESTION: Did any members express dissatisfaction with the way the leadership came to the position?
 
 MALCOLM TURNBULL: Not that I recall. No. I don’t recall. I recall there being some very kind things but there wasn’t a lot of criticism, no. But anyway.
 
 QUESTION: [inaudible]
 
 MALCOLM TURNBULL: George Brandis does the party room briefing.
 
 QUESTION: Did anyone reserve their right to not vote for [inaudible]?
 
 MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look can I just say this to you: every Member of the party room, every Member and Senator reserves their right, as indeed does every member of the Shadow Cabinet, as to how they will respond to whatever emerges from the negotiations.
 
I mean you know at the end of the day Ian will go into negotiations with the Government, he’ll do that in good faith and he’ll see what emerges and what emerges will then be considered – and I might say, Penny Wong is in no different a position because whatever she emerges from her discussions with Ian, she then has to take back to her cabinet and her party room.
 
So neither Ian nor Penny have got some sort of plenipotentiary powers to sign-off on behalf of the Government in Penny Wong’s case or the Opposition in the case of Ian. 
 
 QUESTION: Do you think that Senator Wong is serious about negotiating? You said I think earlier today that she’s always putting up tests and… play politics from the start….
 
 MALCOLM TURNBULL: No of course they play politics with it and here are some practical suggestions. I mean take the issue with coal mining as a pretty straight forward example. Coal mining is our biggest export industry. It employs thousands of Australians, generates billions of dollars of value to the Australian economy and hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions of dollars in tax, probably billions of dollars in tax in one form or another. So it is a gigantic industry – and yet the Rudd Government is proposing to impose a carbon tax on coal which has no counterpart, not just in the economies with which they compete, the developing economies like Indonesia, Columbia, South Africa, but no counterpart in the United States or Europe either.
 
So it is literally Kevin Rudd has decided to make Australia, the largest coal exporter in the world, the most heavily taxed coal mining business in the world as far as carbon goes. Now that is a remarkable, bizarre position that they take. And so what we have come back and said in a nutshell is: treat coal mining the same as it’s going to be treated in the United States and Europe. I mean when you boil it all down that’s what we are saying. Now that’s common sense.
 
Now you know Penny Wong and Kevin Rudd have got to get real. Are they going to try to penalise, make themselves some kind of environmental heroes out of slugging our biggest export industry in a way that will do absolutely nothing for global emissions, because obviously you know if you mine less coal in Australia, more coal would be mined in Indonesia and Columbia – a sort of outcome for the environment probably negative overall, but a huge negative economic impact on Australia. And there’s a host of other changes here that are similarly practical, common sense amendments. QUESTION: Mr Macfarlane how many names are in your little black book? IAN MACFARLANE: I’m not talking about that. I just wanted people to understand that people who say that there’s no way in hell the party room will vote for the amendments when they come back from Penny Wong are simply wrong.
 
They should have been in the party room. They should have heard the tone. Everyone in this party room wants us to bring the outcome of the negotiation back. There is a very small minority, and I could give you the number, and it is less than 10, who say ‘we don’t care what you bring back, we’re going to vote it down’. 
Well last time I counted there was more than 20 people in the party room.
 
QUESTION: We would be happy to come next time…. MALCOLM TURNBULL: So the bottom line is good faith negotiations, approaching it an open mind and whatever emerges from the negotiations, both the Shadow Cabinet and the party room will consider with an open mind and in good faith. And as to how we end up voting on it will depend on what the outcome of those negotiations are.
 
 QUESTION: Mr Turnbull do you support the way Sharman Stone is prosecuting the asylum seeker issue for the Coalition?
 
 MALCOLM TURNBULL: Sharman Stone is doing a great job as Shadow Immigration Minister.
 
 QUESTION: Can you explain again the accrual accounting model [inaudible] taking money from future revenue to compensate for [inaudible] today, is that right?
  
IAN MACFARLANE: Well the way the scheme stands at the moment it will fund itself year-on-year. If they, the Government, reject components out of the scheme, which means that the cost of operating the scheme in terms of dollar compensation goes up and there isn’t commensurate savings somewhere else, then we will have to accrue account and we’re just saying that over the next 10 years, let alone the next 15, the scheme will be grossly in profit, that there will be literally tens of billions of dollars.
 
But what I’m saying is that you may find that if they change let’s say the electricity model, that the scheme will run at a deficit, not a big deficit, maybe one maybe two billion – compared to what’s just been spent on the stimulus, chicken feed, not that I ever thought billions was chicken feed – but it’s going to be small amounts relative to the amount of money that will flow into the scheme which is currently unassigned as of year 2016. QUESTION: …reject components of your amendments, just to be clear, you’re saying that your amendments…. IAN MACFARLANE: …under its current format…. QUESTION: …will be self funded? IAN MACFARLANE: Under its current format. QUESTION: …that less than 10 doesn’t include the Nationals does it? There’s like 14…. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh look, Phil, yeah okay…. IAN MACFARLANE: I’m not annunciating that any further Phil. I made the comment. I stand by it. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look the bottom line is, as I said, we have got some practical, common sense amendments here which are workable and will save thousands of Australian jobs. That’s the key point.
The issue now, the test for Penny Wong and Kevin Rudd is are they prepared to negotiate in good faith? If they want our support then they are going to have to give some ground, quite a lot of ground in fact.
But we will see how we get on in our negotiations. The negotiations will come to conclusion and then we will decide – we, both the Opposition and the Government – will decide how we respond. Thank you very much. 
 [ends] malcolmSun, 18 Oct 2009 11:39:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:642http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/641/Coalition-Plan-to-Save-Jobs-and-Reduce-Costs.aspx#Comments1http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=641http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=641&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/641/Coalition-Plan-to-Save-Jobs-and-Reduce-Costs.aspxThe Coalition has unveiled a plan to save thousands of Australian jobs and limit increases in electricity prices for small business through common sense amendments to Labor’s flawed and rushed emissions trading scheme.malcolmSun, 18 Oct 2009 09:24:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:641http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/640/Doorstop-Interview-Sydney.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=640http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=640&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/640/Doorstop-Interview-Sydney.aspxSubjects: The Rudd Government’s reckless spending and borrowing; congestion tax; ETS; border protection; asylum seekers. E & O E MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Australians are starting to pay the price for Labor’s reckless spending and borrowing. We’re seeing higher interest rates and yesterday the Reserve Bank Governor, in his strongest and most forthright statement about future rate rises, saying he would not be timid about winding back the monetary stimulus that he provided quickly by reducing rates. So Glenn Stevens is saying he is going to respond to the changed economic conditions by quickly putting rates up again. And we’ve seen Ken Henry, the Treasury Secretary, out canvassing new taxes, in this case a congestion tax. We saw in the Parliament not so long ago the Government refusing to confirm or deny that they were contemplating new taxes on the family home. At the beginning of this year we said that Labor’s borrowing and spending, reckless borrowing and spending, would mean higher interest rates and higher taxes. And those economic chickens are coming home to roost for Mr Rudd because we’re starting to see both. And yet last night the Finance Minister, Mr Tanner, said that the rate of spending would not be slowed. So at the same time as the Reserve Bank Governor, recognising the economic strength in our nation, our growing economy, is winding back the monetary stimulus by increasing interest rates, the Federal Government is fuelling that growth, pushing up interest rates by continuing to spend unabated and the consequence of that is going to be higher interest rates and higher taxes. If Mr Rudd won’t listen to the Opposition who warned of this at the beginning of the year, if he won’t listen to young home buyers who are anxious about paying higher interest rates, and if he won’t listen to the Governor of the Reserve Bank Glenn Stevens, when will he start listening and stop this reckless spending? QUESTION: What’s your position on the idea of a congestion tax? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well a congestion tax is not a good idea. It can only be feasible in circumstances where there is a readily available public transport alternative. I mean it could only ever be equitable in those circumstances. And you take a city like Sydney, which probably has the best public transport of the major cities in Australia, and there are vast areas of Sydney which have little or no public transport availability. So a congestion tax in the absence of a widespread public transport network, as you have in London, would be very, very unjust and that’s why we would not agree to it. QUESTION: On a different note, do you have any comments to make on the emissions trading scheme and the call for a secret ballot in the party on that? MALCOLM TURNBULL: We don’t have secret ballots on policy matters in the party room, it’s not our practice. QUESTION: Are you concerned about a leadership spill on Sunday? MALCOLM TURNBULL: No. QUESTION: You don’t think it’s on the agenda and you don’t think… MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, it isn’t. It isn’t and I’m not. QUESTION: On another matter again, do you support Kevin Andrews’ idea of a new temporary protection visa system for asylum seekers? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Let me just say this about the asylum seekers and the situation at the moment. Unlike Mr Rudd I did see the pleas of the little girl on the boat in Indonesia and it was heart-breaking. Every Australian who saw those people would have been deeply moved by it. But the tragedy is that she and her parents were invited on to that boat by a people smuggler, by someone who believed that because Mr Rudd had softened our border protection policies they would be able to promise to those unfortunate passengers a certain passage to Australia. So the reality is that Mr Rudd unpicked the fabric of a border protection policy that had worked, that had proved its effectiveness by substantially eliminating this vile trade of people smuggling. And Mr Rudd can talk about being hardline and tough and making no apologies as often as he likes, but the apology he should make is to the Australian people because he unpicked a policy, a suite of policies that had worked and had proved their effectiveness because the boats had stopped. He said by changing those policies it would have no effect on the boats, nothing would change. He said we’d be able to eliminate those policies of the Howard Government and we’d still have no boats – and yet we now have nearly 2,000 arrivals, illegal arrivals since he changed the policy – with the expectation that there will be thousands more. This is a comprehensive failure in policy. Mr Rudd has recklessly opened up our borders in a way that is placing the integrity of our whole immigration system and our whole program, our generous program of humanitarian assistance, at risk. He must recognise that he has failed the Australian people and he must hold an urgent inquiry into the situation, getting the utmost intelligence advice, specialist advice, both from the region and domestically, to examine the impact of his policies and what measures can be put in place to rectify this problem. There is no quick fix to this. Mr Rudd has recklessly unpicked a suite of policies which worked and there is no silver bullet to resolve the situation in a moment. QUESTION: There’s not a quick fix but there’s a very immediate crisis with the Sri Lankans now refusing to take food. What do you think we should do? What action should we take? MALCOLM TURNBULL: The Sri Lankans are on board a vessel in an Indonesian port so it is quite properly and factually the responsibility of the Indonesians. The hunger strike is a reckless and self-destructive act, it is putting lives at risk and I have no doubt the Indonesian authorities will be doing – just as we would be doing if the boat was in an Australian port – doing everything they can to ensure that the hunger strike comes to an end by persuading the hunger strikers to stop and by ensuring that they leave the vessel peacefully and then can be dealt with and processed in the usual way by the UN High Commission on Refugees. QUESTION: They are saying they won’t back down though until they can come to Australia so really it is partly our problem too, isn’t it? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, look, there are not thousands, there are millions of people who would like to come to Australia and who could claim the asylum status as refugees, millions of people, and we have a very generous humanitarian program, one of the most generous in the world relative to the size of our population. But it is fundamental that we choose the refugees that we admit into Australia based on criteria, our criteria – in particular, criteria of those that are in the greatest need. We cannot have a humanitarian program which is self-selecting. We take 13,000 a year in total. We have already had 2,000 illegal arrivals since last August. If that became 4,000 or 5,000, you can readily see that the program, the quota if you like, the number, becomes more and more filled out by people smugglers. You cannot outsource your humanitarian program, your humanitarian refugee program to the people smuggling industry. That is not in Australia’s interest and it isn’t in the interest of the thousands and indeed millions of refugees who are seeking Australia’s assistance. We cannot help everyone. We help a large number, a large number particularly relative to other countries, so we are generous but we have to be able to make those judgments. We cannot allow Mr Rudd to outsource our humanitarian program to the people smugglers. Thanks very much. [ends]  malcolmFri, 16 Oct 2009 04:24:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:640http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/639/Same-old-Labor-spending-waste-and-mismanagement.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=639http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=639&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/639/Same-old-Labor-spending-waste-and-mismanagement.aspxLabor Government waste and mismanagement is now systemic according to a new report released today by Opposition Leader the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull and Coalition Scrutiny of Government Spokesperson, Senator Guy Barnett. The Labor Waste Annual Report 2008/09 highlights examples of waste, inefficiency and mismanagement that have occurred under the Rudd Labor Government in the 12 months to 30 September 2009. Among the top examples of waste were: GROCERYchoice website – $10 million wasted Schools stimulus debacle – $1.7 billion blow-out Cash splash waste – $40 million to dead people and Aussie expats Northern Territory indigenous housing program – $45 million and not one completed house  2020 Summit – $2 million wasted “These examples demonstrate the reckless manner in which the Labor government is spending taxpayers’ money,” Mr Turnbull said. “This waste of borrowed money is made worse by the fact that Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan are leading Australia into record debt.” “Wasting taxpayers’ money now means fewer options for essential services like health and education in the future. Wasting taxpayers’ money also means higher debt and higher taxes.” “Labor just does not understand the concept of value for money – it is a never-ending ‘spendathon’ using borrowed money." When will the waste end? The www.laborwaste.com website has also been re-launched together with the release of the Annual Report. “Thorough scrutiny of Government spending and ensuring that taxpayers get full value for money is a key priority for the Coalition.” “The Coalition is committed to protecting Australia’s future by stopping Labor’s reckless spending and reducing Government waste.” The Labor Waste Annual Report 2008/09 is available electronically at www.laborwaste.com and www.liberal.org.au . To read the full report click here malcolmThu, 15 Oct 2009 05:10:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:639http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/637/Doostop-Interview-with-Guy-Barnett-Abbotsford-Public-School-Sydney.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=637http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=637&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/637/Doostop-Interview-with-Guy-Barnett-Abbotsford-Public-School-Sydney.aspxSubjects: Labor Waste Annual Report 2008/09; public hospitals; border protection and asylum seekers. E & O E MALCOLM TURNBULL: We are here at Abbotsford with Senator Guy Barnett to launch the Labor Waste Annual Report. This is the product of the Labor Waste committee that Guy Barnett chairs which keeps a very close eye on the growing waste and mismanagement of the Rudd Labor Government. And this is a chronicle of waste, mismanagement and inefficiency. Hundreds of millions of dollars spent on consultants; billions of dollars being wasted recklessly. And of course we are here in Abbotsford where we have one of the sadly iconic examples of Labor’s waste and mismanagement. This is the school where four perfectly serviceable classrooms are to be torn down at a cost of $2.5 million and then replaced with four perfectly serviceable classrooms. $2.5 million of taxpayers’ money to tear down four classrooms and build four classrooms – and that really is a symbol of the Labor Party’s attitude to debt, to deficit, to borrowing, to spending; borrowing and spending big, spending ineffectively and throwing a heavy burden on the shoulders of Australians now and in generations to come. And we saw today in a speech by the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Glenn Stevens, who has had to put up interest rates – these interest rates are rising in part as a consequence of Labor’s reckless spending – we saw Glenn Stevens say that economic policy has to be recalibrated as circumstances change. In other words, the message to Mr Rudd and Mr Swan is: now that you can see the economy is much stronger than you thought it was going to be when you committed to all this reckless spending, now is the time to wind it back. But oh no, Mr Swan wants to keep on spending like there’s no tomorrow. No matter how much economic data demonstrates that they should be winding back their reckless spending and borrowing, these Paris Hiltons of government finance are determined to keep spending. Guy? SENATOR GUY BARNETT: Thank you. Thank you Malcolm and today, yes, we’re releasing the annual report, it’s the first annual report of the Labor Waste Committee. It’s highlighting the Labor waste, the litany of waste, the litany of reckless spending and some of the key examples are set out in the report, and I just want to nominate a few. But today we can advise that this Rudd Labor Government is spending more on consultants than any other Australian Government in history – over $900 million since they were elected – and that’s outlined in the report. We have had the GROCERYchoice website fiasco where Mr Rudd promised to put downward pressure on grocery prices, and what did he do? He established a website and they budgeted for over $13 million over four years and of course in less than 12 months they’ve expended, of taxpayers’ money, nearly $10 million. The website was of no use to consumers or anybody else and has now been closed down. It is a shocking waste of money. The $1.7 million overspend in terms of school stimulus waste and $3.6 million, for example, on signs to promote the Labor Party, to get them elected before the next election and memorial plaques to Julia Gillard. These are but some of the examples. And as Mr Turnbull indicated, here we are at Abbotsford Primary School to highlight the $2.5 million for four classrooms to be knocked down and to be rebuilt. These are projects that are being forced on schools to undertake projects that they don’t want or in fact don’t need. So there’s a whole range of litany of examples in the report and they highlight and confirm that the Labor waste has now become systemic within the Rudd Labor Government. It is now systemic and today we have relaunched the website: www.laborwaste.com and we are seeking further examples from members of the public, consumers, small business people. To highlight the waste please go to: www.laborwaste.com. We will scrutinise that feedback and we will keep this Government accountable for what they should be doing. And at a time like this, at a time like this when it is difficult for a lot of people, we say we want to keep the Government honest and accountable and to ensure scrutiny so that taxpayers get good value for money. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Thank you. Do you have some questions? QUESTION: Mr Turnbull just following on from the AMA’s report yesterday, do you think it’s now time that the Commonwealth took over public hospitals? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it is time that Mr Rudd delivered on his promise. Mr Rudd said he would either fix public hospitals by 30th of June or take them over, and he hasn’t done either. So it is up to Mr Rudd to deliver. He is going around from one hospital to another, one picfac to another. It is all very good for his PR but it is not doing anything for the patients that are missing out on these medical services that they deserve and that the AMA is so concerned about. QUESTION: Would the Coalition look at a takeover if you were in government? MALCOLM TURNBULL: We are focused on what Mr Rudd has got to do. He is in government, he is the one that has to live up to his promise. He said he would fix public hospitals or he would take them over. And he has done neither. QUESTION: Sure the AMA report suggests that states can’t run the health system the way it’s going? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well the AMA report identifies the many deficiencies and failings and the deterioration over the last year, a year in which Mr Rudd of course has been in government. He can’t blame this on the previous government. That AMA report is a damning indictment of his failures, and he has to be held accountable for them. He said he would either fix it or take it over, and he has done neither. QUESTION: Kevin Andrews is suggesting an unlawful entrance visa stemming from the number of illegal boat arrivals that we have been having lately. Is that a Coalition policy or is that something that he is putting up himself? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Mr Rudd has to tell us what he is going to do. It is his problem. He is Prime Minister. He is the one that dismantled a border protection policy that worked. Illegal arrivals were negligible as a result of the Howard Government’s policies. Mr Rudd dismantled them and in doing so said it would have no effect on arrivals. He said it would have no effect. The Labor Party described the Christmas Island detention centre as a white elephant. Now it is not going to be able to cope with the flood of illegal immigrants. Mr Rudd’s policy has failed. He has no answers other than to fling his hands in the air, shrug his shoulders and say there is nothing he can do about it. What he has to do is take charge. It is all very well talking tough and describing people smugglers as vermin. Let’s all agree that they’re very bad criminals. But what is he going to do about it? And the answer is so far, nothing. QUESTION: …policies are working though, so what’s your alternative? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we have proposed, given that he refuses to recognise that there even is a problem, we propose there be a thorough, independent inquiry that can get the benefit of advice from the Federal Police, from security services, to get all of that expert advice, examine which part of Mr Rudd’s blunderings have had the greatest impact on this flood of arrivals, and examine a range of alternatives that could be put in place to stop it. The fact is Mr Rudd has not even got to first base. He doesn’t even recognise or accept he has got a problem. How many thousand illegal arrivals do we need before Mr Rudd is going to have to own up and say that his border protection policies, his border protection policies have failed? QUESTION: You were saying this morning on radio that it won’t be long before asylum seekers will be processed on the mainland. Where has that come from, do you....? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well this is what we are hearing from the Government. They have run out of places or are running out of places at Christmas Island, and we know that they are looking actively at reopening detention centres on the mainland. That is again a total failure of policy. But this is Mr Rudd’s failure of policy and he is the Prime Minister, he has to deal with it. QUESTION: What do you think should happen to the Sri Lankans currently just in limbo up there off Indonesia? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well the reality is that these people chose…. seek to travel to Australia illegally. They have been with people smugglers. They sought to enter Australia unlawfully, and they have been apprehended by the Indonesian authorities, and they if they seek the protection of the United Nations High Commission on Refugees in Indonesia then they should be dealt with accordingly. But they should not be rewarded for this effort by being admitted into Australia. Okay? Thanks very much. [ends]  malcolmThu, 15 Oct 2009 04:05:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:637http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/634/Rudd-Labors-reckless-spending-putting-interest-rate-pressure-on-families.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=634http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=634&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/634/Rudd-Labors-reckless-spending-putting-interest-rate-pressure-on-families.aspxThe Rudd Government’s determination to continue its reckless and wasteful spending threatens to add further pressure to interest rates and mortgage costs for families. Rather than protecting jobs and family homes, the Government’s rush to keep spending at high levels in the face of mounting evidence that the economy is gathering pace, makes interest rate increases above normal cyclical tightening inevitable. The rate increases are coming sooner and will be bigger than the cycle would normally require. These rises will have real, detrimental impact on families. Home buyers will face an increase of around $1,000 a year in extra mortgage payments for each 25 basis point rise in interest rates on a $400,000 loan. The Reserve Bank’s decision this month to lift rates means that the $900 cash splashes sent to many wage earners has already been taken back. Market economists are almost unanimous that there will be a further rate increase on Melbourne Cup day. The only disagreement is the size of the rate rise, whether it be 25 basis points or 50. And this is only the start. This mounting burden on families is the inevitable consequence of Mr Rudd’s reckless spending. Considering that more than half of the suburbs in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth are categorised as being at “high risk” of loan defaults in the event of interest rate rises, according to Dun and Bradstreet, the Government should be doing everything it can to reduce the pressure for rate rises. At particular risk are the more than 150,000 first home buyers who received the increased first home owners grant from October 2008. Every one of these first time home buyers will be feeling the pain of interest rate rises to come in the future unless the Rudd Government cuts back on its reckless spending to take the pressure off rates. Unless we get quick action to rein in spending and move forward on reforms to housing supply, housing affordability will continue to worsen and home buyers will be penalised. As the Reserve Bank has warned, housing affordability is already under pressure because of an undersupply of dwellings Instead, Rudd Labor is only fuelling interest rate rises that add financial pressure on families.  malcolmTue, 13 Oct 2009 04:57:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:634http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/635/Doorstop-Interview-with-Scott-Morrison-Ropes-Crossing.aspx#Comments1http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=635http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=635&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/635/Doorstop-Interview-with-Scott-Morrison-Ropes-Crossing.aspxSubjects: Kevin Rudd’s reckless spending putting upward pressure on interest rates; housing market; Ross Garnaut; border protection; climate change; nuclear energy. E & O E MALCOLM TURNBULL: As you have seen, Yardley and her fiancé are buying a block here and they’re going to build a house, their first new home together. And we’ve been discussing the impact of interest rates and rises in interest rates which obviously have a very big impact on young couples particularly who are buying homes at the moment with the benefit of all the incentives and are buying homes on the basis of a low interest rate environment. Now we are determined to ensure that the Government does the right thing. We can’t force the Government to do anything but we are urging them to slow back on the spending and borrowing. They are spending and borrowing at a level that is unprecedented in peacetime history in Australia and that is putting upward pressure on interest rates. And Yardley has already seen that with one rate rise that came, as she said earlier, a lot sooner than expected. The Reserve Bank says that the monetary policy has to be tightened, the monetary stimulus has to be wound back, and yet at the same time Wayne Swan wants to keep on spending, keeping on fuelling up the economy in a way that is only going to make it harder for young couples like Yardley and her fiancé to buy new homes and service their mortgage debt. Scott, did you want to add something o that? SCOTT MORRISON: Yes, only really to congratulate Yardley and her fiancé on what is a big decision. There is around about 200,000 plus who have made that decision in the last 12 months and it wasn’t welcome news that they will be paying more for that mortgage earlier than they anticipated. The other thing here is that this is an important development because we need more homes built across Australia. We need to build about 165,000 every year according to the Reserve Bank and we’re currently building less than 140,000. So that’s where the problem is in terms of prices. I mean Yardley was telling us earlier that she decided to make that decision with her fiancé to buy now because prices just keep going up. And so if we want to do something about housing affordability we must address these very important issues of supply because those who haven’t got into the market now will be paying a lot more in the future. QUESTION: Do you have any message to the banks who have all indicated that they’re going to lift rates in the near future? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well my message to the banks is that they have got to put their customers first. The big banks have done very, very well out of this financial crisis. They have had the benefit of government guarantees, both for their deposits and also for their wholesale borrowings. There is now less competition in the mortgage market than ever before because so many of the smaller lenders and the non-bank lenders are out of the market. So it is absolutely vital the banks recognise their responsibility to their customers. QUESTION: When it comes to interest rates, they were a lot higher under the Coalition and they couldn’t really have got much lower than they did recently. So wasn’t it just to be expected that rates would rise and inevitable given the economic cycle? MALCOLM TURNBULL: What the Government has done, as we’ve been saying all year, is they have been borrowing and spending recklessly. Now we said at the beginning of the year that they should borrow and spend less and spend it more effectively, better targeted spending. And the Government ignored that. They assumed that we were on the edge of an abyss and so they panicked and they spent an enormous amount. Now it is plain that the strength of the Australian economy, thanks to the good economic management of the previous government, thanks to the strong demand for our exports from China, thanks to the good management of monetary policy by the Reserve Bank, thanks to all of those things our economy has been much stronger. And so that is why we’re saying, and we’re not saying it alone, other leading economists – Ross Garnaut, a Labor economic adviser, Warwick McKibbin on the Reserve Bank board – we’re all saying the same thing. Given that the economy is so much stronger than the Government anticipated it must scale back, not cut out entirely. It’s not a question of cutting out all government spending. That’s a false premise. What the Government should be doing is scaling it back, recognising, as Ross Garnaut said today, given that the economic environment has changed so should the Government’s response to it change. Because if they don’t change it Yardley and her fiancé and hundreds of thousands of other young couples are going to be paying higher and higher interest rates which will make it harder for them to realise the dreams they have for themselves and their families. QUESTION: On interest rates though, it was inevitable though that interest rates had to go up though, isn’t it? So wasn’t that just something that people should have factored in and we can’t really stop it from happening? MALCOLM TURNBULL: You see, it’s a question of the pace and the rate of interest rate increases. Interest rates will go up and down over the cycle, there’s no doubt about that, but the Government should not be working against monetary policy. What the Government is doing, at the same time as the Reserve Bank says a bit of heat needs to be taken out of the economy with higher interest rates, you’ve got the Government fuelling the economy up. So the Government is in effect fuelling higher interest rates. Now it shouldn’t be doing that. SCOTT MORRISON: I make one other point too, I mean let’s not forget that Australia has some of the highest interest rates in the world currently when you compare it to the UK. I mean it’s only countries like Iceland and Turkey and Poland that actually have higher interest rates than Australia. So I think the Government likes to let people believe that interest rates can go as high as they like and this is somehow necessary. But for Yardley and her fiancé and everyone else and 200,000 others have bought a home, they won’t be welcoming any more interest rate rises from Kevin Rudd. QUESTION: Just on the land being released, and land particularly here in Western Sydney as you’ve mentioned, what do governments need to do to make more land available affordably for young people? SCOTT MORRISON: Well firstly they need to make land available. They need to release land in terms of supply. This is the major constraint not just here in Sydney but all around the country. Secondly, it’s an issue of the charges and the various other impediments to getting the block up. I mean just here and many other sites just like this more than half the cost of putting the block out there is in these various taxes and charges and delays and costs. Now that forces prices up and as long as we have that and as long as we have an affordable housing agreement in this country with the states that is silent on issues of land supply, on issues of taxes and charges on land, then we’re going to have this problem. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Can I make one other comment on another topic. We have seen another boat intercepted today, the people smuggling boat with illegal immigrants, unauthorised immigrants. Now Mr Rudd has to now admit that his border protection policies are failing. He has lost control of our borders. Since he started softening our border protection policy we’ve had 41 boats and just under 2,000 arrivals. His policies have failed. The measure of the success of the policies is the extent to which people smuggling occurs or does not occur. It’s occurring now at an increasing pace. Mr Rudd has to recognise that failure in policy and what we need urgently is an independent inquiry to examine why his policy is failing, what can be done to address it. We’ve got to address this problem otherwise the pace of unauthorised arrivals will just gather more and more momentum. QUESTION: The Prime Minister’s confirmed that he spoke to his Indonesian counterpart and they then intercepted 260 Sri Lankans that were on their way to Australia. That seems to have worked. Is that the solution? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well that is one boat that was intercepted and we say well done to the Australian and Indonesian security services that were able to intercept that people smuggling boat. But that was one boat that was intercepted but of course another boat has arrived, and more are arriving in Australian waters than are intercepted in Indonesian waters. Certainly greater cooperation between Australia and Indonesia is absolutely vital. Mr Rudd says his change of policies has had nothing to do with the increase in arrivals. That’s his argument. And yet when the Australian media go over and interview the people smugglers or their would-be customers, they say that they know that Mr Rudd has softened our border protection policies and that’s why they are going to seek to come here. So there’s no question that what he has done has encouraged people smuggling. What we have to do now is recognise that his policies have failed and have a thorough independent inquiry to assess what can be done to protect our borders once again. QUESTION: Is making personal phone calls the solution? [Inaudible] MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I think contact between leaders is always a good thing but really that is a one-off event. The fact is, the tragic score card is, 41 boats since the policies were softened and just under 2,000 arrivals and that is too many. QUESTION: Philip Ruddock says that [inaudible] MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Mr Rudd has made a lot of changes and they have certainly created the impression – we know that as a fact – that Australia is a much softer target. What we want to see is a thorough independent inquiry to look at the effect of the changes and what new measures may be implemented to deal with it. It’s not a simple business. It’s a very challenging problem, there’s no doubt about that, but Mr Rudd has got to recognise that his policies have failed. He’s got to recognise that openly and honestly and let’s have a thorough independent inquiry with the benefit of specialist advice, including from the police and the intelligence services, so Australians can understand what they can do to secure our borders. QUESTION: [Inaudible] Coalition’s policy though is that a return to TPVs and the Pacific Solution? MALCOLM TURNBULL: No we are focused on an independent inquiry being established. Mr Rudd has changed a lot of policies in the past and the reality is he has created an impression that Australia is a soft target. There’s no doubt about that, and what we need now is a thorough and independent inquiry with the benefit of all the expert advice to examine what measures can be undertaken to restore the security of our borders. QUESTION: [Inaudible] MALCOLM TURNBULL: I would not rule in or out any measure; I would have an independent inquiry and get the expert advice. That is critically what we need to do because there are obviously plenty of arguments about which measures are more effective than others. But the fact is, the simple fact of life is the numbers show that since Mr Rudd changed the policies he created an impression that Australia was a very soft target. That impression has been marketed by the people smugglers and marketed with increasing success. So we need to address that. QUESTION: Kevin Rudd says [inaudible] ..that you’ve gone from touting jobs, jobs, jobs to being silent, silent, silent. Now that the jobless figures are coming down, what do you say to that? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Mr Rudd is consistent on one thing – every day, every week, every month, every year, he is spin, spin, spin. There’s no deviation from that. Look, the biggest job destroyer is higher and higher interest rates. One of the reasons our economy responded so well and one of the reasons why unemployment has not risen as high as many feared is because of the Reserve Bank lowering interest rates. That took a lot of pressure off a lot of businesses and a lot of employers – small and large businesses. Now if interest rates go up further than they should or need to or ought to, that will be job destroying. So I’m always focused on jobs, jobs, jobs. Mr Rudd, however, is spin, spin, spin. QUESTION: The figures though are showing that the ease is coming off the job pressure, so that’s the question. What are you saying now about jobs, the tactic seems to have worked? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we are always committed to employment and high levels of employment. Unemployment was at record lows during the Coalition’s time in government and we managed to achieve what was a remarkable economic outcome with very low unemployment and very low or manageable levels of inflation. Historically when unemployment has got down to very low levels, inflation has started to take off. So being able to manage inflation within acceptable boundaries and have unemployment low was one of the great achievements of the Howard period in government. There’s no question about that. So that’s what we want to do again. We need to have high employment, low unemployment and keep interest rates low so that Yardley and her husband-to-be can buy their house and pay their mortgage. QUESTION: Scott, can we ask to have your comments on Sydney’s rental vacancy rate? SCOTT MORRISON: Well the figures today show that things have flattened but at the end of the day it’s about 1.5 per cent, 1.3 per cent. Now that is an incredibly low level of vacancies and that is why we’ve got so much pressure on rents across this city, but also across many cities around the country. And unless we get more land, unless we get more stock onto the market, unless we stop playing around at the fringes public housing cannot solve that problem. The only thing that will solve rents going up is ensuring that the private sector is building more houses in places like this here at Ropes Crossing. That is what is going to take the pressure of rents, that’s what’s going to take the pressure off house prices. And at the moment there is no plan from the Federal Government, who made much of this before the last election, but is delivering very, very little when it comes to reducing the cost of a block right here in Western Sydney. QUESTION: So the incentives that are around at the moment, low interest rates and the first home buyers boost, that’s not having an effect? SCOTT MORRISON: Well these things spur demand, but they don’t spur supply and the issues of demand are being witnessed all around us. The problem is that there are not enough houses to buy; there’s not enough houses being built for people to buy. MALCOLM TURNBULL: So the prices go up. SCOTT MORRISION: So the prices go up. And that’s what we need to do to address to keep rents lower than they are. That’s what we need to keep home prices affordable. I mean Yardley has taken a big decision and made a big commitment to get into this market. There will be many others who will have missed this opportunity and will find it very, very difficult with prices going up. And when they do finally get into the market it will be a much higher price and sadly for them they’ll be paying much higher interest rates if the Government keeps spending the way they are. MALCOLM TURNBULL: And you will have seen the Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens gave a very solemn warning to the Government about this recently when he said how unsatisfactory it would be if lower interest rates and incentives to home buyers simply resulted in higher prices and did not result in greater supply. And, as Scott has said, there are institutional, government-related barriers to increasing supply – planning, costs, all of the charges. All of this constrains supply. And the fact is we are supplying fewer dwellings onto the market than are needed every year. Demand is greater than supply so that puts upward pressure on prices. QUESTION: [Inaudible] …the Lowy Institute’s found that climate change is slipping in terms of what people consider foreign policy priorities. Does that indicate that people are less concerned about climate change? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I think people are, Australians and people right around the world are concerned about climate change but there are always a range of issues that people have to focus on and obviously coming out of this global financial crisis, economic ones are first and foremost. But climate change is a big issue and that’s why we are very committed to effective action on climate change. QUESTION: Where on the list of foreign policy priorities do you put climate change? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh look, it’s high and the ultimate priority is the security of Australia, including the security of our borders. National security, you know, the safety of the citizen, of every citizen, is the primary objective and responsibility of government. But there are so many priorities and they’re all important but national security is right at the very top. QUESTION: Coming back to the Lowy Institute but just first [inaudible]…when are your amendments going to be ready? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well they’ll be presented to the party room on Sunday as we have said for some time. QUESTION: Okay, so the Lowy Institute’s suggestion that there’s a split…that the split for and against nuclear is pretty much even. Should nuclear be an option and what side of the debate would you be on? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I see Mr Rudd has been playing politics with this again today. He should have enough respect for the Australian people to have an open and honest debate on nuclear energy. Now the simple fact is, the undeniable fact is that nuclear energy is proving to be a larger and larger part of the world’s energy solution in part because of concerns about climate change, because it is a zero emission source of electricity. That’s why we’re mining and selling more uranium and there are many more nuclear power plants under construction then there have been for many, many years. So it’s a growing energy source. As to whether we should have nuclear energy in Australia, that is something that deserves an informed and honest debate and Mr Rudd wants to keep on shutting it down. Now the truth is, the practical fact of life is, you will never have nuclear energy in Australia unless and until there is broad community support and indeed bipartisan political support because the projects take so long to plan and build that they would inevitably span the lives of several, perhaps even more than two governments. So you’re simply not going to have nuclear energy until you get the type of broad, bipartisan political support for it that you have in most other countries in the world, in fact in virtually every other OECD country. But we need to have an informed debate about it and Mr Rudd seems to just want to shut it down. He wants to sell uranium to the rest of the world to fuel nuclear power stations and take advantage of that but he doesn’t want to have any discussion of the issue here. When we were in government we of course started to inform that debate with the Switkowski report and other work and we believe that what we need to have is a calm, a rational debate about nuclear energy. QUESTION: [Inaudible] debate would you be on, and if you were prime minister and there was, as you said, broader support for it in Australia… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well if there was broad community support and bipartisan support for nuclear energy then subject to it being environmentally permitted satisfactorily and subject to it being cost competitive with other low emission sources like clean coal, which is another, obviously the other big opportunity for zero or low emission base load power, subject to that then one would expect nuclear energy to be developed in Australia. But we’re a long way away from that and what we need is an open and honest debate. I mean this is a Prime Minister who said he was going to engage honestly and openly with the Australian people, who had his 2020 summit, and on the subject of nuclear energy he is not even prepared to countenance an open discussion. He says, no, we’re going to have a bar of it, he’s not even prepared to discuss it and yet when he goes to the G20 meeting every other country there has got a growing nuclear energy program. QUESTION: So would you be supporting it? That’s the question. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I certainly support a debate, a debate about it and I certainly believe nuclear energy is part of the world’s zero or low emission energy future. As to having a nuclear energy sector in Australia, I support an honest and open debate and I would certainly encourage growing community awareness and endorsement of it but we are a long way away from that. I mean Mr Rudd wants to have a scare campaign and say the Liberal Party is going to build nuclear reactors everywhere – that is complete rubbish. We are years away from even getting to a serious consideration of building nuclear power stations in Australia but we’ve got to have an open and honest debate. And what that poll today shows is that the public has an interest in this issue, an interest that Mr Rudd is determined not to have discussed. Thank you. [ends]  malcolmTue, 13 Oct 2009 00:04:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:635http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/633/Address-to-the-Foreign-Correspondents-Association-Newsmaker-Luncheon.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=633http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=633&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/633/Address-to-the-Foreign-Correspondents-Association-Newsmaker-Luncheon.aspx Darling Harbour, Sydney E & O E  Well thank you very much Urs and all the members of the Foreign Correspondents’ Association, thank you very much for inviting me to be here with you today. It is the second time, you reminded me, Urs, that I have addressed you, the last time as Minister for the Environment. How interesting is it that two years hence climate change is still top of the agenda. So it is great to be here with you and your committee, with all your colleagues from the foreign media here, my parliamentary colleagues, and of course leaders of business and other friends of the Foreign Correspondents’ Association. Now before I get onto the issue of the emissions trading scheme and the politics, economics and environmental issues of that, I just want to focus on an issue that I know has been of central importance to many of the foreign correspondents here today, and that is the Australian experience in the global financial crisis. What do we have to learn from Australia being the first of the developed countries to raise interest rates? What do we have to learn form what appears to be a rebound or at least no worsening in the unemployment figures? What do we learn about Australia’s resilience and strength in these very difficult times? Now a few months after Lehman Brothers collapsed in September of last year Kevin Rudd chose to sound the death knell of capitalism and the free market. He said the time has come for democratic socialism – he of course had reinvented himself as a democratic socialist, having been it seemed, only a moment before, an economic conservative. But the reborn democratic socialist said it was time for capitalism to be saved by democratic socialism because thirty years of neoliberal free market extremism had failed. Had failed. Notwithstanding that those thirty years of economic reform, of liberalism, economic liberalism around the world had been undertaken in this country as in many others by political parties form both the centre-right and the centre-left. In condemning the thirty years of free market extremism and the failure of neoliberalism he did not simply denounce the reforms of the Howard Government, but he denounced the reforms of the Hawke and Keating Governments as well, and you can see a counterblast from the Hawke era in Ross Garnaut’s condemnation of Kevin Rudd’s rewriting of economic history – Ross of course having been a senior economic adviser to Bob Hawke. But the fact is, my friends, that far from failing, capitalism and free markets have lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. We have seen around the world, in countries as dispersed as Eastern Europe or the biggest communist state in the world, the People’s Republic of China, we have seen the benefits of economic freedom. Not perfectly practiced perhaps anywhere, but certainly we have seen the enormous benefits of economic liberalisation. So to denounce all of that growth, all of that prosperity, to denounce all of the remarkable results in combating poverty as being thirty years of failure is extraordinary. And what was Mr Rudd’s antidote to this? It was, he said, and I am quoting him again, he said that government must be “at the centre of the economy”. Now let me say to you that the lesson that we should draw from Australia’s experience is a lesson that where the government is at the centre of the economy you are more likely to have market failures than where you are not. An the lesson I draw to the attention of the foreign correspondents here in particular is the remarkable contrast between the Australian residential housing market and its mortgage market and that of the United States. We all know the global financial crisis, perhaps better called the global banking crisis, had its origins in a property bubble which collapsed, which had been fuelled by sub-prime lending. Now sub-prime lending, as we know, is lending money to people who are unlikely to be able, on any objective basis, to repay the loan other than out of the appreciation of the asset they had been financed into acquiring. That is a banking practice that is not unique to our times – bankers have been losing money doing that since banks began. And the reality is this was practiced on a huge scale in the United States – subprime loans got up to nearly fifteen percent of the total American mortgage book, and many would say, looking back on it, that a collapse was inevitable. In fact many people did in fact predict it. Now in the United States the government was at the centre of the residential housing market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other similar government-guaranteed institutions and funds owned, directly or indirectly, nearly seventy percent of the entire American mortgage book. How much more involved could government be? Government policies and legislation, particularly those promulgated under the Clinton administration, actively encouraged, if not mandated, American financial institutions to lend money to people who they would not normally do on commercial grounds.  Whereas in Australia, thanks to the reforms of the Howard Government, Treasurer Peter Costello in 1997, we had financial and prudential regulation which ensured that our banking sector remained stable and secure.  There was no sub-prime crisis in Australia.  There couldn’t be because sub-prime loans. properly described, never represented as much as one per cent of the total Australian mortgage book, and so we had no counterpart. So if you look at this from the point of view of a foreign correspondent, if you look at Australia from that perspective, you can say here is a case study of a country, a developed country – very similar in many ways to the United States – where the government was not at the centre of the housing market or the mortgage market and where there was no crisis and, on the other hand, in the United States where the government was at the centre and where there was. So the lesson from the global financial crisis – and there are many lessons obviously when you get financial crises, be it at a national level or a systemic level or, indeed, just at the level of a business – failures and shortcomings that are not visible in prosperous times become apparent.  But the fundamental premise that Kevin Rudd has sought to set down is absolutely wrong.  Free markets, properly regulated, provide the best prospect for strong economic growth in the future just as they have in the past 30 years, and indeed prior to that. Now the question then you may ask is why is Australia doing better than other developed countries?  The fundamental and most important difference is that we went into this crisis with no debt.  Now I’ve just been over in the United Kingdom where the government of Gordon Brown is labouring, excuse the pun, under debt levels that only a few years ago have been absolutely unimaginable.  But Britain never paid down its debt.  During the boom years the Labour government there kept on spending.  Now we could have done that in Australia but we didn’t.  We inherited $96 billion of debt from Paul Keating’s government and we paid it all off, put money aside to meet future liabilities to public sector pensions and defence sector pensions in the Future Fund and left Kevin Rudd with $45 billion of cash in the bank; What the economists call negative net debt – a rather convoluted term but one they’re fond of.   And that was a major difference.  So we went into the crisis with no debt, with cash at the bank.  We did not have a banking crisis at all and that was because of the prudent regulation set up by the Coalition.  We had a strong, independent central bank that was able to reduce interest rates dramatically and effectively, that provided a strong monetary stimulus.  And of course the strong economic activity in China has provided continuing strong demand for our exports. Now those are – there are other factors as well – they are the major factors that account for our strength.  And central to them is the performance of and the legacy left by the previous Coalition Government, never acknowledged by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s borrowing and spending on the other hand has had little impact in our judgement on Australia’s resilience.  Much of it has been not spent at all – either because it was represented by cash payments which the recipients saved rather than spent or because it relates to infrastructure which is yet to be built, and so the spending is yet to come.  And of course the troubling thing is that, as we have pointed out and as indeed Ross Garnaut has pointed out, as indeed Warwick McKibbin has pointed out – there’s quite a lot of economists now who are pointing to this – is that at a time when our economy appears to be growing again and at a time when the Reserve Bank recognises that and says the monetary stimulus has to be withdrawn – that is to say interest rates need to be raised again, which is exactly what they’re in the process of doing – we have a government that says no, we’re going to keep on spending. Now this of course is why monetary policy is always a much better tool for fine-tuning than fiscal policy, because the bank can put rates up or down from one month to the next.  But when you are using a fiscal stimulus, when the Government is spending money particularly on infrastructure, if it is spending it for no reason other than to promote aggregate demand, in other words to push the economy up, to work against the cycle, to be counter-cyclical – so the cycle is going down and the Government decides to spend money to lift it up – the problem that you run is that if you get your timing wrong you will find that your spending far from being counter-cyclical becomes pro-cyclical; that is to say the economy is starting to heat up and you’re actually putting more fuel on the fire. Now that is the major risk always with fiscal policy and that is why we said at the beginning of the year, ‘yes there should be a stimulus but it should be smaller, let’s be prudent, it should be much smaller.  And above all it should be well-targeted’.  The Julia Gillard Memorial Assembly Hall program, $16 billion, is an extraordinary exercise.  It is being undertaken simply to promote demand for builders and people in the construction and building trades.  That’s the avowed purpose.  It’s being done because they felt they could get the money out the door quickly.  And of course what is likely to happen now is not only do a lot of schools get buildings they don’t need or don’t want, even to the absurdity that we’ve seen in Sydney and in other parts of Australia where for example at the famous Abbotsford Public School, which is a primary school, we have four perfectly serviceable classrooms which are going to be torn down and replaced at the cost of $2.5 million with four perfectly serviceable classrooms.    Now this is, in a real life context, the equivalent of what was attributed to Keynes: if all else fails in a depression pay a thousand men to dig a hole and another thousand men to fill it in.  It is misdirected infrastructure spending, the quality of which has been ignored because the only concern was to promote demand.  And so that in that sense we are not simply seeing an unnecessarily high level of debt, deficit and inevitably higher taxes and interest rates in the years ahead, because they follow as night follows day, but also we’re seeing very, very poor targeting of infrastructure dollars. And of course, as we were discussing at our table earlier, probably the ultimate example of an avowed lack of any cost benefit analysis is the $43 billion National Broadband Network which is really, at this stage, no more than a thought bubble but, if it is ever realised, a $43 billion thought bubble which will be yet again an extremely large addition to the mountain of debt that is being built up from which will follow are higher taxes and interest rates. Now before I invite you to interrogate me let me now touch on the question of climate change.  The Howard Government in the last year of which I was the environment and water minister undertook to establish in Australia an emissions trading scheme, a comprehensive one.  It was based on a report written by a committee headed by Peter Shergold who was then the head of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.  Ken Henry was on the committee, so was the head of my department, the head of industry, the head of foreign affairs, Michael L’Estrange, and some leading figures from industry, including Peter Coates who many of you would know from Xstrata, the big coal miner and miner.  And so that was the recommendation, that we should do that and we started legislating for it. The challenge in designing an emissions trading scheme or any price on carbon, putting a price on carbon, whether you do it via trading scheme or by a simple carbon tax, the challenge is that for a small, open economy like Australia where you have a large number of industries which are energy-intensive and, given our fuel mix therefore emissions-intensive, and are also trade-exposed, typically exporting commodities or producing commodities in Australia and competing with imports, those emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries are very vulnerable to a carbon cost however it be imposed, whether it’s imposed by a trading scheme, a tax or by regulation or by a renewable energy target for that matter. They’re vulnerable to that if that makes them less competitive with industries based in countries where there is no comparable carbon cost. It’s a long list and we can explore it in questions if you like but I’ll just give you one very straight forward example.  Australia is the world’s largest exporter of coal.  It is also our largest export.  We compete with Indonesia, with Columbia, with South Africa and other countries, most of which are developing countries which are not likely to have a carbon cost any time soon.  We also note that in Europe and in the United States the greenhouse gas emissions, mostly methane, occasioned by the mining of coal as distinct from its combustion are not included in either the proposed scheme, whether you look at the House bill or the Senate bill in the United States or whether you look at the European trading scheme.  They’re not included.  So nonetheless Kevin Rudd is proposing to include fugitive emissions in the Australian scheme.  The consequence will be that thousands of jobs in coal mining will be lost, mines will close and other mines will not be started, we will export less coal but demand for coal in the markets which we service, such as China and Japan and South Korea, will continue unabated and all that will happen is that more coal will be mined somewhere else.  So there is a serious economic loss to Australia and no environmental gain to the world. Indeed, if you take the view that the mining practices in other countries are less efficient from an emissions point of view then there may in fact be a net detriment to the rest of the world.  So that in a nutshell is the emissions-intensive, trade-exposed problem.  It is a diabolical problem, to quote Ross Garnaut, and it’s one that has to be addressed. Now we believe that the Rudd Government has failed adequately to address that and related issues and in a nutshell has failed to provide the same level of protection to Australian industries and Australian jobs as, for example, will be provided in the United States – not that America has concluded legislation yet. But, again, whether you look at the House bill or the Senate bill or any likely combination of the two, it is quite clear that the level of protection is going to be much higher.  So that is why we will seek to amend Mr Rudd’s legislation.  And there are other areas of vital importance.  I’ll mention just one other because it’s a question of principle and really relates to and should appeal to those who seek Australia to have an ambitious reduction in emissions. The biggest comparative advantage we have as a country in the near term in taking on the challenge of climate change is our real estate, all 770 million hectares of it.  We have a huge country.  And the earth, the land, is a gigantic carbon sink.  We have the opportunity, through a range of techniques and technologies, to offset on a massive scale, carbon dioxide emissions through better management of our soil, better tillage practices, better grazing practices, better practices in terms of environmental forestry and of course technologies like biochar.    There are a host of these opportunities for biosequestration or, as I’ve called it, green carbon.  Almost entirely they are excluded from the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme, and yet they are included in the Waxman-Markey bill, and they are included and certainly will be included in the Kerry-Graham bill in the Senate, and certainly will be included in any agreement in the United States. So there we are with the greatest near term opportunity of reducing emissions by offsetting them being denied us by Mr Rudd’s legislation at the same time as he declines to exempt emissions from agriculture when they are exempted, agricultural emissions, direct emissions, are exempted in the United States legislation as well. And so you get back to this fundamental question: why would we offer our farmers or our coalminers or our aluminium workers for that matter – it is a long list – why would we offer them less protection than President Obama and the Congress will offer them in the United States?   Now Mr Rudd also is determined to have this legislation passed before the Copenhagen summit in December, and there are two comments, important comments on Copenhagen that came from my colleagues, my companions over lunch. And one is that the Danes prefer us to call the city Copenhagen rather than Copenhagen, so you should remember that, in deference to the Danes. And as another one of my companions noted it is worth remembering that Copenhagen was the home of Hamlet, famous principally for indecision. So that is a sombre reflection. But the rush to legislate before Copenhagen is completely indefensible, and I have to say genuinely to you, I find it completely baffling. The summit will be in December. The Parliament sits again in February. For the sake of sixty days why would you not want to be better informed? Now Penny Wong says we won’t be that much more informed. The issues that are pertinent today and relevant today will still be relevant after Copenhagen, and we don’t dispute that. But unless she is prepared to put her hand on her heart and say the Copenhagen summit is so inconsequential that its findings and decisions are completely and utterly irrelevant to the design of an Australian emissions trading scheme, then why would we not wait until after the summit? I mean all of the issues that we are talking about now will be issues in February. We know that. Why would we not wait for the final vote, for the final decision, until after Copenhagen? So that is fundamentally our position. It is a straightforward one. We seek to amend the scheme and we certainly argue it should not be voted on until after Copenhagen. However, we are not in control of the deliberations of the Parliament – it is one of the melancholy consequences of being in opposition. And the fact of the matter is, as indeed Colin Barnett pointed out in Western Australia on Saturday, if Mr Rudd is able to bring the matter on for a vote before the end of the year, if he can muster the support in the Senate to do that, then of course we have to make a decision. And in our judgement, my judgement as Leader of the Liberal party and the Opposition, we have to have a positive agenda. We had a positive agenda on climate change when we were in government, and we must have one in opposition, and that positive agenda will be represented by the amendments we will propose, and we will propose them to the Government in good faith and look forward to them agreeing to them. Many would think it is unlikely that they will agree to them. If we cannot reach satisfactory agreement then those amendments represent, in effect, the platform from which we can vote against or debate against, subsequent to the vote, argue against the design of the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme. But it is obviously vital for us to have that platform, and that is what I expect the party room will endorse at our meeting on Sunday. Having said all of that, now it is over to you.    [ends]    malcolmMon, 12 Oct 2009 05:33:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:633http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/631/Doorstop-Interview-with-Julie-Bishop-Perth.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=631http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=631&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/631/Doorstop-Interview-with-Julie-Bishop-Perth.aspxSubjects: The Rudd Government’s economic mismanagement; Ken Henry; Ross Garnaut; WA State Conference. E & O E MALCOLM TURNBULL: Today the big issue is the economic mismanagement of Australia. We are seeing more and more signs of the consequences of Kevin Rudd’s reckless borrowing and spending. Ken Henry has conceded that taxes are going to have to be higher in the future. Bob Hawke’s economic adviser, former economic adviser, Ross Garnaut, has been as scathing in his criticism of the stimulus program of the Rudd Government and their denunciation of free market economics as we have been. So Kevin Rudd has got the economic management wrong and we are going to pay a very heavy price in terms of higher taxes and interest rates as a consequence. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, you said in there that the wheels of political fortunes can turn rapidly. Is that code for ‘stick with me’? MALCOLM TURNBULL: It’s not code at all. It’s an expression of reality. The fact is if you stick up for the values you believe in, that the electorate will respect you for that. And I just made the point, as you heard me make, that the values and the principles that won Menzies a decisive victory in 1949 had been resoundingly rejected only three years before. QUESTION: What’s your opinion that the State Liberal Government, the only one in the country, is causing the federal Libs so much strife and trouble on the ETS for example? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I’m sorry the…Colin Barnett couldn’t be more supportive. QUESTION: The West Australian Libs, Wilson Tuckey. What’s your opinion of the reaction to what [inaudible] MALCOLM TURNBULL: What, you’re asking me what is my opinion of Wilson Tuckey? JULIE BISHOP: He’s a passionate advocate for his seat. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yes. JULIE BISHOP: And like all our Western Australian colleagues he’s fighting to ensure that the best interests of Western Australians are looked after and that’s what our federal parliamentary team is doing as well. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, do you reckon the wheels have started to turn? The opinion polls and the wheels are starting to turn your way. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well the reality is that, look, I’m not going to run a commentary on opinion polls other than to say obviously the only poll that matters is the one on election day. But what Australians are starting to see for the first time is the real price they are going to pay in terms of higher interest rates – and it won’t be long before its higher taxes as well – the consequence of Kevin Rudd’s reckless borrowing and spending. Now remember at the beginning of the year Julie and I said that Kevin Rudd should spend less. He should borrow and spend less and spend it in a better targeted way. Do any of us believe that if the Rudd Government had recognised or known that the Australian economy would be as strong and resilient as it’s proved to be, does anyone believe that they would have then spent so much money? They have got to recognise that this stimulus spending must be scaled back because it is working against monetary policy, it’s putting upward pressure on interest rates and it will, as even Ken Henry conceded yesterday, result in higher taxes. Now on that note I must leave you. Thanks very much. [ends]  malcolmFri, 09 Oct 2009 23:54:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:631http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/630/Address-to-the-WA-Division-of-the-Liberal-Party.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=630http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=630&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/630/Address-to-the-WA-Division-of-the-Liberal-Party.aspxState Annual Conference Perth   E & O E Thank you very much Julie for that very kind introduction. It is wonderful to be here in Western Australia, with the Liberal Party, with a Liberal Premier. What a wonderful thing that is. Colin, your energy and your commitment, your integrity is showing what the Liberal Party and Liberal values can do for government in Australia. Your election broke the wall-to-wall Labor governments across the country and already Western Australians are benefiting from the leadership you’re showing. So it’s wonderful to be here with you and your parliamentary colleagues and with Julie and my parliamentary colleagues from Western Australia. And it’s also great to see the Liberal Party here together, led by Barry Court and of course with Danielle Blaine, our Federal Vice President. And can I also say how wonderful it is to know that Richard Court is here today too, another great Australian leader and Western Australian premier. Julie spoke about the Liberal values that Menzies extolled. And I noticed on the program that this is the 60th State Council of the Liberal Party here in Western Australia and 60 is an important number this year because 60 years ago Robert Menzies’ five year old Liberal Party won government and it won government on a platform of freedom and self reliance. It won government on a platform of enterprise and energy and optimism. It won government on the basis that it sought to support the lifters not the leaners, and it did so at a time when Australia was recovering from 20 terrible years. A Great Depression where 20 per cent of the workforce had been unemployed followed by a World War where for a time we felt ourselves to be defenceless against a ruthless and relentless enemy. Come through all of that and so the allure, the comfort of socialism and the nanny state, you can imagine, would have been very attractive. But Menzies had consistently argued for freedom, whether it was in his ‘Forgotten People’ speech in 1942, in the election of 1943 or 1946, always he had argued for freedom warned against big government – warned against that. His message of freedom and enterprise my friends was endorsed and adopted as overwhelmingly in 1949 with his landslide victory as it had been rejected in 1946 and even more so in 1943. So the political wheel of fortune can change very rapidly. And the compelling arguments of one year may not be so attractive another, but if they represent the eternal values of freedom for which we stand we must make them year in, year out, because I can tell you for 42 of those 60 years since Menzies’ victory the Liberal Party has governed Australia and governed it well. And those values are particularly important and particularly cherished here in Western Australia. There is nowhere in Australia that is more enterprising, more innovative, more energetic, more optimistic. And of course Colin embodies that, demonstrating that big thinking doesn’t mean big government. We know here that the role of government, the Liberal vision of government is to enable each and every one of us to do our best. It is to enable freedom, to liberate people to achieve their own dreams, because we know that the prosperity of Australia is built on the energy, the enterprise of thousands of Australians. Labor’s view on the other hand is that government knows best, and they make no bones about it. Kevin Rudd has said the last 30 years were a disastrous period of neoliberal extremism. He threw into that of course not just the Coalition government but the previous Hawke and Keating government, which is perhaps why Bob Hawke’s economic adviser, Ross Garnaut, has written a book that is so scathing about Kevin Rudd’s approach to economics. Kevin Rudd is casting back to the Whitlam era. He says that government should be at the centre of the economy. We have not heard that for many decades. It is really a throw back to – well, at least he’s frank about it – to socialism or democratic socialism. The ‘democratic’ means that you achieve the socialist nirvana without bloodshed apparently, but that’s cold comfort I would think in a modern context. The biggest threat to the extraordinary growth and opportunities here in Western Australia is Kevin Rudd’s reckless borrowing and spending. Now at the beginning of this year when Kevin Rudd thought the world was going into an abyss and Australia was going into an economic abyss, he panicked, and he wanted – and of course ultimately succeeded – in borrowing and spending an enormous amount of money, most of it very poorly targeted. Now we, on our side of politics, will always support government investment in infrastructure that has a positive cost-benefit. If it is worthwhile infrastructure it should be supported, but so much of this money that Kevin Rudd is spending is wasteful – not simply the cash splash. Who would have imagined that the day would come when a government would mail a cheque for $900 to virtually every tax payer, including apparently a few pets. If that’s true that really does define the concept of the lucky dog, doesn’t it? But then we have the incredible Julia Gillard Memorial School Hall program. And it’s just worth reflecting on that for a moment because it draws a very clear distinction between our approach to government and Labor’s. Now when Julie was the education minister she administered a program called Investing in Our Schools which spent during its time what we thought was a huge amount of money – $1.2 billion. In the world of Ruddenomics of course that’s just a rounding error. We thought it was a lot of money. That was in the day when $1.2 billion of other people’s money, tax payers’ money, was taken seriously. And the way we went about that program, or the way Julie went about that program, was to reach out to schools and say, ‘what do you want to do, what is the infrastructure you want to invest in, you know, what do you want help with? Is it a shade cloth in the playground, a new building, a computer room. What is it? You tell us, we’ll assess them and we’ll pick the best ones and we’ll give you support.’ And that’s exactly what we did. In other words, we enabled school communities to do their best. The Julia Gillard Memorial Hall program , $16 billion, a gigantic amount of money to be spent in two years, has seen schools getting halls they don’t need, getting a second assembly hall, or even in a number of cases the absurdity of perfectly good functioning classrooms or halls being torn down to be replaced at the cost of several million dollars with perfectly good functioning classrooms and halls. It is truly incredible. That is the difference between Labor and Liberal. So we, at the beginning of the year in February, we proposed a stimulus response. We said we should spend a lot less money and we should spend it in a more targeted way. We said instead of having an indiscriminate cash splash we should bring forward tax cuts because they will provide additional incentives. We said instead of spending $16 billion on school halls we should spend $3 billion on the basis of Julie’s Investing in Our Schools program. And I said at the time that the Parliament wasn’t closing down. If it turned out that we needed to spend more money we could come back and vote some more. Why would we commit so much money so quickly? So what is the consequence of that been? Well it is a government that is heading to a record level of debt in peace time. High government debt means inevitably higher taxes and higher interest rates. There is no escaping from that. The debt has to be repaid and it can only be repaid out of tax revenues and the more the Government borrows, the more upward pressure it puts on interest rates. Now already we’ve started to see interest rates moving up. And we’ve seen the Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens say the monetary stimulus – that is to say the easing of interest rates – has to stop and it has to be wound back. In other words rates have to go up. But at the same time as he is easing back on that stimulus in monetary policy, in interest rate policy, we have a federal government that is continuing to spend its fiscal stimulus. So we now have the absurdity of a Reserve Bank’s monetary policy working against the Federal Government’s fiscal policy. And they insist on maintaining this reckless spending and borrowing. Now that is a big threat to all Australians but in particular to Western Australia. Because of the enormous wealth that is being generated in this State it represents easy prey for hungry tax gatherers in Canberra. You know that. And so as Kevin Rudd looks to raise more taxes he will be looking very closely at what he can take from Western Australia. And you also have in Western Australia an enormous demand for capital, billions of dollars, tens of billions of dollars of capital investment – all of which depends on a supportive interest rate environment. High interest rates make projects harder to finance, make it harder for them to get off the ground. So higher taxes and higher interest rates are a major threat to Western Australia’s growth and prosperity. The other point that we should not overlook with this issue of interest rates is the complete indifference of the Government. The only response to the lift in interest rates and what we know will be the first of many increases – that’s been clearly foreshadowed – the only response we’ve had from Wayne Swan has been a shrug of the shoulders. He has got nothing to say about it, it’s got nothing to do with him. Apparently when he was in opposition he identified a close relationship between government spending and interest rates. Now that he’s in government apparently the two are completely unconnected. Now I say to you my friends, you cannot suspend the laws of economics simply because there’s been a change of government or a global financial crisis. Our economy is growing better than any other developed country. And why is that? Because of the hard work our party did in government over 11 and a half years. We paid off all of Labor’s debt. We left the Rudd Government with cash in the bank – $45 billion of what they call negative net debt. Cash in the bank I call it. We left them with that. We left them with a banking sector so well regulated that we had no counterpart to the sub-prime crisis in Australia. And of course this underlines one of the other absurdities of Rudd’s latter day conversion or re-conversion back to socialism. Because he says that the global financial crisis was caused by free market extremism and yet it had its origins in a residential housing bubble in the United States that was fuelled by imprudent lending on a massive scale. I mean there is nothing more certain to end in tears than lending money to people who can’t afford to repay the loan other than by the appreciation of the asset they have bought. That is always going to end in tears, and of course it did. That imprudent lending spree in the United States was not only encouraged and in some cases mandated by government action, but was substantially financed by large government backed mortgage funds in the form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other counterparts. So in reality, if you look at the failure in the US mortgage market and the stability and security of Australia’s, you have in America a market where government was meddling and was absolutely at the centre, and in Australia a situation where government played its proper role of providing prudential and financial regulation. So where the free market was allowed to operate we didn’t have a financial crisis; where government was all over it, as in the United States, you did. So our values of freedom are absolutely as relevant today as they were in Menzies’ day. And while we may look at the opinion polls and feel that we’re not doing as well as we would like to, believe me just as the wheel turned for Menzies, just as his messages of freedom were unpopular or ignored or disregarded in one year and then resoundingly endorsed some time later, so too, as Australians start to count the cost of Kevin Rudd’s reckless borrowing and spending, so too will our message of freedom, of enterprise, of prudent financial management, of a refusal to accept Labor’s addiction to debt and deficit, so too will our values be received and supported once again by the Australian people. Now let me turn now to the question of the emissions trading scheme and climate change, which I know has been the subject of a lot of discussion right around Australia and of course discussion here. The challenge of responding to climate change is, as many people have said, a truly diabolical one. And it’s diabolical in this sense because in an ideal world every country would, at exactly the same time, take the same measures or put the same price on carbon and carbon dioxide emissions and then you would get a completely globally coordinated response. Now inevitably that is not going to happen and developed countries will move before developing countries and we have to move in a way that is environmentally effective but also protects jobs. Now when we were in government we came to the view that a well designed emissions trading scheme was the best way to put a price on carbon to play our part in a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and at the same time protect industry and jobs in Australia. In fact, our adoption of an emissions trading scheme was very largely encouraged, substantially encouraged, by the largest emitters in Australia, the big generators, coal miners and resource companies who encouraged us to get on with it. Now the challenge of course for Australia is this: a large part of our economy is built on relatively cheap coal fired energy, which is obviously emissions-intensive. If we put a heavy carbon price on those industries which are emissions-intensive and are trade-exposed – so they are selling typically commodities where the global price is set and any producer is a price taker – then you run the risk that you disadvantage our industries in Australia relative to those in other countries and we simply end up exporting both the jobs and the emissions. There are many examples but a good example is coal mining. If we were to put a heavy price on the emissions of fugitive gases, methane typically, from the business of coal mining in Australia – and that of course is not matched anywhere in the world – the consequence inevitably will be that some of our mines will become uncompetitive, we will mine less coal in Australia but more coal will be mined and exported from Columbia, South Africa, Indonesia and other countries. And so a key part of the design of any emissions trading scheme is until such time as there is a global agreement to protect these emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries. That’s what the Europeans have done, that’s what the Americans are in the course of doing and it is certainly fundamental to the design we had. Now the Rudd Government scheme does not provide adequate protection for those industries. It provides less protection for Australian jobs and Australian industries than is proposed in the United States. And you may well ask, how could an Australian government justify providing less protection for workers and industries and investment in Australia than an American government would provide to industries and workers in their own country? So the question then for us as a political movement, as a major political party is how do we respond to the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme. I know there are some people who have argued that we should just vote it down a second time and not propose any amendments of any kind. I have to say to you I regard that as being most unwise and not either in our party’s interest or in the national interest. What we are proposing to do – and this is what the Shadow Cabinet is preparing with Ian Macfarlane, the energy shadow, in the lead – is a set of amendments which we will present to the Rudd Government to amend their emissions trading scheme. And they will seek to address these issues of protecting industry, protecting jobs, protecting agriculture. Why would we include emissions from agriculture in Australia when they’re expressly excluded in the United States proposals? Why would we exclude, for example, the opportunity for agriculture to generate enormous additional revenues from offsets, from green carbon programs, when they are expressly included in the United States? Why would we fail to provide full protection to Western Australia’s LNG industry? So all of these issues and more are part of the amendments that we will, with the support of the party room, present to the Rudd Government. Now of course if those amendments were all accepted that would provide a powerful argument for reaching an agreement with the Rudd Government on the emissions trading scheme and we would be seen to have successfully fought for the jobs of thousands of Australians and the investment of tens of billions of dollars. If on the other hand we were unable to reach and agreement that was satisfactory to our party, then those amendments form our alternative platform. If you regard the Rudd scheme as plan A, those amendments then form plan B. And so when we go to the hustings to fight an election on this and other issues and people say what is your policy on climate change, we can say we took an ETS to the 2007 election, we support an emissions trading scheme different to Rudd’s and here are the respects in which it is different. In other words, we have something constructive to say and a major political party has to have a credible, reasonable policy to deal with this issue. So that is the approach that we are taking. It is one that is constructive. Whether an agreement can be reached – who knows – or whether one is not reached – and the more hard-headed among us probably suspect that agreement is less likely to be reached than it is to be reached – but regardless of what the outcome is the Australian people want us to engage on this issue constructively, effectively, to have a positive agenda and one which enables us to say, when people say ‘what will you do about greenhouse gas emissions, what is your policy’, we can say, here it is. We put this up to the Rudd Government, these reasonable amendments, and they – for example, in the event of not reaching an agreement – failed to accept them. Now there is also the issue of finalising the design of a scheme prior to the Copenhagen climate summit in December. I am strongly of the view, and always have been, that it is utterly indefensible of Mr Rudd to insist on this matter being concluded before the Copenhagen summit. If the Copenhagen summit was three years away it might be a different thing but we are literally talking about a Prime Minister who is insisting on a vote at the end of November as opposed to one in February for the sake of 60 days. In February we will undoubtedly be better informed than we will be in November. Now we shouldn’t imagine, by the way, that the Copenhagen summit is going to dramatically transform the international climate change landscape. Most of the amendments and issues, well I would say the entirety of them that are relevant today will be just as relevant in February. The outcome of the Copenhagen summit I think is likely to be some modest progress, but it is not going to end in either a train wreck or in an enormous leap forward into some kind of global climate change nirvana of uniform agreements around the world. But nonetheless it makes sense for the sake of 60 days to make your decisions when you’re better informed. Having said that we have to remember that we cannot govern from opposition. There is a tendency, particularly for new oppositions, to think we’re still in government and we’re not, we’re in opposition. And it is Mr Rudd’s legislation to which we must respond, and if he is able to bring the matter to a vote by the end of the year – and that of course would depend on the support of independent senators – then we have to respond to it. We can’t, in my view, credibly, simply say no and have nothing positive to say in response. If we do not reach agreement with Mr Rudd and the debate continues in the Senate with the amendments being thoroughly and comprehensively debated and discussed, then in my view it is very likely that the debate will spill over into the next year anyway and the final vote will, in any event, be after the Copenhagen summit. So it may well be, in fact many people would say it is highly likely that simply as a matter of timing the final vote will occur after Copenhagen. But the fundamental point I want to leave you is simply this. As a major political party we have to have a positive policy to respond to climate change. There is overwhelming support in the community for action on climate change. I don’t pretend there is a high level of understanding of the intricacies of an emissions trading scheme any more than there is an understanding of the intricacies of a Renewable Energy Target. But the public want action and we cannot oppose action from the Government unless we have an alternative. In politics you can be the man or the woman with a plan, you cannot be the man or the woman with no plan. And that is why the amendments are absolutely vital because they represent our alternative platform. And when I go around Australia I meet industry leaders, I meet farmers, I meet small business people who say ‘we want this scheme fixed, we want our jobs, our industries protected’. And I want to know, whatever the outcome of the next few months debate may be, whether it ends in agreement or not, I want them to know that we took up their cause, we argued for the amendments, for the changes that we know will protect their jobs and their investment and that we will always be able to say, even if Mr Rudd ends up taking his law to a double dissolution and wins an election and gets exactly what he wants, even if all of that happens, we will still be able to say we fought the good fight for you, we stood up for you, we had something important to say. Because my friends our responsibility is to lead, our responsibility is to be constructive and our responsibility is to have a political program that deals with, confronts and seeks to solve the great policy challenges of our time. I know that we will do that because I know that the Liberal Party of Australia is a party that is built on a spirit of enterprise, of pragmatism and progress, and with your support in due course by the next election we will be back ahead and we will return to government and give this country the leadership it so deserves. Thank you very much. [ends]  malcolmFri, 09 Oct 2009 23:45:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:630http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/626/Press-Conference-with-Joe-Hockey-and-Helen-Coonan-Melbourne.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=626http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=626&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/626/Press-Conference-with-Joe-Hockey-and-Helen-Coonan-Melbourne.aspxSubjects: The Coalition’s plan to pay off Labor’s debt; ETS. E & O E MALCOLM TURNBULL: I’m here with the Shadow Treasurer and the Shadow Finance Minister to release our plan to pay off Labor’s debt. This document describes the principles and the strategies that will enable us to get Australia out of the huge debt that the Labor Party has put our nation into. The billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars that the Labor Party is throwing onto the shoulders of our children and our grandchildren, and taxpayers yet unborn will be paying higher taxes to pay off Labor’s debt. Of course it’s not simply that Labor has run up too much debt – and Joe and Helen will talk about the extent of that and the contrast with the levels of debt that have been incurred in the past – but it is that Labor is getting so little value for money. Billions of dollars are being spent unwisely with no real benefit to the community, even down to the absurdity of school buildings being knocked over only to be replaced by buildings of exactly the same size and facility – all so that Julia Gillard can put a plaque on it and claim it as another Julia Gillard Memorial Assembly Hall. Now we have four key principles and they’re outlined here in this plan. The first is that we will reduce government waste. We will ensure that tax payers get value for money. And we will, on coming into government, establish a commission on sustainable finances that will examine the quality of government spending right across the board. And that will ensure that tax payers know they’re getting real bang for their buck. We are also going to drive the top line of the economy, GDP, because of course that drives ultimately government revenues as well; increase economic growth by ensuring that we cease burdening business with excessive regulation and red tape, and in particular we will be doing that in a way that supports small business. The most common complaint, the most frequent complaint we’ve had from small business right across Australia is the excessive burden of red tape. The third principle is that we will get the balance right between public spending and private spending. Every dollar the Government takes from tax payers deprives a tax payer – it might be a household, a business, large or small – of the ability to invest that dollar so there is a big opportunity cost. And we are going to bring the percentage of GDP represented by government spending back down to less than 25 per cent, which is where it was when we were in government. And finally we are going to ensure honesty, real honesty and accountability in public finances. Now that is a great Liberal Party tradition. We established the Charter of Budget Honesty in 1996 – an enormous breakthrough in terms of true accountability for budget outcomes. But what we also must do now is take a second step and establish a Parliamentary Budget Office which will operate like the Congressional Budget Office in the United States and provide a genuine, independent, expert economic analytical review of government spending and policies in exactly the way the Congressional Budget Office does in America. And you have to ask, would Kevin Rudd have embarked on so much reckless spending, so many reckless promises, if he had known that there would be an independent watchdog assessing and appraising and reporting on the real consequences of his various measures, be it the Julia Gillard Memorial Assembly Hall program or the even more extraordinary, no cost-benefit analysis, no financial analysis required, $43 billion National Broadband Network thought bubble. A Parliamentary Budget Office would be a real disincentive for governments to engage in that kind of reckless spending. Helen. HELEN COONAN: Yes, thank you, Malcolm. Well what has been of increasing concern to us has been the level of government spending that has just continued to increase, notwithstanding the clear signs of recovery in the economy. Of course we’ve had evidence from the Governor Glenn Stevens who clearly said that this enormous stimulus spending that was rolled out when there was an emergency has peaked, and yet we have absolutely no plan from Labor as to how they are going to rein in the $20 billion or $30 billion still to be rolled out in the stimulus spending when the emergency requirement for it has clearly passed. So what we will do with this plan is to reduce waste and to ensure that the budget is actually sustainable and that we have a plan to pay down debt. We think that it is absolutely critical at this stage of the economic cycle that we are talking about rolling up $1 billion debt a week in circumstances where clearly the economy is on a recovery path. It is unsustainable to continue to roll out a fiscal policy that increases debt when interest rates are going up and when clearly the expansionary part of the economy needs to be reined in. You clearly put money in when an economy is shrinking, you take it out when it is expanding, and yet the Labor Government has no plan to roll back debt. This is what we will be doing and we will ensure that the budget is sustainable going forward. Joe, do you want to say something? JOE HOCKEY: Thanks Helen, and thank you Malcolm. This is a plan to pay off Labor’s debt. The Liberal Party and National Party have had to do that in the past. We are going to have to do it again in the future. The Labor Party’s very good at putting so much spending on the nation’s credit card, but, as with household budgets, when you spend up big on the credit card you have to pay it off at some point. This is a plan to pay off the nation’s credit card. This is a plan to pay off Labor’s debt. Kevin Rudd said at the last election that it was a reckless level of spending at 24 per cent of GDP. Today it is over 28 per cent of GDP. The reckless spending has to end Mr Rudd. This is a plan to do something about it. Thanks very much. QUESTION: [Inaudible] plan, who will be the Prime Minister if you do get into office? Will it be either you, Joe, or Malcolm? Who will be… this plan if and when you get into office? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, it will certainly be me. QUESTION: Joe, can you back that up? JOE HOCKEY: Absolutely. Absolutely. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Joe will be the Treasurer and Helen will be the Finance Minister. QUESTION: No plans for a leadership spill? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Certainly not. QUESTION: Do you think the timing of this particular, what will be a big plank leading up to the next election, is wise given all the leadership speculation in the last 24 hours? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we’ve been working on this for some time. We decided in Shadow Cabinet yesterday to release it this morning and we’re proceeding to do so. We are focused on holding the Rudd Government to account. Australians can see now the consequence of Kevin Rudd’s reckless spending. We have seen the Reserve Bank say the monetary stimulus has to be withdrawn because of the economy’s growth. And, as Helen just observed, when the economy is starting to expand that’s when stimulus should be withdrawn, but Wayne Swan wants to keep on spending. He is working against the policy of the Reserve Bank and forcing up interest rates. Australians want to see a strategy for getting this debt under control and what we’ve set out here is the way that we’ll do it. QUESTION: But is this an attempt to [inaudible] attention from those leadership issues? MALCOLM TURNBULL: What you have just said I’m afraid to say is an attempt to divert attention from the real issue that Australians are focused on, which is government debt and rising interest rates. That’s what they are focused on; so many billions of dollars of their taxes, and not just their taxes but their children’s taxes because they will be paying the tax to pay off the debt. They’re concerned about that money being wasted. That’s the real issue facing Australia today. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, Brendan Nelson lost the leadership because of confusion over climate policy. If the same fate were to befall you, could it happen to any subsequent opposition leader as well? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well that’s the first paragraph of your opinion piece, but if you want to ask a question about climate policy, I’m happy to answer it. QUESTION: Wilson Tuckey wants a secret ballot on the Coalition’s ETS strategy when you meet next week. Are you going to give it to him? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we don’t have ballots in the party room on policy matters like that. No, we don’t. The party room of course is in a position to determine its own mechanism but we proceed by way of consensus, almost invariably. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, what would you say to those people who are saying, those within your own party, broadcasters, commentators, that you should step aside for the good of the party and you should do it quickly? MALCOLM TURNBULL: There is no chance of that happening and the fact of the matter is we are focused on one leadership issue alone, which is the lack of leadership shown by Kevin Rudd in the reckless spending that is putting such a heavy burden on Australians today and their children and grandchildren to come. QUESTION: Were you surprised by the man to your right revealing yesterday he had been sounded out over your leadership? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look, you’re keeping on focusing on this issue. If you want to ask a question to Joe, you’re free to ask him. If you want to ask a question about debt or climate policy or any other policy issue, we’re very happy to address it. QUESTION: Joe, can I ask a question to you. Are there any circumstances under which you may change your mind? You said you were sounded out yesterday and you’ve given Malcolm your loyalty but might you change your mind at some point? JOE HOCKEY: Well let me say this: Malcolm has my absolute, unqualified support. He always has had that. He continues to have that. He will have that into the future. And I just say to people, the job I want is Wayne Swan’s job. I want to knock off Wayne Swan. He is the only guy I want to knock off and I’m doing it in the national interest. That’s why, because I care about the massive burden Australians are facing into the future as a result of Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan putting everything on the credit card. QUESTION: Are there any circumstances under which you may change your mind? JOE HOCKEY: Look, can I promise you, we can look into crystal balls, we can speculate, it’s a waste of time – there’s only one job I want, it’s Wayne Swan’s. I want this guy to get Kevin Rudd’s job. I want that. I really do and you know what, I want Australians to want that as well. QUESTION: Why would you tell people that you’d been approached for the leadership? JOE HOCKEY: Well in fact I didn’t actually say that. You know what, have a good look at what I actually said and go over it carefully. QUESTION: Tony Abbott was asked the same question this morning and said he wouldn’t give a definite answer. You decided to [inaudible] JOE HOCKEY: I didn’t hear Tony Abbott’s comments I’m sorry. QUESTION: He refused to answer the same question. JOE HOCKEY: But anything Tony Abbott said, I agree with. QUESTION: So do you see yourself as a future leader of the party? JOE HOCKEY: Let me just say, I want Wayne Swan’s job. It’s the job I want. QUESTION: Joe, what would you have given the Jackson Jive if you were a judge on last night’s Red Faces? JOE HOCKEY: Well I didn’t see that either, but… HELEN COONAN: Harry Connick got it right. JOE HOCKEY: What did he give it, a big zero? HELEN COONAN: Zero. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, are you saying that your party is united over your leadership, everyone’s together? Because, as you know, in politics if you’re not united that you can’t be elected. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well unity is absolutely vital and that is what we have and we get sort of outbreaks of disorder from time to time. Every political party does that from time to time, particularly when they’re in opposition, but everyone recognises before too long that we have to be united and that’s absolutely vital. QUESTION: [Inaudible] disunity is just fine by the Opposition [inaudible] MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I think if you look at the history of oppositions, and of course it can occur in governments too, in political parties you do get situations where people will disagree and perhaps disagree more forcefully or more publicly than is ideal. But, you know, in terms of disagreement on policy in particular, that’s part and parcel of political life. And we have a debate, we come together, we reach a common position. There are very few policies on which you could say every single person in the party room has the same view but we know that as a political movement we have to come to a common view to be able to successfully prosecute and defend the interests that we stand for. QUESTION: Are you too far…well, are you too small ‘l’ to be leader of the Liberal Party? [Inaudible] MALCOLM TURNBULL: Certainly not. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, can I ask you, have you set any kind of deadline for how long this kind of division and destablisation can drag on for… in your own sense in terms of how long you’re prepared to put up with it? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well look can I just say this to you, as the Leader of the Opposition you have to put up with a lot. So I think the, you know, you need broad shoulders and a thick hide in this line of work, as all three of us do, but the critical thing for me and for all of us is to focus on the real issues whether it is debt or whether it’s climate change or any other important area of policy that affects the lives of Australians. That’s what they want us to talk about – and by the way, they would like you to do that too – they want all of us to focus on the issues that affect them. They’re not particularly interested in politicians talking about themselves. QUESTION: [Inaudible] draw a line in the sand and call a spill and just put your leadership to the test to end all these issues? MALCOLM TURNBULL: No thanks. QUESTION: What do you say to people in your party then who don’t want to focus on this but want to focus on your leadership? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I encourage everybody to focus on the real issues whether they’re journalists – not that they take much advice from politicians – whether they’re politicians… JOE HOCKEY: They should. It’s good advice. MALCOLM TURNBULL: They should. It’s very good advice. Focus on the real issues. We’ve been saying, for example, that the stimulus should be wound back. Helen made that point very powerfully today. Wayne Swan said nobody agrees with you, no one agrees with the Liberals on this. Look at the front page of The Financial Review today, there’s a majority of independent economists, academic economists and market economists who agree with exactly the point that we’re making. Now just because people agree or disagree doesn’t mean the position is right obviously, everyone has an opinion, but the opinion that we are expressing, the conservative, Liberal opinion that we are expressing that stimulus spending should be conducted responsibly and delivering real value for money is one that has growing support. QUESTION: Speaking of politicians speaking about themselves, are you happy to see the back of Peter Costello? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I spoke very warmly about him last night. He has made an enormous contribution to Australian public life. His eleven and a half years as Treasurer is unparalleled in every respect both in tenure and in his achievements. So we wish him and Tanya and their children, the whole family, the Costello family, all the very best in the very exciting opportunities that await them in the future. QUESTION: [Inaudible] all the best personally, have you phoned him or anything like that? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I spoke to him on the telephone and in person. He was at the dinner last night and we had a good chat. QUESTION: Isn’t that some good news because he’s not around anymore? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I’ll leave you guys to run the commentary. We’re happy to keep going on this but do we have any substantive questions about policy? QUESTION: Just following up on one area on the ETS. You said the party room meeting on the weekend the party room has the… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah, next weekend, yeah. QUESTION: Sorry, next weekend, to determine its own mechanisms. Would you oppose a secret ballot then on the ETS? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look, it’s completely contrary to our tradition so I don’t think there’s any prospect of that occurring at all. Let me just explain what we’re doing, by the way, because I think it’s important particularly that everyone understands what we’re doing. The Government has proposed an emissions trading scheme not all the details of which are yet public. The regulations, many of the regulations have not been published. So it is, even from the Government’s side, a work in progress. Now we have a number of objections to that scheme. We had an emissions trading scheme proposal when we were in government. It was based on the report written by Peter Shergold’s committee and it was a very good report and a very good policy and we started legislating for it. So there’s not a contention between us and the Government about the value of putting a price on carbon and doing that via an emissions trading scheme. So we have two objections, two major objections or groups of objections to their scheme. The first is that the design itself is flawed in a number of material respects. It prejudices thousands of jobs, puts at risk thousands of jobs in Australia by failing to protect what are called emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries like steel or aluminium. And by failing to do that the consequence will be that because the countries with which they compete do not have a similar carbon price, you’ll just end up exporting both the jobs and the emissions – so there’s no gain to the global environment and of course a huge economic loss to Australia. So that is a big area. They have also failed to protect agriculture. They have failed to provide opportunities for greater offsets, what we call agricultural offsets or what I would call green carbon. So there are a lot of problems with the design and we are going to address those in detailed amendments that we have been preparing for some time in consultation with industry and many others, and they will be presented to the party room at that meeting. The other objection we have, and this is really one that Penny Wong and Kevin Rudd have great difficulty explaining, is why they insist on having the vote, or seeking to have the vote, before the Copenhagen summit. Kevin Rudd has gone to America and said President Obama won’t have an emissions trading bill passed before Copenhagen and Kevin Rudd said that’s not a problem. So if it’s not a problem for the largest economy in the world, why would it be an enormous disability for us if we were not to have it legislated? Unless Penny Wong can put her hand on her heart and say that there is nothing that will come out of the Copenhagen Summit that will have any relevance at all to the design of an emissions trading scheme in Australia, then common sense follows that the final vote should not be until after Copenhagen. It may be that the amendments or refinements or changes would only be minor. They may not be. They may be very considerable, but if Copenhagen is relevant to our ETS, then the vote should be held after Copenhagen. So that is the second objection that we have. But nonetheless we recognise that the Government – we don’t control, we are not in a position to control the Senate – so if the Government is able to force it onto a vote before the end of the year, we will have our plan B, our amendments, which represent an alternative to the Rudd emissions trading scheme. QUESTION: But what if those amendments don’t get up in the party room. What does that mean for you as leader? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well they will get up, they will be supported in the party room so I am not going to speculate about that. I think a fair, a more important question – and I am being like the Prime Minister asking myself the questions – but a more important question is what happens if our amendments are rejected by Penny Wong, by Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong, and the answer there is that we will obviously, we assume that they will would not reject all of them, but we will consider what can be achieved and then form a view on it as to whether we can reach agreement with them and, in any event, we would then seek to move through the normal legislative process the amendments that the Government is not prepared to support that we nonetheless regard as vital. So there is a detailed, responsible, comprehensive legislative process ahead of us. This is vital legislation and we are taking it very, very seriously. We are committed to having an effective emissions trading scheme, but that doesn’t mean that we should just wave through whatever Penny Wong cares to put up. QUESTION: You just said then the amendments will get through the party room. If you’re so confident, aren’t you pre-empting the meeting? Why hold it if you are so confident they’ll be approved? MALCOLM TURNBULL: That is a very silly question. QUESTION: You have already agreed the target range so what could possibly happen at Copenhagen that would affect whether we should have an emissions trading scheme and the design of it? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well there are enormous issues in terms of the types of offsets that might be agreed to. There is quite a lot of controversy about issues relating to biosequestration and technology. There are issues relating to technology transfer. There are issues relating to the commitments that other countries will make and the nature of those commitments. It is a very, very important meeting, believe me. And the real question is if it is so important, and given that everything we do on emissions trading or on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, everything we do to be effective must be connected with and supported by global action, because obviously, as we all know, if we just eliminate all our emissions in Australia, if that was possible, then it wouldn’t make any difference to the global climate unless there was action in other countries. So we all understand there has got to be global agreement. Every report has acknowledged that from Shergold to Garnaut to the White Paper, Nick Stern, whatever you like, take your pick. They are all saying the same thing. So Copenhagen is absolutely vital and, as I say, its impact on the design of the scheme may be greater or smaller depending on what is decided but unless Penny Wong can seriously put her hand on her heart and say it is irrelevant, it will be completely irrelevant, then there is no justification, for the sake of 60 days, in trying to force a final vote before the end of the year. QUESTION: It’s dragged on for this long. How can you be so sure there will be agreement in the party room. Are you willing to concede ground on your position? MALCOLM TURNBULL: What we are taking to the party room, with the support of the Shadow Cabinet, or what Ian Macfarlane is taking strictly speaking, with all of our support as the Shadow Cabinet, is a set of amendments that we will then seek the support of the party room to in effect be our negotiating platform with the Government, and then we will see what the progress of those discussions are. The Australian people expect us to engage constructively with the Government in good faith and we are determined to do that. QUESTION: In the meantime, how do you get the dissenters in your party to shut up publicly before the vote and even after the vote? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, I don’t know how do you get politicians to shut up? No ones worked it… JOE HOCKEY: Call an end to press conferences. MALCOLM TURNBULL: That’s right, that’s right. I think politicians, they talk under water... QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, Neil Mitchell’s still waiting for you. [Inaudible] 3AW at 9 o’clock. What happened? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we had a press conference here at 9 o’clock and its 9:25. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Okay. Thank you very much. See you. [ends]  malcolmThu, 08 Oct 2009 05:52:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:626http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/625/The-Coalitions-plan-to-pay-off-Labors-debt.aspx#Comments1http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=625http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=625&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/625/The-Coalitions-plan-to-pay-off-Labors-debt.aspxSince coming to office the Rudd Government has engaged in a level of borrowing and spending never before seen in the history of our country – projecting a record level of government debt, which can only lead to higher taxes and higher interest rates in the future. Despite signs of strength in the Australian economy, Labor is determined to press ahead with its reckless and wasteful spending. Labor is committed to increasing the relative size of Commonwealth government spending by one fifth: from 24.0% of GDP in 2007-08 to 28.6% in 2009-10. And Labor’s spending will create a far greater debt burden than was left by the previous Labor Government in 1996. This burden will be costly to service and painful to repay. Worse still, the debt will be incurred to fund a continuation of Labor’s ill-considered, wasteful and low-quality spending program. With stronger economic growth than forecast in the Budget, continued high government spending and higher debt will push up interest rates – reducing private investment, undermining economic growth, and placing unnecessary pressure on home buyers. Higher spending and higher debt will always put greater upward pressure on interest rates than would otherwise be the case. This week Australia was the first of the world’s major economies to experience an increase in official interest rates since the global financial crisis, with the Reserve Bank raising the cash rate and clearly signalling that more rises are to come. Government spending over the next four years must be reduced and the slide into record public debt must be prevented. Otherwise, Australians will pay the price of Labor’s debt through higher taxes and higher interest rates. Only the Coalition has the discipline, the track record, and the plan to deal with Labor’s debt. A Coalition Government will deliver on four key principles to reduce Labor’s debt and prevent the further accumulation of irresponsible and unnecessary debt. A Coalition Government will: 1. Reduce the level of waste, mismanagement and duplication in every corner of government spending, establish a Commission for Sustainable Finances, and put an end to Labor’s cash splashes. 2. Increase economic growth and productivity through a vigorous reform, infrastructure and innovation agenda and support for small business. 3. Control the growth of government and commit to a responsible long term objective of returning the government’s share of the economy to the level achieved by the previous Coalition Government – that is, reducing over time the share of government spending to less than 25% of GDP. 4. Ensure independent and accurate scrutiny of Australia’s public finances. History tells us it has been the job of the Coalition to rebuild the damage done by Labor governments. It is only a Coalition Government that can manage our public finances properly and restore the nation to prosperity. To read the full strategy click here malcolmWed, 07 Oct 2009 22:42:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:625http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/629/Address-to-the-Sir-Robert-Menzies-Foundation-Melbourne.aspx#Comments1http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=629http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=629&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/629/Address-to-the-Sir-Robert-Menzies-Foundation-Melbourne.aspx2009 Sir Robert Menzies Lecture State Parliament Melbourne E & O E Thank you. Sixty years ago, the man we honour this evening, Robert Gordon Menzies, was elected Prime Minister of Australia, as leader of the Liberal Party of Australia he had founded only five years earlier. Since then, the Liberal Party has governed Australia, and governed it well, for 42 of those years. It is a great honour and privilege to lead the party of Menzies. It is also a great privilege and pleasure to speak to you all tonight here in this historic room, reminiscent of Sir Robert’s career, early career in the Victorian Parliament and if I may say so as a visitor from New South Wales, a reminder of the extraordinary energy and optimism of Victoria. When you contemplate the size of this city when this building was built, there were men and women with incredible confidence and energy and determination to make a great state and a great city and haven’t they done that. It is a wonderful thing to be here in this room. It is also wonderful to be here at the invitation of the Sir Robert Menzies Lecture Trust in the presence of the Monash Liberals, young and young at heart, Michael. It is also a great honour for Lucy and I to be here with Heather Henderson and her husband Peter and other members of the Menzies family. Sixty years ago, Australians repudiated extraordinary levels of government intervention in their lives. Sixty years ago, Australians voted down the wartime constraints of central planning and control. Sixty years ago, the Australian people voted in support of the basic freedoms so important to their lives, to their families and to their communities – the same values of freedom and independence that they had fought so courageously to protect in the darkest days of war. That election on the tenth of December 1949 represented a momentous tidal shift in Australia’s history. As Menzies said himself in his campaign launch, this was to be “our great year of decision”. Labor under Ben Chifley had sought to nationalise the banks. Labor wanted to extend wartime controls over wages and prices. Labor’s ideology, then as now, was that government always knew best. Menzies challenged this head-on, delivering a rousing rallying-cry in favour of freedom. “Are we for the Socialist State, with its subordination of the individual to the universal officialdom of government,” he asked the Australian people. “Or are we for the ancient British faith that governments are the servants of the people, a faith which has given fire and quality and direction to the whole of our history for 600 years?” “...We must choose our road. Upon our decision will depend the future and fate of this nation. Every extension of Government power and control means less freedom of choice for the citizen.” Let me read that again. “Every extension of Government power and control means less freedom of choice for the citizen.” That was a bold call. Australians had lived through twenty dreadful years including the Great Depression with unemployment reaching 20 per cent, followed by a World War in which Australia had been directly attacked and at one point appeared almost defenceless in the face of a ruthless and unrelenting enemy. In the four years after the defeat of Germany and Japan and Italy, a new Cold War had developed with an aggressive, expansionary, and nuclear-armed Soviet Union. The post-war world was far from peaceful and many people – Menzies included – feared war with Stalin’s Russia was a real possibility. As he wrote to his sons, Ken and Ian, from England in September 1948: “Many people here in England will say – ‘How can you take a firm line against the Russians when between Berlin and Calais you have no armed forces which could hold up a push by Stalin for more than a day or two?’” And yet at that very moment, at a time of fear and uncertainty, when the comfort of big government and the welfare state must have been so appealing to so many, Australians nonetheless chose to vote for freedom. It was a courageous decision and it began 23 years of Liberal Government – only rivalled in its growth and prosperity by the economic expansion under the eleven and a half years of Liberal Government led by John Howard. That 1949 election result – giving the Coalition 60 per cent of the House of Representatives – reversed what had been a bitterly disappointing defeat for Menzies’ Liberals only three years earlier in the first federal election contest after the Party’s formation. And it is a reminder to all of us that political fortunes can change quickly – Menzies’ political message of freedom, self reliance and private enterprise was embraced as decisively in 1949 as it had been rejected in 1946 or even more crushingly in 1943. It is an important point for all of us to reflect upon. In May 1942, at the time of his famous “Forgotten People” speech, Menzies was a voice in the political wilderness. An eloquent to be sure, but he had been dumped by his own Party as leader and his Labor opponents were ascendant and about to be more so. So he spoke with a heartfelt candour that was as sincere as it was intellectually rigorous. He described the people he represented in Parliament as a forgotten people because they were neither captains of industry who could look after themselves or members of trade unions. They were the middle class. As he wrote, “…salary-earners, shopkeepers, skilled artisans, professional men and women, farmers and so on… They are for the most part unorganised and unself-conscious. They are envied by those whose benefits are largely obtained by taxing them…they are the backbone of the nation.” He was not afraid to be blunt. Mr Menzies went on: “The great vice of democracy… is that for a generation we have been busy getting ourselves onto the list of beneficiaries and removing ourselves from the list of contributors, as if somewhere there was somebody else’s wealth and effort on which we could thrive.” He argued powerfully for a new post-war world based on free enterprise, not central planning; on self-reliance, not a nanny state. He said “Are you looking forward to a breed of men after the war who will have become boneless wonders? Leaners grow flabby; lifters grow muscles. Men without ambition readily become slaves…” “If the new world is to be a world of men, we must not be pallid and bloodless ghosts, but a community of people whose motto shall be, “To strive, to seek, to find and not to yield.” Individual enterprise must drive us forward.” And he concluded: “But what really happens to us will depend on how many people we have who are of the great and sober and dynamic middle class – the strivers, the planners, the ambitious ones. We shall destroy them at our peril.” Now Menzies’ world was very different to our own, and rich though the tapestry of his political thought may be, not every thread of it will help us weave our own. But the one golden thread which shines as bright today as it did in Menzies’ time is that of freedom. Now I did not learn about free enterprise in an economics text book or in a politics seminar. Lucy and I have lived a life of enterprise – all our lives we have started businesses, employed people, taken risks, made investments – and we have learned what so many politicians and bureaucrats forget, that the wealth of this country is founded on the tireless energy and optimism of millions of Australians having a go. That spirit of enterprise does not guarantee success. And yet the one way to guarantee no chance of success is never to have a go. Resilience, optimism, energy – they are the essential elements of enterprise. And that spirit of enterprise is the Liberal spirit – as much today as it was in Menzies’ time. And that is why Liberal leaders in one form of words or another have always described the role of Government as being to enable each and every one of us to do our best. That is our vision – a vision of freedom. Labor's view of course is that Government will tell us what is best. Or as Menzies said in his indictment of Labor’s socialist agenda: “For the pioneer's virile cry - "Leave it to me; I'll do it!" - they have substituted the slogan - "Leave it to the Government!" Now over the course of this year we have held dozens of public meetings with small businessmen and women in our Jobs for Australia Forums. Every conceivable topic relevant to business and employment has been raised. But the one consistent message to us has been that Government should get out of their hair and their pockets, and stop making their lives harder with unnecessary regulation and red tape – in other words, their call is “let me get on with business.” In the 20th century, the strongest, most successful and most vibrant societies have been those infused with the principles of political, economic and religious freedom. In only these past 20 years, hundreds of millions of people living in societies crippled by the failures of excessive government control and yearning for the freedoms they saw in the West, have come to claim those same freedoms for themselves. Almost a billion people have been lifted out of poverty, as great and ancient societies such as India and even the world’s largest Communist state, the People’s Republic of China, opened their economies to global trade and the benefits of free, or at least freer, markets. The fruits of greater economic freedom have been indeed spectacular. In the 20 years to 2004, the percentage of the world’s poor living on a dollar a day or less has halved. That is a record of achievement, a measure of progress, not to be demeaned or dismissed in the scramble to find scapegoats for last year’s collapse of confidence in global financial markets. And this is despite what you may have read and heard recently from our Prime Minister, with his Orwellian capacity to distort history to serve his own political agenda. Barely three months after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Kevin Rudd had this to say about the implications of a banking crisis in the United States, he wrote “The time has come, off the back of the current crisis, to proclaim that the great neo-liberal experiment of the past 30 years has failed. Ironically, it falls to social democracy to prevent liberal capitalism from cannibalising itself." What we are witnessing here is an attempt by advocates of the “government knows best” approach to use the current difficult global economic conditions as a pretext for expanding state power. Yet in the same breath that Mr Rudd accuses the Liberal Party of being the local agent of a vast, international conspiracy of neo-liberal extremism, committing to “letting the free market rip”, he has to note that the financial and prudential regulation of Australian banks established by the Liberal Treasurer, Peter Costello, has served Australia so well that not one of our banks collapsed or threatened to do so. As a consequence, as of today, our four major banks are four of only nine AA or better rated banks in the world today. Indeed, his Deputy, Julia Gillard, said earlier this year that Australia’s system of financial regulation was “better than world class.” Now given all we have come to know from 20th century history, it is in its own way disturbing that we should need to revisit debates about the sensible limits of government power. But that is the ground on which our political opponents intend to fight. They are determined not to waste this crisis. They are already using it as a justification for higher taxes, higher borrowings, much more spending, and much greater government intervention in the workings of markets. This resurgence of democratic socialism, if that is to be the preferred label, raises a number of challenges for centre-right parties across the world. In my view, now more than ever, political leaders of the centre right must stand up for freedom. In my view, it is critical that we are not spooked by an overwrought sense of crisis into a greater tolerance for, much less acceptance of, the notion of government intrusion into activity best left to the private sector; or for heavy-handed interference in the operation of markets. Now we in the Liberal Party, or in the broader conservative universe, have never proposed that government is unimportant or unnecessary. Indeed political conservatives have understood very well the need for strong government. As Margaret Thatcher said herself in delivering the Menzies lecture here back in 1981: “Government must secure the conditions for freedom to prevail.” But we know from experience that the best governments will be those that understand and accept the limits of their power; not those that seek to dictate from on high how business should be run, how society should be structured, which companies stand or fall, how individuals should run their lives. In particular, governments need to understand the vital importance of a resolute commitment to prudent economic management; to accept that a pre-condition for Australia’s prosperity and security is that governments must run effectively and efficiently the nation’s public finances. Just because there’s a global financial crisis does not mean the laws of economics can be suspended any more than the facts of history can be rewritten. We have never had a Prime Minister more determined to rewrite history. Only a few weeks ago we saw him claim that only the Labor Party had contributed to economic reform in Australia, airbrushing out of the historical record the remarkable reforms and prosperity created by the Howard Government and its Liberal predecessors. His hubris, I am pleased to say, deserved the scorn that it attracted. But equally, we cannot allow him and his followers to get away with the proposition that the global financial crisis was caused by a failure of capitalism per se. I have addressed this at greater length on other occasions but tonight I will just make this observation. The sub-prime crisis had its origins in a housing bubble in the United States fuelled by imprudent lending on a massive scale. Lending money to people who cannot afford to repay the loan other than by the appreciation of the asset they have acquired will always end in tears. This occurred in a mortgage market where far from the free market being allowed to rip, the US Government underwrote two-thirds of the national mortgage book through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other government guaranteed funds and where governments, especially that of President Clinton, had encouraged and mandated banks to increase their sub-prime lending. In Australia, by contrast, apart from the appropriate financial and prudential regulation, there was no Government interference with banks’ lending policies. In America there was a banking crisis, In Australia we had none. The US mortgage market failed where the Government was where Kevin Rudd says it should be - “at the centre of the economy”. In Australia where Government, thanks to good Liberal government, fulfilled its proper role, the market and the banks remained secure. Now in the May Budget this year, Labor’s plan was to reach $315 billion in gross debt or about $200 billion in net debt within five years. To put that in context, in 1996 the Coalition inherited net debt of $96 billion. Eleven years later Labor inherited from the Coalition cash at the bank or, as they describe it, negative net debt of $45 billion. Get your tongue around that. Thanks to the greater than expected strength of the Australian economy, Mr Rudd’s mountain of debt may not be as lofty as forecast but it will still be a record. And the major driver of that debt is not – as claimed by the Government – a decline in revenues, which to date has been relatively modest, but instead a massive increase in spending by one fifth from 24 per cent of GDP in 2007-2008 to 28.6 per cent of GDP in 2009-2010. Now Labor’s excuse for this explosion in spending and borrowing has been the global financial crisis. This is despite the evidence that the economic downturn in Australia has been far less severe than in the early 1990s and despite the evidence that the economy is already recovering. The Treasurer himself has confirmed that Labor is committed to pressing ahead with its spending plan even though, in his own words on the 31st of August, “the economy is growing and it is growing strongly”. But if you are disinclined to trust the Treasurer, consider the views expressed this month by the International Monetary Fund and the Reserve Bank of Australia. The IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook says of Australia and I quote, “the recent evolution of industrial production, retail sales, and confidence indicators suggest that Australia is on its way to recovery”. This is further aided by a rebound in commodity prices and exports. Floating exchange rates acted as a shock absorber and the IMF further noted that Australia has benefited from the previous government, the Coalition Government, having taken advantage in the “prolonged period of prosperity” before 2008 and I quote, “to put in place sound macroeconomic and regulatory frameworks”. The IMF forecasts Australia’s growth will double from 0.7 per cent to 1.4 per cent and then 2.8 per cent in 2010, well above the rate of most advanced economies. The Reserve Bank’s recent decision to increase the cash rate target said this and I quote: “Economic conditions in Australia have been stronger than expected and measures of confidence have recovered… Overall, growth through 2010 looks likely to be close to trend. “ So why did the Government borrow and spend so much? The truth is that this explosion in debt and deficit was the result of blind panic. As the Prime Minister said, the Government felt they were staring into the bottom of an abyss. Now back in February when their stimulus was presented to the Parliament, we also argued for a fiscal stimulus but one that was smaller and better targeted than the $42 billion proposed by Labor. As I said at the time, the Parliament is not closing down – if we need to spend more, if circumstances require us to do more, we can come back and vote more money. Now with the benefit of hindsight, if the Government was honest, they would say that had they known our economy was going to be as strong and resilient in the face of this downturn as it has proved to be, they would have spent less money and they would have sought to target it much better. Now infrastructure spending, especially when funded by taxpayers, should always have a positive cost benefit, or to cite Dr Ken Henry himself and I quote: “Government spending that does not pass an appropriately defined cost-benefit test necessarily detracts from Australia’s well being.” The real issue with infrastructure spending designed to promote economic activity as part of a fiscal stimulus is that if you’re not careful you can find that the spending instead of being countercyclical – that is to say offsetting a general decline in the economy – becomes pro-cyclical and instead starts to fuel inflation. If our economy continues to grow and starts to pick up momentum – and we have the word of the Reserve Bank this week to confirm that growth is returning to trend – then the Government’s spending may prove to be very ill-timed and ill-considered. It may in fact have the effect of pushing up both inflation and interest rates. And of course it will burden this and future generations with an unprecedented debt to repay. The first part of the Government’s stimulus package you will recall consisted of cash handouts – half of which was made up of $900 payments to almost every Australian taxpayer including, so we are told, many people overseas, a number of the deceased and apparently even some pets. This part of the stimulus was designed to get money into people’s hands – or in the case of the pets, paws – quickly so they would go out and spend it. Of course in the climate of the time much of it was saved and so effectively public debt was increased so that household debt could be diminished. A classic Labor redistribution of wealth. The second part of the stimulus consisted of infrastructure works that could be undertaken quickly. Now this largely consists of building Julia Gillard Memorial Assembly Halls in almost every school across Australia. These halls and other buildings are being imposed on schools whether they need them or not. There is no cost-benefit test to pass – the aim was simply to provide employment for building trades and a monument for the Deputy Prime Minister as quickly as possible. The upshot has been that many schools are receiving infrastructure they don’t need – a second assembly hall for example. Or, in what has become the iconic example of this programme, the Abbotsford Primary School in Sydney where $2.5 million is being spent to knock down four perfectly serviceable classrooms in order to build, in their place, four perfectly serviceable classrooms. Schools have had little, mostly no, say in what buildings they will get or where they will be sited. It is a classic case, in this instance costing over $16 billion, of government knowing best. And the contrast between our two positions on school funding could not be a better example of our two parties’ very different philosophies and approaches. The Julia Gillard Memorial School Hall programme is top down, government knows best. Do as you are told! We countered with a different proposal. We expressed grave doubt that so much money could be spent effectively in two and a half years – well we were certainly right there. Instead we proposed that $3 billion be spent over three years on the basis of our Investing in Our Schools Program approach which, unlike Labor’s program, actually involved asking schools what they needed and then allocating the funds to the schools with the greatest need and the best proposals. In other words, Kevin Rudd spent $16 billion telling schools what is best. We would have spent $3 billion enabling schools to do their best, realise their dreams. A Liberal approach would have meant that every dollar spent would have been needed – the schools would have seen to that. Moreover we would have borrowed and spent a fifth as much on school buildings and, as I said at the time, if there had been more demand or economic conditions required it, the Parliament could always vote more funds to that program. Another example of Labor’s reckless borrowing and spending is the National Broadband Network, so-called. In 2007, Labor promised to invest $4.7 billion to establish in five years a National Broadband Network in partnership with the private sector. A tender process failed dismally and out of the blue the Prime Minister announced that he would build a national 100 mbps cable network to pass nine million homes and businesses, which would cost 43 billion and would be commercially viable, so much so that the public and private sector would – he assured us – rush to invest. Despite having urged Australians to invest in the National Broadband Network, the Government concedes that no business plan or financial analysis has been prepared. All of the work published by industry analysts suggests the National Broadband Network will not only be uncommercial but will require an enormous Government subsidy to establish. So what’s the solution? Bully and blackmail Telstra to break up its businesses and, in effect, sell its own network into the NBN. Note this is a private business, a listed company, which the Commonwealth Government had sold to investors on the basis it was an integrated telecommunications company. At this stage the largest single infrastructure project proposed by the Rudd Government is nothing more than a thought bubble, the only achievement to date being to strip billions of dollars of value from Telstra shareholders’ investment and of course to employ a chief executive at a salary of $2 million a year. These and many other wasteful projects and programs add up to an enormous diversion of productive resources from better, more productive uses. These projects will undermine Australia’s economic growth and the living standards of Australians for years to come. But it is a sign of the great strengths of the Australian people that for all of this waste, the Australian economy is recovering and will continue to recover. And it is this very growth which will unfortunately contribute to a second problem caused by the Government’s big spending plans. With stronger economic growth than forecast in the budget, continued high government spending and higher debt will push up interest rates as we are already seeing, reducing private investment and placing unnecessary pressure on home buyers. The first step towards higher interest rates has already been taken with the Reserve Bank raising the cash rate on Tuesday and clearly signalling that more rises are to come. In the words of the Reserve Bank and I quote, “it is now prudent to begin gradually lessening the stimulus provided by monetary policy”. That is, to raise interest rates. The pace of withdrawal of monetary stimulus, that is, the pace of interest rate rises, will be affected significantly by the pace of fiscal stimulus, that is to say Mr Rudd’s borrowing and spending. The Government can try all it likes to deny the clear relationship between fiscal and monetary policy, but the evidence is coming through already that if the Government persists with its spending plans, interest rates will rise far more quickly and steeply than would occur under a government exercising sound financial management. Today’s figures demonstrate both the underlying strength of the economy and the need for the Government to wind back now on its spending programs. The number of Australians in employment grew by over 40,000 in September and the unemployment rate fell to 5.7 per cent. The Budget projections in May that unemployment would rise to 8.25 per cent in 2009-10 and then to 8.5 per cent in 2010-11 now appear unduly pessimistic. And that data reinforces the case for the Government to wind back immediately its spending programs. A fall in unemployment to 5.7 per cent in September is not indicative of a deeper and more prolonged downturn. There is a very real threat now that by proceeding stubbornly with its reckless spending, the Rudd Government will overheat the economy, which will in turn force the Reserve Bank to tighten monetary policy faster and more aggressively, ratcheting up the interest rate burden on businesses, small and large, and leaving homeowners, and especially young homebuyers recently enticed into the housing market, with the prospect of spiralling mortgage repayments. Now we have a plan of our own. Unlike Labor’s, it is not about borrowing and spending. It is founded on fundamentally different principles and it is built on experience and proven success in government that Labor can never hope to match. A Coalition government will deliver on four key principles to prevent the further accumulation of irresponsible and unnecessary debt. First, we will reduce government waste. We will do more with less by reducing waste and duplication throughout the Australian government. We will immediately upon coming into government establish a Commission for Sustainable Finances to report within three months on waste in every agency and program of government. This will take Australia off Labor’s path of reckless spending and higher debt and provide the blueprint for affordable, high quality public services. How can people know that we will deliver this first principle? My answer is we have done it before. When the Coalition won office in 1996 it established the National Commission of Audit to report on the finances of the Australian government. And then it set about implementing a wide range of reforms. Secondly, we will promote economic growth, pursuing a vigorous reform, infrastructure and innovation agenda to lift productivity and increase economic growth, increase the top line of the economy. We will support small businesses, the engine room of the economy, through our Small Business Action Plan. How can people know we will deliver this second objective? The answer is we have done it before. Mr Rudd’s attack on the reforms of the past quarter-century not only denigrated the achievements of the Coalition from 1996 to 2007 but of previous Labor government’s achievements, supported in large measure by the Liberal Party, from 1983 to 1996. The economic reforms of this time included floating the dollar under Labor, financial deregulation under Labor and the Coalition, and improved financial market regulation, tax and labour market reform and a truly Reserve Bank under the Coalition. It is clear that modern Labor, Mr Rudd’s Labor Party does not understand how sound economic and financial policies up to 2007 placed Australia in a better position than most countries to weather the present difficulties. And it is clear that Labor has no commitment to deliver similar policies to promote economic growth in the future. We do. Third, we will restore the balance between the private and the public sectors. We recognise that Australia’s wealth is created by the private sector, not by the public sector. Labor wants to increase government spending as a percentage of GDP, increase the share of government in our total economy. We commit to a responsible long term objective of returning government’s share of the economy to the level achieved by the previous Coalition government. Permanently higher government spending leads to permanently higher taxes. The results are lower economic growth and fewer job opportunities. Ultimately this makes it more difficult for Australians to provide for themselves and their families. The last five Coalition budgets had spending of less than 25 per cent of GDP. When the Coalition put forward the idea of returning to that level of spending the reaction of Labor was swift and dismissive, suggesting they have no intention of letting the opportunity presented by the global downturn to slip through their hands. Only the Coalition can be trusted to follow the simple and obvious rule of returning the government’s share of the economy to the level that was in place before the global financial crisis. We can be trusted because we did it before for five budgets in a row. Fourthly, we will ensure honesty in public finances. We will establish a Parliamentary Budget Office, which will be independent of both the government and the opposition, to ensure the public and the Parliament receive honest and timely analysis of the budget, financial results and specific programs. The public will be able to track government debt at a real time website detailing the size and the composition of borrowings, interest paid and projections into the future. Now again, we have a record of achievement in greater honesty and openness. One of the tasks of the National Commission of Audit established in 1996 was to advise on the Charter of Budget Honesty, which had been a Coalition election commitment. That Charter was a major advance in providing more open and responsible government. But when the Coalition established the Charter of Budget Honesty in 1996, it did not conceive of a government as irresponsible as Mr’s Rudd Labor Government. The current government has shown contempt for the people and the Parliament in the way it has managed our public finances. The need for an independent Parliamentary Budget Office, modelled on the Congressional Budget Office of the United States, is clear. Our plan is to restore integrity to the nation’s public finances, and this Debt Reduction Strategy, as we have outlined to Australians earlier today, reflects our commitment as Liberals to prudent and responsible financial management. It reinforces our commitment, as distinct from Labor, to this nation’s long-term economic security and prosperity. And it demonstrates our understanding, reaffirmed by all we have learned from the history of the 20th century, that excessive government interference in the workings of our economy and our society will do much more harm than good. In this, like Menzies, we place our faith in the energy, ingenuity and enterprise of our fellow Australians. These are the values of a proud, resourceful and independent people. These are the values that have produced a strong and successful society. And these are the values – our Liberal values – that can and will deliver to our nation the prosperity, the freedom and the great future it so richly deserves. Thank you very much. [ends]  malcolmWed, 07 Oct 2009 21:45:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:629http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/628/Doorstop-Interview-with-Jason-Wood-Melbourne.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=628http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=628&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/628/Doorstop-Interview-with-Jason-Wood-Melbourne.aspxSubjects: Clyde Road upgrade; Rudd Government’s wasteful spending; emissions trading. E & O E MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well as you have just heard, Berwick is bleeding, as Kevin Rudd is all talk and no shovel. The money has been allocated for this Clyde Road upgrade. It is desperately needed. Businesses are being lost to this area, businesses and jobs are being lost, and yet the same time Labor talks big about infrastructure and is throwing billions of dollars, billions of dollars, tens of billions of dollars around on school halls, many of which are not needed, some of which involve knocking down perfectly good school buildings only to build more school buildings on top of them. While they are wasting all of that money, a vital piece of infrastructure here is being left undone, and the consequence is, as we have heard from the local businesspeople we have just been speaking with, it is a lot of jobs. They are bleeding jobs here because Kevin Rudd is all talk and no shovel. At the same time, this area, as Jason knows better than anyone as the local Member, is going to suffer hard from the increase in interest rates. We said at the beginning of the year that there should be a stimulus, but it should be judicious, it should be careful, we should borrow and spend no more than was absolutely necessary and the spending should be carefully targeted. We said that reckless spending and borrowing would push up interest rates, and now you are starting to see that happening. So just as the Reserve Bank is saying that the stimulus should be withdrawn, the monetary stimulus should be wound back and rates should start going up, at that same time we have Wayne Swan saying the Paris Hilton spending from the Rudd Government has to continue with renewed energy. So we have got fiscal policy and monetary policy working against each other. QUESTION: First of all, on the Godwin Grech situation, what’s your response to the fact that he has now parted ways with the Treasury? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well look I am very sorry to read that Godwin Grech is still ill, and I hope that he has a recovery from his illness. As far as his employment relations, they are a matter between him and his employer, between him and the Treasury. QUESTION: Just a question on the leadership, apparently your colleagues are ready to get behind Joe Hockey if the emissions trading talks don’t go your way. Are you looking over your shoulder? MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, not at all. I am always looking straight ahead, and I am focused on our opponents, the Rudd Government, and what we are endeavouring to do right across the country, just as we are here with Jason, here today, is hold them to account for their mismanagement of Australia’s economy. QUESTION: Are you confident that the party room will get behind you on Sunday and back your amendments to the ETS? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I am sure the party room will support us taking amendments. Whether the Government agrees to them or not of course is up to the Government. But the bottom line is this: if Kevin Rudd was serious about getting his emissions trading scheme right – and I support an emissions trading scheme, I support effective action to reduce Australia’s emissions, I support action on climate change – but if Kevin Rudd was fair dinkum about it he would not finalise the vote, finalise the design, until after the Copenhagen summit. So he is the one that is trying to force it to a vote before the end of the year. Now what we are doing is reaching out, to be constructive. We have been working very closely with the industries and the various businesses whose livelihoods and whose employees are being drastically affected by this scheme. I mean there are thousands of jobs at risk here. We have been reaching out to them, seeking to put together the amendments that would protect jobs, and we will seek the support of the party room to those amendments. I am sure we will secure that support. And then we will sit down with the Government, and it is going to be up to them whether they want to put jobs ahead of politics. QUESTION: There is a lot of leadership speculation at the moment though. Is Joe Hockey being sounded out for your job? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well look the only leadership I am focused on is the lack of leadership from Kevin Rudd. QUESTION: What do you hope to bed down today specifically in the meeting? MALCOLM TURNBULL: What, at the Shadow Cabinet meeting? QUESTION: You know, talking about, in terms of ETS, what do you actually hope to do with the meeting this afternoon? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, this must be the most well-advertised process ever. We are going to get a presentation from Ian Macfarlane on his progress with the development of the amendments, and we will discuss those, and they will continue to be refined, and then in final form they will be presented to the party room the Sunday before the Parliament sits. QUESTION: I just wanted to follow up. How refined are they going to be by the end of today? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, they’re very well advanced and we are working closely with a very wide range of businesses. Do you know, many of these industries, massive employers, have been unable to have meaningful discussions with the Government. The common comment that I have had back is that it’s like talking to a brick wall. So we’re actually sitting down and engaging with them. There are thousands of jobs at stake, billions of dollars of investment. It’s a big issue, a very complex issue so we’re working closely and we will have the amendments ready in their final form obviously when we go to the party room meeting before Parliament sits. QUESTION: Is there going to be a delay on that vote for the scheme? MALCOLM TURNBULL: What is the… QUESTION: Well is there going to be a delay on the vote depending on how [inaudible] work out? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I’m not sure what you mean by that let me put this to you and let me try and answer what I think your question is. If you’re asking, do I think the vote will be held before the end of the year or not, or whether it will be held next year; that is really a matter for the Senate. Now my view is that we should be engaged in negotiations and discussions with the Government but we should not finalise the design of the scheme until after Copenhagen. And the question I suggest you all ask Penny Wong is this – is the outcome of the Copenhagen summit relevant or irrelevant to the design of the Australian emissions trading scheme? Now if it is relevant, as it obviously is, then it follows that the design should not be finalised and the Parliament should not make its final vote until after the Copenhagen summit. Of course there’s an enormous amount of work that can be done and has been done and should continue to be done right up to that point, but there will be very significant developments at Copenhagen and indeed in the lead up to Copenhagen. We’ve already seen a number of them at the conferences in Pittsburgh and New York. So let’s make sure that we make the decision in a fully informed way. But if the Government is able to force the matter to a vote before the end of the year then we obviously seek to have our constructive input into it and that is why we’re presenting these amendments. QUESTION: But if you don’t support the Government taking this move before Copenhagen, why put any amendments forward? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well because we have to have a view. We have to be constructive. There are thousands of jobs, tens possibly hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on getting this scheme right; businesses and industries coming to us and saying we can’t get anywhere with the Government, they don’t care about us, they don’t care about our employees, we need your help. I mean, just look at the Australian coal industry. It’s our biggest export industry. Kevin Rudd is going to put a carbon tax on the Australian coal industry that no other country is putting on their coal industry. So you can imagine how pointless it will be. All that will happen is there will be less coal mined in Australia and more coal mined somewhere else. So exactly the same amount, if not more, greenhouse gas emissions will go into the atmosphere and we will lose thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of investment as existing mines close and new ones are not open. Environmental benefit – nothing; economic damage to Australia – enormous. So that’s a good example of why we have to be in there fighting for jobs. QUESTION: There’s some talk that John Howard is been asked to take over as head of the NRL. What are your thoughts on that? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, look, I notice that John’s not commenting on it so I probably shouldn’t either. But I just say he is a man of enormous ability. He is full of energy. I talk to him regularly. He’s a really good, constructive supporter and friend and whatever he turned his mind to I’ve got no doubt he’d do very well. QUESTION: Jason, a question for you. Will you be supporting Malcolm’s amendments come Sunday on the ETS? JASON WOOD: I fully support Malcolm. He’s got his heart in for Australia, he’s got a heart in for the environment and that’s why he’s our leader and he’s doing a great job on this issue. QUESTION: But will you support the amendments? JASON WOOD: I support Malcolm Turnbull and obviously need to look at the amendments but I’ve got no doubt they’ll be amendments I’ll be supporting. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Okay? Thanks guys, thank you. [ends]  malcolmWed, 07 Oct 2009 05:59:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:628http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/627/Retirement-of-the-Hon-Fran-Bailey.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=627http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=627&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/627/Retirement-of-the-Hon-Fran-Bailey.aspxFran Bailey has announced today that she will not re-contest the seat of McEwen at the next election, bringing to a close a distinguished parliamentary career spanning close to twenty years. Fran has made an enormous contribution to public life and will leave a legacy of accomplishment for the communities of McEwen and the people of Australia. Fran was first elected to represent the people of McEwen in 1990, becoming the first woman from any political party to represent a rural electorate in the House of Representatives and the first Victorian Liberal woman to be elected to the House of Representatives – a great achievement. After regaining McEwen at the 1996 election, Fran served on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade from 1998 to 2002. Between 2001 and 2004 Fran served as Parliamentary Secretary for Defence and in 2004 was promoted to Minister for Employment Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence and later Minister for Small Business and Tourism. Fran brought her characteristic energy, passion, and effectiveness to all of these roles. Fran has always been an outstanding advocate for her local community, and she has worked extremely hard to retain the marginal seat of McEwen since 1996. Fran’s leadership, compassion and dedication to the people of McEwen was no more prominently on display than in the wake of this year’s devastating Black Saturday bushfires when she provided immense support to her constituents during that tragic period. Fran will be missed by her colleagues in the federal Liberal Party, and on behalf of the Opposition I thank Fran for her years of service.  malcolmWed, 07 Oct 2009 05:57:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:627http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/624/Congratulations-to-Professor-Blackburn.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=624http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=624&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/624/Congratulations-to-Professor-Blackburn.aspxOn behalf of the Coalition we extend our congratulations to Professor Elizabeth Blackburn on receiving the Nobel Prize for Medicine. Professor Blackburn shares the award with her US colleagues, Dr Carol Greider and Dr Jack Szostak, for their enormously important work on identifying telomeres that protect chromosomes in cells thus opening the way for breakthroughs in addressing ageing and cancer. The awarding of the Nobel Prize to the Tasmanian-born Professor Blackburn is a testament to the initiative and achievement of an Australian scientist whose work has made an enormous contribution to not just medicine, but to our understanding of ageing and health care. Now based in San Francisco, her insights have provided a foundation for our understanding of ageing and disease that has added enormously to medical treatments and health care throughout the world. The substantial contribution of Professor Blackburn’s work has been widely recognised and is well deserving of the Nobel Prize. The award recognises the contributions of Professor Blackburn and is an indication of the important role Australia’s scientists have in developing new knowledge in medicine and health care. Professor Blackburn is also the first Australian woman to be awarded a Nobel Prize and only the 37th woman to receive the award. This in itself is a rightly deserved recognition of the enormous contributions women have made, and continue making, to science. Her work and success stand as a tremendous example for all Australians of the dedication, commitment and innovation that our fellow citizens can produce for their own benefit and for the benefit of countless other people. We congratulate Professor Blackburn on her award of the Nobel Prize and extend our best wishes for her continuing work into ageing and cell regeneration.  malcolmTue, 06 Oct 2009 01:41:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:624http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/623/Interview-with-Steve-Price-2UE-Sydney.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=623http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=623&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/623/Interview-with-Steve-Price-2UE-Sydney.aspxSubjects: ETS.  E&OE STEVE PRICE: Good morning to you. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Good morning Steve. STEVE PRICE: So it’s all or nothing, is it? Back me to support an amended carbon trading scheme or find yourselves another leader. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Steve, it is a question of whether you want to be part of the solution or not. The reality is there are thousands of jobs being put at risk here by Kevin Rudd’s flawed emissions trading scheme and in his indecent haste to pass it prior to the Copenhagen summit. Now we could simply vote it down, and that would then give him a perfectly legitimate double dissolution trigger. If he were to use that, call an election and win the election, he would then be able to pass it through without any input from the Coalition at all. And right around Australia there are thousands of people whose jobs are going to be affected by this, and their industries, and their representatives, who are saying to us – and I am talking here about coal mining, aluminium, steel, oil and gas to name just a few, farming – who are saying we want you guys to go in there and bat for us, to make a case for our jobs, to argue for amendments that will protect our jobs. And that is asking us to do our job as legislators. STEVE PRICE: But politically, why back yourself into a corner like that? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Steve, I don’t know what you mean by backing yourself into a corner. I am the leader and I am stating clearly the approach that I believe we should take. STEVE PRICE: But you’re the sort of person who understands that once you make a statement with no room to shift on, then you have to see that to its final conclusion. You’ve said back me or I won’t be leading your party. You’re not leaving yourself any room there for any compromise. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Steve, the fact of the matter is there isn’t an issue of half measures here. We can follow the policy that I have articulated, that the Shadow Cabinet supported, which is to prepare amendments to the emissions trading scheme, to engage with the Government, to seek to get their agreement to them, and then, depending on how many of those amendments they accept, we will then decide whether to vote for the legislation or not. I am not saying we should vote for Rudd’s ETS on any terms at all. What I am saying is that we have got to engage… Sorry go, on. You go on. STEVE PRICE: But you’re staking your job on a piece of legislation that you agree will increase the tax burden on Australian business, it will cause job losses, and you haven’t even sent the legislation. Any of it. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well that is not true. We have seen the legislation. It has actually been through the Parliament once and been voted down in August. The issue that we are talking about is not just Rudd’s ETS. The issue is should the Coalition, which is unhappy with Rudd’s ETS, should we seek to amend it in order to protect the thousands of jobs that we say are being put at risk for no environmental gain, or should we simply say no, we won’t have a bar of it, we have got no constructive criticism to make, we are just going to vote against it. And Rudd will say thank you very much, you Liberals, for the double dissolution trigger, and he will then use that, have an election, and if he were to get it then he will get his legislation without any input or amendment or contribution to it from us whatsoever. And there will be thousands of jobs that will then be put at risk, and those people will say to us, what did you do to help us, did you do your job as legislators, did you do your job of seeking to protect our jobs, and I am afraid to say, in that eventuality, we would have to say we didn’t do much at all. STEVE PRICE: We’ve got backbenchers this morning, interestingly they don’t have the guts to put their names to this, but they’re saying this morning you’ve placed a noose around your neck, you’re standing on a chair and waiting for it to be kicked out from under you. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Steve, I don’t place any store on anonymous smartarses who make comments like that. STEVE PRICE: Well they’ve made them, and you know they’re saying this stuff. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Who are they, Steve? Who are they? STEVE PRICE: Well as I said, they don’t have the guts to put… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well exactly Steve, if they don’t have the guts to put their name to it then I’m not going to waste my time worrying about what they’ve said. STEVE PRICE: What do you think would happen in your party room if a candidate emerged with a no deal on carbon trading laws and took you on in a party room vote? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Steve, I am not even vaguely interested in speculating on that. I mean the fact of the matter is this: we need, Australians expect us to provide real leadership, and if we think Rudd’s scheme is flawed – and it is – a common sense response to us is to say okay, what are the flaws and what would you do to fix them? And what I am saying is we have identified the flaws, we have outlined the way in which we would fix them in general terms, in principles. We are going to do that in detail. I will seek the party room’s support to do that. I will get that support from the party room, and then we will sit down and we will see how we get on in terms of our discussions and negotiations with the Government. STEVE PRICE: Well on that question, on that question of leadership, as you know how this works, you’ve been around a long time. You know exactly what will happen when you go this morning, you take off and do whatever you’re going to do, we’re going to get swamped with calls from Liberal and Labor voters shortly on your threat to walk. Can I ask you this question, are you convinced that more Australians than not believe we need a carbon tax? MALCOLM TURNBULL: There is absolutely no question that on all of the polling for a long time that there is an overwhelming majority of Australians want to see action on climate change, action to reduce CO2 emissions. They support an emissions trading scheme in principle. Look, Steve, it was our policy when we were in government. STEVE PRICE: I understand that. MALCOLM TURNBULL: It was John Howard’s policy. STEVE PRICE: I understand that. But you don’t think the ground is shifting? MALCOLM TURNBULL: No I do not think it is shifting. I think there is concern about the detail of the scheme and concern about the design, and it may be that the problems with the design will be sufficient or so great that we will not vote for it in the final analysis. But you see it is one thing to say I am not going to vote for a scheme which will unreasonably or unnecessarily sacrifice jobs in farming and coal mining and aluminium, and having put forward reasonable amendments that would protect those jobs the Government has unreasonably rejected them. It is one thing to vote against it in those circumstances – it is another thing to simply say I am against an emissions trading scheme in general, and I haven’t had the time to go through the detail, and I don’t believe in climate change, which is what some people say. And I’ve got to tell you that is political death because the vast majority of Australians believe that climate change is real, they believe Australia should take action to mitigate it, and they want governments to act and legislators - and oppositions for that matter - to act responsibly. STEVE PRICE: So what’s your message to our huge farming audience? You know we’re right across New South Wales. What are you saying to them about carbon tax and agriculture? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well what I am saying to them is Kevin Rudd is going to do them in, and what I am saying to them is… STEVE PRICE: Are you going to save them? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yes. That is exactly the point, because what I am doing is I have gone out there and said that emissions, greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture should be excluded from the scheme, but agricultural offsets, that is to say the opportunity to offset carbon emissions by taking up increased levels of carbon by different methods of cultivation, by better methods of grazing and tillage and so forth, and by environmental plantings and via biochar, those agricultural offsets should be included. Now that, as it happens, is exactly what the Americans have done. So I am saying I am going to seek to amend this legislation to give Australian farmers the same protection and the same opportunities that Barack Obama is going to give American farmers. And the question for Kevin Rudd is why is he not prepared to give Australian farmers the same protection American farmers are getting? And my message to Australian farmers is because I am prepared to get in there and do the hard work and work through the detail and seek to amend this legislation, I am actually protecting farmers, I am actually seeking to defend their interests rather than throwing them to the mercy of Kevin Rudd, which is exactly what would happen if we were simply to knock back the scheme in its entirety without seeking to change it. STEVE PRICE: Let me just finish with this: if it came to it, would you be happy to be remembered as the Coalition leader who lost his job on a principled stand on climate change? You’d give up the chance to be Prime Minister to help deliver an emissions trading scheme, would you? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I will just tell you this, Steve. I will be remembered, and I certainly want to be remembered, as a man of principle, as a man who has the courage of his convictions. And whatever the consequences of that may be, I will wear them. STEVE PRICE: Appreciate your time. Thanks a lot. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Thanks Steve. [ends]malcolmFri, 02 Oct 2009 06:41:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:623http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/622/Interview-with-Alan-Jones-2GB-Sydney.aspx#Comments2http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=622http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=622&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/622/Interview-with-Alan-Jones-2GB-Sydney.aspxSubjects: ETS. E&OE. ALAN JONES: Good morning. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Good morning Alan. Great to see you. ALAN JONES: Thank you. Don’t say that. You mightn’t be all that happy. Are you serious – you’ll walk away from the leadership should the backbench defy you over climate change? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Alan, what I have said – sorry we’ve just had the microphone moved [inaudible] here. ALAN JONES: That’s okay. MALCOLM TURNBULL: What I have said is that this is an important leadership issue and the position that I and the Shadow Cabinet are endorsing is a practical one, it is a responsible one. You have only got to look at the media today and all of the leaders of the industries that have got the most to lose from Kevin Rudd’s poorly designed emissions trading scheme are supporting the position I am taking which is to seek to amend it. Now there are thousands of jobs and dozens of mines and billions of dollars of investment at risk in the coal industry. The coal industry met with me yesterday evening and they said don’t simply vote down this ETS sight unseen. What we want you to do is to protect our jobs, protect our workers and ensure that the scheme is amended and that is what we are going to do. Now depending on the extent to which Kevin Rudd accepts our amendments, we will then consider whether to vote for it or not. But the proposition that the Liberal Party should pay no regard, Alan, to thousands of jobs that are being put at risk, pay no regard to the pleas of the affected industries and have nothing to say at all is reckless and irresponsible and I won’t have a bar of it and I believe the vast majority of my colleagues won’t have a bar of it either. ALAN JONES: You mentioned the coal industry. I read last week that the head of Anglo American Cynthia Carroll said that the proposed emissions trading scheme would cost the coal industry 14 billion in its first ten years of operation. I’m just wondering why in all of this debate you people haven’t put the heat on Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong to tell the electorate the truth about this scheme and to give us the economic model in terms of what the consequences of this legislation will be on the national economy. MALCOLM TURNBULL: But Alan… ALAN JONES: Where can every person read this? MALCOLM TURNBULL: But Alan that is exactly what we do. Can I just say to you part of the problem with the debate is that far too much time is spent on the essentially theological question of whether we should do anything at all about climate change and far too little time is spent on the detail. And what the people that are both literally and metaphorically at the coal face of this issue are saying to us is we want the Liberal Party to be practical, constructive and effective, and that is what I am intending to be. That is the man I am. Those are the values I stand for. ALAN JONES: Supposing climate change, though, doesn’t exist, supposing this is just the new religion like Y2K, what would you say to that? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well if it turns out in 20 years time that all of the science, which every nation in the world accepts, is working on the assumption is correct, is wrong then we will… ALAN JONES: Well they were wrong on Y2K. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Alan… ALAN JONES: They were wrong on the report of Rome, the Club of Rome Report was wrong in 1960 which said that we’re going to run out of food. MALCOLM TURNBULL: But you see, Alan, you see what you are doing here, with great respect m’lord, is you are taking the heat off Kevin Rudd because you are getting into the theological issue of whether climate change exists or not. The real question is why don’t we talk about the thousands of people whose jobs are at risk in the coal industry. Do you want me to explain why they are at risk? ALAN JONES: We’ve done that all week. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Alright, okay. ALAN JONES: I want to know why you haven’t – we’ve done that all week and I’ve spoken to people in the coal industry… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Right, right. ALAN JONES: And they are up in arms entirely and agriculture and retail and all the rest of it… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yep, sure. ALAN JONES: And the damage that it is going to do to the economy is monumental but I just wonder why someone hasn’t told the nation that a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, if that’s the legislation, that is the first lie – that there is no such thing as carbon reduction. I presume we’re trying to reduce CO2. MALCOLM TURNBULL: CO2 emissions, yeah. ALAN JONES: Well why’s it called a pollutant? CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas available on the planet. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Carbon is the source of life. ALAN JONES: But what are kids being taught at school? MALCOLM TURNBULL: No but Alan… ALAN JONES: That it’s a poison or a pollutant. I mean, what I’m saying to you is the legislations name is flawed. Now has anyone read the nine volumes? I bet you haven’t. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Which nine volumes? ALAN JONES: Read the nine volumes of this legislation. I mean who’s read this stuff? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh certainly. Look I’m very familiar with it and I can assure you so is Ian Macfarlane, so is Andrew Robb so is Greg Hunt. We are putting an enormous amount of work in it and we are working on it in order to protect thousands of jobs. Now let’s just deal quickly with the coal industry. In the United States and in Europe where they either have or are establishing emissions trading schemes, they have decided not to include what are called fugitive emissions… ALAN JONES: If I could just interrupt you there, you see. I mean you’ve got to tell the truth too. The Senate have not passed this legislation, 1438 pages of it, in America and don’t look like passing it before Copenhagen. Why does this all have to be done before we know what the world is going to do? Europe are increasingly backing off. France is certainly backing off. Now why… that’s what I think your backbench is saying. Don’t we wait and see what the world is going to do or do we just plunge into something and dance to Kevin Rudd’s music? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Alan I agree that we shouldn’t be finalising the legislation before Copenhagen. I’ve been saying that all year and I’ve said hand on heart that if I was Prime Minister and frankly if we had been returned at the last election we would be implementing an emissions trading scheme now – that was our policy. We had started doing it when we were in government and we would not be finalising the design until after Copenhagen. But the practical problem that we face is that Rudd is determined to have a vote on this before Copenhagen. ALAN JONES: Wants to lead the world. MALCOLM TURNBULL: If we simply vote it down without endeavouring to amend it first… ALAN JONES: Yes. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Then he will simply, he will say right, I’ve got my trigger for a double dissolution… ALAN JONES: Yes. MALCOLM TURNBULL: And if he takes that to a double dissolution election and wins, he can then carry it through in a joint sitting. ALAN JONES: Hang on, woah woah woah woah, so he takes to a double dissolution, double dissolution election and win and the Opposition Leader is such a pathetic debater and forensic arguer that he’s got no hope of getting across to the electorate the very valid points that this is a destructive piece of legislation to the national economy. Don’t you have confidence that you can win that debate? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Alan, I can tell you something – there is no way that I could win or indeed I could conduct a campaign based on doing nothing on climate change. ALAN JONES: You’re not doing nothing on climate change. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Alan, I am afraid to say… ALAN JONES: You’re arguing that this legislation is destructive of the national economy. That’s the debate and every person out there that you’d be going to in an election campaign – your job’s at risk, your electricity prices are going up, that coal mine’s going to close, that farm will be unviable. You reckon with all your skill you couldn’t win that debate? MALCOLM TURNBULL: But Alan you can’t win that debate unless you’ve identified the problems and set out to seek to change them. You see this is the fundamental problem. There is a hardworking man’s approach to this and there is a lazy man’s approach to this. The lazy man’s approach to it is to say it’s going to cause a lot of damage and I’ll just vote no. The hardworking man’s approach to it – and I am a hardworking man – is to get into the detail and say this is why it is wrong, this is why it is going to cost jobs, these are the changes you can make, that you should make which will protect jobs and then, depending on whether Kevin Rudd accepts those changes or not, we can then make a decision whether to vote for it or not and if we vote against it, at least we can then go out into the electorate and say we stood up for your jobs, we stood up for your industries and we were rejected by Kevin Rudd. Whereas if we have nothing to say, nothing constructive to say, people will say you are a lazy opposition with no ideas and we are not a lazy opposition. We are a hardworking opposition and we have constructive alternative proposals that we will put in the Parliament when this bill comes back. ALAN JONES: I have a feeling that he’s getting angry. At long last, it’s taken two years. When I said the last interview, I said where was the Turnbull that abused me and roused at me and argued with me over republican debate? We have to hear it. I’m going to take a break just to get some traffic information and I’ll come back with the point that many people are making. The board was full here this morning of people – full. There wasn’t one person in support of Malcolm Turnbull and there were people prepared to say well if he’s going to go, let him go. Now that’s predicated on the argument that there is such a thing as climate change and all this dislocation must occur so that’s the first part of the debate. The second part is if we accept that there’s climate change then this is the way you would address the issue. I’ll come back to the Opposition Leader in just a moment. It’s 20 past 7. [break] See there are polls everywhere, one of which – I’m back with Malcolm Turnbull, the Opposition Leader who today has said that his leadership is on the line if the party does not support him in his determination to negotiate change to the Rudd Government’s legislation on the carbon pollution emissions trading scheme. There are polls everywhere which demonstrate – I think the last one is in July – 53 per cent said that this legislation should be not supported in any way until after Copenhagen. How do you represent that constituency? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Alan I think that is a common sense view. That’s not quite what the polls said. Let me tell you where the electorate is. The overwhelming… ALAN JONES: Where you think the electorate is. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Based on the polls, yeah, based on the polling both public and private. The overwhelming majority of the electorate want action to be taken on climate change and there is a very substantial majority in support of an emissions trading scheme. People generally support the common sense proposition that the design shouldn’t be finalised until after Copenhagen and that is a powerful point that the Prime Minister should take on board and it’s certainly one that we support but the reality, however, is that if – and I make this point again - and if you look at the Financial Review today there is a whole list of one industry after another supporting the approach I am taking – coal, aluminium, oil and gas. All these industries that are going to be affected and they are supporting, Alan, the approach I am taking which is a constructive one and which is arguing the case to protect jobs. ALAN JONES: But how have you prosecuted… this seems to me, and forgive me if I offend you, a failure to properly prosecute the case. I mean there are people listening to you this morning who have got in their car and that’s driven down a cement driveway. Now that requires energy and under this bill, do they really understand that the energy costs are going to escalate? They’ve actually just turned on whatever it might be, all those instruments in the kitchen or the plasma TV they turned on. That requires energy. Have you succeeded in making them understand that this legislation is going to dramatically increase the cost of electricity to them? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Alan I don’t know about dramatically but it depends on the level of the carbon price but it will increase the cost of energy because most of our energy is produced by burning coal. ALAN JONES: Well the retail industry say it will add four to seven per cent, this legislation, to shopping bills. See the reason these polls say oh we’re in favour, someone on the other side hasn’t persuaded them of the dreadful damage to the national economy that this lump of legislation is going to do. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Alan the alternative to that is to do nothing about climate change which I think is reckless. It’s also I might say electoral poison. ALAN JONES: No, no, accepting your willingness, no, I’m accepting your willingness… MALCOLM TURNBULL: You want to go out there on the climate sceptic platform, believe me you’ll get about 15 per cent of the people voting for you. Now… ALAN JONES: I don’t agree with that but nonetheless you’re the Leader of the Opposition. MALCOLM TURNBULL: I am in the mainstream political business. My aim is to get more than 50 per cent voting for us and I can tell you the vast majority of Australians want to see action on climate change and Australians are more focused on climate change than just about any other developed country. ALAN JONES: But that’s because they don’t understand the issue. MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, Alan, it is because they understand… ALAN JONES: They swallow this rubbish. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh well, Alan, this is the problem you see. ALAN JONES: It’s not… why don’t you move a motion to change the name of the legislation? MALCOLM TURNBULL: You’re saying to me why don’t I agree with you and the reason I don’t agree with you is because I don’t agree with you. ALAN JONES: Ah, but hang on. MALCOLM TURNBULL: I don’t agree with you on climate change. ALAN JONES: Hang on, hang on, Malcolm Turnbull is saying to me I don’t agree with you but when the backbencher doesn’t agree with you, what do you want to do to the backbencher? You tell him well take it or jump, I’ll go jump. Yes, people do disagree. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Alan, Alan… ALAN JONES: People do disagree. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Okay but Alan let me just get this quite clear, right. I used to be a barrister, a lawyer as you know. And as a lawyer you basically get paid to go and make the case for your client and you may not agree with it but that’s your job. You’re a mouthpiece. ALAN JONES: It’s based on evidence. MALCOLM TURNBULL: That’s right. You’ve just got to go and make the best argument you can. I am a politician. I am the leader of a political party. I am a man of conviction. I will not and cannot make political arguments that I do not believe in and that are contrary to the values for which I stand. ALAN JONES: Fully understood. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Okay, good. ALAN JONES: But please give… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well as long as you understand that you understand my position. ALAN JONES: Sure but give your backbencher credit for holding the same view. MALCOLM TURNBULL: They are entitled to hold that position Alan. They are entitled to hold whatever position they like. ALAN JONES: Correct. MALCOLM TURNBULL: But I do not have to, and I will not, articulate or advocate arguments that I think are wrong. Full stop. ALAN JONES: But that backbencher’s entitled to put his hand up in the party room and vote according to his conscience. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Of course he is. ALAN JONES: Just as you are articulating according to yours. MALCOLM TURNBULL: That is exactly right, and I am not denying anybody the right to vote how they like in the party room. ALAN JONES: And if they vote against your willingness to negotiate… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we don’t actually have votes in the party room, but… ALAN JONES: But if they vote against your willingness to negotiate change, then you’re saying you’ll walk. MALCOLM TURNBULL: No Alan…I have said it would be impossible for me, absolutely impossible for me to both morally or politically or intellectually or with integrity, to make a case that was, boiled down, do nothing on climate change. Now the fact of the matter is… ALAN JONES: So you believe in this thing about climate change. MALCOLM TURNBULL: I believe climate change is happening. I accept the science that it is caused by human activities, and I believe that prudence dictates… ALAN JONES: And you reject the scientists who argue that this is just a new religion. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Alan, I don’t reject them. What I am saying is that on the balance of probabilities, I think the prudent approach, and I might say such dangerous left wing radicals and heroes as yours such as Margaret Thatcher took exactly the same view as I am taking that we should be taking a prudent approach and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. ALAN JONES: OK. Let’s just come back to negotiating the change. Why therefore wouldn’t you say that the first instrument of change would be to seek a change to the name of the legislation? I mean why shouldn’t this legislation be called what it is? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it should be called the emissions trading scheme. I always refer to it is that, but… ALAN JONES: It should be called an emissions trading tax. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh, well… ALAN JONES: Why isn’t it called a tax, so that the public know it’s a tax… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it is a tax, there’s no question about that, and I think people… ALAN JONES: Eight point five billion according to this Bill in the first year it’ll raise. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Sure, OK. There is no question about that, and look, it was a tax when we proposed it in 2007, and it is a tax now. ALAN JONES: But wouldn’t you take that to the next step? If the level of this tax is imposed upon the economy, wouldn’t you seek to argue, then business either absorbs it or passes it on, if it passes it on there’ll be fewer jobs, if there are fewer jobs there’s less money in the economy, if there’s less money in the economy we go south. Isn’t that an easy case to prosecute in relation to your criticism of this legislation? MALCOLM TURNBULL: But Alan, can I tell you there is no way you can put a price on carbon, in other words to encourage lower carbon dioxide emitting activities and discourage higher ones… ALAN JONES: How do you separate carbon from carbon dioxide? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well when we say carbon I mean carbon dioxide. That is shorthand, yeah. ALAN JONES: Well I think we should say that, I mean… MALCOLM TURNBULL: But the fact is if you are going to put a price on carbon, which is going to have a cost. Now what we should be doing, and I… ALAN JONES: Well when you say that the electorate understand this, do they understand the level of cost that this legislation will impose upon them, and if they don’t, has the Opposition sufficiently prosecuted that case? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Alan, I believe we have, and I think the way the scheme is designed to work, and this is exactly the way it was designed to work under our regime – I mean there are big differences in design between what we proposed and what Rudd is proposing, but one common theme is that an emissions trading scheme in Australia should start off, as they say, low and slow, with a low cost on carbon and ramp it up slowly in line with developments internationally, and as long as the price is low then obviously the impact of prices in the economy is also going to be low. If you get very high carbon prices obviously it has a very big impact. ALAN JONES: I’ll just stay with the Opposition Leader here. Shouldn’t we know what these prices are before you on behalf of us start sticking your hand up to support a piece of legislation? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Alan there is plenty of work done on what the cost will be, but… ALAN JONES: But you yourself have said the detail will be in the regulations. Where are they? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well this is what we are demanding form the Government. ALAN JONES: And if you don’t get them? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well if we don’t get them it will be very hard for us to propose amendments to them, and that is why frankly I think our current plan is to propose amendments to the legislation itself which of course, if they are carried and accepted will override any regulations that the Government may now or in the future choose to promulgate. ALAN JONES: But everything about this debate, basically, if you take electricity in this generation in this country now, everything about the debate has undermined the value of the assets held by electricity generators. You take the brown coal industry in Victoria, in the La Trobe Valley, you’ve got Loyang A, you’ve got Loyang B, Truenergy Yallourn station. Now Morgan Stanley has examined the impact of this legislation that we’re talking about – which is why your backbenchers say chuck it out – this legislation on that industry. And they are saying that banks are not going to turn over the loans that they currently hold. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well can I tell you, OK Alan, just a little… ALAN JONES: Seriously. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah, OK, well let’s just be serious, let’s just be really serious, deadly serious here. One of the major banks, one of the major lenders to those generators came and saw me the other day and urged me to reach agreement with the Government on the scheme, to move amendments along the lines that I have already proposed, which will ensure that the generators are properly compensated, and they said we need to get this scheme settled so that we have sufficient certainty going forward to enable ourselves to keep lending to that industry. So, you know, I am sorry to inject a bit of commercial reality into this discussion, but that is the very issue you are talking about. ALAN JONES: I’ve been talking commercial reality all week. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I am not sure that you are talking to people who are giving you real information. I am talking about one of the big four banks who came to see me and argued, just as the aluminium industry has, just as the coal industry has, just as the LNG and oil and gas industry have, and they are saying they want the Opposition to take a constructive role. Now if at the end of the day we cannot get amendments that are satisfactory, and we are not satisfied with our negotiations with Mr Rudd, then we have the option of course to vote it down. But the idea that we are going to do nothing, say nothing, have no ideas, take no steps to protect thousands of jobs, is an approach that I will not endorse. ALAN JONES: Right. Predicated on the fact that we are in this period of global warming. It’s predicated on that, even though that is not confirmed, there’s not a unanimous view from science, you’re just sweeping that aside. There may be some people who are just as passionate in their adherence to the view that this is Y2K revisited. We’ve been down these religious line roads before and we’ve swallowed the religious dogma. I repeat, in the sixties the Club of Rome told us – they were the most eminent people in the world – the world was going to run out of food. MALCOLM TURNBULL: OK, well let me deal with that point. Let’s say there is a risk that in twenty years from now we will be sitting here and conclude that this was a Y2K type issue and, you know, however sincerely people held their fears they turned out to be unfounded. Let’s assume that, in twenty years time. That is one of the reasons why I am seeking to amend the Rudd ETS, so that we ensure that agricultural emissions, emissions from the farm sector, are excluded as they are in America and there is ample scope for offsets in agriculture and land use so that we can create carbon credits by investing in the productivity our soils, by increasing the level of soil carbon, through biochar, through environmental plantings, through a whole range of other green carbon measures. Why do I advocate that? Not simply because it is a near and real and present means of reducing emissions, but because it means that if you are right and in twenty years time we conclude this is all nonsense, we will have spent billions of dollars improving the productivity of our landscape, and we will say, well, it turned out that was a furphy, but at least a lot of the money we spent went to a good purpose nonetheless. And so that is why we should always be looking for measures that are if not no regrets measures, at least are least regrets measures. ALAN JONES: Let me just say to you lest you misunderstand me. I have no problem with any initiative that makes the environment cleaner, and I do think – that’s separate for all of this – that any measure that gives us a cleaner environment, there’s less pollution, there’s greater economies, there’s more satisfactory ways of doing things. Sure. I’m simply saying to then tax the backside off everybody here, and at the end of the day it seems to me that the aim of the exercise, unstated by government, is to raise, it’s a lot of dough. Eight-and-a-half billion, this legislation in first year. MALCOLM TURNBULL: They are planning to recycle it all back through the community of course, so it is going to be a wash. That is what they are saying. ALAN JONES: Any guarantees of that? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well that is what they are certainly providing for. ALAN JONES: And is that going to reduce carbon dioxide emissions or are we more interested in getting the money? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Alan, as far as their treatment of the coal industry, for example, I cannot see any reason for the way they are treating coal differently to every other country in the world other than a desire to raise revenue. I mean, the fact that coal is having a tax put on it that the Americans will not put on their coal industry or the Europeans on theirs surely indicates that the Rudd Government simply has a desire to squeeze money out of the coal industry which it probably thinks can afford it. Now you see, here is my problem with them. If they just want to get more money out of the coal industry then they should be up front about it and they should argue for a tax on the coal industry and we can debate it in Parliament. The problem with the way they are treating coal here is that there is absolutely no environmental gain because all that will happen is we will employ fewer coal miners in Australia and mine less coal in Australia and they will employ more coal miners in Columbia, South Africa and Indonesia and mine more coal there, and the amount of CO2 and methane that goes into the atmosphere will be exactly the same. It will just go from somewhere else. So therein lies one of the flaws. Now that is one the reasons I am seeking to protect thousands of jobs. My mission here is to protect jobs. That is what I am about. ALAN JONES: We’ll wrap this up, but can you understand the contradictions that we’re all ordinary people. Ordinary people see out there in all of this, just yesterday we announced that there were half a million new arrivals in Australia in the last twelve months. Here’s a government on one hand saying it’s going to control carbon dioxide emissions, but we’ve got another half a million people into the country who are going to increase the level of the emissions… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Absolutely, yep. ALAN JONES: And nothing’s being done to accommodate that fact. But can I just wrap up where you stand from… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Can I just make one quick comment there? I think the best way to compare carbon dioxide emissions from country to country is a on a per capita basis, too, by the way, because we have got to look at these things on a per head of population basis. ALAN JONES: And ours is higher of course than other countries on a per capita basis. MALCOLM TURNBULL: We are very high, yep. ALAN JONES: Just let’s sum up therefore, because this is very important and there’s half a million people listening to you out there, where we stand. Firstly, you’re accepting, right or wrong, there is such a thing as global warming. That’s first point, is it? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yep. ALAN JONES: Second point, there’s a lump of legislation here the detail of which you reject. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, in areas, a number of areas I think it is poorly designed. Correct. That is right. ALAN JONES: You will be proposing amendments when the Parliament resumes. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Correct. ALAN JONES: To what extent? Are they extensive amendments? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well they are extensive. We summarised them in July in nine points of principle, but probably the best sort of one line summary would be to say we believe Australian jobs and Australian industry should be offered no less protection under our legislation than American industries and jobs will be offered under any American legislation. ALAN JONES: Ok, next point. Mr Rudd and Penny Wong have been fairly intransigent about all of this for a long time. Is there any indication as I speak to you on Friday October 2 that there’s any accommodation from them of the kind of amendments that you’re talking about proposing? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well a couple of months ago I would have said there was no chance of them compromising on anything, but we did successfully reach agreement on amendments to the renewable energy target legislation, and certainly Penny Wong is going out of her way to make out, anyway, that she is receptive to amendments, but time will tell. At least we have got a try. ALAN JONES: And then if those amendments are not accepted or if they are diluted, then you will have to consider rejecting the legislation? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Absolutely. I am not guaranteeing to vote for it at all. We will consider, as I have said a thousand times, the extent to which they accept our amendments, the political circumstances and developments both here and abroad. I mean this is a big international exercise – a lot is going to depend on what happens in the US Congress. ALAN JONES: Barack Obama will go to Copenhagen without legislation but Kevin will be able to lead the world with his pieces of paper, which you will have facilitated for him to some extent. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well the reality is that that is the one piece of leverage we have to achieve some amendments. If we don’t take the effort… You see, the difficulty is this, Alan. We can say we disagree with the legislation. People are entitled to say alright, what do you dislike about it, and having stated what we dislike, people are entitled to say, well, you are legislators, that is your job to make laws, why don’t you seek to improve those laws you think are bad? And that is our job, and that is what we will seek to do, and depending on the outcome of those negotiations we will either vote for it or not. And if Mr Rudd wants a Bill to take to Copenhagen, he should consider our amendments favourably and carefully. ALAN JONES: Alright. Keep taking those passion pills. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yes, I will. [ends]malcolmFri, 02 Oct 2009 06:27:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:622http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/621/Interview-with-Greg-Cary-4BC-Brisbane.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=621http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=621&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/621/Interview-with-Greg-Cary-4BC-Brisbane.aspxSubjects: ETS. E&OE GREG CARY: Mr Turnbull, good morning. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Good morning Greg. How are you going? GREG CARY: All well? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah, everything is good with me. GREG CARY: Everything’s good. That’s good. They say you’ve put your leadership up for grabs if your party won’t support you concerning your attitude to the climate change legislation. True? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Greg, what I have said is that this is a question where I am showing my leadership and my authority as Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Liberal Party and I am saying very clearly, with the support of the Shadow Cabinet and I believe with the support of the majority of my party room, that we should act constructively to protect thousands of jobs. Now let’s just talk about a few jobs in Queensland, quite a few jobs in the coalmining industry. Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme as presently designed imposes a carbon tax on the coal industry that the Americans will not impose on their coal industry and the Europeans aren’t imposing on theirs because it is going to include what is called fugitive emissions – this is emissions of greenhouse gases that occur when you are coal mining as opposed to burning the coal. Now we say that is nuts, we shouldn’t be imposing a tax on our coal miners that isn’t imposed on coal miners in other developed countries. We think that is fairly straightforward. So what are we going to do, Greg. Here is the question. What are we going to do. Are we going to just say, oh, we will just vote against the ETS and not try to amend it, or are we going to do what the coal industry and the coal unions are asking us to do and the workers are asking us to do and go in there and try to amend it to protect those jobs? And frankly that is what I am going to do. GREG CARY: Oh, look, I agree – we talked a lot about it in our last hour – I agree that is what you should be doing. Mind you, not everybody agrees with that either. And you talk about the coal miners, there’s also the farmers who not too many people are talking about at this point as well. MALCOLM TURNBULL: I am delighted to talk about the farmers as well. Again, that is another example where Kevin Rudd’s scheme is completely out of step with what is being proposed in the United States. What we proposed, what I have proposed – I have proposed this for some time and I am pleased to see the Americans are taking this approach – is that emissions, greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture should just be excluded. They are too hard to measure and too hard to abate. But what we should be including is agricultural offsets, green carbon offsets, improving levels of soil carbon by better methods of grazing and tillage, by environmental plantings, by biochar and other techniques that actually improve not only the absorption of carbon into our soils and our environment, and of course take it out of the atmosphere, but at the same time improve the productivity of our landscape. Now that is an enormous opportunity for farmers. GREG CARY: Certainly. MALCOLM TURNBULL: I am in there, unlike a few other people, I am in there actually fighting for the farmers to get those amendments so they will get the benefit of those amendments. I am in there fighting for farmers. GREG CARY: Okay. No, this is key then, isn’t it because I just want our audience to clearly understand what it is you are standing for. You believe in some kind of legislation and you believe that you need to be involved in negotiation with the Government to water down their legislation and protect some of those you’re just talking about. To be in the game. MALCOLM TURNBULL: You have got to be in the game. You have got to be at the table. You have got to be taking a constructive role. You can’t go around wringing your hands and saying, oh, I’m worried about the impact on coal mining, or I’m worried about the impact on farming, but by the way I’m not going to do anything about it, I’m just going to vote against it, give Rudd the double dissolution trigger so he can go to an election and if he wins he can then do what he likes. That is not constructive. GREG CARY: No. If you did go to a double dissolution, and again with our listeners we were talking about this last hour, and many disagree with the proposition I put, that if you went to the electorate – even though many of us still have plenty of questions about the whole basis of the climate change, if you went to an election against all forms of legislation and against the notion of climate change, politically what do you think would happen to your party? MALCOLM TURNBULL: It would be a wipe-out. I mean the reality is that the overwhelming majority of the population believe that climate change is real. They believe humans are causing it by burning too many fossil fuels and emitting too many greenhouse gases. They want something done about it. Most Australians don’t have a good understanding of how an emissions trading scheme works but by and large they support it, and the one thing they would not support is a political party that said we don’t have any solution. It is one thing to reject Mr Rudd’s Plan A, but you can’t do that unless you have got a Plan B. Now what I have are amendments, which amount to a Plan B and I have been arguing for them over many months, and they would have the consequence of protecting thousands of jobs. Now if Mr Rudd rejects those amendments – he won’t reject all of them, I would hope, he will reject some of them perhaps – but once we know what is accepted and what is rejected then we can make an informed decision as to whether we will vote for the bill or not. But to just vote for it on the basis we don’t agree with an emissions trading scheme is completely indefensible, not least because it was part of our policy, John Howard’s policy, to have an emissions trading scheme when we were in government. GREG CARY: Yes we talked about that last hour as well. Marlene rang. Marlene’s a supporter of your side of politics and she pointed that out, she’s happy to do it. But she asked me to ask you the question, how can you lead a party which doesn’t agree with your policy? Now you are saying the vast majority do, but clearly there are plenty who don’t. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well there is clearly a number who don’t, and we will find out how many when we have the party room meeting but the fact is that in any political… there are people in the Labor Party I am sure that don’t agree with Kevin Rudd’s policy. They are perhaps being a little bit better disciplined and showing an example of parliamentary discipline by not talking about it in the press but what we do is we air our differences. We have a full and frank debate in the party room and then we come to a decision and that is the responsible way to go about it. There is no shame in having differences of opinion but people are entitled to demand of the opposition that it reach a position and then having reached that common position, then stick with it. GREG CARY: Okay. Let’s assume that you do come to some kind of middle ground and that the Government allows some of your amendments through which politically you would think they would do. Are you still going to stand firm against legislation prior to Copenhagen when Copenhagen really doesn’t look like coming down with anything definitive? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well that is the question that I have mentioned earlier, that once we know what amendments have or have not been accepted then we have to decide whether to support the legislation or not. Now I can say hand on heart sincerely that if I was Prime Minister I would not finalise this legislation prior to Copenhagen but Kevin Rudd is determined to do so. I think that is unwise, it is reckless but voting it down simply for that reason and that reason alone does run the risk that you give him, well you do, there is no question you give him a double dissolution trigger and then of course if he has an election and wins the election, he can then pass the legislation without any input from us and the conservative side of politics becomes then completely irrelevant. We have no further leverage or contribution to make. We are not in a position to argue, effectively make a case for the people we are trying to protect because at the joint sitting the Government would have the majority. GREG CARY: Yeah. A lot of my listeners are concerned – and I know you are probably hearing this around Australia – that there hasn’t been a proper debate on all of this. You say you are totally convinced about the science. The Prime Minister says the science is decided. Penny Wong says the science is decided. But there are many eminent scientists and we’ve talked to many of them on this program who aren’t decided. They’re putting up a contrary point of view and a lot of people think that hasn’t fully been debated which is why a lot of people are talking about something they don’t fully understand in the entire legislation. Are you totally convinced we’ve had a proper debate about all of this? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we have had a long debate and of course part of the problem is that everybody participates in the debate to differing levels so some people have read and listened to so much about climate change their ears are sort of wearing out with reports of it. Others are only just starting to switch on to it so that is always a question. Yes, there has been a long debate about it. Yes, there is some dissent about the science but you have to be honest about it and say the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, certainly every government in the world so far as I am aware is working on the assumption that we need to have a global effort, a global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That was the policy of the Howard Government. It is the policy of the Rudd Government. There is no political difference on that. I mean John Howard was openly more sceptical about climate change, for example, than I am but John nonetheless said the prudent thing to do was to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so just because you have got a few question marks about the science doesn’t mean you do nothing. I mean we all have question marks about whether our house will get struck by lightning tonight but we have all got insurance. GREG CARY: Yeah. Just to finalise and I know you are busy and we appreciate your time, you will not agree with any legislation that is going to impose an unfair impost, whether it is on farmers or whether it is on families, extra taxation. In the end this is an extra tax, isn’t it? MALCOLM TURNBULL: You are absolutely right, it is a tax. It is a carbon tax with the ability to trade to enable one to get lower cost abatement so if you like it is a more efficient tax. Look in terms of how we will finally vote on it, we will make that decision once we have seen the Government’s response to our amendments and also have a regard to the political developments both domestically but perhaps more importantly internationally. I mean there is a lot going on in the United States with their legislation. It has been passed through the House of Representatives. A bill has now been introduced into the US Senate. How is that going to progress? Will that get through the Senate before the end of the year? Most people think unlikely but it will be very important to monitor the progress of that because ultimately, and this is I think a key point that Mr Rudd has overlooked, is ultimately the US, the way the US structures its emissions trading scheme will become the global benchmark and my fundamental critique of his scheme is this – we should not, we should be offering or guaranteeing Australian workers and Australian industries no less protection than American industries and American workers are guaranteed by Barack Obama and at the moment we are treating a number of industries – farming and coal are just two to come to hand that are very relevant in Queensland – we are offering them less protection than they are getting in the United States, let alone in the developing countries which they compete with where of course there will be no carbon tax at all, at least not for a long time. GREG CARY: Okay. Just a final thought – Peter Dutton up for preselection, McPherson, this weekend on the Gold Coast. Will he win that? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I certainly hope so. I have given him the strongest possible reference. He is an outstanding colleague. He is part of the future of the Liberal Party. He is an outstanding member of my Shadow Cabinet and is really both a current and a future leader of the Liberal Party. GREG CARY: It’s good to talk to you. Appreciate your time. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Thanks so much. GREG CARY: Thanks. [ends]malcolmFri, 02 Oct 2009 06:23:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:621http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/619/Joint-Doorstop-Interview-with-Paul-Fletcher-Liberal-Candidate-for-Bradfield-Sydney.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=619http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=619&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/619/Joint-Doorstop-Interview-with-Paul-Fletcher-Liberal-Candidate-for-Bradfield-Sydney.aspxSubjects: Visit to Bradfield; Coalition’s plan to cut red tape for small business; Labor’s planning takeover; emissions trading scheme. E&OE MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, we have just caught up with a very old friend of mine, Don Wormald, whose hardware store is just across the road here and Don has been discussing with us a number of important issues for small business – the way in which Julia Gillard’s bungled award modernisation program is going to add significantly to his costs of staying open seven days a week and cost jobs; not only cost profits for him but also cost jobs. We also talked about the burden of unnecessary regulation and red tape on small business and one of our key focuses in the Opposition’s policy is to reduce the level of regulation and red tape on business, particularly small business, to the best level, the lowest level that is, in the OECD. That is one of our targets. And of course we discussed the big local issue which is the relentless overdevelopment here in Sydney’s North Shore and that is a key issue that Paul is going to bring to bear in the campaign and hold the Labor Party, the same Labor Party that put Kevin Rudd in as leader of the federal party is the same Labor Party that is responsible for the overdevelopment and the lack of planning here in the North Shore of Sydney. Paul. PAUL FLETCHER: Well look I am very pleased that Malcolm Turnbull has come to Bradfield literally within days of me being preselected as the Liberal candidate for the forthcoming Bradfield by-election. We have hit the ground running, talking to people across the electorate about a range of issues including today issues of concern to small businesspeople, as well as concerns about the loss of control of planning that Ku-ring-gai Council has had the powers removed from it that would normally rest with a local council and the central issue of concern is that people in this area don’t have the same capacity to make decisions about their urban environment as people would ordinarily expect. So I am delighted that Malcolm Turnbull as the Leader of the Opposition has joined me here in Bradfield so quickly. We will be running a very vigorous and effective campaign and I am pleased to say that Malcolm will be here on a number of occasions and I am very pleased to have his support at this very early stage. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Great, and I am very pleased to give it. Paul will be an outstanding candidate and, with the goodwill of the people of Bradfield, an outstanding member of Parliament. Okay, so over to you guys. Any questions? QUESTION: Yeah, just with the Opposition on the ETS, Mr Turnbull. Are you worried that this could be seen as a bullying tactic and might have repercussions with the Liberal Party in the long term? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I am not sure, what are you talking about? QUESTION: Well the, for lack of a better word, the back me or sack me policy. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh right, okay. The fact of the matter is that we are taking a constructive approach to the emissions trading scheme. We had an emissions trading scheme policy when we were in government. Mr Rudd has designed an emissions trading scheme. It is poorly designed. It is going to cost thousands of jobs in vital Australian industries – aluminium, steel, coal, agriculture. It is a long list, a very, very long list indeed. And we believe it is reckless on Mr Rudd’s part to finalise the design of that scheme before the Copenhagen Summit in December but he is determined to do so. So in a constructive way and in our efforts to protect those thousands of jobs that are being put at risk by Mr Rudd, we are going to present detailed amendments that, if adopted, will protect those jobs. So we are out there fighting for jobs. We are seeking to ensure that the emissions trading scheme is one which is both environmentally effective – can enable Australia to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases significantly – but at the same time does not do economic damage, and needlessly and recklessly cost thousands of Australian jobs. QUESTION: You said that if those amendments don’t have the support of your party you will step down. If it does come to that… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, okay, right, go on. QUESTION: If it does come to that, who would your preferred leader be? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look the fact of the matter is I have put forward… the approach that I am taking has the full support of the Shadow Cabinet and will have, I have no doubt, the support of the party room. So I am showing leadership in taking on the challenge of protecting thousands of jobs. That is what this is about. It is not about my job. It is about the thousands of jobs that Kevin Rudd’s poorly designed ETS is putting at risk. QUESTION: Do you think that your persistence on the issue with your party puts your leadership under threat? MALCOLM TURNBULL: My leadership is secure, I can assure you of that. QUESTION: No resigning? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Of course not. QUESTION: There have been some backbenchers, Wilson Tuckey in particular, saying some pretty colourful things. What do you have to say to that? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Mr Tuckey is a colourful personality. In fact you could say he is a… you couldn’t call him a colourful Sydney racing identity because he does not come from Sydney but he has always had an interest in horses so he is certainly a colourful identity from Western Australia. But Wilson has always got colourful things to say and no matter how colourful they are, we are always entertained by them but we don’t always agree with them and I certainly don’t agree with him on the emissions trading scheme. QUESTION: Paul Keating once described Wilson Tuckey as, quote, a boxhead and said he was, quote, flat out counting past ten. What do you say to those [inaudible]? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well there is a colourful Sydney identity although I wouldn’t say Paul’s a colourful racing identity. Look, we have got plenty of colourful people in Australian politics and there’s a lot of colourful things said but we have got to cut through all of the vaudeville that various people contribute. My job is not to be colourful. My job is to be practical and my job is to protect the thousands of jobs that Kevin Rudd’s poorly designed emissions trading scheme are being put at risk. Only yesterday I met with the representatives of the coal industry. That is Australia’s biggest export industry. Thousands of jobs, billions of dollars of investment, dozens of mines will be lost if Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme goes ahead. Why? Because he is proposing to put a tax on coal mining in Australia which is not going to be put on it in the United States, is not going to be put on it in Europe, let alone in the developing countries with which we are competing. So Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme is completely out of line and you have to ask this question – why would Kevin Rudd want to offer less protection for Australian workers and Australian industries than Barack Obama or the European leaders are offering to their industries and their workers. And those are the mistakes, the errors that we are seeking to rectify and we are doing that because we are committed to protecting jobs. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, given that you are so secure in terms of your position as leader, why have you made such dramatic statements with regards to the fact that if your party doesn’t support you you will step down? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I have not said that at all. What I have said, and I say it again, I am committed to effective action on climate change and I cannot, I cannot and would not lead a party that had a no action on climate change policy but that is not going to happen because we do have a policy on climate change. We had an effective one when we were in government. We have an effective one in opposition and our response to the emissions trading scheme, the amendments that we will be presenting will be typical of and exemplify, demonstrate our commitment to effective action on climate change. QUESTION: So [inaudible] resignation talk come from smart arses I think you put it? MALCOLM TURNBULL: That is a term one should never use. I think smart alec is better for family programs. Okay. Thanks very much guys. [ends]malcolmFri, 02 Oct 2009 03:26:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:619http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/618/Doorstop-Interview-Adelaide.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=110&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=618http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=618&PortalID=0&TabID=110http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/618/Doorstop-Interview-Adelaide.aspxSubjects: Emissions trading; youth jobs forum; natural diasters in Samoa and Indonesia.         E&OE MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Andrew and I have just conducted another one of our jobs forums, this time with a young audience, young participants in it. It has been very constructive, and we have discussed the importance of having skills for lifetime employability, the challenges that face young people moving from school to employment, and it has been a very constructive meeting and gives us the type of feedback that we have been seeking in more than fifty of these forums like this right around Australia.  Now before we go to your questions I just want to make some further comments about the tragedies in our region, first the tsunami in Samoa and American Samoa, and of course the earthquake in Padang in Indonesia. Our thoughts and prayers go out to those that have been killed, particularly of course the Australians, as a consequence of the tsunami, and of course to those that have been injured both in Indonesia and, as a result of the tsunami, in Samoa. Can I also say on behalf of the Opposition that the Government has our whole-hearted support in the assistance it is rendering to those affected by these tragic natural disasters, and we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in providing every possible assistance to our neighbours that have been affected by these natural catastrophes. Over to you. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, yesterday here in Adelaide you secured frontbench support for you position to negotiate amendments with the Government on the ETS. What if your backbenchers, your party room, doesn’t support you?     MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, I might just say this, that the front bench, the Shadow Cabinet as you describe it, has always supported this position, in fact we set out back in July nine principles which described or summarised the changes we would seek to the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme, so we have been very up front in the constructive approach we are taking to it, although we said then, and I have been saying consistently ever since, that while we think it is important to engage in a discussion about the design of the emissions trading scheme in a constructive way, the design of the scheme should not be finalised until after we know the results of the Copenhagen summit in December.    QUESTION: Have you put your leadership on the line over the ETS? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I am showing leadership. I am the leader of the Liberal Party, I am the Leader of the Opposition, and the leadership I am showing is that we will engage constructively with the Government, we will deliver to the Government detailed amendments which flesh out the nine principles that we set out in July, we will secure the support of the party room to those amendments, and we will then negotiate with the Government, and then depending on the extent to which those amendments are accepted and the other political circumstances and developments both here and abroad at the time, we will then decide whether to vote for the legislation or not.   QUESTION: What if you can’t secure the party room’s support?   MALCOLM TURNBULL: I will secure the party room’s support.   QUESTION: Today Mr Turnbull you said you can’t lead a party which is do-nothing on climate change. Are you worried that might actually embolden your opponents within the party, well, that this might encourage them to move against you? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well look, anyone who thinks it is electorally wise to have a do-nothing on climate change policy is not in tune with the mood of the nation or the mood of the globe, frankly. I mean there is a growing awareness, a heightening awareness right around the world of the need to take concerted action on climate change. The speech by the Chinese President in New York recently, by Hu Jintao, was very significant, showing greater commitment by China to action to reduce its emissions-intensity. Now this is a global movement; people are becoming increasingly concerned and committed to action. Now we have always been, on the Coalition, our policy has always been to take effective action on climate change. We differ with Labor on the design of the emissions trading scheme, but when we were in government we proposed an emissions trading scheme ourselves. The principle of putting a price on carbon is one we agree with, and it is just a question of getting the design right. When I say just a question, that is a matter of detail, but it is a vitally important matter of detail because if the design is wrong, thousands of jobs will be lost for no environmental gain. If the design is right, we can strengthen our economy and make an effective contribution to a global effort to reduce emissions.           QUESTION: Doesn’t it suggest your leadership is in turmoil, though, if you’re having to read your party the riot act over this? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I am not going to sort of run a commentary on myself, I will leave that to you.   QUESTION: But the rhetoric you employed this morning in terms of not wanting to lead party that was sluggish on the climate change issue is, I mean, that’s really sending a message to those sceptics that remain in your party.    MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look I am sending a message to every Australian that Malcolm Turnbull is committed to effective action on climate change. I am now, and I always have been. I am committed to effective action on climate change. I was the author of the National Plan for Water Security. It was my proposal that John Howard accepted, that the Federal Government take over the interstate waters, the rivers and groundwater systems so that we could effectively manage our water resources, particularly in the face of climate change and a hotter and drier future. That was the most significant change in environmental policy in our nation’s history. Now I proposed that and it was a Coalition Government, led by John Howard, of which I was a Cabinet Minister, that took it up, not Labor. So we have a proud record on environmental action, but I am not backing away from my values or what I stand for now and in the future.       QUESTION: If you can’t carry the entire party room with you, how embarrassing would that be?   MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look, the party room will support the position that we will take, which is to seek, negotiate amendments to the scheme. This is exactly what we did with the renewable energy target legislation. We will seek amendments from the Government. People know where we are coming from, we have set that out in those nine principles in July, and then, depending on the extent to which those amendments are accepted, and the other relevant political developments at the time, we will decide whether to vote for it or not. I mean there is a lot happening at the moment. The US Senate is now considering the climate change legislation that has already been passed by the US House of Representatives. The progress of that debate in the US Senate is of vital importance to what we do here, just as Copenhagen is for that matter.       QUESTION: Apparently on radio you said you can’t be a party with no ideas. Who are you accusing of saying that you’re a party with no idea?  MALCOLM TURNBULL: What I am saying is simply this, that the Government has put up an emission trading scheme – now we had a proposal for an emissions trading scheme when we were in government, so there is not a question of are you for or against an emissions trading scheme. That was our policy in government; it is our policy in opposition. The question is getting the design right. If we simply say we don’t like the Government’s emissions trading scheme, but are not prepared to say why we don’t like it, and what changes we would demand to make it satisfactory, then we can reasonably be described as being a party of no ideas. And we are not a party of no ideas, we are a party of innovation and enterprise and reform, and I am the leader of that party, and as long as I am the leader of that party we will be pressing forward with reform, with ideas, with new proposals to make our country stronger and more prosperous in the years ahead. And part of that reform effort is getting the design of the emissions trading scheme right. OK? [ends]        malcolmThu, 01 Oct 2009 04:54:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:618