http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.auRSS feeds for Malcolm Turnbull MP60http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/323/Doorstop-Interview-Sydney.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=323http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=323&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/323/Doorstop-Interview-Sydney.aspxSubjects: Kevin Rudd’s socialism essay; tax cuts; jobs for Australia.   E&OE   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   It was interesting to read this morning that over the summer while we were putting together practical policies that will create jobs and provide an effective response to climate change, the Prime Minister has been writing a 7,000 word treatise about political ideology in which he appears to be abandoning his claim to be an economic conservative and instead seems to be channelling Gough Whitlam – high taxes, big government and socialism.   That’s not the only difference between us and Mr Rudd. While he’s been putting billions of dollars of tax payers money at risk to prop up commercial property prices and support the profits of the big four banks, we’ve been out talking to small and medium businesses.   I was out at Parramatta yesterday meeting with small and medium businesses hearing what they believe governments can do to help them stay in business and keep their employees on the payroll. And you know what they said? They wanted the Government to create fewer obstacles for them. They wanted the Government to pay its bills on time, to pay them on 30 days instead of stringing small and medium businesses out. They wanted to see less red tape. They wanted it to be easier to tender for government contracts and be able to do it online and they wanted to get rid of inefficient and unnecessary taxes.   In other words they wanted more freedom to do their work because the prosperity of Australia, the jobs of Australians depend on the energy and enterprise of thousands of Australian businesses and Australian businesses small, medium and large. It is amazing that at this point Mr Rudd is seeking to go back to the failed days of big government, Gough Whitlam.  Older Australians like myself will shudder at the thought that today Kevin Rudd is channelling the Whitlam era in his latest treatise.   QUESTION:   So you don’t think there is a need for more government intervention, more regulation to deal with the global financial crisis?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   There’s always a need to improve regulation, always, in good times and bad in fact.  But you’ve got to get it right, you’ve got to make sure that the regulations are effective. Let’s not forget this; in Australia we didn’t have a sub-prime crisis. In America they had 16 per cent of all of their mortgages were sub-prime lent to people; mortgages made out to people whose prospects of repayment were very poor.   That category of high risk lending is less than one per cent in Australia. Why is that? It’s because the Australian financial system was well regulated. Who regulated it? The Coalition during 11 and a half years of good economic management. The only reason Mr Rudd can throw so much cash around is because he inherited a government that had paid off all the Labor Party’s debts. It had paid off the debt from years of Labor mismanagement and visions of big government and heavy regulation.   It was effective Coalition Liberal economic management that put Mr Rudd in the position where he could spend the money that he’s been spending now. But he’s starting to get to the end of it and before long you’ll see him taking us further and further into debt.   QUESTION:   Well the Government’s working on a new stimulus package this weekend to be unveiled next week, what should be in that?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   There needs to be tax cuts. We need to take the pressure, as much pressure as we can off business. That’s what the people at Parramatta were telling me yesterday and they know because they’re at the coalface.   Mr Rudd likes to talk to the big end of town, he likes to talk to the big banks and he’s worked out a plan to put your taxes at work to prop up their profits. I’m concerned about the engine room of the Australian economy and that is small and medium business, and what they want to see is a lower tax burden to give them the incentive to invest and to hire, to keep their employees on the payroll and they want to see less red tape, they want government to pay its bills on time. They want government to enable them to do their best.  And that’s the big difference between us and Mr Rudd.   We believe government’s role is to enable each and every Australian to do their best. Mr Rudd, it is now very clear, believes that government’s role is to tell us, to direct us as to what is best.   QUESTION:   You mentioned that small business wouldn’t want (inaudible) would have on the economy as a whole?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Regulation is important in every economy. We have a regulated economy let’s face it. The regulations in the Australian financial sector, which were put in place under the Coalition, have proven to be very effective, that’s why we haven’t had a sub-prime crisis in Australia. That’s why our banks are better capitalised, sounder than any banks I can think of in any comparable developed country.   So our regulatory system has worked well. Of course it should be improved in the light of developments and we should do that all the time.  We should always be prepared to improve regulation.  But we’ve got to remember that regulation can also work against business and that is what the small and medium businesses at Parramatta were telling us yesterday.   They are concerned about heavy regulations, duplicating regulations, expenses that government imposes on them and makes it harder for them to do their work, which is creating jobs and creating the prosperous nation that we all are so proud to live in.   QUESTION:   Mr Turnbull as part of this stimulus package you’d like to see tax cuts, but the Business Council are saying that that’s not the way to go and the IMF has sort of like flagged that as well. So why are you so insistent that tax cuts are the way to go?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well the Business Council’s message was a little contradictory; they seem to be in favour of some tax cuts and not others. As far as the IMF is concerned, again you’ve seen some mixed signals, there’s nothing in their reports which are opposed to cuts in tax, in fact their Deputy Managing Director only a week ago made the point that I’ve been making for some time which is that one-off payments, one-off sugar hits or cash splashes in a climate like this are unlikely to be spent – people will either save them or use them to pay down debt – whereas increases in permanent income or tax incentives, such as the incentives we’ve proposed to encourage green refits of buildings for greater energy efficiency, those are more likely to result in spending and investment.   You see only this week we proposed to double the rate of depreciation for investments which improve the energy efficiency or the water efficiency of buildings. That is a tax break that will create jobs, it’s good for the environment too I should add, but clearly it creates jobs because you can’t take advantage of it unless you hire somebody to do the work. So that’s a good example of how a tax break, a tax cut if you like will create employment.   QUESTION:   But is now the time to be talking tax breaks when Ken Henry is conducting his review into the taxation system which may not be released until the end of the year?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:       Well you can’t hold off economic policy and waiting for reviews, you know, to come in a year later.  Decisions have to be taken. We believe the Government should bring forward the tax cuts due in July. They should do that. That will provide a real stimulus and a real incentive. The cash splash of December now seems to be widely acknowledged was not effective as an economic stimulus that was $9 billion handed out.   Now I’m sure that everyone who received it appreciated it and the vast majority of Australians used the money wisely. But it was not an effective stimulus. It was not an effective economic stimulus.  It didn’t do the job that Mr Rudd hoped it would do. And now we see his incredible proposal to put billions of dollars, up to $30 billion of Australian tax payers money at risk in order to prop up commercial property prices for the benefit of the big four banks. It isn’t even his idea.  It was a proposal brought to him by the National Australia Bank.   Thanks a lot.   [ends]     malcolmSat, 31 Jan 2009 01:10:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:323http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/303/Jobs-for-Australia.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=303http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=303&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/303/Jobs-for-Australia.aspx Ensuring every Australian has the opportunity to work is a fundamental responsibility of Government, and one of the most important objectives of economic management. The Coalition believes well paid, skilled secure jobs depend on innovation and enterprise, along with low taxes and incentives that make it easy for businesses to invest in people. Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull invites the people of Australia to join a conversation about jobs – how to create jobs, preserve jobs, enhance jobs. All Australians can discuss their ideas and share their personal experiences at an online forum at: www.jobsforaustralia.com. “All we hear from the Rudd Government is blame shifting as they tell us jobs are being lost because of the global financial crisis.  But Australia is not powerless. We can shape our own destiny,” said Mr Turnbull. “I look forward to your suggestions and ideas on how to create and preserve good jobs in the current economic climate.” Mr Turnbull and other Coalition members will also conduct a series of community forums around the nation to learn first hand from Australians about their ideas for a stronger future. The first of these forums will be held this morning in Parramatta, western Sydney. “Jobs for Australia is my initiative to make sure we leave no stone unturned in our efforts to protect jobs and create new opportunities for Australians,” said Mr Turnbull. “I believe Australians are innovative with a ‘can do’ attitude. Especially in these difficult times, we must look for new ways to strengthen our economy and build for the future.” malcolmFri, 30 Jan 2009 06:20:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:303http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/325/Interview-with-Fran-Kelly-Radio-National.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=325http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=325&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/325/Interview-with-Fran-Kelly-Radio-National.aspx Subjects: Tax cuts; infrastructure spending; tax breaks for energy efficiency; Rudd Bank.   E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………...   KELLY:   Later today Malcolm Turnbull will be participating in a community forum on jobs in Parramatta. It’s an Opposition initiative; it’s the first of many that the Opposition Leader will hold around the country I understand. Malcolm Turnbull welcome.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Great to be with you Fran.   KELLY:   Now you’re calling for tax cuts to try and head off the global financial crisis. The IMF says that won’t necessarily save an economy from recession because they aren’t immediate enough and the effect is diluted over an entire year; that’s how the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, explained it to us yesterday. Why are they wrong? What’s the theory?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well that’s not what the IMF has said. There’s one remark which was contradicted by a later remark made by one IMF official in a press conference. John Lipsky, who’s the Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, about a week ago summed it up very neatly, so I’ll in effect paraphrase what he said, when you have one off payments, such as the ‘cash splash’ as Michelle described it, before Christmas, in a period of economic uncertainty people are unlikely to spend it.  They’re more likely to save it or use it to pay down debt and that was exactly the experience of the United States in the middle of last year. There was a big cash handout, you saw a spike in household incomes but very little impact on household expenditure, and John Taylor, the American economist from Stamford, published quite widely on that, as did a lot of other economists. So that’s the problem with the cash splash approach.   The virtue of cuts in tax, especially if they are like the tax cuts I proposed a few days ago to accelerate the depreciation for investments in green technology or improvements to buildings which will improve energy efficiency, reduce carbon emissions and so forth, anything like that which encourages investment is going to create jobs.   Furthermore if somebody sees their tax rates being lowered on a permanent basis, so the tax rates are cut as they will be on July 1, that increases their permanent income and there is enormous a body of experience and opinion and economic writings to demonstrate that when you increase people’s permanent income they are more likely to spend than if it is just a one off hit, a one off bonus, a windfall.   KELLY:   I have to say opinion seems to be split quite clearly on this. A moment ago on AM we heard the President of the BCA, the Business Council Greg Gailey, a bit cold on the idea of tax cuts apart from those directed to the lowest paid. He said the danger is, in general, tax cuts tend to get saved not spent. So there is widely differing views here.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well what I’ve described to you is the permanent income theory, is the more conventional wisdom. But could I just say Fran, and really to pick up something Michelle said, I’m not suggesting, nor is it the Opposition, that tax cuts are the only answer, they are part of the solution, you have to spend money on infrastructure, you’ve got to look at a whole range of measures right across the board.   The problem with infrastructure spending is that it is long term. There aren’t that many projects that are literally shovel ready and so while infrastructure spending is a very important and legitimate part of a response to a downturn, you’ve got to make sure the infrastructure is infrastructure you would be spending money on anyway.  There’s no point building roads to nowhere, it’s got to be worthwhile infrastructure, but you’ve also got to recognise that it will take some time, particularly for the bigger projects to actually get underway.    KELLY:   You’ve been a strong critic of the Government’s response so far…the way the Government’s handled the global financial crisis….   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well they’ve made a series of terrible blunders, there’s no doubt about that.   KELLY:   Yeah.  You’ve been very strongly critical of it.  Do you have a five point plan? Can you in 60 seconds or less tell us what you would do? You’re three or five priorities?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   The first thing I’d be doing Fran is ensuring that every dollar that was spent, be it in reduced taxes or in outlays, increased outlays, was focused on jobs. So that is why, again, as I said a few days ago, I propose to double the rate of depreciation, to accelerate the depreciation for investments in energy efficiency.   Now I was doing that at a building in Brisbane, built by Leighton’s, which has one quarter of the carbon footprint of a modern building, not an old building, a modern building built with conventional technology.  That’s the type of improvement for the environment in energy efficiency that you can achieve if you’re prepared to invest. So we want to encourage that.   Now if we encourage building owners to retro-fit their buildings, large and small, that will be good for the environment and it will create a lot of jobs because you’ve got to bring…   KELLY:   Sure, it’s not a quick response though either is it?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Oh no, no.  Well it is actually because many of these things are relatively small, you know if you want to upgrade the lighting efficiency in a floor of an office building, sure you can’t do it overnight but it’s something that can be done in a short time frame, it’s not like building a new freeway or a new subway or a bridge.  So all of those incentives for activity in the building sector that will create jobs in the building sector.   Now the problem with the Rudd Bank is that it is based on a falsehood. It has got nothing to do with construction and the banks have been quite clear about this. It’s simply about Mr Rudd wanting to use our taxes to help refinance borrowings on existing buildings to prop up asset values.   KELLY:   Again there’s plenty of people with good credentials, economic credentials who disagree with you and what they argue is that if foreign lending does dry up, developers start to lose money, new projects won’t (inaudible), no one is going to want to jump into that market if it’s failing and therefore jobs will dry up and it is about jobs.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   But Fran that’s a very indirect connection. Let me tell you. The question of whether a new development will be undertaken is going to be dependent on a view of the economy going forward. If you look at an office building, will someone build a new office building? Well the first question is; can I get pre-commitments to lease from a couple of big tenants?   Now if the economy is not in good shape, if people are pessimistic about the future then a large tenant is not going to sign up to a long lease and so therefore there’s not that incentive. And look the banks put this proposal – I should say the bank, National Australia Bank, Mr Ahmed Fahour, from the National Australia Bank – put this proposal to the Government for one purpose and one purpose only, which was to hold up values in one sector, the commercial property sector.  It had nothing to do with the residential housing, nothing to do with jobs.   KELLY:   So will you block it in the Senate?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well we’ll see what they propose. It is a very bad idea.  I’d have to say I don’t think its prospects are very promising.   KELLY:   If it’s a bad idea presumably you’ll vote against with it?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Fran we’ll see how it evolves. David Murray, who according to newspaper reports, has been very critical of it and whose advice was ignored, has been quoted as saying that there are a lot of details to be worked out. So let’s see what they finally present. But as it’s been presented by the Government, the Government has misrepresented it, they’ve said it’s about jobs when it’s not, they’ve dishonestly plucked the figure of 50,000 jobs that would be saved out of the ether.  There is no basis for saying that.  It’s got nothing to do with jobs, it’s all about supporting commercial property values, supporting balance sheets of big banks, supporting the profits of big banks.   That’s why I’m getting the train out to Parramatta today to talk to small business, to talk to people who are at the coalface of the economy, talk to them about jobs, how jobs are being threatened, where they’re working and what we can do as an Opposition to support them.   KELLY:   Perhaps we could have you back some time soon to talk about what you find out in these jobs forums.   Malcolm Turnbull thanks very much for joining us.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Thanks Fran.   [ends]     malcolmFri, 30 Jan 2009 01:14:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:325http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/319/Doorstop-Interview-Parramatta-Sydney.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=319http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=319&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/319/Doorstop-Interview-Parramatta-Sydney.aspxSubjects: Jobs for Australia forum; tax cuts; Rudd Bank.   E&OE   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   The three top priorities for 2009 are jobs, jobs, jobs. We are committed to ensuring that we get every good idea, every bit of feedback we can to ensure that we can present alternative policies which will promote employment and deliver on jobs, jobs, jobs.   They have to be the three top priorities for everybody and particularly for Mr Rudd, and the Coalition is committed to that. And that’s why I’m here today with my colleagues, Andrew Southcott, Marise Payne and Louise Markus, here at this forum in Parramatta. And we’ll be doing this around Australia, listening to Australians, learning about their experiences in this economic climate, their experiences about employment and their ideas to promote employment and promote jobs.   And we’re launching today a website that will enable us to reach out to every Australian to get their feedback, promote discussion on the ideas and the policies that will deliver jobs, jobs, jobs.  Any questions?   QUESTION:   Mr Turnbull do you think the Government’s giving confusing messages about whether it will be using tax cuts in its next stimulus package? We heard some different things from Wayne Swan yesterday.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   I think everybody’s confused by the Government on this. We’ve had Mr Crean, Mr Emerson and Mr Tanner, have all said that tax cuts are an important part of a fiscal stimulus package –and indeed they are part of fiscal stimulus packages right around the world – including the one President Obama is working through the Congress at the moment.   But then Mr Swan went out yesterday and contradicted his colleagues and said that tax cuts should have no part to play in fiscal stimulus.   Now our view is that Australians need encouragement, they’re entitled to get leadership from government that creates incentives to invest, to hire people, to keep employees employed and the one thing that we’ve learnt over many years of experience around the world and very recently in the US is that permanent tax cuts provide a greater, a longer lasting stimulus than one off payments.   QUESTION:   What about we’ve got Julia Gillard and Simon Crean at the World Economic Forum at the moment, how do you think they should be best represent Australia’s interests there?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   They’ve got to tell the story about Australia’s success. They should be explaining about the great economic situation they found themselves in after 11 and a half years of Coalition Government. How they inherited a Government without any debt who paid off all the Labor Party’s debt and that was running strong surpluses. And then they perhaps might share their experiences about how their unlimited bank deposit guarantee did so much harm to our economy and no doubt other countries will learn from the mistakes that the Rudd Government has made.   You see Mr Rudd has responded to the crisis undoubtedly, but he has made a number of errors through undertaking policies that have been poorly considered and undertaken without consultation, including without consultation with the Reserve Bank. The unlimited bank deposit guarantee of last year caused enormous dislocation in financial markets. We’ve seen the big payment before Christmas, the so called ‘cash splash.’ The anecdotal evidence we’re receiving now indicates it was not an effective fiscal stimulus, although no doubt everybody that received it appreciated receiving the money very much and I’ve got no doubt the vast majority of Australians used that money wisely, but it didn’t achieve the economic stimulus Mr Rudd wanted.   And now of course we see his latest idea, again developed without proper consultation, his latest idea of course for a Rudd Ban, which is designed to support the big banks, not to support small business, not to support jobs, not to support any of the companies that we’re meeting with today or any of the firms that we’re meeting with today.  But simply to hold up commercial property values and support the profitability of our big four banks - well that’s not good enough.   The Government’s policies have got to be effective, they’ve got to be targeted, they’ve got to be focussed on jobs, jobs, jobs.   QUESTION:   Are you going to oppose the Government’s commercial property fund on that basis?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   As I said this morning if it is in the form that’s been described so far I don’t think its prospects of support in the Senate are very promising. But let’s wait to see what the final details are. I get the impression that the Government is busily amending it now –that’s the feedback we’re getting through the banking sector – so we’ll wait and see what the final shape of it is.   QUESTION:   Yesterday you said that it wouldn’t do anything to create jobs but I think in The Australian this morning they had several economists and property experts saying that actually it will and it will certainly stop the sector from haemorrhaging jobs?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   The comments that were in The Australian are based on a false premise. The Government has said that this Rudd Bank, the Rudd Bank is designed to support jobs and support the construction sector. That is not true. That is false.   The banks’ plan or the National Australia Bank’s plan that the Government has taken up is designed to support the refinancing of existing commercial property development, so a completed building. It’s not construction finance at all and the banks have made that very clear to the Government, as we’ve seen in the press.   So the suggestion that this is to support construction or new development is simply wrong. That is not right.   Thanks very much.      [ends]     malcolmFri, 30 Jan 2009 01:03:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:319http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/318/Doorstop-Interview-Sydney.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=318http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=318&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/318/Doorstop-Interview-Sydney.aspxSubjects: Tax cuts; GST; Rudd Bank   E&OE   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Wayne Swan has today demonstrated, yet again, that the Labor Party is the party of high taxes. He has rejected using tax cuts as an economic stimulus. Now we know, and there is a very large body of evidence from around the world, that the most effective fiscal stimulus in a time like this are permanent tax cuts – they’ve been recommended in many parts of the world and there’s a lot of evidence to support that, including from the IMF.   Mr Swan’s colleagues think they’re an important part of the solution; Mr Emerson, Mr Crean, Mr Tanner have all talked about tax cuts as being part of the solution. The bad news is that Mr Swan, who is dead against them, is the Treasurer and he has the final say on it. So he said no to tax cuts. He would rather have Australians lining up for handouts than keeping more of what they earn.   He fails to recognise that the three top priorities this year are jobs, jobs, jobs and we need to make sure that every dollar, every dollar of the taxpayer’s money that the Federal Government is dealing with is used at its most effective way to promote employment and preserve jobs.   QUESTION:   Isn’t the IMF Report in fact undermining your call? Doesn’t it call for stimulus rather than tax cuts?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   The fact is that the IMF Report does not support Mr Swan’s position. In October the IMF’s Report recommended or noted that permanent tax cuts were a very valuable stimulus and John Lipsky, the Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, said only a week or so ago that one off payments, such as we saw in December, tend to get saved and not spent, whereas permanent increases in income, which is what people see from tax cuts, are more likely to be spent or invested and the evidence from the United States’ experience of last year plainly supports that.   Now just to write off tax cuts the way Mr Swan has done is again - what he’s saying is he would prefer Australians to line up for a hand out from the Government than to keep more of what they earn.   QUESTION:   But the IMF Report writes off tax cuts.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well I’m sorry it doesn’t.  I’ve read the IMF Report and it does not say that.   QUESTION:   What about…an idea has been floated that the Government should halve GST, is that a suitable proposal?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well I understand some economists have raised that and we’re very interested in everybody’s views but it’s not a policy proposal of ours. But we’re very open to looking at any proposals that economic experts wish to put into the public debate. It’s very important to reach out and get the widest range of views.   QUESTION:   Gordon Brown cut the VAT in Britain in November.  Do you think that’s had its desired effect over there?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well it was a very controversial decision and a lot of people were very critical of it, including a lot of other European countries who argued that it would not be effective, so I haven’t seen any data to suggest that it was an effective measure.   Certainly the tax cuts that we’ve proposed to date, bringing forward the July 1 tax cuts due in this year, clearly will stimulate economic activity. Yesterday we proposed there be a doubling of the rate at which investments in energy efficiency measures in buildings, more efficient lighting, more efficient use of water and so forth; that depreciation rate should be doubled. Now that would cost the Commonwealth, according to the Centre for International Economics, about half a billion dollars over four years. So that is a tax cut but plainly it will promote employment because if you want to take advantage of it you’ve got to hire somebody to do the work.   QUESTION:   (inaudible)   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well the Government has to use all of the measures at its disposal wisely. The critical thing is the quality of its spending. How effective are the policy decisions they’re taking? Now we’ve seen, they’ve had so far, they’ve had three bad strikes.   Last year you’ll recall they ignored the Reserve Bank and set up an unlimited bank deposit guarantee. That did a lot of damage, especially for the 250,000 people whose savings were frozen in mortgage funds and cash management trusts, created a lot unnecessary distortion in our financial market. They tried to roll that back but a lot of the damage was done.   They spent $10 billion in a one off payment, a one off stimulus and the evidence so far from retailers is that this has not been effective. The impact was very short lived and a lot of people in any event saved the money or used it to pay off debt.   But now we have the Rudd Bank proposal, the most bizarre of the lot, which is simply designed not to save jobs, not to protect employment, not to protect Australian families, but to prop up commercial property values so that to enhance the profitability of the big four banks.   QUESTION:   Just on that we’ve got the big four…oh sorry the property development industry back which is funded by property developers backing it all the way, but we’ve actually got a bunch of analysts now, independent property analysts questioning the structure of that and whether in fact the Government should be investing equity into the major banks, therefore perhaps increasing the returns to the tax payer, do you agree with that?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   The Rudd Bank proposal is a bad idea. Firstly it will encourage foreign banks to leave Australia. So it will be quite counterproductive. At the moment there is no evidence that foreign banks are pulling out and indeed to the end of November, and that year, the foreign banks increase their lending to non-financial corporations in Australia.   It will have no impact on residential property prices. Christopher Joye’s article in The Australian today explains that or exposes the nonsense that Mr Swan’s been sprouting very thoroughly. This is a profoundly bad idea. It is designed to benefit only the major banks. It is not a benefit to employment. It will not create one job or save one job and it’s really a case of the Government, yet again, misdirecting their efforts. They’ve got to start developing some policies which are correct. Mr Rudd wants to be seen to do something. Well that doesn’t mean he can do anything. He’s got to have measures that are effective. Thanks very much.   [ends]       malcolmThu, 29 Jan 2009 01:01:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:318http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/350/Interview-with-Tim-Webster-Radio-2UE.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=350http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=350&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/350/Interview-with-Tim-Webster-Radio-2UE.aspxSubjects: Rudd Bank; economic stimulus; accelerated depreciation for energy efficient buildings; bank deposit guarantee.   E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………...   TIM WEBSTER:   Malcolm Turnbull is on the line. G’day, thanks for your time.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   G’day Tim, great to be with you.   TIM WEBSTER:   Look this is a dry subject I suppose but if we could simplify it, what was the Government’s idea in this bail out of the commercial property sector?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well it’s not the Government’s idea for a start. It was an idea that was put to the Government in December by the National Australia Bank. And the objective of it is simply to prop up prices in the commercial property sector which of course is just one asset class. It’s designed to protect the big banks against losses from a decline in commercial property values.   And the premise of it, or I suppose the justification is, the argument is that there are foreign banks who have lent on commercial property and may well leave Australia. Now the fact is that there is no evidence of foreign banks pulling out of Australia – number one. In the year to November they had actually increased their lending to Australian companies. And in any event if you establish a fund like this, leaving aside the fact that it will do nothing for jobs and it ignores every other asset class, you actually will provide an incentive for foreign banks to pull out because you’re saying to them you can take the money and go.   So it is a very poorly conceived idea. It was done without consultation with the Reserve Bank. It has been canned by one expert after another as your listeners who have been following it in the newspapers will have seen. And it’s just another example of the Rudd Government making poor policy on the run. Yes we do have a global financial crisis; at this stage Mr Rudd is not making it any better in Australia.   TIM WEBSTER:   Just to put it simply, if somebody let’s say buys a shopping centre or builds a shopping centre and they pay $20 million for it, and three years down the track because of economic circumstances it drops to $15 million and they blow five, I mean that’s their problem isn’t it?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well it is their problem and it doesn’t affect jobs. You see this is the point that we’ve been making. Mr Rudd, you know, plucks a number of 50,000 jobs out of the air. If you take that example of a shopping centre, as long as the tenants are there and as long as the tenants are paying their rent – and that depends on the health of the economy overall – whether that shopping centre is worth $20 million or $30 million or $40 million doesn’t affect the employment of the people that have to go and clean it, that maintain the plumbing and the electricity, and all of the services associated with that development all have to be maintained, and fluctuations in the value of the property are either to the benefit or the cost of the owners and potentially their bankers.   TIM WEBSTER:   Yeah. Okay for my listeners, could there be some sort of flow-on to the private market with this sort of incentive or initiative?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well no, in fact if you’re talking about residential property absolutely not. And there is a very good article in The Australian today by Christopher Joye…   TIM WEBSTER:   Yeah. I saw it, yeah.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   …who sets out quite clearly that there is no connection between commercial property values and residential property values, and they have gone in different directions at different times. Tim, this is all about propping up values in one asset class, in commercial property values, for the benefit of the major banks. It wasn’t even the major banks’ idea, it was the proposal of one bank – National Australia Bank. I don’t think it’s a good idea. I think it’s a poor use of public funds. I’m very committed to effective action to preserve employment – jobs, jobs, jobs.   And that’s why I was so disappointed today to see Wayne Swan turning his back on tax cuts.   TIM WEBSTER:   Yeah.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   He admitted what I suppose we all know really, and that is that the Labor Party is the party of higher taxes. And he is attacking us for supporting tax cuts which economists around the world are saying is a way of stimulating economic activity, and which we all know will take a burden off families and businesses and encourage businesses to invest and hire Australians and keep Australians that are employed in employment.   TIM WEBSTER:   Yeah, look I know it’s only one aspect of it, but it happened in Queensland and we threw a lot of money around over Christmas time, or the Prime Minister did, and yet we read this morning that a hell of a lot of it went through the pokies. I mean what effect does that have boosting the national economy when you throw money around and by now it’s been spent?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well that’s right, Tim, and I think a lot of people will have spent it but I think more people have used the money wisely but, nonetheless, the fact of the matter is as John Lipsky from the IMF said only a little while ago, temporary sources of income – that’s one off hits, sugar hits if you like, like this – tend to be saved, while increases in longer term income, that is what you would get from a…   TIM WEBSTER:   A tax cut.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   …reduction in taxes, are more likely to be spent. And so that is why around the world economists, and particularly in the United States from their recent experience, are saying that permanent tax cuts – particularly those like the tax cuts I proposed yesterday to provide accelerated depreciation for investment in energy efficiency measures in buildings – those types of measures will encourage investment, they’ll encourage employment. You know you will get a pay off in jobs from them. Whereas if you just write everybody a cheque, everyone says thanks very much, much appreciated, but if they don’t spend it or use it to promote employment then it hasn’t done the trick.   TIM WEBSTER:   Yeah and it’s only a one off. Look just flesh that out for me: this depreciation for energy efficient buildings that you announced.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well what we’re proposing, and this would cost the Government for the first four years half a billion dollars, over four years. But it would be offset by greater income and hence greater income tax in later years. What we’re proposing is that where building owners invest in measures which improve energy efficiency, say lighting efficiency, thermal efficiency, perhaps install a co-generation plant that will provide both electricity and energy to run the air conditioning system, as was the case in the building we were looking at in Brisbane yesterday – all of those measures, and there is a list of thousands of different possibilities – what we’re proposing is to double the rate at which they can be depreciated.   TIM WEBSTER:   Yeah.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   So if, under the existing rules you can depreciate them over 10 years then we would propose that they be depreciated over five. And what that does is provide an incentive to building owners not only to improve their energy efficiency and water efficiency, I should add – I heard you very good editorial earlier, which I agree with – and you also of course provide a real stimulus to employment because somebody has got to do the work.   TIM WEBSTER:   And I would imagine there would be very few commercial buildings that were built with energy efficiency in mind, were there?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Very few until recently. It was interesting, the building we were looking at in Brisbane which is a Leightons building, it’s the North Tower of the Green Square development in Brisbane…   TIM WEBSTER:   Oh yeah, right.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   …has a carbon footprint which is 25 per cent of that of a comparable modern building, not an old building, a comparable modern building that was built in a conventional way. And they have done a number of things which are just smart in terms of thermal efficiency, managing air conditioning, saving money on electricity and of course reducing carbon emissions.   TIM WEBSTER:   Look while I’ve got you, just in general terms because today the International Monetary Fund is saying that growth is going to be virtually nothing, Britain is going to be worse, we’re in this other group of other advanced countries with growth of what, two and a bit per cent. Everyone is frightened I think and there’s a lot of prophets of doom around. We’re being told it’s going to be tough and we know that. But in general terms I mean, how do we get out of this in the shortest possible time that we can because I think everyone is a bit scared.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well Tim it’s very important not to be scared. It’s very important to be confident and positive, and politicians in particular have got to be very careful about playing the role of the prophet of doom. Wandering around saying ‘woe is us’ doesn’t get you anywhere. You’ve got to be positive and on the front foot. You’ve got to recognise that we have a very strong economy, due to the good economic management over 11 and a half years of the Coalition government. We have no government debt at the federal level, we’ve had strong surpluses, money in the bank. So we are in a much better position to navigate through these storms than practically any other comparable country.   TIM WEBSTER:   It’s a pretty fair comment to say that they’ve, the Labor Government have got a lot of money that was left to them by the Coalition. But surely you just can’t keep spending it?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   That’s true; you can’t keep spending it indefinitely. You’ve got to make sure you spend it wisely. You see the problem I think with Mr Rudd is that he feels that he has to do something, but simply because you’ve got to do something doesn’t mean you can do anything. You have to be very careful and prudent about your measures.   Now if you just step back to a few months ago, late last year, he made a very poor decision in providing an unlimited guarantee on bank deposits. Now the fact that it was unlimited caused enormous disruption in financial markets, there was a quarter of a million of Australians whose savings in cash management trusts and mortgage funds were frozen as a result. It had a terrible impact on the motor industry and so forth, and that’s widely recognised now. That was a big mistake.   The stimulus, the big handout before Christmas, again everyone who received it appreciated it. I think the overwhelming majority…   TIM WEBSTER:   Oh sure, yeah that’s right.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   …spent the money wisely. But did it provide the economic stimulus Mr Rudd hoped it would? It appears it did not. So again that was money that did not achieve the objectives that he sought. And now we’ve got the Rudd Bank proposal which I personally find somewhat bizarre that you would be choosing to put so much Commonwealth money at risk to solve a problem that doesn’t appear to exist and that will only benefit the balance sheets of the big banks.   TIM WEBSTER:   Okay, thanks for your time, much appreciated.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Thanks so much Tim.   [ends]     malcolmThu, 29 Jan 2009 00:09:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:350http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/297/Green-Depreciation-for-Energy-Efficient-Buildings.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=297http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=297&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/297/Green-Depreciation-for-Energy-Efficient-Buildings.aspxA Coalition Government will introduce accelerated depreciation rates for capital spending on green buildings, as a key component of a climate change strategy which dramatically broadens the policy tools used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The introduction of ‘green depreciation’ will offer building owners an incentive to refurbish their existing capital stock and drastically reduce the environmental footprint of the buildings sector, where approximately 23% of Australia’s energy is used. Announcing the policy, the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, said “this is one of the most effective and inexpensive policies available to address climate change from the demand side.” Accelerated depreciation rates (of double the depreciation rates normally applied to investment in plant fixtures and fittings) will be provided to investors in buildings or building improvements which meet specified environmental and energy efficiency standards. Accelerated depreciation involves deferring tax revenues in the short-term, although this is offset by higher tax collections in the longer-term. The initial reduction in taxes allows building owners to overcome the capital constraints which often act as an impediment to improvements with longer-term pay-offs, such as capital expenditures to reduce energy or water usage. Such constraints are particularly relevant to lower-income households and funding-constrained small and mid-sized enterprises. “Only a tiny percentage of Australia’s commercial and services buildings are currently designed and built with energy efficiency in mind,” said Mr Turnbull. “At a time at a time when the Australian construction industry is under pressure and jobs are at risk, there is a clear opportunity here to align economic and climate change policies, to the benefit of both employment and the environment.” As with the other components of the Coalition’s climate change strategy, detailed measures and costings currently under development will be made public at a time of the Coalition’s choosing. As an indicative guide to the likely near-term cost of the policy, however, the Centre for International Economics has estimated green depreciation would lead to a deferral of revenue of approximately $560 million over the first four years of operation of the scheme. BACKGROUND: ENERGY EFFICIENCT BUILDINGS & GREEN JOBS One of the most promising opportunities to inexpensively address climate change and at the same time stimulate job creation is to encourage investment in improving the energy efficiency of Australian buildings. This opportunity has so far largely been ignored by the Rudd Government, even though the Prime Minister in August 2008 said it was ‘the second plank’ of climate change policy. Reductions in energy and water use and resulting greenhouse gas emissions from buildings can be achieved by incorporating varied technologies and design features (such as passive heating/cooling and recycling of grey water) or by adaptive retrofits (such as insulation). The scope for these measures to contribute to the task of addressing climate change and complement other arms of policy has been widely acknowledged: ·         Energy-efficient buildings are cited as a major opportunity for low-cost greenhouse gas emissions abatement by respected climate change authorities and researchers including the United Nations’ IPCC, the Stern Report, the Garnaut Review[1], and McKinsey & Co[2]. ·         According to the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA), 97% of existing Australian buildings are too old to have been built with energy efficient features[3]. ·         Commercial and services buildings account for about 10% of final user demand for energy in Australia, while residential buildings account for a further 13%. Experts estimate low-cost or self-funding improvements to increase energy efficiency in buildings can make a substantial contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (which in Australia totalled about 600 million tonnes – or Mt – of CO2e in 2006): ·         Globally, the IPCC found that by 2030 about 29% of worldwide projected emissions from energy use in buildings could be saved at minimal or zero economic cost, while the International Energy Agency estimated the available worldwide savings at 30%. ·         Locally, the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council (ASBEC) estimates by 2030 abatement of 60 Mt per year is achievable[4]. ·         McKinsey & Co estimates efficiencies in the Australian building sector can, by 2020, achieve emission cuts of about 50 Mt of CO2e. ·         The Centre for International Economics estimates cuts of 39-45 Mt of CO2e can be achieved at a low cost (or net economic gain)[5]. Demand-side measures to reduce the environmental impact of buildings do not necessarily have to involve burdensome economic costs, and in many cases pay for themselves over the lifecycle of the building as up-front expenditures to enhance energy or water efficiency are offset by reduced operating costs in later years: ·         Estimates for the payoff horizon for retrofitting an average existing building are in the 8-11 year range according to a range of authorities including the GBCA. ·         ABSEC estimates 27-31% of existing emissions from Australian buildings could be abated at zero net economic cost. Many policy options exist to overcome the various market and non-market impediments which currently stand in the way of investment in building efficiency: ·         Education campaigns overcome information gaps and inefficiencies and alert building owners to the net economic savings available from green design or retrofits. ·         Concessions for green capital expenditures address a core problem – the timing gap between initial investments and the point at which these investments generate a return. ·         The selective retrofit of existing government buildings and construction of new government buildings to Green Star standards provide leadership examples and mitigate the environmental impact from these buildings. ·         Ongoing assessments of any regulatory burdens imposed on building owners ensure that measures to encourage energy efficiency are not a drag on the economy. The scope for creation and retention of construction industry employment from investment in green buildings depends on the precise mix and scale of the measures adopted.  But at a time when the construction sector is under pressure, there is a clear opportunity to align economic and environmental policy objectives. [1]The Garnaut Climate Change Review, at http://www.garnautreview.org.au/index.htm [2]McKinsey & Co., An Australian Cost Curve for Greenhouse Gas Reduction, 2008 at http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/Australian_Cost_Curve_for_GHG_Reduction.pdf [3]Green Building Council of Australia, the Dollars and Sense of Green Buildings 2008, at http://www.aela.org.au/publications/Dollars_and_Sense.pdf [4] http://www.asbec.asn.au/files/ASBEC%20CCTG%20Second%20Plank%20Report%202.0_0.pdf [5] “Building Energy Efficiency” CIE February 2008 at http://www.thecie.com.au/content/news/Final%20CIE_TPB_Perth%20(with%20animations).pdf   malcolmWed, 28 Jan 2009 03:42:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:297http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/351/Doorstop-Interview-with-Lawrence-Springborg-Brisbane.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=351http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=351&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/351/Doorstop-Interview-with-Lawrence-Springborg-Brisbane.aspx Normal 0 false false false EN-AU X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} Subjects: Kevin Rudd’s meeting with Anna Bligh; Rudd Bank; economic management; Australia’s troop commitment to Afghanistan. E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………... MALCOLM TURNBULL:   It’s great to be here with Lawrence. Lawrence is going to be the next Premier of Queensland. Queensland needs his leadership – strong, dynamic, enterprising leadership is what this state needs. You know, Anna Bligh’s gone down to Canberra today to see Kevin Rudd, and it’d be interesting to be a fly on the wall, because I reckon if Anna Bligh said to Kevin Rudd, ‘Kevin, how come you’ve got all that war chest? How come you’ve got all that money? How come you don’t have any Commonwealth debt?’ He’d have to say that was the hard work of the Coalition over eleven-and-a-half years and I’m sitting here as the Labor Prime Minister with the benefit of all that hard work. Then when he asks the same question of Anna Bligh, and says what did you do in all those years of the mining boom, all those years of great prosperity, what war chest did you build up, she’d have to say nothing. ‘We spent it all and more. We ran the state into debt in the good times.’ And that’s why Queenslanders should be very concerned about what Labor will do as times get tougher.   QUESTION:   But do you applaud the Prime Minister for meeting with premiers?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well it’s part of their job. Prime ministers meet with premiers all the time. Of course he should meet with everybody. You know, he had a phone call today I believe from Barack Obama, from President Obama, and he should take a leaf out of President Obama’s book, because what Barack Obama has been doing in developing his economic policies, is consulting widely. He hasn’t been ignoring his Reserve Bank. He hasn’t been ignoring his central bank. And instead of ignoring his political opponents, he’s actually gone to Congress and sat down with the Republicans in the Congress and discussed his economic measures with them. We’ve offered to sit down with Mr Rudd so many times I couldn’t tell you how many. From the moment I became Opposition Leader we sought to have a bipartisan approach to this. No way. He makes these decisions, ignores the Reserve Bank, doesn’t consult with the Opposition, and doesn’t even, apparently, take the advice of David Murray, the Chairman of the Future Fund. He’s made a lot of mistakes in responding to the economic crisis. We can’t afford to have any more.   QUESTION:   Is it irresponsible for the Rudd Government to ignore the concerns of the Reserve Bank in relation to the Rudd Bank?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   It is completely irresponsible. Of course it is. On these matters involving banking and the financial system you’ve got to consult widely, you’ve got to listen to a range of views, and above all you’ve got to talk to the Reserve Bank. They are the single most knowledgeable group of people in this area. We know that he didn’t discuss the unlimited bank deposit guarantee – that blunder of last year – with the Reserve Bank, and now it appears that he’s ignored the concerns, or failed to consult the Reserve Bank about this latest Rudd Bank proposal, which has got nothing to do with jobs.   I have just announced a policy, a commitment that will create jobs. If you accelerate the depreciation for building owners to green their buildings, to invest in energy efficiency measures and technologies, that will create jobs, because people have got to go and do the work. So we’re developing policies and programmes that will create jobs. Mr Rudd wants to express concern, but there’s no practical action, no measures that work.    QUESTION:   Why are you here with Mr Springborg today?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well I’m here to support Lawrence Springborg. We are both determined that he will be the next Premier of Queensland and I will be the next Prime Minister of Australia.   LAWRENCE SPRINGBORG:   I think that Malcolm has really indicated the fundamental difference between the non-Labor side of politics and the Labor side of politics, not only in Australia but also in Queensland. One actually takes another person’s money and the wealth of the country and just wastes it, and our side of politics it’s about investing in the future. And certainly there is a real compare and contrast in the Commonwealth to Queensland where after eleven years of the Howard Government we basically saw a war chest built up of almost $40 billion, including on top of that a surplus of about $20 billion. Now that’s something which Queensland should have been doing. Queensland should have been doing that, and that would have better facilitated our capacity to be able to weather what is a very, very difficult time ahead. So for us, we’re determined to give the people of not only of Queensland but Australia real, good leadership in difficult times, and to make sure that we actually build for the future of Queensland and Australia, and that hasn’t actually happened.   QUESTION:   Mr Turnbull, do you think more troops should be sent to Afghanistan from Australia?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well we’ve got to assess any request that’s made and no request has been made. I saw what Mr Fitzgibbon said about that today. We are concerned that all nations involved in the Afghanistan conflict, all nations that we are working with play their full part. We need to see stronger commitments from the NATO countries in particular, the countries from Europe. There has to be a sharing of the load and I’m sure that the Government will look at any request that comes from the United States, if it does come, seek the advice of our military leaders and then make a response. But until such time as we see what that request is of course we are speculating. One thing I’m very concerned about and I just want to underline the importance of all countries involved in this very important battle against terrorism, all countries involved in it make a commitment commensurate to their size, the scale of their armed forces and so forth.   Thanks a lot.   [ends]     malcolmWed, 28 Jan 2009 00:10:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:351http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/304/Why-is-Wong-ignoring-Biochar.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=304http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=304&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/304/Why-is-Wong-ignoring-Biochar.aspx The Minister for Climate Change, Senator Wong, has dismissed the Coalition’s Green Carbon Initiative on the grounds that “soil carbon (including biochar) does not fit within the scope of the current Kyoto protocol accounts”. (730 Report, 26/1/09) The objective of Australian Government policy in this area must be to address climate change as soon and effectively as possible at the lowest possible cost. That means pursuing the best available options for abating greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of whether they are referenced by current international agreements or not. The task is to reduce emissions – not to adhere to arbitrary and outdated constraints contained in a complex treaty negotiated more than a decade ago. Does Senator Wong really believe it is in the national interest to completely ignore low-cost, high-impact, job-creating opportunities to improve the environment simply because they fall outside her narrow focus on an emissions trading scheme? Does Senator Wong really believe it is in the national interest for her backward-looking, bureaucratic mindset to limit the practical tools available to Australia to address climate change? Rather than glibly dismissing the Coalition’s approach, Senator Wong would be better off educating herself on the immense potential for biochar to contribute to lower emissions and a better Australian environment by speaking to the many experts who believe this to be true. Rather than using the narrow scope of previous international agreements as an excuse for inaction, Senator Wong should be working to ensure future agreements recognise that a broad range of tools can contribute to greenhouse gas abatement. malcolmTue, 27 Jan 2009 06:24:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:304http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/324/Interview-with-Alan-Jones-Radio-2GB.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=324http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=324&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/324/Interview-with-Alan-Jones-Radio-2GB.aspxSubjects: Economy; bank deposit guarantee; $4 billion fund for the banks.   E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………...   ALAN JONES:   Malcolm, good morning.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Good morning Alan.   ALAN JONES:   Thank you for your time. Look the economy is going to be the big issue, isn’t it? And a whole range of matters associated with the economy. Is it credible for the Opposition to continue with Julie Bishop as the Shadow Treasurer?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Julie is doing a great job Alan.  She’s very smart, a very experienced woman, both as a minister and as a commercial lawyer. She is doing a great job as Shadow Treasurer.   ALAN JONES:   So she’ll stay as Shadow Treasurer?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Absolutely.   ALAN JONES:   And you think she’s across these very complicated issues that have to be addressed?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well she is Alan and she has actually just got back a day or so ago from spending some time in the United States where she has been talking to some of the leading policy makers both in government and in business, leading economists through the United States. So she is very well informed and up to the mark on the global economic situation.   ALAN JONES:   What do you make of the global economic situation?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well I think it’s worsening in some areas. The big concern for us is the decline in economic activity in China. China is very, very dependent – more dependent than most economies – on its export business, on its net exports, and they have declined considerably with the slowdown in the United States and Europe and of course that will have an impact on us in terms of demand for the raw materials we ship them.   ALAN JONES:   And that will mean a shortfall in revenue at budget time?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   It will certainly mean a decline in corporate profitability and we’re already seeing job losses and all of that reduces revenues to government, yes.   ALAN JONES:   Now therefore there may be a likelihood of the Government going into deficit?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well a deficit…   ALAN JONES:   You’ve set your face against that, haven’t you?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   No Alan what we’ve said is a deficit should be a last resort, not an easy way out. What we’re not going to do is to give Mr Rudd a blank cheque to just spend, spend, spend – which is what he told Australians to do before Christmas you might recall – to spend, spend, spend without any regard to the quality of the spending.   ALAN JONES:   Just on that question in relation to a 10-something billion dollar package to spend before Christmas, should that have been presented to the parliament and debated? Is there an increasing tendency for the Government to do things outside parliament?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well there is although that was debated in parliament, albeit briefly. The Prime Minister late last year…   ALAN JONES:   The guarantees to banks, were they debated in the Parliament?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well they were briefly, again…   ALAN JONES:   After the announcement or before?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   After the announcement. What he prefers to do, he prefers to make his announcements outside of parliament and he tries to avoid general economic debate, debate on the big picture, on the overall economic picture in the parliament. He seems uncomfortable with parliament.   ALAN JONES:   Well now there’s a proposal for a $4 billion partnership with the big four banks to fund commercial property projects. Is that going to be debated in parliament before it is enacted or will it be enacted and then taken to the parliament?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well Alan I don’t know what Mr Rudd’s intentions are, perhaps we should ask him. But if I can just correct one thing: Mr Rudd has been very misleading, deliberately misleading about this. He has tried to represent this as an exercise to promote employment and to support construction projects. Nothing could be further from the truth. This proposal that was brought to the Government by the National Australia Bank in December last year is designed, so it is said, to have the Government step in and replace foreign banks who want to withdraw from lending syndicates to existing property. It’s not backing construction. It’s got nothing to do with jobs. It won’t add one job.   So it’s about a situation where there might be a billion dollars lent on a shopping centre or some commercial property somewhere and the time comes for the loans to be rolled over and one of the foreign banks decides they want to get out and what the proposal is is that the Government will be there to say ‘we’ll take you out, we’ll pay you out in full’. Now that is all about…   ALAN JONES:   That could well lead to further withdrawals of foreign funds.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well exactly and that’s what Henry Ergas says in The Australian today, and Henry’s article The Australian  is really worth reading. This is not a good policy, it will be counterproductive, but above all Alan it has got nothing to do with jobs. And Mr Rudd should be focusing his efforts, his time and our dollars on supporting employment and jobs, particularly in the small and medium enterprise sector.   ALAN JONES:   I suppose what Mr Rudd would be saying is if he is supporting developers of shopping centres and other forms of commercial property he would then axiomatically be supporting jobs. Should taxpayers’ money be used – Ergas asked this question today – to rob taxpayers and pay developers and banks and super funds?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well Alan again getting back to the point, this is very Orwellian. This is like that George Orwell novel 1984 where war is described as peace and black as white. Mr Rudd is saying that this is about jobs. This fund is not designed, I repeat, not designed – and the banks have made that very clear to the Government as we see in the paper and they have made it clear to me; I mean I talk to the big banks too – they have made it very clear this is not about supporting construction projects or projects per se, it is about refinancing existing buildings.   Now the fact of the matter is if you take an office building or a shopping centre somewhere, and if that building changes hands for less money than it was bought for three or four years ago that is bad news for the people that own it, maybe bad news for the banks if they lose some money on their loan. But, as we all know, it doesn’t affect the employment of the people that come to service the building, that clean it, that work there.   ALAN JONES:   This Ahmed Fahour, who was thought to be going to get the top job at NAB, is apparently now the person being considered to administer all of this and yet the new boss of NAB Cameron Clyne is quoted today as saying there is no evidence that foreign banks are withdrawing capital. Now if Cameron Clyne is saying there is no evidence that foreign banks are withdrawing capital why are taxpayers’ funds being put into the hands of the big banks?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well Alan exactly, and Cameron Clyne has said that and indeed in the year to the end of November the foreign banks increased their lending to non-financial Australian businesses, that’s businesses outside of the financial sector, by about 13 per cent. So there is no evidence that the foreign banks are withdrawing and my concern is – and Henry Ergas sets this out very well in The Australian today – my big concern is that not only is a proposal like this putting a lot of taxpayers’ money to support the balance sheets and the profitability of big banks instead of supporting jobs and small and medium businesses, but it also may in fact encourage foreign banks to pull out because you’re saying to them, ‘here’s your money back, you can go’.   ALAN JONES:   The Government will do the job.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Correct.   ALAN JONES:   Disappear. Let me just ask you a couple of sort of yes/no questions because you just said you talk to banks and you’re very literate in this area.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well I said the first thing. You’ve said I’m literate, that’s flattering but...   ALAN JONES:   Well you’re an advocate, and a powerful advocate. Is there a credit drought at the moment in Australia?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   There is certainly a credit squeeze, a credit drought if you like, particularly at the small and medium enterprise end. If you talk to people in smaller businesses they cannot get credit.   ALAN JONES:   Correct. Yep.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   And that is what Mr Rudd should be focussed on, and what he’s doing is he’s spending our taxes right at the very top of the big end of town.   ALAN JONES:   Peter Strong from the Council of Small Business Organisations said some small businesses are paying up to three per cent more than the mortgage rate which gets them around about 10 per cent for loans with the big four banks. And they’re saying applications for working capital extensions or spending on equipment have become more difficult. Now given the banks have got these phenomenal guarantees from Government for deposits of significant amounts, how do you release this money for business to do business?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well the banks have got to get back to lending. Now the banks will say ‘we don’t want governments or politicians and the Opposition or radio broadcasters telling us how to do our business’. Fair enough, but they are benefiting massively from government support, they’re seeking additional government support all the time as we see with this proposal from Mr Fahour from the National Australia Bank, and the reality is, on the ground – you’re in the same position as I am – talking to people from small businesses, medium sized businesses, they are struggling to get credit. There is a credit squeeze in that sector and that is impacting on jobs.   ALAN JONES:   That is exactly what I’m getting. Now, let me come to the other point then, if the taxpayer who is not able to borrow money – because he is a small businessman – from banks is nonetheless still funding a guarantee on bank deposits of up to $1 million, is it incumbent upon someone to say to the banks, ‘well what are you giving back in return?’   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Exactly Alan and what the Government should be doing is saying to the banks, saying to the big banks and indeed the smaller banks, ‘what is your strategy? You tell us how you are going to get money moving into the engine room of the economy which is small and medium businesses?’ And yet instead the Government seems to be simply reacting and doing the banks’ bidding instead of ensuring that the banks do the work that the economy needs.   Now everywhere else in the world governments are focused on finance and credit for small and medium enterprises. Our Government seems to be focused on propping up values in large scale completed commercial properties for the benefit of supporting bank balance sheets. Now I have to say that should not be the top priority for an Australian Government today.   ALAN JONES:   Just a quick one on that before we get off that point, the million dollar guarantee is one of the most generous in the world.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   It is, yes it is, absolutely.   ALAN JONES:   What should it be?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   I said right at the outset last year, Julie Bishop and I said the deposit guarantee should be set at around $100,000.   ALAN JONES:   Should this million dollar limit be shifted?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Definitely. You remember it was made unlimited to begin with, it did an enormous amount of damage.   ALAN JONES:   Was this debated in the parliament?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   No it was not, it wasn’t even discussed with the Reserve Bank before it was done. You’ll remember Mr Rudd made that decision without speaking to the Reserve Bank and I’d like to know has the Reserve…   ALAN JONES:   [Inaudible]   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   The Reserve Bank, as we know because some of the correspondence found its way into the media, within days of this policy being announced, Glenn Stevens was saying to the Treasury Secretary Ken Henry you have got to get the level of the deposit down as low as possible. I think ‘the lower the better’ were his exact words.   ALAN JONES:   Shouldn’t the parliament and the public be able to see the written advice which was the basis for this decision?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well we haven’t seen it. Of course we should. And you see it has done a lot of damage. You’ve got David Morgan there in the paper today, now David Morgan used to run Westpac, he was a very distinguished economic adviser in the Keating era, and he has said it has got to come down. Everyone is saying it must come down because it is distorting the economy, distorting the financial system.   It has had the consequence of resulting in people with money in cash management trusts and mortgage funds having their redemptions frozen. It’s frozen off cash to the automobile industry, to the motor retailing industry. It was a bad policy decision. It was a mistake, it was ill-considered and the Government should reverse it but they’re dragging their feet. And the longer they drag their feet the more damage it does.   ALAN JONES:   Just completing the circle of the discussion we’ve had, official figures out last week showed that business lending in November was at its lowest level in three years, more than 30 per cent lower than a year ago. Now surely if business can’t get the money to keep going, and we’re not talking about careless lending or irresponsible lending, but if they can’t get the money to keep going, jobs have to go.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   That’s absolutely right Alan. Credit is the fuel of the economy and my concern is at the very front line, the cutting edge of the economy, you’ve got small and medium enterprises, and what you’re seeing is banks are cutting back lending to that sector and they’re tightening their terms and cutting back the amount of money that is available and that is having a very damaging effect on the economy.   Now I recognise, we all recognise the banks have got to do their job and they can get plenty of advice from others but ultimately they have got to make the decisions. But what the Government should be saying is pulling the banks in and saying ‘okay you tell us what is happening with small and medium businesses. Are you going to lend more? If not what do you need to do to do that?’ You know, explain themselves, and what I struggle with is this Rudd Bank that we’re talking about today is designed purely, solely to support values in the commercial property sector at the very high end, has got nothing to do with jobs, nothing to do with small and medium businesses.   ALAN JONES:   Just one thing before you go – you’ve been an advocate in courtrooms and you’ve learnt that language is important, emphasis important, tone is important. Aren’t we overdoing this negativism? Every time someone turns on the television, people want to believe their Prime Minister and their leaders, it’s this story of doom and gloom. Shouldn’t we be saying to people listen, we’ve been in tough times before, we’ve got out of them, roll up your sleeves, get up a bit earlier, go to bed a bit later and I think together we can get out of all of this.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Alan I totally agree. We have got to recognise this is a fantastic country. I’ve said many times: we’re in a storm, we’ll get but we won’t sink. We should be positive, energetic, enterprising, innovative, optimistic. All too often Mr Rudd reminds me, and you’d relate to this, of a football coach who at half time when his team is 10 points behind goes into the dressing room and says ‘we’re all doomed, we can’t win’. You know as well as I do, better than me, better than anyone, that a coach has got to energise and send that team back onto the field believing they can walk through brick walls.   ALAN JONES:   Malcolm Turnbull, I should say that’s all done here with a man smartly dressed in a shirt and tie and not a note in front of him. Malcolm Turnbull the Opposition Leader, thank you for your time.   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Thanks Alan.   [ends]     malcolmTue, 27 Jan 2009 01:12:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:324http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/352/Doorstop-Interview-with-Greg-Hunt-Newcastle.aspx#Comments3http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=352http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=352&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/352/Doorstop-Interview-with-Greg-Hunt-Newcastle.aspxSubjects: Green Carbon Initiative; Australia Day; Indigenous Australians   E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………...   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   The technology we’ve just been looking at is innovative, it’s exciting, it’s Australian, it’s great for the environment, it will create thousands of jobs, but it has been completely neglected by the Rudd Government’s CPRS, by its emissions trading scheme. We have an enormous opportunity here in Australia to absorb millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, store it safely as carbon, and put in back into the soil and increase the productivity and the health of our own landscape. A win-win. A win for jobs, a win for the environment, a win for agriculture. So it’s an enormous opportunity that has been overlooked by the Rudd Government, and that’s why we are calling for a Green Carbon Initiative, a biocarbon strategy that will focus on investing in our landscape, in Australian jobs, in Australian agriculture, doing the right thing by the environment and the planet, and the right things for Australians.   QUESTION:   In terms of a product like this, what do you see as its potential here in Australia?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well the bio-char strategy alone, and it’s been estimated by the experts here that you’ll no doubt speak to in a moment, it has been conservatively estimated as being able to absorb up 100 million tonnes of CO2 every year. Now that is close to 20% of all of Australia’s emissions. And that is a conservative estimate. Globally, this could be the single biggest opportunity, new opportunity, for biosequestration of CO2 after forestry, and of course organic soil carbon that I also spoke about yesterday.   QUESTION:   So obviously you’re here in the Hunter today which is one of the areas where some of Australia’s biggest carbon problems are created with the mining industry. Is it good to see that some solutions are coming out of this region as well?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   It is so exciting, and it’s a great credit to the team at Crucible Carbon, and to Alumina who’ve been supporting them, that they have put together this pyrolysis unit which is so efficient, so economical, so small relative to other models elsewhere in the world. I’ve spent a lot of time recently talking to some of the leading experts around the world in this whole biocarbon or bio-char area, and there is real admiration for the work that’s being done here in Australia with this technology. But I get back to the political problem: this approach, this practical approach, this win win approach to dealing with carbon dioxide, that will create jobs, improve the health of our landscape, improve our agricultural productivity, has been neglected, overlooked, ignored, by the Rudd Government.     QUESTION:   The farming sector seems to be one that’s a little bit sceptical and if not scared of what’s going to happen in terms of the future. They seem to think that they might be a scapegoat in terms of cleaning up the environment in the future. Is this sort of the kind of project you hope that will get them across the line?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Absolutely, I was speaking only a couple of days ago with Ian Stanley, who is a wheat farmer from Western Australia who is working with the Alumina team. He has been putting bio-char back into his paddocks, into his fields, and he has had improvements in yield of 30% – very big increases in productivity, so he is a real enthusiast for this. And I think you’ll find farmers around Australia will embrace a biocarbon strategy that they can see will give them support to improve the productivity of their farms, improve their environment, and of course play a leading role in the battle against global warming.   QUESTION:   Is there anything else in your policies here that could help the Hunter clean up its act?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   This is the biggest opportunity – the biocarbon opportunity – for Australia to absorb, in the near term, millions of tonnes of CO2. Longer term, the other big opportunity which is of vital importance to the Hunter Valley, and which has also been neglected by the Rudd Government, they’ve just dropped the ball on it, is clean coal. Carbon capture and storage is the key to large scale baseload low-emission power. Now we should be the world leaders in carbon capture and storage. When we were in government, we put a lot of money into that. Bu the ball has been dropped by the Rudd Government, and I have committed that when we return to government we will ensure that Australia builds and deploys at least two industrial-scale carbon capture and storage coal-fired power plants. We are the world’s largest coal exporter. We overwhelmingly are reliant on coal for our own energy sources. We have a vital vested national interest in carbon capture and storage being proven and deployed successfully here in Australia, and then exporting the technology around the world.   QUESTION:   Do you have a plan that could help the Hunter’s transition to this? Because obviously there’s a lot of jobs in the mining sector that could be at risk if the coal industry is sort of crossed off.    MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well I think the coal industry has a very strong future, both in the Hunter Valley and everywhere around the world. Everyone recognises that for the foreseeable future, as far out as anyone can see, we are going to be relying on coal for most of our stationary energy, most of our power station energy. The critical thing is to clean it up, and to do so efficiently and cost-effectively. And that is where Australian technology is vital. I have to say that here in the Hunter there are real leaders in technology in the climate area. Here at Crucible Carbon we’re looking at bio-char. Just over the road at the CSIRO you have Paul Feron and the team at the CSIRO Energy Group, who are working on cutting-edge technology in terms of carbon capture and storage. But again it needs strong government support and that has been lacking. Now we are committed to giving carbon capture and storage, bio-char and other vital, innovative technologies, strong support. It’s important for the environment and it’s above all important for the three top priorities for 2009, which are jobs, jobs, jobs.   QUESTION:   The Rudd Government, since yesterday with the release of your policy, it’s criticised that there’s been no cost associated with this policy. Are you going to be releasing any time soon what the cost associated with these types of technologies would be?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well in the speech I gave yesterday it’s full of footnotes and costs, so there’s a lot more detail than I’ve seen in many of the Rudd Government’s climate change documents. In fact there is a mass of costings in the paper, and you can check it out on my website if you’re interested. I imagine Penny Wong hadn’t read it at the time she gave her press conference.   This particular technology here is estimated, conservatively, to be able to capture and store in the ground carbon dioxide at a cost of $20 a tonne or less. Now that’s a conservative estimate because it doesn’t take into account the benefit to the farmer from the increased productivity. So it’s actually in net terms a very low cost that is much lower than the forecast permit prices under the Rudd emissions trading scheme.   QUESTION:   One quick last one: what are your plans for Australia day?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Right, well, I’m going to be at Bondi Beach starting the Havaianas Thong Challenge there. It’s a gigantic event there at Bondi Beach, and like many Australians I’ll be having a great day at the beach. And that’s where I’ll be, at Bondi Beach on Australia Day.     QUESTION:   Sorry, just lastly as well. These policies: are you suggesting that they should replace what the Rudd Government has released as their emissions trading scheme, or should these types of things be working in tandem?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well the issue with bio-char is simply that it is not credited as an offset, so in other words Alumina, who wants to offset its emissions from its aluminium business, if it chooses to do so through bio-char, which is its intention, will not under the Rudd scheme get a credit for it. Now that’s crazy because, as you can see, you can take biomass, straw or forestry waste or whatever, turn it into charcoal which is embodied carbon, restore it to the soil, so you have sequestered that, you’ve stored it into the ground. That is something that should be given a credit, and it’s vital that that be done, and we’ve called on the Government to do so. And certainly if they haven’t done it by the time of the next election, we will make sure it is done after we form a government following the election.   QUESTION:   So what are your thoughts on changing the date of Australia Day?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Australia day is our national day, and it should stay exactly where it is.   QUESTION:   And have things gone better for the Aborigines since Mr Rudd’s Apology?   MALCOLM TURNBULL:   Well, after the great joy and celebration of the Apology died down we get down to practical measures. There is real concern that there hasn’t been enough follow-up by the Rudd Government. I spent some time recently in Western Australia, in more remote areas of Western Australia, and you can see there that there is a long way to go. There are big challenges there, and we are certainly committed as a Coalition, as an Opposition, to working on constructive solutions and policies that will be effective to remedy disadvantage for our Indigenous people. Thank you very much.   GREG HUNT:   I’ll just say two things very briefly. The first is the Green Carbon Initiative is about creating the clean economy of the future. And second thing is: this clean economy of the future is what Mr Rudd has ignored. He has turned his back on Australian farmers, he has turned his back on real attempts to clean up the environment, and he has turned his back on creating jobs for people in places such as Newcastle and elsewhere which are both clean, future-looking, and about a real future for Australia’s industries.   [ends]     malcolmSun, 25 Jan 2009 00:12:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:352http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/344/Address-to-the-Federal-Young-Liberal-Movement-Green-Carbon-Initiative.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=344http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=344&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/344/Address-to-the-Federal-Young-Liberal-Movement-Green-Carbon-Initiative.aspxE & O E  Thank you very much. It’s great to be here Noel, thank you very much for your warm introduction. It’s wonderful to be here with the Young Liberals, you are the future of our party.   And our party embodies the values and the principles that are the future for Australia. We stand for the values which Australia needs to remain strong and become stronger. To build a future where we have governments that will enable people to do their best as opposed to Labor governments that want to tell people what is best.   Because we after all, my friends, are a party of freedom. We’re a party of energy. We’re a party of optimism. We are the party of the future, proud of our past but always focused on the future. That is the mission of the Liberal Party of which you are the youngest and many would say the most dynamic element.   But those of us that are older Liberals are really delighted to be here and I’m particularly pleased to see so many of my parliamentary colleagues here as well.   Today, I am going to talk about a climate change strategy that is founded on optimism and confidence, ingenuity and enterprise.   It is a plan that will create new jobs and new enterprises – without exporting industries and emissions overseas.   It is a plan to invest in the health of our landscape, enhance the productivity of our agriculture, and increase our food and energy security.   It is a plan providing real leadership for effective global action.   Our Green Carbon Initiative will ensure Australia is able to achieve greater reductions in carbon dioxide than those proposed by Mr Rudd, at a relatively low cost[1] and with enormous additional benefits to our own country’s environment and productivity.   We will aim to achieve, by 2020, additional annual reductions of at least 150 million tonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).   Our plan captures three gigantic opportunities for CO2 abatement that the Rudd Government has ignored:   ·         A Green Carbon Initiative – a comprehensive biocarbon strategy ofinvesting in the health of our landscape, restoring soil carbon by reversing over-grazing and excessive tillage, embedding CO2 in bio-char or charcoal, tree planting, and revegetation.   ·         Dramatically increasing energy efficiency, especially in buildings.   ·         Constructing at least two industrial scale carbon capture and storage power stations deploying industrial scale solar energy and geothermal energy and harnessing the energy of the oceans through tidal and wave power.   This policy is different to the Rudd Government’s ineffectual and bureaucratic response which has failed to take advantage of Australia’s unique characteristics and neglected Australia’s vital national interests in climate policy.   But, first, let me say to you straight up that the question of whether or to what extent human activities are causing global warming is not a matter of ideology, let alone of “belief”.   This issue is simply one of risk management.    It is moreover not a question of Left versus Right – indeed it was Margaret Thatcher, nearly twenty years ago, who called for immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.   Her words on our response to climate change are as wise and as relevant today as they were in 1990. Mrs Thatcher said then:   “Many of the precautionary actions that we need to take would be sensible in any event.    It is sensible to improve energy efficiency and use energy prudently; it’s sensible to develop alternative and sustainable energy sources; it’s sensible to replant the forests which we consume. I understand that the latest vogue is to call them ‘no regrets’ policies. Certainly we should have none in putting them into effect.”[2]   And let us not forget it was Margaret Thatcher who in 1990 committed the United Kingdom to reduce Britain’s emissions by 2005 to a level no greater than those of 1990, and who, as part of her commitment to practical action on climate change, committed £100 million to promote sustainable tropical forestry.   In her footsteps, other conservative leaders including Governor Schwarzenegger of California, Senator John McCain, Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper, New Zealand’s Prime Minister John Key and British Conservative Leader David Cameron are supporting policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - just as we did as the Coalition Government here in Australia in government.   As David Cameron reminded us only a week ago:   “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.... (this) 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.”[3]   Now Mr Rudd has always tried to frame the climate debate as a theological and political one – focussed on symbols rather than substance. He is endeavouring to frame his emissions trading scheme as another litmus test of “belief” in climate change.   And yet, an ETS is not an end in itself. It is only part of the solution, one tool in the climate policy tool box, and, in fact, no solution at all without new energy sources and new low emission technologies.   Whether the ETS or any ETS is effective will depend on its timing and its design, it will depend on the availability of low-emission technologies and cost effective carbon sinks. In other words, an ETS is no more than a piece of economic plumbing to be assessed objectively and pragmatically for its effectiveness in reducing emissions without destroying Australian jobs.   In Government, while I was Environment Minister, we proposed and began to legislate for an ETS ourselves. We did so after calls from the leaders of the largest emitting industries in Australia for action to put a price on carbon.    While the Rudd Emissions Trading Scheme has moved closer to our design, it is still inferior and much more complex than what we proposed.    Our proposal for an ETS to start in 2011 or 2012 meant that in finalising our own design we could take into account the climate policies of the new US President[4], the response to them by the world’s largest emitter, China, and consequently the outcome of the UN climate meeting at Copenhagen in December this year.   In contrast, Mr Rudd’s rush to finalise his ETS this year shows yet again that politics has trumped sound policy.        Now we will have a lot more to say about the design of Mr Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme, and its impact on jobs, when we have our own independent economic advice on the White Paper and of course when we see the legislation due to be tabled next month.    Today I want to focus on three key areas where the sterile and bureaucratic Rudd response has failed Australia.   Firstly, it almost entirely ignores the enormous opportunity for reducing our emissions through bio-sequestration. This includes restoring soil carbon through better land management practices, removing carbon from the atmosphere and fixing it in the soil by the creation of bio-char and, of course, tree planting and revegetation. A biocarbon strategy is the foundation of our new Carbon Initiative.   Secondly, the Rudd Government has ignored the lowest cost opportunity for reducing emissions – by increasing energy efficiency, especially in buildings. Most energy efficiency measures in the built environment have a “negative net cost” – in other words they more than pay for themselves. But there are many obstacles to them being realised and Government leadership and action is required.   In neglecting these low-cost opportunities, Labor makes the cost to Australian families of cutting our greenhouse gas emissions higher than it ought to be.   Thirdly, the Rudd Government fails to recognise that all of the emissions trading schemes, all of the carbon permit revenues no matter how high will not, ultimately, result in a meaningful reduction in industrial emissions unless we can achieve a dramatic technological transformation. Mr Rudd has dropped the ball on supporting low-emission technology research and development, most notably in the area of greatest importance to this campaign and this country – carbon capture and storage (CCS), or “clean coal”.   Australia’s single greatest comparative advantage in the battle to reduce CO2 emissions is our enormous land mass – over seven million square kilometres or 770 million hectares.   Yet the Rudd Government has almost completely ignored the opportunity to dramatically improve agricultural productivity and the sustainability of our landscape,   at the same time removing enormous quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere.   The productivity of both cropping and grazing land is directly related to the level of soil carbon – far from being a pollutant, soil carbon is the key to healthy soils and productive fields. Large quantities of soil carbon have been lost to the atmosphere by conventional cropping methods which have left the soil exposed for long periods. Overgrazing has had a similar effect on pastoral country.   Every time you see a dust storm in the bush, in areas where there has been a lot of cultivation, that’s top soil, that’s soil carbon being blown away, being lost.   The opportunities for CO2 abatement here are gigantic.   We occupy a vast continent with many millions of hectares of degraded country. We know that we need to produce more food for a growing world.   And yet an increase of only 0.5 per cent in the soil carbon on 2 per cent of Australia’s agricultural land would, according to the soil scientist Dr Christine Jones, absorb an amount of CO2 greater than all of Australia’s current annual emissions – about 600 million tonnes.[5]   The Garnaut Review itself estimated that improved management practices on Australian cropping and high volume grazing land had the potential to remove around 350 million tonnes of CO2e per annum for 20 to 50 years.[6]   Allan Savory (who in 2003 won Australia’s Banksia Award for global environmentalism) estimates the entire legacy of additional atmospheric carbon resulting from industrialisation (I’m talking about carbon here, not CO2, about 200 to 250 billion tonnes) “could be absorbed in the world’s croplands, were they properly managed”.[7]    Now if we were able to demonstrate that this kind of land management could produce benefits of that or anything like that magnitude we would truly set a global example.   And then there is the opportunity for bio-char.   In the normal course of events millions of tonnes of crop waste are either burned or allowed to decompose in the field. Most of the carbon embodied in this biomass is lost as CO2 to the atmosphere.   But by heating this material in the absence of oxygen, in a process known as pyrolysis, about half of the carbon content is turned into biochar, or charcoal, and the rest into biofuels that can be used to generate green energy.   Biochar is then returned to the soil, which dramatically increases agricultural productivity – indeed the benefits of adding charcoal to tropical soils was discovered by the Amazonian tribes long before the arrival of European settlers.[8]   In Australia, Alumina Ltd, which owns 40 per cent of Alcoa of Australia Ltd, is indirectly responsible for over 5 million tonnes of CO2 emissions from its investment in the alumina refining and aluminium smelting operations. Alumina has sought to find a cost effective means of offsetting its emissions for a cost of less than $20 per tonne of CO2e and they have been sponsoring a bio-char project using crop wastes and mallee in the wheat belt of Western Australia. Their project is aimed at delivering:   ·         higher yields for the farmers whose land will benefit from the bio-char being turned back into the soil – only this week I’ve been speaking to one of those farmers whose crop yields have increased by 30 per cent, ·         development of potential permanent carbon offsets for Alumina, and          ·         the production of renewable energy.   In other words – a win, win, win.   Alumina believes that they can scale their existing project to offset 6 million tonnes of CO2 each year (that’s 1 per cent of our current annual emissions). They estimate the total biochar potential of the West Australian wheat belt is 25 million tonnes each year and the national potential is conservatively 100 million tonnes – or around 15 per cent of our current emissions.[9] To realise this opportunity bio-char however needs to become an eligible offset both for our own ETS and for the successor agreement to Kyoto and I commit a Coalition Government to supporting it becoming so.   On a global scale some biochar advocates, including Tim Flannery,[10] contend the widespread use of this very basic technology could remove from the atmosphere, over 20 years, all of the 250 billion tonnes of carbon added since the beginning of the industrial age. In other words we are talking about gigantic opportunities for CO2 abatement – letting nature do the work she knows best.   Bio-char has the distinct advantage over other forms of bio-sequestration of being stable and very long lived. Indeed the most recent research by the global expert Professor Johannes Lehmann of Cornell University (who has given us a great deal of assistance with this work) indicates that bio-char will last in soils for several thousand years before decaying[11].   Having discussed organic soil carbon and bio-char, I’ll now turn to a third means of removing CO2 from the atmosphere which is more familiar and that is by revegetation, reduced deforestation and tree planting.   Deforestation currently contributes 20 per cent of all human greenhouse gas emissions. This is most dramatically seen in the tropical rainforests of the world – truly the lungs of the earth – where continued deforestation is causing environmental devastation on every front – rivers polluted, habitats destroyed, soil productivity ruined.   That is why in 2007, as Environment Minister, I established the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate, a $200 million programme to promote sustainable forestry practices in tropical, developing countries and in particular working in partnership with our close neighbours Indonesia and Papua New Guinea.   Tree planting is a well recognised means of offsetting emissions. Indeed the main reason Australia will meet its Kyoto Protocol target[12] is because of the reduction in land clearing since 1990 and the growth of managed forests and plantations.   Whereas the use of bio-char and land management practices to promote the growth of organic soil carbon promote agricultural productivity and hence increase the capacity to produce food and fibre, the planting of trees potentially, I emphasise potentially, competes with other crops.[13]   In many cases, however, tree planting actually complements agricultural production. Every windbreak, treelot or hedge planted by farmers to protect pastures, crops and livestock is both sequestering CO2 and increasing agricultural production – as Lucy and I know very well from our own experience over 26 years of farming in the Hunter Valley in New South Wales.   In a recent study of the potential for environmental carbon plantings in Australia, the CSIRO’s Dr Phil Polglase and other authors concluded that with a carbon price of $20 per tonne, plantings would be profitable over at least 9.1 million hectares of economically marginal low rainfall country with the potential to remove 143 million tonnes of CO2e per annum from the atmosphere – the equivalent of about 25 per cent of our 2005 emissions.[14]   Now that is only one example of the potential for CO2 abatement from revegetation. As the Garnaut Review notes 70 per cent of Australia consists of arid and semi-arid rangelands which have been degraded by marginal grazing operations. It is estimated that about half of Australia’s annual emissions could be absorbed by improved land management practices that enabled revegetation.[15]   Just as importantly, and I stress this, all of these measures, if well managed, offer considerable collateral benefits to the environment, to agricultural productivity, to biological diversity as well as assisting in the global battle against climate change. They also mean new, reliable sources of income for farmers and country towns. This brings jobs to the regions of Australia.   This natural dimension in the climate change policy front has been largely neglected both by the international Kyoto process and by the Rudd Government. Soil carbon and bio-char are for all practical purposes ignored as legitimate carbon sinks. While forestry is recognised as a carbon sink, the rules are complex, contradictory and often counterproductive.   A Coalition Government will ensure that Australia achieves very substantial reductions in CO2 emissions by 2020.   We will establish as part of our own Green Carbon Initiative a co-ordinated biocarbon strategy which will ensure that we harness our best scientists and our most innovative and dedicated farmers into a great national objective of improving the health of our croplands, pastures and rangelands.   And as I said at the outset this Initiative will aim for additional emission reductions (net offsets) of at least 150 million tonnes per annum by 2020.   We will invest in our own land and at the same time offer the world an example of how real, practical action can be taken in the battle against global warming in the here and now.   These reductions in emissions will be well beyond those proposed by the unimaginative, bureaucratic White Paper of Mr Rudd.   They will bring greater environmental benefits and they will be more cost effective. And those Australians who are quite convinced that by 2020 the global warming thesis will have been disproved, will nonetheless be pleased to live in a country with a healthier, more sustainable, more productive and greener landscape.   In the meantime, if Mr Rudd is looking for something useful to do on his extensive overseas travels he should focus on climate policies that are practical and effective and join the growing list of nations that are arguing for bio-char and soil carbon to be included in the Kyoto framework as eligible offsets and that the existing Kyoto rules on forestry are rationalised so that they discourage deforestation and promote sustainable forestry practices.   I’ll now turn to energy efficiency, particularly in buildings, and then to the development of low emission technologies.   It is widely accepted that almost 30 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions from buildings can be avoided at no net cost through a wide range of technologies and design improvements. However the price signal contained in the Rudd Government’s CPRS will deliver less than one fifth of this amount.[16]   Now this should be a high priority for any government. Not only do most of these energy efficiency measures pay for themselves, but once again improving energy efficiency is a classic “no regrets” policy with many benefits over and above emissions reduction.   Yet the Rudd Government’s plan drops the ball on this opportunity as well. The White Paper itself recognises that it has missed a massive opportunity for low-cost abatement, by acknowledging and I quote, that “(e)nergy efficiency represents a significant opportunity to achieve low-cost abatement and could help to cut future energy demand growth buy as much as half”.[17]   But that opportunity is missed. There is no strategy to realise them. No new policies on energy efficiency have been deployed or developed since the election of the Rudd Government.   Recognising that an ETS will never be sufficient to deliver rapid improvements in energy efficiency in buildings, the Green Building Council has called for a number of measures to address this policy gap, including accelerated depreciation for retrofitting green technology to existing buildings. Wherever regulations can encourage energy efficiency at either low or negative cost, they should do so.   And one can well understand in this environment incentives of that kind provide a real fiscal stimulus for employment and investment and work.   Now one of the most effective energy efficiency measures is insulation and yet nearly eighteen months after it was promised the Rudd Government has not started to provide a $500 rebate for the installation of insulation in rental properties.[18]   In Government I was the first Environment Minister in the world to announce a ban on inefficient incandescent lighting, and I have seen first-hand the enthusiasm in the architecture and design communities for sustainable development. The only missing element is imaginative leadership and encouragement from Government to enable Australian ingenuity and idealism to ensure our buildings are clean and green.   McKinsey has estimated the building sector can achieve, by 2020, emission reductions close to 50 million tonnes of CO2e – approaching 10 per cent of our current level of emissions.[19] The Centre for International Economics has estimated that annual cuts of 39 to 45 million tonnes CO2e can be achieved by the building sector at a low cost or a net gain thereby reducing, this is very important,  the overall cost to the economy of cuts in emissions.[20] All overlooked by the Rudd Government.   A third area where the Rudd Government’s plan has let down Australia is in the area of technology.   Right now we depend on burning fossil fuels for over 90 per cent of our stationary energy – with 80 per cent or so coming from coal. Indeed that dependence on coal is why Australia’s per capita emissions are almost the highest in the world.   It is widely acknowledged that the single most important technology to enable the world to move to a low emission energy future is carbon capture and storage – clean coal[21] colloquially. To quote the International Energy Agency: “CCS is… essential to the achievement of deep emission cuts.”[22]   However it is also widely acknowledged that current investment and development of CCS is woefully inadequate. Indeed there is nowhere in the world a large coal fired power station where CO2 is being captured, compressed and pumped underground. Now, there is no country in the world – not one – to whom the successful deployment of CCS is of more importance than Australia.   We are after all the world’s largest coal exporter and coal represents our largest single export – nearly $60 billion a year.    China despite its dramatic increase in nuclear power capacity will need CCS technology on a massive scale if it is to make a meaningful dent in its rapidly growing emissions.   So all in all, CCS is the hope of the side – but it is yet to run on the field. Under the previous Government we committed nearly half a billion dollars to developing clean coal technologies through a range of projects. We established joint ventures both in Australia and in China with leading Chinese energy companies.    And yet despite the Rudd Government’s professed commitment to clean coal, it has done nothing in its first year of office except cut the ribbon on projects established by its predecessor.   Just this week we have seen the Rudd Government deny vital support to ZeroGen, which should be the world’s first commercial scale Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle power station which includes CCS.   This is a project of international significance. If you look at the international literature on CCS ZeroGen is right up there as a very important project – vital to the development of this technology. Yet far from the Rudd CPRS or emissions trading scheme supporting the project, the Rudd Government refuses to allocate free carbon permits to it. In other words, where the dirtiest power stations are getting free permits, our cleanest coal fired power station will have to buy them for the carbon it does emit.   So carbon capture and storage is a vital technology for our nation. I commit to you that a Coalition Government will ensure that at least two industrial scale CCS power stations will be built. We will ensure the financial support is there to make this happen.   Now while CCS is the single most important technology, Australia, and the world, also have vital interests in a number of other low emission energy technologies.   As the latest World Energy Outlook from the International Energy Agency, released in November, states very bluntly, and I quote: “The world’s energy system is at a crossroads. Current global trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable.”   As the IEA goes on to point out, rising global demand for energy is running up against dwindling supplies of oil and gas. But the world is not going to lose its appetite for reliable, affordable energy, the indispensable tool for powering economic development and raising living standards.   In Government we provided substantial financial support to the development of geothermal power, potentially an enormous zero emission source of base-load power. We also supported the building of the world’s largest solar photovoltaic concentrator, in Mildura. And indeed here in Canberra we supported the work that is being done by the ANU with its private sector partners on solar technology.   But since the election, we have seen no new projects, no new investments to support zero emission technologies.   We as a nation are slipping behind in low emission technology.   We must do more, and a Coalition Government will do more.   In addition to our commitment to clean coal, it will be a key objective of the Coalition Government that I will lead that Australia successfully deploys industrial scale demonstration projects in solar energy, geothermal energy and harnessing the energy of the ocean through tidal and wave power.   We just cannot afford to blunder on with Mr Rudd’s miserable, bureaucratic approach. Mr Rudd had his grand symbolic moment when he signed the Kyoto Protocol. But the applause died away a long time ago.   We should lead the world in clean coal. We should lead the world in solar energy. We should lead the world in geothermal power. We have all of the natural characteristics as a nation to do so and it is in our vested interest to do so. But the ball is being dropped by this bureaucratic, unimaginative, sterile Government.   Australia should show the world how we can capture millions of tonnes of CO2 through imaginative biocarbon policies and at the same time improve the health and the productivity of our own landscape.   We can do all these things in a way that will make us stronger, richer and more resilient.   But we need imagination, we need passion, we need courage and above all we need leadership.   A Coalition Government’s Green Carbon Initiative can deliver greater cuts in CO2 emissions than Labor, and can do so by being smarter and more imaginative, by investing in the health of our own countryside, by making our society more efficient in its use of energy and by ensuring we become world leaders in the vital low emission technologies such as clean coal.   And so I say to you my friends, on the eve of Australia Day, that we will do these things because we are determined to ensure that enterprise and innovation deliver to Australians in the 21st Century all of the benefits of a clean, green and productive nation.   Thank you very much.   [ends]     [1] The emissions reduction secured by the biocarbon strategy is estimated to be achievable, based on the information available to us, at costs of around $20 per tonne of CO2e abated. See the example of Alumina Ltd’s biochar project below and the assumed costs in the study of carbon forestry by Dr Polglase cited below. The biocarbon measures also have considerable collateral benefits (increasing agricultural productivity etc) and as a consequence the net cost can be even lower. The energy efficiency measures in the building sector as noted below are estimated to be of low and often negative net cost. [2] Margaret Thatcher, speech to 2nd World Climate Conference, 6 November 1990 retrieved at http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=108237 [3] “The Low Carbon Economy” Conservatives Policy Green Paper No. 8, 2009 at p. 7 [4] Note the United States while not having a federal ETS, nonetheless has slowed emissions growth considerably in recent years by a range of measures including fuel standards, clean energy mandates and other incentives for clean development. [5] Dr Christine Jones Submission to Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport – Inquiry into Carbon Sink Forests (2008). This is calculated on the top 30 cm of soil, assumes a bulk density of 1.4 tonnes per cubic metre and so a hectare 30 cm deep weighs approximately 4200 tonnes. Increasing the organic carbon by 1% increases the carbon in the soil by approximately 42 tonnes, which is equivalent to 154 tonnes of CO2e per hectare. Australia’s emissions are 600 million tonnes of CO2e, so a 0.5% increase in soil carbon over 8 million hectares (a little over 1 per cent of our land mass) would absorb all of Australia’s CO2 emissions. (discussion with Christine Jones). [6] Garnaut Climate Change Review p. 543 [7] Allan Savory “A Global Strategy for Addressing Global Climate Change” http://holisticmanagement.org.au/PDF/A+Global+Strategy+for+Addressing+Climate+Change+2%5B1%5D.pdf [8] See “Our Good Earth” by Charles C Mann National Geographic Magazine September 2008 accessed at http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/soil/mann-text The productivity of this dark “terra preta” prompted a modern era of research that has resulted in a global movement to ensure that biochar has a leading role in future global climate change strategies. See among many sources http://www.biochar-international.org/. [9] Direct discussions with Alumina Ltd executives and advisers. [10] Tim Flannery recently wrote “Biochar may represent the single most important initiative for humanity’s environmental future. The biochar approach provides a uniquely powerful solution, for it allows us to address food security, the fuel crisis, and the climate problem, and all in an immensely practical manner....  Biochar represents a cornerstone of our future global sustainability. With the appropriate political and technical recognition, promotion and adoption, it will change our world forever, and very much for the better.”[10] Open Letter on Biochar August 2008 accessed at http://www.biochar-international.org/timflannery.html [11] See Johannes Lehmann “A Handful of Carbon” Nature, 10 May 2007,“Biochar is a lower-risk strategy than other sequestration options, in which stored carbon can be released, say, by forest fires, by converting no-tillage back to conventional tillage or by leaks from geological carbon storage also “Australian climate–carbon cycle feedback reduced by soil black carbon” by Johannes Lehmann and others, Nature Geoscience, VOL 1 DECEMBER 2008 www.nature.com/naturegeoscience.  [12] Of 108% of 1990 emissions in the period 2008-2012 [13] In fact most of the carbon sink forests announced to date in Australia have been in the form of mallees in wind rows in marginal wheat country where the planting provides crops with protection from the wind, reduces salinity and has the potential of becoming a feedstock for biochar production. Nor do carbon forests have to be monocultures – Greening Australia is already paying farmers for carbon credits created in biodiverse plantings that have collateral landcare benefits such as preventing erosion and also protect our unique and valuable biodiversity. [14] “Regional Opportunities for Agroforestry Systems in Australia” by Phil Polglase and others, October 2008, National Heritage Trust –accessible at http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/AFT/08-176sum.html [15] Garnaut Review, Final Report p. 557 [16] See “The Second Plank – Building a Low Carbon Economy with Energy Efficient Buildings” Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council available at http://www.asbec.asn.au [17] White Paper, chapter 19 [18] At 20 January, the Department of Environment website stated “Program guidelines are under development.” [19] Around 50 Mt CO2e see McKinsey “An Australian Cost Curve for Greenhouse Gas Reduction” 15 February 2008 accessed at http://www.greenfleet.com.au/uploads/pdfs/McKinsey%20Report%20-%20greenhouse%20-%2015Feb08.pdf [20] “Building Energy Efficiency” CIE February 2008 accessed at http://www.thecie.com.au/content/news/Final%20CIE_TPB_Perth%20(with%20animations).pdf [21] Clean coal also includes technologies which increase the thermal efficiency of coal burning power stations and thus use less coal and therefore create less emissions for the same amount of output, but in this paper I will use the terms clean coal and CCS interchangeably. [22] CO2 Capture and Storage – A Key Carbon Abatement Option IEA 2008 at p. 15 malcolmFri, 23 Jan 2009 22:29:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:344http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/295/Doorstop-Interview.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=295http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=295&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/295/Doorstop-Interview.aspxE&OE…………………………………………………………………………………... MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Lucy and I have just been at the funeral service of Nancy-Bird Walton – an extraordinary Australian, a pioneer of aviation, a role model for Australian women, a role model in particular for Australian women pilots. So loved, so admired and really, truly honoured in the service at St Andrews today. We’ve also witnessed this morning a remarkable moment in the history of the United States and indeed in the history of the world – the first black President of the United States. Who could have ever imagined in our lifetimes that Martin Luther King’s dream, of which he spoke in Washington where Barack Obama spoke, his dream where he wished for a day, he dreamt of a day where his black children would be judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. And you saw there in Washington Martin Luther King’s son there among the two million with Barack Obama celebrating his ascension to the Presidency of the United States. Barack Obama says America is ready to lead. Well the world is ready to listen to Barack Obama, to look to him for the vision that he is offering the world. He offers real hope to the world and real energy, and certainly we in the Coalition welcome his election, his inauguration as President of the United States, and we look forward to the bonds between Australia and the United States being stronger then ever under his Presidency. We’ve also seen today some bad news about jobs; jobs being lost in the mining industry – both with BHP and with Rio. This is very bad news for the workers and the families concerned. It underlines the importance of those three priorities I talk about almost every day: jobs, jobs, jobs. The focus of the Government, everybody in this time, should be on promoting and preserving employment. There are real challenges out there.  Businesses large and small are facing challenges and it’s vital that the Rudd Government focus on jobs, jobs, jobs. Any new policies, any new stimuluses should be directed on jobs and they should be carefully considered, they should be considered for their effectiveness so that the tax payer gets the maximum economic bang for the tax payer’s buck, so that we get the maximum positive impact on employment out of every new stimulus measure. QUESTION: The Government is talking about perhaps a bailout for credit market. Do you think that’s a wise way of having stimulus? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, we’ll look at whatever the Government proposes and consider it very carefully on its merits. QUESTION: Given yesterday the Prime Minister (inaudible) talking about placing a freeze on wages, what do you make of this chief of staff Alistair Jordan being given a pay rise? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it’s a complete contradiction, isn’t it? Many Australians will think the Prime Minister is saying one thing and doing another with his own personnel. So he needs to think pretty carefully about consistency in his message. QUESTION: Do you think Australia’s relationship with the United States will change now under the Obama administration? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look, I think it will get stronger. The United States-Australia relationship gets stronger all the time. John Howard, as our Prime Minister, made enormous strides in strengthening and deepening with the Free Trade Agreement and so forth, the relationship with the United States. I don’t think our two countries have ever been stronger or closer. But we’ll get closer still because with travel, with modern technology, with the internet, Australians and Americans are working together, travelling to each other’s countries, and communicating together more and more all the time. So I think we have a very close relationship and I’m very optimistic about that relationship becoming stronger in the years ahead. QUESTION: Do you think that Harry Nicolaides (inaudible) done by? MALCOLM TURNBULL: We are very concerned about Harry Nicolaides’ position, very concerned indeed. We’ve been in close touch with his family and we sincerely hope that the King of Thailand will exercise clemency and grant Mr Nicolaides a pardon. QUESTION: With the job losses in the mining industry, is there some case there for a package for that area, for that arena? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well the mining industry is part of a global market and the reality is that the best stimuluses, the best fiscal stimulus or economic stimulus is one that goes right across the whole economy, one that benefits all businesses large and small, that is not trying to pick out one business rather than another or one industry rather than another. So that’s why we come back to what we’ve been saying for some time and what economists around the world are saying – the most effective fiscal stimulus are tax cuts, cuts in taxation or lowering the burden of taxation on business and enterprises so that they have a greater incentive to hire people, to invest, to grow their businesses. That’s the most effective stimulus and that’s what we’ve been calling for for some time now. Thanks a lot.Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:38:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:295http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/280/Appointment-of-Mark-Coulton-as-Shadow-Parliamentary-Secretary-for-Water-Resources-and-Conservation.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=280http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=280&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/280/Appointment-of-Mark-Coulton-as-Shadow-Parliamentary-Secretary-for-Water-Resources-and-Conservation.aspxI am pleased to announce that Mr Mark Coulton, Member for Parkes, will join the Coalition’s frontbench team as the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation. A farmer and grazier for over 30 years, Mark Coulton brings to this portfolio a wealth of experience in land and water management and a strong commitment to regional Australia.  Mark Coulton’s electorate of Parkes contains over 100,000 square kilometres of the Murray Darling Basin, and he knows only too well the many water challenges facing our rural communities. A former mayor of the Gwydir Shire Council, Mark brings to the Coalition frontbench a deep understanding of the issues and a thoughtful approach to policy making. Mark Coulton will be a valuable addition to our frontbench team and I look forward to working closely with him in this very important portfolio.Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:26:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:280http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/396/How-does-your-ENewsletter-work-How-did-you-get-my-email-address.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=396http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=396&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/396/How-does-your-ENewsletter-work-How-did-you-get-my-email-address.aspx Normal 0 false false false EN-AU X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} Its pretty straightforward. Everyone who writes to me by email goes onto my email list. A lot of people subscribe to the list from my website as well. Also when I exchange cards with others I normally put them on the list too. Some people subscribe their friends on the list as well. It is very easy to get off, of course. Just click unsubscribe. Typically in every send a little less than 1% of recipients unsubscribe. I find the newsletter a very efficient way of staying in touch with my constituents and supporters. It goes straight to the desktop for a start. Also it acts as a good reminder service. Occasionally someone will write to me and ask me a question which I forget to answer. We do get a lot of emails and inevitably some will be overlooked. But if they are sent a newsletter they will often write back and say: Thanks for the newsletter, but what about my earlier email? All replies come straight to my inbox and generally about one half of one percent of those sent the email reply with a comment or a question.         malcolmTue, 20 Jan 2009 05:58:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:396http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/294/Interview-with-Sonya-Kruger-and-Todd-McKenney-Mix-1065-Sydney.aspx#Comments1http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=294http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=294&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/294/Interview-with-Sonya-Kruger-and-Todd-McKenney-Mix-1065-Sydney.aspxE&OE…………………………………………………………………………………... KRUGER: Thank you so much for coming in Malcolm. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it’s great to be here. KRUGER: What did you do for Christmas? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I had a very quiet family Christmas at home. Our kids were both in town – Alex who lives in Hong Kong was down and Daisy was there too of course. She lives in Potts Point, so that’s not very far away. But it was good. We had a very quiet family Christmas Day. KRUGER: Does everyone congregate at your place? Do you go through that, ‘oh do I get the ham, do I get the turkey, do I get both?’ MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we didn’t this year but last year. Lucy has done the big family Christmas on many occasions but we just had quiet one this year. MCKENNEY: At the house. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah, just at home. Yeah. MCKENNEY: The salmon palace… I’ll be bringing that up in the debate. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Very good, very good. KRUGER: Todd has issues with the colour of your house. MCKENNEY: No I don’t. You’re giving away my material.  Have you ever debated before? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Ah yes, yes. Once or twice. KRUGER: Todd, you have met Malcolm Turnbull, haven’t you? MCKENNEY: How do you relax? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh just generally by doing physical things. I like to walk or swim or paddle a kayak. I like doing things. I’ve never been one for lying on beaches. But, you know, I like to read. I read a lot, I read all the time. MCKENNEY: Because we saw in the paper today that Kevin Rudd does the Bondi to Bronte walk but apparently he doesn’t walk it quite as fast as John Howard did. So what sort of pace do you think you’d keep up if you were a leader of the free world? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah well… it’s funny….. MCKENNEY: Are you fast walker, Malcolm? MALCOLM TURNBULL: It depends. It depends who I’m with. If it is just Lucy and me we’re pretty quick….. MCKENNEY: Because the success of the government hangs on the pace of that walk. You know that, don’t you? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah… You’ve got to be very careful on that Bondi to Bronte walk you don’t slip down the stairs. MCKENNEY: Yeah you do, or get pushed. MALCOLM TURNBULL: That’s right, or go over the cliff. KRUGER: Malcolm we’ve got a SMS number so that people can text us and we’ve got a text message here from a listener named Kevin, named Kevin that’s interesting….. MCKENNEY: It’s Kevin Rudd. MALCOLM TURNBULL: That is a give away. KRUGER: The question is: Todd, can you ask how Malcolm would pull Australia out of this financial trouble and could he do better than Kevin Rudd? MALCOLM TURNBULL: The answer to the second part of the question is definitely yes, a lot better then Kevin Rudd. Firstly, I wouldn’t be blaming everything on the global financial crisis as though there’s no responsibility in Australia for dealing with it. Secondly, I would be focusing on spending our money, tax payers’ money, on things that will actually promote employment. The three top priorities this year are jobs, jobs, jobs and that’s why we’ve been saying that the stimulus, if you want to give a stimulus – and clearly governments around the world have been doing that – the most effective way to do that is to give tax cuts that will stimulate business to invest, to hire, to retain staff, to engage in the business activities, the myriad of business activities that keep the economy humming along. And so that’s why we’re very focused. Everything the Government does this year, every single bit of policy, no matter what it’s related to, has got to be directed at jobs. KRUGER: So it’s job creation? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Job creation and job retention, Sonia. MCKENNEY: What about Kevin Rudd saying today, ‘don’t sack anyone but don’t give them a pay rise either?’ What type of solution is that? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it’s fine for him to say that but the fact is that businesses are going to have to and will try to stay profitable and you need to have a strong confident economy so that businesses can afford to retain their staff and indeed hire new staff and continue to invest in their businesses. So yes, of course, we don’t want people to be sacked and we think employers should look beyond the crisis and endeavour to keep their team together. I mean, you know as someone who has run businesses over the years I can say to you that in almost every business your best assets are not the bricks and mortar or the equipment or anything like that, it is the people that you have. So you should always try to keep your team together. But it’s very hard to do that if you’re in the red, if you’re losing money. So that’s why it’s important… KRUGER: So tax cuts? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Tax cuts are very important and there’s been a lot of work done on this in the US and it’s clear the evidence is that tax cuts are a better stimulus than just making payments. MCKENNEY: The thing that worries me most about the way you answered that question is that you didn’t say ‘um’ or ‘ah’ or stumble over your words at all and that worries me for the debate in a minute because I have no clue what I’m about to talk about. [commercial break] KRUGER: Now just before we get to the debate I need to talk to you Malcolm about the fact that you’ve been playing with your BlackBerry there and talking about something called ‘Twitter’. MALCOLM TURNBULL: I’m trying to get some clues. I’ve put on Twitter that I’m about to debate Todd and I’m just hoping to get some quick clues. KRUGER: So what’s Twitter? It’s very high tech. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it’s twitter.com. It’s a bit like Facebook. Sort of a cut down version of Facebook, I suppose, it’s a social networking site and just put in what you’re doing at the moment and… MCKENNEY: Like what? What’s an example? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh, I’m brushing my teeth. Debating Todd. Sonia has given her adjudicator’s instructions – no biting, no scratching, no holding. MCKENNEY: Oh right! KRUGER: You’re very up with the times. Alright, let’s get to the debate. Now the topic Andy is? ANDY: That Malcolm Turnbull should not be Australia’s next prime minister. MCKENNEY: I can’t look at him while I do this. ANDY: Taking the affirmative side Todd McKenney. So 30 seconds will be on the clock. MCKENNEY: Malcolm Turnbull should not. ANDY: Are you ready to go? Time starts now. MCKENNEY: Alright, well God forbid if we have someone debonair in parliament. Parliament wouldn’t know what to do with itself. We all know that parliamentarians are grey suited, crumbled up, farting, smelling, red wine-stained lips, boring people. If you step in there it will change everything – that worries me. The other thing is the colour you painted your house. It’s salmon, Sonia, not white with a hint of salmon. It’s get that salmon out of the river and slam it against the house, that sort of salmon. Now if you’re prepared to make brave decisions like that, it worries me about what other brave decisions you might make in parliament. I’ll give you credit where credit is due though, you’re going to be a good debater. I know you’re a professional at this and now that we’re debating in front of the masses that makes you a mass…… I ran out of time. KRUGER: Very good. Now Malcolm I am adjudicating but I’ll reserve my judgement on Todd until the end of the debate, until we hear your side. ANDY: So that Malcolm Turnbull should be Australia’s next prime minister. MCKENNEY: Aren’t you threatened by what you’ve just heard Malcolm? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look, I’m really beaten up about it but the best thing about me being prime minister is that the Prime Minister will be coming out to MIX FM regularly. See, I’m doing alright now with Sonia. ANDY: Thirty seconds will be on the clock and your time starts now. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Australia deserves a prime minister that’s prepared to make strong, tough decisions in Australia’s interest. The big priorities, as I said earlier, this year and every year really, but particularly this year, are jobs, jobs, jobs. That requires strong leadership. It needs a prime minister who is not going to blame everything on the rest of the world, who is not going to pretend that he inherited a terrible economic situation from the Coalition government – that’s what Kevin Rudd was saying last year. He talked up inflation, talked up interest rates, made our economy worse. What we need is real action, real ideas, imagination, vision. That’s the way forward for Australia. MCKENNEY: But you couldn’t fit it into the timeslot? You went over. Is there a penalty for that? KRUGER: No, because he speaks more slowly so we can actually understand what he says. MALCOLM TURNBULL: It’s done on per word basis. KRUGER: I have to judge Todd on manner, matter and method. The manner offensive, Todd, the matter we’re unable to discern, and the method was chaotic. Therefore Malcolm Turnbull is the winner. MCKENNEY: Congratulations. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh thank you, thank you. KRUGER: Although Todd did make a good point about the salmon-coloured house. ANDY:   Malcolm Turnbull here at MIX 106.5. [ends] Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:35:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:294http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/293/Doorstop-Interview.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=293http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=293&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/293/Doorstop-Interview.aspxE&OE…………………………………………………………………………………... MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well last night the Prime Minister said that he was considering a second round of a fiscal stimulus and this morning we’ve seen Gerry Harvey, one of Australia’s largest and most astute retailers, saying that he thought the fiscal stimulus of late last year had had very little effect and that in his view it may have been better off not being spent in that way. Now we won’t know how much effect the fiscal stimulus of last year had until we get all the official figures – so the jury is still out on that. But Mr Harvey’s remarks, coming from a very experienced retailer like him, underline the importance of any additional round of stimulus being very carefully considered, very disciplined and very, very focused on jobs, jobs, jobs. Every element, every aspect of government policy must be directed on preserving and promoting employment. Discipline is vital. Tax payers’ money is not infinite. The Government cannot use its desire to run into a deficit as an easy way out – that should be a last resort. So Mr Rudd should take Mr Harvey’s remarks very much to heart and think very carefully and soberly about the next round of stimulus – if he is planning one – and ensure that it contains measures like tax cuts that we know from Australian and international experience will promote employment, investment and jobs. QUESTION:  So are you suggesting at this stage that the first stimulus was botched? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well that’s what Mr Harvey has said. I can’t tell you whether it has been botched or not until we see what the final figures are. But Gerry Harvey’s remarks, I mean he is at the frontline of the economy with one of the biggest retailing businesses in Australia, and his comments I think would send a cold shiver down the spine of Mr Swan and Mr Rudd because what he is saying is that basically that stimulus, while no doubt very welcome by those families and individuals that received it, has not done the job that Mr Rudd sought to do with it. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, Barack Obama seems to be talking, and has for some time, in very positive terms trying to rally the troops, trying to rally everyone. Should the Prime Minister be doing the same? He seems to be talking a lot of doom and gloom as far as our economy is concerned? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well the Prime Minister has been talking doom and gloom ever since he got in. You’ll remember it was a year ago, in fact underneath this very tree here in The Domain, that I was chastising the Prime Minister and Mr Swan for talking down the economy, talking up inflation and talking up interest rates. They have been prophets of gloom ever since they were elected. Initially they took that line because they wanted to talk down the economic achievements and the economic legacy of the Coalition Government and now they’ve used it as a way of trying to absolve themselves from any responsibility for managing the Australian economy. The fact of the matter is that we are in an economic storm; we know that. We will get wet but we should not sink. We will not sink in my judgement if the Rudd Government focuses its policy on disciplined economic strategies to promote employment. That is how we will avoid recession. That’s how we’ll keep the economy strong. But Rudd cannot keep on blaming everybody else for the difficulties that he faces. He’s got to take responsibility and make tough decisions. Gerry Harvey’s remarks today should be very, very sobering news to him – a wake up call to him that recognises that just because a decision is popular and gives you a big headline, doesn’t mean it will work. QUESTION: What do you make of the Prime Minister’s calls for restraint on wage claims? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well there is no question that in this environment businesses will be concerned about wage claims, wage rises, particularly those that exceed gains in productivity. Every business in Australia is under stress at the moment and unions should be very careful, very, very careful not to damage the long term prospects of their members and our economy by excessive wage claims.   QUESTION: And what about his calls for businesses to avoid laying off staff? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I agree that businesses should be very careful about laying off employees. Let me say to you as somebody that has been involved in business over many years that virtually every business large or small in Australia has its best assets among its employees. As they say, the best assets of every company walk in and out of the doors every day. Now these are difficult times and well run companies, companies with leaders that have got vision for the long term will do everything they can to keep their team together. That will be their strategy. But if they’re losing money, if they’re in the red, it’s very difficult to be able to afford to do that and that is why the Government has to make sure that every dollar of tax payers’ money that it spends in fiscal stimulus measures is done so in a way that promotes employment because businesses cannot employ people indefinitely if they’re running up losses, plainly. So it’s up to the Government to make sure that as it spends our taxes it does so in a way that promotes employment. QUESTION: What would you put in a stimulus package? Would the basis of it be tax cuts? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yes. All of the evidence from around the world, and most notably from the United States, indicates that the most effective fiscal stimulus is through tax cuts. Now there’s a whole range of ways that can be done. There are many taxes of course. All of them have an impact on investment decisions, on business and so forth. So there’s a broad range of possibilities there, but you’ve got to ask yourself with respect to every single decision you take to either pay out money or cut taxes and so receive less money into the Treasury: is this going to have an impact on employment and how big an impact will it be? That’s got to be the question. QUESTION: What do you make of the latest opinion polls that see your popularity improving? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I’m not focused on opinion polls. I’m focused on jobs. The numbers I’m focused on are employment numbers, how many Australians are in work. QUESTION: You’ve quoted Gerry Harvey’s assessment of the stimulus package and his suggestion that most of the money has been wasted, or it hasn’t yet realised any great significant impact. What’s your assessment of the $36 billion that’s already been promised, some of which has been spent? MALCOLM TURNBULL: The only money that has been spent is the money that was spent before Christmas that the Government sent out before Christmas, just a bit under $10 billion. Now the concern there is while those payments were obviously very well received by families and in particular by pensioners – and as you know we’d been arguing throughout last year for pensioners to be given extra money, for there to be an increase in the single age pension, so there are powerful social justice arguments for those payments to be made and we had in fact been making – nonetheless the Government justified it on the basis that it would provide an economic stimulus. Now the evidence from the United States, which had done a similar thing in the middle of last year, was that while their stimulus, which was of similar size in proportion to their economy, increased household incomes significantly, it had a very modest impact on household expenditure. Now that lesson from the US experience, based on what Mr Harvey says, may well have repeated itself here in Australia, and then it raises this question: was that money wisely spent? Now I’ll wait until we see all of the official numbers come in, but, you know, Gerry Harvey is siting there with the cash register in the front row of the economy, in the front line of the economy, and his remarks would be of great concern, should be of great concern to the Government and of course are of great concern to us, as they are to every Australian, because if that stimulus has not done the job it was intended to do then the question is could, with a more disciplined, better considered approach, could that money have been put to use in a more effective way? Thanks a lot guys.Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:33:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:293http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/279/Rudds-Clean-Coal-Sham.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=279http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=279&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/279/Rudds-Clean-Coal-Sham.aspxThe Rudd Labor Government’s promises to support clean coal technology have been exposed as a sham.  Labor has refused to provide ZeroGen, Australia’s only commercial clean coal project, with a level playing field on emissions permits – driving the Central Queensland venture to the brink of collapse. “By refusing to allocate zero-cost permits to critical emerging technologies in its proposed emissions trading scheme (ETS), the Rudd Government has turned its back on ZeroGen’s carbon capture and storage (CCS) project,” Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, said. “This unreasonable approach to what could be a breakthrough technology, combined with staffing cuts imposed by the Queensland Labor Government, prove the ALP is all spin and no action when it comes to clean coal.” “Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter and there is therefore no single low emission technology of more importance to Australia than carbon capture and storage. The fastest growing emitters, China and India, are heavily dependent on coal and the world, consequently, has a vital interest in the successful development of carbon capture and storage.” Mr Turnbull said. Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources, Ian Macfarlane, warned Labor’s lack of commitment to clean coal was endangering thousands of jobs in the coal industry. “ZeroGen is the very project Kevin Rudd has been talking up as his international flagship to reduce coal-related emissions and secure the coal industry’s future.  Yet his Government has not lifted a finger or spent one new dollar on technology to advance CCS in Australia,” Mr Macfarlane said. “Labor forgets that without effective low emission technologies there will simply be no means to dramatically reduce industrial emissions of greenhouse gases.” “As ZeroGen teeters on the edge of collapse and the coal industry reels from the imposition of a $1 billion per year cost under the ETS, the jobs of thousands of Australian coal miners in the thermal coal industry are now at risk.” Mr Rudd visited the project site in Stanwell in March 2007 and publicly stated that he and his party supported the ZeroGen venture.  But he has failed to follow through. “It’s time for the Rudd Government to come clean,” said Mr Turnbull.  “It has no magic wand to reduce carbon emissions.  Until Labor gets serious about clean coal and offers more than platitudes, it will continue to put Australian jobs and industries at risk.”Mon, 19 Jan 2009 07:24:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:279http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/292/Doorstop-Interview.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=292http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=292&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/292/Doorstop-Interview.aspxE&OE…………………………………………………………………………………... MALCOLM TURNBULL: We’ve seen some very gloomy forecasts for our economy today and it reminds us all, and should remind Mr Rudd, of the importance of sound, responsible economic management. We know from Access Economics’ report that the interest rate rises at the beginning of last year contributed to the slowing in our economy – in other words they made matters worse. Now those interest rate rises were a direct consequence of the very political actions by Mr Rudd and Mr Swan to talk up inflation. Remember a year ago they were saying, ‘the inflation genie was out of the bottle’, ‘it was out of control.’ They talked up interest rates and they damaged our economy, damage that the Reserve Bank has been busily trying to undo as it rolls back its interest rate rises. We’ve seen another example of the Rudd Government’s poor economic management hurting our economy and threatening jobs only today. The lack of support given to ZeroGen, the big, iconic, clean coal project in Queensland, is not just costing jobs now – the jobs of the people that are being laid off as a consequence of the lack of support – but it could cost potentially thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of jobs in the coal industry and related industries because there is nothing more important, no technology more important to our coal industry, and indeed to the global fight against climate change than clean coal, than perfecting and deploying and demonstrating carbon capture and storage. Now the ZeroGen project is one of the leading projects in the world and it appears that the Rudd Government is all talk and all hype on climate change and has abandoned that. So the three top priorities for this year are jobs, jobs, jobs. So far the Rudd Government’s economic management has been poor and has put jobs at risk. They’ve got to start getting it right in 2009. QUESTION: What about New South Wales? New South Wales is already in recession according to this report, does that surprise you? MALCOLM TURNBULL: No it doesn’t. New South Wales is at the centre of Australia’s economic problems and it’s also at the centre of Mr Rudd’s political base. Never forget that the same political team that have delivered more than a decade of catastrophic economic management to this state, this incompetent Labor state government, they’re the same team that put Mr Rudd where he is as Labor leader and continue to provide him with his key political advice. And that’s why his political strategy is the same as we’ve seen here in New South Wales. It’s all about spin, it’s about headlines, very little substance. QUESTION: You say that jobs has to be at the centre of anything the Federal Government does from now on, but how will the tax cuts that you’ve been advocating create jobs? What kind of tax cuts are you specifically talking about? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Tax cuts have been demonstrated to be the best economic stimulus, the best fiscal stimulus, and you’ll find economists around the world are in agreement on that. And that is because they provide firms and businesses with the incentive to go out and hire employees, to invest, to keep the staff that they’ve got. You need to really stimulate economic activity and the best way to do that is through tax cuts that ensure that businesses are incentivised to do more. QUESTION: So you’re primarily talking about business tax cuts and not personal tax cuts? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well tax cuts go across the board. I mean ultimately business tax cuts, personal tax cuts all amount to the same thing – it’s taking, lifting some of the fiscal burden, the tax burden off the economy, off business, off enterprise that enables people to have a greater incentive to go out and work and invest and be productive. That is what we need. That’s what a stimulus is. QUESTION: Is New South Wales dragging the rest of the country down? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well New South Wales is certainly in very bad shape. There’s no doubt. It is the largest state in terms of population and of course economy, and this city itself, here in Sydney, is the biggest city, the biggest centre of economic activity in Australia and it has been hit hard. But you have to remember, New South Wales has been underperforming for a long time and that is because of the hopeless, embarrassingly hopeless economic mismanagement by the state Labor government. QUESTION: Do you have any advice for Nathan Rees? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well the best thing Mr Rees could do is work out a way to have an early election and put us all out of our misery – but I can’t imagine he’ll do that. QUESTION: Any sort of practical advice that he could use? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh I’ll leave that to my state colleagues to provide more detailed advice. But what New South Wales desperately needs is a change of government. Let’s face it. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull, you said this morning that the Federal Government should only go into deficit as an absolute last resort, but do not these figures and forecasts show that it might be time to do that now? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look it is really a question of discipline. The issue is the quality of the spending. How much economic bang is the Prime Minister going to get for your, the taxpayers’ buck? That’s the question. And so that’s why we say a deficit should be a last resort, not an easy way out. Mr Rudd has been looking for a leave pass to continue not making tough decisions so that he can just spend and spend with no discipline, with no real focus on what results he’s getting from his spending decisions and therefore run up as big a deficit bill as he likes. Now that’s not good enough. All of us know in our businesses, in our households, in our families, we have to have economic discipline and Mr Rudd has to do the same. QUESTION: Premier Rees isn’t really acknowledging these Access Economics figures. He says he’d prefer to get his figures from the ABS and Treasury officials. What do you make of those calls? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I think if you look at the ABS figures going back for some time, New South Wales has been underperforming. I’m not going to argue the merits of Access Economics versus other sources of economic information but it’s been apparent for a very long time that New South Wales has been underperforming economically – and that is direct consequence of the shocking state of mismanagement by the Labor government here in New South Wales. QUESTION: Is he sticking his head in the sand though? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I think Mr Rees and his predecessors and the whole Labor government have been sticking their head in the sand for a long time. Thanks. [ends]Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:32:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:292http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/291/Interview-with-Nicole-Bond-ABC-Capricornia.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=291http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=291&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/291/Interview-with-Nicole-Bond-ABC-Capricornia.aspxE&OE…………………………………………………………………………………... NICOLE BOND: How concerned should Australians be about the Access Economics report? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we should be very concerned and the Access report confirms the point that we’ve been making for some time now that last year’s interest rate rises in the first half of last year, which were brought on by Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd beating up inflation – you remember they were saying inflation was out of control, the inflation genie was out of the bottle. They talked up inflation, they talked up interest rates and those interest rates, because there’s always a lag, started to have an effect on the economy in the second half of last year. And so what we’re seeing is a tough economic situation made worse by the economic mismanagement of the Rudd Labor Government. NICOLE BOND: How much…what, percentage wise, would you say…I mean you were saying the current Government is partly responsible. What percentages are they responsible for and what percentage is unfortunate because of what’s happening in the global situation? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I think it’s difficult to allocate a percentage. In a sense an economic manager, a government, a treasurer or a prime minister is like the captain of a ship and he has to weather the storms. And some of the storms can’t be avoided such as this global financial crisis but depending on the skill of the skipper the voyage will be better or worse. And what we’ve seen is a very, very political approach taken to economic management by the Rudd Government. We’ve paid for that with interest rate rises we shouldn’t have had. And there’s no controversy about that. I mean the Reserve Bank has been busily unwinding them and more. It recognised by the second half of the year that it had made a mistake, but the damage had already been done. NICOLE BOND: Speaking of the skill of the skipper, Chris Richardson from Access Economics says although it sounds dire, Australia will come out of this better than many other western countries. How much comfort can we take in that? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I think he’s right to this extent: again using the maritime analogy, I have said for some time that, yes, Australia is in an economic storm, yes, we’ll get wet, but we won’t sink. We have a very strong economy. The truth is that the Coalition after 11 and a half years of sound economic management left the budget in very good shape, paid off all of Labor’s debt. So we were in the very best of conditions to deal with a global economic crisis. But we have to remember that every single action of the Government this year must be directed at maximising jobs. The three top priorities are jobs, jobs, jobs. And you’ve seen, in Rockhampton you’ve seen the consequences of Labor’s mismanagement with the dreadful impact of their policies, or their lack of policy, on ZeroGen. There is no technology more important for the global fight against climate change and for the jobs of Australians – particularly those Australians working in the coal industry – than clean coal and carbon capture and storage. NICOLE BOND: We’ll get back to ZeroGen in a moment but just staying with the economy for the moment, Access Economics in their report also says that the federal budget will go into deficit. What’s the Opposition’s position on deficits these days? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well deficits should always be avoided if possible, but the real issue is the quality of the Government’s spending. You see deficits are something that we should always try to avoid but there will be circumstances, plainly, where they cannot be avoided. But having said that the real issue is: what is the quality of the spending? The deficit should be as low as possible. Ideally the budget should be balanced. But it’s up to the Government to ensure that its policies spend Australia’s tax payers’ dollars wisely. And what we haven’t seen of course is any tough decisions taken yet, and any new stimulus should be in the form of tax cuts that create jobs. Again the key focus this year, when you cut through all of these numbers and all of these estimates, the key focus must be on employment and keeping that unemployment figure as low as possible. NICOLE BOND: Getting back to stimulus, you supported the first economic stimulus package. Will you support another? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it depends what it is. Again, it’s like the issue of a deficit. As I have said again and again, a deficit must be a last resort not an easy way out. Mr Rudd wants to get a leave pass to run a huge deficit so there can be no constraints on spending. We will hold him to account not just for the level of deficit, not just for the amount of spending, but for its quality and its effectiveness. And the one thing that has been made very clear from experience around the world is that in terms of fiscal stimulus to promote employment, the most effective ones are those that involve tax cuts that stimulate economic activity. NICOLE BOND: Okay you’ve indicated that there are a number of measures that you would do there, the tax cuts et cetera. What else, what other real things would the Opposition like to see done to improve the outlook? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well the critical thing is, again, is to stimulate economic activity and tax cuts that promote investment, that encourage people to hire, to retain employees, to invest – these are all the type of measures that are absolutely vital. NICOLE BOND: Turning now, you referred before to ZeroGen. The Australian this morning is reporting the head of ZeroGen, Dr Anthony Tarr, told the federal Resources Minister, Martin Ferguson, that the Government’s carbon pollution reduction scheme will be a significant barrier to the development of clean coal technology because the five per cent reduction target and a weak carbon price won’t be enough to generate investment. If the report of this letter is accurate and the letter itself is correct, what do you make of the situation? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it just shows that Mr Rudd is all talk and no substance when it comes to climate change. Let me just step back a moment and let’s just focus on the significance of clean coal. It doesn’t matter which agency you’re looking at, whether it’s the UN, the OECD, the International Energy Agency, our own reports – Garnaut and so forth – everybody agrees that the single most important technology in reducing global CO2 emissions is clean coal. And by that I mean technologies that improve the efficiency of power stations and capture the CO2, compress it and pump it under the ground – geosequestration, so-called. Now that is absolutely critical to the world, but it is particularly critical to Australia because not only do we depend on coal for the vast bulk of our energy generation but we are the largest coal exporter in the world. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of Australian jobs that depend on a healthy coal industry and a healthy coal industry going forward depends on carbon capture and storage, clean coal being developed and deployed around the world. Now we have got to take a leading role in that and when we were in government that’s exactly what we were doing, we were supporting clean coal projects around Australia. All Mr Rudd’s ministers have done is cut the ribbon on projects that were started under the Coalition. But what we’ve seen here with the abandonment of ZeroGen is a shocking example of neglect because ZeroGen is one of the headline projects around the world that is being looked at by the rest of the world as an opportunity to prove that carbon capture and storage works. And the clumsiness of the Rudd Government’s handling of this is not just causing jobs to be lost in Queensland, it’s not just causing thousands of jobs in the coal industry to be put at risk, but it’s also prejudicing the global battle against climate change. And it shows that he basically has no sincerity and no real conviction in taking on this great challenge. NICOLE BOND: So in a nutshell would you want to see more government investment in clean coal or a change to policy? MALCOLM TURNBULL: The Government has to do whatever it takes to make sure that we have substantial industrial-scale, clean coal power stations in Australia. The G8 – the eight top industrialised countries in the world – recently called for 20 industrial-scale demonstration projects to be established to be underway by 2010. And when people have done the lists of those around the world, ZeroGen has been among those that have been highlighted. Now for the Australian Government to abandon responsibility for ZeroGen at this time and to so clumsily put together an emissions trading scheme that will actually work against the interests of clean coal just shows that they lack the conviction and they lack the competence to handle this very big economic challenge of dealing with climate change. NICOLE BOND: Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Turnbull thanks for joining us this morning. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Thank you.Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:29:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:291http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/278/Address-at-the-Investiture-of-Trooper-Mark-Donaldson-with-the-Victoria-Cross.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=278http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=278&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/278/Address-at-the-Investiture-of-Trooper-Mark-Donaldson-with-the-Victoria-Cross.aspxTrooper Donaldson on behalf of the Opposition, I’m honoured to warmly endorse the Prime Minster’s remarks and salute you; Australia salutes you for your outstanding act of valour. You wear that medal with such pride Trooper, but Australia has so much pride in you. You have shown remarkable valour in a theatre, in a land, where armies have marched and battled ever since the Army of Alexander the Great fought its way through those hard hills and rocky valleys of Afghanistan two and a half thousand years ago – and you fought for freedom. You have been in the frontline of the battle for freedom, the battle against terrorism, a battle we cannot lose, and we will not lose, because of brave men like you. But more than 2500 years ago, and before Alexander, another great Greek soldier, Pericles, wrote or spoke; ‘freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.’ Our freedom that we occasionally take for granted, but should never take for granted, depends on the valour of men and women of courage – men like you – and we thank you for it and we salute you for it. And you stand in a great line of courageous men who’ve served our country, who’ve fought under our flag wearing our uniform – as the Prime Minister said; ‘there is no greater honour then wearing the uniform you wear today, serving this nation.’ And that is why we thank you from the bottom of our hearts. You stand in a great line of courageous soldiers who have won the Victoria Cross – Keith Payne is here with us. Nearly 40 years ago, like you, he risked his life for others, like you wearing Australia’s uniform under our flag he stood up for the freedoms we enjoy, his courage made that possible. There is a poem written by another soldier called Tony Blake who served in Vietnam in the Royal Australian Regiment (7RAR). He wrote; ‘here comes the rising sun, another night of duty loyally done. I am awake, so others can sleep.’ Trooper you risked your life so that others can live. You risked your life so that others can live in freedom. We salute you. [ends]Fri, 16 Jan 2009 07:19:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:278http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/290/Address-at-the-Investiture-of-Trooper-Mark-Donaldson-with-the-Victoria-Cross.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=290http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=290&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/290/Address-at-the-Investiture-of-Trooper-Mark-Donaldson-with-the-Victoria-Cross.aspxE&OE………………………………………………………………………………….. Trooper Donaldson on behalf of the Opposition, I’m honoured to warmly endorse the Prime Minster’s remarks and salute you; Australia salutes you for your outstanding act of valour. You wear that medal with such pride Trooper, but Australia has so much pride in you. You have shown remarkable valour in a theatre, in a land, where armies have marched and battled ever since the Army of Alexander the Great fought its way through those hard hills and rocky valleys of Afghanistan two and a half thousand years ago – and you fought for freedom. You have been in the frontline of the battle for freedom, the battle against terrorism, a battle we cannot lose, and we will not lose, because of brave men like you. But more than 2500 years ago, and before Alexander, another great Greek soldier, Pericles, wrote or spoke; ‘freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.’ Our freedom that we occasionally take for granted, but should never take for granted, depends on the valour of men and women of courage – men like you – and we thank you for it and we salute you for it. And you stand in a great line of courageous men who’ve served our country, who’ve fought under our flag wearing our uniform – as the Prime Minister said; ‘there is no greater honour then wearing the uniform you wear today, serving this nation.’ And that is why we thank you from the bottom of our hearts. You stand in a great line of courageous soldiers who have won the Victoria Cross – Keith Payne is here with us. Nearly 40 years ago, like you, he risked his life for others, like you wearing Australia’s uniform under our flag he stood up for the freedoms we enjoy, his courage made that possible. There is a poem written by another soldier called Tony Blake who served in Vietnam in the Royal Australian Regiment (7RAR). He wrote; ‘here comes the rising sun, another night of duty loyally done. I am awake, so others can sleep.’ Trooper you risked your life so that others can live. You risked your life so that others can live in freedom. We salute you. [ends]Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:03:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:290http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/289/Interview-with-Michael-Peschardt.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=289http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=289&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/289/Interview-with-Michael-Peschardt.aspx Source: ABC 702 Subjects: Childhood; establishing scholarship; Kerry Packer; sub-prime crisis; books E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………... MICHAEL PESCHARDT: Good morning to you Malcolm. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Good morning Michael. MICHAEL PESCHARDT: Now, this is the last of summer mornings here on 702. We’re not going to go into, in too much detail about the day to day life of politics, the day to day issues of politics. I promise I don’t think we’ll use the word Kyoto once. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Or Keanu. MICHAEL PESCHARDT: Or Keanu, none of that, none of that will happen. What we’re going to try to do, because this is the last day of the holidays, we are thinking on Monday everybody has to get back more or less to normal. Which begs the question: you’re not on holiday. Why not? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Lucy and I had a very pleasant week’s break last week actually in Tasmania. So we had a break and had a bit of time off obviously between Christmas and New Years. Our children were all together. So we had a wonderful, we’ve had a great time over Christmas. Lots of reading, lots of exercise. MICHAEL PESCHARDT: All right, but you’ve got straight back into it. I mean one of the things... I mean I’ve followed and covered politics a lot over the years, and I know people have a poor attitude towards many politicians most of the time. But one thing you can’t say about politicians, in the main, is that they are lazy. It is an extraordinarily demanding job in terms of hours and time. Can you give us an idea of what a normal day would be like for you? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, it generally starts, it always starts very early, doing media, you know talking on the radio. We have a conference call with our team early in the morning. And it often goes right through til very late at night. There’s an enormous amount to do in terms of travel and meeting with people, speaking with people, listening. And also an enormous amount to read, a huge amount of material to read all the time so… so yeah, it takes up a lot of time. But Michael it is an enormous privilege and a great pleasure to be a Member of Parliament, to represent your own community as an MP, in my case the community of Wentworth in Sydney’s eastern suburbs, and also of course as Leader of the Opposition, to represent, to lead our side of politics and put together the policies and the programmes that will take us back into government in 2010. MICHAEL PESCHARDT: Well, before we get onto… we’re going to try and stay away from policy, and I should point out that balance is obviously the bedrock of all good journalism, particularly here on the ABC. And the reason why we’ve only got a Liberal politician is quite simply because Mr Rudd, the Prime Minister, was on holiday, and Julia Gillard unfortunately couldn’t make it because she had other things to do. So that is why we’re only speaking to one side of politics, but as I say, this is not going to be a political interview, if we can help it at any rate.  MALCOLM TURNBULL: Right, well I’m happy to oblige you.  MICHAEL PESCHARDT: OK, let me take you back, if I can, to your childhood. Because it is interesting, you have an enormously interesting background in as much as that you were largely brought up by your father, weren’t you? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well yes, for a big chunk of my childhood, yeah, probably about half of it I suppose, I was brought up exclusively by my father. My mother, Coral Lansbury, who was a writer and broadcaster and academic, left us when I was about nine, and my father brought me up really for the rest of my childhood, and towards the end of my time in high school he remarried, and then I had a stepmother. But for that period in the middle, my dad and I were batching together. MICHAEL PESCHARDT: Mmm. Well that must have been a very special time though, because it does mean that you have a very special relationship with your father. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, I did, yes. He sadly was killed in 1982, Michael, in an aeroplane accident when he was only fifty-six, and I was twenty-eight. But Bruce Turnbull, that’s my father, was a very charismatic man, incredibly loving, and amazingly strong and loyal. He did one thing which I still reflect on a lot, and I think it was very rare. When marriages break down, it’s very often, perhaps almost invariably, acrimonious, and there’s always a degree of resentment and bitterness, particularly when one parent leaves and goes overseas as my mother did. But my father never spoke a critical word of my mother to me. He was absolutely determined that my mother’s departure would not undermine or compromise the love I had for her, or the respect I held her in, and he was quite fanatical about that. And he always used to talk her up, and boost her, and speak warmly and affectionately of her when quite frankly, given the circumstances, he would have been excused for being fairly critical. MICHAEL PESCHARDT: What an extraordinary man. I mean that must have come at a very heavy price for him personally. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it’s interesting Michael. He was killed in ’82, and my mother died in 1991, and I’m an only child, so I inherited each of their correspondence. And my mother had kept all of the letters that my father had written to here when she was overseas, and in those days of course people did have emails, let alone faxes and so forth. And what was really quite heartbreaking was to read those reproachful letters he wrote to her, full of regret and, you know, how could you do this, why did you leave, how can you leave our son, that sort of thing. To think that he could write those letters, seal them up, and then turn around to his little boy and say your mother is the most wonderful woman in the world. And it was just an extraordinary sense of self-control and discipline. Because his objective was to put me first, he wanted to put my best interests first and that’s what he did. So he wasn’t going to indulge himself. He no doubt had a few harsh words to say… MICHAEL PESCHARDT: Away from you MALCOLM TURNBULL: … privately, yeah, away from me. MICHAEL PESCHARDT: I’m not sure I’d have that forbearance or patience. What an extraordinary man. And I know that you have… because you went to Sydney Grammar, didn’t you? MALCOLM TURNBULL: That’s right, from when I was eight, yeah. I was a boarder from when I was eight til I was, well, about sixteen, just getting towards the end of high school. MICHAEL PESCHARDT: And you, as I understand it, set up a scholarship in his memory at the school. Is that… MALCOLM TURNBULL: I did, yes. Bruce had very little money, and he was a salesman, he was a hotel broker, and he went through periods of financial hardship, as a lot of people do, frankly, and a lot of self-employed people do in particular. And most of the time we were living in, we always lived in flats, as indeed most people in my electorate do, and most of the time those flats were rented, and on some occasions… I remember once, when we moved, after my mother left, we moved into a smaller flat and Dad and I came home from school to discover these enormous, white fibre-glass chairs on swivels in our living room in the flat. And it looked like something the Martians had left, or perhaps had been picked up off the set of the Jetsons. And as I said to Dad, what on earth are these? And he said my mate so and so’s just been renovating the waiting room for his dental surgery, and I thought to myself good thing too, that was a very wise decision. And so he was getting together bits and pieces, and we got on together. And he worked very hard, but he struggled to send me to Sydney Grammar School. Now the reason I went to boarding school was simply I imagine because the marriage was breaking down and my father travelled quite a bit as a hotel broker, so that made sense. But he struggled, and so what I did, more than twenty years ago now, was to enable the school to establish an additional means-tested scholarship in Bruce’s memory. So it’s a scholarship that goes to obviously a bright boy who’s done well academically but whose parents could not - or parent, as they’re often single parents – could not afford to pay the fees. So that’s been going since about ’87 or ’88. And that’s a way I thought I could make a useful memorial to my father, who really struggled to send me to that school. MICHAEL PESCHARDT: It was a very challenging background, wasn’t it, you had. I mean, I don’t know if you were aware of... by the sound of it you probably weren’t aware of all the turmoil that was going on, because your father masked you and protected you from it so much. But it must have had ... is that why you, apparently, to me anyway, seem so driven? Is that part of the reason [inaudible]?  MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh well Michael, I’m not great at analysing myself like that. But I always strive to live up to my father’s standards. And they’re standards of integrity, of loyalty, of always putting the interests of the people that you’re looking after, be that your family, or in my case obviously the nation, the people of Wentworth, the people of Australia, putting them ahead of yourself. Bruce really personified service in that sense.    And I have to say, I mean I don’t want you to think that I, you know, had a harsh or deprived childhood, quite the opposite. I mean I was lavished in love by my father. Yes, financially we weren’t always in a strong situation, but so are millions of other Australians, then and now. And in addition I grew up in a wonderful part of Sydney, you know the eastern suburbs of Sydney, which has enormous variety obviously, enormous variety in terms of incomes. And people who live there know you’ve got everything from some fairly tough neighbourhoods to some very affluent ones. But the great thing about it is that all the best things are free. The Nor’easter whipping up the Harbour cools everybody down whether they’re rich or poor, the waves at Bondi are not respecters of your social status, and I remember when Bruce and I used to spend a lot time at North Bondi Surf Club and I have to tell you if you’re in the showers there at North Bondi Surf Club it doesn’t matter whether you’re a Supreme Court judge or a garbo, you’re all the same. MICHAEL PESCHARDT: It’s one of the great things about this country. Just a reminder you’re listening to 702 ABC Sydney Summer Mornings with me Michael Peschardt and our guest this morning, our featured guest this morning is of course Malcolm Turnbull, the Leader of the federal Opposition. Malcolm we were talking about your school days, you went to Oxford, you were a Rhodes Scholar. You went into journalism and then you obviously went back into the law and you were working for the Packer family. MALCOLM TURNBULL: That’s right. MICHAEL PESCHARDT: Tell us about that. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I had worked…when I was a university student I worked at Channel 9 as their state political correspondent, I also worked for a radio station and I was in effect stringing for various media outlets and then I was hired by the Bulletin in my last year of law school so I had a job – for most of my time at university I had a job. And then I did some work in the business end of Consolidated Press in the Packer Empire. MICHAEL PESCHARDT: Much to do with Mr Packer himself or… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah a lot to do and then when I came back from Oxford I practised law for a few years and then Kerry quite improbably asked me at 28 to come down and basically be his lawyer and take over responsibility for all of his legal work and of course… MICHAEL PESCHARDT: That is an extraordinary thing, a 28 year old… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah… MICHAEL PESCHARDT: Why? I mean…we can’t ask Mr Packer of course but why do you think he did that? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I assume he had a high regard for my ability but it was…what happened Michael of course was not long after that as we’re going – we’re now talking about 1983 – Kerry found himself caught up in this Costigan Royal Commission. You may remember he was accused of all manner of crimes, everything from murder down. All these allegations were disproved and ultimately apologised for but it was a terrible period for him and very, very damaging and very fraught and he put his entire confidence in me. We had – I’ll tell you a little story – we had…at one point there were leaks out of the Royal Commission, which were obviously quite deliberate, into a newspaper called the National Times which was a Fairfax weekly at that time, and they were accusing Packer of all of these crimes and referring to him under the nickname of the Goanna. And the question was how do we respond to it? And Kerry had a meeting and there were some very distinguished men of the law there, all much older than me, and me then at 29 I suppose, maybe I might have just turned 30. But anyway I was very young and what are we going to do? And the grand old men said ‘oh well you know you’re just going to have to take legal action and sue and so forth.’ And Kerry said ‘well what do you think Malcolm?’ And I said ‘well I think we have to go on the attack.’ I said ‘I’ve written an 8,000 word denunciation on the Royal Commission and of these allegations and I think you should publish it in full and I think you should go in very hard.’ And the older lawyers said ‘but Kerry you’d be charged for contempt of the Royal Commission, it would be an offence under the Royal Commissions Act.’ And Kerry said ‘how long do you get for contempt?’ And they said ‘oh, five years.’ And he said ‘oh well, I’ll go with Malcolm. If we get five for contempt we’ll do the five years concurrently with the life sentence for murder.’ And we sent it out and it was a bombshell. Every newspaper in Australia published it in full and it really turned the tide and we just said okay, if the Royal Commission wants to play this as a political game, as a battle in the public arena then we’ll follow suit. And so that was…it turned out to be the right call but I often sit back and I think to myself if I was in his position, in that much trouble, would I say I’ll go with the 30 year old’s advice, not the QCs and the senior partners of the big law firms. I don’t know that I…maybe that was what was so remarkable about Kerry, he was very courageous and he was very intuitive. MICHAEL PESCHARDT: It’s funny, that already seems like another world doesn’t it, all those huge characters and just, I don’t know, sort of that courage or the unpredictability of people. People are now so predictable in what they do, everyone does what they think is right or what is considered to be right. Everyone conforms a bit too much don’t you think? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yes and no, I think, you know I’ve been mulling this year a lot over a great line of Mark Twain’s – only fiction has to be credible. And when you look at what’s happened around the world this year, you look at the global financial crisis, all these collapses of big banks that were pillars of the world economic system, and then look at the election of Barack Obama. Michael consider this, there was no script of The West Wing which came close to a Barack Obama scenario. That whole year last year in American politics was remarkable, if it had been put into a script it would have seemed incredible. MICHAEL PESCHARDT: Malcolm there’s so many things I’d like to talk to you about, you mentioned the financial crisis, you obviously were an investment banker, you were right inside that world. Not in a political – I don’t want to turn this into a political thing, I just want to know what your personal observations are and were in as much was this foreseeable? Did people within that world think that this might happen at some stage? Just your own personal observations, not sort of the political… MALCOLM TURNBULL: Okay Michael I’ll be…I won’t say anything political, I’d just say this; I think a lot of people believed the US housing market was getting grossly over-inflated. The US Government had for many years had a whole range of policies, not least were these big Government backed mortgage funds Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which were in effect propping up or pumping up what was an asset bubble. And this is where those people who say, ‘oh this was all caused by an excess of capitalistic, free-market activity’ are quite wrong. It’s interesting in Australia we didn’t have anything…we don’t have a sub-prime mortgage problem and one of the reasons is that our mortgage market is not interfered with and pushed around and subsidised in the way the US market has been. But ultimately asset bubbles always burst at some point. And everybody knows that the market, it might be for housing, it might be for internet shares, it might be for mining shares, everyone will say ‘yes, it’s getting too high, it’s getting too high.’ But then it keeps going up and people say ‘oh well, I may as well get on board.’ And then they become complacent and that generally is when there is some trigger that will cause a meltdown and that really is at the core of it. And right at the core, if you want to say what was the fundamental mistake? You know there are many mistakes, Hank Paulson famously once said ‘there is plenty of blame to go around’ and he’s dead right. But the fundamental error was a very ancient one, it goes back as long as people have been in business I guess and that is lending money to people who can’t afford to pay it back. And if you do that on a large scale you’ll end up with these problems. If you’re lending money to people not because you think they can pay it back but because you think the asset they’re using that money to buy is going to go up in value so that they can refinance their way out of their loan then the minute the music stops and the asset prices stop going up you’re going to have a huge problem. MICHAEL PESCHARDT: You mentioned earlier that you had had a short holiday and that you’d been reading. Can you tell us just one book that you’ve been reading? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I’ve been reading a lot of books, just in Tasmania James Boyce’s book Van Diemen’s Land is fascinating, I really recommend it particularly for people who have read Lucy’s uncle Robert Hughes’s book The Fatal Shore and other books about Australian history. It’s a sort of revisionist history of Tasmania and puts a very different light on the convict experience in Tasmania and describes how for many of the convicts, while obviously places like Port Arthur were a hell, for many of the convicts who didn’t find themselves in those special prisons Tasmania was a place of enormous opportunity, of entrepreneurial opportunity. It puts a different light on that history, that’s been a very interesting book. MICHAEL PESCHARDT: [Inaudible] MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well yeah, I hadn’t seen it until we were in Tasmania and Lucy and I were reading it together, you know when your wife goes to sleep you… MICHAEL PESCHARDT: That sounds wonderfully romantic. MALCOLM TURNBULL: You take the book off her side of the bed and start reading it. Lucy describes it as – she said we’re chasing each other through the book trying to remember whose bookmark is whose. MICHAEL PESCHARDT: It sounds like you had a great holiday, thank you very much for being on the show. One of the things that we do and we’ve been doing on Summer Mornings is asking our guests just to choose a piece of music to play you out. ‘Chan Chan’ by the Buena Vista Social Club apparently is yours. MALCOLM TURNBULL: I nominated a couple of songs but the Mentals ‘If you leave me can I come too?’ I think is a great love song but ‘Chan Chan’ – the lyrics are almost meaningless but it’s just a wonderful bit of Cuban music and very summery, very appropriate for today. MICHAEL PESCHARDT: Very appropriate and Malcolm thank you so much for that. We’ll play your song, thank you Malcolm MALCOLM TURNBULL: Thanks.Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:02:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:289http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/345/Address-at-the-Investiture-of-Trooper-Mark-Donaldson-with-the-Victoria-Cross.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=345http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=345&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/345/Address-at-the-Investiture-of-Trooper-Mark-Donaldson-with-the-Victoria-Cross.aspxTrooper Donaldson on behalf of the Opposition, I’m honoured to warmly endorse the Prime Minster’s remarks and salute you; Australia salutes you for your outstanding act of valour. You wear that medal with such pride Trooper, but Australia has so much pride in you.   You have shown remarkable valour in a theatre, in a land, where armies have marched and battled ever since the Army of Alexander the Great fought its way through those hard hills and rocky valleys of Afghanistan two and a half thousand years ago – and you fought for freedom. You have been in the frontline of the battle for freedom, the battle against terrorism, a battle we cannot lose, and we will not lose, because of brave men like you.   But more than 2500 years ago, and before Alexander, another great Greek soldier, Pericles, wrote or spoke; ‘freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.’ Our freedom that we occasionally take for granted, but should never take for granted, depends on the valour of men and women of courage – men like you – and we thank you for it and we salute you for it.   And you stand in a great line of courageous men who’ve served our country, who’ve fought under our flag wearing our uniform – as the Prime Minister said; ‘there is no greater honour then wearing the uniform you wear today, serving this nation.’ And that is why we thank you from the bottom of our hearts.   You stand in a great line of courageous soldiers who have won the Victoria Cross – Keith Payne is here with us. Nearly 40 years ago, like you, he risked his life for others, like you wearing Australia’s uniform under our flag he stood up for the freedoms we enjoy, his courage made that possible.   There is a poem written by another soldier called Tony Blake who served in Vietnam in the Royal Australian Regiment (7RAR). He wrote; ‘here comes the rising sun, another night of duty loyally done. I am awake, so others can sleep.’ Trooper you risked your life so that others can live. You risked your life so that others can live in freedom.   We salute you.   [ends]    malcolmThu, 15 Jan 2009 22:59:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:345http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/277/Retirement-of-Senator-Judith-Troeth.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=277http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=277&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/277/Retirement-of-Senator-Judith-Troeth.aspxLiberal Senator for Victoria Judith Troeth today announced she will not re-nominate for Senate preselection and will leave Federal Parliament when her current term expires in June 2011. During a distinguished 16-year career, Senator Troeth was an effective and energetic advocate for the people of Victoria, and made particularly notable contributions in the areas of women’s affairs, human rights and immigration policy. She also vigorously represented the interests of regional Australia, and chaired the Federal Liberal Regional and Rural Committee from 1997 to 2002. First elected in 1993, Senator Troeth’s career included service as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Primary Industry (later Minister for Agriculture) during the first three terms of the Howard Government.  She also chaired several important Parliamentary Committees, including the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee. I thank Senator Troeth for her years of hard work and record of service to the people of Victoria.Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:13:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:277http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/276/Labor-waste-inefficiency-and-mismanagement-under-scrutiny.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=276http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=276&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/276/Labor-waste-inefficiency-and-mismanagement-under-scrutiny.aspxThe Federal Opposition is stepping up its scrutiny of the Rudd Government's waste, inefficiency and mismanagement, with Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull today formally launching the Coalition 'Labor Waste Committee’ and website. Mr Turnbull was in Launceston with Senator Guy Barnett who will Chair the Committee in his capacity as Coalition Scrutiny of Government spokesperson. "The Labor Waste Committee is an important part of the Coalition’s commitment to holding the Rudd Labor Government to account for the way it spends and manages tax payers' money", Mr. Turnbull said. "Now more than ever, every single dollar of Government spending must be used as effectively and efficiently as possible and directed towards maximising jobs and economic growth.” “Tax payers need and deserve Government spending of the highest quality and every spending decision must provide the biggest economic bang for their buck."  "Mr Rudd has adopted the state Labor approach of government waste and mismanagement, and the Labor Waste Committee will play an important role in scrutinising the efficiency and effectiveness of every element of the Government's spending.” Senator Barnett said the Committee had already identified examples of Labor Waste, inefficiency and mismanagement. "There is no better example than the $13 million GROCERYChoice website, which to date has been a complete waste of tax payers' money", he said. "Wasteful policy initiatives like this really expose the empty hypocrisy of Mr Tanner’s razor gang process – the outcome of which last year was a Budget that actually increased spending." The new website, www.laborwaste.com, will provide further information about examples of Labor waste and inefficiency, and provide an opportunity for members of the community to alert the Committee to examples of Government waste, inefficiency and mismanagement. The other members of the Committee are Senator Michaelia Cash, Senator Mitch Fifield, Mr Alex Hawke MP, Mr. Paul Neville MP and Senator Scott Ryan.Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:08:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:276http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/288/Joint-Doorstop-Interview-with-Guy-Barnett.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=288http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=288&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/288/Joint-Doorstop-Interview-with-Guy-Barnett.aspxSubjects: Labor Waste website; Tamar River; ETS; pulp mill. E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………... MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well in these challenging economic times it’s more important then ever to ensure that every dollar of tax payer’s money is well spent, that we get the maximum bang for every buck that comes out of Australian’s pockets and taxes into the federal Treasury in Canberra. And so we are determined to hold the Rudd Government to account for their wastefulness and for the way in which they are spending unwisely and extravagantly and imprudently your taxes. And Senator Guy Barnett, here on my left, has established the ‘Labor Waste’ site. It’s a new website; laborwaste.com is the URL, and what Guy’s going to explain how he is exposing and investigating the shameful examples of Labor wasting your taxes. Guy. GUY BARNETT: Thank you Malcolm and thanks for being here in Northern Tasmania on such a beautiful day. Labor Waste: waste, inefficiency and mismanagement. They are big concerns. As an Opposition, as a Coalition, we want to hold the Rudd Labor Government to account. A key way to do that is to make sure that they spend our tax payer’s money wisely, that they don’t waste it, it’s not inefficient and there’s no mismanagement. So this committee, six person committee, which Malcolm’s appointed me to Chair, we will be identifying examples of waste, inefficiency and mismanagement and in fact we already have, and today I want to particularly focus on GroceryChoice. This is $13 million of tax payer’s money that has been allocated to establish a website to help put grocery prices…pressure on grocery prices and to bring them down. This has been a total and utter failure. Thirteen million dollars of your money.  And if I can explain from Tasmania’s point of view, this website has locations of grocery stores here in Launceston and in St Helens and compares the two. Now the fact is people and consumers don’t, and are not interested in that sort of information on a website. In fact the website hits have now reduced some 90 per cent since it was first launched some months ago. So that is just one example and there are many others, including $14 million on advertising for climate change, $28 million to administer and to advertise the economic stimulus package and they are just but a few. And so we will be identifying and highlighting to the community and to the public these examples of Labor waste, inefficiency and mismanagement. And today Malcolm Turnbull has launched the laborwaste. com website that will highlight to the public these examples of waste and inefficiency and mismanagement, it will also provide an opportunity for members of the public to highlight to our committee their concerns in their own community, whether it be here in Tasmania or any state and any community across the country, and we hope to gather that together and from time to time we will be highlighting these wasteful initiatives of the Rudd Labor Government. We’ve already got quite a few and this is a stark contrast. In fact it highlights the hypocrisy of the Rudd Labor Government when they set up a razor gang on the one hand to cut government expenditure, and yet on the other hand are wasting tax payers money, for example GroceryChoice of some $13 million going straight down the drain into a big black hole, doing nothing for the tax payer or the consumer. So Malcolm that’s the news and ladies and gentlemen it’s an initiative which Malcolm has established this committee, we’ve got the website launched today and I’m looking forward to working in the interests of the community to hold the Rudd Labor Government to account. We are already seeing the trends of waste growing and inefficiency and mismanagement growing and we will be on to it like a limpet on a rock. QUESTION: Do you reckon we should put the river on the website and everybody then see how bad it is (inaudible) GUY BARNETT: That’s an option we can look at. The Tamar River is a beautiful river. It’s the lifeblood for Northern Tasmania and you can see today the silt and how bad it is and that’s why we have supported the Launceston City Council in their efforts to do the study, undertake the study and we appreciate the opportunity to meet with the council today, listen to their concerns and get their feedback and Mr Turnbull has done that this morning. QUESTION: Have you been able to give any assurances to the council that you try and fix the problem of the river if in government? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we’ve got to see. Look, we’re certainly very supportive. We’ve got to see what the problem is. I was very interested just then, as you saw, to have a look at the sediments. They’re very, very fine sediments. Obviously when sediments are deposited in a river it’s a function of both the speed of the river and the weight of the sediments. So if you’ve got very fine sediments it suggests that you’ve got a very, very slow flow and I think that’s consistent with what we were discussing with the councillors that the lack of flow in the rivers has meant that there hasn’t been enough energy, if you like, in the water to take those fine sediments out. That’s why I wanted to go down and just see whether it was sand or gravel or whether it was, as it is, it’s almost like a powdery mud. It may well be that the problem is largely a function of the drought. QUESTION: Will you put funding into this…. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well look we’ll see. We’re very supportive of it and we certainly called on the Federal Government earlier in the year to support the study, which they didn’t do. The study is now being funded in large measure by the council and when the study produces its results, then we’ll be able to assess what can be done and what needs to be done and what it will cost and so forth. But we’re certainly very supportive in terms of helping the council but we’ve got to see exactly what the study produces. QUESTION: What do you make of Barnaby Joyce’s comments regarding climate change? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh look, I’m not going to run a commentary on colleagues. Our position is, the Coalition’s position on this issue is very well known. It’s the same as we had in government. We’re very committed to action on climate change that is economically responsible and environmentally effective. QUESTION: Is there a rift between you and the Nationals? MALCOLM TURNBULL: No. There’s always a range of views. The critical thing is that we consider Labor’s emissions trading scheme proposal.  We’ll consider it when the legislation is presented, which I believe will be at the end of February, that’s their timetable.  We’ll consider that through our own processes, through Shadow Ministry and the Party Room and it will go through, no doubt, a very intensive Senate investigation. So we’ll be holding the Government to account there, on the effectiveness of their plans, just as we are holding them to account with Guy’s committee on their wastefulness in terms of spending our tax payer’s dollars. QUESTION: Do you think you can come to an agreement with the Nationals though? MALCOLM TURNBULL: We work as a very close Coalition and I’ve no doubt that we will be responding to this legislation with one voice. But you’ve got to remember we haven’t actually seen Labor’s legislation. We’ve seen an options paper, we’ve seen a white paper, we haven’t seen the legislation. QUESTION: Can you give any specific examples of Labor’s waste inefficiency and mismanagement? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Guy gave the best one. I reckon GroceryChoice is probably, this is a big call, but I reckon it is probably the most wasteful expenditure of $13 million ever. It provides …you know most government websites provide some useful information. This one provides absolutely useless information. It tells you, for example, what the average price of a notional basket of groceries would have been on average over a whole range of supermarkets in a gigantic, often gigantic geographic area a month ago. So in terms of someone who wants to know what the prices are in the shops today, which is really the only relevant thing, it is completely useless. I mean Guy is absolutely hit the mark there. It is classic Labor Party tactics. It’s what they’ve done at state level for years. It’s all about spin. They went into the election campaign saying they were going to bring grocery prices down. And so they got in and they thought; ‘well how can we create the impression of action?’ And so they came up with GroceryChoice, which is a joke but it enabled them to say; ‘we’ve done something.’ And so it’s $13 million of your taxes all for nothing more then a useless stunt. Now that’s the type of thing we’re targeting and there’ll be a lot more, and we’d encourage members of the public who identify examples of this, to log on to Guy’s website; laborwaste.com and let us know more about them. QUESTION: Would you close it down? MALCOLM TURNBULL: GroceryChoice? Oh absolutely. It is a complete and utter waste of money, it also by the way, its worse than that….. QUESTION: …how many jobs would that… MALCOLM TURNBULL: …there’d be very few jobs associated with that little website. Let me just make this point to you though. It actually is a very pernicious website. It’s worth having a look at for this reason alone. As I said it gives you these average prices over a very large area. I mean in Queensland for example the area is I think most of the state, most of Queensland, half the state, it is one area, so it’s useless information, but what it does it gives you an average price for this notional basket of groceries.  And again look at it yourself and you’ll see demonstrated what I’m saying and it compares that in Coles, in Woolies and then in our third category of independents. Now as you know independent grocers, supermarkets range from those that are really competing on price with the big chains and so are very keen, in terms of their pricing, and others which are more expensive because they’re open seven days a week and people are prepared to pay a little extra for the convenience, seven days a week, 24 hours a day in some cases. So there’s a wide range. And people like IGA for example argue, and I think they’re right, that what GroceryChoice does is actually misrepresent because it lumps all the independent supermarkets into one, misrepresents the competitiveness of the independent grocery sector, and you might want to follow this up and talk to some of the independent grocers you know here and you’ll see they’ll be making exactly that point. So it’s not just a waste of money, it’s actually undermining competition in the grocery sector. QUESTION: Do you take any responsibility for delays with the pulp mill here in Northern Tasmania going ahead, given that there’s had to be some changes to the legislation that was already in place.? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I don’t think there’s been any changes to the legislation. Mr Garrett has made a change to the conditions at the request of Gunns, but the conditions are, apart from that, the conditions are the ones that were established by me as Environment Minister in late 2007 with the advice of the Chief Scientist of the Commonwealth and the expert panel that he assembled. QUESTION: With that knowledge though are you happy with the way that you see it proceeding now? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well look it’s really not a question of me being happy or unhappy. The approvals have been given. They’ve been given as environmental approvals always are, subject to conditions, and it’s up to the company now to deliver. When I announced those conditions in late 2007 they said they were, you know, they could work with them, they said they could comply with them, so now they’ve got to get on with the job. It’s their project. QUESTION: What are your thoughts on the penalties for effluent breaches? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well that was the one change Mr Garrett made. As you know under the conditions we established in late 2007 the company was prohibited from operating the plant if it breached the various trigger points in terms of the content of the effluent. There were certain unacceptable levels. If they went beyond they couldn’t continue operating... – what Mr Garrett has done - that is a very big stick, that is a very, very big stick and one that obviously would encourage the company to be extremely careful about, very, very careful about monitoring the content of their effluent, the composition of their effluent I should say. Now what Mr Garrett has done has given the Government the option of just charging them a fine, booking them in other words, that was done at the request of the company and this just underlines the hypocrisy of Mr Garrett who said, when he made his announcement that you know he tried to give the impression that he was stopping the pulp mill or standing in the way of the pulp mill, the only condition that he changed, of any consequence, was that one which he did at the request of the company. And he left the market and the community and stock market, everybody in a state of confusion and it was necessary then for Julia Gillard, as Acting Prime Minister, to come in say, no, don’t worry about what Mr Garrett says, he’s very confused and nonetheless the plant can start being built. I mean Garrett created just complete confusion over the issue. No clarity at all. QUESTION: Mr Turnbull the ACL Bearings company here in Northern Tasmania recently went through some financial difficulty, are you satisfied with the Federal Government’s assistance to that company? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it’s been very meagre and we’ve been discussing that with the council and that’s something we’ll certainly be taking up back in Canberra when Parliament resumes. GUY BARNETT: Just one final thing to back up what Malcolm has said about GroceryChoice. Tasmanian Independent Retailers, Grant Hinchcliff who is the CEO for Tasmania has said to me just today that GroceryChoice website is a total waste of money, so please feel free to talk to Grant Hinchcliff anytime and secondly you asked about examples, we do have examples in addition to the one’s I have already mentioned and GroceryChoice, that’s on a flyer, there’s about half a dozen of them and that’s available for everyone, it’s also available on the website and it highlights some of the examples of waste, inefficiency and mismanagement. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Okay, thanks very much. [ends]Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:57:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:288http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/287/Interview-with-Marc-McCreadie.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=287http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=287&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/287/Interview-with-Marc-McCreadie.aspx Source: 7LAFM, Hobart Subjects: Visit to Tasmania; pulp mill; The Lodge. E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………... MCCREADIE: Malcolm Turnbull good morning. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Good morning. MCCREADIE: Is it true that you’re having a love affair with Tasmania? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I certainly think it’s a beautiful state and Lucy and I had a wonderful vacation here, wonderful week here and I’ve been here working this week, the holiday was last week, but it was a fantastic time. MCCREADIE: Because we hear you’re giving the place rave reviews, which is fantastic – even perhaps willing to be an ambassador for Tasmania in the future? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Tasmania deserves rave reviews. I said to Lucy at the end of our weeks break here, I said; ‘how do you rate this holiday?’ and she said; ‘nine and a half out of 10.’ And I totally agree with her. I mean I’d give it full marks. There’s a lot more to see but we spent a night in Hobart, then we were up to Freycinet, then we spent a fantastic day up near you, up in the Midlands and spent a night in Westbury, which is a most beautiful town, then we had three days in Cradle Mountain – so it was just really terrific. MCCREADIE: A beautiful part of the world, yes, indeed. MALCOLM TURNBULL: And so varied, I mean you know what everyone says in Tasmania, you know if you don’t like the weather wait five minutes and it will be different. The countryside changes within 50km. On Monday we left Cradle Mountain, we drove down through all of that incredibly rich green country, with beautiful standing timber, you know fields with big bails of hay piled up and feed up to your waist in some places it looked like then we came up over past the Great Lake down into Interlaken and into the southern Midlands and it was just drought, so dry, dry as a chip. So it’s a small state but gee, there’s a lot packed into it. MCCREADIE: And how have we treated you? Have we been a pretty friendly bunch overall? Or wanting to ask you a few questions? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh yeah everyone has been very kind, I’m sure they’re not all Liberal Party supporters. I think the people that didn’t agree with me were polite and the people that did agree with me were very generous and kind to both of us. So we had a great time. MCCREADIE: Well that’s good. Now this week its a little bit more business like, what are you up to? I think you’re up our way today? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yes I’m coming up to join Guy Barnett, Senator Barnett, and we’re meeting with the council, we’re having a look at the silt issue in the river. We’ve got some announcements to make. But generally just getting out and meeting people. The best way to represent people is to meet them and listen to them and hear what they’ve got to say and then you’ve got a better understanding of what everyone is thinking and what they expect from their elected representatives. MCCREADIE: Exactly, yes, and I noticed you commented yesterday on a fairly important issue for this part of the world, the Gunns proposed pulp mill, saying that they should get on with it? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well they should get on with the hydro dynamic modelling, apparently there has been some delay in that – (inaudible) well it hasn’t been completed, I’m not sure if its been started. But they’ve got to get on and do their job. MCCREADIE: It’s dragged on long enough that’s for sure, yeah. The other thing is we just want to wish you all the best, thanks for talking to us today and Malcolm Turnbull I’ve got an idea for you; perhaps if you become Prime Minister of Australia, because you love Tassie so much, what about setting up The Lodge in Launceston? You could move it here and with the internet and email these days…. MALCOLM TURNBULL: ….(inaudible) capital of Launceston….. MCCREADIE: Why not? Why not? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I think a lot of people are very critical of Canberra and whether the decision was the right one or not it’s been made, so I think we’re stuck with Canberra for at least the next few hundred years. But maybe the founding fathers of the Commonwealth should have thought of having the National Capital in Tasmania instead. MCCREADIE: On the island state. Malcolm Turnbull thanks for talking to us and enjoy the rest of your time in Tasmania. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Thank you so much. [ends]Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:55:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:287http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/275/NancyBird-Walton.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=275http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=275&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/275/NancyBird-Walton.aspxToday Australia mourns the passing of a great Australian, Nancy-Bird Walton. Nancy-Bird Walton was a pioneer of aviation and one of the greatest role models for Australian women. In an age when women were denied equality in most work places, she learned to fly with Sir Charles Kingsford Smith in 1933 and then became the first Australian women to hold a commercial pilot's licence.  She flew her own Gipsy Moth aircraft as an air ambulance for the Far West Children’s Health Scheme, landing in open paddocks and on the roughest of dirt strips bringing nursing sisters to remote stations and communities in outback Australia. In the Second World War she was the Commandant of the Australian Women’s Air Training Corps and in 1950 she founded, and became the President of, the Australian Women's Pilots Association. Nancy-Bird Walton received many honours - including an OBE in 1966 and an AO in 1990 as well as being deemed a Living Treasure by the National Trust. She published an autobiography entitled "My God,  It's a woman" the words uttered by a grazier, Charles Russell, in 1935 when he realised that he was being rescued from rising flood waters by a woman pilot. Nancy-Bird Walton was a great Australian, generous and public spirited throughout her long life. On behalf of the Opposition, I offer our condolences to her daughter, Anne Marie, her son John, her four grandchildren, and her two great-grandchildren.Tue, 13 Jan 2009 07:05:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:275http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/286/Interview-with-Tim-Cox.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=286http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=286&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/286/Interview-with-Tim-Cox.aspx Source: ABC - Tasmania Subjects: Visit to Tasmania; Peter Garrett; pulp mill; tax cuts; Australian economy; Tasmania E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………... COX: A very good morning to you. It’s good to see you. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Great to be with you Tim. Yes, the holiday ended on Sunday night. COX: On Sunday night. How was it? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh it was fantastic. It was a wonderful week. We started off in Hobart, then we went up to Freycinet for a couple of days and did some hiking and kayaking there and then we had a wonderful day driving through the Midlands, and just saw some of those beautiful towns through there; Ross and Evandale and Longford.  We stayed in Westbury and then we had a few days up in Cradle Mountain and did lots of hiking. COX: Tasmanians are fairly upfront people, did any of them let you know how you were going politically? MALCOLM TURNBULL: It was all very positive – I think people who have got criticisms were perhaps too polite, I can’t imagine everyone thinks I’m doing a great job – but everyone we met was very positive and incredibly generous and welcoming and it was really a great week, we both enjoyed it enormously. Last time I was hiking in the Cradle Mountain area of course was only a few years ago when I was 18 and I was just trying to work out whether the mountains have shown visible signs of erosion in that time….. COX: …or you have…. MALCOLM TURNBULL: …but they seem steeper, they seem steeper….. COX: ….yes, much larger now than when you were 18 I’m sure. Just to a couple of local issues before we look at a slightly larger field and that of course is the mill. Last week Peter Garrett, who had been criticised for not showing much political nous, last week played a pretty impressive hand in keeping the pulp mill a live political issue at least until next years state election and presumably should it stick to the timetable that he laid out, to the next federal election as well. Should he have given a red light or a green light rather than this amber light? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well he should have been straight. It was a very disingenuous performance Tim. I mean he gave the impression that he was saying no to the pulp mill and that he was standing in its way and of course it was Julia Gillard who then had to come out and confirm what everybody knew who had read the conditions of approval, that in fact they could start constructing the pulp mill. The reality is that there’s always been, Gunns has always had to, under the conditions I imposed in 2007, have always had to pass certain tests, approvals, complete hydro dynamic modelling and so forth before they can start operating. So the only condition, the only condition of any consequence that Mr Garrett changed in the 2007 conditions of approval was one changed at the expressed request of Gunns. So let’s just be straight about this. Peter Garrett tried to spin himself into saying no to the pulp mill but he did no such thing. COX: Gunns though says that the requirement for them now is to provide greater testing of what will occur in Bass Straight over a longer period. Is that appropriate, should you have sort more data along those lines? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we did if you look at the conditions, they’re on the Environment Department’s website, you can see the 2007 conditions required that the hydro dynamic modelling be completed before the mill commenced operations. It had to be completed to the satisfaction of the Government, of the Environment Department, the Environment Minister in fact, and if the hydro dynamic modelling showed that the pipeline’s course of direction, it’s design was somehow or other inappropriate then that would have to be changed. And as you know in the conditions that I imposed, if the targets, the very strict targets in terms of the content of the effluent are not met, and cannot be met by Gunns then they could be required to move to tertiary treatment, and the mill under the conditions I imposed cannot operate, is not allow to operate if it goes beyond those limits. Now this is where Mr Garrett changed the conditions. He changed the conditions so instead of there being a blanket ban on operations beyond if the mill is operating outside of those very strict parameters, instead the Government can just impose a monetary fine. Now that condition was changed at the request of the company. COX: Is that too small a stick do you think? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it is a much smaller stick. Now I’ve been out of the loop with it for more than a year now but I thought Peter Garrett was very disingenuous in the way he tried to suggest that he was taking a tough line. I mean the company was delighted and they got the condition, changes to the conditions, that they sort. COX: The shut down provisions though still exist within the Tasmanian state laws…. MALCOLM TURNBULL: …well again they may well do so. If you look at the conditions that we imposed or (inaudible) in 2007 it simply said the mill cannot operate beyond these given parameters. COX: Did you find in your time as Environment Minister and since then that this is a much larger issue, particularly in Victoria and in parts of New South Wales, than people in Tasmania realised? I don’t know if it was a slow news day last week, there’s certainly plenty around, but this was a very, very large story in electronic media and the newspapers last week. MALCOLM TURNBULL: I’m very aware of how big an issue it was. You may remember it featured very heavily in the campaign in my electorate in 2007. Look, it’s a big issue everywhere and at the heart of it is the whole question how forestry in Tasmania, that’s really what the guts of the political issue is about – it’s a debate about forestry. COX: If Minister Garrett were to have acted more decisively last week, should he have allowed construction and operation of the mill to have commenced? MALCOLM TURNBULL: He could not have allowed...well you can’t allow a mill to operate unless it’s built obviously, but the conditions I imposed in 2007 have been changed by Mr Garrett, only…. there’s been some changes to the pipeline route and a few bits and pieces like that, but the only substantial change is the one we discussed a moment ago and that was done at the request of the company. So Peter Garrett trying to suggest that he was being tougher with Gunns than I had been, is simply untrue. COX: Will it ever be built do you think? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well who knows. COX: No one knows. MALCOLM TURNBULL: No one knows.  Well you’ve really got to ask yourself, obviously there are political issues, including state political issues, because we must never forget that the overwhelming majority of the responsibility for this mill lies with the state government, you know this is primarily a decision for Tasmanians. That’s very important to remember that. The second point of course is financing, and these are very difficult times to finance anything, so you’d only have to pick up the newspapers to see how challenging the economic environment is and the financing environment is. So I think those are the big challenges that the company faces and that’s where a lot of people are pessimistic about the prospects of it being built. COX: I’ll talk about the future in a minute but with your background of course in banking, would you finance a project like this? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well with my background in banking I wouldn’t give you an opinion unless I could see what the numbers are and I don’t have access to that data and really, the reality is financing big projects like that is never easy in the best of times, never easy, financing something like this or indeed any project.  Walk out the street, find a property developer, you know he’ll be having challenges raising money. Everyday the papers are full of the financial and economic challenges business is facing and so the pulp mill is not exempt from that. COX: Malcolm Turnbull here on 936 ABC Hobart and ABC Northern Tasmania at 18 to nine. There is talk or urging that Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd fast track tax cuts now as a manner of keeping the economy afloat and keeping money injected into the economy, will that work if they do that? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Tim we advocated bringing forward the tax cuts due in July ‘09 last year. Tax cuts are the most effective fiscal stimulus. They’re more effective than just giving people money, which is what the Government did before Christmas, and there’s been a lot of research in the United States, very recently, which demonstrates that this is the case. So there is no doubt that tax cuts across the board are the most affective fiscal stimulus and we argued last year that tax cuts should be brought forward. That is the best way to promote business and of course promote business activity I mean, which of course encourages people to take on employees, retain employees, invest, take risks, make all those decisions that keep the wheels of industry moving. COX: So what might have passed by perhaps in the interim between the urging along those lines from the Coalition and a time in the future perhaps, the end of this financial year when those tax cuts will commence? MALCOLM TURNBULL: The Government has obviously got to way up the economic situation. Every time you bring forward a tax cut of course you’ve got a cost to the revenue. Having said that if you bring forward tax cuts at least you know what it’s going to cost you because the tax cut is going to be there, all you’re losing is the revenue between now and when the tax cut would have come in anyway. So we believe there is a very powerful argument for bringing forward tax cuts and there is no question that if you’ve got – and you know John Taylor the great American economist at Standford has published some very important work on this most recently – there is no doubt that if you’ve got a choice between say spending $5 billion or $10 billion in just grants to people and having $10 billion in tax cuts has the same cost to the Treasury of course.  On one hand tax cuts reduces your revenue, a grant increases your expenditure. The tax cuts will have a great economic long term economic impact. And this is one of the interesting things that came out of the American fiscal stimulus, which was essentially hand outs, you know grants and rebates and so forth, in the middle of last year.  It resulted in a big increase in household incomes but a very modest increase in household expenditure and that’s because people in uncertain times are much more likely to save the money, pay off some debt, put it in the bank, all of which is very prudent. So what you really want to do is provide incentives.  That is great virtue of reducing taxes because it gives an incentive to business to go out and invest, to hire, to take risks, to do all those things that in uncertain times they’re reluctant to do. COX: If they go the full financial year then without bringing them in early, would you advocate larger tax cuts than are on the table already? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Tim we’ll weigh that up. Like the Government, we’re looking very closely at the economic situation and the numbers that are coming out.  The jobs figures yesterday were very concerning.  As I’ve said again and again the three top priorities for all of us, but particularly for the Government this year should be jobs, jobs jobs.  They’ve got to be focused on employment and that is why tax cuts are a very effective tool because they provide greater incentive to businesses, because it means obviously there’s more reward for the investment they make, for the employee they hire and so forth. COX: Christopher Pyne believes that the Liberal Party needs to come more to the centre, needs to find a greater ground for the formation of policy and obviously with that he believes would come a wider electoral appeal. Do you agree with that? Does it need to be a more organic process rather than one that’s manufactured like that? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I’m not quite sure what you mean by organic, but the fact of the matter is the Liberal Party is a broad church and we have to appeal, you know we draw our support from a broad range of views across the community. What unites us all as Liberals is our commitment to freedom. Ultimately, in the final analysis, we believe that governments role is to enable you to do your best, to enable you to maximise your opportunities to fulfil your dreams, to build your business, to live your life as you see fit with the minimum of interference and regulation from government. Labor’s view of the world is different. They believe governments job is to tell us what is best. The big philosophical divide between Liberal and Labor is one based on freedom. COX: Is there a difficulty for you though in getting clear air on a message like that, being a champion of freedom for example when so many members of your frontbench were part of the government that locked up asylum seeks and the children of asylum seekers? Is that going to be a very difficult path for you to map? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Tim every government and every opposition and every politician has got to move forward. We have to recognise that the electorate are interested, everyone is interested to a greater or lesser extent in political history, but what the electorate really wants to know is what are you going to do for me today, tomorrow, next week, next year, in the next decade? And so you can be proud of your history, you can learn from your history, you can learn from your successes and from your failures. But ultimately you cannot be a captive of it. So you’ve got to move forward and the Liberal Party is progressive party, it’s a party committed to freedom, it has to be a modern party and we’ve got to move forward with new policies, new ideas, all of which will be in line with the circumstances and the needs of the times, because times change, and so your policies have to change with them.  But they will all be tied together Tim with that one thread of freedom, that commitment to freedom. COX: Finally, how do you see Tasmania figuring in what you endeavour to do as Opposition Leader? The party lost its two House of Reps seats, it lost a Senate as well at the November 2007 election, how can you change that Malcolm Turnbull, how can you make that different? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we will win seats in Tasmania by….. COX: …will you win them or will Kevin Rudd lose them? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I guess if we win them he loses them. COX: But you understand the difference I’m sure….. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah I understand that. Well that’s a good point. Let me answer it in a slightly different way. As an opposition you can sit around and wait til people just get sick of a government. There is a period of time when governments, people get bored with you, you know the government runs out of steam, it’s like anything else, it gets too much time on the clock. We are committed to winning in 2010. Now we believe that Kevin Rudd’s failures as a leader, his inability to take tough decisions, the spin, you know all of this emptiness and hollowness of the Labor Party spin, we believe that will become apparent by 2010. But equally we believe we have to give the people positive reasons to vote Liberal, to vote for the Coalition. We can’t just, in effect, wait until people are so fed up with Labor that they’ll vote for anybody that is electable, as an alternative. So we are committed to new policies, new programs which as I said are consistent with that principle of freedom but above all show people, give people positive reasons to vote for us. Now as for Tasmania you have the most wonderful state here. This is a most remarkable place and I’ve always loved coming to Tasmania and this last week has just underlined how very special it is. You know the variety, the diversity of landscapes, of everything in such a small area is incredible. COX: But….. MALCOLM TURNBULL: …well there’s no but.  I think Tasmania’s greatest years are ahead of it. I think what it needs is visionary leadership, it needs energy, it needs Will Hodgman, it needs a change of government.  This is a very failed, tired, discredited state Labor government here.  But it needs new energy and this is a really exciting place and I think you have here - let me just make this point to you; Tasmania is… you know you take the view and say Tasmania is a long way away from Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth, whatever, but there I was up at Cradle Mountain, literally at Cradle Mountain taking a picture of Lucy on my Blackberry and emailing it to my children; one in Sydney and one in Hong Kong. So you know we are conquering the tyranny of distance or unshackling ourselves from the tyranny of distance every day more and more. So with good transport, good telecommunications, isolation is a thing of the past and what you have here is so special that I think this is going to be a great future for your state. COX: We need to leave it there. I appreciate your time and I hope we can talk regularly through the year. MALCOLM TURNBULL: We will Tim, yeah look forward to it. [ends] Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:51:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:286http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/285/Joint-Doorstop-Interview.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=285http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=285&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/285/Joint-Doorstop-Interview.aspx Source: Hobart Subjects: Visit to Tasmania; tax cuts; Australian economy. E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………... MALCOLM TURNBULL: It’s great to be here in Tasmania. Lucy and I have had a wonderful week in your beautiful state. It’s good to be here with my Tasmanian senatorial colleagues Senator Abetz and Senator Bushby. And of course with the next Premier of Tasmania himself Will Hodgman who is doing a great job leading the Liberal Party here in Opposition here in Tasmania. So it has been a wonderful week and we’ve enjoyed travelling around the state and meeting a lot of Tasmanians and of course a lot of visitors too. I’ve just been meeting with a few visitors over there in Salamanca. The big issue this year, or really the three top issues this year are jobs, jobs, jobs. That has to be the top priority of every government, of every leader in politics and business; preserving employment. And one of the key ways to do that is to ensure that any stimulus government provides is well targeted and the money is well spent. Now we’ve seen today reports in the press about bringing forward tax cuts.  We called last year as the Opposition, last year, in late 2008 for the tax cuts due in July 2009 to be brought forward to the beginning of this year. The great virtue of tax cuts is that they provide incentives to hire, incentives to invest and they provide those incentives right across the economy. So the tax system is a great way to provide those incentives and indeed many of you will have seen the recent research in the United States which has just confirmed that the most efficient and effective way of delivering a fiscal stimulus is through those tax incentives, through tax cuts. So over to you. QUESTION: The IMF says that Australia is in a strong financial position. If we have a second stimulus package would you support that? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Australia is in a strong financial position and you now what? It’s in a strong financial position because of 11 and a half years of responsible economic management under the Coalition. The only reason Mr Rudd has got the money to spend on these payments, on the big stimulus – the $10 billion stimulus he did at the end of 2008 – the only reason he has got that money is because of 11 and a half years of hard work and prudent financial management. The thing that we are focused on in terms of fiscal stimulus is its effectiveness. We’ve got to make sure that the quality of spending, be it in terms of direct payments or in terms of tax cuts, is of the highest quality, in other words that the taxpayer gets the biggest economic bang for their buck. QUESTION: So would you like a second stimulus package? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I expect that there will be further stimulus if there is needed to be and this is really an issue that has got to be addressed week by week as we see the economic numbers coming in. As you saw yesterday the jobs figures were not good. They were a cause for real concern and any additional stimulus should be focused on tax relief, that is certainly what we believe will have the greatest effect and indeed that’s, as I said earlier, that’s what the research in the US is indicating would be most effective. QUESTION: Why are tax cuts more effective than say giving cash handouts as we saw before Christmas? MALCOLM TURNBULL: That’s a good question and basically the evidence is over a long period of time that you will get a greater lift in GDP from tax relief – and if you’re interested you can read what Professor John Taylor from Stanford has been writing about this in the US, he is one of America’s leading economists, he’s pulled together a lot of this evidence and presented it to the new Administration or the incoming Administration and the Congress. So that’s been the experience, in fact in the United States.  And we don’t know yet how effective the fiscal stimulus, the pre-Christmas stimulus will have been, we don’t know that yet.  Obviously we all hope it has been very effective but the big stimulus the Americans had in the middle of 2007 which was in effect handouts or payments, rebates et cetera, produced a big spike in household income but very modest increases in household expenditure. And that’s one of the reasons why a lot of leading economists in America are focusing now on tax relief as a more effective way of providing that stimulus. QUESTION: How far should they go then? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well that’s something that has got to be assessed in the context of the time. I mean exactly where the tax cuts should be, whether they should be solely limited to income tax, whether you should have accelerated depreciation to encourage investment, there’s a whole range of tax measures. We’ll be looking at that very carefully, we hope the Government is. But the key thing is to encourage people to invest, to work, to save, to do all of those things that will promote a strong economy. QUESTION: Given the uncertain economic times is it a difficult year for the Tasmanian Liberals going forward in a pre-election year I guess to convince Tasmanians that they should change? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I think the best argument for Tasmanians to change is standing right next to me, so I’ll leave Will to answer that question. QUESTION: But I guess from your perspective Mr Turnbull you’re obviously spending some time in Tasmania in the early part of the year, is that partly I guess to boost the state Liberals and to get them off and running (inaudible) pre-election year? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I think Will is off and running and he’s very happy to respond to this directly I’m sure. But I think you have here an outstanding alternative premier in Will Hodgman. He is a really outstanding political leader in Tasmania and Australia.  He is respected right around the country and I think he embodies the type of energy, vigour, intellect, optimism that Tasmania will be looking for at the time of the next election. QUESTION: Is it difficult given all this economic uncertainty? Does that make your job more difficult in this pre-election year? WILL HODGMAN: Not at all. What it does it give us an opportunity to show the people of Tasmania how a  Liberal government in Tasmania would in fact seize control of our economy, do what we can at a local level to stimulate our own domestic economy, to build investment, to build opportunities for people in Tasmania, to employ more people. And what we’ve seen in Tasmania sadly is a Government that has been complacent.  It has enjoyed 11 and a half years of a national economy booming, but when things get tight, when things get tough, they’re found wanting. And it was David Bartlett and Michael Eden who were very slow out of the blocks, well behind every other state premier. It was Graeme Sturges the Infrastructure Minister here who was the last in line when it came to putting up Tasmania’s hand for a share of the infrastructure funds and he was slow out of the blocks, still hasn’t produced in our view a coherent infrastructure plan for the state moving forward.  Whereas in contrast the state Liberals who have a very strong agenda when it comes to sustaining our economy and we will provide the Tasmanians with a very clear alternative agenda which will be about providing Tasmanian businesses with opportunities and Tasmanian people with jobs. QUESTION: What’s in store for the rest of your Tasmanian visit? MALCOLM TURNBULL: We’ve got some more meetings with business and community here in Hobart today and then we’ll be in Launceston tomorrow and then I’ll be going back to Sydney on Wednesday afternoon. QUESTION: For want of a better word is this a fact finding mission to sort of gauge the mood and the issues? MALCOLM TURNBULL: It’s all of those things.  We had a holiday here but of course politicians are never entirely on holiday as you know. And it has really been a wonderful time here. You have a wonderful state, it is so beautiful, it’s so diverse. Everyone says as a joke if you don’t like the weather wait five minutes and it’ll change, although it seems to be pretty consistent today. But the remarkable diversity in the landscapes and the countryside here is just awesome. To go from Cradle Mountain down into the beautiful agricultural country around Sheffield and Deloraine, see all that green fields and feed as high as any cow could wish for and then drive an hour south into the southern midlands and it’s just stricken with drought. So there’s enormous diversity and I’ve really enjoyed getting around. We had a very good visit yesterday with, as you would have seen, with the farmers at Interlaken.  Will and I were there with Senator Colbeck. They have been given a very raw deal by Peter Garrett.  He has treated them with contempt, absolute contempt. Wouldn’t meet with them when they came to Canberra, wouldn’t come to Tasmania. So they said oh well, Mohammed has got to go to the mountain and they went there and he wouldn’t speak to them there. And so he has treated them with complete contempt and it is just an indication of the lack of interest, the lack of concern that the federal Labor Government and Labor generally has for this great state. QUESTION: You’ve spoken about the diversity but what were the common messages you were getting from people as you travelled around Tasmania? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look everyone was very kind and very welcoming and I’m sure there are plenty of people who forbore from criticising out of politeness but Lucy and I were made to feel very, very welcome. I didn’t have a negative encounter at all. QUESTION: But their concerns, are there state-wide concerns?  Did you get an impression of concerns that… MALCOLM TURNBULL: There’s a lot of anxiety about the economy, about the management of the economy. A  lot of people, in fact a lot of older people in particular expressed real concerns about the way in which Mr Rudd is spending the surplus. They have lived long enough and seen enough good times and tough times to know how important it is to put that money away in the good times and that’s what John Howard did over 11 and a half years. And they’re very concerned to see how quickly a big surplus is turning into a deficit and they’re very worried about the quality of the spending and how wisely the money is being spent, as we are. QUESTION: So do you think its likely then or do you think the Government is dancing around the fact that we could well end up in deficit? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Practically every economist in Australia believes we’re going to be in deficit. The Government’s latest forecast which is some months old now was I believe for a $5 billion surplus. But not many people think they will run a surplus this year at all. But the real issue is the quality of the spending. One of the most disconcerting things that Mr Rudd has said in his year as Prime Minister was when he went out there after those payments had been made and he said to Australians ‘spend, spend, spend.’ And that just jarred so many people because so many Australians, and particularly older Australians as I said who have been around a while, know how important careful financial management, prudence, just being careful with your financial affairs is, and it troubled them deeply to have a Prime Minister saying ‘spend, spend, spend.’ And a number of people have said to me, well isn’t that how the Americans in particular got into the jam we’re in now? So prudence, good sound economic management, making sure that we get the maximum economic bang for every buck, that is the responsibility of the Government, that’s what we’ll hold them to account for and above all the three top priorities for 2009: jobs, jobs, jobs. Thanks very much.   [ends]Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:47:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:285http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/284/Interview-with-Brett-Marley.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=284http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=284&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/284/Interview-with-Brett-Marley.aspxSubjects: Visit to Tasmania; Clyde Valley emergency water allocation; pulp mill. E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………... MARLES: A man who’s been enjoying the Tasmanian weather joins me in the studio here this morning, the Leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, morning Malcolm. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah great to be with you. MARLES: You have been in Tassie for a little while haven’t you? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah I have, a week. We got here a week ago Monday and we’ve had a fantastic time. We had a night in Hobart and then we went up to Freycinet for a couple of days, did some hiking and kayaking there, and then we drove up through the Midlands and went to visit a number of those beautiful towns, you know like Ross and Campbell Town and Evandale, we went to the Woolmers Estate, had a really good look around there, then we stayed the night in Westbury, which is another beautiful town, and then we drove up to Cradle Mountain and were there for a couple of days and did some great hikes. MARLES: What’s your take on the place? You like it? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I love it, I love it and Lucy loves it even more then me. She is completely entranced and the variety, you know, everyone jokes and says you know if you don’t like the weather in Tasmania wait five minutes and it will be different. But the other thing is if you drive 50km or sometimes 20km and you get in a completely different country. You know the contrast yesterday; we came down from Cradle Mountain and we met with some farmers at Interlaken to talk about their water problems – talk a bit about that later in a minute I guess – but just on that drive, to go from the lush, green, lots of feed around Sheffield and Deloraine, you know as you come down off the mountains there and then we came up round the side of the Great Lake and then down to Interlaken and you’re in really desperately dry countryside, dry as a chip, no feed – two completely different worlds. MARLES: Because you’re no stranger to this sort of thing because you come from a farming background? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well yeah, Lucy and I have a cattle and sheep operation in the Hunter Valley and have had for, well, ever since my Dad was killed in 1982, so quite a long time. MARLES: In the paper this morning, and over the last couple of days, we’ve been looking at the problems that have been facing the farmers in that area that you’ve been talking about and I’ve been a great supporter of men and women on the land for some time. Now the question I ask you is; why is it that farmers need to get down pretty much on bended knee and beg for water? In this sort of situation, and it’s all to do with -.and I appreciate the fact that they’re talking about this fish which is (inaudible) to Tasmania... MALCOLM TURNBULL: ….yeah the Golden Galaxias…. MARLES: ….I appreciate that, but you know we’ve got to look at the bigger picture I believe. What are your thoughts on this? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Mark Twain famously said, ‘whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over.’ You know water is always contentious, it’s always difficult, but decisions about water have got to be made realistically with all the facts in hand, they’ve got to be pragmatic and objective. Now the situation here is that you’ve got the oldest irrigation area in Australia, in the Clyde Valley, is dependent on water from these two lakes, Lake Sorell and Lake Crescent, and the simple fact of the matter is that the amount of water they’re seeking to have released is miniscule relative to the amount of water in the lake. Now yes, the lake’s at about 60 per cent – well the hydro storage is I think at around 30, so you could say 60 per cent is not bad going – but they’re seeking a tiny amount of water for stock and domestic purposes, not for irrigation, but this is to keep human beings and livestock alive, it’s a tiny amount of water, it won’t have any impact on the fish. I mean I’m quite familiar with this area issue because I gave permission for water to be released back in 2007 and I read stacks of material about the Golden Galaxias and how it likes the rocky bottoms and you know one of the lakes has got a rocky bottom, the other one’s got rocky sides and so I got right into the detail of it and I made that decision in ‘07, and now Peter Garrett has said no, no water can be released. The reality is that that water, which he will not release, which amounts to 15 millimeters off the top of the lake will just evaporate. And I mean David Llewellyn, the Water Minister here in the state, has made the point that all Peter Garrett has done in his ignorance really of the realities on the ground is withheld water from these farmers that will evaporate and the lakes will probably then sink to a level below at which it’s not possible to get any water out of them anyway. So these guys went to Canberra to see Garrett, he wouldn’t see them. He won’t come to Tasmania.  He won’t see them when they go... when we were talking up there with Anthony Archer and Tom Edgell and a number of these other farmers there and a number of them are of course they’re irrigators as well, and the Clyde Valley irrigators are members of a group that was formed when I was the Water Minister in 2007 called ‘The Bondi Group’ because they use to come and meet with me in my office in Bondi Junction in Sydney. And we met all the time, you know regularly, every couple of months if not more frequently and we were talking on the phone and emailing and so forth. So I was in constant contact with the people who the Water Minister should be in touch with. They can’t get any traction with the Labor Government in Canberra, just not interested. MARLES: I just wonder how long it is going to take before people who make some decisions realise that these men and women feed us? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh I totally agree with you. You know I think there is a big difference between our side of…my side of politics, the Conservative Liberal side of politics and the Labor Party, particularly people like Mr Garrett, on the question of agriculture. I think Mr Garrett is actually opposed to agriculture. He sees farmers as the enemy of the environment. You see this with the water plan that we established in the beginning of 2007 which was a visionary plan to put $10 billion into irrigation around Australia to make it more efficient so that we could use less water to produce more food and to have more water for the environment – getting the balance right – took federal control over the interstate water in the Murray-Darling Basin, these were revolutionary changes, and you can see our focus was always to increase our agricultural productivity by using less water, you know making every drop count. And what Labor has done is focus the spending, since they came into office, on simply buying water back, buying water rights back. Now of course what that does is reduces your agricultural productivity, it takes people off the land and at the end of the day, you’re right, somebody has to put the food on the plate, someone has to put the fiber on our back, somebody has got to grow it, so we’ve got to decide whether we want to grow it in Australia. MARLES: We’ll play a song here but I just want to give you a listen to a farmer who phoned me earlier. [played recording] MARLES: Good morning it’s Heart107.3, Marles in the morning, 7.23am, special guest this morning in the studio a man who is in Tassie enjoying himself, has been here for some time, the Leader of the Federal Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull. We’ve been talking about rivers and farming and all sorts of things here this morning, but look one other interesting point I wanted to bring up very, very quickly with you Malcolm, and it’s another environmental thing and I know you’re passionate, passionate about the environment, this recent decision in relation to the pulp mill in the north of the state, thoughts? What do you say? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it was a very confused effort because Peter Garrett tried to present himself as saying no to the pulp mill, that was the sort of spin he tried to put on it, and he created the impression that he was withholding approval and then of course Julia Gillard came out and corrected him and said, no, construction can commence. He said the conditions that I’d imposed in 2007 were inadequate and he’d had to fix them up. And then on closer examination it became clear that the only change to the conditions of 2007 was one that was requested by the company. So it was a very peculiar performance. Basically the position, as you know, with the pulp mill, as far as the federal jurisdiction is concerned is this; the Federal Government’s environmental jurisdiction over the pulp mill is limited to federal environmental matters, the most significant or controversial of which is the disposal of the effluent from the pulp mill in to Bass Strait. We imposed, or I imposed, in 2007, some very strict rules, limitations on that, which were imposed with the advice of the Chief Scientist of the Commonwealth, Jim Peacock, and also lead scientists in that field, including Graeme Batley who’d be well known to many Tasmanians. There was a very comprehensive set of rules that were set out. Under the conditions it’s made very clear that if Gunns’ effluent does not comply with that the plant cannot operate. Now Mr Garrett has changed the conditions so that if say, for example, the plant didn’t comply, the Government could simply impose a fine. Now that was done at the request of Gunns – that was Mr Garrett’s sole change to the conditions – and I put into the conditions so that everyone was aware that there was that Gunns would have to recognise that if the effluent didn’t comply with those strict conditions then they could be required to go to tertiary treatment. So it was a very strict set of rules imposed with the best scientific advice available and essentially you know the process is continuing. So really the pathetic part of the performance was Peter Garrett trying to pretend he was doing something he wasn’t. MARLES: The interesting thing about it is too, and what I’m reading, whether or not this be, you know, an accurate assessment of the whole thing, is that over 70 per cent of Tasmanians are against this mill and so where does that put us? And I mean 70 per cent of those who have been asked I’m assuming, but there may be a percentage of people who are quite not opposed. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well look, Marles, this is the real problem with this federal jurisdiction. The real opposition to the pulp mill, it seems to me, is based – I mean there’s obviously local opposition, you know people are concerned about odors and traffic and a whole range of things – but the really fundamental source of opposition is concern about logging in native forests, you know where the timber comes from. That is not part of the federal jurisdiction. That is a matter for the state government. And you know really, developments like this are overwhelmingly matters for the state government, in this case, or state governments generally. But there is a tendency for people to assume that if the Federal Government has the ability to say yes or no to any aspect of a development then it’s got the ability to stop it or let it go on any ground at all.  Now that might be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view. But the reality is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is a very, well it’s a law and it’s construed very legalistically and people take Environment Ministers to court all the time and so you have to apply the law very strictly, and so you’re limited to that jurisdiction. [internet connection dropped out- break in tape recording] MARLES: Where to from here, from today, are you staying in Tassie for a little while longer? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah I’m here and we’ve got a number of other things to do in Hobart and then we’ll be in Launceston tomorrow. MARLES: Malcolm Turnbull a pleasure talking to you. You’re very passionate about the environment, I can see that and very passionate about the state and that’s nice to see. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Thanks Marles, it’s been great to be with you. [ends]Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:45:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:284http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/283/Interview-with-Jason-Morrison.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=283http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=283&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/283/Interview-with-Jason-Morrison.aspx Source: 2GB Subjects: Guantanamo Bay inmates, David Warner, Rosemeadow, employment. E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………... JASON MORRISON: Thanks for being on the program this morning. Mid January is probably the end of the silly season, but its a time when governments try to sneak things through and this government is like no other government, they all do it, of all persuasions. We have had Guantanamo Bay, the first two waves of this go through to the keeper and now there is speculation of where we go to politically with this new year, so lets get down to business. I guess this morning, before we go any further, the last time we spoke was the Guantanamo Bay story of the prospect that Australia would be accepting people from Guantanamo Bay, inmates from Guantanamo, there seems to be a bit of a softening up again for us once again to consider taking in some more. Any change on your view to this? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Not at all Jason. We are adamantly opposed to Australia taking inmates from Guantanamo Bay. Obviously we are responsible for Australian citizens, two Australian citizens who have been in Guantanamo are back in Australia. But people that are not Australian citizens are not our responsibility and the reality is, as I think we last spoke, if people came from Guantanamo to Australia they would not be able to be detained, they would be free to live in the community if they were admitted in to Australia and frankly that is just not appropriate. If the United States government believes there are people in Guantanamo who shouldn’t be there and in a position where they can properly live freely in the Australian community then you have to ask the question why they do not believe they are not suitable to live freely in the American community? JASON MORRISON: I notice that the then acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard saying repeatedly this phrase “they will be assessed on a case by case basis”. So while the headline said; no we are not taking them this time or the time before that, in the future it will still be case by case. That feels like the door is still open for this. MALCOLM TURNBULL: I think basically the Rudd government is taking every bit of advice other than what is in the best interests of Australia. They were showing very warm signs to bringing them in, they were being very sympathetic to bringing in these detainees from Guantanamo Bay as you know and we expressed our very strong opposition to that as indeed did thousands of Australians who contacted you and other media and politicians about. But they were heading down the track of admitting them and then it appears they got a protest from the Chinese government who doesn’t want a particular group of these detainees who are Uighyurs from Western China being admitted to Australia and so then it appears the Australian government bounced back.  So it seems to be bouncing between America and China in terms of making a decision. Now, I don’t think that is a way to run a country. The Australian government should make its decisions on this matter in the best interests of Australia and it is plainly not appropriate for Australia to be accepting detainees from the Guantanamo Bay facility at all, full stop. It is simply not appropriate for us to be accepting them. JASON MORRISON: That’s right. We are looking at America’s interests, China’s interests. It seems to be overwhelming the call from the Australian people to act in our interest. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Jason if you take the common sense view, if you go down to the corner, talk to someone at a bus stop, talk to someone on a train, talk to someone in a pub, the commonsense Australian view goes like this: OK these people we’re being told are appropriate for living in the Australian community without any restraint, being completely free to live here. If the Americans believe they are appropriate to be living freely in the Australian community, why won’t they take them? And that question, what is the American answer to that?  It’s a big country; there is a lot of space in America. JASON MORRISON: They would probably argue the same with us but we want our government to act in our interests. Let’s move on. I am interested to know your reaction, thankfully this has quietened down MALCOLM TURNBULL: Can we just say one thing Jason because we are talking about politics and I know its very important but can we just say congratulations to David Warner. JASON MORRISON: This is the cricketer? The Twenty Twenty cricketer that took us to victory? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yeah, 22 years of age, never played Sheffield Shield, he is an Eastern Suburbs cricket club cricketer so we are very proud of him in the electorate of Wentworth and what an amazing thing and just when some people are getting a bit gloomy about Australian cricket this young bloke just pops up and what an amazing knock. JASON MORRISON: When you bump into him at the beach get him to give us a yell, we are trying to track him down. I want to ask you about Rosemeadow. This is a NSW government problem no doubt about it. But what is undoubtable as well about it is that the welfare of plenty of the people living in this area that is propagating this lifestyle and these generations of problems in these few homes that are causing the problems in Rosemeadow that money is coming from the Commonwealth. Do you look at this and say to yourself that we were in government for all these years and we didn’t do enough to sort out the kind of slum that this developed in to by addressing what is clearly a lifestyle on welfare and now the new lot are in and it appears no one is jumping up and down to change this as well. So, are we going to just let this go another generation? At what time does a political leader step in and say look, enough is enough, we are going to sort this out, we can’t cop this anymore? MALCOLM TURNBULL: I think Jason, the point you make, there is a big point about welfare dependency and it is vital that the cycles if you like of welfare dependency are broken. You saw how strongly the Coalition acted in government to deal with social problems which were associated with welfare dependency in the Northern Territory, with the Northern Territory intervention. All of this stuff, all of these issues are tied in together. Ultimately and you have heard me say this before, all of this gets back to jobs. People have got to be in a position and encouraged in every way to take up employment because you have to break that cycle of welfare dependency so that people who are able to work, who are fit to work, are working. JASON MORRISON: But no one seems to want to do it. It seems to be that this exists not just here in Sydney in Rosemeadow but probably in 10 or 15 other locations around our city and then in the Northern Territory it existed and until you are really prepared to crack down on it nothing is going to change. So do we need to start broadening our perspective here and crackdown on these areas here, break the welfare dependency and let’s do it in manner that some might see as extreme but has to make a difference, like we saw in the Northern Territory? MALCOLM TURNBULL: You have got policing issues, plainly. If you have criminal conduct you have got policing issues and really there has got to be zero tolerance for this kind of violence and crime. But overall Jason the focus has got to be on individual responsibility and on enforcing all of the rules relating to welfare and employment, Newstart. JASON MORRISON: But no one is going to do this. You would have done it if you had the kick along when you and your lot were in office. No one is going to do this. I can remember for as long as I have been in this job and that is towards 20 years, and no one is going to deal with this, its just going to be another generation. I just wonder if we are at the point where it time to start saying lets get serious? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Jason what do you, let me ask you the question, what are you suggesting should be done, what is your proposal? JASON MORRISON: Well I am suggesting if we realise that there are generations of people who are earning welfare we go out there and we stop dealing with this from head office and looking and saying geez there are 8 people in this house on the dole and they haven’t worked for a long time, we go out there and we confront it and we find out why and we ask why and we do it face to face because if not this is going perk its head up in five years time again. MALCOLM TURNBULL: But that is exactly what should be happening. We are not talking about a problem here with particular programs we are talking about a failure to enforce the law in effect because the whole system, the whole welfare system is designed to give people support if they cannot work, if they are disabled obviously, suffering from a disability or to give them support if they are unable despite their best efforts to find employment. But there are jobs and if people are not prepared to take them then there are consequences and it seems to me that what you are talking about is really us saying no more and the federal government should be doing its job.   JASON MORRISON: There is a reluctance… MALCOLM TURNBULL: And I agree with that. Very often when people complain about what appear to be a failure in government policy it is really a failure to action and implement and execute that policy. Now we in government were often criticised as being too tough in terms of issues like this, in terms of demanding people take responsibility for their own lives, that they work, you remember the incredible criticism of Work for the Dole that the Labor Party made. All of these measures and these policies will change over time, programs will be tried, some will do well, some won’t. We have got to keep making sure you have got the right programs for the right circumstances but ultimately everything depends on employment. People have to have the dignity of employment, dignity of knowing that it is their efforts that are putting the dollars in to their own pocket, that is absolutely vital and of course what happens is with welfare dependency over time is that people loose all sense of dignity, they loose respect for themselves and that is very corrosive. JASON MORRISON: No doubt about it and I will leave it at that for this morning Malcolm. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Thanks a lot. [ends]Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:44:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:283http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/274/Visit-to-drought-affected-Clyde-Valley-community.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=274http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=274&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/274/Visit-to-drought-affected-Clyde-Valley-community.aspxFederal Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull today visited Lakes Crescent and Sorell in Tasmania’s southern Central Highlands to meet with Bothwell community members and local farmers who have critically low water supplies. “This drought-affected community is enduring additional hardship because of a decision by Environment Minister Peter Garrett not to allow an emergency water allocation to be drawn from the lakes above the town of Bothwell,’’ Mr Turnbull said. “There is a desperate need for water for stock and domestic use and the Government must act quickly to reverse its decision. “In 2007, as Minister for Environment and Water Resources, I approved the release of 2000 megalitres for stock and domestic purposes. Careful management resulted in only 1500 megalitres being used within the allotted time. “The current appeal is for just 5 megalitres per day.” Mr Turnbull agreed to visit this area at first request, unlike Minister Garrett, Tasmanian Liberal Senator Richard Colbeck said. “Minister Garrett won’t visit this community and when representatives travelled to Canberra for a meeting with him, he didn’t even turn up. “I introduced Malcolm Turnbull to some of the community members who benefited from the previous emergency allocation and have demonstrated that such allocations are managed responsibly and efficiently. “I have appealed directly to Prime Minister Rudd to overturn Minister Garrett’s decision because the Clyde community has stressed to me just how dire their situation has become this summer. “I wrote to Mr Rudd on December 2 but so far have not had so much as an acknowledgement from his office. “Labor MHR Dick Adams has also gone missing in action on this issue since Garrett’s decision – he should be kicking down the Prime Minister’s door and standing up for his constituents,’’ Senator Colbeck said.Mon, 12 Jan 2009 07:00:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:274http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/282/Doorstop-Interview.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=282http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=282&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/282/Doorstop-Interview.aspx Subject: Tasmania   Subjects: Clyde Valley emergency water allocation; pulp mill; public service; employment; guest workers. E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………... MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I’ll just say a few words to begin with and then over to you. It’s very disappointing that Peter Garrett has chosen to deny the water that is essential to the town of Bothwell and the farmers here without even bothering to come to Tasmania to talk to them, to see the situation at first hand on the ground. The amount of water that is being sought to be released from these lakes is a tiny percentage of the water that is presently in the lakes as we’ve just seen from looking at the measuring stick there. It would amount to fifteen millimetres off the top of this lake behind us. So it’s a tiny amount of water but it is enormously important for the survival of the families, the township, the farms, the businesses that depend on this water for their survival. Peter Garrett has got to get real, he’s got to get out of Canberra, come to Tasmania, see the hardship that his decision is causing and reverse it quickly.    QUESTION: The point of your visit Mr Turnbull is obviously to talk with farmers, I mean what will you be taking back to Canberra? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we’ll go back to Canberra, Senator Colbeck and I will go back to Canberra and we will be making the case for these farmers and these communities to the Government, to the Prime Minister. Senator Colbeck has already written to the Prime Minister about this and I’ll be adding to his voice in seeking to get a fair go for the farmers and the communities of this part of Tasmania.   QUESTION: Are you satisfied that the State Government is doing enough in terms of lobbying? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well the State Government should do more, after all they’re Mr Garrett’s Labor mates so they should be twisting his arm. But I see that Mr Llewellyn is as unhappy as we are. It doesn’t say much for the wonderful relationship between a Labor federal government and Labor states that Mr Rudd told us so much about before the election to see that they don’t seem to have any influence over Mr Garrett at all.   QUESTION: Can you give us some sense of the urgency; I mean how quickly does this water have to get to these people? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I think if you talk to the farmers here you’ll hear from their lips how urgent it is – it’s absolutely vital. Stock and domestic water means water to keep your animals alive and obviously keep humans alive. That water should always have the highest priority. I was the Water Minister in the previous government as you know and stock and domestic was always at the very top of the priority table. This water is not being sought to go for irrigation, it’s being sought to keep humans and animals alive. It’s survival water and that’s why it has to be released. QUESTION: The argument that’s been used is to protect the Golden Galaxias fish. Is that a sufficient argument in terms of when we’re weighing up what’s happening in terms of farmland? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I think as we’ve been discussing today that argument is specious. The amount of water that is being sought to be taken will not impact on the Golden Galaxias fish, and I think even Mr Llewellyn’s point that he has made, which is a very valid one, is that by refusing to allow this water to be released, all Mr Garrett is doing is ensuring that that water, which is vitally needed for stock and domestic purposes right now, will simply stay in the lake and be evaporated, and the lake levels will by evaporation go down to a point where you can’t release any water out of the lakes at all. So it is a very very misguided decision that Mr Garrett has made, and I have no doubt if he took the trouble to come to Tasmania, if he actually cared about the people whose lives he is affecting, he would see that he’s made a blue and he would reverse it. But he’s not prepared to come here, he’s not prepared to talk to these people, and that is an abdication of his responsibility as the Environment Minister.     QUESTION: And just staying on Mr Garrett, have you been watching his handling of the Gunns developments and the modules? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh yes I’ve seen that. The Government’s been in a state of remarkable confusion about that. Mr Garrett tried to create the impression he was stopping the pulp mill, then Julia Gillard said no it was going ahead. It’s been an exercise in incompetence and confusion and had everybody confused including the stock market, as you would have seen. QUESTION: Now that the dust’s settled somewhat, what do you actually make of his decision to withhold those remaining modules? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well look, under the conditions that I imposed in 2007 – very, very strict conditions put in place with the advice of the Chief Scientist of the Commonwealth and the leading scientists and specialists in the relevant areas – Gunns had to meet certain requirements before they could start construction and certainly before they could start the plant. The only change to those conditions that Mr Garrett has made has been made at the express request of Gunns. So the idea that he tried to create, that he was being some sort of tough guy taking a different approach to the approach I’d taken, was completely wrong. The tough conditions were imposed by me as Environment Minister in 2007, and they remain as they are other than for one change that was requested by the company.  QUESTION: Can we ask you about a couple of other issues? The Public Service Commissioner has urged the Prime Minister to ease up on public servants. Do you think they’re being worked too hard? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well you know before the election Mr Rudd never stopped talking about getting the work-family balance right. We haven’t heard anything of that since the election and obviously there’s a lot of public servants who feel that Mr Rudd isn’t paying much attention to that. Look, the responsibility of any chief executive, be they in government or in private enterprise, is to ensure that their employees, their team, can be most productive. And if people are exhausted, if they’re worked to a point of exhaustion then they’re not going to be productive. And an excess of workaholism is not good for productivity. This is not, if you like, an endorsement of Mr Rudd’s capacity as a manager if people are making these comments.  QUESTION: What are you hearing from the public service? Are you hearing similar things, that perhaps they are working a bit too hard and perhaps not really remunerated well enough? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well the feedback we get is that the Government is very erratic; they send public servants off to do lots of work on one new project, and all that work is done and then nothing happens. And they take off on another inquiry or another investigation or another committee. And I think the feeling that I get in Canberra from public servants is that there’s an enormous amount of very unproductive labour being commissioned. And that’s an example of a government that doesn’t know the direction, doesn’t have a clear direction for its own policies. QUESTION: There’s a bit of talk about pay rises and things like that, the Fair Pay Commissioner’s also come out and said that the priority should be retaining jobs, not necessarily increasing wages. Do you think that’s a surprising comment from someone like that? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well this is the balance that he’s got. You’ve got to get that balance right and that’s what Professor Harper is doing. It’s no more than describing what his job is. QUESTION: In terms of jobs, the latest ANZ job figures for December have been a ten percent drop for that month and the lowest level on record. Is that just a further indication I guess of what we should be preparing for in terms of the economy?  MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well look I haven’t seen the figures, but as we’ve said again and again the three top priorities in 2009 are jobs, jobs, jobs. Every element of government policy has to be focussed on maximising employment, every aspect of policy has to be focused on jobs, jobs, jobs. QUESTION: Can I just ask you one question about the seasonal work issue? The issue with the Pacific Islands project, and there’s been criticism that the Government is taking too long in implementing that scheme. Do you think that’s a fair comment? MALCOLM TURNBULL: This seasonal workers scheme is a trial. The Government talked it up very big and now they can’t deliver. This has always been part of the problem with Labor governments that we’ve seen at the state level for years. They’ve got a technique which is the big announcement comes up, lots of headlines, and then no follow-through; over-promising all the time. This is a test of competence. It was their proposal, their policy – can they deliver? Well they haven’t been able to deliver. And if they can’t deliver on that then they can’t deliver on other elements of policy, and it gets back to Mr Garrett and coming right back to where we are today. Here is Mr Garrett making a decision, a momentous decision which is impacting on the lives, the livelihoods, the communities, the families of this district, and he hasn’t even taken the time to come and visit, to talk to these people, to get any direct connection with them, to understand what their problems are. And that’s just not a competent way of managing a government. QUESTION: You mentioned that the Government needs to be focused on jobs obviously going forward. That Pacific seasonal workers scheme, there are some people suggesting that perhaps that should be redirected now towards domestic workers given what we might see with unemployment. Is that something you believe should [inaudible]?   MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well look it is a very contentious issue and there are people who have made strong arguments for and against it. But the trial has been put in place. It’s up to the Government now to be able to deliver it and see if it works. So far, you’d have to say, the trial is a failure. They can’t even get to first base. Thanks a lot. [ends]  Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:42:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:282http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/273/United-Nations-Security-Council-Resolution-1860.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=273http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=273&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/273/United-Nations-Security-Council-Resolution-1860.aspxThe federal Opposition welcomes today’s resolution by the United Nations Security Council calling for an “immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire” in Gaza and southern Israel. We welcome also the specific provisions of UNSC Resolution 1860 relating to guarantees to Israel’s security, including the explicit condemnation of terrorist attacks on civilians and the demand that member-states act to stop the smuggling of arms into Gaza. These were always the necessary pre-conditions for an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. The Opposition hopes the adoption of this compromise resolution will bring an early end to hostilities, and the tragic loss of life on both sides of the border. We also trust the firm message from the Security Council will discourage any who would seek a further escalation of the conflict.Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:58:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:273http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/185/National-Press-Club.aspx#Comments2http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=185http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=185&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/185/National-Press-Club.aspxMalcolm addresses the National Press ClubFri, 09 Jan 2009 04:35:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:185http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/80/Doorstop-Interview.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=80http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=80&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/80/Doorstop-Interview.aspx Subject: Sydney Subjects: Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan; Gunns pulp mill; toxic waste export. E & O E MALCOLM TURNBULL: I was very sad to learn of the death of an Australian soldier in Afghanistan. He was bravely defending the values of liberty and democracy on which our nation was founded. He died wearing our uniform, serving under our flag. On behalf of the Opposition I extend our deepest sympathies to his family, to his friends, and his comrades in arms. QUESTION: I think it’s the ninth soldier involved in this sort of thing. The toll is rising but I suppose the forces have to remain? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Our soldiers are doing very difficult work in a very dangerous part of the world. They are in the front line in the battle against terror. They’re doing a great job but it is very dangerous work and that is why the thoughts and prayers of all Australians should be with them always as they serve our nation and defend democracy in the front line of the battle against terror. QUESTION: You don’t think it’s time they be pulled out? MALCOLM TURNBULL: The Australian forces are doing a vital role, doing a vital role in Afghanistan defending the values on which our nation was founded. We cannot take a backward step in the battle against terrorism. QUESTION: Just your thoughts on the Gunns pulp mill – whether it’s approved or not. MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we’ll see what is announced and then we’ll make an appropriate comment depending on what is announced and the content of the announcement. QUESTION: It looks set to be approved though, if it is… MALCOLM TURNBULL: There will be an announcement made imminently and when it is made our environment spokesman Mr Hunt will make a statement. QUESTION: Just on to another environmental issue. You approved the export of toxic waste by Orica to Europe as Environment Minister. Now there are fears in Europe that Peter Garrett will do the same. What do you think he should do? MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, again, I would refer that to the environment spokesperson Mr Hunt. He will be best able to answer your questions there. [ends]  adminTue, 06 Jan 2009 03:52:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:80http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/272/Death-of-an-Australian-Soldier-in-Afghanistan.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=272http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=272&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/272/Death-of-an-Australian-Soldier-in-Afghanistan.aspxI was profoundly saddened by the news overnight of the death of an Australian soldier in Afghanistan. The thoughts and prayers of all Australians will be with his family. Their loss will be deeply felt at a time of the year when Australians traditionally gather with their loved ones to celebrate the New Year.   This tragedy is another solemn reminder of the enormous dangers our forces face in Afghanistan every day. This brave soldier died during a rocket attack on a base in Oruzgan province, the eighth member of the Australian Defence Force to be killed in Afghanistan since 2002. As a nation we are immensely proud of the men and women of the ADF; of their service, and their sacrifice.  In Afghanistan they are fighting in defence of the values of liberty and democracy, on which our nation was founded. They are wearing our uniform, serving under our flag. We mourn the loss of a courageous Australian and on behalf of the Federal Opposition I honour and acknowledge his sacrifice and extend our deepest sympathies to his family.Mon, 05 Jan 2009 06:57:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:272http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5/Guantanamo-Bay-Detainees.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=5http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=5&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5/Guantanamo-Bay-Detainees.aspxThe Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, should immediately reverse his decision to accept Guantanamo Bay inmates for resettlement in Australia.  The Australian newspaper today has confirmed that the Australian Government is proposing to agree to an American request to accept detainees, not being Australian citizens, from their military prison in Guantanamo Bay which the incoming United States President, Barack Obama, is expected to close. It is understood that there are around 250 inmates currently detained in the military prison, with 60 considered by the United States authorities suitable for release. It remains unclear if the United States has asked Mr Rudd to accept detainees on a custodial basis, or if Australia is being asked to resettle the detainees into the community. There would not appear to be any legal basis upon which Australia could hold the Guantanamo Bay detainees in custody, since none of them have been detained for crimes under Australian law.  It would be difficult to imagine the circumstances in which any claims on humanitarian grounds should take priority over the many applicants for humanitarian entry currently awaiting approval.   adminSat, 03 Jan 2009 00:28:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:5http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6/New-Years-Message.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=85&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=6http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=6&PortalID=0&TabID=85http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6/New-Years-Message.aspx2008 has been an incredible year. It has been dominated by the global financial crisis and the big challenges that it presents to governments, families and businesses all around the world. Now in Australia we start off with a strong economy, and I have said many times, yes we are in an economic storm, we will get wet but we won’t sink. We have every reason to be optimistic and positive about 2009. The enterprise, the energy, the enthusiasm of Australians is an enormous strength in these challenging times and we as an opposition will continue to hold the Government to account – that’s our job – and to provide constructive proposals for better protecting our economy and, above all, for ensuring that we protect and preserve employment. The three top priorities for 2009 must be jobs, jobs, jobs. It’s going to be a very exciting year around the world. We have a new US president. Who would have ever imagined it was possible that America would elect a black man as president? Who among us would have ever thought that Martin Luther King’s dream, when he said he dreamt of a day when his children would be judged by the content of their character and not by the colour of their skin, would be realised with a black man in the top job in Washington? Incredible stuff! And so, finally, Lucy and I wish you a safe, prosperous and happy 2009. It will be an exciting year, but I know that with all of us working together, committed to a strong Australia, it will be another great year for our great nation. Click here to watchadminThu, 01 Jan 2009 00:31:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:6