http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.auRSS feeds for Malcolm Turnbull MP60http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/51/RTD-Tax-fuels-pressure-on-CPI.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=51http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=51&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/51/RTD-Tax-fuels-pressure-on-CPI.aspxToday’s inflation figures show the Government’s $3 billion tax binge on RTDs in the Budget is adding to inflationary pressures in the Consumer Price Index. Far from fighting inflation, the Budget has failed to assist the Reserve Bank in keeping inflationary pressures in check. The June quarter CPI release notes the increase in the price of spirits – 6.1 per cent in the quarter – was “the largest quarterly increase in the price of spirits since the series began in [the] September quarter 1980 and was predominantly due to the introduction of an increased tax on all pre-mixed spirits from 27 April 2008”. Upcoming increases in the Luxury Car Tax and changes to the Medicare Levy Surcharge will further increase pressure on the CPI. The Coalition has every confidence that the Reserve Bank will manage the inflation problem we confront, much of which is generated by external factors such as increases in the price of fuel. But today’s CPI confirms our description of the Budget as one which far from placing downwards pressure on inflation, as Mr Swan claimed, has in fact by increasing prices added to inflationary pressure. Mr Swan is unable to manage the Budget, and he is unable to manage inflationary expectations. And now, into this mix, the Government wants to rush through a poorly designed and implemented ETS which will put further pressure on inflation. Now is not the time for Mr Rudd and Mr Swan to play political games. Now is the time for them to manage the economy in the national interest and to take the proper time and consultation to design an efficient and effective Emissions Trading Scheme.  adminThu, 24 Jul 2008 06:37:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:51http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/120/Speech-to-John-Curtin-Institute-of-Public-Policy.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=120http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=120&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/120/Speech-to-John-Curtin-Institute-of-Public-Policy.aspx**CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY Our Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, dearly loves a grand gesture. Saying “Sorry” to the Stolen Generation, ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, solving all the problems of the world in one weekend with CateBlanchett and 999 other friends. If only, he must ask, politics was always like that. There is nothing wrong with grand gestures, great occasions, fine words and mellifluous oratory. Unless you lose interest the moment the applause dies away. Right now Australian taxes are being spent on an advertising campaign promoting the Government’s Green Paper on an emissions trading scheme. Now it is not called an “emissions trading scheme”. The spin doctors found that unsatisfactory and it has been renamed a “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”, but an ETS it is. This advertising campaign earnestly seeks to engage the Australian people, to reach out to them for their views. “Tell us what you think of our great plan?” the ads ask. All will have their say. But they must get their say in by the middle of September. Don’t be late or Senator Wong will pay no regard to you! Now many people will struggle to read the 516 pages of the Green Paper by September, let alone the equally weighty “draft” report of Professor Garnaut published only a few weeks before. But if they do they will find something missing. Economic modelling – the numbers that assess the costs and benefits. That’s right. Treasury’s modelling will not be ready until October; perhaps even November. So we are being asked to prepare submissions on the Green Paper without any idea of what Treasury believes the ETS might cost. And we don’t know what the rate of emissions cuts will be either. A flat or gradual trajectory may be relatively painless – a steep one very painful indeed. Both might reach the same objective. Companies with thousands of Australian jobs and billions of Australian dollars at risk will be asked to write what must be one of the most important submissions in their history – in the dark. Their only inspiration: 500 pages of warm words and the best of intentions. Now Kevin Rudd was elected on a platform of change. But will this change – this latest example of “new leadership” catch on? Will public company directors be able to persuade their shareholders to re-elect them, let alone increase their remuneration, without showing them the accounts? I don’t think so. The challenge of global warming and its response deserves better than this. The spin has to stop. The hard work, the detailed design, the careful painstaking analysis and consultation has to begin. So let’s start with a few hard facts. The Governments of the world and almost all of our scientists now accept that human activity is causing global warming by reason of our rapidly increasing emission of CO2 and similar warming gases, largely through the combustion of fossil fuels for energy as well as the destruction of the great rain forests of the world. In order to limit an increase in temperature by the end of this century to not more than 2 degrees celsius, the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change says that by 2050 global CO2 emissions will have to be reduced to a level equal to 50 per cent of their 1990 level. This is no mean feat. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol sought to commit developed nations to reduce their emissions by an average of 5 per cent by 2008-2012. Only a few countries have managed to achieve this reduction, mostly through happenstance. More ominously still, because of global population growth and strong economic growth, emissions are projected to continue to rise rapidly through to 2050 on a business as usual basis. The “50 per cent by 2050” target is more like an 80 per cent reduction from the business as usual figure. And to make matters worse, while the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period obliged only developed countries to make modest cuts (which as I have noted most of them will miss anyway), the vast majority of the growth in emissions will come from the developing world and in particular China, which has now replaced the United States as the world’s largest emitter, and India. Of course, comparing national emission levels is somewhat dubious. Is Norway’s low level emissions due to its advanced environmental awareness? Or does it have something to do with the fact that almost all of its electricity comes from hydropower? How real are national boundaries when you are dealing with global emissions and traded goods? The emissions of the NW Shelf LNG partners are counted against Australia’s tally, but that LNG is exported to countries like China who, by using it instead of coal, significantly reduce their emissions. The simple fact is that even if the developed world were to cut its emissions by 100 per cent by mid century – the developing world would need to cut its emissions by at least 40 per cent from their current business as usual trajectory. In other words, unless the Chinese, the Indians and the Americans can reach an understanding on a roadmap to reduce emissions the global effort has no prospect of success and we should all move to higher and cooler ground. Whichever way you slice and dice the numbers, there is no way we can reach the massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions without completely decarbonising the world’s stationary energy and indeed most of the transport energy of the world. We can certainly achieve a great deal with energy efficiency and reforestation, but as billions on our planet seek to climb out of poverty and enjoy something of the prosperity we take for granted they will need more and more energy. In short, we need to decouple energy growth from emissions growth. We need to have every coal or gas fired power station in the world replaced with a zero-emission power source or coupled with a carbon capture and storage plant that strips the CO2 from its flue gases and stores it permanently under the ground.  The scale and the difficulty of this technological transformation is unprecedented. The slogan “It’s Easy being Green” is right up there with “Your cheque’s in the mail.” So what should be the objectives of Australia’s climate change mitigation policy? Foremost among them are these: First, it must promote an effective global agreement on climate change – without that all our efforts domestically will be futile. Second, it must develop and deploy low emission technologies foremost in importance of which is carbon capture and storage (CCS) – we cannot decarbonise our energy sources without the means to do so and we should be world leaders in this technology. Third, we must continue to deploy our technology and resources to stop deforestation and promote reforestation. We have world’s best technology and expertise in this field and it is vital – 20 per cent of global emissions come from deforestation. Fourth, domestically we must of course play our part and reduce our emissions, but we must do so in a way that is globally environmentally effective and at the same time economically responsible. Unfortunately, the Green Paper has little to say about these points. Above all, we have to recognise that there is no silver bullet to dealing with climate change. Ratifying Kyoto was a symbolic act – an important one to be sure – but we must not forget Mr Rudd ratified a treaty the terms of which we had already committed to, and in fact will, comply with. It has been just over a year since the Coalition committed to an Emissions Trading Scheme that would begin not later than 2012. 2012 was an appropriate date for a number of reasons. From a practical point of view, it was the earliest date our advisers told us they could be confident the scheme would be ready. This is a complex design challenge and time is needed to consult both with interested parties but also with the public at large. The Prime Minister has shown that he is unable to explain how an ETS works, so plainly we need an extended public debate to raise awareness and understanding. It was the last year of the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol whose target we were and remain on track to meet. The European Union’s Phase 3 of its ETS will begin with wider auctioning of permits in 2013. The Copenhagen meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change will occur in late 2009. A start date in 2011 or 2012 gave us time to take all these developments into account. Labor’s response to our policy was that it would start an ETS – but in 2010. It had no basis for setting an earlier start date. But it sounded good. It is too bad that in the twelve months since the announcement of the Howard Government’s ETS policy there appears, judging by the Green Paper, to have been very little in the way of policy development. Our policy described in terms more concise, but not much less detailed, a comprehensive ETS whose final design and targets would be informed by Treasury’s economic modelling. We recognised that Australia, and indeed the world, would need to put a price on carbon. After all, for the foreseeable future and no matter how well the technology develops, a coal fired power station with CCS will always be more expensive than one without. Industry recognised the need for a carbon price, and an ETS allowed the flexibility of market forces to enable abatement at least cost. Now in an ideal world, literally, the whole globe would enter into a comprehensive ETS on the same day. There would be a global price for carbon just as there is for oil or gold. Everyone would pay more, but nobody would be disadvantaged relative to another. That ideal world is not likely to come along any time soon. Our judgement was that it was in Australia’s interest to establish its own ETS prior to a global agreement but to do so with great care to ensure that we did not damage our own economy. Australia is a wealthy and developed country. But unlike most developed countries, we are heavily dependent for our wealth on the export of commodities which are themselves energy intensive. Because more than 80 per cent of our energy comes from burning fossil fuels, and most of that coal, we are also emissions intensive. Our trade exposed industries are price takers in a global marketplace in which suppliers operating in developing countries face little near term prospect of paying a carbon price.  The fact that companies are trade exposed does not mean they should be exempt from Australian environmental standards which may be more stringent than those in other countries. However if we impose a carbon cost on an Australian aluminium smelter or LNG producer or coal miner or steelmaker and as a consequence that production is lost to another country without a carbon price, we run the risk of exporting both the jobs and the emissions. There is an economic detriment without any environmental benefit. Many of our high emission, trade exposed industries are very efficient by world standards. As Rio Tinto noted in its submission to the Garnaut Review, Australia is a leader in reducing both the energy and emissions intensity of aluminium and alumina production. There is a real risk that if Australian production is replaced by a plant in a country with laxer emissions standards, there could be not just as shift but an increase in CO2 emissions. The Green Paper proposes that compensation be offered to trade exposed emissions intensive firms. Determining who is trade exposed is not too hard – but the Green Paper proposes to provide firms with free permits for 90 per cent of their emissions if the firm emits 2000 tonnes of CO2 or more per million dollars of revenue and 60 per cent if it emits between 1500 and 2000 tonnes. The revenue test is itself controversial – high volume, low margin businesses will be more affected. Equally, the cut off at 1500 tonnes means that a number of LNG exporters in this State will miss out entirely - not just because their gas resources are relatively low in CO2 but because through their own efforts they have reduced fugitive emissions and reduced energy efficiency. For example, in its submission to the Garnaut Review, Chevron noted that in 2002 the North West Shelf Project was able to reduce its emissions intensity by 15 per cent by replacing the solvent used for separating CO2 from the natural gas and that new plant design for new LNG trains enabled a 40 per cent reduction in emissions intensity. More troubling still, and this is a very clear difference in approach from that proposed last year by Dr Shergold, the Green Paper proposes that compensation to the TEEIs be phased down over time, regardless of whether the countries with which those industries compete had imposed a comparable carbon tax. The transitional nature of the compensation proposed means that a business in Australia would have to question whether it could or should expand its operations or indeed continue them. A “no growth” approach to assistance for TEEIs is unrealistic. It is one thing for a wealthy country like Australia to agree to pay more for electricity in order to reduce emissions, it is quite another to expect customers in China to pay more for our LNG or our coal or our iron ore. This is a central issue in the whole ETS debate and it is one which I look forward to discussing further with Western Australian industries this week. Some people have asked whether it is appropriate at all for TEEIs to be included in a national emission reduction cap. Should they instead be dealt with as part of a global sectoral agreement? I pose this as a question rather than as a policy proposal. I also remain comfortable with the approach set out by Dr Shergold last year, but it is worth noting that in many of these energy and emissions intensive trade exposed industries a relatively small number of countries and indeed companies represent the bulk of product and hence emissions. Regardless of the final treatment of TEEIs in the ETS, while a global sectoral approach for these emissions intensive trade exposed industries may seem a way off today, it should be a central longer term objective of Australian climate change diplomacy. Addressing these sectoral issues early and decisively is very important not least because of the risk of the potential emergence of carbon taxes at the frontier. One way for a country to ensure that imports are treated equally to domestically produced goods is to impose a carbon tax on all imports which have not been subject to a carbon price in their own country. This approach has been the subject of active discussion in the European Union where no doubt it could be used as another pretext for the protection of agriculture. It has also been discussed widely in the United States.   Given Australia exports much more emissions intensive products than it imports we have a strong vested interest in ensuring that the concept of carbon taxes at the frontier does not acquire momentum. Another particularly difficult area in the design of the ETS is that of domestic (ie not trade exposed) industries which are nonetheless disproportionately (or to use the Green Paper jargon “strongly”) affected by an ETS in the sense that they are unable to pass on all or even most of the carbon cost to their customers. The classic examples include brown (particularly) and black coal fired electricity generation facilities.  ACIL-Tasman modelling suggests that a cut of 20 per cent emissions by 2020 could reduce the asset value Victorian and South Australian coal fired power stations by over 90 per cent.  The key here is the inability for the generators to fully pass on the increased costs to consumers. This is why the Government needs to be very careful – the heavy reliance on brown coal electricity in Victoria means that there are energy security issues relating to a shift to emissions trading.  Clearly it will be vital for carbon capture and storage to be deployed to our brown coal and black coal generators if they are to survive in the longer term. But this technology is unlikely to be widely deployed before 2020.  In these circumstances, even if we had the means to make up the energy shortfall, would it be prudent to allow our brown coal generators to shut down and then, in 2020, perhaps reopen? Probably not.  This brings me to what is a key issue in the climate change debate both globally and domestically. An ETS imposes a price on carbon. As permits are auctioned by the Government, the Treasury coffers will fill just as they would for a carbon tax. In terms of energy efficiency a carbon price simply adds to the cost of energy and in that sense is not distinguishable from a general increase in energy prices. Today’s motorist does not need a carbon charge to tell him that it is time to move to a more fuel efficient car. But a carbon price also encourages a shift to lower emission energy sources – it encourages the coal fired generator to switch to gas or renewables or to CCS. But if the cost of reducing the carbon emission is higher than the carbon price, then the only consequence of the carbon price is an increase in the cost of energy and an increase in government revenues. Nothing screams out of the literature on climate change more than the central importance of CCS. Even in countries like China and India where nuclear power is being rapidly expanded, long term dependence on coal for energy is a given. With China building enough coal fired power stations to equal Australia’s total capacity every six months, there is little prospect of meeting those long term emission reduction goals without CCS being made to work or some yet unknown technology. The Coalition Government committed considerable funds to CCS projects including the Gorgon project here in Western Australia. But to date, in Australia, all of the CCS projects presently in operation are very small indeed. While there are several CCS projects of scale internationally in the oil and gas business and with more to come including Gorgon, there is nowhere in the world a major coal fired power station which is using CCS to make it emission free. Everything I have learned while Environment Minister and since has convinced me of the need for Australia to do much more in developing and deploying CCS at scale. It is worth describing briefly what CCS involves. CO2 can be removed at different stages of the process in newer plants but the most important technology in the medium term is likely to be post combustion capture and storage where flue gases from a coal fired power station are run through a medium (typically an amine solution) which bonds with the CO2 from which it is then separated leaving a pure CO2 stream that can be compressed to a liquid state (where it has a similar volume and weight to water) and then pumped under pressure into a suitable geological formation, typically a depleted oil or gas field or a saline aquifer. This is not a cheap process nor is it straightforward either at the capture, or as you learned here at Kwinana at the storage stage. Additional energy is required to capture and store the CO2 from a power station. So one third more coal, one third more water. Put another way to store the CO2 from three 600 MW power stations you would need to build a fourth one. Thus while clean coal may be low emissions, it is not energy efficient – quite the contrary. And this gives rise to a paradox and further complexity. Because CCS requires more coal to be burned, it makes coal fired power stations with CCS considerably less fuel efficient than those without CCS." It is estimated that around 70 per cent or more of the cost of the CCS process is taken up with the business of separating and compressing the CO2 from the flue gases. The balance consists of transportation and storage the cost of which is heavily dependent on the distance of the storage geology from the power station and the nature of the strata where the CO2 is to be injected. The European Union’s climate change policy has the deployment of 15 CCS demonstration plants as an urgent priority although not one has yet been established. As the world’s largest exporter of coal and heavily dependent on it ourself we have a very keen self interest in ensuring that CCS is shown to work effectively sooner rather than later. The Howard Government was very focussed on CCS, it was central to our very practical response to climate change. And while our clean coal programmes have survived and appear to have been extended, I do not detect the same enthusiasm or commitment to clean coal technology from the Rudd Government. Indeed the Rudd Government’s extended Mandatory Renewable Target, in stark contrast to the Howard Government’s Clean Energy Target, expressly excludes CCS as a qualifying technology notwithstanding its vital importance to our, and the world’s, clean energy future. Climate change will continue to be a dominating topic of debate over the years ahead. Perhaps most difficult of all the climate measures will be the design of the ETS. Mr Rudd is already off to a bad start by promising to introduce the scheme in 2010 allowing too little time to take into account the many complexities only some of which we have already seen. Last year the Coalition was more modest. We knew an ETS would be extremely difficult to design and implement. We knew it would take time to consult carefully with affected industries, time to produce, review and debate the economic models that will tell us what the likely costs will be. We knew that there was much we would learn from industry, from the community, from other countries and, indeed from academia, as the scheme was developed. All of that would take time. The objective is to get it done right. So when Mr Rudd calls on the Coalition to be his collaborators, we say that we will certainly not collaborate in a rushed job nor will we collaborate in putting at risk Australian industries, jobs and our standards of living for no environmental gain. We are thoroughly committed to an economically responsible and environmentally effective response to climate change, one that will speed the world to a high energy, low emission future. And in fulfilling that commitment we will act resolutely and responsibly in our national interest. adminThu, 24 Jul 2008 05:28:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:120http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/141/RSS-Feed--Email-to-a-friend--Archives-Vital-ingredient-missing-in-the-emissions-scheme-mix.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=141http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=141&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/141/RSS-Feed--Email-to-a-friend--Archives-Vital-ingredient-missing-in-the-emissions-scheme-mix.aspxAustralian taxes are being spent on an advertising campaign promoting the Government's green paper on an emissions trading scheme - only now it is not called an "emissions trading scheme". The spin doctors found that unsatisfactory and it has been renamed a carbon pollution reduction scheme - but an emissions trading scheme it is. This campaign earnestly seeks to attract the interest of Australians, to reach out to them for their views. "Tell us what you think of our great plan," the ads say. All will have their say - but must do so by the middle of September. Many people will struggle to read the 516 pages of the green paper by September, let alone the equally weighty "draft" report of Professor Ross Garnaut. But if they do they will find something missing: economic modelling - the numbers that assess the costs and benefits. That's right - Treasury's modelling will not be ready until October, perhaps even November. So we are being asked to prepare submissions on the green paper without any idea of what Treasury believes the emissions trading scheme might cost. And we do not know what the rate of emissions cuts will be either. A flat or gradual trajectory may be relatively painless - a steep one very painful indeed. Both might reach the same objective. Companies with thousands of jobs and billions of dollars at risk will be asked to write one of the most important submissions in their history in the dark. Kevin Rudd was elected on a platform of change. But will this change - this latest example of "new leadership" - catch on? Will public company directors be able to persuade their shareholders to re-elect them, let alone increase their remuneration, without showing them the accounts? I don't think so. The challenge of global warming and its response deserves better than this. The spin has to stop. The hard work, the detailed design, the careful painstaking analysis and consultation has to begin. Nothing screams out of the literature on climate change more than the importance of carbon capture and storage. With China building enough coal-fired power stations to equal Australia's total capacity every six months, there is little prospect of meeting those long-term emission reduction goals without carbon capture and storage being made to work. The Coalition government committed considerable funds to carbon capture and storage projects, including the Gorgon project in Western Australia. But all of the projects in operation are very small. While there are several carbon capture and storage projects of scale internationally in the oil and gas business, and with more to come including Gorgon, nowhere in the world is there a major coal-fired power station that is using it to make it emission-free. As the world's largest exporter of coal - and being heavily dependent on it - Australia has a very keen self-interest in ensuring that carbon capture and storage is shown to work effectively sooner rather than later. The Howard government was very focused on carbon capture and storage. I do not detect the same enthusiasm or commitment to clean coal technology from the Rudd Government. Indeed the Government's extended mandatory renewable target, in contrast to the Howard government's clean energy target, expressly excludes it as a qualifying technology notwithstanding its vital importance to the nation's, and the world's, clean energy future. And when it comes to the emissions trading scheme, Rudd is already off to a bad start by promising to introduce it in 2010, allowing too little time to take into account its many complexities, only some of which we have seen. When Rudd calls on the Coalition to be his collaborators, we say that we will certainly not collaborate on a rushed job. Nor will we collaborate on putting at risk Australian industries, jobs and our standards of living for no environmental gain. We are thoroughly committed to an economically responsible and environmentally effective response to climate change, one that will speed the world to a high-energy, low-emission future. In fulfilling that commitment we will act resolutely and responsibly in our national interest. adminWed, 23 Jul 2008 22:52:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:141http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/52/Visit-to-Newcastle.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=52http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=52&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/52/Visit-to-Newcastle.aspx  Malcolm Turnbull, Federal Member for Wentworth and Shadow Treasurer was delighted to visit Newcastle today to discuss the Emissions Trading Scheme and its possible impact on the region. Malcolm stopped in at McM Manufacturing in Cardiff. McM specialises in industrial maintenance, manual machining and the production and repair of heat exchangers. “It was very informative to see first hand some of the technological developments that will play a key factor in mitigating against climate change in the short and long term” Malcolm said. Malcolm was honoured to be the special guest at the Newcastle Business Club Lunch. The Club is proudly celebrating its 75th anniversary this year. Special thanks to Martin Matthews and his team for organising such a wonderful event. Media Contact: Thomas Tudehope 0438 614 373  adminWed, 23 Jul 2008 06:39:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:52http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/54/Malcolm-writes-for-Sydney-Morning-Herald-on-Emissions-Trading-Scheme.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=54http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=54&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/54/Malcolm-writes-for-Sydney-Morning-Herald-on-Emissions-Trading-Scheme.aspxLast year the Howard government committed to introducing an emissions trading scheme not later than 2012. It was to be the world's most comprehensive to date, including more than 70 per cent of all emissions. Its introduction was not conditional on a post-Kyoto global climate change framework being agreed to; in that sense it was unilateral action. We also recognised that while an ambitious long-term emissions reduction target could be set for 2050, the most important targets were those in the near and mid term. They would need to be carefully set in the light of many factors, not least of which would be the state of international negotiations. If the world quickly committed to substantial reductions, with all major economies playing a part, then we could be more ambitious. If progress was slow, then our emissions reduction targets would need to be moderated. The truth is that the most heroic emission reductions in Australia will be futile if there is no effective global action, especially from the largest and fastest-growing emitters such as China, the United States, India, Japan and Europe. In our policy we recognised that "It may take some time for an effective global framework for emissions reductions to emerge". We also recognised that "our first-hand experience in implementing … an emissions trading system" would be of considerable assistance in our international discussions and negotiations aimed at achieving an effective global climate change agreement. Following the announcement of our policy and other measures, John Howard achieved a breakthrough in climate change diplomacy at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum in Sydney last September. For the first time China agreed to contribute to a global goal of emission reductions. Previously, China's position had been that emission reduction was the responsibility of the developed world. This unbalanced and ineffective approach was reflected in the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period expiring in 2012. We recognised that a poorly designed emissions trading scheme could harm Australia's economy. If we imposed a heavy carbon price on our trade-exposed industries such as aluminium, steel, gas and coal mining, we could make them uncompetitive with rivals in developing countries without any carbon price. We would end up exporting the jobs and the emissions - a loss for our economy with no environmental gain to the planet. We have to strike the balance between being a leader on climate change and being left out on a limb. The most important leadership role for Australia is where we were most focused last year: the development of clean coal technology and new strategies to stop deforestation in tropical countries such as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Coal is the most abundant and cheap source of stationary energy, and carbon capture and storage is the key to effective global emission reductions, especially in China and India. Our clean coal partnership with China and global forest project with Indonesia are initiatives the world needs and the Rudd Government should continue. None of this is easy and principles readily expressed can be difficult to apply in particular cases. Our officials, and indeed business, advised last year that a start date of 2011 was possible, but that only 2012 was confidently achievable. Last year Kevin Rudd promised his emissions trading scheme would start in 2010. He had no basis for knowing whether that was feasible. He simply wanted to make a political point. Rudd should try an unaccustomed dish, humble pie, admit he was wrong and go back to the original start date that we were advised last year. It's more important to get this emissions trading scheme right than to start it a year or two earlier. The earliest we will know the shape of the post-Kyoto climate agreement is in December next year. Common sense says we should give ourselves time to fine tune our scheme in light of that agreement. A 2010 start date gives us no opportunity to do so. Rudd likes to talk about climate change in theological terms - you are either with St Kevin in all things or damned as a climate sceptic. The debate has moved on and he has to move on too. The challenge is to design an emissions trading scheme that efficiently delivers the least cost abatement, which protects industries and jobs and which is administratively straightforward.  adminThu, 10 Jul 2008 06:45:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:54http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/53/Consumer-Confidence.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=53http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=53&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/53/Consumer-Confidence.aspxThe continued sharp decline in consumer sentiment is of serious concern. The level of the Westpac Melbourne Institute Index of Consumer Sentiment fell by a further 6.7% in July to 79.0, down from 84.7 in June. There is no escaping the fact that consumer sentiment has tumbled since the election of the Rudd Government. Recently in Parliament Kevin Rudd used the excuse that consumer confidence was at similarly low levels in the United States. But the fact is that the Australian economy is in much stronger position than the United States - it simply is not a sensible or credible comparison to make. Since January Mr Rudd and Wayne Swan, for base political reasons, have talked down the economy, and talked up inflation, variously describing the situation as an “inflation monster”, “a genie out of the bottle” and “out of control”. This has been utterly irresponsible. And again today economic analysts have pointed to the rise in petrol prices as a key factor. Mr Rudd and Mr Swan last year built an expectation they would be able to keep prices lower.  The Australian public now know this was a fraudulent claim. This continuing decline in consumer sentiment must also ultimately reflect a lack of confidence in the Government. Confidence can hold up in tough economic times if the public believe the Government has the capacity to manage those tough times. That is why, in stark contrast, consumer confidence held up well throughout the Howard years which included the Asian financial crisis, the September 11 terrorist attacks, the tech bubble, SARS, and the worst drought in 100 years. Australia has a strong and resilient economy, and consumers should be confident that we will again weather these turbulent conditions.adminThu, 10 Jul 2008 06:42:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:53http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/142/2010-makes-haste-not-sense.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=142http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=142&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/142/2010-makes-haste-not-sense.aspxLast year the Howard government committed to introducing an emissions trading scheme not later than 2012. It was to be the world's most comprehensive to date, including more than 70 per cent of all emissions. Its introduction was not conditional on a post-Kyoto global climate change framework being agreed to; in that sense it was unilateral action. We also recognised that while an ambitious long-term emissions reduction target could be set for 2050, the most important targets were those in the near and mid term. They would need to be carefully set in the light of many factors, not least of which would be the state of international negotiations. If the world quickly committed to substantial reductions, with all major economies playing a part, then we could be more ambitious. If progress was slow, then our emissions reduction targets would need to be moderated. The truth is that the most heroic emission reductions in Australia will be futile if there is no effective global action, especially from the largest and fastest-growing emitters such as China, the United States, India, Japan and Europe. In our policy we recognised that "It may take some time for an effective global framework for emissions reductions to emerge". We also recognised that "our first-hand experience in implementing … an emissions trading system" would be of considerable assistance in our international discussions and negotiations aimed at achieving an effective global climate change agreement. Following the announcement of our policy and other measures, John Howard achieved a breakthrough in climate change diplomacy at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum in Sydney last September. For the first time China agreed to contribute to a global goal of emission reductions. Previously, China's position had been that emission reduction was the responsibility of the developed world. This unbalanced and ineffective approach was reflected in the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period expiring in 2012. We recognised that a poorly designed emissions trading scheme could harm Australia's economy. If we imposed a heavy carbon price on our trade-exposed industries such as aluminium, steel, gas and coal mining, we could make them uncompetitive with rivals in developing countries without any carbon price. We would end up exporting the jobs and the emissions - a loss for our economy with no environmental gain to the planet. We have to strike the balance between being a leader on climate change and being left out on a limb. The most important leadership role for Australia is where we were most focused last year: the development of clean coal technology and new strategies to stop deforestation in tropical countries such as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Coal is the most abundant and cheap source of stationary energy, and carbon capture and storage is the key to effective global emission reductions, especially in China and India. Our clean coal partnership with China and global forest project with Indonesia are initiatives the world needs and the Rudd Government should continue. None of this is easy and principles readily expressed can be difficult to apply in particular cases. Our officials, and indeed business, advised last year that a start date of 2011 was possible, but that only 2012 was confidently achievable. Last year Kevin Rudd promised his emissions trading scheme would start in 2010. He had no basis for knowing whether that was feasible. He simply wanted to make a political point. Rudd should try an unaccustomed dish, humble pie, admit he was wrong and go back to the original start date that we were advised last year. It's more important to get this emissions trading scheme right than to start it a year or two earlier. The earliest we will know the shape of the post-Kyoto climate agreement is in December next year. Common sense says we should give ourselves time to fine tune our scheme in light of that agreement. A 2010 start date gives us no opportunity to do so. Rudd likes to talk about climate change in theological terms - you are either with St Kevin in all things or damned as a climate sceptic. The debate has moved on and he has to move on too. The challenge is to design an emissions trading scheme that efficiently delivers the least cost abatement, which protects industries and jobs and which is administratively straightforward. adminWed, 09 Jul 2008 22:53:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:142http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/55/Implementation-of-Coalition-tax-cuts.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=90&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=55http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=55&PortalID=0&TabID=90http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/55/Implementation-of-Coalition-tax-cuts.aspx The Shadow Treasurer, Malcolm Turnbull MP, welcomed the commencement of the final tranche of the Howard Government's tax cuts from 1 July 2008. The enactment of the Coalition’s tax cut bill – the Tax Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Reduction) Act 2008 – is the last in a long series of tax cuts pursued by the former Coalition Government. For a family with the principal earner on average weekly earnings and the second income earner in part-time work (earning 40 per cent of average earnings) the income tax cut will be around $30 per week, rising to $50 per week in 2010. These tax cuts will deliver around $20 per week to a person currently on average weekly earnings from 1 July 2008 rising to around $35 per week from 1 July 2010. The Coalition tax cuts will boost family income and help families deal with cost of living pressures. Unfortunately for Australians, there appears little prospect of further tax cuts under the Rudd Government.   Instead the Government wants to hoard the surpluses into various infrastructure funds to be deployed politically as various State and Territory elections approach.  The Coalition will be developing further tax policies which we will take to the next election.  These will be developed once Henry Ergas has completed his review of Australia’s tax system across all levels of Government. These tax cuts build on the significant reductions in personal income tax for low and average income earners that have resulted from tax cuts delivered by the Coalition over half a decade.  For all years including the GST tax cuts, in percentage terms, the greatest tax cuts have been provided to low and average income earners. The Coalition believes in lower and fairer taxes.   Only the Coalition can run a strong economy and consistently deliver tax cuts. adminTue, 01 Jul 2008 06:46:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:55