Turnbull interview with Alan Jones (Radio 2GB) - ETS, International Power Australia, bill of rights, medicating children, asylum seekers

The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP
Leader of the Opposition (to 1 December 2009)

E&OE

ALAN JONES:

Malcolm, good morning.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Good morning Alan.

ALAN JONES:

Do you think that the tide is turning a little on this carbon dioxide tax business? The BBC has acknowledged that the world has been getting cooler, not warmer, for the past 11 years, good old left wing BBC. Data from the Lowy Institute, as you would know, the 2009 poll shows that Australians are cooling over climate change at an even faster rate and when Mr Rudd made his pitch for election in 2007, climate change was the equal most important foreign policy issue. According to the latest poll, it’s now seventh. Might you be caught in the slipstream as the tide in favour of all of this stuff goes out?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well Alan I think it is still a high priority. It is perhaps not as high a priority relative to other more pressing issues of the moment but action on climate change is unquestionably a very high priority of Australians and right around the world. But it is and always will be a contentious issue.

ALAN JONES:

But if Australians knew, and not all Australians yet do know, that under the Rudd scheme we are talking about taking minimum $50 billion out of the economy in the first four years, then I suspect Australians would be alarmed.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well this is one of the challenges that we face is to get the debate on to the design of the scheme, onto the scheme itself as opposed to the theology of climate change. The real issue is the way in which Mr Rudd is bungling the design of the scheme and inflicting or proposing to inflict really serious economic damage to Australia with no environmental gain.

ALAN JONES:

So why not throw the gauntlet down in these amendments to the Government by demanding that the name of the legislation be changed? That will put them to the test. It is a carbon dioxide tax and that’s what the legislation is about – taxing Australians.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well Alan there is no doubt that it is a tax. It is a tax with a trading element in it because it is imposing a penalty on emitters of CO2 and the revenues go to the Government so it is unquestionably a tax.

ALAN JONES:

But didn’t they virtually admit that this week when Treasury, who appear to be apologists for the Government, criticised your scheme for containing a $2.3 billion black hole?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

And that was one of the most incredible – in the strictest sense of the word – statements I have ever heard from Wayne Swan. Frontier Economics who had done the work that we had commissioned to look at a cheaper, greener and smarter way to cut emissions which would result in much lower electricity prices, Frontier’s work has been out there for months. They are respected economic advisers. They have worked for governments, Labor governments, big companies, big power generators right around the country. Wayne Swan came out and said there is a $3 billion hole but he wouldn’t produce any of the modelling, he wouldn’t produce any of the evidence.

ALAN JONES:

His own modelling, his own modelling.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

No, none of his own modelling. They have refused…

ALAN JONES:

Where do these figures come from?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well, where do they come from? They have no credibility at all.

ALAN JONES:

But $2.3 billion was untrue anyway because that’s over four years so we are talking about, if it were true, it would be a $800 million hole in a, what, a $350 billion budget whereas they are taking, what, $50 billion minimum over four years. I’m just wondering whether you ever have second thoughts – am I on the wrong tram here by being identified with an emissions trading scheme, a carbon dioxide tax, when this damage is going to be done to unemployment, to employment, to industry, to business and the lot?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well Alan the problem that you face is that you cannot responsibly in my view do nothing to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is the prudent and responsible thing to do. The question is how you do it. Now the amendments that we will…

ALAN JONES:

Can I just ask this question – why do we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well because of the scientific consensus and the global movement…

ALAN JONES:

Not consensus. Some scientists.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Okay. Well you may say there are some scientists but there are enough of them to convince every other government in the world that action is important, that convinced Margaret Thatcher that action was important, that convinced the whole global community.

ALAN JONES:

But we could… you’re the alternative prime minister of Australia, not of the world. We could go wholly green here…

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

That’s Kevin Rudd that wants to be prime minister of the world.

ALAN JONES:

Righto, not one whit of difference. We could be wholly green and make not one whit of difference to global temperatures if indeed CO2 contributes to global heating.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well Alan you are absolutely right. If we did everything and nobody else did anything, then it wouldn’t make any difference globally but that is not what is being proposed…

ALAN JONES:

But hang on, Kevin Rudd won’t tell us what the rest of the world is doing so why are we jumping into this snake pit without knowing what the rest of the world is doing. See this is what…

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Alan, we agree that the design of the scheme should not be finalised until after the Copenhagen Summit. But you have to be realistic here. There is and has been a lot of action around the world to cut emissions. There are emissions trading schemes right through many of the states of the United States. There has been one here in New South Wales for a long time. The Europeans have got one. Australia has very high per capita greenhouse gas emissions. We are a very energy-intensive and emissions-intensive economy and that is the way we have been built up over the years and much of that is related to exports and that is why it is very important that in any scheme, whether it is a straight tax, whether it is a trading scheme, whether it is just done by way of regulation, that you have mechanisms that protect Australian jobs and you don’t have the result of a lot of economic pain and no environmental gain and that is what we are focusing on with these amendments.

ALAN JONES:

Well let me put this to you – the only time I ever hear Mr Rudd and Ms Wong, Greg Combet and Peter Garrett talk about an emissions trading scheme is in the Parliament where they can say what they like and they’re not challenged. But they are not like John Howard selling a GST. They’re not out in the electorate trying to sell this thing because they feel if they shut up long enough the public won’t wake up to the fact that it is a carbon dioxide tax. Are you getting that message through?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well Alan I believe so because I think there is no question that it is a tax. It is a tax with the ability to trade and to, in effect, buy credits in from other sources and that enables the overall cost to be reduced. That is why emissions trading schemes, as opposed to straight carbon taxes, have been adopted, as far as I am aware, everywhere. The idea of a straight tax doesn’t have as much appeal economically as a trading scheme because with a tax you just have to pay the tax on your emissions. With a trading scheme, you have got to buy a permit and that is the tax element but you can also buy a credit. If you don’t want to buy that permit, you can buy a credit and discharge your obligation and if you can buy that credit cheaper somewhere else, then that lowers your cost.

ALAN JONES:

Right. Well now he, Mr Rudd, famously lambasted you and John Howard and everyone, neo-liberalists he called you, talking about corporate cowboys. Doesn’t – you’ve just explained the way the system operates – doesn’t this system, if it comes into place, rely on that same sort of cowboy market, trading in complicated carbon permits for money? I mean Lehman Brothers were well known proponents of carbon credit schemes.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well Alan, I’m in favour of free markets and I know you are too. The reality is that competition and free markets have delivered enormous prosperity over the last several decades, not just for Australians but right around the world, lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Freedom, economic freedom is vital and I totally and utterly reject Kevin Rudd’s contention that free markets are bad, that capitalism has failed or, as he now asserts, that government should be at the centre of the economy.

ALAN JONES:

Okay, well let me just ask. I wonder if you have noted this story today that International Power, the British company which owns the Hazelwood Power Station in Victoria, is lobbying the Federal Government for billions of dollars. It’s not looking for money in order to keep going. It’s asking for money to close down because they can’t really rollover their debt and they are terribly concerned that what is being proposed under this emissions trading scheme is basically unaffordable to them. Now who is going to step into the breach and provide a quarter of Australia’s electricity?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well it would have to be provided by other sources…

ALAN JONES:

And we can’t do it.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well that’s not true, Alan…

ALAN JONES:

Well, not overnight. It would cost billions to replace what Hazelwood and others in Victoria are currently producing.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well Alan that is absolutely right and that is one of the key issues that we are addressing in the amendments that we are going to present. The Rudd Government’s ETS provides wholly inadequate compensation to the power generation sector, in particular, to the coal fired generators…

ALAN JONES:

And the value of their assets is being diluted, isn’t it.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well the value of their assets will be dramatically decreased in the order of about $10 billion across the industry.

ALAN JONES:

Quite. Now you’re a New South Wales politician. In New South Wales, Morris Iemma tried to sell electricity assets. He was stabbed in the back by that fellow Robertson but now as a result of all of this, what could have been worth $15 billion this time last year, I see analysts today saying the sale could be worth two to three billion. These are phenomenal costs that have got to be picked up by somebody.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well Alan there is no question that one of the great lies in the world is it’s easy being green. To move from cheap coal-fired power generation, which emits a lot of CO2 and other polluting substances, particulate matter and so forth, to move from that to cleaner fuels, such as gas or indeed to renewables or to nuclear power if that were acceptable, all of that is going to cost money and that is part of the transition. You know this transition to clean energy is not cheap.

ALAN JONES:

Goodness me. Did you see also the story [inaudible] and particularly if it’s about some kind of mirage, that if we don’t do all this the world is going to heat up and, what Penny Wong said, the Barrier Reef will disappear. A story today that the mining industries are concerned about some of your amendments, that you’re wanting them to stop venting waste methane and they’re supposed to use this to generate electricity instead and they are saying that your proposal to cut, what they call these things, fugitive emissions by 30 per cent over ten years is going to be a very expensive thing for mining. So they are criticising your amendments which you have said publicly are supposed to be helping Australian industry.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well that criticism is very ill-informed and I don’t want to debate the amendments before we get to the party room but I can assure you that what Kevin Rudd is proposing will devastate the Australian coal mining industry. The amendments we are proposing will ensure that it remains competitive and at the same time that it moves in an economically affordable way to lower emissions and make use of some of the very valuable rich gases that are produced when mines are being developed and uses those gases for generating clean electricity.

ALAN JONES:

Just a question, this week when a questioner at a Community Cabinet meeting asked the Prime Minister about the fact that the scheme was actually a tax not a scheme, the poor unsuspecting person got a dressing down from the Prime Minister. Have you got any comment on that?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well it is a tax. There is no point… I honestly don’t know why he goes through this pretence of saying it is not a tax. It is a tax. There is no question about that. Any measure that results in people having to pay money to the Government as a price of doing something, some business activity, whether it is employing people like payroll tax or selling property like conveyance tax, or earning income, income tax, or buying goods and services, the GST and in this case emitting CO2, it is a tax. Full stop. It is a tax but it has the element of trade which enables you to have a lower cost overall across the economy than if it were just a straight tax.

ALAN JONES:

Okay, I’ll end it here, this thing. So in other words, in pursuing what may be a fiction, what may be an illusion, we are quite prepared to burden the Australian economy with this further tax?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well Alan it may be an illusion, it may be a delusion that your house is going to be hit with lightning tonight but you nonetheless have insurance. This is a question of risk management. Now just because you are not convinced and I would think most people have at least some doubts about the science. If you want to be prudent about it, if you want to manage your risk responsibly, then you have got to take some measures.

Now, the proposal, the amendments that we are proposing will enable Australia to take a lot of measures which we would call ‘least regrets’ which involve re-investing into our landscape, into our environment, promoting soil carbon, improving the productivity of our soils and also offsetting carbon emissions at the same time. And then if you turn out to be right 20 years from now, 30 years from now, well, we will have spent a lot of money making our country a cleaner and greener place and that will be a good thing anyway.

ALAN JONES:

One of the concerns about all this – I’ll just stay with Malcolm Turnbull for a moment on other issues other than this, we’re coming up to the news at 7:30 – one of the concerns about this is, of course, it has obscured and enabled the Government to not face scrutiny over other very critical matters to those people out there. For example, is this country going to get a human rights act, a bill of rights?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well not if I have anything to do with it. I am totally opposed to it and I have been all my life. Entrenching generalised guarantees of human rights in legislation like that simply transfers legislative authority from parliaments to unelected judges. Now I have got nothing against judges but the people who should make laws are the parliamentarians because they can be chucked out every three years.

ALAN JONES:

Good on you. Good answer. But you’ve got to get that into the vanguard of public debate, haven’t you?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well, Alan, my view is that there is so much opposition to this bill of rights and not just – it’s comprehensive from our side of politics – but there are leading figures on the Labor side. Bob Carr has been very critical of it for exactly the same reason I just described. John Hatzistergos, the Attorney-General here in New South Wales, is similarly critical. You know the problem is we can all agree on a generalised guarantee, you know – no citizen shall be deprived of the equal protection of the law. Of course that’s absolutely right, of course. But then what does it mean? And if you get judges interpreting in that and in effect making laws…

ALAN JONES:

They are ill-equipped to deal with this forcefully.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well Alan, it wouldn’t matter if they were better equipped, more intelligent, better read than any parliamentarian. The problem is they’re not elected; they’re not accountable to the people.

ALAN JONES:

Okay, well done. Look, these things don’t get debated at the national level and I believe they should. There has been a major outcry here in recent days about doctors prescribing jobs to troublesome kids and the drug Ritalin has been mentioned. What should be done about the misuse of medications used to treat what may be another fiction, that everything’s got a label, a kid misbehaves so he’s got attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder? Do we just allow unsuspecting parents to be told drugs are the answer without any information to these poor people about the adverse reactions created by these drugs?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Alan, look I’m not a specialist in this area to say the least. In fact I know I don’t have any medical qualifications at all. But I am very troubled to read about very young children being medicated in this way.

Now it’s something that I think really the community has to demand that the medical profession stand up and justify.

ALAN JONES:

But at the end of the day those freedoms that you talk about are meant to be protected by government on behalf of the people and if people really are suffering in this way, surely we’ve got to start focusing on who is responsible for it. And doctors say, well, here are the drugs, feed the drugs, Ritalin, with all these by-products. And mothers say, well how do I know, what do I do?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well I think that’s right and of course people rely implicitly, faithfully on doctors, but it’s important that the decisions of doctors and indeed lawyers, or even broadcasters and politicians, be held up to criticism and account.

ALAN JONES:

Asylum seekers – Mr Rudd says he’s getting tough on asylum seekers.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

That is the greatest humbug. He has laid out the welcome mat and he’s held the door right open. He has softened Australia’s policies on border protection. He did that quite deliberately. He said it would have no impact on illegal arrivals. He was warned by the Federal Police that it would. He’s created the impression we’re a soft target and the people smugglers, as is abundantly evident, are using that as a marketing tool. And we’ve had 2,000 arrivals, just under, since he started softening the policies and there are, as everyone acknowledges, a lot more to come.

It’s only a few months back that Labor was saying the Christmas Island detention facility was an expensive white elephant because there was nobody in it. Well the fact that there was nobody in it was because the Howard Government’s policies had worked. The Rudd Government’s policies are filling it to overflowing and they will shortly be having to house these people on the mainland, which of course defeats the whole purpose of the offshore processing at Christmas Island.

ALAN JONES:

So is Mr Rudd telling the electorate a lie when he says that this is a direct consequence of a flood of international refugees?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Alan, that is a complete falsehood. The push factors, so-called, have always been there and the reality is, if you are living in difficulties in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iraq and you could spend several thousand dollars and have a high probability of getting into Australia then that is something you’re likely to take up and there are literally thousands of people in the pipeline.

Now we were able, in government, by a series of measures, a whole web of measures, to create the impression that Australia was a very hard place to get into and that if you paid your money to the people smuggler you could not be assured that you would wind up in Australia. Now that was deliberately designed to undermine the business of the people smugglers. You see, the only way you can stop the people smuggling is if they are not able to reliably tell their customers they will get them into Australia.

Now Mr Rudd said our policies were no good but he has no policy response of his own. And that is why we’ve said, given that he doesn’t seem to know what the situation is at the moment, let’s have an independent inquiry right now. Get the benefit of the AFP advice, the intelligence services’ advice, let the Australian people find out what’s going on on the ground, what impact Mr Rudd’s changes have made and what may be the policies that would be effective going forward.

He has unpicked a very carefully constructed fabric of policy that enabled us to have protected borders and little or not illegal arrivals. We’re now facing what looks like being the beginning of a flood.

And Alan, if I could just put this in context, we take as a generous, compassionate nation, 13,000 refugees a year. And obviously we want to be able to select them ourselves, go the places where people are in greatest need. If we get to the point where we have first two, maybe four, maybe 6,000 coming by boat who are self-selected and are there because they can afford to pay the people smugglers the fare, that reduces the number of people in greatest need that we can put through our own humanitarian program.

ALAN JONES:

One final point. The Prime Minister has argued, accused you of avoiding debate about climate change. Do you sometimes wonder why as Opposition Leader, who really has no influence other than a persuasive influence on decision-making, why the scrutiny has been persistently on you about the legislation but almost none in relation to the Government?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well it’s a very good question and the tragedy of it all is that the media by and large do not ask Mr Rudd questions about climate change. The discussion we’ve just had, I’ve never heard Mr Rudd engage in a debate like this. I’ve never heard him submit to that at all.

ALAN JONES:

Never, no. Just finally then on that, you’ve got this meeting on Sunday. You’re bringing in the whole team, the Coalition team on Sunday. You’re apparently going to explain the amendments to the Coalition Party Room. My understanding is they will give approval to them. So what if the Rudd Government…just a quick one here, what is the nature of these negotiations? Does someone pick up a phone and say to you, Mr Turnbull can you come and talk to us about these amendments or how is this negotiation going to occur?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well we will give them to the Government and then we will have a meeting or a series of meetings and that’s exactly what…

ALAN JONES:

With bureaucrats, with underlings or with…

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

No, well the discussions will be largely between Ian Macfarlane and Penny Wong.

ALAN JONES:

And if Mr Rudd and the Government say no?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well I assume that we will get agreement…well I assume they won’t reject everything, that’s an easy answer. I assume they won’t accept everything so we’ll have something in the middle and then we will…

ALAN JONES:

Then you’ll have to go back to the party room.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well, we will have to decide how we react. But if, let’s assume they rejected everything, what we then have is a detailed critique and an alternative platform from which we can fight against this scheme because our amendments obviously highlight the deficiencies in their scheme and enable us to attack it in a detailed way. So instead of just saying, because with all due respect the argument that climate change isn’t happening is one that the vast majority of Australians don’t buy and don’t agree with. But the argument that is compelling is to say your scheme, Mr Rudd, will destroy thousands of jobs without having any material environmental benefit. We have an alternative. If he refuses to take it out, that then is our platform from which we can attack what he is doing and be both constructive in our criticism and have a positive agenda of our own.

ALAN JONES:

Good on you. Good to talk to you and I thank you for your time.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Great to be with you.

Share via:

Kwoff

Digg

Delicious

Newsvine

Facebook

StumbleUpon