Mon, 7th July 2008
Nelson Doorstop - Canberra
The Hon Dr Brendan Nelson MP
Leader of the Opposition
E&OE
DR NELSON:
Well Mr Rudd heads off to the G8 meeting tomorrow in Japan and only a month ago Mr Rudd said that the G8 should take the blowtorch to OPEC. Mr Rudd now has the opportunity to take his own blowtorch to the G8, and that is to do everything that he possibly can as the Prime Minister of Australia to see that the G8 countries commit to a genuinely global response to climate change.
Australia’s economic future is far too important for Mr Rudd to lose this opportunity to pressure some of the most significant countries and largest emitters throughout the world to sign on to a global response to climate change. The very real concern that all of us must have as Australians is that with Mr Rudd proposing to implement an emissions trading scheme from 2010 that he will put Australia well ahead of the rest of the pack, well ahead of the rest of the world and in doing so risk Australia’s economic future, the jobs of Australians, of Australian industries, without any environmental gain whatsoever.
This is now the opportunity which Mr Rudd has said with a megaphone from Australia to the G8 countries, for them to do something in relation to OPEC to reduce the price of petrol. He has now got the opportunity and the responsibility to do something for Australia and do something for the world and that is put real pressure on the countries that are the real emitters throughout the world to give us a meaningful response to climate change and to do so with a sense of renewed urgency.
QUESTION:
So Dr Nelson, the United States should be the first cab off the rank?
DR NELSON:
Well the key emitters throughout the world of course are the United States, China and India. And of course the Russian countries. It’s very important that Australians understand that we alone cannot solve the problem of climate change but we can do enormous damage to our environmental and our economic future if we get this wrong. Given that Mr Rudd seemed incapable of getting something as simple as solar panels on our roofs right, I’m very concerned that he and his Government will not have the capacity to manage this major economic transformation in Australia.
Yes, we have to give the planet the benefit of the doubt. Yes, Australia has to act. But we must be part of a genuinely global solution. And if we go ahead of the pack, if we introduce in a hurried way an ill-considered emissions trading scheme for Australia well before the major emitting countries of the world do so, we will simply transfer industries and jobs and our standard of living from Australia to other parts of the world without any single benefit for our environment.
QUESTION:
Are you saying there should be no emissions trading scheme until the post Kyoto arrangements are hammered out and China and India are committed?
DR NELSON:
We must be ready to implement an emissions trading scheme as a market-based solution to address climate change and Australia’s contribution to it. We must be in the process and be well developed in advancing an emissions trading scheme. We have got to have a clear understanding as Australians of how it will work, what it will mean and have a reasonable timeline for its introduction.
But we have got to do so making absolutely sure that we’ve got the big countries of the world signed onto this. Because if anyone accepts the doomsday future that is being proposed to us by Professor Garnaut and others, if Australia closed every industry, if Australia took every car, every truck off the road, that will do nothing for our environment unless we get the other countries in the world acting. It will border on an act of irresponsibility for the Australian Government to act before we know that we have a solid agreement coming out of Copenhagen next year for 2012 particularly form the major emitters throughout the world.
If China and India continue to enlarge their carbon footprint and Australia then proceeds without any agreement from those countries with its own emissions trading scheme, hastily ill-considered and implemented, that would do enormous damage to our future. And from my perspective, from the Coalition’s perspective, we must put Australia first. We have got a responsibility to act in a realistic, rational, sustainable manner. We have got to have an environmentally credible objective for our future, but we have also got to make sure it is economically responsible.
QUESTION:
Dr Nelson [inaudible] clear, regardless of when the start date of am emissions trading scheme would be, if we got to it and China, India and the US were not signed on, you would say that we should not start the scheme?
DR NELSON:
We should not start an emissions trading scheme in Australia until we are absolutely confident that it is ready to commence and also that the rest of the world has a start date for dealing with climate change itself. For Australia to go it alone well in advance of the rest of the world will do irreparable damage to our economic future and not do a darn thing to address climate change and an environmentally sustainable future for the planet.
QUESTION:
You don’t buy the argument that we have to do something; that if we haven’t taken any action ourselves we won’t have any clout to persuade these other parties to get on board. You don’t buy that at all?
DR NELSON:
Obviously leadership is important and Mr Rudd has an opportunity at the G8 meeting to put some real pressure, to use his own expressions ‘a blowtorch’ on the G8 as far as this is concerned. But it will be an act of environmental suicide, an act of economic suicide if Australia were to be so far in front of the world implementing an ill-considered, not yet properly developed and tested emissions trading scheme if we haven’t got a genuinely global response.
I have said it repeatedly and I will say it again: it is absolutely essential that we give the planet the benefit of the doubt. Australia, although representing only 1.4 per cent of global emissions, has a responsibility to be part of a genuinely global response. But if we act ahead of the United States, China and India in particular then we will do enormous damage to our economic future and do absolutely nothing to preserve our environment and that of the rest of the world.
QUESTION:
The previous government committed to a domestic emissions trading scheme I think by the end of 2011, 2012. Were they wrong to do that too without a commitment from the big emitters, with no commitment from China, America and so forth?
DR NELSON:
Some significant progress has been made in the last year or two, particularly some of the in-principle agreements that were reached at APEC last year. The best advice that the previous government had was that we could confidently start to implement an emissions trading scheme methodically and properly developed from 2011, certainly by 2012. One of the key principles for us is that we must ensure that we have the rest of the world on board. That doesn’t mean that the rest of the world starts acting in exactly the same year as Australia but instead that there is a water tight agreement from the major emitters that they are going to act and that some reasonable timeline is given to us.
QUESTION:
Dr Nelson, you talk about applying the blowtorch in Japan but what sort of leverage do you think that the Prime Minister has? We’re not even part of the G8? What are you suggesting?
DR NELSON:
Well the Prime Minister is attending the meeting in Japan. He will have an opportunity to diplomatically and I would think directly put to the key countries that are involved in this meeting Australia’s very strong view in relation to climate change. He will also have the opportunity to publicly put Australia’s position as a key ally of the United States, as a mature and solid friend of China, and obviously the other countries that are involved in the meeting.
He spoke here from Australia when he was pretending that he wanted to bring petrol prices down, he spoke here from Australia about the G8 needing to apply the blowtorch to the OPEC countries as a way of increasing oil production and therefore, from his perspective, reducing petrol prices in Australia. Now he is actually going to be able to eyeball these people and he ought to be a human blowtorch and put direct pressure on them to actually commit to a global response to climate change.
QUESTION:
What do you want him to do?
DR NELSON:
What he should do is fairly, clearly, in plain English, put to them that Australia considers this to be a very important issue. That his government is planning to introduce an emissions trading scheme from 2010. That without them fully committing to some timelines and meaningful action, that his government is risking Australia’s own economic future without environmental gain.
QUESTION:
Mr Fukuda has failed with George Bush. Do you think we should wait until President Bush departs the scene?
DR NELSON:
Well again I think Mr Rudd and I think the rest of the world needs to work together as best as it is able and Australia needs to use its influence with the rest of the world irrespective of the electoral deadlines, whether they’re in the United States or any other country to see that we get action. The real…
QUESTION:
What kind of influence should we use? Should we use our energy exporting influence?
DR NELSON:
Well I won’t be specific about that other than to say that Mr Rudd is going there as Australia’s Prime Minister. Our country is on the verge of undertaking the most significant economic and social transformation that we have seen in more than a generation, and I think Mr Rudd owes it to Australia and to future generations of Australians to use the G8 meeting to put real pressure on these countries. It’s very important that we don’t just allow Mr Rudd to simply say these things here in Australia; he has a responsibility to put these concerns directly to the rest of the world.
QUESTION:
Given the size of the reform you have just mentioned, would you support a Government advertising campaign to educate Australians on the complexities?
DR NELSON:
Look, I suspect that what we will is that the state governments will do much of the advertising, that’s paid government advertising, for Mr Rudd, but I think that there is a case for our country educating Australians about what an emissions trading scheme might look like, what the consequences for Australians might be, and that’s something that I would be prepared to look at.
QUESTION:
Do you think that would work against the government in fact if some of the points that you’re making are true.
DR NELSON:
Well Michelle I know some of you have accused us of engaging in political opportunism in relation to climate change. I’ll just tell you exactly what I said to my own party room two weeks ago and that is that this transcends the normal political divide that you would see in Australian politics. This is about Australia, it’s about our future, it’s not something that’s going to last in a political sense for one, two or three years. This is about our entire future and we have an obligation as Australians to get this right.
What we will do is do what we believe is right for Australia. It may, once we see the Government’s enunciated policy prescription, it may be that we will support much of what the Government proposes to do, but we may not. We will have a methodically, carefully considered response and policy approach to climate change. I am particularly concerned that Mr Rudd will be dealing with a Senate which will seek to take Australian environmental and economic policy considerably to the left, and I’m very mindful of the fact and determined that we should act in Australia’s best interests.
QUESTION:
Dr Nelson you appear to be adopting a sort of a pre-Howard position on climate change; that you’re not even committed to an emissions trading scheme in 2011-12 in the absence of further agreement at Copenhagen. Is that correct and have you given any thought at all to the detail? For example, would you support a slow start to a scheme if it did get up and running with fixed low prices for permits in the early years? Or alternatively the phasing in of different industries?
DR NELSON:
Well, again the Coalition’s position has been for the best part of a decade that the whole world has to act. If Australia took every industry, every vehicle out of operation in this country, China and India and the United States and other countries will determine environmentally what happens in Australia in the absence of action.
As far as detail is concerned, we will very carefully and methodically work through not only professor Garnaut’s report but also the green paper. We’re in the process of taking advice from a number of expert organisations and individuals, and we will have a well developed policy in relation to it and I’m not prepared to say anything more at the moment.
QUESTION:
So you’re no longer committed to a 2012 start date for an emissions trading scheme?
DR NELSON:
Well again, we have always said that there has to be a genuinely global response and I think you may recall that one of the most significant things that happened in the election campaign in November last year was that Mr Rudd and Peter Garrett actually admitted that there would have to be a genuinely global response from 2012. That has always been our position; it continues to be our position. We were advised when in government that an emissions trading scheme could responsibly be developed and implemented at the earliest in 2011, certainly by 2012. That of course should occur in the context of a global response, certainly one that will involve the major emitters.
QUESTION:
Yes but Dr Nelson, that’s a [inaudible] change of policy. When you went through this process there was much discussion about whether Australia should move ahead of the rest of the world and the Cabinet’s decision, which you were part, was that in relation to emissions trading at least, that it, that Australia would move in advance of the rest of the world. You’re saying that you’ve changed the policy?
DR NELSON:
Well, what I’m saying to you is that there has to be a genuinely global response to climate change. That has always been our position. It always will be. Australia acting alone will be an exercise in environmental futility that will be destructive to our economic future. That has always been our position and it continues to be so. We would, we would expect…
QUESTION:
But the answer is yes.
DR NELSON:
No it’s not. We would expect that from 2009 out of Copenhagen that there will be a global agreement. That’s what Australia and the developed world particularly needs to be working toward and that’s what we will expect.
QUESTION:
And in the absence of a global agreement at that meeting, your commitment to an emissions trading in 2012 is subject to that, is that what you’re saying?
DR NELSON:
Again...
QUESTION:
It’s just a little unclear.
DR NELSON:
Again, we will annunciate our policy, under my leadership, once we have carefully examined the Garnaut Report, the green paper, the other sources of expert advice that we are taking, and we’ll have a well-considered approach to it.
Again, consistently in terms of principle, the principles are that climate change is real. Our country has a responsibility to act. It must be part of a genuinely global response to climate change. We must go into this with our economic eyes wide open. And as a matter of principle we believe it’s very important that Australian motorists, and low income households in particular, be protected as far as there electricity bills are concerned. I’m not prepared to enunciate any further detail at the moment.
QUESTION:
Dr Nelson, you say, you say you’re worried about the Greens in the Senate, but aren’t you throwing the emissions trading scheme’s future into their hands if you aren’t prepared to negotiate with the Labor Government and provide your numbers in the Senate to an emissions trading scheme.
DR NELSON:
Well you’re putting words in my mouth and that’s not true.
If I could just say one other thing in relation to the Art Monthly photographs. The use and sexualisation of children in this way is indefensible whether in the name of art, parental consent or political protest. It is absolutely essential that we stand up to this. What these people have done in this publication and using the photographs of this child in this way is send a two-fingered salute to the rest of society. I will be asking the police authorities to investigate whether there is any breach of the law as it stands by the publication of these photographs. It’s also obvious that there needs to be a review of the national classifications systems. There are many ways in which children have been used by earlier generations which we would not seek to defend today. And while in the arts we pass the soul from one generation to the next, shaping our values and our beliefs, the use of children in this way should no longer continue. And whilst it is very hard to define explicitly where it is appropriate or not appropriate to use children in this way, I think most Australian’s would accept this is not appropriate and that the child concerned defends the photographs, in my view, merely compounds what has happened.
QUESTION:
Dr Nelson, don’t the children’s parents’ views in this case count for anything?
DR NELSON:
Obviously parental consent and parental views are important. But once consent for the use of a child in this way has been given, it can never be taken back. And it is now time for our society to stand up and say that this is not appropriate. If you were sitting on a bus and the person next to you turned on their laptop and this was the screen saver, you would be very concerned.
QUESTION:
What about pictures of children abroad, where you see pictures all the time of naked children, abroad, should they be banned?
DR NELSON:
Michelle, that children can be used and are used in this way and in worse ways in other parts of the world is no excuse for Australia to not take a lead in terms of shaping the values that we think are important in the protection and nurturing of children. I mean this, as I’ve said before, this is one of the critical measures of a caring society and whilst, whatever the motives of parents are, whatever consent or otherwise has been given, this is wrong. We need to say it is wrong, we need to be prepared to stand up and say that it is wrong. And, as I say, the use of children in this way is indefensible, whether in the name of art, parental consent or political protest. And it’s interesting that this debate occurs in the context of there being a searing debate in Australia about child protection, a Northern Territory intervention that was motivated by the shame of the sexual exploitation of children in the Northern Territory, and also where there’s been quite a deep debate and division in Australia about bringing a paedophile to justice.
QUESTION:
So, do you think these things really are related?
DR NELSON:
Well, I think…
QUESTION:
Do you think, just taking the child protection issue, do you think that there is any possible relationship between children, small children photographed without clothes and abuse of children as we’ve seen in the recent cases in the last month or so?
DR NELSON:
Michelle, this is an extraordinarily complex issue. It is not one that can be clearly distilled down to there being a direct relationship between one particular event, or one particular issue, or one particular dimension of it. Our society is grappling with a whole variety of complex issues involving children, from sexual abuse to neglect, through to the inappropriate use of them in so-called ‘artistic’ ways. I think it is now time for us, we’ve been deliberately… These people with Art Monthly have sought to deliberately provoke, if not send a two fingered salute to the rest of the country about the controversies surrounding Bill Henson’s photography. I think it is time for us to take a stand. I am not by nature a wowser or anything of the sort. Seen a bit throughout my life in terms of the inappropriate behaviour of adults in relation to children. But I think that, whilst those who support the publication of these images in this form may be well intentioned in what they are doing, they know not what they do when others use these images in quite inappropriate, if not worse ways.
QUESTION:
Just quickly, Kevin Rudd says it might be a bit expensive to run a candidate in Mayo. Would you rather he ran one, would you like a fair fight or are you happy to win it by default?
DR NELSON:
Well, look that’s a matter for the Labor Party. I thought he was a bit disingenuous when he said that it would cost them several hundred thousands of dollars to run a candidate in Mayo. It’s entirely a matter for the Labor Party, but we will choose the very best candidate that we can. We will run an effective campaign. We will work hard to convince the people of Mayo that they should continue to send a Liberal Member of Parliament to Canberra. But I will be surprised if the Labor Party doesn’t run a candidate. As all of you know, the Labor Party has very deep pockets, very deep financial resources and I think Mr Rudd’s suggestion that in some way they couldn’t afford to run is disingenuous at best.
QUESTION:
Does it disturb you that one of the candidates, Jamie Briggs, who was John Howard’s adviser on IR and other things is having used against him his advocacy of WorkChoices as, by other Liberals in Mayo, is that [inaudible] is that something that would be best left behind?
DR NELSON:
Well the only response I’d put to that is that one of my greatest mates with whom I share digs in Canberra is Joe Hockey, and he was the Minister. So there you go.
Alright, thanks everybody.