ASHLEIGH GILLON:
Joining me this morning on our panel of politicians is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer David Bradbury and Shadow Small Business Minister Bruce Billson. Good morning to you both. Bruce Billson, Bob Brown has said this morning that the Coalition is siding with the Murdoch empire on this media inquiry but not the public interest.
BRUCE BILLSON:
Well he would say that wouldn't he? I think this whole media inquiry seems like a bit of a witch hunt from Bob Brown. It's funny because you see how the Prime Minister might be in office, but The Greens are in power. You know, the terms of reference are shaped by The Greens, and there is obviously a bit of a vendetta by The Greens against the media that they don't like. I think that if Bob Brown's idea of a good media is one that agrees with him all the time, then we may as well get the clap-o-meter out and if there are enough claps in the media after Bob says something then apparently that's okay. If there is not, well there is not, that may be a more sophisticated way of going about it. There is nothing new in these terms of references. The convergence inquiry that is already underway could have covered these issues. Clearly the Government has caved to another Greens demand and so is the explanation why to the Australian public it looks like there is no adult in charge in Canberra.
GILLON:
The media companies have responded by saying they're not really pleased about it, they're disappointed this media inquiry is going ahead but they will co-operate with it. John Hartigan from News Limited said yesterday it is regrettable the way this inquiry has been set up and that the compromise was politically motivated. He said that this inquiry started as a witch hunt by The Greens and has morphed into a fairly narrow look at a mixed bag of issues *inaudible*. David Bradbury, can you see why media organisations might be confused as to why print media is the focus here and why broadcast media is being ignored?
DAVID BRADBURY:
Well look I think the first point to make is that we have resisted some of those calls from The Greens in terms of what they might have been seeking from this particular inquiry. It's a very focussed inquiry and I think it's an appropriate inquiry to have. Appropriate in the context of the first instance, I think that there is some concern out there in the community about questions of accountability when it comes to the print media. That is something that will certainly be worked through as part of this inquiry. But more generally, I think we understand that there have been various technological changes and various other changes that have impacted on the operations of the print media in this country and I think it's timely in the context of those changes and concerns about whether those changes have had an impact on the quality of journalism and the quality of people being able to access the news as and when they need to access the news. I think it's appropriate that we have this inquiry. It's targeted, it's not a witch hunt on the one hand but on the other hand I think it's appropriate that we have this inquiry because there is considerable concern out there about the state of the fourth estate.
GILLON:
The Government's handling of this; it seemed to be a bit confused. We saw of course the UK scandal and immediately after that Julia Gillard claimed that News Limited had questions to answer, but we never really found out what those questions are. She seems to have backed away from that now.
BRADBURY:
Well look there are a whole range of issues that need to be considered and they are being considered as part of a number of parallel processes of inquiry. We've got this inquiry which was announced, we also have the Convergence Review which is ongoing and in addition to that the Government still needs to respond to the specific recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission and the proposed changes to the Privacy Act. I think it's appropriate that all of those matters be considered. I think the vehicles through which we're considering them are equally appropriate and the Government intends to get on with the job of governing and dealing with those issues.
BILLSON:
The difficulty they have though is the Convergence inquiry has been announced, it's perfectly capable of dealing with these issues. Nothing new has emerged as an issue other than Bob Brown's demand for an inquiry and I think at the end of the day that's why there is an inquiry when there is a perfectly acceptable vehicle.
GILLON:
But Bruce Billson *inaudible* with the Press Council being described as a toothless tiger, do you believe that that could be overhauled, that it needs more power?
BILLSON:
There are opportunities to do that already with the existing inquiries to examine that. As David rightly pointed out, technology is blurring the lines between different channels of media. You know, when is a Sky News system an online publisher, when is a telco actually a broadcaster because they're carrying content and people operating across multiple platforms, that is the technological change that David has picked up on that's in the convergence inquiry and the way in which the Press Council interacts with exchanges is perfectly capable to be dealt with in that existing inquiry. So really the only thing that is new or different which isn't new and that different, is Bob Brown demanding something of a Government that he has an enormous sway over and we're going to have another inquiry, so they'll probably run in to each other at some point.
GILLON:
*Inaudible*Sky News as an example what we put on air isn't going to be examined but what we put online will be under this inquiry, that seems a bit strange David.
BRADBURY:
Equally I think you could point to elements of Sky's activities that would have been covered by the Convergence Review that others would not have been covered by that review. So we've seen it necessary to create various vehicles through which we can cover all of these matters. If we listen to what Bruce is saying, I don't think that there is any objection to what the Government is doing in reviewing these matters. This is becoming a bit of a debate around semantics about whether this should go in that review or another review or whatever. In the end I think it's entirely appropriate that the matters that are the subject of these parallel inquiries continue to occur and the Government will work through that process.
BILLSON:
And if you want to check our comments, you can watch this or you can go online, which inquiry will it go to? It just demonstrates the nonsense of this inquiry.
GILLON:
David Bradbury a lot of your colleagues have been complaining about the alleged bias in the media in particular targeting News Limited. If you're so worried about that why isn't alleged bias in the media being looked at?
BRADBURY:
Well look it's not the job of Governments to start telling media outlets how they should report the news…
GILLON:
…So why complain about it?
BRADBURY:
I think what is appropriate is that there be accountability mechanisms in place that where reporting does overstep lines of reasonableness, that there be appropriate avenues through which the record be corrected and through which various outlets might be required to make good for what they have otherwise done. That will be an element of the inquiry in terms of accountability mechanisms, I think that's appropriate and I've got to say that it's not just something that I've heard from various Members of Parliament not just on our side of politics, but when I'm out there in the community, I do hear from many people coming from a range of political perspectives about a frustration about the nature of reporting particularly in relation to our newspapers. We are reflecting some community concerns in that regard, we acknowledge the vital importance that the media play in our democratic process, but equally we think it's appropriate that we have a review that will be independent, will allow everybody to have their say and we'll work through those issues.
GILLON:
Bruce Billson there has been a lot of comments about the blurring of lines between comment and opinion and news reporting. Is that a shift that you're concerned about?
BILLSON:
Well most outlets I see try to make the distinction where they're conveying something as a report and conveying the views that others have put into the media cycle and it's reflected that way. A comment or opinion piece should be seen to be just that. I just about fell off my chair when I heard David say it's not for politicians to talk about the reporting. I remember the Prime Minister's Press Club remark about not reporting crap and the response might be well don't speak it…
BRADBURY:
…It is not for politicians to tell the media how to report.
BILLSON:
So what you end up with is an ongoing commentary about whether you like what people are reporting or not and the Minister himself has had this great effort going after News Limited papers particularly in Sydney, not holding back at all about his distaste about what they were reporting. It just brings you back to the clap-o-meter doesn't it? You read it, you like it, people will cheer and say that's good journalism, if you don't that is bad boo hiss, I mean that is the kind of nonsense we're getting in to. But clearly this is just another inquiry, another opportunity to give those that the Government and The Greens don't like another bit of a touch up or a bit of a concern about what the future might look like and I think the motives are pretty transparent.
GILLON:
Okay the carbon tax is obviously the big issue and we're going to look at that after the break, stay with us.
*BREAK*
GILLON:
Welcome back to the program, David Bradbury and Bruce Billson are with me on our panel of politicians this morning. We're going to take a look at the carbon tax. The Government has been arguing for a long time that there needs to be more scrutiny of the Coalition's Direct Action Plan. Today we've seen a front page story on the Sydney Morning Herald that talks about the Opposition's opposition to the way that the carbon tax allows business to buy some greenhouse reduction emissions from overseas and this morning it quotes a lobby group that represents mining and manufacturing industries that have done the math and they agree that without the overseas component then if all emissions reductions are achieved domestically it will actually double the cost of any plan whether it be the carbon tax or direct action. Bruce Billson have you looked at that report and do you refute the findings?
BILLSON:
I've seen reports of the report and that's the Sydney Morning Herald's story that you're referring to Ashleigh. What it does is the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network actually says Treasury tells us that this is what the situation is. It's quite remarkable that the lead up to the last election you might recall there was considerable interest in the costing of Coalition policies. Coalition policy, no contest, not contested at all the costing that were in our Direct Action Plan. No comment, nobody saying hang on the assumptions are wrong, none whatsoever. Then, down the track, all of a sudden there is a problem when the Government finds itself in enormous problems after the Prime Minister just stared down the camera and told the Australian public that there would be no carbon tax under a Government I lead. She's got an enormous credibility problem, anything to distract attention from that basic deceit and democratic deficit we are now faced with where the Parliament is being demanded to approve something the Government said that it wouldn't do. That is really what this is about.
GILLON:
The Prime Minister did seize on this report this morning; here she was on ABC Radio.
*Audio*
GILLON:
So Bruce Billson just to clarify, when it comes to your Direct Action Plan and not having companies being able to purchase from overseas, you don't think that it will increase the costs at all?
BILLSON:
No. What our plan basically says to Australians who are best placed to reduce their emissions, we will join with you. They will be reducing emissions and receiving a benefit themselves. If you and I owned an office tower and we could make it more energy efficient then that is good for us. It reduces our bills in running that place and we may seek a contribution or sell those emission reductions to the Government at a price we're happy to sell them at. So there is a benefit for the person carrying out the abatement work and they're happy to receive that benefit, and in large part finance it. But then there are also benefits in terms of emissions. What the Government wants to do is say to Australians let's do all these things to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, when they really want to have two-thirds of those reductions achieved by buying permits off-shore. Now, there is only one place where we can buy those permits at the moment and that is the European system. Right now, the UK Parliament in a bipartisan committee is sort of saying well hang on this system is looking pretty isolated. There have been cases of fraud in Norway, the Crime Commission have identified a very uncertain and unsecured trading arrangement and the AIGN also said they think permits should be available where someone overseas converts to nuclear power. I wonder how the Australian public would feel that the Bradbury and Gillard plan and the AIGN is arguing that we should use Australian money to be sent off-shore to encourage others to take up nuclear power, what an interesting plan.
GILLON:
Let's ask David Bradbury, there is a lot to respond to there David.
BRADBURY:
Ashleigh, yesterday Tony Abbott had the opportunity to address the Parliament on the question of climate change and how his Government, should he be elected, would tackle climate change. He only managed one sentence in terms of what his alternative plans to tackle climate change might be. But in that one sentence, he walked in to the biggest ambush of his political career. With that one sentence, it will be the shortest suicide note in political history. What he has confirmed is the cost of his plan to tackle climate change will be at least twice as expensive as the Government's plan. What that means is that every time Tony Abbott walks in to a workplace or a factory to talk to workers in their place of work with one of his stunts he must look them in the eye and he needs to tell them however expensive the Gillard Government's plan might be, his plan will cost at least twice as much to implement.
GILLON:
But David a lot of Australians might be sitting at home saying what is the point of purchasing these emissions reductions from overseas?
BRADBURY:
Well reducing a tonne of greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere, whether that be in Australia or in Europe, is a tonne of greenhouse gasses out of our atmosphere, helping to reduce pollution and help our environment, which is not just the environment here in Australia, but the global environment. The consequence of what Tony Abbott is suggesting is that companies that might have the ability to purchase one tonne of greenhouse gas abatement at a cheaper price off-shore will be forced to do that at a higher cost in Australia. That means that the overall cost of reducing greenhouse gasses in this country under his plan, will be at least twice as expensive as our plan. He cannot go to the next election with this policy; he's got a couple of choices now. He either backs down on this point, or he walks away from his 5 per cent reduction – a bipartisan commitment – on 2000 levels. If he goes to the next election with this policy as it stands, it will destroy him.
BILLSON:
I hope he has got that off his chest. You can see why David is sensitive about this. He wouldn't be sitting here in this Parliament if his Prime Minister and he had been straight with his electorate rather than looking down the barrel of the camera and telling the Australian people that there would be no carbon tax.
*Inaudible*
GILLON:
Okay well we've been through that and I really want to get to another story that has been on the cover of Australian newspapers today and it is one that many Australians would be interested in and that is that News Limited are reporting today that around 100 public servants were a part of a contingent at official ANZAC Day commemorations in Gallipoli. There has been a bit of criticism from some of our war heroes, they're angry that diggers have to pay their own way yet the Government is sending public servants over at great expense. Bruce Billson you used to be the Veterans Affairs Minister, is there anything wrong with what the Government has done here?
BILLSON:
No. This is an extraordinarily important annual commemoration about a remarkable part of Australia's history on a piece of land a long way from any city in a foreign country that also marks the birth place of their nation. It's a living cemetery with great care in managing where people go and how they interact with the peace park landscape. It operates around the clock. The Australian public servants and official delegation that go there do an enormously good positive contribution to this commemoration of the service and sacrifice of those people and I support them 100 per cent. I will also add that there are often veterans taken on what they call missions, to particularly significant commemorations, that occurs as well. At times some public servants are facilitating the participation of aged and frail veterans to involve them in those services.
GILLON:
We are out of time, David Bradbury I'm going to assume that you're going to echo those comments anyway because the Government is standing by it?
BRADBURY:
Furious agreement.
GILLON:
It's good to end the show in agreement, we like that on AM Agenda. David Bradbury and Bruce Billson thank you for joining us.