GILBERT:
Let's welcome our guests to the program now, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer David Bradbury and Shadow Small Business Minister Bruce Billson, gentlemen good morning to you both. David, are you concerned on the issue of gay marriage? We alluded to it earlier in the piece but a number of Senators, Hutchins, Farrell and Hogg went to the Prime Minister yesterday to express concerns about this bill on territory powers. Are you worried that the Greens are being seen to dictate policy?
DAVID BRADBURY:
Well Kieran we've got to take a deep breath here. I've seen some of the reporting around this issue that has frankly just been factually incorrect. I've heard earlier, even on the news on Sky the suggestion that the Prime Minister has changed her view in relation to same-sex marriage. That is just not an accurate reporting on the facts of the matter. What has occurred here is a Bill, or amendment, went before the party room for discussion. Obviously, you wouldn't expect me to go into details of what happened in the party room but what is on record is that particular amendment, that Bill, goes to the issue of whether or not the Commonwealth Executive should continue to have a veto over the Territories in relation to their legislative power. One of the things that seem to have been lost and I think that it's important to remember this, even on the most critical analysis of that Bill, we still have a situation where the Commonwealth Parliament would continue to have the power to override legislation from the Territories. What does that mean? We go back a couple of years ago to when the euthanasia debate was occurring and in the context of the euthanasia debate, Kevin Andrews sponsored a Bill and the Parliament took the decision to intervene and to override legislation from the Northern Territory in that instance. So, I think that some of the reporting has completely blown out of proportion the nature of issues involved here.
GILBERT:
Will Labor now support this Greens proposed Bill? What's the status?
BRADBURY:
We are seeking further information in relation to the Bill because there have been various comments in relation to this Bill which extend its scope beyond what was understood to be the case. Now our position in relation to intervention in relation to the Territories powers is a consistent position which we've held for some time. But, let's unpack that from this question of same sex marriage –
GILBERT:
What do you mean, that that is a position that you've held in terms of wanting only intervention when there is a Parliamentary veto not a Ministerial veto?
BRADBURY:
As opposed to the Executive having that veto. That's a position that has been through the party room well before I was in the Parliament, that's been a consistent position. But I want to come back to the question of same sex marriage because we have to unpack that from this debate and say, well to the extent that the people are saying that the Prime Minister had one position then she had a different position the next day, the reality is that her position has been very consistent on this and that is that the existing position of the party will continue until such time in the event that a future national conference would like to change that position. That position has remained, in the commentary there hasn't been sufficient focus on the facts in fact I saw in a newspaper article today a reference to one of our Parliamentary colleagues Don Farrell is as being a godfather of the NSW Right. Well, no one would be more surprised to hear that than Don who's from South Australia. So, I think we've got to take a bit of a chill pill here.
GILBERT:
But David you must concede, before I bring Bruce into the discussion –
BRUCE BILLSON:
I'm just fascinated to hear David explaining how consistent the Prime Minister is after the Carbon Tax back flip that's a really tough argument to sell.
-Inaudible-
GILBERT:
I do want to get your thoughts on that, I want to ask David though about the Left of the Party, the elements of the Left, obviously do support a re-look at this issue so the Prime Minister might be of that view but there are others that are going to be pushing for gay marriage and policy to be changed at the ALP conference later in the year so this is going to be an ongoing sore and the Prime Minister wants to be focussing on other issues obviously.
BRADBURY:
Yeah absolutely, but various members of the Party it's within their rights as members of the Party to put these matters before the various policy making bodies of the Party. The National Conference is the supreme one, and on a question like this one, people are entitled to do that and we will have that debate and that discussion in due course. These are the realities of being a mature political party. You can't be a party that's capable of governing if you don't have the capacity to resolve these particular issues within your own party.
GILBERT:
Yeah. Bruce Billson, as David said regardless of how this transpires the Bill as far as we understand it, and as David said, there have been some question marks over it but it does seem that the Parliament would have the veto over Territory Bills regardless, as it did in the 90's with the euthanasia Bill.
BILLSON:
Well this is what we want to find out, that's why our position is send it to a Senate Committee and have it properly examined. All the discussion is around whether it's a Trojan horse for something else. We want to have that properly examined. So that's been our position: let's have a look at this Bill and see what it properly means and see what is in the machinery of the Bill. A lot of people are saying it could be used for this, it could be used for that, lets have a look at it. But it's great to hear David talking about consistency, I think what you're seeing in the media today is the Labor Party is a mess. I mean backbenchers are tired of being treated like mushrooms, Bob Brown seems to be running the agenda and I think you're seeing that bubbling over in certain areas, and to suggest to look at how consistent the Prime Minister has been, it's pretty tough when you've got the "There will be no Carbon Tax under the Government I lead", that broken promise and lack of consistency and poor old Kevin Rudd. Fancy being knifed over something and then seeing the Rudd mark 2 scheme pop up again. I wonder what he's really thinking, lucky he's offshore at the moment.
GILBERT:
Let's hear what the Treasurer, the Deputy Prime Minister had to say this morning in relation to the submissions made by a few of those senior Senators.
*Audio*
Wayne Swan – They raised a series of issues about this bill which I think are entirely legitimate. The Prime Minister listened to their views and of course this is a bill which is going off to a Senate Committee, we're going to seek some further advice about the bill and its impact and deal with it in due course.
GILBERT:
Is there a sense, as Bruce said, that the Labor caucus reverted to a previous period where there wasn't enough consultation.
BRADBURY:
I'm not revealing the details of what happened in the party room to make the obvious point that's been widely reported that this matter went to the Party room. The question remains is the one that Bruce has rightly pointed to and it's fully appreciating the significance of this Bill. We want to do that, we do not want to support a Bill not appreciating the consequences of that and it end up being something completely different to what we had thought. That's an appropriate process for us to go through and the fact that as a Party, we will have rigorous and robust debates about these matters is a good thing and I certainly think that there has been ample opportunity for that in the Parliament.
BILLSON:
The Greens have been running rings around the Labor Government. They've been really exercising their influence within the alliance and you've seen the Labor Party trying to be half as nimble as the Greens. Bob Brown has got it all over Julia Gillard and I think that this is being reflected within the discussions of the Labor Party. What's really going to happen here, is this Bill a Trojan horse for a number of other things or is it as it was originally presented?
BRADBURY:
Well that's no different to saying the Howard Government was run by Meg Lees or Brian Harradine. The reality is, we live in a world of minority Government and we will work with all parties. I've got to make this point absolutely clear, and it's something that you'd never know, listening to Bruce and I, that there are actually times where Labor and Liberal support propositions brought before the Parliament and the minor parties, and Independents, don't always support them. We will contest every public policy issue vigorously and we will build the support within the Parliament to get the propositions through.
GILBERT:
Let's look at the issue of the Carbon Tax, Bruce. The Carbon Tax debate yesterday, the Prime Minister said that Tony Abbott allowed your colleagues on the front bench to lower the tone of the debate when they likened Julia Gillard to the delusional Libyan Dictator Gaddafi, that was followed up yesterday by Senator Abetz and Sophie Mirabella. Is that sort of language appropriate?
BILLSON:
Well these are very important issues. We're talking about colleagues characterising a Prime Minister as completely delusional about the public opinion. That's the point that was being made and I think it's a fair point to make. What's really at stake here though is how democracy is being diminished by Julia Gillard and Labor. To go to the electorate and promise that "there will be no carbon tax under the Government I lead", I know 80 per cent of small businesses who are going to feel the very blunt hand of this carbon tax in lost viability and lost jobs. 80 per cent took her word, and have not factored in this carbon tax. A tax that will go on every stage of production, on everything we do, it will build, it will build, it will build and then there will be a GST lobbed on top. These are very fundamental issues that need to be discussed and highlighting that the Prime Minister's off there like a trailer for some rom-com Hollywood movie where she'll only talk about the good bits, and then some months down the track you actually see the movie and most of it's a nightmare. That is the space we're in now.
GILBERT:
But Bruce, to compare her to Gaddafi? Let's recap what the Treasurer said this morning and I'll get your thoughts again.
*Audio*
Wayne Swan – We are putting the facts out there but what's happening is the Opposition is running a fear campaign not based on fact. Now what we've said we will do is put in place an emissions trading scheme, a carbon price. We've said that we will consult with the wider community, with the business community, and that we are working with the multi-party committee to design that scheme. Its coverage, the price on carbon, all of those have to be worked out as we go through the consultation.
GILBERT:
Bruce Billson, does the Liberal Party have to be cautious about the campaign that it's running, the Treasurer describes it as a fear campaign, or is it appropriate? You seem to be defending what your colleagues are saying.
BILLSON:
I'm making the point that there are some very strong issues present here. This discussion would bring no greater pleasure to Treasurer Swan, because we're not talking about how little he knows about what he's doing with the economy. Yesterday he was asked about a report that said similar schemes in the UK may have created 1 job at the cost of 3.7, he went to a report to back a scheme where the carbon price was $45 a tonne. He has no idea what's happening with this scheme because the Government is receiving orders from Bob Brown. They've done no analysis, they've been disrespectful to the public, to dangle out there a few thought bubbles and have them sound like a Carbon Tax "plan" when just prior to the election they promised that they wouldn't do this, they're doing exactly what they promised they wouldn't do. That is an assault on democracy. They'd be happy for you to have a talk about some colourful language and about how Prime Minister Gillard is off in a world of her own in a parallel universe.
BRADBURY:
Bruce if this is about colourful language then I think that we can all live with that, this is a tough business, we've got broad shoulders but I find it remarkable that you come in here and you support those comments and to the extent that this is a distraction, it's a distraction of your own making. It wasn't one, it wasn't two, but it was three Liberal Party figures that came out and made the comparison with Gaddafi. That's not a coincidence, that is a deliberate strategy from mudslingers incorporated within the Liberal Party. I make this point, that Bruce dresses this up as some defence of democracy –
BILLSON:
How do you explain what you said a few days before the election –
BRADBURY:
Bruce I let you have a go –
BILLSON:
Fair point, that is reasonable.
BRADBURY:
Bruce, you dress this up as a defence of democracy, I just make the point that the thing I found most disgraceful is not the attempted character assassination of the Prime Minister which we've come to expect from these people, but what I found most disturbing was on the other side of the world, you've got people going through a tumultuous time, blood being spilt in the name of people trying to exert some sort of self determination, and somehow Gaddafi's tactics are being used as a comparison –
BILLSON:
This is Labor tactic 101, nobody, and you know this, nobody was downplaying the tragedy. The point that was being made about leaders delusional, about describing some parallel universe that is completely removed from the reality of the citizens, that was the point being made. There was no point made about the hardship that people are being subjected to and this is Labor tactic 101. Trying to ramp up these sorts of issues, getting to the commentary of conversation so no one talks about a carbon tax that's going to assault every household, every business and it gives a free kick to imports coming in to our country. This is a bad economic policy that will have profound negative impacts on our economy and we're having a conversation on nuances.
BRADBURY:
Let me address the issue. Firstly we'll agree to disagree on the Gaddafi stuff. There are a plethora of examples that could have been used if you wanted to make the point without using Gaddafi in the current circumstances but if you think that's acceptable, that's fine. Let me address the broader issue. Now Bruce I saw you out there at the fish market yesterday at Belconnen, I noticed Tony Abbott was the one with the knife in his hand on that occasion but I make the point that next time you go out to a small business, you should tell that small business what you intend to do to keep electricity prices low. Because –
BILLSON:
I'd be happy to –
*Inaudible*
GILBERT:
I'm going to have to interrupt and I'm going to get Bruce to respond after the break.
*Break*
GILBERT:
Welcome back to AM Agenda. Before the break we were discussing the impact on small business of the respective carbon abatement policies. Bruce your defence of the direct action plan? David says that it's going to increase costs for small business and households by more than their program.
BILLSON:
Look, that's just nonsense. The Government had a chance to run these arguments when the Coalition policy package was analysed. None of this was mentioned in the incoming Governments brief, none of the suggestions about price impacts, they're just convenient arguments that the Labor Party is trying to produce. Our plan is quite straight forward. Our plan is to purchase and reward those who are best able to reduce their emissions at the lowest possible price. We will be buying back that performance, that verifiable outcome which gives us direct action and direct outcomes versus the Labor plan which is to penalise and tax and inflict pain on every household, on every business regardless of their capacity to change their behaviour of the emissions they consume and with complete uncertainty about what the impact will be in the market place.
GILBERT:
Ross Garnaut says that you're going to basically dud farmers and under your plan you wouldn't pay them what the carbon price should be and you don't have a funding mechanism.
BILLSON:
No, that's not correct. Ross is mistaken in his understanding of the analysis. What we're saying is we will buy carbon abatement at the price at which it is offered by people who have achieved those emission reductions. If you and I were running a shopping centre and we invested in reducing our energy consumption, there is a win for us in our energy bill, which is quite reasonable for us to retain. We may then be prepared to sell that abatement on to the Government. We don't need the whole price because we are already getting a benefit ourselves. So, there are duel benefits, not only are we achieving abatement reductions but the activity which achieves those reductions has a benefit as well, that is why our program is far more superior than this blunt object of smacking around every household, every point of consumption, every small business to give a free kick to those people who are importing to the country.
GILBERT:
So the bottom line is you're saying it's a more targeted approach?
BILLSON:
Absolutely, we are buying outcomes.
GILBERT:
David?
BRADBURY:
What is absolutely clear is that under the Liberal plan, that apart from the $10.5 billion of so called "direct action" and none of that will go towards reducing electricity prices, that is an important point to make, apart from that you're going to end up with another $20 billion having to be found in order to import carbon credits from offshore in order to meet the 5 per cent reduction targets. What Bruce said before, or what he didn't say, is how much the cost of the direct action approach is going to be. What we saw yesterday was $720 for a family. The important point is that electricity prices have been increasing by 40 per cent over the last two years. Now, that's the status quo and we know the reason why that is the case because there is under investment in the infrastructure that generates electricity. The one way, and I think that this is beyond contest and I've not heard anyone even on Bruce's side contest this, the way to deal with that is to provide some certainty over carbon pricing. Now, we have a plan to deliver that, the Coalition does not. Their plan is about putting their hand in your pocket in a sneaky way, through consolidated revenue, and spending it on all sorts of programs, planting trees and picking winners. In the end, there is no plan to reduce emissions and more significantly, no plan to reduce the cost of electricity or reduce the cost to households. That is the big flaw with their program.
GILBERT:
Specifically on the household compensation –
BILLSON:
Our system does not push up prices. David's point is under the Labor scheme, prices are going to go up, and they're going to go up a lot anyway. His point is, households are being punished and businesses are finding it very hard to absorb those increasing costs.
BRADBURY:
So you're ruling out prices increasing?
BILLSON:
You're proposing a plan that actually turbo-charges electricity price increases. His point is that they're going up really quickly anyway so we'll put them up a bit more and that's not bad, whereas our scheme puts no upward pressure on electricity prices. We will reward those who are able to make emission abatements by buying them back at the price in which they are happy to sell them. Verifiable emission reductions, verifiable abatement outcomes and then a direct payment, a direct payment. We actually are getting something for the taxpayer resources.
BRADBURY:
We're getting nothing!
BILLSON:
We are getting abatement reductions.
BRADBURY:
This is inefficient and ineffective.
BILLSON:
It's like a water buyback scheme where we are actually buying back an outcome. In this case, we are buying back emission reductions that are achievable at a most cost-effective price by some within the community versus the Government's scheme which wants to hammer every household, every transaction and every business. David's defence is, well they're being hammered anyway what is another little bit going to do to them. This is the nonsense of the Labor scheme and that's the dilemma we're facing.
BRADBURY:
So Bruce, you're guaranteeing that electricity prices won't go up under your scheme?
BILLSON:
My position is that our plan doesn't increase prices.
BRADBURY:
How much are they going to go up?
BILLSON:
Stay calm, stay calm. Our plan puts no additional upward pressure on electricity prices.
BRADBURY:
So does that mean 40 per cent over two years?
BILLSON:
Your plan does add upward pressure.
BRADBURY:
Your plan has no assistance for households.
BILLSON:
Yeah because we aren't putting upward pressure on electricity prices.
BRADBURY:
40 per cent over two years?
BILLSON:
You're saying because other people are pushing up electricity prices you should be able to put them up and that's okay!
BRADBURY:
No, until we put a price on carbon, there will be no incentive to invest.
GILBERT:
I better wrap it up, you've both got to get to Parliament.
BILLSON:
Congratulations on your nuptials
BRADBURY:
Yeah, well done Kieran.
GILBERT:
Thank you. Have a good day.