9 February 2011 Interview with ABC News 24 Dan Tehan and Richard Marles.
Interview with ABC News24, Afternoon Live
Subjects: Federal Politics
Transcript, E&OE
9 February 2011
ALI MOORE: Well let's go to Canberra now for our political panel, where political correspondent Jillian Bradford is joined by the Liberals' Dan Tehan and Labor's Richard Marles.
JILLIAN BRADFORD: Gentlemen, thank you both for joining us today. Now look, it didn't get a mention in question time today but I have little doubt the first sitting day of the year will be remembered for an issue no one could have predicted, Tony Abbott's reaction about a remark on the fields of Afghanistan.
Let's have a look, now, at how he reacted when confronted by this video last night by Channel Seven.
[Excerpt from video]
TONY ABBOTT: Nah, it's pretty obvious that — [indistinct] sometimes s*** happens, doesn't it?
MARK RILEY: How is that turning it into a media circus? Okay, well tell me, what's the context? If it's out of context, what is the context? You're not saying anything, Tony.
[End of excerpt]
JILLIAN BRADFORD: Well Dan Tehan, they say silence is golden. Was this the best way to react to that?
DAN TEHAN: I thought it was a very dignified silence and I think that's what it deserved and I think Tony handled it appropriately.
JILLIAN BRADFORD: Richard?
RICHARD MARLES: I think these things are difficult. What's clear is that we all support the troops in Afghanistan. Whenever an Australian soldier loses their life, that is a tragedy. And I think every member of parliament treats that very seriously. None of us would treat that lightly, including Tony Abbott, and I don't think he was treating this flippantly or lightly.
JILLIAN BRADFORD: You would have both had media training 101 when you come into parliament. What do they say to do when you're confronted by these uneasy questions?
DAN TEHAN: I don't think — on a question like that, I don't think there is an easy answer to it. And I think that's why Tony handled it appropriately and in a very dignified manner.
RICHARD MARLES: I think it's stating the obvious that we're all going to be judged on the way in which we present ourselves publicly.
But on this issue and the substance of the issue, which is the support that all of us have for our troops in Afghanistan, it's clear they have all of our support and that includes Tony Abbott. And I don't think he was trying to be flippant.
JILLIAN BRADFORD: Will his reaction to this — will there be any lingering doubts about his performance left, not on the substance, but on the reaction?
DAN TEHAN: I don't think so. I think Tony's done an outstanding job since he's taken over the leadership. I think he's taken the fight up to the government and I think he's going to continue to do so and he'll deliver us government at the next election.
JILLIAN BRADFORD: Now it was a rather subdued beginning to question time today. I think it was only about question four that we finally got some jeers in there. And that was when John Fahey's name was mentioned, I think, heading up this reconstruction inspectorate. Now, Richard Marles, that is the question. Why did you have to go to John Fahey? Did anyone give Lindsay Tanner a call? He's a bit of a loose end.
RICHARD MARLES: John Fahey is a good choice. He's somebody with the experience to perform in this job. What is clear is that this isn't a matter of partisan politics. It's not about choosing one of theirs and one of ours. It's just about choosing somebody who can do the job and John Fahey fits that criteria.
JILLIAN BRADFORD: I do know on your backbench, though, there have been groans of, not another Liberal. Given Peter Costello a job. You've given Downer one. You've given Brendan Nelson one.
RICHARD MARLES: What we're about in terms of government is making sure that we've got the best people to do the right jobs, and I think what we've demonstrated is that in choosing people for these kinds of positions, we're not taking party affiliation into account. That's an admirable thing and, actually, that's the preponderance of view within the Labor side of politics.
JILLIAN BRADFORD: Smart politics from their side? There's not many people who don't respect John Fahey.
DAN TEHAN: No, there's not, and he'll do an outstanding job. But I think it goes to highlight that when it comes to managing money, you need the Liberal Party to be doing it. And I think the Labor party is learning that and I think the Australian people are learning that.
RICHARD MARLES: In terms of managing money and the Liberals managing money, what would be good to see is proper accounting of the money to pay for the recovery. When it comes to that issue, we are poles apart in terms of our credibility in trying to fund the reconstruction of the flood-affected areas in both Queensland and Victoria. There is an utter lack of credibility on the part of the Liberal Party and their announcement of what cuts they'd make to aid for Indonesian schools, to support for the car industry, which is very important for the region in which Dan and I live, for the water buyback scheme. To suggest that you can cut that because there is some water around at the moment when we all know that we were in drought just two years ago and this is a continent which changes one from the other very quickly. It shows the Liberal Party have all the vision of a goldfish on this.
JILLIAN BRADFORD: Let's get to that. I remember 2007 John Howard stood here in Parliament House and really told us the Murray-Darling was the most important challenge facing this nation. Now, to cut water buybacks when it's plentiful, when it's cheap, is a false economy.
DAN TEHAN: I don't think so. And I've been part of the regional affairs committee which has been looking into the Murray-Darling Basin plan. I think that the government has rushed this. I think we actually need to put a halt on the buybacks and make sure that what we're doing is sustainable for all communities that live along the river. So I think it's actually a sensible move, and I think taking hard decisions is never popular, but we've shown that we can do that and we will continue to do it, and that's why when it comes to managing the economy and managing the taxpayers' money, we do a better job.
JILLIAN BRADFORD: Let's get to another one of those spending cuts now. On foreign aid, you were a diplomat in a previous life, and to quote Greg Sheridan, the schools program to Indonesia is cutting the best part of our aid program. It's not the smartest way to pay for a flood levy is it?
DAN TEHAN: No well, look, we've postponed that and there needs to be a review of it. The government, it seems has done a…
JILLIAN BRADFORD: The World Bank has, incidentally, already looked into that program and said it had good results.
DAN TEHAN: Well, there's been an internal review done by the government. If the government's got nothing to hide, let it come out and detail that review. Let's have a public look at it and let's see that our aid money is being spent properly.
The trouble is with this government, when it comes to spending the taxpayers' money, no one has confidence in what they're doing and our foreign aid budget, sadly, is falling into that category as well.
JILLIAN BRADFORD: But have you got any reason to believe in this particular program that there has been any misspending? Because it has been universally lauded as one of our best programs.
DAN TEHAN: No, well, we don't because we've seen nothing publically on it. All we've seen is an internal review on it. Why doesn't the government come clean on that internal review, show us the facts of it, and then we can deal with it?
RICHARD MARLES: There's no issue about the accountability of this money in the sense that we were reporting that in question time today. As you rightly said, the World Bank have looked at this, there's been a review of this program, it is one of the best aid programs going around. What we're seeing with the Liberal Party is really flailing around in an attempt to find the money so that they can have a position where they don't have to support us in relation to the flood levy. There's the latest viral email campaign going around about supporting Indonesian schools and the Liberal Party say, why don't we jump on that one, without thinking through the fact that this is one of the most important programs we have. And Alexander Downer himself has said that this is one of the most low profile but effective ways of dealing with counter-terrorism. So to be cutting this is absolutely crazy in terms of our national interest.
DAN TEHAN: There was a lot of robust debate when we examined the cuts and we don't hide from that. I mean we don't have a gang of four which gets behind closed doors and does all this in a secret way. We do it openly and transparently, and there was some robust debate. And that's good in a healthy democracy.
JILLIAN BRADFORD: Now, to come to another issue on carbon, there's new modelling out today showing just how hard Australia is finding it, giving up on fossil fuels. Dan, is it time that we have to bite the bullet, get serious and bring in a price on carbon?
DAN TEHAN: Well, I think the report showed that we're meeting our Kyoto targets and that's a very good start…
JILLIAN BRADFORD: Not by 2020.
DAN TEHAN: And I think also what it showed was that you don't need to introduce a carbon tax to do this. There are other ways. There are ways that we've put forward at the last election which we could do it — which wouldn't mean you're taxing the Australian people at a time of national difficulty.
JILLIAN BRADFORD: Would it achieve such deep cuts, though? This is pretty serious, a 24 per cent increase. There's nothing round the margins that's going to deliver you a cut of that size?
DAN TEHAN: Well, no one has come out and said that our policy that we took to the last election wouldn't deliver those cuts by 2020. We went through, we detailed that during the election campaign. And there was no criticism of what we put forward. So our approach would deliver that result.
RICHARD MARLES: We are in a really serious situation in terms of trying to curb our carbon emissions. That's the simple fact of the matter here. You know, in 2009 business as usual is going to lead to a 21 per cent increase now. Two years later, it's showing it's going to be a 24 per cent increase on 2000 levels.
So that means the task is that much harder. Everyone knows we've got to put a price on carbon. That's why we have the multiparty working committee on climate change. Everyone is sitting around the table, with the exception of the Liberal Party. We've got NGOs, we've got the business community, we've got all the other parties in this building except for the Coalition. And can I say Dan, there is a seat there waiting for you guys. What this really says is now is the time for you guys to come to the party and work with us to actually come up with a solution to what is a really pressing problem for this country.
JILLIAN BRADFORD: Let's talk about cuts around the margins though, because a lot of people have equally criticised Labor for some of the schemes that you've adopted. To get serious about this, the old ETS petrol was exempt. At some point, you're going to have to tell consumers they've got to pay for fossil fuels. When are you going to take the hard decision about subsidising fossil fuels costing $4 billion a year?
RICHARD MARLES: Well, I think the most important thing we've got to do here, which will give indicators in a sense to all these things, including the question you've just asked, is putting a price on carbon. You know, as soon as we have a price on carbon in one form or another, that is going to give the proper indicator to the market, if you like, which will see us developing alternative fuel sources, renewable energy sources which enable us to deal with those kinds of issues. But…
JILLIAN BRADFORD: Should consumers pay more for petrol?
RICHARD MARLES: What we need to be doing is putting a price on carbon in relation to trying to curb our emissions. That is the fundamental task and that is what we're pursuing doing.
DAN TEHAN: Jillian, I don't think Richard answered your question then, but I would say also on this subject, the carbon farming initiative which we was — we saw a draft proposal legislation introduced early January when most farmers were either doing harvest — ended up they were dealing with floods and everything.
I thought it was a rather tricky time for them to introduce the consultations on that part of legislation. And what I would like to see from the government is for them to extend that consultation time on that piece of legislation, because I thought it was a rather inappropriate time for them to introduce it.
JILLIAN BRADFORD: Well just back to this question though, there's a report today in the Courier Mail that 1500 air conditioning units a week get installed in Queensland. Australians are buying LCD TVs and big plasmas. That pumps out heat and we're all putting in air conditioners. When are we going to have to pay to have these things, pay extra?
RICHARD MARLES: Well, what — where we need to get to is having a price on carbon and the economy. It comes back to that. I mean, what — the thing that you're pointing to as a problem in relation to those purchases is the emissions that they give rise to. Now once we actually have a price in the economy associated with those emissions, then you're going to see a whole lot of activity which comes to terms with that.
JILLIAN BRADFORD: Does that equal consumers having to pay more for petrol, more for these consumables that put up greenhouse gases?
RICHARD MARLES: I suppose the answer to that question depends on what the outcome of the multiparty committee comes up with. In terms of the CPRS, the basic model there was you put a price on carbon to the extent that that gives rise to a cost in living. There was a compensation package within it.
Now, maybe that is where the multiparty committee ends up, maybe they go somewhere different. But I think at this point, what we actually need is everybody around the table and that includes the coalition, so that we can start working out these questions and work out how we put a price on carbon within our economy, which is the fundamental thing we need to do to address all the questions you're asking.
JILLIAN BRADFORD: Gentlemen, sorry to interrupt you there. It is just the start of 2011. Hopefully we'll have answers by the end of it, thank you both for joining us.Copyright © 2010 : Authorised by Dan Tehan, 190 Gray St, Hamilton VIC 3300
Disclaimer | Privacy | Contact
Design by Tin Shed Creations
