Transcript - ABC 891 Two Chrisses - 17 Aug 2009

SUBJECTS: ETS, Double Dissolution, cut spending for cataract surgery and IVF, Boat People, Government distractions, Q&A

(greetings omitted)

Bevan:

Now, Chris Pyne. You probably don't like the polls today, which show that people want an ETS but don't want Malcolm Turnbull...

Pyne:

Look, the polls come and go. These ones will go as well. Obviously the last couple of months have been, what some would describe, as 'messy'. I think we started getting our metre back last week. I think the Government's failure to decouple the Renewable Energy Targets Bill from the Emissions Trading Scheme was seen for what it was, which was a purely political point-scoring matter and by the end of last week I think the public thought 'why doesn't the Government just get on with trying to do something about the climate, rather than play politics?'. It was transparently obvious the Government made no effort to negotiate their Emissions Trading Scheme through... The Government got what it wanted last Thursday, which was the Emissions Trading Scheme defeated and the first part of a two-part trigger for a Double Dissolution election. That's what they wanted and that's why they made no effort to negotiate with the Opposition.

Bevan:

Well just a few minutes ago, our listeners would have heard Phil Coorey from the Sydney Morning Herald describing the Coalition side as being all over the place. Not just now, but not that long ago, Cory Bernardi was being hauled over the coals for attending a book launch which was Climate Change sceptical. Now you've got every man and his dog getting up from the Coalition giving a different view on Climate Change, and some are openly sceptical about it. Your Party's all over the place.

Pyne:

Well no, that's not the case at all. Our Party is not 'all over the place' by any means. We have a Policy of support for an Emissions Trading Scheme but not the Government's Emissions Trading Scheme. We were the Party...

Bevan:

...you have many people who are very sceptical about whether we need this sort of thing. They're sceptical of man-made Climate Change.

Pyne:

Well, Glenn Milne writing in The Australian today said that there are twelve Ministers, including three Cabinet Ministers that don't support the Government's Emissions Trading Scheme.

Schacht:

Did he name them?

Pyne:

He hasn't named them, no. Glenn Milne says there are twelve Ministers in the Government who don't support the Government's Emissions Trading Scheme. Three of them are Cabinet Ministers, so .... about their lack of support for the scheme.

Schacht:

If he named them, it would give him more credibility. Secondly, if the sceptics are openly speaking and publicly identifying themselves in the debate! If they are against, and deny that there is Climate Change, so I think the story that speculates, without naming who they are is quite different from actually having Members of your Party publicly standing up and identifying (inaudiable)

Pyne:

I don't believe that there is any doubt about the Climate Change science. I believe that Climate Change is occurring and that human beings are adding to it. I support an Emissions Trading Scheme but not everybody believes that Climate Change science is correct. This isn't Spain in the 15^th century, people are entitled to have a different view, this isn't the Inquisition, Torquemada isn't running the country. If somebody wants to have a different view...if somebody wants to have a different view, they are entitled to do so. I don't remember when the Labor Party, when C1 decided that there was no such thing as freedom of speech. If somebody wants to say something different, while I don't have to agree with them, I also don't believe that they should be burned at the stake, stoned, disembowelled, hung, drawn and quartered for it! I think we're getting into dangerous territory when if you don't agree with supposedly the majority that means you are somehow not entitled to put your view!

Schacht:

I'm all in favour of free speech in the Liberal Party, when it shows nothing more than a...bunch of rabble... That's great free speech for me.

Abraham:

Let's go to Janet from Port Lincoln...hello Janet.

Caller Janet:

Hello

Abraham:

Now you wanted to talk to the Two C's this morning?

Caller Janet:

Yes, just briefly!

Bevan:

Yes, off you go!

Caller Janet:

I would like to ask about the rebate being cut back for cataract patients. It's going to make it very difficult for a lot of people to go ahead and have cataract surgery and it's a liability for the Specialists to come to country areas. If people don't have this surgery it increases the risks of falls and confusion, inability...and I have heard Mike Rann stipulating how well they're considering Pensioners and disabled people and this is a very necessary and worthwhile cause and I don't want to see it sort of cut but it's going to disadvantage people.

Abraham:

Well that's a very specific question, Christopher Pyne, do you know anything about rebates being cut for people with cataract surgery?

Pyne:

Yes I do, and Janet makes a very good point. Can I say that my father, who is now deceased, was an Ophthalmologist, being a person who of course, carried out cataract surgery... Putting that to one side, Janet makes a very important point - the Government in the Budget, made a number of cost-cutting measures . One of them was to cut the rebate for cataract surgery and also for IVF procedures. This wouldn't have been necessary if they hadn't plunged the Budget into deficit and debt. Unfortunately, because the Government is spending beyond its means, it has decided to make some cuts in some areas of Government spending. Now, with cataract surgery, this is particularly problematic for people in rural and regional Australia because if it's not worth the while of eye surgeons to travel to rural and regional areas, in terms of remuneration, you can't expect them to do so simply out of the goodness of their hearts. It has to be ruminatively attractive to them. Because of the cut to the rebate, in rural and regional areas this will have a big impact on them, it won't have as big an impact in the city, although it will still have an impact in the city. If the Ophthalmologist (unclear) continue to charge the same price, and because the rebate's dropped there'll be a higher out-of-pocket expense to the patient, so some people might well go without cataract surgery as a consequence and as Janet points out, it will be quite dangerous for them but in rural and regional areas particularly bad. We haven't even gotten onto the IVF procedures but it is a very bad decision by the Government and the Opposition is currently looking at how we can (unclear) the problem without punching a hole in the side of the Government's Budget.

Schacht:

First of all, I have no special knowledge in this subject. I think I would ask you, Matt and David to invite the Minister for Health to respond, it's a very good question. The only comment I would make with Chris made a comment about the broader context on Government spending, it is true that the Government spent a lot of money and went into deficit but when we see the (unclear) the Reserve Bank last week indicate that Australia will probably escape a Recession, which is probably one of the few countries in the world that probably will...

Bevan:

...Reserve Bank's that independent now?

Schacht:

...sure. He's appointed but after that he's independent. He's directed and appointed by the previous Liberal Government not appointed by Labor. And he's here in a (unclear) last week...

(recording interrupted)

Bevan:

...so to try and claw it back now...you think...

Schacht:

...well this was done in self-interest...

Bevan:

...taxing the family home!

Schacht:

Well when you have an independent review by Treasury, you're looking at all the options. You can always pick something out. Try and chop it off and run a scare campaign ... didn't last very long but I always think if you have an independent review you're gonna end up with some things in the review, some submissions that you don't like. And in the end, if you wanna have a fair dinkum review of everything, everything oughtta be on the table. I just want to come back to the thinker that the individual details the lady from Port Lincoln has got a good question about the impact in Regional South Australia versus Adelaide.

Bevan:

...Nick of the Onkaparinga Hills, hello Nick?

Caller Nick:

Good morning Gentlemen. Just got regarding the whole (unclear) of it, the ETS. (unclear) for years and years and years and...just thinking the climate is changing. Over the years, there's two sides of the debate and the closer we're getting to the (unclear) legislation, I feel like it's almost like an alcopops thing where it's a good idea based on certain facts. (unclear) push it past, it doesn't really have any effect. So even though I agree with climate...years ago...something needs to be done but the laws that are going to be imposed really aren't doing anything. Will do diddly-squat, if you know what I mean... Thank you.

Abraham:

Well thanks Nick. Nick from the Onkaparinga Hills...Chris Schacht?

Schacht:

My response generally is in a democracy you have a debate about these things. The argument comes out in the contest of ideas but the contest in the Parliament between two major political forces that want to be Government and you have a debate. And out of the debate you hopefully, you get a better decision. That's how it should always be. I'm not one of these who believes you should be unanimous on everything. When somebody stops politicians from fighting the best democracy is when there is a contest, where there is argument, so that in the end the argument leads to a better outcome. Now both sides in politics generally...and people always say that they've got the better idea on this ETS, there's a range of opinion. The Greens don't want it because it's too soft, the Right-Wing of the Liberal Party don't want it because it goes too hard...

Bevan:

...but sometimes the downside to that is that we have the disagreement just so the contest can be won or lost...

Schacht:

...that's still better than not having it as a contest.

Bevan:

But if it was so important, the Emissions Trading Scheme, then shouldn't the Government have been negotiating over the past few months with the opposition parties, plural?

Schacht:

Well better to put it out...the Opposition hasn't put out its amendments. The Opposition said 'we want to discuss it with you', that's all part of the debate. I go back to Churchill's great comment, 'democracy the worst form of Government ever made, but it's still better than any other' and this is why it's better there is a debate.

Abraham:

Well let's go to...actually, Chris Pyne? Wouldn't you find those sentiments...

Pyne:

...well of course I agree with the sentiment, and Churchill actually said that democracy was the worst form of Government ever invented, except for all the others.

Schacht:

...did I get that wrong?

Pyne:

The point is, yes you did - but never mind, but the point is that the Government could have negotiated with this Emissions Trading Scheme because the Opposition actually proposed and Emissions Trading Scheme in Government. Therefore both sides of politics have policies to support Emissions Trading Schemes and the Government chose not to do so. Now, Nick of...I think it was Coromandel Valley...was right. There was...this was a very good idea and could have ended up as legislation that was fair to all, especially if they were prepared to accept the principals that the Opposition put forward but they chose not to do so because they simply wanted to have a trigger for a Double Dissolution election. Now if they wanted to...the real test in this is they could bring the legislation back next week if they wanted to, they don't need to wait the three-month gap. They only waited the three-month gap because they wanted this Double Dissolution trigger - that's the real test for them.

Schacht:

But Chris, if you had a proposal in Government, that Malcolm Turnbull was heavily involved in, why don't you just move that proposal, which is different from the Government's. There is a proposal which was written up, and had targets, just move your own Bill that you had in Government, as an amendment to the Government's then the debate...the problem is half your own party isn't willing to support what you put up in Government.

Pyne:

Well we haven't moved from our policy of support for an Emissions Trading Scheme in Government, which is called the Shergold Report ... and I think you'll find, if the Government brings the legislation back into the House that the amendments will be based around our current policy, the Shergold Report.

Abraham:

Carl of Coromandel Valley, hello Carl...

Caller Carl:

(unclear) mainly, because you are a man of the world. You have travelled the world you will understand what I'm trying to say. Fact: we know that mostly people have arrived in Australia in recent times, right? ...a large number of people come to Christmas Island, right? I would like to make a similar (unclear) talking about the hoaxes, fraudulent emails. The Boat People and the (unclear) want for the similarity...what they did in Rome, the Roman Senate while they were debating videos, which is from (unclear) the barbarians were already backing the gates of Rome. We are talking about the fraudulent email...now very...

Abraham:

...so we're talking about Boat People here, Christopher Schacht? That's interesting...

Schacht:

Well it's...

Bevan:

...do we get obsessed with, sometimes minor, things in politics?

Schacht:

Well the minor things started off with the Opposition Leader calling on the Prime Minister to resign, now that's not a minor thing. Well we move on, but there was a debate about it. Back to the Boat People. There was no lack of publicity that I can...over the last few weeks with the Boat People arriving. Several hundred people have arrived and were detained on Christmas Island ... both sides of politics agree that anyone who arrives ille-- arrives and claims to be a refugee has to be processed. What the question about claims on refugee people come on Qantas or British Airways into and airport in Australia...come to the Customs barrier and claim they're a refugee. That's the biggest number and one the biggest number of people who breach the law of Australia in that they overstay their VISA. They're not following the law, guess where they come from? Great Britain. People come into this country...

Bevan:

...Chris Pyne?

Schacht:

...and then overstay and breach our law.

Bevan:

Christopher Pyne?

Pyne:

Well I think Carl makes a very interesting point. And that is that sometimes we can become so myopic about the wood that we can't see the forest. And the most important issues that the Australian public are concerned about are issues like debt and deficit and interest rates and their jobs and inflation and things that directly impact on their family, their family's schooling, what they can wear and where they can go about their daily lives. And I'm absolutely certain that the whole June period, dominated about distractions about 'who said what' and 'to whom, and when?' had very little impact at all on public mind. When I was out campaigning in Sturt, Supermarketing at Marden, Supermarketing at Dernancourt, Doorknocking in Highbury, virtually nobody has raised any of those distractions. They're still concerned about their daily lives and what impacts on them and their families.

Abraham:

...let's go to Mark from Woodcroft. How are you Mark?

Caller Mark:

Good morning, gentlemen. Now the Opposition's use of the vernacular...Kevin Rudd's use of suck or shake of the sauce bottle...I just wanted to know if Chris Pyne could explain the use of 'flashing the bird' on Q&A the other night, where he was talking about Bill Heffernan. I always thought it was 'flip the bird' and looked it up. The only other reference I could find is 'shooting the bird'. So 'flashing the bird', where does that come from?

Abraham:

Chris Pyne? You're being held to account here. On Q&A? Was Bill Heffernan flashing the bird or zapping the bird?

Pyne:

I don't think it matters very much if he was flipping the bird, or flashing the bird. As I said, Bill Heffernan can answer for himself, his actions. I think this might be one of those that falls into a minor distraction from the main issues of the day. Whether it was flashing, whether it was flipping, I don't...I think they both mean the same thing!

Abraham:

Peter from Adelaide. Hello Peter?

Caller Peter:

Hi, look I've got a quick question to both Chrisses about the ETS. And that is, if Australia cut its Carbon Dioxide emissions to zero, would it have any noticeable effect on the climate?

Abraham:

Well let's go to Chris Pyne, because we will lose that line in just a moment...

Pyne: Well it's a very important question because it goes to one of the Emissions Trading Scheme's plans that the Government will actually have any real impact and if it just exports emissions. For example if we cut our emissions to zero as I think it was Mark said, China - the emissions being produced in China would actually replace those within nine months so we actually have to have an Emissions Trading Scheme that doesn't just export emissions and export jobs.

Schacht:

It's very simple. It's true because we're a very small economy - only 20 million people. China and India would make up more than we could save. The biggest issue is how would you convince China and India to be serious about using their emissions? If we don't show some example ourselves as a First World country, they will hold it against us at any international forum to say 'well you're only (unclear) only 20 million people, but you want us to make the big sacrifice and you want to continue with no change at all in your emissions'. The only way you can get an International agreement where China and India will feel the pressure is if all the Western world, the first world economies actually say 'we're going to make the change ourselves'.

Bevan:

Does it really work like that?

Schacht:

It actually does in my view. If you don't hold yourself to account, your leverage on other countries to come to the table almost disappears.

Pyne:

Can I just make a very quick point before I go? This morning in the newspaper there was a report that grocery prices would increase 7% under the Government's Emissions Trading Scheme. Just following on from what Schatty said, of course the prices of imported fruit and vegetables would not increase because they wouldn't have an Emissions Trading Scheme. Therefore our producers would be far more competitively disadvantaged than those overseas.

(ends)