Transcript - Sky News Sunday Agenda - 26 July 2009

SUBJECTS: ETS

Helen Dalley:

Well, it's been quite a week for the federal opposition. Coalition members coming from everywhere each with a different line on the government's emissions trading scheme. First we had 'wait and see until after the Copenhagen conference'. Then we had 'well let's pass it in case the government calls an early election'. And finally late on Friday, Malcolm Turnbull attempted to pull the whole team together by setting out nine amendments the government must make to get the ETS through the senate. And through it all he had to contend with Wilson Tuckey representing those in the party room who don't want an ETS in any shape or form. Well, can the coalition pull it all together? Our first guest this morning will be very much in the engine room trying to make sure it does when parliament resumes after the winter break.

Christopher Pyne is Manager of Opposition Business in the house and he joins me live from Adelaide. Christopher Pyne thanks very much for joining me.

Christopher Pyne:

Good morning, Helen.

Dalley:

Now, what a week, I mean how much coercing and cajoling of shadow cabinet did Malcolm Turnbull have to do to get the compromise and a nine point plan?

Pyne:

Well, Helen, I think it looks much worse than the reality. The one thing upon which we all actually agree is that the legislation as has been put by the government is a 'dog' of a piece of legislation. Even members of the Labor Party describe this ETS legislation as a 'dog' and everybody thinks it should be changed whether they're in the Labor Party, The Greens, the Coalition, business and industry, Greens groups, nobody believes that the Wong-Rudd legislation should stay as it is when it comes into parliament in August. So all the Coalition has said is that we've got suggestions about how to improve it.

Dalley:

All right. If you could possibly answer my question, which was how much coercing and cajoling of the shadow cabinet had to go on to get this far?

Pyne:

Well, absolutely none. I mean the shadow cabinet meets very regularly and we discuss where we think the best outcomes for the Australian people lie in legislation. We like to talk only politics obviously.

Dalley:

All right. There was no heated discussion about the compromise?

Pyne:

No, there was no heat in the discussion at all. It was a telephone hook-up so of course it's hard to have heat in a telephone hook-up, but no, absolutely not. I mean what we are trying to do is ensure that the ETS legislation of the government does not ruin Australian jobs primarily. Now, the Rudd and Wong legislation must be changed. I think everyone agrees on that. And it's simply a matter of how it's changed and when it's changed whether the Coalition feels it's changed enough to be able to vote for it.

Dalley:

Well, did this really come about, the compromise in the telephone hook-up, to stop the opposing views and the seeming chaos of the Opposition last week? Monday you had the idea of the compromise floated. Tuesday, Wilson Tuckey's damaging e-mail which said 'no way' and he called Turnbull 'arrogant and inexperienced'. But then Thursday Nick Minchin said 'definitely you would vote against it in August'. And then Friday, Malcolm Turnbull says 'we will compromise if the government accepts amendments'. That's pretty chaotic.

Pyne:

Look, I don't think so. I mean, Helen, Nick Minchin said that we would vote against this legislation. What he was talking about is what I've talked about this morning which is that we won't support a piece of legislation that will hurt Australian jobs and not achieve, and simply export emissions overseas. What we're talking about is if we can improve this bill. The ball is now in the government's court to come back and say yes, we can negotiate with the Opposition. If they want to arrogantly say we will pass our legislation regardless because we don't care about Australian jobs and we don't care about exporting emissions that will be a very arrogant government indeed and the pressure will be on them, not on the Opposition.

Dalley:

Well, Nick Minchin didn't make any mention at all on Thursday night on ABC about any compromise, so it really made him look pretty silly. He was so adamant you would vote against it.

Pyne:

He was talking specifically about the current piece of legislation. And the government needs to seriously understand that the Opposition's offering suggestions that will save Australian jobs, that will not just export emissions to overseas countries, but will in fact be good for Australia. Let's not forget it was the Opposition that first proposed an emissions trading scheme when we were in government. The idea that somehow the Liberal Party is opposed to an emissions trading scheme is quite frankly ludicrous. We suggested it when we were in government and the Shergold Scheme was the emissions trading scheme of the Howard Government. So we don't want to be positioned by anyone as somehow being the party that's opposed to the emissions trading scheme when we put it forward, we proposed it in the first place.

Dalley:

Okay. Well the government has indicated that it will consider the amendments, which it did say were very vague, once they've been agreed by your party room. Now, are you likely to get agreement in the party room?

Pyne:

The principles that have been placed on the table on Friday have been agreed to by the shadow cabinet and they form the basis of any amendments the government wishes to make to the legislation. The government is just game-playing. Unfortunately we always see with the Rudd Labor Government it's all about politics, it's never about what's good for the country. It's always about how to win the next election and never how to improve the economy, get us out of debt and deficit and protect Australian jobs, which is a great disappointment. The government should rise above petty politics. It just can't seem to do so.

Dalley:

But do you think Malcolm Turnbull will be able to get agreement by Wilson Tuckey and his Liberal supporters who are dead against it, let alone the Nationals, to get agreement in your party room?

Pyne:

I have no doubt at all that the party room will back Malcolm Turnbull's strong leadership. Malcolm Turnbull is showing real strength of leadership by leading from the front on working through the emissions trading scheme legislation. Malcolm Turnbull will get the backing of the shadow cabinet and the party room, I have absolutely no doubt about it.

Dalley:

What make you so sure about that because we've had pretty strong comment by Wilson Tuckey, certainly it made the public arena, that there's no way that any amendments will make this any better, and he's not for it.

Pyne:

Well, Wilson Tuckey's made his position very clear. He used to make the same statements when John Howard was the prime minister; when Brendan Nelson was the leader; when Peter Costello was the treasurer. Wilson Tuckey's entitled to his view. We are a broad church in the Liberal Party. We are a genuine democratic organisation, unlike the Labor Party. But Wilson Tuckey does not speak for the Liberal Party or for the party room.

Dalley:

All right. Christopher Pyne, do you agree with your colleague, Tony Abbott, that you have to move on this and do this because you don't want a double dissolution election with a trigger and you don't want a fight you can't win, as Tony Abbott said?

Pyne:

No, I think that we need to change this legislation to make it better for the good of the country. I don't think we should make our decisions based on elections or double dissolutions or political strategy and I don't think we should commentate on those matters. The electorate will make a decision on election day about who they think is best to reduce debt and reduce deficit, to get the economy back on track, to create the jobs. The reason why we need to change the emissions trading scheme legislation is because it's bad legislation. It's a 'dog' of a policy as has been said by members of even the Labor Party and what the Opposition is suggesting are principles that would improve it for the good of all Australians.

Dalley:

All right. Surely you wouldn't want to give the government a double dissolution trigger. You wouldn't want to fight an early election.

Pyne:

Look, we're in opposition, Helen, so if there's an early election it gives us another opportunity to get back into government. I'm not in the least bit concerned about . . .

Dalley:

Even though you're not riding high in the polls at all?

Pyne:

Well, I'm not in the least bit concerned about whether we have an early election or whether we don't have an early election. I think it's slightly pathetic actually that all Kevin Rudd talks about is early elections and opportunities. And Wayne Swan talks about double dissolution triggers and so forth as though politics is some kind of parlour game run by politicians in Canberra. We are in Canberra to try and serve the Australian public. I serve the electorate of Sturt and the people within it. We need to change the emissions trading scheme legislation to protect their jobs and to stop emissions from simply being exported overseas. That is our priority.

Dalley:

Well, on that, can I just ask you . . .

Pyne:

Whether there's an election or not quite frankly is neither here nor there.

Dalley:

Are you concerned then that your amendments will paint you as the party of big business carbon polluters since your amendments pretty much push everything that they want? You want more protection for the heaviest polluters which the government is already planning to compensate.

Pyne:

What our amendments will do, what the principles that we've laid down will do, is protect Australian jobs and ensure that Australia is not so out of kilter with the United States that in fact all we end up doing is exporting emissions overseas. See, the Rudd Government has jumped the gun on the emissions trading scheme legislation. The Copenhagen conference is in December. It hasn't even been held yet. The legislation in the United States Senate is not through the senate yet. We really need to make sure that Australia is not so far ahead of the United States that in fact what ends up happening is that we lose Australian jobs and we simply export our emissions to another country. Now, that would hardly be a good outcome for Australia, or indeed for the climate.

Dalley:

All right. What is the public, Christopher Pyne, to make of Malcolm Turnbull's leadership when one MP so openly criticises him and calls him 'arrogant and inexperienced'? You've said that Wilson Tuckey speaks like this with other leaders as well, but it doesn't show much respect for this leader, does it?

Pyne:

Well, Wilson has a history of speaking out publicly about subjects and about other leaders. Now, he's done it to leaders going back for the last four or five years and probably even before that.

Dalley:

Yes, as you've said. But it doesn't show respect for this leader.

Pyne:

Well, maybe that's a matter that Wilson Tuckey should address as opposed to the rest of the Liberal Party having to address Wilson Tuckey's decisions to speak out publicly whenever he feels like it. That's a matter that Wilson Tuckey needs to rein in or needs to address, not the rest of the Liberal Party. Malcolm Turnbull is showing strong leadership, he's leading from the front and he'll get respect for that not only from the party room but also from the general public. And Wilson Tuckey is entitled to put his view. I don't agree with it. It's not agreed to by the vast majority of people in the Liberal Party, but we are a broad church, we are a genuine democracy and Australians are seeing that on display.

Dalley:

Just in our final few seconds, Kevin Rudd's essay on the 'Road to Recovery' also has a go at your side of politics arguing that you have no economic management credibility because you agreed so strongly against stimulus packages and deficits and debt, to help out of the downturn.

Pyne:

Well, Helen, I've just been in Israel with Julia Gillard doing the Australia/Israel leadership dialogue and the irony of Israel is that because of the weakness of their political situation they weren't able to pass a budget. When all the other countries like Australia were giving out stimulus packages Israel couldn't and their economy is no better or worse off because of it. So the idea that the stimulus package of the government has somehow saved the Australian economy isn't borne out by the experience in Israel where without a stimulus package they were no better and no worse off. Kevin Rudd, let's not forget 18 months ago was fighting an inflation dragon. The next thing we knew he was spending money like a drunken sailor. It will be fascinating next year to see what the new chapter of the Rudd economic book looks like.

Dalley:

All right. We'll leave it there. Christopher Pyne thanks very much for joining us.

Pyne:

Thanks, Helen, good to be with you.