ABC 612 Mornings with Madonna King

Subjects: carbon tax, foreign land ownership, Greens in the Senate, WorkChoices, Peter Reith.

Transcript, E&OE

29 June 2011

MADONNA KING: To the hallowed halls of Canberra now with the Gillard Government Minister Dr Craig Emerson. Good morning; good to see you again.

CRAIG EMERSON: Yes, and good morning to you, Madonna, and to George.

KING: And to Deputy Opposition Leader in the Senate, George Brandis. Good morning.

GEORGE BRANDIS: Good morning Madonna. Good morning Craig.

KING: Good to be in sunny Queensland?

BRANDIS: Yes, it is - not all that sunny today.

EMERSON: Who authorised this rain? What's going on? We escape the frost and …

KING: Well compared to Canberra…

EMERSON: That's right. I'll take the rain any time.

KING: And I was talking to Lindy Burns who's the Drive presenter on 774 yesterday, and a fog had descended on Melbourne where you looked out and you couldn't see the next building.

EMERSON: Yes, well that sounds like Melbourne.

KING: So what's a bit of rain?

EMERSON: But it will be all clear within an hour; then it will be hot and dry, and then it will rain, and then they'll have a frost late this afternoon.

KING: Yeah, I was going to say, that's all before lunchtime. Look. I want to go to several issues and I want to talk about foreign ownership because my listeners have asked several questions on that. But first, this morning we've been talking about the carbon tax. And I want to address just some of those questions.

Can I start with a question Greg had that I couldn't answer. Who is going to actually administer the carbon tax, Craig Emerson?

EMERSON: The Commonwealth will administer it, and it applies to the 1,000 top emitters, and then the revenue from that will be used as a combination for both compensating households, and supporting businesses that are trade exposed.

KING: But is it a particular department of the Government that will administer it?

EMERSON: Look, I won't make a guess. Yeah, I think it would be Treasury. But I don't want to be held to that.

KING: It … will it include extra public servants?

EMERSON: I can't say that there would be zero extra public servants. Again, I haven't seen any numbers on that but it wouldn't surprise me if there were more. But I just haven't seen their numbers.

KING: They were Greg's questions. Scotty phoned in a little while ago and said why did the Government go for the big stick approach; that is, punishing the top companies rather than a carrot approach of saying 'let's reduce their tax if they drastically reduce their carbon emissions'.

EMERSON: Well that's exactly what happens: that they pay for a permit. And if they actually reduce their emissions then they need fewer permits. So it actually is a carrot approach. So you apply an impost, if you like, and then if they in a sense do the right thing - that is what is being sought of them - then they pay less.

KING: All right. Noel says what will happen if Greenpeace or Get-up buy all the permits?

EMERSON: Well they will be very wealthy outfits if they've got that much money to buy all the permits.

KING: How much is a permit?

EMERSON: Well that's still to be determined. It's going to be a fixed-price permit for the first three years or so, and then after that it's a market-based permit, so it's set in an open market.

KING: Senator George Brandis, can I bring you in here? And Julia Gillard has signalled that in the next couple of weeks we will know more of these details.

What is the detail that is most important to you to find out?

BRANDIS: I think most people are most interested, I suppose, in the price per tonne that the Government will set. But I mean you know our position, as you know, Madonna, is very simple. We opposed the carbon tax outright. I'm a little surprised - well I'm a little concerned - that Craig is one of the senior economic Ministers in the government and was unable to answer the questions, including who would even administer this tax, that were put to him by your listeners.

But I mean the Coalition's position on this couldn't be simpler. We think it's a thoroughly bad idea. It's a big new tax dressed up as a reform. It's not a reform at all. And if we were to be elected we will repeal it.

KING: You will repeal it.

BRANDIS: No doubt at all.

KING: Will you be able to do that? How difficult will it be?

BRANDIS: Well, we will make the carbon tax the issue at the next election. And if we were to be elected promising to r … asking people to vote for us on the promise that we would repeal the carbon tax, we would expect the Labor Party to respect our mandate to do so.

KING: Dr Craig Emerson, this issue it seems is really hurting the popularity of the Prime Minister at the very least. Is there a point where the Government says 'look, we're not taking the voters with us on this issue'. That 'we do need to sit around the cabinet table and reconsider'?

EMERSON: No, and the reason … I say that is that this is not something we're doing just for the heck of it; we're doing it for the long-term future of this country. It is an important reform. And mostly, reforms that have been important in locking in future prosperity in this country have been unpopular at the time …

KING: But is it worth losing government over?

EMERSON: … and governments have pressed ahead with them. The Hawke Government did. The Keating Government did.

KING: All right, but…

EMERSON: Even in some areas the Howard Government did.

KING: … but is it worth losing government over?

EMERSON: Well, Julia Gillard is not for turning on something like this. We have been trying to put a price on carbon for a very long time, and you might recall that Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister sought to do so and then a whole lot of pressure came on. And then he desisted.

We are persisting.

KING: All right. A couple of questions out of that, if I may. You said 'we've been trying to do this for a long time'. Talking to my listeners, one of the things that stuck them is - that's got them annoyed, some of them; some of them are very supportive of it - is the fact that they believed Julia Gillard saying there will be no carbon tax.

EMERSON: A carbon tax is one way of putting a price on carbon. And this is a fixed price, if it's a carbon tax. The emissions trading scheme known as the ETS is something not only that Labor has sought to implement last time - made no secret of it, put it to the Senate twice and it actually got blocked by a combination of the Coalition and the Greens. But John Howard before us took to the 2007 election, and even before that, the necessity of an emissions trading scheme, putting a price on carbon. And George fully supported it then.

KING: Well…

BRANDIS: Well, look I … can I come in on this discussion please, Madonna? Look, Craig, I think that the debate has moved on. And, you know, talking about what might have happened in 2006 or 2007 or even in 2009, I don't think people are very interested in that…

KING: Except for … can I just pull you up there, Senator Brandis, because every time I raise the asylum-seeker issue you hark back to 2005, 2006.

EMERSON: To 2001!

BRANDIS: No, but for a different reason: to demonstrate by the clear statistical evidence that the policy suite we had in place at that time was correct because it works.

That's the only reason. Now … but coming back to this debate about the carbon tax. What people now know, which they didn't know then, was that according to the Treasury's own modelling, the average household will be at least $863 a year worse off. What they now know …

EMERSON: You're making that up.

BRANDIS: … which… no, it's what the Treasury modelling said, what the Treasury paper said…

EMERSON: It depends upon the price, and the price has not been set. You know that George. Don't try to mislead the listeners.

BRANDIS: … but the Treasury paper took a mid-range price and on the … as the most likely price, and on the basis of that, computed that the average household would start $863 a year behind.

Now, if I may just go on. A couple of weeks ago Mr Combet, the Minister for Climate Change, was asked not once, not twice, but three times 'will most households be better off or worse off'. And he was unable to give an assurance they wouldn't be worse off.

KING: All right. Now, there is some dispute over those figures.

The Climate Institute analysis says $250 worse off. Another government analysis I know says $750 worse off. Doesn't it depend on how much, how many people and how much compensation people receive?

BRANDIS: Well, of course. There are lots of variables. That's why we want to know the details which the Government hasn't been able to provide.

But, can I just make this point? It's a point Tony Abbott made on the weekend: compensation is what you give to people for injuring them. Why injure them in the first place? For no good.

KING: Are you injuring your party's own chances of re-election, Craig Emerson, by doing this?

EMERSON: Our interest is the national interest and we will press ahead in the national interest. George conveniently omitted from his reporting of Treasury analysis any compensation. And, as I said before, that process …

BRANDIS: But you won't know what the compensation is.

EMERSON: …of course we will. When it's announced, you will know and you'll criticise and condemn it …

KING: All right.

EMERSON: There are some things that are certain in life. But in terms of recent history, the reason it's relevant is that Tony Abbott urged Malcolm Turnbull, as Leader of the Opposition, to support the Government's Emissions Trading Scheme.

KING: Okay, all right. I think we're going to leave this until a couple of weeks time when we've got these details and I would love if there was one special Inside Canberra when we could get people to actually call and ask you questions on this issue, because it's certainly cut through…

EMERSON: Sounds like a good opportunity…

KING: Yeah.

EMERSON: … and I'd be very happy to do it.

BRANDIS: Well, I hope most of those questions are at Craig, because any questions to me will rec… will elicit only one answer: vote for us and we'll repeal this pernicious new tax.

KING: All right, well let's go to foreign ownership now, because this is an issue that has been surfacing all week. And I'll start with you George Brandis. Should we have a full public register of who and what foreign interests own what land in Australia?

BRANDIS: Well, I think there is a big issue about rural land and foreign ownership of rural land, and for that reason a few weeks ago the Coalition's agriculture spokesman, Mr John Cobb, moved in the House of Representatives for an audit of foreign ownership of rural land across Australia. Now, the problem is, of course, Madonna, that the registrars - the registries of title - are all run by the state and territory governments, so it requires the cooperation of the state and territory government.

But, you know, I think there's something to be said for - and, you know, this is, this is one proposal, among many - but there is something to be said for the states and the territories cooperatively…

KING: All right.

BRANDIS: … requiring that the owner of particularly rural land to identify on the Certificate of Title, whether they are a foreign-controlled entity.

KING: All right, and indeed, that happens in Queensland.

BRANDIS: Yeah.

KING: But can I ask you George Brandis … my question was do you support a full public register of who in foreign … what foreign interests own what land here in Australia?

BRANDIS: Well we … what we have asked…

KING: For instance, an audit. You've gone through that.

BRANDIS: For … is that … well, that's our position. I mean that is our position: that there should be an audit of foreign ownership …

KING: A public…

BRANDIS: …of rural land.

KING: Okay. Craig Emerson?

EMERSON: And Prime Minister Gillard has asked Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten and Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig to work with our statistical authorities in seeking to collect the information on this. And once we've got the basic information, we can make the next set of decisions. But I think there's no problem with the Australian public knowing who owns land.

KING: Well indeed, there's no problem…

EMERSON: The information is not a problem…

MADONNA KING: Yeah.

EMERSON: …as far as I'm concerned.

KING: Well information is a good thing, isn't it?

EMERSON: Yeah, usually it's a good thing.

KING: But even from a political point of view, do you think it's … do you think it's a good thing, or a worrying thing, for example, that these Chinese companies, for example, with majority Chinese Government interests, are buying up dozens of farms? Or that the UK and US can express interest in our water licences? Other countries can secure farms for milk supplies in future generations, without even you having access to that information?

EMERSON: Well, again, I'm quite positive about more information, rather than less. But if we look at the history of Australian agriculture, it's a history of foreign ownership, starting with the UK. One of the biggest investors in Australian agriculture has been the United States of America.

KING: But no-one's saying that foreign ownership is a bad thing, I think. It's whether we have knowledge of what that foreign ownership involves.

EMERSON: Sure, … and I'm not passing judgement here. But you use the phraseology "Chinese ownership of land". Well, look, foreign ownership is foreign ownership. If it's by a government-owned corporation…

KING: Yes.

EMERSON: … then that has to be approved by the Foreign Investment Review Board.

KING: If it's worth more than $200 million.

EMERSON: No, the $231 million threshold is for any acquisition of land or other assets by a foreign corporation. If it's a government-owned corporation, then it has to be approved by the Foreign Investment Review Board.

BRANDIS: I think Madonna, as well, that land is a little different from other categories of foreign investment. And I think there - you know, there is - there are stronger arguments to be made in the case of land, particularly rural land, than there are in the case of other categories of foreign investments as well. And although Craig's right that there's always been very, very heavy foreign investment in Australian agriculture, I don't think we want to see, and the Coalition certainly doesn't want to see, a situation in which bit by bit all of the rural land in Australia is owned by foreigners.

KING: That's Senator George Brandis with Dr Craig Emerson as we go Inside Canberra this morning. A slightly related issue: Tony Windsor is saying in The Australian this morning that there's a collision coming between the farm sector and the mining sector on sensitive land, and it's certainly something I've picked up here in South-East Queensland.

He's referring to mining projects. In Queensland it's very much coal seam gas. Do either of your parties federally have a view on just the mushrooming-up of these permits for coal seam gas in Queensland and how they should be dealt with?

EMERSON: Well, obviously, I'm going to say that it needs to be handled sensitively. But the coal seam methane industry is a great industry for Australia and working with rural landholders is the way to do this. Often, it's that the coal seam methane explorers just want to have a look at what's underneath. And if there is development, it's not a matter of quarantining and ripping up the land. It's usually, and I would expect, working with the rural landholders to keep the land in production.

BRANDIS: I largely have the same approach to that, Madonna, and that has been the approach of the State Opposition here in Queensland as well. It's essentially a land use issue in which there are different claimants. There are the coal seam … the people who want to develop the coal seam gas industry, and there are the rural landowners. And, you know, they do come into conflict, potentially, and …

KING: But there's also an environment issue. People are saying the pollution of water …

BRANDIS: And … well, that's … there is an environmental issue as well. But, frankly, I'm more concerned with the more immediate interests of the people whose livelihoods are at stake: the rural landowners.

Now, the Coalition supports, and the LNP supports, the coal seam gas industry.

KING: Very strongly.

BRANDIS: Very strongly. But I think it's acknowledged by all the stakeholders that their development of that industry has to pay sufficient and appropriate regard for the interests of the rural landowners.

EMERSON: And I agree with that. I imagine, though, Madonna, that maybe people have in mind that the land all gets ripped up like an open cut mine…

KING: No, no, no, they don't. No, no, no, they don't.

EMERSON: … or is it just the water issue - mainly, the water issue?

KING: They just don't like the idea that a permit … that they don't have to get permission to get a permit to go onto their land for exploration. And they're saying, 'it's our land. We want to be, you know, once mining starts, there can be compensation and a deal.'

EMERSON: Sure. Yeah.

KING: But they're saying, you know, you get a knock on the door and saying we're going to do this. So it's more about the rights of land-holders, I gather.

EMERSON: Yeah. And without wanting to pass the buck, those sorts of approvals, I understand, are at the State Government level.

KING: They are.

Eleven minutes to ten. Briefly now, to the power of the Greens. It is going to be enhanced quite strongly in the Senate very, very shortly. And I'm just wondering [about] the biggest change you expect to see from that. And if I can start with you, Senator George Brandis.

BRANDIS: The biggest change undoubtedly is that the Senate will cease to operate as a house of review. Until tomorrow, 30 June, we have had a situation in which no party controls the Senate. After Friday, and between Friday and, you know, whenever the next federal election is, the Labor-Greens alliance will have an absolute majority of votes in the Senate and there will be no brakes on them.

KING: Okay. So is this a good thing, Craig Emerson? It provides some stability. And stuff you want to get through, you'll be able to get through. Or are you going to be tied up with positions that you have to negotiate with the Greens?

EMERSON: Well, we'll have to negotiate with the Greens. We'll have to negotiate with the Coalition.

BRANDIS: That's not [indistinct]…

EMERSON: And some matters will be settled with the Coalition and other matters will be settled with the Greens.

BRANDIS: Look, look, look …

EMERSON: Could I just finish mine? You've had your go. The idea that it's no longer a house of review: we do recall WorkChoices got through the Senate when the Coalition had absolute control of the Senate. There was no check at all on the Coalition between 2004 and 2007. They introduced WorkChoices without saying a word before the election.

BRANDIS: Well, we're going …

EMERSON: So no lectures from you, George, about controlling the Senate. You controlled the Senate and you, the Coalition, abused it by passing WorkChoices.

BRANDIS: Well, we … we…

KING: Isn't that a good point, Senator George Brandis?

BRANDIS: We … yes, a very good point. We did the wrong thing. We introduced WorkChoices without a mandate. But I tell you what we didn't say. We didn't say, six days before the 2004 election, 'there will be no WorkChoices under any government I lead'.

EMERSON: And it's on its way back.

BRANDIS: This Prime Minister said 'there will be no carbon tax under any government I lead'. So the one thing on any reasonable view of democratic values, this Government is not entitled to do is use the Senate majority that they have got with the Greens to force a carbon tax on an unwilling people.

EMERSON: [indistinct] Senate majority with the Greens.

KING: But isn't that a democracy, though?

BRANDIS: It's a democracy when governments are elected and they keep their promises.

EMERSON: George …

BRANDIS: When a government goes to an election on a platform of not introducing a carbon tax, it is anti-democratic for them to introduce a carbon tax.

EMERSON: And I think that there needs to be a little passing respect for the will of the people.

BRANDIS: Exactly.

EMERSON: The people who …

BRANDIS: Who voted against a carbon tax.

EMERSON: …elected this Senate.

KING: All right. Okay.

EMERSON: And you're going to have to get over it, George.

KING: No, no, no, I want to move on, if that's okay George?

BRANDIS: Well, I think I should be entitled to make …

EMERSON: I make a 10-second statement and he needs a two-minute rebuttal.

BRANDIS: Hang on. Please don't think that there is an arm's length relationship between the Labor Party and the Greens. There is a formal written document of alliance.

KING: Okay. Do you want to respond to that, Craig Emerson, very briefly?

EMERSON: Yes. WorkChoices is coming back because Peter Reith said it is.

BRANDIS: I'm sorry.

KING: All right.

EMERSON: And he's working with Josh Frydenberg and Jamie Briggs.

KING: Okay. Okay.

EMERSON: And that's what would happen under Tony Abbott.

MADONNA KING: And I want to get to IR and WorkChoices in just a moment. Before that, just to finish the Greens issue, if you were to describe Senator Bob Brown, the Leader of the Greens, what word would you use, Craig Emerson?

EMERSON: Articulate.

BRANDIS: Pre-industrial.

KING: Okay. All right. And perhaps you want to join that discussion this morning, too. Articulate and pre-industrial, from Senator George Brandis.

Now, Senator George Brandis, I do want to address this IR issue just raised by Craig Emerson.

BRANDIS: Sure.

KING: Big business in the SMH this morning are calling for changes to IR. This is after Peter Reith criticised Tony Abbott for being too scared to go after reforms. Is he?

BRANDIS: Is what, sorry?

KING: Tony Abbott too scared to go after big reforms in IR?

BRANDIS: We … our position is that there will not be major changes to the industrial relations structure of the country.

KING: But that's not the question I'm asking you. I'm asking you…

BRANDIS: No, no, Tony Abbott's not too scared. But what we are wary of is the sort of dishonesty we just heard from Craig who said, quote, "WorkChoices is coming back", unquote, with no reason to say so. We have given an iron-clad commitment that WorkChoices is not coming back. And the problem we have is that if the Liberal Party were to make even the most minimal changes to industrial relations laws, the trade union movement and Labor politicians like Craig will begin a lying campaign. They're saying WorkChoices is coming back. Now …

KING: But isn't Tony Abbott signalling that? He says he'll have an IR policy in place before the next election.

BRANDIS: Well, we will have. And, of course, we will have policies across the whole range.

KING: So, are you saying it won't change?

BRANDIS: There will be no significant changes made to the industrial relations laws by the Coalition.

KING: Does that settle that for you, Dr Craig Emerson?

EMERSON: Not at all.

BRANDIS: No, of course not.

EMERSON: The terminology "iron-clad commitment" in fact was used by Tony Abbott when he said he wouldn't tamper with the Medicare safety net. He said it was a rock-solid, iron-clad commitment.

KING: Okay.

EMERSON: Straight after the election, he tampered with it.

KING: Well, back to you, George Brandis.

BRANDIS: There you go again, Craig.

KING: On this, where do you think the Government's IR policy is not working; that you would want to significantly change?

BRANDIS: Well, we don't want to significantly change it.

EMERSON: Well, hold on. Peter Reith …

KING: Well, some people in …

BRANDIS: But Peter Reith is … Peter Reith, Craig, has not been a Member of Parliament for 10 years. Peter Reith is a retired gentleman …

KING: He almost became president of the party.

BRANDIS: … who last weekend failed to become the federal president of the Liberal Party. He's entitled to his views.

EMERSON: That's right.

BRANDIS: There is a variety of views. But I'm telling you what the policy of the Coalition is.

EMERSON: Could I respond? Could I respond?

KING: No, Craig Emerson. But, George Brandis, do you concede there is a feeling in the party or the party is split over this issue…

BRANDIS: No, I don't think the …

KING: … on whether it should go further on IR or not?

BRANDIS: I don't think the party is split at all. In a party room of about 100 people, there will be a variety of views on a whole pile of issues. That's not the question. The question is what is our policy.

KING: Craig Emerson?

CRAIG EMERSON: Peter Reith said in an opinion piece yesterday that three weeks ago, not 10 years ago, that he and Tony Abbott came to an agreement that if he, Peter Reith, became party president, he would not say anything publicly about industrial relations, but that they would re-visit…

BRANDIS: That's a lie.

EMERSON: … the industrial relations issue.

BRANDIS: That's a lie. You said that on Sky News yesterday.

EMERSON: It was in the opinion piece.

BRANDIS: And after you said that on Sky News yesterday, I re-read the opinion piece. He did not say that. And what you have just said, Craig, it's so sad for me to say …

KING: What was he saying then?

BRANDIS: … is a lie. What he wrote in the opinion piece is that he gave Tony Abbott an assurance that if he became party president he would not be speaking in public about industrial relations. Not that there was some deal between them or that there had been anything done quiet, but merely …

EMERSON: That he would continue to pursue it.

BRANDIS: … but merely that he gave Tony Abbott an assurance.

EMERSON: That he would continue to pursue it.

BRANDIS: To say that a statement that he gave somebody a private assurance in a deal is a lie.

KING: Did he give a kind of assurance? Did he say that?

EMERSON: It does exactly sound like a deal to me.

KING: Did he say that he'd given a private assurance?

BRANDIS: That in the event that he became president of the Liberal Party, he would not speak publicly about industrial relations, and that's all he said.

EMERSON: But that he would continue to pursue it.

KING: But doesn't that raise the idea that there is a disagreement?

EMERSON: Exactly.

BRANDIS: But it's a [indistinct]…

EMERSON: Thanks for calling me a liar, George. Just re-read the piece.

BRANDIS: Just …I'm up …just … you just need to [indistinct] …

EMERSON: Well, mate, I know you're trying to stop me, but…

KING: We'll let people … we'll let…

EMERSON: … I do resent being called a liar three times …

BRANDIS: Well, you just … well…

EMERSON: … when I'm simply replicating what happened in an opinion piece.

KING: All right.

BRANDIS: Look, look, look, Mr … it's an academic argument because Mr Reith failed to become president of the Liberal Party and we re-elected Mr …

KING: He still got a lot of support. He only lost by one vote.

EMERSON: That's right.

BRANDIS: But he lost. I mean, we only have this election once a year. He's not the president.

KING: All right. George Brandis, you've had your say. Craig Emerson?

EMERSON: It's not academic because Tony Abbott agreed to keep his head down on industrial relations but actually wants to pursue industrial relations changes to bring back the worst elements of WorkChoices.

BRANDIS: That's a lie. That's another lie.

EMERSON: We all know that.

BRANDIS: You've got to stop telling lies, Craig.

KING: Well, you've made that point, Senator George Brandis.

EMERSON: Yeah, you called me a liar about six times, George.

BRANDIS: Well, stop telling lies.

EMERSON: Yeah, well …

KING: Do you want to call George Brandis something before we stop?

EMERSON: Off-air probably would be better.

KING: [Laughs] And I think we do need to leave it there. Can we shake hands? We usually try and end on something nice.

BRANDIS: Just stick to the truth and we'll get on fine.

EMERSON: George, don't be a hypocrite.

KING: Richard Fidler, are you able to actually…

RICHARD FIDLER: I've just walked in. I don't know.

EMERSON: How's your poofle valve?

FIDLER: Cakes and tea - yeah. I don't know.

KING: Cakes and tea.

EMERSON: I'm just going to examine your poofle valve. No, it's all right. Does that hurt?

FIDLER: I'm being assaulted by a federal politician here.

KING: Senator - every Wednesday. Senator George Brandis, thank you for your time.

BRANDIS: Thanks, Madonna.

KING: Dr Craig Emerson, thank you.

EMERSON: Thanks, Madonna.

END

Media enquiries