Sky News AM Agenda with Ashleigh Gillon

Subjects: Carbon pricing, Abbott’s audience-tailored messages, Afghanistan mission, Reith report, ALP in Victoria, hacking scandal.

Transcript, E&OE

19 July 2011

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Good morning and welcome to the program. I'm Ashleigh Gillon.

The Government is keeping up its carbon tax tour of the country, despite yesterday's poll results suggesting it's not working so far anyway, in terms of winning support from voters.

Today Julia Gillard will hit up a coal mine near Newcastle, while Tony Abbott is taking his anti-tax message to a hardware store in South Geelong.

Joining me this morning to look at how the debate is unfolding, the Trade Minister Craig Emerson, and the Shadow Attorney-General George Brandis.

Good morning to both of you.

Craig, let's start with you. The Nielsen poll out yesterday, of course, showed us that Labor's primary vote has dropped to just 26 per cent. One Labor MP quoted in the Daily Telegraph today is suggesting a leadership change is necessary, because, quote, he's ‘never seen such rage in this country’. Things are pretty dire right now for you, aren't they?

CRAIG EMERSON: Oh, look, obviously we need to keep explaining the carbon pricing mechanism, the emissions trading scheme. This is a commitment that we've made, that we're embarking upon and we'll keep doing what the Prime Minister and the Climate Change Minister are doing today. We've got ministers all around the country explaining how it operates. And it's interesting Ashleigh, when you do, quite a large proportion of the people who are asking questions go away, you know, far more satisfied, even positive about it.

So, look, it's a long haul. We know that. We expected that. We expected Mr Abbott's total negativity. But even I didn't expect that Mr Abbott would actually have two policies - one for one audience, and one for another - where in a cowardly fashion he says to one audience that that 5 per cent target that we both have committed to is crazy and then to another audience, he recommits to that 5 per cent target. Mr Abbott should be a man about this and not a coward. And that's what he is, a coward.

GILLON: I do want to ask George Brandis about that in a minute. But first, though, Craig Emerson, Julia Gillard, in the meantime, out trying to sell this tax. She keeps being forced to defend her leadership. Laurie Oakes said, over the weekend, that he understands Julia Gillard was actually ringing around the Caucus members in the last week of Parliament to check on her support levels. Are numbers being counted? Is her leadership safe?

EMERSON: No, no, numbers are not being counted. And there is an alternative to Julia Gillard – Tony Abbott – and what a tragedy that would be for the country if Tony Abbott were to become the Prime Minister. Because he is running the most dishonest scare campaign. Julia Gillard is showing great resolve, great courage, great leadership and she deserves the support of her party and she has the support of her party.

GILLON: Interesting to note that Sportsbet, today, has Simon Crean as a potential replacement, although Kevin Rudd is apparently still seen as the most likely option by punters to replace Julia Gillard if it does come to that.

Let's look at the Coalition's campaign as well. George Brandis, as you heard Craig Emerson talking about there, yesterday we saw Tony Abbott heading to the Gold Coast. He spoke with seniors and he has this to say about that 5 per cent emissions cut that the Coalition does support.

[Start of excerpt - previous interview with Tony Abbott]

TONY ABBOTT: And the other crazy thing about this is that at the same time that our country is proposing to reduce its emissions by 5 per cent - 5 five per cent - the Chinese are proposing to increase their emissions by 500 per cent.

[End of excerpt.

[Start of excerpt - previous interview with Julia Gillard]

JULIA GILLARD: Well I'm fairly amazed to hear that from Mr Abbott, because until today he has said to the Australian people that he shares the target of cutting carbon pollution by at least 5 per cent by 2020. So if, today, Mr Abbott has changed his policy, and he no longer believes in cutting carbon pollution, then he should say that very directly to the Australian people.

[End of excerpt]

GILLON: Senator Brandis, why is it the Coalition's policy to cut emissions by 5 per cent, if you think it's a pointless goal?

BRANDIS: Well that is our policy, because we have said all along that cutting emission - Australia's emissions by five per cent is something that this nation ought to take seriously. Our debate with the government is about the way in which that is to be done. And I completely agree with Tony Abbott that, of course, that the way in which the Government is proposing, through a carbon tax, is a crazy way to do it.

Now, you know, I listened to what Craig Emerson had to say - the more hyst ...

GILLON: So it's not that target of 5 per cent that's crazy? It's the way that they're doing it. Is that what he was asking yesterday?

BRANDIS: Of course. I mean, of course. And, you know, both the Prime Minister and Dr Emerson are becoming increasingly shrill and desperate. And, you know, I … look, the Prime Minister can go to every nook and cranny in this country that she likes, but the problem for the Labor Party is that every time the Prime Minister opens her mouth, all she does is remind the Australian public that she lied to them; that six days before the election she said ‘there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead’. And now she is trying to force a carbon tax upon the Australian people she promised not to introduce.

GILLON: We have heard reports over the past 24 to 48 hours that China's state media is saying that that country is going to introduce a pilot scheme for carbon emissions trading, and then gradually develop it into a national market. George Brandis, that's positive news, isn't it? And does it go against the sorts of arguments we're hearing from the Coalition that I understand Andrew Robb will be outlining today?

BRANDIS: Look, I honestly, with all due respect Ashleigh, don't think that the Australian families whose household costs are going to rise by, according to Treasury modelling, more than $500 a year, under this carbon tax, are going to be very interested in announcements that might be being made by some minister in Peking..

The fact of the matter is that under this carbon tax, most Australian households will be worse off and they know it. Which is why they don't want it and why, as the anonymous Labor MP you quoted said in the Daily Telegraph this morning, there has never been such rage in this country. I've never seen it myself and one could understand why the Labor Party are now in a flat-out panic about the leadership and about the very future of their government.

GILLON: Dr Emerson, how significant do you see that announcement coming from the state media in China. Isn't Tony Abbott's point right, that even if some sort of trading system is set up in China, that we still will see emissions there skyrocket in the coming years?

EMERSON: Well China's growing, there's no doubt about that. It's a massive transformation. But what China is doing is exactly what the Coalition is saying it is not doing, and that is it already has pilot schemes for five cities that it's working on. It's talking about a national emissions trading scheme.

So China … and now George Brandis says ‘that's irrelevant, that's completely irrelevant’. The statement Mr Abbott made yesterday was about the 5 per cent emission-reduction target, which he described as “crazy”. As crazy! This guy is so negative, he is so ingrained with his persistent negativity, that he's actually attacking himself. Mr Abbott is attacking his own target.

BRANDIS: [Interrupts] Well the pity of it is, Craig, at least from your point of view...

EMERSON: He's attacking his own target.

BRANDIS: ... is that most Australians agree with Tony Abbott.

EMERSON: And Tony Abbott's effort, yesterday, was cowardly and gutless and he should be man enough to turn up today...

BRANDIS: Craig, Craig...

EMERSON: ...he was cowardly...

BRANDIS: ...Craig you're becoming shrill and hysterical.

EMERSON: ... and gutless. Mr Abbott's actions were cowardly and gutless and he should stand up today and be a man and explain to the Australian people why he's saying one thing to one audience and another thing to the other audience. Julia Gillard ...

BRANDIS: Look...

EMERSON: ... has the courage to stand up and say the same thing to every Australian. Mr Abbott, in a cowardly, gutless fashion, is speaking two languages to two different audiences. If he believes an audience is actually sceptical about climate change, he will say this 5 per cent reduction target is “crazy”. If he believes an audience wants action on climate change, he says, on the same day, that he's committed to the 5 per cent target along with the government.

GILLON: Okay. Let George...

EMERSON: That is a despicable, gutless effort.

GILLON: ... Brandis respond to that. But also George Brandis...

BRANDIS: Look, Ashleigh...

GILLON: ...I 'm keen to get your view as well on … view on the fact that yesterday we saw the AWU decide to back the tax. How disappointing is that for the Coalition? And please do respond to a number of those points made there.

BRANDIS: Well, look, all I want to say in response to what Craig said is this: I made an observation a few minutes ago that this Government is in a flat panic. Now, you only have to watch the shrill and hysterical way in which Craig Emerson, a senior member of the Cabinet, has been behaving in this interview this morning, for a … you know, a living, breathing demonstration of just how hysterical and panic-ridden the Government is becoming. The Australian people have made up their minds about this carbon tax; they've made up their minds about this Prime Minister; and they've made up their minds about this Government.

GILLON: Okay. We are going to get some more...

EMERSON: Measuring up the curtains in the ministerial suite already George?

GILLON: We're going to hear more about the carbon tax here today. The National Press Club this afternoon is going to feature a debate between Lord Monckton taking on - I've lost the name - Richard Denniss, the economist, will be debating Lord Monckton today at the Press Club at 12.30. So we'll be showing you that live. We look forward to more discussion about that this afternoon.

I do want to look at some other issues around today. Yesterday George Brandis, Peter Reith, of course, handed in his election review to the Liberal Executive. In it he warned that Tony Abbott urgently needs to rebuild the party's policy credentials. He said the party's fragmented approach to policy helped cost the Coalition the last election.

Is there enough focus on policy development now, Senator? John Howard seemed to suggest, over the weekend, there should be more focus on the issue of IR for example.

BRANDIS: Well, look, first of all let me talk … say something about Mr Reith's report. I was at the meeting as a member of the Liberal Party's Federal Executive. We had a very good long discussion with Peter Reith - it went for more than three hours. The document was, I thought, a very good document and I agree with Tony Abbott's very positive reaction to it.

And we've had a good look it. We're going to implement a number of the recommendations. There are others that would require consultation with our State Division, so we're going to go off and do that as well.

Now in relation to policy, we have a policy development process that has been in place since, effectively since the last election, chaired by Andrew Robb. All Shadow Ministers have been asked to develop policy proposals. That process is well underway in every portfolio. I am very close to the process and I know exactly what's going on. It is well underway and at the appropriate time, close to the election, we'll be releasing those policies.

GILLON: But wasn't that one of the problems that Peter Reith was talking about, George Brandis; that the rest of the public had to wait until very close to the election last time to know what all of those policies were?

BRANDIS: No, I don't think Mr Reith did say that. I've read the Reith Report, all 32 pages of it, and he didn't actually say that. I mean the … it was an analysis of the party's performance in the last election, because the party performed so well - better than expectations. Most of the analysis was very positive.

But nevertheless, as you'd expect, Mr Reith did say ‘well, there are some areas in which we could have done better’. And, yeah, that's why you set up these committees: to tell you how you can do better next time. And I think Mr Reith did a very good job and we will be following his adv … listening to his advice closely, and following most of his recommendations.

GILLON: In the meantime, Minister, Labor powerbrokers apparently looking at the fall of the Victorian state government and they're reportedly blaming Kevin Rudd, saying he destroyed Labor's standing in Victoria. Is that a fair analysis?

EMERSON: No, I don't think that's a fair analysis. It was a good government in Victoria, in fact. The Brumby Government was a good government. But they missed out by, you know, a relatively small margin. They'll need to do that rebuilding. But I am fascinated again by George's selective reading of this document. And before he interrupts, it's true I haven't read it. What I have read is the front page of The Australian newspaper, which had a copy of the document and that document does say, in fact, Ashleigh … it does say that the Coalition should have put out alternative policies. That was true before the last election; it's true now. It's true now.

But Mr Abbott is so negative, he keeps attacking himself. He is incapable of developing a policy other than $50 billion of savings that George, on this program, has said that the Coalition has identified, which includes keeping the revenue from the mining tax, but getting rid of the uses of that revenue.

GILLON: And…

EMERSON: So, and he said … I mean have you ever heard of anything more shonky in all your life: a commitment to get rid of the mining tax, but keep the revenue from it? That's Mr Abbott's idea of policy.

GILLON: Okay. We do still have two years until the next scheduled election, as Labor ministers keep pointing out to us. So there is still some time yet, as George Brandis points out.

We are going to take a quick break. Coming up next, we're going to look at the fall-out of the News of the World scandal. Stay with us.

[Unrelated item - advertisement break]

GILLON: Welcome back. The former Chief of Army, Peter Leahy, has written an article in The Australian newspaper today warning that Australia is pursuing a half … half a strategy in Afghanistan, that's too confused. Here is was on the Nine Network a little earlier this morning.

[Start of excerpt - previous interview with Peter Leahy]

PETER LEAHY: Forty-nine coalition countries, many of them are looking over their shoulder if, indeed, they're not already looking at the exit door. We know that the United States is talking about a draw-down and the surge has started to move out already. The United States has problems at home with their economy and a whole range of other issues. So I think we just need to be here, in Australia, conscious that this is happening.

Now I haven't heard yet a debate, or even any discussion in Australia about what we're going to do as people start heading towards the exit door.

GILLON: George Brandis and Craig Emerson are with me this morning. George Brandis, Peter Leahy says our troops’ role needs a rethink. Do you agree? Do we need some new strategies, in particular our exit strategy?

BRANDIS: Well, look, I'll leave detailed commentary on this to the Coalition's Defence Spokesman, Senator Johnston. But let me just make this point: I did read General Leahy's piece in this morning's Australian. I thought it was an interesting piece, and the point he makes is that, as you would expect in a long terms mission like this, the focus of the mission changes over time. It originally was a mission that was primarily for the purpose of rooting out and destroying the Taliban.

With the passage of time, increasingly the mission has taken on a civil society-building role, which is not purely a military role. And other agencies including, for example, AusAID and the Australian Federal Police are increasingly being deployed as part of the Australian operation.

Now, exactly, you know, how you get the mix right as the mission … the character of the mission changes to a civil society-building mission, is an issue which I think is very worthy of discussion.

But let me restate the Coalition's position: we remain committed to the Afghanistan deployment. We are full of admiration for the work that our soldiers and civilian personnel have done in Afghanistan and they continue to have bipartisan support.

GILLON: Minister Emerson, Peter Leahy suggested that Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd should turn his attention to this problem, telling him to stop focusing so much on Africa. He says the current Australian efforts in Oruzgan province is just “grossly underdone”, were his words. Does he make some fair points in that article today?

EMERSON: Well again, I'm like George, not a military expert, but I'd point out that Australia has the biggest non-NATO force in Afghanistan. We do have a transition strategy that's been well articulated by Prime Minister Gillard, and on this occasion it does enjoy bipartisan support. It's not limited to, but a very important part of it is, tracking down and destroying the insurgency. But a very important part in this transition, Ashleigh, is to train up the Afghan security forces, and that has been very successful indeed.

I think a couple of hu … at least 100,000 extra security forces have been trained up. And George is right about the breadth of our engagement: there is broader involvement, including the Australian Federal Police. And the Prime Minister has indicated that even after the transition there will be an ongoing sort of overwatch presence, so I think we do have a combination. Mr Leahy is entitled to his opinion, but I don't think it would be right to say that it's just tracking down the insurgency; it's much broader than that.

GILLON: Okay, just finally…

BRANDIS: [Interrupts] I thought it was interesting that General Leahy thought that Mr Rudd was the answer to the problem. He might have a few spare pink batts to give them.

GILLON: Okay, I do want to move on just to one…

EMERSON: Oh gee, that's clever George. How long did you spend thinking that one up? During the ad break …?

GILLON: Let's move on.

EMERSON: In the shower?

GILLON: We've only got a few minutes left, and I do want to just touch on the News of the World scandal. Of course, we've all been watching the developments there in London with interest. The latest news today is that the second in command at the Metropolitan Police has become the latest senior figure to quit over that phone hacking scandal. Former News of the World reporter, the man who first alleged that editor Andy Coulson was aware of that phone hacking has also been found dead overnight. We know that here in Australia, Bob Brown wants an inquiry into the Australian media. Do you think that's necessary, Minister?

EMERSON: Look, I think what's happening in the UK is an issue . .. a very fundamental issue of privacy. And on the face of it looks just totally horrendous. But I think that we should give to everyone the same presumption of innocence until proven otherwise before leaping to final conclusions.

But it is an issue of privacy. Here in Australia, Ashleigh, there's the Telecommunications Interception Act, which punishes, prohibits the accessing of voice mail and other stored information without someone's prior knowledge of that.

There is a law reform report on privacy; there are some recommendations there that have not yet been finally considered by government. Perhaps that'll be the basis of a national conversation. Whether it's an inquiry or a national discussion, I can't say. But let's just give people a bit of a presumption of innocence and not assume that these privacy violations have been transported here to Australia. Let's just see how this issue unfolds.

GILLON: Yeah, no one's alleging that just yet. But in terms of the media here and how the media in Australia covers certain issues - we've seen the Communications Minister Stephen Conroy in recent days really get stuck into The Daily Telegraph, accusing it of being biased against the Government because of its campaign for a new election to be held in this country.

We heard on the weekend the former PM John Howard was sticking up for the Fourth Estate saying there's nothing wrong with us. Do you agree, George Brandis?

BRANDIS: Well look, I think it is … we are … first of all, let me say something about the News Of The World scandal. I think that was … that it’s a terrible scandal; no question about that. But it's specific to the United Kingdom. There's no reason to believe, and no credible evidence, that the conduct that affected that particular British newspaper has been engaged in by any media organisation in Australia. So, to that extent I agree with what Craig Emerson had to say.

Secondly, though, I think that we ought to be very alarmed when we hear the Government's alliance partner, Senator Brown, wanting to have an inquiry into press freedom, and being apparently supported in that by Senator Stephen Conroy, the Communications Minister, who is howling like a banshee because a particular newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, has taken a particular editorial line.

In a free country, with a free press, newspapers are perfectly free to take whatever editorial line they like. And if that includes reflecting the overwhelming public sentiment that there should be a new election, then that is something that newspapers are perfectly entitled to do.

GILLON: Okay, we only have a few seconds left, let's…

BRANDIS: And for the Communications Minister to call that into question…

GILLON: Yeah, let's put that to Craig Emerson.

BRANDIS: … I think is a very alarming thing.

GILLON: Do you need to toughen up, Craig Emerson, this Government?

EMERSON: Oh look, I think that the media outlets in Australia are, you know, not shrinking violets. And if there's some criticism from time to time of a media outlet, I don't think that's the end of the world. Surely in a robust democracy, it's true, as George said, different media outlets, even within the same stable as News Limited, adopt different positions, and they do that. It shouldn't be the end of the world if a minister points that out or criticises it. I mean, can't we handle a bit of a robust democracy? And I'm not saying …

BRANDIS: Well, apparently Senator Conroy can't.

EMERSON: I'm not saying by the way…

GILLON: We are out of time. We don't have any more time unfortunately for any more robust debate on this programme this morning. Craig Emerson and George Brandis. We really do need to get off to the news.

BRANDIS: Thanks Ashleigh.

GILLON: Thank you for your company this morning.

EMERSON: To be resumed. To be resumed.

GILLON: To be resumed next week. Look forward to it.

Media enquiries