Transcript – ABC Rdaio National – 23 November 2009

Transcript of
Senator Mitch Fifield
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary
for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector

ABC Radio National
RN Breakfast with Fran Kelly

23 November 2009

7:45am
E & OE

Subjects: Emissions Trading Scheme

FRAN KELLY:

Well the final deal on an Emissions Trading Scheme with amendments will be considered by Shadow Cabinet tomorrow morning now, or some point tomorrow morning, it will then be presented to the Liberal Party Room. Senator Mitch Fifield will likely have his say then. He is one of at least a dozen Liberal politicians who have spoken out very strongly against the Emissions Trading Scheme bill. He joins us now in our Parliament House studio. Senator Fifield good morning.

MITCH FIFIELD:

Good morning Fran.

KELLY:

Do you have an open mind, is there any chance that this Emissions Trading Scheme can be salvaged, and in good order for you to support it?

FIFIELD:

Well it’d be fair to say that I was at the reluctant end of the spectrum in terms of whether it is possible to improve this legislation to an extent that it could be supported. I’ll be informed in my consideration by the Government’s response and by the contributions of my colleagues in the Party Room.

KELLY:

Just to clarify your reluctance, are you one of those who Nick Minchin said the other day, included in those, when he said a clear majority in the Coalition Party Room do not believe in the science behind mad made climate change, does that include you, do you accept human activity has caused global warming?

FIFIELD:

Well I accept that human activity is making a contribution to warming, but the extent that it is I am not sure. I maintain an open mind, I am not a scientist. But I certainly defend the right of those people who do have a firm view as to the contribution of man’s activities or the lack of. I certainly defend their right to put their views, and their right to put their views without being branded sceptics or heretics.

KELLY:

Ok well the fact is you are going to face a, you are going to be faced with an amended climate change bill tomorrow. Sounds like, from what the Minister was just saying, that the Coalition will not get 100 per cent of the amendments it has sought. Tony Abbot has said the Coalition should reject the offer unless it’s a hundred per cent there, is that your bottom line?

FIFIELD:

Well I think Tony Abbott’s analogy was correct that this is more like a negotiation for a house rather than an industrial negotiation, that you really would expect the Government to come very, very close to what the Coalition is asking for. But as I say, I’m…

KELLY:

So you have a reserve price that is less than 100 per cent?

FIFIELD:

Well, as I say, I’m one of those who remain to be convinced that this legislation is salvageable. Everyone in the Coalition agrees that this is bad legislation. Everyone in the Coalition agrees that there is no reason to put this legislation before Copenhagen. There was little reason when we though that we would find out at Copenhagen what the view of the rest of the world would be. There’s absolutely no reason now that the draft 200 page treaty has been ripped up. We know that there’ll be little more than an eight or nine page press release to come out of that Copenhagen meeting, so there is no rush. There’s even less of a rush now that we know that Canada is going to hold off on legislating until after Copenhagen, and there’s even less rush now that we know that it’ll probably be the best part of a year before the Waxman-Markey Bill gets through the US Senate, so the important thing is to make sure that we get this right. This is one of the most significant structural changes to the Australian economy that’s ever been proposed and with the spectre of power stations in Victoria at best going into administration, and at worst shutting down, I think it’s important that we take the time and I hope that the Coalition Party Room takes the time to consider this seriously.

KELLY:

Well, your fellow Liberal MP and frontbencher, Ian MacFarlane has been taking a fair bit of time to negotiate amendments with Penny Wong as we just heard the Minister say then, this is a deal for this week. The amendments that Ian MacFarlane has won in those negotiations are only on the table for this week. Does that encourage you and others in your party room to look more sympathetically at getting this through this week?

FIFIELD:

Well, the Government’s been negotiating for five weeks. They’ve had five weeks to consider what the Coalition is putting to them. And what the Government is saying to the Coalition Party Room is that you’ve got to decide, basically, in the space of a couple of hours. This is incredibly significant legislation. It could have a dramatic effect on the Australian economy, and the Government is saying to the Coalition Party Room, consider it in a couple of hours. I think the Government has condensed the timeframe for consideration by the Coalition far, far too much.

KELLY:

But Ian Macfarlane asked for it to be delivered tomorrow.

FIFIELD:

Well, to be fair to Ian, Ian’s prime objective was to make sure that the Coalition Party Room found out the results of the negotiation from him, rather than from Penny Wong as we saw last weekend when Penny announced that agriculture had been excluded. So Ian’s been endeavouring to make sure that we found out from him. The fault lies with the Government who’ve been carrying these negotiations on for five weeks. They should have factored in sufficient time for the Coalition to consider.

KELLY:

Senator Fifield, suggestions publicly that some on, let’s call it the Turnbull camp, have been ringing others, critics of the ETS within the Coalition and warning them that their sort of future advancement could be affected by how they vote. Have you received any of that kind, those calls or pressure?

FIFIELD:

No, my phone has been strangely silent, so I don’t think that’s happening, but if it has, I’ve certainly been neglected.

KELLY:

In your opinion, is Malcolm Turnbull’s authority in the Party Room on the line here, and if more than 20 Coalition Senators end up crossing the floor on this Bill, would Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership be untenable?

FIFIELD:

Malcolm’s position is secure. He has the support of me. He has the support of the Party Room and I don’t think colleagues are considering this issue against the backdrop of leadership. It’s appropriate when looking at legislation to purely consider the policy merits of what’s before you.

KELLY:

Okay, Senator Mitch Fifield, thank you very much for joining us.

FIFIELD:

Thanks, Fran.

ENDS