SPEERS: Prime Minister, welcome back to Sky News.
PM: Thanks for having me on the program.
SPEERS: Have you been rattled by Tony Abbott this week on climate change?
PM: You know something, climate change is a hard debate, it's a complex debate. It is necessary however, for Australia's national interest. What I welcome is the fact that Mr Abbott at last, has joined the debate. One of the easiest things you can do in politics is to be all complaint and no solutions. And I've seen that in the time that Mr Abbott has been in the position so often, but on this one, can I say they've put their proposal forward and against the most basic tests this turned up to be a climate con job, first class.
Our policy is internally consistent, it has been well developed and it adds up and is environmentally effective.
SPEERS: You've suggested that Tony Abbott's plan would increase emissions. He disputes that suggestion. How do you arrive at that finding?
PM: Well if you go to the core elements of his plan, and then come to the question you ask specifically. You see with Mr Abbott's plan, based on his statement in his own language, that climate change is, quote "absolute crap", what you have in fact, is this climate change con job which costs more, does less, and is totally unfunded.
Costs more - that's a debate we had during the course of this week so far. Our cost: about $3 billion. Theirs: more than $10 billion. So theirs is three times more expensive.
The second one is effective/less effective - that means environmentally effective. This is exactly the question you ask. You see the Liberals and us are committed to a five percentage point cut in greenhouse gas emissions. What does that equal? It equals pulling out 138 million tonnes of carbon pollution from the atmosphere. It's a basic question of mathematics, really.
So, what Mr Abbott has put forward is a policy which is nowhere near 138 million tonnes of carbon. What the Department of Climate Change and the expert analysis has concluded, in consultation with the Treasury as well, is that at best, it represents 40 million tonnes of carbon.
SPEERS: And you've released that advice?
PM: Yes, we'll produce that advice during the course of the day. But can I just say, where does that all add up to? Under our scheme, we reduce carbon pollution by five percent, because we cap carbon pollution. Under Mr Abbott's scheme, carbon pollution actually increases by 13 percent. So in summary, what you have therefore, is first of all, Mr Abbott's scheme costs three times as much and secondly, a scheme which actually increases greenhouse gas emissions by 13 percent.
It doesn't add up environmentally, it doesn't add up economically and that's quite apart from the fact it's totally unfunded.
SPEERS: You mentioned cost. Your scheme, the emissions trading scheme, would direct cost on business and there would be a cost to Australian families as well. On your own figures, electricity prices would rise 7 percent in the first year, 12 percent in the next year. There are going to be some families and businesses out of pocket, aren't there?
PM: Well as Mr Howard my predecessor always said, if you're going to act on climate change through an emissions trading scheme, it's not for free. Any action on climate change is not for free. That was Mr Howard's view, Mr Costello's view, Mr Turnbull's view. Mr Abbott seems to say that uniquely, worldwide, he's come up with a solution which has no pain attached to it.
SPEERS: When you attacked Tony Abbott's plan for costing more than yours, you're ignoring the cost that this is going to have to families, to business, and particularly to big industry.
PM: We make absolutely no apology for the fact that we are charging the big polluters which Mr Abbott chooses to let off scott-free. What he does is transfer the burden of climate change adjustment entirely to working families as taxpayers and not offer them a dollar of compensation.
What do we do? We charge the biggest polluters in order to get them using market principles to reduce their carbon pollution over time. Secondly, we use the money which is raised from that charge to provide direct compensation for working families so that 92 percent of working families receive compensation.
That's the bottom line. That is the difference. Under them, not a dollar of compensation. They let the big polluters off scot-free, and the taxpayer at the end of the day, foots the bill.
SPEERS: But it's not just the big polluters, as you call them. What about a local dry cleaning business? It's going to face much higher power bills.
PM: Well you just referred to, before, the increase in electricity prices which we have been completely explicit about. I believe in this debate you've got to be absolutely transparent, as we have been on electricity prices, gas prices and in terms of the overall impact on the cost of living.
But let's actually nail it for what it is - the Treasury's analysis, which is very clear cut, is that the impact on the cost of living will be 1.1 percent, and on the other side of the ledger, we unlike the Liberals are providing compensation for working families so that 92 percent of working families will receive compensation. That's the difference.
SPEERS: But getting back to the question about a small business that uses a lot of electricity, or indeed a single pensioner who might use a lot of energy if they live in a cold part of Australia - they could be worse off.
PM: Well can I just go to your example about the single pensioner. What we have done for pensioners and low-income families is provide a compensation scheme which in their case provides between 100 and 120 per cent compensation for any flow-on effects on the cost of living, and secondly, we have regular adjustment mechanisms for that into the future.
We understand precisely the impact on individuals in those circumstances.
SPEERS: So no pensioners will be worse off?
PM: Absolutely, because that is the way in which we have costed this and funded it. That is why the Australian Council of Social Services backs what we have done. Remember Mr Abbott, in validating his approach, said that he had a mob called Frontier Economics in there, in the engine room, doing it for him. That was his third-party validation.
What happened yesterday? Frontier Economics jump on the horse and ride away at a million miles an hour, so not only do you have a scheme which does less, costs more and is totally unfunded, you have one which his own, self-nominated independent expert is now galloping away from it at a million miles.
SPEERS: Prime Minister, after the failure of Copenhagen, why should Australia make industry pay more for emissions when the biggest economy, the United States, is not?
PM: Our principle, and it is absolute consistent with what we have said from the beginning, is that Australia will do no more and no less than the rest of the world.
SPEERS: But we are - with an emissions trading scheme where the US is not.
PM: Well an emissions trading scheme provides you with a vehicle to adjust your target over time, depending on what the rest of the world does. Look carefully at what the Climate Change Minister said the other day about the timeframe that we have set for ourselves for any final adjustment to the target for the simple reason is we want to make sure a) what the rest of the world is committed to, b) the enforceability of those commitments and by what mechanism, and c) the global monitoring and verification system in place to make sure it happens.
We go into this with our eyes wide open - no more, no less than the rest of the world.
But you know something David? What we have out here is Mr Abbott almost alone in the world, arguing that an emissions trading scheme is not the right way to do it. Mr Howard backed an emissions trading scheme. Mr Turnbull backed an emissions trading scheme, Mr Costello backed an emissions trading scheme. Mr Abbott himself has backed an emissions trading scheme -
SPEERS: The US Congress hasn't backed an emissions trading scheme.
PM: Well that's why we've put in place the reservations that I just referred to in terms of the future, but 35 countries around the world, the advanced economies, have either implemented or are in the process of implementing emissions trading schemes. You know why? Because they've concluded that it costs less, that it is the most effective, and of course, it funds itself. That is why they have done it. And that is why Mr Howard reached that conclusion.
What's Mr Abbott about? Providing complaint on everything and offering solution on nothing. A very easy script in the short term in politics. At the end of the day, people start to look for a bit of substance.
SPEERS: Prime Minister just quickly if we can, a few other issues around today.
The Auditor General says $17 million of taxpayers' money was wasted on the abandoned tender to National Broadband Network because of a lack of clarity, technical ignorance and a rushed timeframe. Does the Government accept blame for that wastage?
PM: Firstly, I haven't had the opportunity to read the Auditor General's report yet. The quick summary that I've got of its conclusions, however, is that the Auditor General makes no recommendations for the future. Secondly, says that what the Government did in implementation of this process was conform with Commonwealth procurement guidelines.
SPEERS: (inaudible) apparently were paid $600,000 each. That's more than you earn, PM.
PM: Well can I say, when you are looking at a $43 billion prospective or possible investment by Australia to build over time, a high-speed broadband network across Australia for 90 percent of homes, and to provide other forms of coverage for other households, this is a very big nation-building project. We're determined to get it right.
Let's go to the core of why we used that tender process - test the market in difficult circumstances in the middle of the financial crisis last year. Who was available? Telstra didn't put their best foot forward, as we all know. And as a consequence the advice from this expert panel was, none of the offered tenders represented value for the taxpayers' dollar, and instead they said the best way to go was not fibre optic to the node, but fibre optic to the home and to the premises, and that of course, informed the judgement which we took on the advice of not just the panel but the Treasury as well.
SPEERS: Iran, PM - you promised to take Ahmadinejad to the International Criminal court. You haven't done that but your Defence Minister now has apparently blocked three shipments of Australian materials to Iran. Can you tell us why, and are you increasingly concerned about Iran's weapon ambitions?
PM: With Iran, we have a very hardline approach. They are developing a nuclear weapons program which is against the security interests of Australia, against the security interests of our wider region, against the security interests of the world and the international community.
Secondly, they have thumbed their nose at, effectively, the International Atomic Energy Agency time and time again, and at the repeated diplomatic engagements by the Europeans and others.
As for Australia, given the powers which are available to the Defence Minister under the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act and its appropriate provisions, we have acted responsibly and entirely appropriately to interdict a number of proposed shipments to Iran because that was our international obligation. It was also right in Australia's national interest.
SPEERS: What were the shipments?
PM: I'm not prepared to comment on the detail of the shipments. That goes to far more detailed questions of national security which I'm not prepared to go into. But the bottom line is this - Australia has fundamental national interests at stake in terms of Iran's nuclear weapons program. We are a responsible member of the international community and we will not take a backward step when it comes to fulfilling our obligations.
SPEERS: And a final question, just closer to home. Belinda Neal, apparently her local branch members-
PM: That's a leap from Iran to (inaudible) but I'll let you make case for that.
SPEERS: It is quite a leap. Her local branch members are apparently demanding that she not run again in the very marginal Central Coast seat of Robertson. Where do you stand on this? She's caused you some grief in the last couple of years. Would you like to see her run again?
PM: Well of course, she had a bit of a rough start, I think that's fair to say. But she's been performing as a good local member, but in our processes of Party pre-selection, they are governed by the National Secretary, the National Executive, and that is where those processes (inaudible).
SPEERS: Your view's influential, though.
PM: I just expressed my views. I believe that she's been performing as an effective local member. She had a rough start.
SPEERS: Would be good to go around for another term?
PM: Belinda, as I'm sure she will, will stick her hand up, and as I said, I believe that she has done a good job as a local member. But the Party's pre-selection processes are a matter for the Party's organisation, the National Executive, the National Secretary. I've got enough on my plate David, and there's a few things going on at the moment, and that's where my mind is focussed.
SPEERS: We'll let you get back to them. Prime Minister, thanks for joining us.
PM: Thanks for having me on the program