HOST: Julia Gillard, good morning to you.
PM: Good morning, Chris.
HOST: We've had plenty of questions come into us over the past week and a half, Ms Gillard. Some of them I'll pass onto you, some of them are questions we want to ask here but let me start by saying firstly, welcome to, sort of, the region.
PM: Thank you very much.
HOST: You're in Gunning, I believe.
PM: That's right and I will be looking at a clean energy project today and of course as we put a price on carbon pollution from 1 July next year, one of the big reasons for doing it is to turbocharge investments in the clean energy sources of the future.
We're also investing $10 billion in a clean energy finance corporation to make sure we see the projects and as a nation we get our fair share of the clean energy jobs of the future and we're investing more than $3 billion into research as well, through a new agency to be called ARENA.
HOST: Now, does that mean that when the carbon tax comes in that green energy which currently costs more for consumers will cost less for consumers, so people, average punters like myself, would be able to pocket the difference if we change to those certified green programs?
PM: Well, what you will see is more clean energy coming on stream. Obviously, getting big projects, huge projects up takes some time, but by 2020, 20 per cent of our energy will come from clean energy sources, by 2050 40 per cent will, and by putting a price on carbon we are giving investors certainty. They're putting often hundreds of millions of dollars, sometimes billions of dollars, on the table and they need to know what the rules of the game are.
Now. people will see an increase in electricity prices from having put a price on carbon. We've been very upfront about that. The increase will be 10 per cent, and that has all been factored in to the cost of living changes people will see which will be less than 1 per cent - that's less than a cent in a dollar - and millions of households will qualify for tax cuts, family payment increases and pension increases to deal with those cost of living changes.
HOST: So the main premise of the carbon price is targeting the big emitters, the big end of town if you like, but the bulk of the press seems to be about the individual tax package changes meaning that most people will either be the same or a little bit better off.
Is it any wonder, though, that many people I speak to still have the perception that the net result for them is little change to the personal bottom line, there won't be any change to carbon emissions? Does that still - do you see where I'm coming from with that?
PM: Yes I do and I get this question put to me a fair bit when I'm out and about talking to people. People talk about a money-go-round, isn't this just money going from here to there and to explain that to people I always say the big price signal in all of this is the price signal to the around 500 biggest polluters.
So, if you imagine you're the CEO of a ginormous company, at the moment you can put carbon pollution in the atmosphere for absolutely nothing, so why wouldn't you do it endlessly? Why wouldn't you put more in the atmosphere next year and more the year after that, because it's not costing you anything?
When we put a price on carbon per tonne of $23 from 1 July next year, then you as a rational man, CEO of a big company, you'll say to yourself, ‘gee, I want to put less on the bottom line, I want to save some money, I don't want to be paying that price, how can I cut the carbon pollution my business generates?', and it's those rational decisions by big business people that will ensure that we see a cut of at least 160 million tonnes of carbon pollution in 2020. That's the equivalent of taking 45 million cars off the road.
Now, yes, there are some flow-through impacts and that's why, as you say, we are providing assistance so many, many people will see themselves at least square and many will be better off.
HOST: One of the claims from the Coalition and indeed from opponents to the carbon price plan is that we're doing under this plan way more than many other countries that generate far more carbon dioxide, and I'm talking about overall levels, not per capita, here. What will happen to Australia economically and environmentally if other countries continue to do less than we do?
PM: Well, let me just talk about this ‘other countries doing less' question. For example, we, by putting a price on carbon, will cut our carbon pollution by -5 per cent in 2020.
Now, that -5 is against where we were in the year 2000, but against a business as usual case, if we did absolutely nothing, it's a cut of 23 per cent.
China, for example, is planning a cut against business as usual of 22 per cent. India's putting a tax on coal. America's got emissions trading schemes in a number of its States, so does Europe, and Prime Minister Cameron in Britain has announced a very ambitious target for cutting carbon pollution.
So, around the world people are acting and I don't want to see us left behind as they go around snaffling the clean energy jobs of the future.
But the other thing, too, is it's been bipartisan politics in this country - both me and the Opposition to say that we should cut carbon pollution by 5 per cent in 2020. Now I see earlier this week Tony Abbott back flipped on that and said ‘no, we shouldn't do anything' and then he back flipped again and said no he does want to cut it by 5 per cent now, so I'm not sure what he's saying today given he's said different things over the last 48 hours, but it has generally been bipartisan politics to cut carbon pollution by 5 per cent, so if that's our national aim, the question is ‘when do we start and how do we do it?'
I believe we should start soon and we should do it the most efficient way possible, whereas Tony Abbott is structuring the most expensive way to do it, a charge of around $720 per household.
HOST: Why is it then that your plan is being effectively pilloried, while his plan doesn't seem to be getting anywhere near as much questioning?
PM: Well, I think because an approach has been taken by the Opposition where they've just gone round raising fear. They've been prepared to do and say anything no matter what audience they're speaking to, so you know they'll say one thing to one audience and a different thing to another audience and they'll just make false claims and then not retract them, so people have been told, for example that petrol's going up 6.5 cents a litre - that's wrong. People have been told that the coal industry is shutting down - that's wrong. People have been told that the steel industry is going to be closed down and whole towns will be wiped off the map - that's wrong. And people have been told there will be an astronomical increase in their cost of living. Well, the increase is less than a cent in a dollar, 9 out of 10 households are getting assistance and literally millions of Australians will come out square or better off.
HOST: Prime Minister Julia Gillard, lots of farmers and primary producers have been in touch with us over the last couple of weeks. The thrust of what they've got to say I think is summed up in a couple of messages here, one is that farmers buy their inputs retail, they sell their products wholesale, they pay for freight both ways, how can those increased costs be passed on, and another caller earlier this morning saying that after the toughest drought in living memory, farmers don't need, and I'll quote here, ‘another kick in the guts'. Is there any thought to giving some payment for the costs of increases to farmers there?
PM: Well, there are huge opportunities in this package for farmers. There's dedicated new money for what is called carbon farming which will get farmers an additional revenue stream. That means for certain land practices people can be rewarded with cold, hard cash, so I think that's very important.
Farmers are big land holders, and there's also the best part of a billion dollars in a biodiversity fund so we can work with landholders on biodiversity. Once again, cold, hard cash.
And then as farmers go about their daily work, of course agriculture itself is not directly in the carbon pricing scheme, heavy vehicles do not come into the scene until 1 July 2014, and I do believe that for some of the costs farmers will see they will be in a position to pass those costs on, which is why we've focused so much on providing household assistance so people have the dollars in their hand as they go about their supermarket shopping.
HOST: I'm guessing this is probably the final question I'm going to get to ask you Prime Minister - what do you say to the people of south-west of New South Wales who do feel as though they've been repeatedly let down by governments and politicians over the years. There were the huge delays in the hospital for Wagga; many feel they were largely ignored with the Murray Darling Basin plan; there's the medical zoning issue which people don't feel they've necessarily been listened to; there's been the uni student allowances issue. People in this part of the world are very sceptical about politicians. What do you say to those people who are now very sceptical about how they will fare under the carbon price plan?
PM: What I would say is I'm always interested in community views, but I think I'm entitled to say we've done some things in the local community which make a big difference.
People would have seen the improvements in local schools, part of supporting jobs in the global financial crisis. People would have seen the new investments that we've made into health. People would have seen some of the benefits of our record investments in road and rail - we've been very focused on that. People would have seen the benefits flowing through as we've worked to support families and support jobs during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
So yes, are there always more things to be done? Absolutely, but the approach we've taken as we've delivered benefits whether it's building the education revolution or whether its investments into health, is to look equitably around the country and make new investments as they're needed.
We are also very focused on the circumstances of regional Australia and improving opportunities there, as well as services. The National Broadband Network is about that and for example some of the things I did in education as Minister were about that. I know the student income support changes were controversial, but what we can say to people now is more students from regional Australia are getting student assistance than ever before as a result of these changes.
HOST: Indeed. Prime Minister, I appreciate your time this morning. Hopefully you'll actually be able to visit the Riverina or the south-west a little more closely during your wearing out of the shoe leather tour.
PM: You never know. Thank you.
HOST: Thank you, good to speak with you.
PM: Thanks.