HOST: Prime Minister, good afternoon.
PM: Good afternoon.
HOST: Thank you for taking the time to talk to us. I know you are proud about bringing in the carbon tax yesterday, but you also feel any element of guilt considering you told the Australian people we wouldn't be getting one?
PM: I've explained that on many occasions, and I'm happy to explain it now. When I said those words, I meant every one of them. We talked in the 2010 election campaign about having an emissions trading scheme, a price on carbon and indeed both major political parties; John Howard's Coalition and the Labor Party went to the 2007 election campaign promising an emissions trading scheme. Well we're going to get to that emissions trading scheme in three years time, yes we're going to have this fixed price first, and I didn't foresee that as the route to get there, but we'll get to where we need to go to cut carbon pollution and tackle climate change.
HOST: So to my question is the pride mixed with an element of guilt as well?
PM: Well look I've just explained to you I meant every word of what I said during the election campaign-
HOST: But considering the circumstances since?
PM: I couldn't foresee the circumstances of this minority parliament, but presented with the opportunity to get this major reform done for the nation, so we cut carbon pollution whilst keeping our economy strong, then obviously I've used the opportunity because it's so important to our future.
HOST: Okay, so you don't feel guilty about those famous words?
PM: Look I've just explained my view to you.
HOST: Okay, you haven't answered the question though I should say Prime Minister.
PM: Well I've just explained my view to you, I meant those words when I said them.
HOST: Alright, those words, you're speaking about those words.
GRAB: There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.
HOST: They are those. Is it appropriate for your front bench to be making light of people's concerns over the weekend. I notice the Treasurer, Wayne Swan on Twitter saying up on the roof today to check that it's in good nick in case the sky falls in tomorrow. Craig Emerson said, I thought the end of the world would be somewhat more dramatic, the suns even up. This is one of the biggest changes to our economy. It's based on a broken promise and your front bench is arrogant enough to be rubbing peoples' nose in it. Is that appropriate?
PM: I don't think that's what they've been doing at all. What they've been doing is sending up some of the most ridiculous fear campaign slogans that we've heard from Mr Abbott and other doomsayers. We've had Mr Abbott and others for more than a year now, predicting effectively the end of the world on the first of July. So I think what you're seeing Wayne Swan do and others do is to send up those claims-
HOST: Is that fair though considering the history here. As you've pointed out it's not the greatest history here in terms of you personally, considering those famous words. Isn't it one of those moments where it's best to say let's just shut up and move on, and hope for the best, as opposed to rubbing peoples' nose in it?
PM: I just don't agree with your characterisation at all. I think the important thing now is that the Australian people can decide for themselves. They won't actually have to listen to the politicians. They will be able to decide for themselves what's in their pay packet now as a result of receiving a tax cut, what increase they're seeing in their pension, if they're on the pension. What increase they're seeing in their family payment if they're looking after kids. And they'll be able to go to the shops and do their weekly shop and compare the result.
HOST: Prime Minister, if you want the people to decide for themselves, why not put it to an election?
PM: Well people will be able to judge from this experience of living with carbon pricing. I do think it's fair enough given so much doom and gloom and fear has been spread, to reassure people that none of those reckless claims are going to come true. We'll do that with straight information and occasionally with humour.
HOST: Okay, in terms of some business leaders today, I notice quotes from Richard Goyder, Wesfarmers, who says it's only a matter time before supermarket prices start rising due to the carbon tax. Dick Warburton, Manufacturing Australia, this will reduce competitiveness or result in job losses in Australia. Innes Willox, Australian Industry Group, businesses have said to us they are going to put their prices up, the carbon tax has started so people will start paying from today. They don't paint an encouraging picture, do they?
PM: Well I'm happy to go through each of those statements, but I think you should draw your listeners' attention too, to the fact that 300 businesses are out in today's newspapers, global giants like GE, Westpac and others, saying that carbon pricing will give our nation new opportunities. That they believe that carbon pricing will make a difference for our nation's future.
On the passing through of prices, we've always said carbon pricing is a price paid by big businesses who generate a lot of carbon pollution. Paying a price will give them an incentive to change, and cut that carbon pollution, and that's what they'll do. We've always said that there would be a flow through though, to the prices that you and I pay in the shops, and Aussies around the nation pay in the shops. That impact is less than a cent in a dollar, and that is why people will see tax cuts in their next pay packets if they earn less than $80,000 a year. And people are also seeing increases in the pension and family payments, which will continue.
HOST: We are talking live to Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Prime Minister you point out that business leaders say different things. In terms of the discussions though between you and the people of Australia, you said around the time of the 2010 election when you were announcing the ill-fated citizens assembly on climate change, you said that only when there was a deep and lasting consensus would you look at introducing a carbon price. Can you honestly say that there is a deep and lasting consensus that's already arrived on this?
PM: This is a tremendously controversial reform, I understand that. In the same way that Medicare, when it was introduced, was tremendously controversial. Universal superannuation was tremendously controversial, and the list goes on. And now, if you went out in the streets and said to Aussies, would you be without Medicare? Do you reckon universal superannuation is a good thing or a bad thing? People would look at you a little bit confused and say of course we want Medicare, of course we want universal superannuation.
HOST: You don't quite have that deeper, lasting consensus though do you?
PM: I'm making the point that I actually believe in the period of time to come, Australians will look back on the start of carbon pricing and come to see it as the right thing for our nation's future, to cut carbon pollution and to seize a cleaner energy future.
HOST: We had a look last week at refrigeration costs, particularly when you're talking about commercial operations and the cost of refrigerants. I saw a price list from a company Heatcraft. Refrigeration 23 was 748 per kilogram. It's now 1,690. Refrigerant 134A was I think $65 per kilogram. It's now $181 per kilogram. And then the vegetable growers around the country are talking today about costs being passed on. Are you sure that this is going to have what you describe as a minimal impact on the average person out there?
PM: I can say to you I'm sure, because we've had Treasury model the impact, the cost of living impact. These are the same professionals that modelled the impact of the GST for the Howard Government, and got it right. And the impact of the GST was three times bigger than the impact of carbon pricing. And the biggest impact people will see from putting a price on carbon is they will see a ten per cent increase in their electricity bill. On that, whether we've got the increase in electricity right, the jury is already in. The regulators around the country have spoken and said the increase will be ten per cent or less than ten per cent. So on the single biggest bit we already know, the Treasury modelling has got a tick.
On the refrigerant gases, I think we've just got to be clear about this. There is some information floating around about price changes here, which isn't right. But also what people might want to know about refrigerant gases is that those gases have been the subject of special payments and special levies for quite a long period of time now, going back to the Howard Government, because these gases are particularly powerful. Far more powerful than carbon dioxide. There's a long-standing arrangement for refrigerant gases, which is a different arrangement.
HOST: Can we move on to asylum seekers, I know you've got limited time, and the deaths of people at sea. This is what you said in your first press conference as Prime Minister.
GRAB: I can understand that Australians are disturbed when they see boats arrive on our shores unannounced. But I am full of understanding of the perspective of the Australian people that they want strong management of our borders, and I will provide it.
HOST: Since then PM there's been 204 boats, 13,451 arrivals and hundreds die at sea.
PM: And since then we've seen the High Court change our understanding of Australian law and prevent this Government under current laws doing what governments in the past have been able to do. And that is, to determine to have offshore processing.
HOST: Well why were you so insistent on East Timor and Malaysia? There was an opportunity to adopt the Coalition's policy, was it that hard to admit that John Howard had it right?
PM: It's not a question of that at all. We are receipt of the clearest possible advice that the strongest deterrent we can send to people smugglers today is our arrangement with Malaysia. But I didn't go into the parliament and insist that it's just my plan and no-one else's plan. I went to the parliament and said, we're all going to need to compromise here and I am prepared to compromise. I'm prepare to put with my plan for Malaysia, the Opposition's key plan, which is a detention centre in Nauru, and even to have an expert-led review of Temporary Protection Visas that the Opposition is so attached to.
HOST: Prime Minister, that expert review, putting this thing to a committee, we know we're going to get to the end of that committee and Tony Abbott's still not going to play ball. You've had two years to do something about this.
PM: What sort of person is it Ben, and I suggest you ask this question of Tony Abbott when you next speak to him, what sort of person is it who would say, people are drowning at sea and an expert panel has spoken and I won't listen to them.
HOST: Let me flip that for a moment, if people are dying at sea and you have an opportunity to get some offshore processing going up, but only under Tony Abbott's plan, why not do that? What kind of person stands by and allows people to keep on dying when you have an opportunity to get a deal up, albeit on the Coalition's terms.
PM: Someone who like me has accepted expert advice about what will work, the expert advice to us is that Nauru, by itself, won't work.
HOST: But the Coalition has never had Nauru by itself. There's TPVs, they're turning boats around.
PM: Well let's go through it element by element. Every step of the way here, I have been prepared to compromise and the Leader of the Opposition and indeed the Australian Greens have moved not one millimetre. Ben, you point to the Opposition's plan, turning boats around, the Navy says this is too dangerous for Navy personnel. And turn them around to where, when Indonesia won't take them back. Then on Nauru, we have direct advice from the same experts who advised the Howard Government, that by itself, it won't work.
On Temporary Protection Visas, I had my view about Temporary Protection Visas, but I have said, for the purpose of getting something done, let's put Malaysia, with Nauru, and have experts provide advice about the deterrents of Temporary Protection Visas, that is I've been prepared to work hard to get a compromise here, and I am still prepared to work hard to get a compromise here, which is why I've asked three eminent Australians to advise the Government and indeed the nation about what is the best way forward.
HOST: You were willing to let the Greens call the shots on the carbon tax to get into Government, why aren't you willing to let the Coalition call the shots to save lives at sea?
PM: Because your question is wrong.
HOST: But you didn't want a carbon tax?
PM: That's not what has happened here-
HOST: You didn't want a carbon tax Prime Minister, Bob Brown wanted one, he got one. Why not give Tony Abbott his boat plan if it means saving lives at sea?
PM: The comparison isn't a fair one and isn't right. On carbon pricing, the Labor Party has been to two elections saying we support putting a price on carbon. Indeed Prime Minister Howard said that when he was Prime Minister too. We have worked to realise that plan because we believe it's in the best interests of our nation.
On getting offshore processing, we have been prepared every step of the way to be reasonable and to seek a compromise that everybody can work with and everyone can live with. What we have been met with in response to that is belligerence and a preparedness to move not one millimetre. Now I am still striving for change here, I'm striving to get a solution and that's why I've appointed the expert panel and I think it really is remarkable that before the expert panel of eminent Australians who Mr Abbott says he respects, before they've even delivered their expert advice, Mr Abbott is saying no, he won't even listen to it.
HOST: You are critical of Tony Abbott's position on this. Do you acknowledge your own stuff-ups, excuse my bluntness, on this, considering East Timor, considering Malaysia. I mean, they've been two long years here Ms Gillard.
PM: And I would enact the Malaysia arrangement tomorrow if we got the legislative change we need.
HOST: But the High Court said no to Malaysia.
PM: Well let's just be accurate here, the High Court has effectively said no to all offshore processing. That is why we need legislative change, even if Ben, you woke up as Prime Minister tomorrow and said let's do Nauru, you would have to go to the parliament and get legislation to do it. To make sure it was on a firm legal footing.
HOST: Okay I'm going to hit you with two quick ones and then let you go. In the last Budget, 22,000 single soldiers over the age of 21 had their annual free flight home axed. All for the sake of $15 million, now how do you justify this kind of treatment of diggers when double that amount, $30 million, is blown on advertising the carbon tax?
PM: The recommendation about that treatment of entitlements wasn't something that came out of the direct Budget processes. It was something that came out of an ongoing review process in Defence, a strategic review in Defence.
HOST: Okay, there's a super trawler from the Netherlands, described as an ocean-going vacuum cleaner, rumoured to be heading to Australia to fish our waters. Can you guarantee that this won't be happening?
PM: There was that rumour floating around. There was a rumour about a super trawler fishing off Tasmania. When that was in the media, certainly I looked at it and what in fact turned out to be the case was that no application had been made by that trawler to the relevant authority. There is a fisheries authority here and you can't go fishing until you get a permit. The permit is not determined on the size of the boat, it's determined on the sustainability of the catch. So no-one will get a permit for an unsustainable catch, because the fisheries authority is there, making sure that people's applications are properly looked at and they only get permits for the right amount.
HOST: So in regards to that super trawler, is there any guarantee that it won't be coming?
PM: The fisheries authority will deal with it, and they won't care whether it's a super trawler or a super-super trawler or whatever size the trawler is. What they will look at is the fishery and what is a sustainable catch and so it might be a very big boat, after very few fish, but that is for the fishery authority to determine. They're not persuaded by the size of the boat.
HOST: We're one day into the carbon tax, obviously a lot depends on it, but your survival depends on this as well, doesn't it, in terms of the coming weeks and months. It's important that you get this right because you may not be around otherwise.
PM: Well this is about the nation's future. That's the important thing. The important thing is we live in a country that is cutting carbon pollution that we can say to ourselves for example in 2020 that we're seeing the equivalent of 45 million cars taken off the road. That we're seeing people seize the benefits of a clean energy future, and at the same time, we're seeing our economy stay strong, jobs growing, and people getting the benefits of a new tax system that better values work. You'll be able to earn up to $18,200 and not pay a cent of tax. Those are the kinds of objectives that drive me on.
HOST: Okay Prime Minister it's been a long time between interviews, but I appreciate you coming on this afternoon. Thank you so much.
PM: Thank you.