Xenophon Trans 8nov09

Interview with Senator Nick Xenophon Sky News Sunday Agenda program, 8th November 2009 Helen Dalley: Without a senate majority, Kevin Rudd’s government has to move a lot more slowly than they’d like. The way the numbers stack up, Independent senator, Nick Xenophon, has an extraordinary say in what the prime minister can and cannot achieve. In fact he’s been called one of the most powerful men in Australia, so where does he stand on many of the big issues? Senator Xenophon joins me from our studio in Adelaide. Nick Xenophon, thanks for joining us. Nick Xenophon: Good morning, Helen. Helen Dalley: Now when you return to parliament in a week’s time, emissions trading legislation will be probably the big issue. Do you expect any genuine compromise from either the Coalition on its amendments, or from the government on its legislation? Nick Xenophon: Well firstly I think it’s going to be a hell of a two weeks, given the amount of legislation the government wants to get through. And the ETS is the biggest most significant piece of legislation this parliament has ever dealt with, both in economic terms and environmental terms. I’m not sure what is happening between the government and the Opposition in terms of their negotiations. I understand both sides are saying that they’re in good faith. I’m concerned that we get it right in terms of the structure of the ETS, and I don’t make any apology for being a proponent of the Frontier model. I commissioned modelling for that, along with the Coalition, and the Frontier model shows that if you adjust the design of the CPRS, you can actually have a much more effective scheme at a much lower cost. Helen Dalley: But do you think it’s possible that even if the government accepts most or all of Malcolm Turnbull’s amendments, the Coalition could still vote against the legislation, or try to defer it, as Senator Nick Minchin said last week? Nick Xenophon: Well that’s a matter for the Coalition’s party room. I have my party rooms in front of the mirror each morning while I’m having a shave, and I think we should get on with it. Helen Dalley: So will you be voting for it? Nick Xenophon: I will be voting for a CPRS if it’s changed to incorporate the Frontier models. And also it needs to have more ambitious targets. Now a five percent target which is both what the Coalition and the government wants, I don’t think is ambitious enough. If you listen to the science, as I think you must, the overwhelming preponderance of scientific opinion is that we need a more ambitious target, so that we can do our bit in terms of global warming. Helen Dalley: Alright, well are you having your own discussions with the government and are they coming to the party on that? Nick Xenophon: Look, no, they haven’t. Clearly they are still locked into discussions with the Coalition. I guess the government’s problem is this, that given Senator Fielding’s views, and he’s entitled to those views in relation to climate change, I think the

Sunday Agenda

8th November, 2009

Sen. Nick Xenophon

government realises that it must come to some agreement, some bipartisan agreement, with the Coalition otherwise there’s no deal. Because even if the government got me and the five Greens across the line, they’re still one vote short. Helen Dalley: So therefore it looks like it won’t get up? Nick Xenophon: Well let’s wait and see what happens. I think we need to do this sooner rather than later . . . Helen Dalley: . . . But Senator Xenophon, if you don’t get your targets, you’re not going to be voting for it either. Is that what you’re saying now? Nick Xenophon: What I’m saying is that five percent is not ambitious enough, that the Frontier model provides a springboard, provides a model for deeper cuts at a lower cost than the government’s model, because the problem with the government’s model, Helen, is that there is so much revenue churning that, there are so many fundamental economic inefficiencies in the government scheme that you simply won’t get those ambitious targets, because it’s such a clunky, costly scheme. Helen Dalley: Alright, now the government’s midyear economic forecast this week showed that there’s really no money within the revenue raised by the scheme to pay for any extra compensation for polluters or others of the Coalition’s amendments. Does that blow those amendments out of the water in a sense, and render the whole amendment negotiation useless? Nick Xenophon: Helen, that’s not quite right. Because the Frontier model, for those that have had a good look at it, actually shows that you don’t need as much compensation because of the structure of that scheme. If you’re not hurting people as much, including consumers of electricity, you don’t need to have as big a compensation package. It is a simpler, cheaper scheme in that respect, and that’s something that the government needs to look at. Helen Dalley: But hasn’t the scheme already, according to the midyear economic review figures, blown out by over $1 billion? Nick Xenophon: Well that’s the government scheme as I understand it. And that’s why it’s even more reason why the government needs to have a reconsideration of its current scheme in terms of tweaking the model so that it does incorporate some sensible amendments, and those amendments can mean that the scheme is more economically effective and much more environmentally sustainable. Helen Dalley: To get your vote, how do you think you’re going to go getting the sorts of targets, the increased targets that you want? Nick Xenophon: Well I think the government needs to acknowledge that if they’re listening to the scientists, as they say they are, then there must be a target of at least 450 parts per million in terms of a longer range target, preferably 350 parts per million in terms of risk management, and five percent simply won’t cut it. The higher targets inherent in the government scheme are so heavily conditional that I just can’t see how they’ll get there. And that’s why it’s important that we have the best possible scheme that works for Australia’s economy. And that’s why I don’t think it’s necessary for us to

Sunday Agenda

8th November, 2009

Sen. Nick Xenophon

wait for Copenhagen. Copenhagen is about overall targets, and I think it’s important that we design a scheme that suits Australia’s economy. Helen Dalley: So just to remind viewers, what is the target that you are aiming for if it’s not five percent? Nick Xenophon: Well I think based on the Frontier model, you can go to at least 15 percent, possibly 20 percent, and I’m getting advice from Frontier in the next few days in relation to that. But I’ve always said that you need to have a much more ambitious target, and ultimately you need to aim for well below 450 parts per million. The scientific opinion now is that 350 parts per million is a safe course in terms of mitigating as much as possible the risks of climate change. Helen Dalley: Prime Minister Rudd came out very strongly on Friday and attacked what he called the climate change sceptics who are trying to sabotage the global talks in Copenhagen. Do you think the government is trying perhaps belatedly to grab back the debate with that sort of rhetoric? Nick Xenophon: Look I don’t know whether climate change sceptics are going to sabotage the Copenhagen talks. I think that there are a number of inherent problems, given the nature of the problem, given that the likely effects of climate change are still a number of years away, and I think it’s human nature not to act until you see the effects upon you. But the problem with climate change is that once you see the effects, it’s too late to do anything about it. I think it will be difficult. I think one of the problems has been that the United States during the Bush administration did little or nothing in terms of tackling climate change, so the Obama administration is in catch-up. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t design a scheme that works for Australia’s economy, and obviously Copenhagen is an important meeting. I don’t think it’s the be all and end all in terms of delay. Helen Dalley: Let’s look at another big issue at the moment, the asylum seekers. Now it remains at a standoff with no progress on the 78 who are aboard the Oceanic Viking. Would it be so bad in your opinion if they were disembarked on Christmas Island and processed there, as the current WA premier, Colin Barnett wants, as former prime minister Malcolm Fraser wants? Nick Xenophon: Look this is something I’ve been calling for, for a number of days. I’m with the Libs on this one, but it happens to be the WA Libs, with Colin Barnett. I think he’s right. People are tying themselves up in knots at a federal level. That’s a sensible thing to do. The fact is, we’re signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. It carries with it a number of obligations and we should process those people on Christmas Island, check them thoroughly to see if they’re genuine refugees, and if they are, then they need to be resettled. Helen Dalley: Because essentially the Indonesians are saying that we’re not going to forcibly land them on Indonesia. Nick Xenophon: Look, it’s a policy dilemma. And part of the problem has arisen because the regional Indonesian governor wasn’t cooperating with the Indonesian president. And I wonder whether the Indonesian governor was emboldened by the argy bargy going on here in Australia, the political debate where these people are being treated as pariahs, the 78 on the Oceanic Viking. So I think that we need to have a

Sunday Agenda

8th November, 2009

Sen. Nick Xenophon

calm, rational debate as to how to deal with this. Otherwise we won’t get a regional solution. Helen Dalley: On the other hand though, do you think it’s a good idea and a good wise precedent to allow the asylum seekers to decide in which country they will disembark the boat? Nick Xenophon: Well there are a couple of issues there. Firstly in terms of where people can’t decide under the Refugee Convention which country they go to. That’s not the case . . . Helen Dalley: . . . That’s right, but these people are being allowed to decide that, if in effect they do come to Australia. Nick Xenophon: Well there’s a difference between where they are processed and where they eventually resettle. And that’s why it’s even more important that we have a regional solution in relation to this. And I think right now it’s a bit of a mess, because of the nature of the political debate here in Australia. I think we need to just step back and look at the big picture here, and it’s not inconsistent to target people smugglers, but also to be fairly humane and to fulfil our obligations under the 1951 Convention. Helen Dalley: If it’s true that many of those people have been living in Indonesia for up to five years, then they have not come directly from conflict in Sri Lanka. And doesn’t that make them Indonesia’s responsibility? Nick Xenophon: Well I’m not sure. Obviously one of the reports is saying that is the case. I think we need to assess each and every case, and I think it’s indicative of a failure on the part of the UNHCR in terms of their approach with respect to dealing with these people. Five years seems to be an unacceptably long time, if that’s the case or not. And I think one of the problems here is the way that processing is taking place. The obligation of other countries to do their bit, and also I think the government needs to look at the push factors and it’s a good thing that John McCarthy, Australia’s High Commissioner to India, is in Sri Lanka looking at this issue so that we can assess what is actually happening right there now. Helen Dalley: Nick Xenophon, the polls, or at least one of them, Newspoll, might suggest that some Australians are worried about boat people coming. I guess from what you’re saying, you’re not fearful of people seeking asylum, coming here on boats? Nick Xenophon: I’m fearful of a debate that is based on fear and not facts, and I’m concerned that we haven’t had a cool headed rational debate about this to engage the region into a solution in respect to this. And I’m just worried that the current debate has done things such as embolden the regional Indonesian governor to say no to those people on the Oceanic Viking because of the nature of the debate right here in Australia. Helen Dalley: So cool the fearful factor? Nick Xenophon: I think you have to. You have to, otherwise no one in the region will listen to us on this. Helen Dalley: Alright, just briefly I want to ask you about the Telstra separation legislation. Will anything happen with that this year, do you think?

Sunday Agenda

8th November, 2009

Sen. Nick Xenophon

Nick Xenophon: Well, Stephen Conroy certainly hopes so, and I’ve had discussions with Senator Conroy. That will come up in the last two weeks of sitting. I don’t know how we’re going to get through all that legislation. It is the second biggest piece of legislation that we’ll be dealing with. I think there ought to be structural separation, so long as there are adequate conditions and safeguards in place, so that the bush gets a fair go, and that consumers get the best possible deal in terms of a new competitive framework. Helen Dalley: Nick Xenophon, we’ll leave it there. But yes, you will have a very busy couple of weeks. Thanks very much for joining us. Nick Xenophon: Thanks, Helen.

Sunday Agenda

8th November, 2009

Sen. Nick Xenophon