Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
ABC News Breakfast -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) their economy might be doing a

lot less well than we had hoped

it was doing. Thanks for

joining us. Returning to the

climate change issue now. This

morning Tony Abbott has said

businesses do have consciences

cut their greenhouse gas and big polluters will want to

emissions under Tony Abbott's

new climate change plan. But

the government says the policy

is a con, sun costed and

is a con, sun costed and won't

make any difference to carbon emissions. Joining us now is

the shadow Environment Minister

Greg Hunt. Good morning. Thank

you for joining us. Good

morning. If an electricity

generator can keep polluting at

will, you call it business as

usual, keeping it at the same

rate, where is the pressure for that generator to cut emissions? The first thing is

that there is a challenge today

for Mr Rudd. Last night in

for Mr Rudd. Last night in this

legislation, which he

introduced, there was $40

billion of money which we won't

talk about for the big polluters in Australia. Today

he should acknowledge that he

is giving $40 billion in the

legislation he introduced last

night for the big polluters. That's his challenge for the

day. In terms of your direct

question is the

question is the answer is we've

already received written

letters albeit commercial in

electricity generator saying confidence from a major

they are willing to look at our

system to do what they want do under the government, to clean

up some of the oldest and least

efficient power stations. So

we've got in writing proposals

to make use of the emissions

reduction fund to convert from

of coal to gas, to clean up some

of the dirtiest power stations.

That's real and that's

tangible. Under the

government's scheme the electricity generators

themselves are saying they are

unlikely to make the changes

because they will be struggling

with the tax burden, they'll

simply pass it on in terms of

massively higher electricity

price, 400% in terms of

Victoria has been mentioned

3,00% by the Queensland

years Government, 62% over three

years by the New South Wales

independent regulator in terms

of electricity prices for mums

and dads. So real letters, real reductions, cleaning up the

oldest and least inefficient

power stations versus massive price rises but the inability

of the power stations to make

the changes necessary under the

government's scheme. One letter

does not a contract make. The policy still

policy still relies on the

industry to feel like doing the

right thing. It's kind of a

leap of faith, this energy

manufacturer that you speak of

isn't compelled to make any

changes. It might even change

its mind? Neither the government nor the opposition

are going to regulate any one

are going to regulate any one

business out of existence. The

difference is they want to

drive up electricity prices to

an enormous extent on the

government's side to hurt mums

and dads ... No, they're

saying - I can't let you keep

repeating that. That's how the

system operates. Households

will be compensated and we

should probably clarify the $40

billion figure that the

opposition keeps mentioning.

That's $40 billion that the government actually earns from

its pollution permit

its pollution permit auctions,

then gets churned back through

system. It's not terribly

truthful to keep claiming that,

is it? Completely wrong, with

great respect. What you have

here is that in will be $40

billion raised through mums and

dads through electricity price

rises. That's passed on to the

government. The government

gives some back to mums and

money dads and $40 million of the

money raiseed from mums and

dads back to the biggest energy

producers and the oldest and least efficient firms in the

country. None of that happens

under us. Not a dollar goes to

a firm which isn't going to

make an emissions reduction.

Hopefully farmers, cleaning up

the landfill site, cleaning up

of the coalmines so we reduce

the methane emissions from coal

mine gas, cleaning up the

mine gas, cleaning up the power

stations, energy efficiency,

these will all be done on the

least cost basis. Our system is

very simple. Direct action.

Money only for people who make

people who continue business as changes as opposed to money for

usual, $40 bm under the

government's scheme, and then a

million solar homes, 20 million

trees and the great potential

lines of cleaning up the transmission

lines through the heart of our

cities, replacing those with

underground cabling. What will

the penalty be for

overpolluting? How will you

measure what's pollution above the business as usual level? The baselines have

already been developed. That

legislation which the Rudd was heart of Howard Government

Government has adopted. The

national scheme, basically it's Government has adopted. The

measure their emissions an a scheme where businesses

report them. That reporting

scheme is already in place. So

nothing needs to change there.

But you haven't actually worked

out what that financial penalty

might be? We have said that we

will have public consultation

what it is they'd s. You will ask the polluters

what it is they'd like to pay

as a penalty. Is that part of

the public consultation? We

will consult environment

groups, industry groups, and we

will do something in a very

similar way to that which has

been done under the New South

Wales G-gas scheme which is the

New South Wales Carr Government

scheme which Mr Rudd has

previously embraced. You were a

passionate supporter of the

scheme to severely need for an emissions trading

scheme to severely cut

emissions. I'm just wondering

how you in good faith can sit

here and say business as usual

pollution is now suddenly

acceptable? I've been a

passionate supporter of

economic instruments to reduce

emissions. And there are a

number of ways to do

number of ways to do it. Mr

Rudd wave around my 1990

university honours thesis yesterday. It goes back until

then. That was about economic

instruments to reduce

pollution. What we produced

yesterday was an economic

instrument which I think the 1990 version of Greg Hunt

would've been pretty proud of.

I feel I have kept faith with

that younger person. It's very

important to me. What we've done is

done is produce the most

efficient way of reducing emissions for Australia, direct

action, money to be spent, 3.2 billion versus 40 billion for

the same outcome. That's

precisely because of this

massive churn thaw talked about

at the start of the interview.

Massive churn, electricity

prices for mums and dads and

pensioners will skyrocket and

it's the State Governments that have

have reported that. That's how

the government pays for their

scheme. That will hurt people

but without causing the power

companies to change their

practices. What if you can't

successfully sequester carbon

in the ground? Does it matter

to you that it's not actually a

measurable method anyway

according to UN carbon

counting? With great respect,

firstly it's a well-establish

ed science. The Chicago Climate

Exchange in the United States

includes soil carbons. The

Waxman Marky Bill includes soil

carbons. Then you see the

Garnaut Report, CSIRO reports,

work of numerous different scientific bodies such as the

went worth group, all of whom

talk about enormous potential,

five, six, seven, eight times

greater than that we've relied

upon. The second thing is a

tonne of carbon is a tonne of

carbon. If it's improving our

soils, our water productivity

and our emissions, that's a

good thing. In terms.

International regime, we only

start purchasing soil carbon in

2012, 2013. Entirely consistent

with the international regime.

What we see there is that the

next round, if there is an

international treaty, will

undoubtedly include the soil

carbons. It was the major area

of progress in Copenhagen. It

was about the only area of

progress. And if there isn't an

international treaty it's only

a pledge and review system,

then we are absolutely right.

So under either scenario we've

thought it through, we don't

start doing soil carbons until

it's in line with the