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) The Federal Government has

put together a proposal to help

put together a proposal to help

developing nations commit to

emissions reduction targets.

The plan will allow poorer

nations to come up with their

own set of initiatives to show

where reductions should be

made. Countries would not be

required to commit to binding

emissions reduction

targets.. The climate change

Minister Penny Wong will unveil

is changes in a speech in New

York. Now a Senate inquiry into is changes in a speech in New

the Government's economic

stimulus package will begin

public hearing in Canberra this

morning. One of those due to

give evidence is Glenn

Stevens. Family First Senator

Steve Fielding insisting Glenn

Stevens be asked to address the

inquiry and for more he joins

us now. Senator fielding. It's

fair to assert that you have even ahead of

even ahead of this inquiry,

you've pretty much made up your

mind on the need for stimulus

spending to be wound back?. I

voted for the stimulus package

because frankly we needed to do something. The Opposition has

no plan at all. They may have

cobbled something together now

but at the time they had no

plan at all. But now at this

stage with this inquiry, it

seems that your mind is made up that the need for more spending is no longer there? Well,

is no longer there? Well, what

I've said is I'm more than

happy to have the question ask

and the reason why I wanted the

Reserve Bank head there was to

make sure that we asked the

question - if we keep on

spending and we spend more than

is needed, will that put up interest rates and that's the

question that the Reserve Bank

can answer, not the PM. That is

a question for the Reserve

Bank, because they consider

when they look at monetary

policy, they consider things

like what is happening in the

economy, and what is being

economy, and what is being spent. So as it stands you're

happy to see the stimulus

spending continue as planned? I

think it is too early to pull

it back, however, I'm more than

happy to have the question

asked and that's the reason why

I wanted the head of the

Reserve Bank and Treasury,

previously all we had was the

head of Treasury being asked

and that asked is that is one

side of the equation. Interest

rates are very, very important

because if we put pressure on

interest rates to go upwards.

There'll be a lot of fam

Australian families pushed to

the wall. Do you not concede

that interest rates inevitably

will have to go up, that they

can't stay at these historic

laws? Interest rates will go

up. There's no doubt about that

but the question is there's no

use us spending money,

taxpayers' money that will push

up interest rates. That's the

question the Reserve Bank has to

to ask. It won't be just we

spend therefore that goes

up. Well there are a lot of

other pressures aally as well

but obviously what the

Government's doing also has an

impact on interests and the

only people to answer that is

the Reserve Bank. So you want

to be able to control the

time? Given that you concede

that they'll go up, you want to

manage when that might

want to make happen? Government obviously

want to make sure that we have

the lowest possible interest

rates possible. One way of

doing that is to make sure you

set the physical policy in such

a way that you put less

pressure on interests. The

Government obviously is in

control of fiscal type of

spendling which is stimulus

type spending. Obviously if we

spend more than is needed to

keep the economy moving, then

we could be pug pressure on

interest rates. That's question

that we need to ask the head of

the Reserve Bank and the head

of Treasury. Both those

actually control both parts of

the policy We heard from

Richard Denniss from the

Australia institute earlier

this morning and he's very

concerned about the impact of

what's happening on unemployed

people and the can are growing

number. He's called for an

intis in unemployment benefits

and says that's an immediate

and urgen need? I think there

is a real concern about how

much we're spending on

much we're spending on the

unemployed. I did raise the

issue when we were going to

spend $4 # billion that we

should get 10% back for those

people who were going to be

innocent victims of the war.

You can't stop people being from unemployed during a global

financial crisis, so I said you

should hold back 10% and spend

more for those people because

frankly if you lose your home

during a global financial

crisis you have a long time to get it back. If

get it back. If you lose your

job, you just can't get back

into the market. Should those

benefits be increased now? I

argued that there should be

some extra put aside for those

that are actually unemployed or

find themselves at out wore

Government didn't want to during this time. The Rudd

consider that. I'm still happy

to push for it. What do you

need to told. What could you

hear in this yeah nah persuade

still you that stimulus measures are

still needed?. If the the head

of the Reserve Bank said that

seeg interest rates go up we are are in real danger of

because we're overspending, the

Government's overspending in

still lus then we need to start

to pare that back. We need to

keep that in mind ahead of

Treasury that may say we need

to keep spending because of the

global financial crisis. That's

why you need them both. That's

just why I was never going to agree

Treasurer there. We needed the just to are the head of

head of the Reserve Bank as

well Do you have a response to

the plan by Penny Wong and

Kevin Rudd to suggest a new

kind of compromise when it

comes to developing nations

committing to reducing their

ghast greenhouse gas

emissions. I've got my own

views on the science. I've got

certainly concerns about

whether the carbon dioxide is

really driving up global whether the carbon dioxide is

temperatures. Putting that to

one side, I think we should

wait till Copenhagen and then

terdly, maybe we should start

to look at those countries that

need centre help but I'm still

at the stage that we should be

waiting for Copenhagen. There's

no reason why we should be

putting Australia's economy at

risk by doing something before Copenhagen. Kevin Rudd was

making the point that unless

there's some framework of an

agreement going into Copenhagen

it will just with a waste of time. You know

time. You know how politics

works. Nothing will happen at

Copenhagen if your plan is adopted? Rudd would push that

because he wants to be some big

wig at Copenhagen, we need to

be careful what we do before

Copenhagen, there's no way we

should be locking into targets

before Copenhagen. You will see

jobs booted off shore and for no extra benefit because you'll

see those jobs go to other

countries where their carbon

dioxide emission also go up

either higher. That is just

reduck louse And g Government is insisting its private health

insurance rebate legislation

needs to be passed. What does

it need to get your

support? I've always said that

the Government needs to do some

sort of health ree form but

they're in serious jeopardy of

taking the Australian public

for granted with health. They have overpromised a

underdelivered. They said

they'd take it over if it was

failing. When it comes to the

health insurance rebates and

the Medicare levy surcharges, I

think we need to make it for

family friendly but putting in means testing based on the

number of kids. The Government

wants to bring in means testing

but not worry about the number

of kids that you've got. It

costs a lot to raise a kid.

Obviously it's a joy but it

costs a lot. The Government should make sure the

should make sure the substantial increases in

anything that they bring

in... We're still going to

talk to Nicola Roxon on

it. Finally, I've - in

comparison to theing are, the

vote that they enjoyed in

winning power, your vote in the Victorian Senate, the

percentages is very small yet

you enjoy this great power. Do

you never have a sense of doubt

about your right to dictate and

decide a Federal Government's agenda? Well there's two

things. Nearly a quarter of a millionance voted for Family

First. So that's quarter of a

million that I'm actually

representing in parliament. I

think that's a fair representation. That's how you

see it? Separate spray to the

2.5% vote ft Across Australia

we had nearly a quarter of a

million voters. You didn't get

all those

all those votes. I got more

first votes than Senator

Conroy. So the whole system has

got its pe Kewell arties in. There Australians do like

someone being in the middle

standing between the two big

players that argues common

sense. I am asking abyour

personal sense of doubtment do

you never have those moments? No, I don't. I continue have this right

here? No I think Australians do

like someone being in

like someone being in the

middle because you've got the

environment represented at the

Federal level, you've got the

big business represent tatd

Federal level, you've got the

unions represented at the

Federal level, but what about

families and ordinary

Australians? That's who we

represent and I've always

argued the case that they need