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) visit our website and click on

the watch live icon. Turmoil

within the Federal Opposition

continued over the weekend with

renewed debate over the role of

Peter Costello. Former Opposition Leader John Houston

issued a strong attack in the issued a strong attack in the

weekend papers on Mr Costello saying he should move

on. Liberal MPs and senators

are returning to Canberra this week and among them is

Christopher Pyne, who is taking

up a new job as Manager of

Opposition Business in the

lower house. He joins us now

from Canberra. Good

morning. Good morning. You are

taking on your new task today

as manager of business in the

lower house. What's the first

order of business? The order of business? The first

order of business is a

leadership meeting at 8:30 to

decide some of the themes of

the day. I think I have a more

important task. At 8 o'clock I

have to decide the seating plan

in the House of

Representatives. That will take

up a tremendous amount of

effort. Why is that? You will

have people jockeying for

several seats? I'm kidding! It

will be the easiest issue of

the day. I know

the day. I know this takes

place in a different house for

which you don't have

responsibility, but I do want

to talk to you about what

Malcolm Turnbull announced over

the weekend - his desire to

take up in the Senate the

inquiry that the Government set

up and then abandoned in the

lower house looking at an emissions trading scheme and

he's clearly indicated that the

Opposition wants a much tougher

scheme, a much tougher cut scheme, a much tougher cut to

emissions. Is that the

consensus view when it comes to

Coalition view? Malcolm

outlined at the convention in

January a very ambitious reform program for greenhouse gas

emissions. He believes, and we

agree with him, that Australia

can actually reduce their

emissions much further than the

Government is proposing by

not using a handful of measures,

not just the blunt instrument of heavy Government regulation

and taxes, but by a number of

different measures through

building carbon capture and storage plants in Australia.

That is one example. By

massively expand ing our

reliance on other types of

technology, solar energy, hot

rocks, etc. I think the

Australian public would warm to

the fact that they can have a the fact that they can have a reducing greenhouse gas

emissions target, much more

ambitious than the governments,

without the dead hand of heavy Government taxes, which is what

the Government is proposing. It's a strange

inversion of positions. You

have Penny Wong the climate

change minister warning the

Greens, for example, that their

calls for deeper and tougher

cuts, a tougher scheme like you

are outlining at the moment,

would cost Australia jobs. But

I guess the Opposition argues

you can go tougher as well and

not cost the economy

jobs? Well, I feel sorry for

Penny Wong. I was at university

with penny and know her very

well. I feel that her ETS plan

is in something of a shambles

at the moment. The cabinet

seems to be irrevocably split

The scheme that over the emissions - the ETS.

The scheme that she has

proposed. It's been described

by Labor insiders as a dog of a

policy. I know there are some

Cabinet Ministers who very much

don't want to go down the path

that Penny Wong has proposed in

her ETS. Malcolm's position on the greenhouse gas emissions

would be much more effective.

Much less bureaucratic. A cost

to the Australian taxpayer a

lot less and not damage

jobs. It would not damage jobs?

You can go harder and deeper

into emissions cuts and won't

affect jobs? Well, if you are

building carbon and capture

storage plants, if you are

relying on solar energy and

tidal power and hot rocks and

also the biochar method of

holding onto carbon, rather holding onto carbon, rather

than letting it go into the

atmosphere, it won't stop jobs.

It would create a new industry

that would increase jobs. The

details of how that will be

worked out will come. Malcolm

has announced he will give more

detail in the coming weeks. We

will, in the Senate, move to

reinstitute the inquiry that the Labor Party started and

then abandoned because of the

shambles of their policy. I shambles of their policy. I

hope the Greens will support us

in that. We'll have to do a bit

of horse-trading with them

about the terms of reference,

exercise for the Senate to but I think it will be a useful

spend their time on discussing

those schemes. The clear interpretation from the

Government dropping its inquiry

was it indicated it was no

longer wedded to an emissions

trading scheme, once it

introduced the inquiry, looking

at the efficacy. The stam thing

applies to the Coalition. Do we

interpret from this that the

Coalition is not devoted to a

trading scheme

either? Everything is on the

table. Malcolm Turnbull has

said we will discuss the whole

gammet of policies in relation

to greenhouse gas emissions. He

hasn't said we will or won't

rule out supporting or opposing rule out supporting or opposing

an emissions trading scheme,

but he is proposing

Opposition Leader and the alternatives, which is what the

Opposition should be doing.

Focussing on policy for the

future in Australia. What the

Government shows by starting

and then abandoning their own

committee process is that they

really don't know what they are

doing when it comes to their

plans for emissions trading

schemes. They obviously felt

that by starting the inquiry

they would deal with the

problem. They then realised the

inquiry may not hand down the

recommendations they wanted.

Then they abandon ed it. It

would seem your home state of

SA has rared up again when it

comes to future of Peter

Costello. Alexander Downer is

apparently quoted by sources in

one newspaper report today

Christopher Pyne saying it's

time for Peter Costello to go

and that of course comes off John Houston saying something

similar over the weekend. Your

view? My view is there is an

unhealthy obsession with one

Representatives. Peter is a member of the House of

very good friend of mine and

has made it clear he doesn't

wish to be on the frontbench or

have a leadership position and

he wants should be allowed to decide if

he wants to recontest Higgins

in the fullness of time. We

have better things to do with

our time quite frankly, which

is looking after the future of

Australians economically and

socially and I don't think that

we should get caught up with

these minor

disraksz. Christopher Pyne, good to talk to you this