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 day. Don Henry, good to see

you again. Thanks so much. As

we've just heard the coalition

is expected to deliver detailed

costings of its proposed

amendments to the government's

emissions trading scheme that's

been proposed. For more we're

joined from Canberra by Greg

Combet the minister assisting Combet the minister assisting the Minister for Climate

Change. Good morning.

G'day. You might've just heard

Don Henry talking then saying

the money going forwards the

big polluters now is enough. As

far as you're concerned, do

they deserve any more? I

don't think that's appropriate

to speculate about at the

from the coalition minute. We have some proposals

from the coalition that would underpin detailed amendments to

the climate change legislation we're hoping to get through Parliament before the end of

the year. In approaching any discussion with the coalition in good faith, obviously we

believe we've got our scheme

designed right, but we're more

than prepared to sit down and

discuss what the coalition has

put forward. It is important

though that they do come

forward with the detailed

amendments promptly and also

the detailed costings ... We heard the Prime Minister the detailed costings ... We

demanding that yesterday in the

Parliament. Is it unrealistic

of you to expect detailed

costings of the policy and

detailed analysis of the

emissions impact? Well, no. Mr

McFarlane who is the

spokesperson on this issue for

the Liberal Party did indicate

the other night when they were

releasing these proposals that

the coalition believed that they were cost neutral I think

was essentially his argument,

that they could be that they could be funded. A number of observations have

been made by the opposition

about the funding of their

proposed changes. So I think

they're certainly in a position

to outline to us in detail what they expect them to be. It

stands to reason, if you're

talking about additional

compensation for industry or

excluding some industries from the operation of an emissions

trading scheme, there's a trading scheme, there's a very

substantial cost potentially

involved and we're interested

in hearing from the opposition

what that cost is and how they

propose to fund it. On that

costings issue, Ian Macfarlane

has suggested that your

household assistance package

could be raided for up to $2

billion to pay nor that extra

industry compensation. Is that

an option? Well, again, it's

an issue of detail that we're

keen to hear from keen to hear from the coalition

about. But the government in

putting together our scheme was

very careful to ensure that low

and middle income households in

particular were covered for any

price increases. So that's a very important commitment the

government has made to the

community, that we obviously

have very a very strong view about. Obviously your position

on that is that that is on that is that that is not an

option? I'm not suggesting

that. We will have approach the

negotiations with the coalition

in good faith. That's why it's

important to have costings from

the coalition. That's a very important element of information that's going to be

necessary for the negotiations

to be substantive of

course. There is a report this

morning in the Canberra 'Times' which estimates Australia will morning in the Canberra 'Times'

not cut emissions from coal

fired power for at least 24

years under your scheme. Is

that correct? I've only had a

quick look at that report, but

I suppose in a practical way I

could answer it by saying this:

only last week I was talking to

one of the major power

generators in New South Wales

clear and they let me know in fairly

clear terms that they believe

that this is going to provide

an incentive for them to be

abating their carbon emissions

and in fact they are looking at

some mechanisms for achieving

that right now. Given the

extent of debate about this

issue amongst the coal fired

lends much credit to generators, I don't think it

lends much credit to the report

today in the Canberra

'Times'. So you believe that

emissions from coal fired power

stations will be substantially

cut within 24 years' time?

Well, if you are putting in

place an emissions trading

scheme that will provide for a

carbon price throughout the

economy, and coal fired

electricity generators are the

substantive generators of

reason carbon emissions, it stands to

reason that a carbon price is

going to lead to abatement technology within the coal

fired electricity generation

sector, and also, it makes the

economics of investment in

renewable energy technologies

far more feasible and over time

you'll see a shift from high

emissions electricity

generation technology to low

emissions technology. You're

demanding this detailed

analysis of the emissions analysis of the emissions

impact of their policy. What's

the detailed emissions impact

of what's going to happen with

the coal fired power industry

under your plan within 20

years? A lot of that depends

upon where you set the scheme

target, the cap for reductions

in emissions. The government

has said by 2020 we'd be

looking to reduce emissions by

5% over the year 2000 levels. 5% over the year 2000 levels. And of course, that would go as

far as a 25% cut in the context

of a very comprehensive natural

agreement. That's the key

parameter within which the

abatment of carbon emissions

take place once you set in place an emissions trading

scheme, and of course, the way

it operates is that the abatement effort takes place,

that is the carbon reductions,

takes place in the areas where

it takes the most investment it takes the most investment

sense, if you like. And so I

think you've got to get the

machinery into place. We need to get an emissions trading

scheme into place to ensure we

can start the hard work of

emissions reductions. In a

practical sense, just the

prospect of this is having many

of the large carbon emitters

having a look at what they can

do to reduce their emissions

and that will continue, and

accelerate once a scheme comes

into place. We look forward to further insights into the

good-faith nerk negotiations