Doorstop Interview
Parliament House, Canberra
20 December 2009
SUBJECTS: Mary MacKillop; AHS Centaur; Henry Tax Review; Copenhagen agreement
TREASURER:
Well, this is an historic day I guess on two fronts for all Australians. I certainly welcome the news from the Vatican overnight that Mary MacKillop is well on her way to sainthood. I've just spoken this morning to Sister Anne Derwin, the head of the Josephites in Australia. She is very pleased by this announcement.
Mary MacKillop was a humble Australian. She represents all that is good in Australians. She devoted her life to the education of young Australians, particularly in remote Australia, and of course she was dedicated to the vulnerable. I think all Australians regardless of their faith can celebrate this decision this morning coming as it does just before Christmas.
Can I also say that there is another historic event this morning, because just off the coast of south-east Queensland, about 30 kilometres east of Cape Moreton, the search for the Centaur I think has been finally completed. The search director, David Mearns, has said this morning that he thinks he has located the Centaur. 268 lost souls are buried there in that wreck. This will be an enormous relief to all of their families. This is a rugged area on the coast of Queensland. It's in something like 2000 metres of water. Think about that – that's around the height of Mount Kosciuszko. It is wedged in an underwater canyon. We will see early in January probably the first pictures of the wreck.
This ship was torpedoed off the coast of Queensland in 1943. We lost 268 Australians. It was a hospital ship. The memories of this are deep within most Australians of the war generation and their children. It's so good that along with the Sydney that this wreck has now been finally located, because it takes us one step further along the road to closure for many of those families who lost their relatives on this ship. Okay, over to you.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Swan, the Henry Tax Review seems to be recommending a whole stack of new taxes. Is tax reform just about imposing new taxes on Australians or (inaudible)?
TREASURER:
Could I say I don't understand why you are saying that the Henry Review has recommended any of these things. The Henry Review is not yet with the Government. And as I've said on so many occasions, there will be speculation about what may or may not be in the Henry Review. There will be speculation about what the Government may accept or may not accept in the Henry Review, and I expect to see a lot more of this in the days and weeks ahead. But we have not received the Henry Review. It is too early for people to speculate about what may be or not be in the Henry Review. We will receive that review soon. We will deal with it early next year. I guess there will be an enormous amount of speculation – much of it inaccurate – between now and then, but I don't intend to respond to the sort of speculation that we've seen in the paper today, because that is all it is – speculation.
JOURNALIST:
Have Premiers warned you not to go towards any national system of land tax?
TREASURER:
Well, the Premiers don't know what's in the Henry Review as yet either. So it is far too early for people to be reaching any conclusion about what is in the review or about what the Government may agree to or not agree to in that review. It's simply too early. But I expect this to go on because this is the nature of the process we've entered into. The Government has said that we are serious about having the most significant review of the tax system in 50 years. That is what the Henry process has been all about. We will receive a comprehensive report. We will deal with that report. As I've said on many occasions before, there will be some matters we can act on in the near-term, there will be some matters we can act on in the long-term, and there will be some matters with which we don't agree – it's that simple.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Swan, can you tell us what the Copenhagen results mean to business certainty in Australia?
TREASURER:
Well, the Government has said from day one that we needed the passage of our Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme significantly because it provided certainty to the business community, which is why the Government has said we will reintroduce the bill. We still believe – and it is just as relevant now as it was before Copenhagen – that we need to pass the bill for business certainty. Business itself has made that case. That is a case which is not understood by the Opposition. The Opposition say they agree with the Government's targets, but they are going to address those targets by a much more complicated and expensive route without any compensation for households whatsoever.
JOURNALIST:
Will you then negotiate with the Greens in that case?
TREASURER:
I'm not going to speculate about any of that. We've made our path very clear. We understand that the prosperity of this country depends upon addressing carbon pollution, and in particular, addressing the carbon pollution which comes from the 1,000 biggest polluters. We are doing that through a CPRS, and we are doing it because it goes to the need for business certainty, because it goes to environmental sustainability, and it goes to our long-term economic prosperity. Nothing has changed in that regard.
JOURNALIST:
Hasn't the first-mover advantage argument though been undermined by the failure of Copenhagen?
TREASURER:
There are many other countries around the world that have emission trading schemes and they will still have emission trading schemes after Copenhagen.
JOURNALIST:
Just on Copenhagen – in the draft agreement we had a provisional figure of $100 billion by 2020 for a global financing (inaudible)
TREASURER:
You'll have to deal with those questions in terms of the Climate Change Minister. I wasn't in Copenhagen and I don't intend going into the detail.
JOURNALIST:
But you've been involved in this process.
TREASURER:
Yes I have been involved in the process, but I haven't been in Copenhagen. I don't intend going through the ins and outs of what happened in Copenhagen when I have not had a full briefing on it, and I simply don't intend to do it.
JOURNALIST:
This is an economic question though. How do you explain to the Australian businesses that the Government is still trying to go for an emissions trading scheme when there has been such a weak outcome from Copenhagen, and people like China and India don't seem like they are (inaudible)?
TREASURER:
Because we put forward our targets, and we put forward all of the conditions which went with those targets. And Australian business have agreed with those, and they have not changed.
JOURNALIST:
But don't they change if you don't have the rest of the world on board?
TREASURER:
Well, it depends to what extent we see progress as we go forward from Copenhagen.
JOURNALIST:
Why should Australia be acting if the rest of the world…
TREASURER:
The rest of the world has been acting, and that is why we have 30 odd countries around the world that have emissions trading systems. What we put in place for our various range of targets were a range of conditions depending upon what the rest of the world did, and none of that has changed.
JOURNALIST:
Can you give us some idea of the timetable from here on in terms of international negotiations?
TREASURER:
Well as I said before, I don't intend to go into areas where the Climate Change Minister has been talking to people internationally, and I don't intend to speculate about that. When she returns, she can give you a full briefing. And thanks very much.
