TANYA PLIBERSEK MP
SHADOW MINISTER FOR EDUCATION
SHADOW MINISTER FOR WOMEN
MEMBER FOR SYDNEY
E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
SKY NEWS AM AGENDA WITH LAURA JAYES
WEDNESDAY, 27 OCTOBER 2021
SUBJECTS: Scott Morrison’s net zero “plan”; Climate action; Universities
LAURA JAYES, HOST: Live now is the Shadow Minister for Education and Women, Tanya Plibersek. Thanks so much for your time. Dare I ask, is there anything in this plan that you like or would support?
TANYA PLIBERSEK, SHADOW MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SHADOW MINISTER FOR WOMEN: Well, I think it's not really a plan. We're pleased that the Government has finally agreed to have a target of net zero emissions. That's a step forward I guess, after all the fighting we've seen in recent times. But was released yesterday was no plan, no new information, no modelling. There's basically a bunch of slides, and that's incredibly disappointing. After almost a decade in government, the lost jobs opportunities that have come with that delay, the dysfunction, the division in the government, are really weighing on us. We've got a plan. We've already talked about investing in the upgrading of our electricity grid, we need to do that. That's a $20 billion investment. We've talked about making electric vehicles cheaper. We've talked about community batteries so that people can feed in their excess solar generation and benefit from it in the evenings. And of course, our National Reconstruction Fund will make it possible to rebuild our regional industries with the cheaper, cleaner, renewable energy that we know Australian is capable of producing that will support jobs and support industry.
JAYES: I must confess, I haven't read through the 120 page document myself, all of it just yet. But I mean, it is difficult. It is always going to be somewhat of a gamble when you're putting policies in place that are kind of on a 30-year timeline. At the last election, Bill Shorten got into a bit of trouble for not being able to talk about the cost or all the detail. So where's Labor at with all of this? You do have a plan but there's still a lot of holes and a lot of detail to come. So what do you need to be able to give us that detail?
PLIBERSEK: Well, we're committed to bring down the cost of energy, bringing down emissions and creating jobs doing it. We're committed to legislating that zero net emissions target, we will have more ambitious interim targets and like I say, we've already announced a number of our policies. But I continue to be a bit frustrated by this discussion of Labor in the last election. Warwick McKibbin's modelling at the time, showed that the cost of Labor's policies and the cost of the Government's policies were the same, despite the fact that we had more ambitious targets because we were prepared to allow carbon offsets from overseas carbon markets to be used. So the cost, according to Warwick McKibbin, was the same. And what we're never talking about Laura when we have this discussion, is the cost of inaction, the jobs that we've missed out on, the energy price reductions that we've missed out on. Even the Business Council of Australia, traditionally opponents of the zero net emissions target, have come on board and they have done their own modelling that shows over coming decades, if we continue to refuse to act as a nation it's going to cost us $900 billion in economic growth and 200,000 jobs. We now have Qantas, Wesfarmers, BHP, all of the biggest companies in the nation, some of the biggest emitters, that have signed up to the zero net emissions target. Obviously, every state and territory signed up ages ago. The National Farmers Federation, the Meat and Livestock Corporation - all of them have had these targets for ages. It's bizarre that the Government took so long to come on board. The fact that they let Barnaby Joyce have right of veto on this policy is like putting an anti-vaxxer in charge of our COVID response. It has cost us. These delays have cost us jobs. They've cost us economic growth. Other countries would be rubbing their hands in glee at the fact that we have so many natural advantages and yet we are so slow off the mark on capitalising on those natural advantages that we've got.
JAYES: Well the first time, ever I think, there's been an acknowledgement from the conservative side of politics that the cost of inaction is going to be more than the cost of acting. They've put a price tag on it saying that this plan will actually be about $2,000 a better off per person. Do you know how they've got to that, because we don't have the modelling?
PLIBERSEK: Well, we don't have the modelling and it is outrageous that the Government have used Senate procedures to try and prevent the modelling being released. It is bizarre that they have done that. But we know that there is a cost of inaction. We know that that cost comes from higher energy prices, we had that information actually at the time of the last election. So it comes from higher energy prices. It also comes from the increased likelihood and severity of natural disasters. We've seen all of the modelling done by the CSIRO, by the Australian National University, by Melbourne University about the cost of those natural disasters as they increase in frequency and severity. But honestly, common sense will tell you solar is the cheapest form of electricity in human history now, we've got plenty of it, we need to make the most of it. And with that comes cheaper power prices for our businesses and cheaper power for our homes.
JAYES: You said that you'll have more ambitious interim targets. So does that mean Labor will have a more ambitious target for 2030 than a 30 to 35% reduction?
PLIBERSEK: Well, we've said all along that Tony Abbott's target was a weak target. The fact that the Government has managed with so little actual activity to meet that target shows what a weak target it was in the first place. We will have more ambitious interim targets, but I'm going to leave those for the proper time and for the for the actual Shadow Minister to announce. I'm not going to talk about them today.
JAYES: Okay. Well, so will they be a 2030 target? Are we talking about that being the next benchmark, or is it 2040?
PLIBERSEK: Like I say, I'm going to leave them for the Leader and the Shadow Minister to talk about, but don't forget we now have had eight years of inaction from this government. We've had 22 separate energy policies. They haven't yet finally landed one - the cost of that is extraordinary. I think you can compare it with the debacle on the submarines, billions of dollars spent and no result at the end of it.
JAYES: Sure. And you say eight years of inaction, but there have been elections in the interim and Labor hasn't won them. So, what are the risks here with a federal election just a couple of months away?
PLIBERSEK: I think we need to think in terms of opportunities, rather than risks. Honestly, when every state and territory government has signed up to this target, when our biggest companies, including our biggest emitters have signed up to this target, they've done it for the same reason that one in four Australian homes now have solar panels on the roof - they've worked out that there is an economic opportunity to be had here. And it's our job to reassure people right across the country, that we understand the economic opportunity of cheaper power for their homes and businesses. And that we know that that has to lead to jobs in every community across Australia. That's our job. That's our job to describe where those jobs are, what they are, what they look like, and to make sure people understand when you're talking about a Labor Government, you're talking about jobs with decent pay and conditions and job security.
JAYES: It's a big job. Certainly going to be a big job for Labor up until the next election. Before I let you go, you've written a piece in the AFR today, and I think it kind of encapsulates where we are at after pretty heinous two years of COVID restrictions, homeschooling, all the rest of it. One industry that has really suffered, and is still suffering is higher education, universities in particular. Can they survive? What is needed for them to get back on their feet?
PLIBERSEK: Well, they have to survive because a nation without universities is really shooting itself in the foot when it comes to international competition and growth. Our universities have really suffered, this government denied them JobKeeper. They've lost 40,000 jobs out of a workforce of 200,000, that includes 7,000 researchers. So it's not just the young Australians who are missing out on an education, and we know that more and more young Australians are applying for a university place or a place at TAFE, and they're missing out. It's also the loss of discovery and invention and innovation that comes with the 7,000 researchers that we've lost from our university sector. We have to rebuild our universities, for the benefit of the individual students that need an education, but also for our national prosperity. We need to use our brains more as a nation and grasp the opportunity of the invention and discovery that our universities have generated.
JAYES: Tanya Plibersek, thanks so much for your time today.
PLIBERSEK: Always a pleasure.
ENDS
