2GB - ACMA Investigation Report 2639/media/Broadcasting Investi… · Web viewIn broad terms the...

Investigation Report No.2639

File No. ACMA2011/1411

Licensee Harbour Radio Pty Limited

Station 2GB Sydney

Type of Service Commercial Radio

Name of Program The Chris Smith Afternoon Show

Dates of Broadcast 11 and 17 March 2011

Relevant Code Clause 2.3(b) of the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice 2010.

Investigation conclusionThe Australian Communications and Media Authority finds, in relation to The Chris Smith Afternoon Show broadcast on 11 and 17 March 2011, that Harbour Radio Pty Limited did not breach clause 2.3(b) of the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice 2010.

ACMA Investigation Report – The Chris Smith Afternoon Show - 2GB – 11 & 17 March 2011

The complaintOn the 29 July 2011, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint regarding material broadcast on The Chris Smith Afternoon Show on 11 and 17 March 2011 by the licensee of 2GB, Harbour Radio Pty Limited (the licensee).

The complainant was concerned that alternative viewpoints were not presented in the broadcast on a controversial matter of public importance.

The complainant was not satisfied with the response of the licensee and referred the complaint to the ACMA.1 The complaint has been investigated under clause 2.3(b) of the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice 2010 (the Codes).

The programThe Chris Smith Afternoon Show is a talk-back, current affairs program presented by Chris Smith. The program is broadcast on weekdays between 12:00 pm and 3:00 pm on 2GB in Sydney.

During the program broadcast on 11 March 2011, Mr Smith interviewed Professor Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining and Geology at the University of Adelaide. Professor Plimer expressed a view that there is no evidence that ‘human emissions of carbon dioxide gives us catastrophic climate change’. Mr Smith and Professor Plimer questioned the Australia Government’s ‘policy for a carbon dioxide tax’. At the conclusion of the interview, Professor Pilmer responded to questions by two callers regarding climate change. The interview lasted approximately 7 minutes.

During the program broadcast on 17 March 2011, Mr Smith commented on the Prime Minister’s speech at the Don Dunstan Foundation in relation to climate science and the Australian Government’s proposed carbon tax. The segment lasted approximately 6 minutes.

Transcripts of the segments are at Attachment A.

AssessmentThis investigation is based on an audio recording of the broadcast provided by the licensee, and submissions provided by both the licensee and the complainant. Various other audio recordings of broadcasts provided by the licensee are addressed in this report where relevant.

‘Ordinary, reasonable’ listener test

In assessing content against the Codes, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ listener.

Australian Courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ listener to be:

A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs2.

In considering compliance with the Codes, the ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, and any inferences that may be drawn. In the case of factual material which is presented, the ACMA will also consider relevant omissions (if any).

1 See section 148 and subsection 149(1) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 in respect of the ACMA’s role in investigating complaints under codes of practice.

2 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at pp 164–167.

ACMA Investigation Report – The Chris Smith Afternoon Show - 2GB – 11 & 17 March 2011 2

Once this test has been applied to ascertain the meaning of the broadcast material, it is for the ACMA to determine whether the material has breached the Codes.

Issue 1: Whether reasonable efforts were made to present significant viewpoints

Relevant Codes provision2.3 In the preparation and presentation of current affairs programs a licensee must use

reasonable efforts to ensure that:

(b) reasonable efforts are made or reasonable opportunities are given to present significant viewpoints when dealing with controversial issues of public importance, either within the same program or similar programs, while the issue has immediate relevance to the community;

Complainant’s submissionThe complainant submitted to the ACMA on 29 July 2011:

[...]

[We] consider that the [licensee] has breached Code 2.3(b) as it has not made any reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints in relation to climate change science, being of high public importance and relevance to the community.

[...]

The views of climate change deniers such as Professors Plimer and Carter have not been balanced by that of real climate scientists who publish in the peer review science literature.

[...]

Licensee’s submissionExtracts from the licensee’s submission in relation to clause 2.3(b) of the Codes are set out at Attachment B.

FindingThe licensee did not breach clause 2.3(b) of the Codes.

ReasonsClause 2.3(b) of the Codes requires that a licensee, in the preparation and presentation of current affairs programs, ensure that reasonable efforts are made or reasonable opportunities are given to present significant viewpoints when dealing with a controversial issue of public importance. This may be done either within the same program or similar programs, while the issue has immediate relevance to the community.

The ACMA regards clause 2.3(b) as a central safeguard in promoting the object of the Code ‘to promote accuracy and fairness in news and current affairs programs’. It is important that licensees have regard to the objectives of the Codes when undertaking their obligations under the Codes.


Clause 2.3(b) of the Codes does not require balance or that equal time or prominence be given to each significant viewpoint presented.

Controversial issue

In this case, the complaint referred to ‘the presentation of significant viewpoints on climate change science’, while the licensee submitted:

In broad terms the segments broadcast on 11 and 17 March 2011 that are the subject of Investigation 2639 deal with the controversial issue of public importance relating to the economic impacts, costs and efficacy of the proposed Australian federal government carbon tax in response to anthropogenic climate change.

The ACMA considers that the broadcast of 11 March 2011 dealt with two controversial issues of public importance, being: (i) climate science, specifically anthropogenic climate change; and (ii) the Australian Government’s proposal to introduce a tax on carbon emissions; and, the broadcast of 17 March 2011 dealt with the controversial issues the Australian Government’s proposal to introduce a tax on carbon emissions.

Significant viewpoints

‘Viewpoint’ is not defined in the Codes. The Macquarie English Dictionary (Fifth edition) defines it as ‘a point of view; an attitude of mind’.

What amounts to a ‘significant viewpoint’ is assessed on a case by case basis.

The ACMA considers that a ‘significant viewpoint’ is one capable of materially contributing to listener understanding of the controversial issue and views held about it.

Were reasonable efforts made or reasonable opportunities given to present significant viewpoints during the broadcast of 11 March 2011?

In the broadcast of 11 March 2011, a significant viewpoint on the controversial issues anthropogenic climate change and the Australian Government’s proposal to introduce a tax on carbon emissions was presented by Mr Smith and Professor Plimer.

In discussing anthropogenic climate change and the Australian Government’s proposal to introduce a carbon tax, Professor Plimer stated that ‘Garnaut is asking us [...] to forget history, forget archaeology, forget geology and allow him to put his hands in our trouser pockets, open up our wallets, and take out even more money, even though they’ve already pushed up the fuel prices, food prices and electricity prices’.

The viewpoint of Professor Garnaut on the controversial issue raised by Mr Smith and Professor Plimer would very likely have been significant, had it been presented. However, the ACMA does not consider that it was actually presented. Rather, Professor Garnaut’s viewpoint on the controversial issue was simply alluded to by Professor Plimer.

The obligation at clause 2.3(b) is to either make reasonable efforts or give reasonable opportunities.

‘Reasonable efforts’ may be demonstrated by reference to the steps taken to ascertain and incorporate more than one significant viewpoint in a program or similar programs during the currency of a controversial issue of public importance; ‘reasonable opportunities given’ may be demonstrated by reference to the opportunities the licensee has created for third parties to articulate another significant


viewpoint in the program or similar program during the currency of a controversial issue of public importance.3

The ACMA notes that reasonable efforts or reasonable opportunities must be made or given during the currency of the particular controversial issue. In this case, the carbon tax issues raised in the segment continued as an issue of immediate relevance until at least as late as the passage of legislation for the introduction of the carbon tax in November 2011; while anthropogenic climate change is an ongoing issue.

The licensee submitted that it took the following steps to present significant viewpoints, which were not realised:

1. Producers placed two calls to Professor Ross Garnaut in mid March to arrange an interview, and no response was received;

2. Producers of the Chris Smith program requested interviews with Professor Will Steffan on 23 May 2011 and other occasions but these requests were denied;

3. Producers of the Chris Smith program requested interviews with the Prime Minister’s office, including on 29 March 2011, 30 March 2011, 6 April 2011 and 1 August 2011, to discuss the carbon tax, but these requests were denied.

Such attempts may have been sufficient to satisfy the ‘reasonable opportunities given’ limb of the obligation at clause 2.3(b). However, it is unnecessary for the ACMA to express a final view on this as the licensee submitted that it demonstrated that it met the obligations at clause 2.3(b) by presenting significant viewpoints on the controversial issue of public importance in a number of similar programs on 2GB.

Assessment of the additional program material provided by the licensee

The licensee provided evidence of seven additional broadcasts in support of its submission that it met its obligations at clause 2.3 (b) of the Codes. Each of the programs used a talk-back, interview or opinion leading format. The ACMA considers that they were ‘similar programs’ for the purposes of the Codes. The date range of the broadcasts is 23 March 2011 to 28 July 2011, surrounding the segment broadcast on 11 March 2011.

These included interviews broadcast with:

1. Marcus Butler, 2GB’s political reporter;

2. Senator Xenophon;

3. The Hon. Greg Combet;

4. Professor Richard Linzden;

5. Dr David Evans;

6. Professor Jacques le Chacheaux; and

7. Kevin Rudd.

Transcripts of each of these interviews are set out at Attachment C.

Of these broadcasts, the ACMA considers that the following two interviews clearly presented significant alternative viewpoints on the controversial issue of anthropogenic climate change:

3 Investigation 2540


1. The significant viewpoint of The Hon. Greg Combet was presented in a 15 minute uninterrupted recording of his address to the Press Club played during The Chris Smith Afternoon Show broadcast on 13 April 2011. The Hon. Greg Combet made it clear that he considers climate change to be anthropogenic by referring to the need to cut pollution levels:

> ‘Climate change is an environmental problem’.

> ‘Australia is one of the world’s top 20 polluters and we release more pollution per person than any other country in the developed world’.

> ‘To tackle climate change we need to cut our pollution levels’.

> ‘It is important to adopt the most economically efficient way of cutting pollution’.

> ‘All major economies submit important pledges to reduce their pollution [...]. These pledges already account for over 80 per cent of the world’s carbon pollution’.

> ‘A carbon price will cut pollution and drive investment into cleaner energy like natural gas, solar and wind power’.

> ‘Australia’s net carbon pollution will go down, not up’.

> ‘We can make huge strides towards a low pollution future’.

2. The significant viewpoint of Senator Xenophon presented during an interview on The Chris Smith Afternoon Show broadcast on 23 March. Senator Xenophon stated, ‘There are too many scientists out there who are saying there are risks here and if we don’t deal with it, the consequences of not dealing with it are significant’.

The ACMA considers that the following two broadcasts clearly presented significant alternative viewpoints on the controversial issue of the Australian Government’s proposal for a tax on carbon:

1. The significant viewpoint of The Hon. Greg Combet was presented in a 15 minute uninterrupted recording of his address to the Press Club played during The Chris Smith Afternoon Show broadcast on 13 April 2011. The Hon. Greg Combet stated that it was in Australia’s national interest to take action on climate change and outlined the six key arguments that summarise the Government’s response to the climate change challenge, including that Australia is one of the world’s top 20 polluters, it is not acting alone as China, US, India, South Korea, Europe are also acting, and a carbon tax will cut pollution and drive investment into cleaner energy so its economy will grow; and

2. The significant viewpoint of Kevin Rudd was presented during an interview during Sydney Live Ben Fordham broadcast on 28 July 2011. Kevin Rudd stated that he was in favour of the carbon tax as jobs would be saved by acting on climate change and jobs would be created through new renewable energy industry, such as those springing up in Europe.

The ACMA considers that the three remaining broadcasts presented the viewpoint of a third party as opposed to an alternative viewpoint:

1. The viewpoint of Professor Richard Linzden interviewed on The Chris Smith Afternoon Show on 6 April 2011, who stated that the CO2 increase is very small and not significant, and that Australia adopting a carbon tax would not have a discernable impact for a millennium, with a heavy cost for no benefit. The ACMA considers this to be a restatement of the viewpoint of Mr Smith and Professor Plimer in relation to the controversial issue of public importance.


2. The viewpoint of Professor Jacques le Cacheaux interviewed on The Chris Smith Afternoon Show on 27 April 2011, who stated that a carbon tax could make companies more efficient but questioned whether it will achieve what it sets out to do as it may cost jobs and move carbon emitting industries offshore.

3. The viewpoint of Dr David Evans interviewed on The Chris Smith Afternoon Show on 24 May 2011, who said if we emitted no CO2 from now on we would lower the temperature and the Australian contribution to worldwide human emissions is insignificant. He also said that the CO2 theory models are fundamentally flawed as there are 30 year cycles of warming and cooling.

In all of the circumstances the ACMA is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that reasonable efforts were made to present significant viewpoints in the manner contemplated by clause 2.3(b) of the Codes.

Accordingly, the licensee did not breach clause 2.3(b) of the Codes.

Were reasonable efforts made or reasonable opportunities given to present significant viewpoints during the broadcast of 17 March 2011?

In the broadcast on 17 March 2011, Mr Smith spoke about the Prime Minister’s speech at the Don Dunstan Foundation in relation to climate science and the Australian Government’s proposed carbon tax. Mr Smith quoted the Prime Minister as saying:

Mr Smith: [Quoting the Prime Minister] ‘I ask, who would I rather have on my side? Alan Jones, Piers Akerman and Andrew Bolt? Or the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science, the Bureau of Meteorology, NASA, the US National Atmospheric Administration, and every reputable climate scientist in the world. Did you hear that? Every reputable climate scientist in the world.’ [emphasis added by the ACMA].

The purpose of the Prime Minister’s comment was to contrast climate change deniers, such as Alan Jones, Piers Akerman and Andrew Bolt, with those who believed in anthropogenic climate change, including ‘every reputable climate scientist in the world’.

In response, Mr Smith cited a list of scientists and organisations that rejected anthropogenic climate change and had signed the Oregon Climate Change petition against global warming, including:

Mr Smith: These comments are shown up for what they are: deceptive, wrong and more lies. There was no mention that every organisation mentioned are government instrumentalities reliant on grant funding, reliant on their government. There was no mention of leading Australian scientists that question climate change, including Professor Ian Plimer, Professor Bob Carter and Dr David Evans, among others. What? None of them are reputable now because they disagree with the Prime Minister?

No mention of the Oregon Climate Change Petition which saw 31,072 US scientists sign up against the theory of man-made climate change. Let me repeat that: 31,072 US scientists. So people from, for instance, the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, the University of Ottawa, hydrologists, geo-geographers, bio- geographers, astronomers from the Russian Academy of Sciences, meteorologists form the World Meteorology Organisation Commission for Climatology, scientists and


researchers from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, bio- geographers form the University of London, Los Alamos National Laboratory from the Arizona State University. I could go on.

The ACMA considers that the Prime Minister’s viewpoint was alluded to, but not presented as required by clause 2.3(b). Mr Smith quoted the Prime Minister in saying that she agrees with ‘every reputable climate scientist in the world’, then labelled her comments as ‘deceptive, wrong and more lies’. In this case the viewpoint of the Prime Minister on the issue would very likely have been significant, had it been presented. However, the ACMA does not consider it was actually presented.

As discussed above, the ACMA considers that a significant alternative viewpoint on the controversial issue of anthropogenic climate change was presented during The Chris Smith Afternoon Show broadcast on 13 April 2011, in which The Hon. Greg Combet’s address to the Press Council was broadcast. The Hon. Greg Combet made it clear that he considers climate change to be anthropogenic by referring to the need to cut pollution levels.

The ACMA also considers that a second significant alternative viewpoint on the controversial issue of anthropogenic climate change was presented during The Chris Smith Afternoon Show broadcast on 23 March 2011, in which Senator Xenophon stated, ‘There are too many scientists out there who are saying there are risks here and if we don’t deal with it, the consequences of not dealing with it are significant’.

In relation to the broadcast of 17 March 2011, the ACMA is satisfied that the licensee has fulfilled its obligation under clause 2.3(b) of the Codes.


Attachment ABroadcast 1: Chris Smith Afternoon Show, 11 March 2011.

Mr Smith: I want to catch up with Ian Plimer, he’s a scientist who’s taken a close look at climate change, he’s Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide and he joins me on the line right now. [...]

How, all of the sudden, despite the fact that there’s been billions thrown at the sciences to investigate so called global warming or climate change, that all of the sudden they have got it wrong and now it will be disasters one-every-year not one-every-hundred-years from next century?

Prof. Plimer: Well, there is absolutely no science published at all that’s saying that we’re going to go from one in a hundred events to annual events. Someone has made that up and that in common language is called fraud and that’s what we’re getting fed.

The second thing is there’s not one science publication that proves that human emission of carbon dioxide gives us catastrophic climate change. The human carbon dioxide we emit is just one molecule in 85,000 in the air. Why pick on the innocent?

And Garnaut’s been going on about Sydney Harbour. He should get out of the sheltered workshop called Canberra and go for a walk along the beaches. The reason why there are rock platforms around the beaches in Sydney is that the sea level was 1.5 meters higher only 5,000 years ago. What’s been happening in Sydney is that sea levels have been going down because land levels go up and down and sea levels go up and down.

Mr Smith: Just before you leave that, tell me a bit about erosion. People say, ‘look how that headland has changed in the time that I have been living here for the past 30 years. You can see that there’s obviously climate change going on’. I don’t think people take into account what erosion can do to sandstone.

Prof. Plimer: Well, quite and the second thing is that if land is lifting up then you get an increased rate of erosion. Much of the erosion is because the Great Dividing Range is still moving up and it’s still moving up because we’re pushing New Zealand away from us, which is good news, really. That erosion is in many cases a natural process.

What Garnaut is asking us to do is to forget history, forget archaeology, forget geology and allow him to put his hand in our trouser pockets, open up the wallet, and take out even more money, even though they’ve already pushed up the fuel prices, food prices and electricity prices.

Mr Smith: Why do you think Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister, did not use the opportunity to press home her policy for a carbon dioxide tax when she spoke to Congress when her favourite bloke, Ross Garnaut, has been saying we have to make America follow us? This was the perfect opportunity.

Prof. Plimer: Well, we have to make China follow us also and India follow us also. And she’s not going to be that stupid in the international arena. He’s the dog out barking for her while she’s away. They want to tax us more and you’ve got to have someone to do the cheerleading and he’s the man.

Mr Smith: What do you think the timing of this is about?

Prof. Plimer: The timing is to frighten us witless right now while they’re campaigning to tax us more, that’s all.


Mr Smith: And the national polls are saying that we don’t buy a carbon dioxide tax without, at least, putting it to the vote.

Prof. Plimer: Well, quite. And I’m pleased you called it a carbon dioxide tax because it is not carbon, carbon is black. Carbon dioxide is plant food. Without carbon dioxide we would die. We breathe in air of about 400 parts per million carbon dioxide and breathe out air of 4,000 parts per million carbon dioxide. It is not a poison it is plant food. To call it a pollutant is misleading and deceptive.

Mr Smith: Stay there for a second. There are a couple of people who want to make scientific comments with your arguments and I’d like you on air. [Caller 1] go ahead.

Caller 1: I’ve just got this one question, Gillard said that we pollute more per head than anyone else. Why are we measuring it per head? Why aren’t we measuring it per area, you know, per square meter or per square kilometre? That way you would see that China and India are polluting more.

Mr Smith: We’re well down the list Ian Plimer, aren’t we?

Prof. Plimer: Well, [Caller 1] you are correct per individual in Australia we pump out more plant food in the air than any other nation. The reason for that is we have some big aluminium smelters in Australia. And the reason for that is we are stable, we do not have revolutions, we do not destroy billions of dollars worth of investment by revolutions, we just have a government to do it for us.

Mr Smith: [Caller 2] go ahead.

Caller 2: Yes, good afternoon. I agree with everything you’ve said Professor. Two points I’d like to make, I’ve been studying meteorology since I was 18, I’m 62 - nothing has changed. Our source region for our weather is the Indian Ocean, our highs and lows form in the Indian and they migrate across the continent, they move North and South of the inclination, they create our seasons, the monsoon trough arrives in summer, nothing has changed. This, as you said earlier, is a criminal fraud perpetrated by the socialist left, right across the world, who are trying to destroy the coal industry and other industries and also burden us with a tax, they’re quite happy to do it. I’d just like to finish by asking the question, what’s the background of Mr Garnaut? He’s an economist, isn’t he?

Mr Smith: He’s certainly not a scientist.

Prof. Plimer: He’s an economist. He’s in the business of making predictions that go wrong. In terms of nothing has changed, nothing has changed for 10, 500 thousand years, we are in an interglacial. And out of those 10, 500 thousand years, 9,099 of those years have been warmer than last years or last decade. We are in a period of time when we’ve had warming for three hundred years, yet we are in very very benign times. It is during glaciations that you get rapid fluctuations of temperature, not during this time.

Mr Smith: Ok, I’ve got to leave it there.


Broadcast 2: Chris Smith Afternoon Show, 17 March 2011.

Chris Smith: Last night the PM spoke to the Don Dunstan Foundation in Adelaide and it was an old fashioned Labor Party speech cordoned the troops full of nationalism and firmly stamp Labor as the party of vision and the party of power, just in case the party had doubts about that.

Miss Gillard spoke about past party achievements and in this context she used the speech to push her carbon dioxide tax. It was full of heart string stuff; I guess it had to be because she knows her party knows they are losing the people on this issue. It was also an attack on those presenting an alternative point of view. She said she believed Professor Garnaut, who you know is an economist, who says the need to act now is greater than ever and of course, Garnaut says, America will follow if Australia moves, which is rubbish. She then made an us-and-them speech. She said she knew who’d she’d rather have on her side: not Alan Jones, not Piers Ackerman, not Andrew Bolt but the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science, the Bureau of Meteorology, NASA, the National Atmospheric Administration and every reputable climate change scientist in the world. Did you hear that? Every reputable climate change scientist in the world.

Well, these comments are shown up for what they are: deceptive, wrong and more lies. There was no mention that the organisations she quoted are all government instrumentalities reliant on grant funding, reliant on their government. There was no mention of leading Australian scientists who question climate change, including Professor Ian Plimer, Professor Bob Carter and Dr David Evans, among others. What? None of them are reputable now because they disagree with the PM? No mention of the Oregon Climate Change Petition which saw 31,072 scientists sign up against the theory of man-made climate change. Let me repeat that, 31,072 US scientists. So people from, for instance, the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, the University of Ottawa, hydrologists, geo-geographers, bio- geographers, astronomers from the Russian Academy of Sciences, meteorologists form the World Meteorology Organisation Commission for Climatology, scientists and researchers from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, bio- geographers form the University of London, Los Alamos National Laboratory from the Arizona State University. I could go on. But because they disagree with the PM they are not reputable. That’s what you were implying last night PM.

Now I could take you, Prime Minister, around the world with people in the scientific community sceptical about the effect of man-made carbon dioxide on global warming, easily. Not every reputable climate change scientist in the world does agree - that is outrageous hyperbole from Julia Gillard. And it’s not one or two dissenters either, it’s scientists everywhere.

Be honest, this isn’t a policy because you, Prime Minister, fear the science. This is a policy because the Greens are using their position to run the country, plain and simple. You’re subservient to a minority government and you’ll say anything for political survival to remain in power including telling lies and then changing your mind. And even climate scientists can see through you.

Can I just play something for you? These are the words we have recorded that were posted over night by a Roger Piker Jr, an American professor in the Environmental Studies Program and former Director of the Centre for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado and he supports Julia’s man-made climate change theory, he’s one of Julia’s favoured scientists but cop this, this is a summary of quotes he posted on a blog overnight after hearing Julia Gillard’s speech:


“In the speech, the word carbon appears 36 times. Also appearing 36 times jobs and economy. She makes clear that there’s no going back. It is here where I think Gillard has made a bad bet; however, it is the political reality that the theory does not account for. How does one become re-skilled? Without an explanation many people will translate re-skill to mean unemployed. Either way, I do not see a good outcome here for Gillard or for carbon pricing. I expect that Australia will soon provide yet another lesson in how not to try to put a price on carbon”.

Another lesson- yeah? Julia Gillard taking Australia down the wrong path. We will learn from another experience, he says, another lesson. He’s one of Julia’s favoured scientists.


Attachment B

Licensee’s submission

The licensee submitted to the ACMA on 26 August 2011:

[...]

Code 2.3(b) requires a licensee to ensure that either reasonable efforts are made or reasonable opportunities are given to present significant viewpoints while the issue has immediate relevance to the community. Those efforts or opportunities may be made or given either within the same program or in similar programs.

In interpreting this Code, it is essential to distinguish this requirement from a requirement of balance.

[...]

Code 2.3(b) is not a requirement to give all sides equal time. Nor is it a requirement to present all sides or even opposing sides on an issue. The subject matter of Code 2.3(b) does not require a comprehensive presentation of views, nor a presentation of opposed or contrarian viewpoints. Rather, Code 2.3(b) contemplates only the presentation of multiple significant viewpoints, which may or may not be opposed or contrarian.

The ACMA chooses the Macquarie Dictionary to assist in the interpretation of provisions of the Codes. The most relevant definitions of significant and viewpoint set out in the Macquarie Dictionary include the following:

Significant 1. Important, of consequence

Viewpoint 2. A point of view; an attitude of mind

Under Code 2.3(b), the obligation on licensees is not an absolute obligation to broadcast or present significant viewpoints. It is an obligation to ensure that either (1) reasonable efforts are made; or (2) reasonable opportunities are given. The Code 2.3(b) requirement may be satisfied in either of these ways – and the requirement is one of reasonableness.

In considering the scope of a licensee’s obligation under Code 2.3(b), reasonable efforts is at the lower end of the spectrum of strength of obligation. The reasonable efforts standard is distinguishable from both absolute obligations to ensure outcomes and also the intermediate level of best endeavours. In various parts, the Codes currently use these three different levels of obligation, which are all concepts that are recognised by and imported from the common law. As you may already be aware, the common law recognises that the reasonable efforts standard is a lower standard than best efforts, and that in either case, the obligation to use reasonable or best efforts can be discharged without actually achieving the desired outcome.

2GB submits that is satisfies each of the alternate limbs of Code 2.3(b) in different ways.


(1) Making reasonable efforts

In relation to the first limb (reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints), 2GB discharges this obligation by the following specific measures in addition to the measures that also apply in section (2) below:

2GB engages presenters who are diverse in age, experience, disposition, perspective and world view (compare the diversity of hosts such as Alan Jones, Chris Smith, Ben Fordham, Ray Hadley and Ross Greenwood).

2GB encourages, through the practice of programming independence, each presenter to present their own viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance.

2GB is confident that this approach achieves the presentation of multiple significant viewpoints by different hosts across its programs. On any particular issue of immediate relevance to the community, the viewpoints expressed by hosts such as Chris Smith are different from the viewpoints expressed or presented by other hosts such as Ben Fordham, Ray Hadley or Ross Greenwood. 2GB’s listeners appreciate that the age, experience, disposition, perspective and world view of each of our hosts is diverse – which obviously results in the expression of diverse viewpoints on every issue of immediate relevance to the community that receives coverage by 2GB.

(2) Giving reasonable opportunities

In relation to the second and alternative limb (reasonable opportunities are given to present significant viewpoints), 2GB discharges this obligation through two key elements of its talkback program format, being:

1. the open line – in which listeners are invited to phone in and provide their viewpoints on a particular topic; and

2. the interview – in which politicians, experts or other community spokespeople are invited to participate in program discussions or to provide alternative perspectives, usually by way of an interview with a 2GB presenter.

2GB provides reasonable opportunities for the presentation of significant viewpoints both through the open line format in each program and by inviting persons who have significant viewpoints to present their viewpoints on 2GB programs.

Of course, those opportunities do not always result in the broadcast of significant viewpoints on every controversial issue of public importance. 2GB does not always receive calls from listeners with multiple viewpoints; and 2GB’s invitations to third party prospective participants are, unfortunately, not always accepted. However, Code 2.3(b) is not expressed in absolute terms to require that significant viewpoints are in fact presented – Code 2.3(b) requires only that reasonable opportunities are given.

[…]There are many manifestations of 2GB’s discharge of its reasonable efforts and reasonable opportunities obligations insofar as this controversial issue is concerned, including the following.


Broadcast interviews and listener talkback presenting significant viewpoints

1. 2GB has replayed highlights of an interview of Professor Tim Flannery initially broadcast on sister station, MTR [broadcast on 25 March 2011 between 12:00pm and 1:00pm].

2. 2GB has interviewed Professor Richard Linzden, identified by Professor Tim Flannery as a highly credible scientist in the climate science field [broadcast on 6 April 2011 at 1:10pm].

3. 2GB has broadcast an unedited, 15 minute recording of Greg Combet addressing the Press Club outlining why a Carbon Tax in his view is important [broadcast on 13 April 2011 at 12:35pm].

4. 2GB has spoken to a former CSIRO climate change modeller – Dr David Evans [broadcast on 24 May 2011 at 1:25pm].

5. 2GB has interviewed a leading carbon tax believer in France – Professor Jacques le Cacheaux [broadcast on 27 April 13:45pm].

Invitations proffered (but not accepted) to provide significant viewpoints

1. 2GB producers have placed two calls with Professor Ross Garnaut in mid March to arrange an interview. The producers have not received a response from his office.

2. Producers of the Chris Smith Afternoon Show requested interviews with Professor Will Steffan of the Australian National University on 23 May 2011 and other occasions, but requests denied.

3. Producers of the Chris Smith Afternoon Show requested interviews with the Prime Minister’s Office on multiple occasions (including on 29 March 2011, 30 March 2011, 6 April 2011 and 1 August 2011) to discuss the proposed carbon tax, but requests denied.

[...]


Attachment CAdditional broadcasts provided by the licensee

The Chris Smith Afternoon Show – interview with Marcus Butler – 23 March 2011

Chris Smith: What a day, what a rally this is. Eric Abetz the leader of the Opposition in the Senate is right now addressing the rally. Now I’ve been out trying to count in groups of 50 and I think there’s probably, it’s probably tipped 4000. And I think one of the reasons it has tipped 4000 and the crowd has grown just in the last 25 minutes is maybe because of what we’re broadcasting [...] prior to today how many would turn up to the rally, and wanted to be part of it. Which is really interesting. So I reckon this crowd is 4000 which is quite extraordinary for people who had to pay their way, this is not dial a crowd. The sky writer as I mentioned I’d find out exactly what the sky writer was doing, it was NO TAX. NO TAX in the skies above Federal Parliament. Which is rather dramatic. Now to Marcus Butler [MB] one of our reporters working here in Canberra representing the network. It’s quite interesting to see that Julia Gillard today did not ignore what was going on on the lawns of Parliament House, she actually spoke this morning about a union-based petition that’s circulating as a kind of hit back against those who’ve turned up today. Very interesting Marcus to hear what she had to say earlier this morning.

Marcus Butler: Yeah Chris obviously the climate issue, the energy issue, was forefront of the Prime Minister’s mind. She started the day at a wind farm, just outside of Canberra, so obviously she was trying to hit home on the message of climate change and green energy. She was grilled at that wind farm about whether or not she would come down here today to the rally to address the crowd. She evaded the issue. She mentioned that she was talking to people all the time about climate change, and she brought up very quickly this issue of this petition. Apparently it’s a petition with about ten thousand signatures on it. She was no doubt trying to play down on the significance of today’s crowd at this rally. Here’s what she had to say:

[recording of the Prime Minister]

In a great democracy people can make their voice heard by attending peaceful protests. So that’s what’s happening today in front of Parliament House. Also today the Minister for Climate Change, Greg Combet, will receive a petition signed by around ten thousand working Australians, ten thousand people, who are urging the Government to act on climate change.

Marcus Butler: Now Chris, obviously this petition, it’s got a lot of signatures on it, it’s been organised by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and the World Wildlife Fund. They claim that they’re the majority in all this.

Chris Smith: The silent majority. Maybe they should have a quick look at the nine msn poll this morning which at last count was about 82% in favour of not having a carbon tax, I don’t know who’s in the minority. I’ll be taking calls after 1:00 this arvo and for those of you who are at home, in cars, wherever you may be around this country, around this nation, what are your thoughts, on what has been organised here and the rally that’s taken place by the consumers and tax payers association. I tell you what it is almost surreal to see what we’ve done. I’m going to catch up with Nick Xenophon, the independent Senator, and get his take, you know, his independent take of what he’s seeing here and whether these people are truly extremists as was suggested by that Labor MP. Now, to see Julia Gillard this morning as you said Marcus at wind farms and speaking about solar, that’s all terrific but at the end of the day most people know that won’t supply us with base low power if we get rid of coal fire power stations. But anyway we’ll take


your calls after one, I’ll catch up with Senator X, and we will be returning to the rally, the no carbon tax rally.

The Chris Smith Afternoon Show – interview with Senator Xenophon – 23 March 2011

Chris Smith: Nick Xenophon, the independent Senator who I speak to quite often. What are your thoughts of the crowd when you walked from the doors of Parliament down to where we are?

Senator: It’s a huge crowd. It’s a democracy in action. You know a great British politician said “I may not agree but I defend to death your right to say it”. And I think that’s what democracy is about. You actually need to have this debate. You need to flesh out the concerns. People have a right to protest, a right to be concerned. And that’s what democracy is all about.

Chris Smith: The Labor MP, Mr Champion.

Senator: Yeah I know him quite well.

Chris Smith: Is he on something? Is he suffering from delusions of sensibility. How dare he stand outside of Parliament House and say “these people here are extremists”?

Senator: I need to have a quiet word with Nick because I have a good working relationship with him.

Chris Smith: Because that is going a bit far.

Senator: It is an extreme comment.

[...]

Chris Smith: Interestingly, I know where you stand on this. You view is that we should err on the side of caution and we should have an emissions trading scheme. And you presented with frontier economics your own version of how you think this could work and not hurt industry.

Senator: Mmm.

Chris Smith: The way government is doing it, where they announce they’ll have a carbon, a price on carbon, they don’t give us any detail, and then they bring it in, make it legislated, under a Senate that will be controlled by the Greens before we get to an election, to me that stinks.

Senator: Look, I think there are two camps here. There’s one camp that says we don’t need to do anything about it, that opposes carbon tax. There’s the other camp that says, we need to do something about dealing with this issue, but this is not the way to do it. I’m in the latter camp. And you are right, I think there are smarter ways to deal with this. Because if you get this wrong, this will destroy tens of thousands of jobs, it will slow down the economy, it will actually cause significant damage to the economy without much environmental benefit. I think we need to manage the risk. There are too many scientists out there who are saying there are risks here and if we don’t deal with it, the consequences of not dealing with it are significant. It’s the way you deal with it. If you don’t deal with it right, if you don’t implement it right it will have serious serious implications for the Australian economy. And for tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs.

Chris Smith: Do you think that when Julia Gillard retained power because of the support and the alliance she had with Bob Brown, that there was a deal done then for her to change her mind and announce during this term that there would be a price on carbon?


Senator: Look I don’t know. Look you can speculate that. Look the fact is, it is a minority Government. And if Tony Abbott managed to form a minority government I’m sure there’s some things that he would have to modify or change but look, whatever people think of John Howard, and you know, I was a critic of John Howard, I respect the man for saying he wasn’t going to introduce a GST but when he decided to go down the path of the GST he brought an election. Now you’ve got to respect the guy for that. That is the benchmark I think for dealing with these sorts of things.

Chris Smith: I’ve been listening to Julia Gillard and she’s got that spike in the news polls 24 hours ago which I think is probably somewhat related to the fact that she has been determined, almost cranky about bringing in a price on carbon and she’s been upfront, she’s been aggressive, and I think people are seeing that as, you know, the signs of a leader. Although, she lied to us, and as you can see by the banners here, the mob are not impressed by that. But, okay, she’s got a spike. If she is so convicted by this, as she mentioned this morning when she was out at this wind farm on the outskirts of Canberra, why doesn’t she take it to an election?

Senator: Look, who knows, that might still happen, for the simple reason, we haven’t seen the details of this. Look I don’t think Julia Gillard went into the last election saying, you know, we’re not going to introduce the price on carbon but then secretly was going to do that. I think significant compromises were made because she’s a minority Government. But the fact is, ultimately people need to have a say on this. I think we need to do something about this. But this is not the way to do it. A carbon tax will push the price of everything up, indiscriminately, just I can’t see it is going to do much for the environment either.

Chris Smith: I tell you what, I was impressed yesterday with the address in the National Press Club by Graeme Cray. I don’t know whether you heard him or not, he’s extremely worried about what would happen when you are competing with other manufacturers worldwide with your hands behind your back.

Senator: Well, you need to deal with that. International competitiveness is the key. I don’t know what will happen; I mean in my home state in South Australia there’s a zinc and led smelter. They are, in international terms, in terms of the zinc smelter, very energy efficient. Low emissions in relative terms to the plants in China. What’ll happen if they close down? That zinc is going to be processed overseas, double, triple, quadruple, the emissions. That’s not a good outcome.

Chris Smith: Well exactly, and if you’re trying to reduce temperature around the globe, maybe we should be preventing the export of our coal. If you are serious you should be saying we can’t export our coal. And then we all fall down the toilet. .. Can you give us an update, before the carbon dioxide tax became an issue of great concern to my listeners, we were debating at great lengths the NBN plan [...]


The Chris Smith Afternoon Show – The Hon. Greg Combet’s address to the Press Club – 23 March 2011

Chris Smith: Press Club... and hear what Greg Combet has to say about compensation, for the carbon dioxide tax.

Minister Combet: It is in our national interest to take action on climate change. The national interest case is very clear. The risks of inaction on climate change to Australia – to our economy, to our environment, and to our way of life –are too big to ignore. The key is economic reform - climate change is an environmental problem with an economic solution. What is required is an economic transformation that decouples growth in pollution from growth in our economy. The longer we wait to begin the transformation, the harder and more expensive the change will be.Just as the 1980s reforms laid down the bedrock of our current prosperity, pricing carbon will ensure that the Australian economy of the 21st century remains globally competitive.

Critical to understanding the national interest case for taking action on climate change is an acknowledgement that long term reform should also be based on the principle of intergenerational equity. Intergenerational equity is a key determinant of long-term economic policy making. Our obligation is to leave the world a better place, not to pass on the problems we found too difficult to deal with to our grandchildren and to their grandchildren. That obligation must in part be met through pricing carbon in such a way that a clean energy future delivers a clean environment and sustainable prosperity.

There are six key arguments that summarise our response to the climate change challenge.

Firstly, Australia is one of the world’s top 20 polluters and we release more pollution per person than any other country in the developed world – more than the US. Not only is it in our national interest to act, we have a responsibility to do so.

Secondly, to tackle climate change we need to cut our pollution levels – something that many other countries are also doing.

Thirdly, it is important to adopt the most economically efficient way of cutting pollution, and that means a market mechanism to set a carbon price. The carbon price will create the incentive to cut pollution and drive investment into cleaner energy like natural gas, solar and wind power.

Fourthly, the carbon price will work by putting a price tag on every tonne of pollution that is produced. Less than 1,000 companies that are the largest polluters in our economy will be required to purchase a permit for every tonne of pollution they emit - the price of the permit is the carbon price.

Fifthly, households will receive generous assistance to meet costs that may be passed on by the large polluters – pensioners and low and middle income households will be a priority.

Finally, demand for clean energy will grow because it will become cheaper relative to the current cost of burning coal for electricity. A carbon price will provide greater certainty for investors to commit investments in clean energy.

Of course there is a lot more to the debate, but these six propositions provide a useful summary for discussion of many of the issues. I will therefore expand upon each of them in turn.


Firstly, to the emissions intensity of our own economy, and our levels of pollution. As I indicated earlier, Australia is one of the world’s top 20 emitters in absolute terms and we emit more carbon pollution per capita than any other developed country in the world – higher even than the United States. What’s more, our pollution levels are continuing to rise.

We have industrialised with the benefit of relatively cheap but pollution intensive energy sources. 80 per cent of our electricity is provided by coal-fired generation, we rely upon a transport system heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and have had insufficient regard for opportunities in the past to be energy efficient, or for example to reduce emissions in our agricultural sector or to sequester carbon in our landscape.

To tackle climate change effectively these features of our economy will need to change over time. Innovation, and low emissions and cleaner energy technologies will provide a pathway for future economic prosperity internationally.

As a small, open economy, we cannot afford the complacency inherent in the argument that we don't seriously need to tackle this issue - that ‘she'll be right mate’. Such complacency will erode our long-term competitiveness by making us less able to compete in a carbon-constrained world.That complacent attitude generally rests upon the myth that no other country is taking action on climate change.

It is true to say that the process under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or the UNFCCC, can be painfully slow, overly bureaucratic and plagued by an out-dated paradigm that pits developed and developing countries against each other. But it's the same process that has seen all major economies submit important pledges to reduce their pollution, or in the case of many developing countries, reduce their emissions intensity expressed as a unit of GDP. These pledges already account for over 80 per cent of the world’s carbon pollution. This was an important achievement of the Copenhagen and Cancun conferences that merits acknowledgement.

Whereas there has been a principal focus on the capacity to achieve a globally binding agreement to implement these pledges in much of the public debate, the practical reality is that many countries are taking action to reduce their emissions and their emissions intensity in line with the pledges they have made and in the absence of a global agreement.

The verification and measurement of the action that is being taken is therefore pivotal to building confidence. Just as Australia is looking to verify what others are doing to build confidence in our own policy settings, others are looking to Australia to build their own confidence. The current debate over carbon pricing is being closely monitored for this reason.

The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has published extensive information about the measures being taken internationally, and it is regularly updated. The Government has also commissioned the Productivity Commission to identify where possible the climate change policies and effective carbon price that operates in key parts of the economies with which we trade.

Notwithstanding the complexity of the task, the overall message from all of the information that is available is that Australia is not acting alone. Globally more money is now invested in new renewable power capacity than in new fossil fuel capacity.


China – the world’s largest emitter - is now the world’s largest manufacturer of both solar panels and wind turbines and is definitely reducing the carbon intensity of its economy. Only yesterday further information confirming China’s plans for emissions trading in 6 regions was reported.

Despite a hostile Congress and a major economic downturn, the United States is also taking action at a national level, as well as at a State level. The US is progressively introducing regulations covering carbon pollution from large industrial facilities under its Clean Air Act. The first facilities were regulated in January 2011, and from July 2011, all facilities emitting in excess of 100,000 tonnes of carbon pollution per year will be required to obtain operating permits. President Obama has also announced a new Clean Energy Standard, which will double the share of clean energy sources in the electricity supply mix to 80 per cent by 2035. California – the world’s eighth largest economy, and with a population almost twice that of Australia – has legislated to commence emissions trading on 1 January 2012.

India has just commenced an energy efficiency certificate trading scheme that covers facilities that account for more than 50 per cent of the fossil fuel used there – it will help reduce carbon pollution by 25 million tonnes per year by 2014-15. It also has a coal tax levied on both imported coal and coal produced in India, which will raise around half a billion dollars for investments in clean energy technologies in the 12 months since it commenced in July 2010.

South Korea has had a trial emissions trading scheme in place since January last year involving 14 cities and provinces, including Seoul. Legislation to commence economy-wide mandatory emissions trading from 2015 will soon be introduced into its Parliament.

Emissions trading operates across Europe, including in a number of countries in conjunction with a carbon tax.

These are just a few of the many examples of what other countries are doing to reduce their carbon pollution.

This brings me to my third point: that a carbon price will cut pollution and drive investment into cleaner energy like natural gas, solar and wind power. Under our carbon price for the first time over a sustained period, Australia’s net carbon pollution will go down, not up. Our carbon price will mean our economy will grow and pollution will not.

Some of the types of changes a carbon price can deliver are:

promoting more low emissions gas-fired or renewable electricity generation instead of high emissions coal-fired electricity generation;

encouraging chemical plants to install scrubbers to reduce nitrous oxide emissions;

converting coal-fired boilers to gas-fired boilers in manufacturing plants, commercial buildings and hospitals;

increasing the use of blended cements, which substitute other materials for high pollution clinker;

making energy-efficient buildings more attractive to tenants; and

providing an incentive for households and businesses to use energy more wisely.

The fact is that with current, known technologies we can make huge strides towards a low pollution future.


Chris Smith: Okay, that’s Greg Combet. We’ll come back to Greg Combet in just a second. I have a break to get through. As you are hearing, we’ve given him about 15 minutes now, on the reasons why Australia has to act. The risks of inaction, he says, on climate change, are too big to ignore. Ah, he goes through the detail of what the rest of the world is doing. Ah, he argues about the actions the US is taking at a federal level, the Californian referendum. He talks about the people of California. The referendum to decide that. I tell you what, I’d be happy to have a referendum. ...

The Chris Smith Afternoon Show – interview with Professor Tim Flannery – 25 March 2011

Chris Smith: Now to what I regard as ‘the story of the day’. Probably the ‘story of the year’ in reference to the carbon dioxide debate. This is just extraordinary. This morning on MTR, Steve Price and Andrew Bolt had the most amazing conversation with the Prime Minister’s most highly regarded scientist, Professor Tim Flannery. Now Tim is one of those key people Julia Gillard relies on when they make assessments about various aspects of climate change. Flannery as you know is an Australian palaeontologist. He’s an environmentalist, a mammalogist and global warming activist. He’s a product of the best universities in this country. Now the scientific community has recognised him for his work with a number of awards from the Copenhagen climate council, and recently he was appointed by the Federal Government to head up Climate Change Commission. Today that Commission hits the road. He’s travelling to Geelong, selling the climate science message, which is sheer salesmanship, but anyway. And to begin his campaign he did a few interviews. One in particular with Steve and Andrew. And the interview centred around a very simple important question: “If the Australia that we know and love, and their intention to go ahead with the carbon tax, and if Australia can somehow miraculously convince the rest of the world to go with them, if all of us as a global village, stopped large emissions of carbon today, when would we see a drop in temperature?” I pose that question to you. Let’s think about that. If you believe in the science, do you think it would take 10 years before temperatures could reduce, maybe 20, 25, 50? Well if you think the doomsdayers know their stuff, maybe 50 years is something that we presume. Well, listen to Professor Flannery on MTR earlier today.

Interviewer: On our own, cutting our emissions by 5% by 2020, what will that lower the world’s temperatures by?

Prof. Flannery: Well it will be very very ... increments.

Interviewer: Have you got a number? I mean there must be some numbers.

Prof. Flannery: I just need to clarify in terms of the climate context for you, if we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about 1000 years.

Interviewer: Right you know, I just want to get to this very basic fact.

Interviewer: A thousand years!

Interviewer: I’m finding it really curious that no one has got a fact, you know if I buy a car, I pay the money, I want to know how much it costs, and I want to know if it’s going to do the job. In this case, I want to know the costs of cutting our emissions 5% by 2020, and will it do the job. How much will the world’s temperatures fall by if Australia cuts this emission by this time.

Prof. Flannery: Look as I said it would be very very small increments.

Interviewer: Can you give us a rough figure, a rough figure.


Prof. Flannery: Sorry I can’t because it is a very complex system, we’re dealing with probabilities here.

Interviewer: Just trying to get the facts in front of the public so we know what we are doing. Just unbiased, is it about, I don’t know, are you talking about 1/1000th of a degree, 1/100th of a degree? What sort of rough figure?

Prof. Flannery: Oh look if you’d just let me finish and say this that if the world as a whole were to cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps as much as 1000 years right, because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.

Interviewer: That doesn’t seem a good deal.

Prof. Flannery: What’s that sorry?

Interviewer: That doesn’t seem a good deal if we spend trillions of dollars to cut world’s emissions that we notice the difference – well, our great great great great great great grandchildren won’t even notice the difference.

Prof. Flannery: It will just keep getting worse if we don’t.

Prof. Flannery: When I heard that, and I heard it live, I was speechless. All this is about is looking internationally responsible. Tim Flannery, arguably this country’s most esteemed climate change scientists, admits that if the world were to stop emitting massive amounts of carbon today, together, globally, our great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great there’s more to come here great great great great great bear in mind a generation is 25 years that’s why there’s a few greats I’m still going, great great great I want to get the exact number great great great great great great great great still going great great great great great great great great grandchildren might see a tiny drop in average temperatures around the world. Spare me. So for all the huff and puff from the federal government, and for the billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars this will cost us, Australia will not only have negligible impact on carbon emissions, if the world stops emitting, together, a small drop in temperatures will not be felt for 1000 years. Don’t tell me this problem is chronic. Again, this is not a climate sceptic. These are the words from Australia’s most esteemed climate change scientist. This time is soooo long I dare say you could argue the variation is due to national processes. We are not talking human terms here. We are almost talking geological timelines. The sun might be hit by a massive meteor before then and we’ll all be freezing.

The Chris Smith Afternoon Show – interview with Professor Richard Linzden – 6 April 2011

Chris Smith: How much you enjoyed our interview earlier with Professor John Christie. I’ve had countless emails about people wanting to hear more about the science of climate change. Especially after our interview with professor John Christies recently. And as a result I have on the line one of the most esteemed climate scientists in the world. His name is Professor Richard Lindzen. He’s described by Professor Tim Flannery as extremely creditable, one of the reputable scientists around the world, a distinguished scientist in his field. He has a string of qualifications, awards and appointments to his name. He specialises in atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry, he’s published over 200 scientific papers, and recently, Professor Lindzen was a lead author in the IPCC 3rd assessment report on climate change. Now recently he made a presentation about global warming, and how to approach the science. It was presented in Tel Aviv, he made some key points. Part of his presentation was about an


uneasiness about widely used terms such as ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’. You see, Professor Lindzen is a true scientist and questions why scientific definitions of these basic terms haven’t yet been formulated. In simple terms he asks, ‘what do terms like this mean?’. He goes further, being highly critical of clichés such as ‘settled science’ and so on. He says that much of this is alarmist, and when you wade through all of this to the basic science, the changes we are all panicking about are quite small. Professor Lindzen is at odds with a speech made by our prime minister Julia Gillard in Adelaide a fortnight ago, and you’ll recall that, it was the Dunstan lecture. She said ‘every credible scientist believes in climate change. She presented her case with a sense of urgency and panic saying ‘we have to act now’. She used this as her justification for the carbon dioxide tax, and the reason to go back on a core election promise.

Professor Lindzen welcome to the program.

Prof. Lindzen: Thank you. Glad to be with you.

Chris Smith: It’s very interesting, we came across you because, after the prime minister said that ‘every reputable scientist agrees that man is warming the planet and we have to act now, our own professor, our own climate commissioner, Tim Flannery, said that Professor Richard Lindzen was indeed a reputable scientist, but didn’t concur with what he [sic] was advocating, that is, immediate change, and a carbon tax in this country. So we’ve found the reputable scientist that seems to fly in the fact of what our prime minister is saying. What are your thoughts on what our prime minister has asserted there?

Prof. Lindzen: She’s played what I refer to as bait and switch. There are some things that scientists the most part agree on. I mean, there’s not too much disagreement that there has been a very small increase in temperature what one refers to as something called the global mean temperature anomaly. You don’t average temperatures over the globe, you average the changes from their mean values. Somehow defined. This is pretty tiny, it’s a fraction of a degree. And there’s a lot of agreement that ah the increase in CO2 which has been measured, should contribute something to this. Ah, none of that is alarming.

Chris Smith: Okay let’s go back a little bit. So therefore you say scientists agree that there is slight warming of the planet and that man contributes to that because of CO2 output. Let’s quantify that, let’s quantify that.

Prof. Lindzen: Okay, if nothing changed, adding the amount of CO2 that we’ve added thus far, should account for maybe a quarter of what we’ve seen. We’ve added some other green house gases, methane, fluorocarbons, Freon, this sort of thing. And that should bring one to perhaps ½ a degree. If we double CO2 it’s well accepted that you should get about 1 degree warming if nothing else happened.

Chris Smith: One degree warming over how long a period?

Prof. Lindzen: Well it depends on how long it would take to double the CO2, and that we don’t know. It depends on the technology, the economy, and so on. But 1 degree is reckoned as not very significant. The question then is, is what we’ve seen so far suggesting that you have more than that. And the answer is no. In fact, the models do say you should have seen 2-5 times more than you’ve already seen. You know you have to then accept, if you believe the models, that you actually should have gotten far more warming than you’ve seen. But some mysterious process cancelled part of it.


Chris Smith: Hold on a second, we’ve had politicians and so-called scientists in this country alarming us and making us feel guilty about our CO2 output and saying we must act now because sometimes it’ll take 1000 years for CO2 to break down. And saying we need a carbon tax right away, we can’t even wait for an election for this. So are these alarmist steps that they have taken?

Prof. Lindzen: Well sure, I mean these people are being grotesquely dishonest. I mean I think even Flannery acknowledged that Australia doing this would have no discernible impact for virtually a millennium. Even if Australia’s output during that millennia were to increase exponentially, for Australia to act now, is, you know a bit bizarre, and certainly cannot be justified by any impact it would have on Australia or anyone.

Chris Smith: Can I just get you to repeat that professor. So, for Australia to act now, it is foolish?

Prof. Lindzen: Oh sure, in its a heavy cost for no benefit. And it’s no benefit for you, no benefit for your children, no benefit for your grandchildren, no benefit for your great great great grandchildren. I mean what’s the point of that?

Chris Smith: For Australia to affect world temperatures on its own, because there is an argument that we need to go down this path on our own, we will make no difference to global warming.

Prof. Lindzen: Absolutely. The evidence is pretty good that even if everyone did it in the whole world, it wouldn’t make a lot of difference.

Chris Smith: What difference would it make if everyone went along and stopped the production of CO2 at the moment?

Prof. Lindzen: Oh, it would be a moral disaster, because it would mean that much of the world would preclude development and so they’d be more vulnerable to the disasters that occur regardless of man, I mean, you know, earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts. All these things occur naturally. And one’s vulnerability to this decreases as your wealth decreases. Or your vulnerability to this increases as your wealth decreases [sic].

Chris Smith: So, if the world went along down the path of stopping the emission of CO2 tomorrow, what benefit would that make to the world? Our Tim Flannery says it would take a thousand years for any change at all.

Prof. Lindzen: Again, the crucial thing is sensitivity. I mean what do you expect the doubling of CO2 to do? If it is only a degree, then you could go through at least two doublings, and probably exhaust much of your fossil fuel, before you would do anything that would bother anyone.

Chris Smith: So why are we being inundated with the guilt trip. Why are we being told by our own prime minister here that we need to act now, and we can’t wait and we’ve got to save the planet for future generations. How do you describe words like that from our Prime Minister?

Prof. Lindzen: I think either it’s ignorance or cynicism. You know, I understand that your Prime Minister is heading a minority government, and depends on the Greens for her Coalition. Ah, you know, for them it’s a power trip.

Chris Smith: It’s a fear campaign too, would you agree?

Prof. Lindzen: Well, you know fear is a mechanism for prompting people to do things that are irrational.

Chris Smith: We keep getting told the polar caps are melting. What’s the true evidence connected to that?


Prof. Lindzen: None, you know, and again it is an issue of defining what you are talking about. In the North Pole, you don’t have a cap, you have sea ice. That’s very variable, and as far as Greenland and Antarctica go, ah, there’s no evidence of any significant change. I mean you know, again, your measurements aren’t that great, but any reports you hear are again focussing on tiny changes that would have no implication. If you look at a certain time period, you might of hit two warmings and one cooling, and so the net is a warming, it’s you know, no different from flipping a coin three times and you’re going to get two heads or two tails.

Chris Smith: [chuckles] Very good. You’d be very good at a game we play in Australia called Two Up I think.

Prof. Lindzen: [Laughs].

Chris Smith: Can I ask you about carbon dioxide and how it differentiates itself from carbon. Quite often the media here in Australia like to talk about carbon taxes and the impact it’s having on the warming of the planet, by showing wonderful pictures of dark glooms of smoke coming out of cold fire power stations. This is not necessarily the CO2 that warms the planet, right? On its own?

Prof. Lindzen: CO2 is invisible. If you have dark smoke coming out of the smoke stack, you really need a scrubber, I mean you know you’re getting soot out of it and so on, you’re not burning very well. If you burnt completely, you wouldn’t have any of that junk, you’d just be getting clear CO2.

Chris Smith: What do you think we’ll be saying in forty years time, and looking back at this period of alarm?

Prof. Lindzen: I think it will definitely fall into category of popular delusions. People will look and wonder at this age, wonder how science broke down. And in a period of technological advance, that the public could be swayed by arguments that make no sense. And get hysterical over it.

Chris Smith: It’s hard for normal lay people like ourselves to believe that scientists in the world could be prone to hysterics. But you’re saying that that’s the case?

Prof. Lindzen: Well, you know, you have to remember this is an issue where what most scientists have agreed on has nothing to do with the alarm. I think the real problem is that so many scientists have gone along with it without pointing out that what is established reasonably well has nothing to do with the urgency that’s being promoted. Which is largely a political matter. For a lot of people it’s also, something I call the ‘quest for cheap virtue’. People need a cause.

Chris Smith: Yes.

Prof. Lindzen: And, they sort of feel puffed up by having a cause like saving the earth, and they don’t really care that they are hurting; people that they may be involved in a moral cause and so on. They’re perfectly happy to just go along with it because it’s virtuous.

Chris Smith: I think you’ve just nailed the number one reason for the alarm in the world, and in particular right here in Australia, where people would like to be seen as noble and saving the planet. And that is ego driven, not science driven. I thank you so much for your time, thank you...

Prof. Lindzen: Okay, well listen, good luck. I hope you are spared the policies that are being proposed.


Chris Smith: Well we can only protest and try and put the fact on the table for people. Professor thank you very much for you time. Okay. Richard Lindzen is his name. A professor that even Tim Flannery regards as reputable. It goes back to this climate is never static. It never has been static. And Professor John Christie spoke to us about that last week. He said that global surface temperatures have risen 0.7 of a degree over the past 100 years. That CO2 in the atmosphere is rising 0.5 per cent per year. As Richard Linzden just said, there’s no significant change. And we will look back, he’s sure, on this time, as the delusional age. An age of hysteria without sense. And I think we need to confront the constant politically motivated and public rhetoric that we are hearing on a daily basis with the truth. We’ll continue to do that on the program. 131873.. Chris Smith across Australia.

The Chris Smith Afternoon Show – interview with Dr David Evans – 24 May 2011

Chris Smith: Today the ANU Climate Change commission has certainly ignited the debate on how carbon dioxide might affect the environment. Global warming effect they predict could see the extinction of parts of the great barrier reef. As well as sea levels rising up to one meter. Average temps rising by .17 degrees per decade, and a greater ocean acidity. So, they’ve painted a rather bleak picture. And to that end carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and other things being equal the more carbon dioxide in the air the warmer the planet. So they are right, carbon dioxide will warm a planet. But the environmental modellers predicted that as carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere increase so too would a moisture level which would further warm the planet and the trouble is that nobody can find any evidence of this moisture level. In other words the main warming factor of increased carbon dioxide just doesn’t seem to exist. And that’s what increases in global temperatures are continually wildly over estimated by climate scientists. They’re predicting results on a theory that at this stage doesn’t stack up. And that’s why scientists run a mile when asked a simple question. If we stopped emissions in Australia tomorrow, how much would we see temperatures decrease by? It is the question we should have answered. Because you don’t build a car that does nothing. You build a car with an end result. That is a car that drives along the road. So if you put together a scheme such as this how will you save the planet if it needs saving? We had it asked yesterday in my debate between Andrew Macintosh and Professor Bob Carter. Seemingly, other climate change scientists don’t even want to debate a basic question. Now we have tried yesterday we had Andrew Macintosh, do you how hard it was to get Andrew Macintosh on? We tried Tim Flannery. No no no. I’ll do an interview but I won’t have a debate. We tried Mathew England who I had on the program, a while back. No no no. I don’t want a debate. David Karoly, one of the people on the panel that reviewed Will Stefan’s report. No no no. Even Will Stefan found reasons not to entertain the debate. Well one man has looked at the models and looked at the evidence and has agreed to talk to me today. Dr David Evans from the Australian Greenhouse Office. Which is the forerunner to the department of climate change. Once a climate change advocate, is now a sceptic, in that he says the science has become little more than an out of control industry. David Evans joins me on the line right now.

David thank you for your time.

Dr Evans: Good afternoon, Chris.

Chris Smith: I’ll start with the big question. If Australia was to stop man made emissions tomorrow, how much will temperatures decrease by?


Dr Evans: Ah if we went back to the stone age tomorrow we emitted no carbon dioxide at all we cut down all the machinery, and stopped all power stations, by 2050 according to the IPCC models we’d lower the temperature of what it would have otherwise been by about 1/100th of a degree Celsius.

Chris Smith: 1/100th by 2050. Is that right?

Dr Evans: Yes

Chris Smith: How did you arrive at that figure?

Dr Evans: I used the IPCC calculation knowing that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, Logarithm the amount of CO2, atmospheric CO2 level, we know roughly how much CO2 is increasing, so we know roughly what level it will be by 2050, and I used the IPCC climate sensitivity figure which is how much temperature increases for each increase in carbon dioxide. Put those together it’s pretty simple. Oh, and Australia’s contribution to the world wide human emissions of carbon dioxide is about 1.4%.

Chris Smith: 1.4%. That’s an important point. So if we were to put a price on carbon say $1000 a tonne. Would that be enough do you think to stop all companies manufacturers etc doing their business and emitting all carbon?

Dr Evans: I guess so, we’d have to import everything that has any that has any carbon dioxide emissions.

Chris Smith: Okay, so if $1000 a tonne would get us there we would achieve by 2050, 1/100th of a degree less than what it is at the moment.

Dr Evans: Ah Chris there is one small caveat. The IPCC models overestimate the effect of carbon dioxide, in reality I think it is about 1/10th of that, so the answer is more like 1/1000th of a degree.

Chris Smith: The answer is more like 1/1000th of a degree.

Dr Evans: That’s correct.

Chris Smith: And we want to put a price on carbon at around about $30 a tonne. So if that were the case, what’s the calculation now?

Dr Evans: Well, my guess is as a carbon accountant from what I’ve been reading is that a price of $30 a tonne will barely make a dent in our carbon emissions so the answer is approximately nothing.

Chris Smith: Mmm

Dr Evans: If we reduced.

Chris Smith: So why are we doing this? To look good morally around the world?

Dr Evans: That’s more a political sort of question than a scientific question. I mean I can speculate an answer if you like.

Chris Smith: We know what the political question is. Julia Gillard had to do this because this was her opportunity to stay in power. Bob Brown gave her the alliance she needed to stay in power. Bob Brown wanted that. That was part of the deal. She has to make that happen. So we know all the political reasons for this. What about the scientific reasons behind it. There’s none.

Dr Evans: No the...

Chris Smith: None.


Dr Evans: The carbon dioxide theory was formed in about 1981 was based on a guess as you said in the intro about the water vapour amplifying the CO2 effect. It triples the CO2 effect. Now we know that from high results by the mid 90’s we know that that actually doesn’t occur in reality. So the models are fundamentally flawed. So to bring that into political terms, Julia Gillard has staked her career on a theory by some scientists that we already know is false. It all seems ridiculous.

Chris Smith: So this is about looking good in front of the world doing it on the international stage, having a good green moral show for the rest of the world?

Dr Evans: I suppose so. But I don’t know if you noticed, but most of the rest of the world is going the other way.

Chris Smith: Well no, what we have is various trap and trade schemes that are only a small handful of small nations are going down the carbon dioxide route.

Dr Evans: Yeah, they’re nearly all in Europe now. I’m a carbon accountant. I don’t know if you know this technicality but, the European carbon dioxide emissions appear to be stable. Only because they now export all their carbon dioxide emissions.

Chris Smith: That’s right.

Dr Evans: They bring in products that are made in China, where the carbon dioxide is emitted, they import them, so China cops the rap for the CO2 emission, not Europe.

Chris Smith: Yeah. I’m interested to then talk to you about what is going on in terms of global temperatures at the moment. Now there’s seemingly a new approach where climate ... don’t want to debate aspects of the science, and I spoke of that a little while ago. But more than that they don’t want to start admitting anything that will go against their “oh we’ve got to act immediately or there’ll be nowhere to hide” kind of Mantra. Now, listen to this interaction. This is this week between Steve Price, Andrew Bolt, on MTR, and Will Stefan, the author of the report released yesterday, on average temperatures in the last 10 years.

[Replay]

Interviewer: Over the last decade there has been a flattening of these alleged rises.

Prof. Steffen: Oh no, I think, again I don’t look at data over one decade, I think that is meaningless. I think what you need to do is look at the past 30 years.

Interviewer: That’s right, but I’m just saying, you saying it’s meaningless, I just want to come back to.. I’m not going to shove away from that, I’m going to come back to the 30 years. I’m just going over the last decade, it’s been flat over the last decade. Since 2001.

Prof. Steffen: Look.

Interviewer: We know it’s meaningless, we agreed it’s meaningless, but since 2001, that’s a decade, it’s been flat.

Prof. Steffen: Let’s talk about something that’s meaningful.

Interviewer: But I don’t understand why you can’t agree to what’s plain, I mean I’m looking at the data, I’m showing it to Stephen here, you know, that’s plain. You say it’s meaningless, but can we agree insofar as its meaningless, over the last decade there has been no rise?

Prof. Steffen: And if you look over the past 3 years 2008, 9, 2010, there’s been an exceptionally strong rise.

Interviewer: Yeah, that’s a ....meno fact.


Prof. Steffen: That’s also meaningless. In fact the interesting thing is.

Interviewer: Professor, can I just, look, I hate to interrupt...

Prof. Steffen: Can you let me finish.

Interviewer: No but you’re not answering my question.

Prof. Steffen: Let me finish. Let me finish. 2010 actually contained a strong ... in the second half of the year. Normally that depresses temperatures. Yet 2010 was warmer than 2009 which was warmer than 2008...

Interviewer: ON one record.

Prof. Steffen: Now look I can play this game of picking apart this variability at the ...scale. The point I’m trying to make is you can play all those games and get any trend you want.

[End recording]

Chris Smith: You can play all those games and get any trend you want. He was prepared to play the one year game, he wasn’t prepared to.

Dr Evans: He pulled a classic climate trick on Andrew Bolt.

Chris Smith: Explain that.

Dr Evans: Well, all climate scientists know about the Pacific decayed oscillation and the Atlantic decay to oscillation now these ocean oscillation put about a 30 year oscillation on the temperatures. We have 30 years of warming, followed by 30 years of cooling. It goes back at least 1500 years as far as we can see the temperature record, right. So from 1975, but the theories aren’t always 30 years. Some are as small as 24 right, so between 24 and 30 years, as how Stefan in that interview began to talk about 30 years of data. Well that was the last warming period. The last warming period was about 1975 to about 2001. Now we’ve entered about 20 – 30 years of cooling period. It’ll be cooling chance - between now and 2030. Prior to 1975 there was 30 years of cooling. And guess what, the same crew of alarmists were calling for global cooling, and wasn’t it going to be a catastrophe, there was going to be ice ages everywhere. Well guess was 30 years before that there was 30 years of global warming. It all notes back and forth and that’s why Stefan is trying to get people to focus just on that 30 years of warming between 75 and 2001.

Chris Smith: Mmm, I don’t know, we are seen as extremists, if we start questioning the science, ah, well, I question the fact that the public hasn’t had a chance and will not have a chance to vote on a carbon dioxide tax, and I think that is undemocratic and extremely sly. Apart from all of that we will no doubt catch up with you again Dr Evans, thanks for talking to us today.

The Chris Smith Afternoon Show – interview with Professor Jacques le Chacheaux – 27 April 2011

Chris Smith: [...] has recently shelved plans for a carbon dioxide tax after disastrous polling by the Sarkozy government early last year. And following real concern from businesses, and in particular, unions, the tax became very unpopular and very quickly. And even the left socialist party here was against the tax saying it would place hardship on both poor and rich alike. You see this is what’s been missing in the debate in Australia for too long. Real voices from unions, and unionists representing their workers. We’ve heard very little of that. So when a constitutional committee found holes in the proposed legislation, which included the fact that only some were


being wacked with the impost of the tax and others weren’t, the government jumped and dumped the tax immediately. Now that committee upholds a very basic democratic principle. That is, all in society have equal rights. The problem is with this tax only some people would be getting compensation. And this set what many in France called a ‘bad precedent’. In other words, carbon tax would leave some people more equal than others. The Sarkozy government saw the tax as bad politics, bad economics, and a poor attempt at income distribution. So, I went looking for some answers on this. And part of that took me to people who have been pushing for a carbon tax. Unfortunately some of these key individuals speak very limited English. But their story is still interesting. The person I looked at initially is a woman by the name of Corrine Lepage. She’s a leading political figure in France, she’s a lawyer, specialising in environmental law, made a name for herself when she took on and won a case against oil giant AMACO over a spill. It took 15 years but she won. A former minister of the environment in the government here, and currently a member of the European parliament. She’s best described as a Right Winged environmentalist. Although Madame Lepage doesn’t see herself as politically right or left. She wants a carbon tax. She thinks we should try and save the warming world. She supported France’s carbon tax and she’s now pushing it through the European parliament. But she’s also made an interesting concession. She says she wants a carbon tax to drive the economy away from multi-nationals, and move it to small and medium enterprise. Her argument is that the world has become too reliant on Middle Eastern oil conglomerates for energy. And that’s bad for the French economy as money leaves the country to them. She wants to drive local solutions to the energy dilemma. Although many of her proposals are not clear as to how the slack will be picked up. But that aside, she now recognises that France was perhaps naive going it alone on a carbon tax. She argues the power of these multi-nationals is too great for a single economy to control. Her push is now through the European parliament where she’s trying to get a block agreement on a carbon dioxide tax. How here European countries implement a cap and trade together. The argument is that if a country’s implementing a tax together they will have the muscle to take on resistance from the big energy users. So they can make a difference in other words. And further have the clout to influence other countries to implement similar taxes around the world. So, I took this to one of France’s leading economists, Professor Jacques le Cacheaux. And he’s based at the University of PRES in Paris. Again, he likes the idea of a carbon tax, he thinks something drastic needs to be done about the planet. He says ‘without a tax, businesses become complacent about the carbon dioxide they emit. A tax implemented well can drive companies to be more efficient in their solution output.’ But he was highly critical of the French proposal saying, setting a uniform price of 17 Euros did not reflect the carbon market. His English is very difficult to understand, however we’ve taken some of what I discussed with him late yesterday, and we’ll put it on air now. This is the economist.

Prof. Chacheaux: There was a commission that had been installed by government to discuss the visibility of a carbon tax in France. And also set the price. And most experts were in favour of a higher, like 30 Euros per tonne. 17 Euros was the price of the carbon market at the time. So that’s why the government in the end decided to go for 17 Euro. That was really not very convincing argument because, I mean the price and the market varies so I mean if you set a tax you suppose that a tax will be around for a few years and there’s no reason why the price of carbon will be the same in 2 years on the market. Actually 2 years later it was much lower. It was 9 Euros per tonne.


Chris Smith: So, in other words, he says that if we are setting the tax at a rate which reflects the market, it in fact needs to be variable, and fall as the market falls. Otherwise, your risk of tax which is not truly reflective of the cost of the carbon. Now, le Cacheaux went on to tell me that the tax in France has effectively been shelved, and while Corinne La Page is trying to drive a tax at the European level, the reality is that this will be almost impossible to achieve. Countries including England are simply not interested in going down the road of a carbon dioxide tax. They’re not. And he says politically, to get a carbon tax through, there will be so many compromises, he questions whether the tax will achieve what it sets out to do. The aim of the tax he says is to make businesses more efficient. Now if a political compromise can’t achieve this end result then the tax is a complete waste of time. He says it will cost jobs.

Prof. Chacheaux: Some sectors will suffer because the big, the heavy emitters if you like, will suffer a loss of competitiveness and it might be that some sectors have to delocate [sic] production.

Chris Smith: Move offshore.

Prof. Chacheaux: Move offshore. Yes.

Chris Smith: As we’ve discussed, as Australian business has threatened to do. Move offshore. And more to the point while the theory is sound, all these schemes, including a carbon pricing permit system in the real world is shaky at best.

Prof. Chacheaux: The first three years it didn’t work. Because there was over allocation. I mean the number of permits on the market was just too large with regard to the neat place and so the price just collapsed and almost went to zero. Then, in the second period, they managed to put the right number of permits on the market. But then there was a recession in 2009 2010 and so the neat of industry reduced because there was less production so less emission. And the price collapsed again. So I think in principle it works but I think the price has been too volatile.

Chris Smith: So there you have it, he says we’ve got to be very wary. In short it may cost jobs, it may see industry move offshore. And it will. And the practicality of the system is volatile at best. And Australia needs to heed this kind of warning or we’re heading to economic oblivion.

Sydney Live Ben Fordham – interview with Kevin Rudd – 28 July 2011

Ben Fordham: Should the Labor party be refocussing its priorities away from the Green’s and back in the direction of mainstream Australia?

Kevin Rudd: What I said in interview yesterday was the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Labor Government, is a party of the centre. That is, trying to get the balance right between what I described as freedom, and a fair go for all. Freedom for businesses to get out there and do their thing, and a fair go for people who are battling hard. And that’s what we’ve been on about for 120 years of our history, that’s what we should be doing now as well. The second thing I said yesterday as well, I say it again today, is that the government was elected as a minority, and as a result the prime minister has had to deal with the political realities of the day. And that means that as a minority government you need the support of the independents to pass legislation through the house.

Ben Fordham: How do you feel watching on, and I have been thinking this a lot lately, what’s it like for you watching on as the prime minister cops a hammering I think it’s fair to say on the carbon tax. It can’t be easy for her.


Kevin Rudd: Well it’s a very difficult time. When you are dealing with something like putting a price on carbon, it’s controversial, it’s difficult, it’s hard work, and this has been done by many many governments around the world. These are controversial debates wherever you go. But when you’re doing it, obviously you are going to cop flack. The key thing is to make sure you get it done. And that’s why I think it’s been particularly hard going for the government in recent times.

Ben Fordham: And you know what that’s like too considering what happened with your emissions trading scheme, and the fact that there was opposition to that, you had to put it on the back burner. When you look at what Julia Gillard’s going through do you have some empathy for what she’s going through, what she’s facing at the moment?

Kevin Rudd: As I said doing these sorts of reforms is hard business. I know that full well. And the decision that I took prior to the last election was to defer about two years until Parliament changed and until we could have a better chance of a majority in the Senate. That of course has become the reality since the first of July when this has changed. But carbon pricing whether its back then through an emissions trading scheme, or through what’s currently on the table, it’s tough business, people respond to it, they get very worried about it, I understand that. But the key thing is looking to medium to long term, and what jobs are saved as a result of acting on climate change, and what new jobs are created through the whole renewable energy industry around the world, where, when I look at countries in Europe, there are new companies springing up all the time with jobs right across solar, across wind, across other forms of renewable energy, and also in energy efficient technologies to be put into new green buildings as well. So it’s not just a zero sum game here.

Ben Fordham: Sure, you’ve spoken in the past, it’s nothing new, you’ve spoken in the past about your regret about that decision to defer the ETS, but you didn’t have a hell of a lot of choice about that did you?

Kevin Rudd: Although there were political circumstances at the time, I made the call, and I said I think in an interview a couple of months ago, that I believe I made the wrong call, and the call that I made was to defer this thing for two years until the political composition, the Senate, changed. And because, back then you may recall we tried to get it through the Parliament twice, and the liberals rejected it twice, in fact the second time round they knocked off Malcolm Turnbull as their leader and put in Tony Abbott as a result..

Ben Fordham: And the Greens weren’t necessarily supportive either.

Kevin Rudd: No the Greens weren’t supportive on that occasion as well.

Ben Fordham: But also when you’ve got senior people in your government telling you to hold off, you’ve got to listen to them, don’t you?

Kevin Rudd: Well, as Prime Minister you’ve got to take responsibility for decisions of the Government, and all the good decisions in the past I accept responsibility for, and those which were not regarded as good decisions, I accept responsibility for as well. Whatever advice I received from whomever, at the end of the day, I’m the bloke who made the calls, and I accept the accolades if any for the good things we did in government, and I’ll accept the bad ones we did in government, that goes with the job.


Ben Fordham: Sure. I saw a report saying that some in the Government back then were suggesting you avoid a massive barney with Tony Abbott and the opposition on this, and go for a more bi-partisan kind of route. Could that have worked?

Kevin Rudd: Well what’s past is past, in terms of all those possible suggestions that were kicking around at the time.

Ben Fordham: Could it have worked?

Kevin Rudd: Well, what’s the core reality with Tony Abbott, Tony Abbott prior to the 2007 election had already said climate change is quote and I use his words, ‘crap’ unquote. It’s very difficult to form any bipartisan agreement with Tony Abbot if his starting point is that nothing is happening. In fact, he’s almost Robinson Crusoe right across the world, because every political leader I meet, in countries which are poor, and in countries which are rich, tell me their own local stories about how climate change is affecting their local community, through droughts being longer, more intense, or through floods which are more intense than any time experienced in the past. Or if you speak to the prime ministers who run small countries in the South Pacific, about the problem they now have with coastal inundation. So, as I said, ... deal therefore with Tony, it would be very difficult, because his starting premise is ‘it’s not real’ our starting premise and mine has been ‘it’s real’. And if you put ourselves in the position of looking back in 20 year’s time, and looking in our kids this question: where we right not to act? Or were we right to act? I think I’d rather be on the right side of history.

Ben Fordham: Sure many people have commented on Tony Abbott’s effectiveness as an opposition leader, and this is one he’s been incredibly effective on. On reflection, in considering how things have worked out, wouldn’t Labor have been better off collaborating with the Coalition a bit and adopting policy closer to their direct action plan?

Kevin Rudd: Look, the bottom line is, when Malcolm Turnbull was leader, we did. We had framed something which had the support of Malcolm Turnbull and the Coalition at that time. That’s when it turned around and rolled Malcolm Turnbull and replaced with Tony Abbott. So, we had a basis for going forward. We amended our original position in a number of key areas, to make it more amenable to what Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals wanted. We did that. Then when Tony Abbott came in, Tony Abbott’s view as I said, and it’s his words and not mine, is that climate change is absolute crap. That’s what he said. And that’s always been his underlying view. And therefore, for him, any action that we take, is therefore irrelevant because he doesn’t think that anything is happening. And that’s where he’s right out there. And when you said by the way that he’s been very effective on this, one of the things I’ve learned over the years is it’s very easy to be a bomb thrower. It’s very hard to deal with the practical challenges you’ve got day to day. And Tony Abbott is a first class bomb thrower, and I don’t know what it’d be like if he’d actually run a government.

Ben Fordham: Did you ever read this paper that was allegedly written by Julia Gillard, the by-partisan solution?

Kevin Rudd: As I’ve said before, there’s no point in raking over the past about internal government operations one way or the other.

[...]

Ben Fordham: As you would know there was a leak this week, front page of the Financial Review saying that Julia Gillard had suggested that she’d said well hang on a moment, we’re not going to beat Abbott on this, we could go a little bit further towards him and we should have more of a bi-


partisan solution closer to his plan. You’re not going to buy into that? Will you at least tell us if you’ve read it?

Kevin Rudd: I can count to several hundred of pieces of paper which would have come to me at that time about what could or could not have been done in relation to the emissions trading scheme on climate change and as I said I’m not buying into the Government’s deliberations at the time.

Ben Fordham: Okay. How are you getting on with her?

Kevin Rudd: It’s a very good working relationship. I talk to her regularly. I talked to her the other day from, I was at the East Asian summit of foreign ministers gathering as we look at the future of peace and conflict in the South China Sea, where 60% of Australia’s trade goes through in order to get to markets in north Asia. We speak to each other regularly on foreign policy challenges where obviously her responsibilities overlap with mine.

Ben Fordham: Have you been invited to the Lodge for a meal?

Kevin Rudd: I’ve had so many meals at the Lodge over the years...

Ben Fordham: But you had to cook! This is where Julia Gillard would cook and you can just relax.

Kevin Rudd: (Laughs) I’m sure I’ve been invited somewhere, but I probably would have been off around the world belting around doing other things. So it is no criticism about a lack of invitations. But if you look at my schedule, as Foreign Minister, my job is to deal with foreign governments and as I said the other day in an interview about why I travel so much, my conclusion has been that most foreigners live overseas and that’s why you’ve got to go there and talk to them. So I tend to be out of the country a lot.


2GB - ACMA Investigation Report 2639/media/Broadcasting Investi… · Web viewIn broad terms the...

Documents

Transcript of 2GB - ACMA Investigation Report 2639/media/Broadcasting Investi… · Web viewIn broad terms the...