Interview with Tom Connell on Sky News

‍Subjects: Climate policy

E&OE………

Tom Connell

Joining me now the Shadow Housing and Shadow Productivity Minister, Andrew Bragg. Thank you for your time today. You have been a supporter of net zero. It is gone as a policy. Are you disappointed?

Senator Bragg

I said earlier this week that I thought it was important that we maintained the Paris Agreement and had something on net zero. That's where we've ended up. So it is what it is.

Tom Connell

When you say something on net zero, essentially, it is if you get there, great, but there'll be no commitment to getting there. Is that really what you were after?

Senator Bragg

Well, I guess the mandate and the bureaucracy of Labor's approach is clunky and not getting us there anyway. So, the idea is, as you know, through the Paris Agreement, to set your nationally-determined contributions, that you're shooting for that net zero objective - as Sussan said, that would be welcome. So, that's the policy we have. And we look forward to taking the fight to the government, which has spent a lot of money and hasn't got much to show for it so far.

Tom Connell

You also said it is what it is. It doesn't sound like you're thrilled with the outcome?

Senator Bragg

Well, the policy is what it is. As I said to you before, I thought it was important that we were in the Paris Agreement. I thought it was important we had something on net zero. But the main point about the policy is to get prices down because we want to see more affordable energy. And we're worried that the government have been too ideological in their approach. So, we would expect, under our policy, that you'll see more of all energy sources to drive our economy, because unless you have cheap energy, it's very hard to have a strong economy.

Tom Connell

You mentioned as well, and I know you're detail-oriented, and you know a bit about this stuff, that staying in Paris was important. We have Paris commitments, specific commitments on reducing emissions. But Sussan Ley says you will scrap those commitments. How will you stay in Paris whilst also scrapping the Paris targets the Australian Government is committed to?

Senator Bragg

It's a complete rewrite of Australia's approach because we wouldn't have Labor's workings. We would have our own in government, and we'd have to set our own nationally-determined contributions. As you know, the Paris Agreement doesn't allow for backsliding. That would ensure that we are able to make serious headway on emissions reduction. And emissions reduction is important to us, as is getting lower prices and more abundant energy. I guess we're trying to achieve those things simultaneously rather than just choose one narrow objective which the government have pursued.

Tom Connell

But there are multiple objectives, and two of those, the 2030 and 2035 targets. You just said no backsliding, but Sussan Ley is scrapping that target. How do those two things work in conjunction?

Senator Bragg

As I said, we wouldn't be setting targets from Opposition. But in government, you have to send your NDCs in accordance with the Paris Agreement. That doesn't allow backsliding. So you have to do better. And I imagine that's what we would do once we're able to see exactly what we inherit. And so far, Labor's record hasn't been so good.

Tom Connell

So what Sussan Ley would do then, you're saying, is get into government, adhere to no backsliding, and therefore have a target at least as ambitious as Labor has now?

Senator Bragg

We bounce against the other objectives, of course. And the point of the policy is; get prices down, to have more energy. I mean, we need more energy to underwrite artificial intelligence, the data needs of our age and also a heavy industry. So, we want to have more energy. We want to have that to be more available, more cheaply. But we also want to get emissions down. I mean, all those things are important objectives.

Tom Connell

But when she says she's scrapping those targets, she'll then re-adopt them if you win government. Am I understanding that correctly?

Senator Bragg

As I said to you before, we wouldn't have any of Labor's bureaucracy or any of its climate infrastructure. We would do our own. And as you know, the treaty requires your NDCs to be ambitious, because that's how the treaty works. So, we're in the Paris Agreement, setting NDCs from government only. And that's our approach, as I've outlined to you.

Tom Connell

So, get rid of the bureaucracy and the way Labor does it, but actually end up with targets that are at least the same ambition to stay in Paris.

Senator Bragg

I don't know exactly what the targets would be right now, which is why we've made it clear that we would set those targets in government alongside targets to get prices down, targets on a liability. I mean, these are the things that we think go hand in hand. It's not just showing one objective, which is, I guess that's the main critique of Labor's policy. They're pursuing one objective, whereas we think that it's also important to have cheaper energy and to have that made available and made reliable.

Tom Connell

Sussan Ley spoke about getting there with choice and voluntary markets. What's a voluntary market and how would that work?

Senator Bragg

Markets. I mean, we believe in markets in the Liberal Party, when we don't think that...

Tom Connell

But a voluntary market.

Senator Bragg

Govenment markets and mandates necessarily, is the way to go. So, for example, we have a fake market, if you like, at the moment, where Australia is allowed to export a lot of uranium, but not have any nuclear power in Australia for historical reasons.

Tom Connell

Okay, but a voluntary market, is that to do with reducing carbon, a voluntary market on that? Is that what you're saying?

Senator Bragg

Well, markets are always going to be the most efficient way to do things. And at the moment, it's very hard to get gas into the system because of regulation. You're not allowed to have nuclear energy. For other reasons, the coal was chased out of the system too quickly. Frankly, some of the renewable projects have been held up through regulation as well. So, it's a market-based approach. It's whatever works.

Tom Connell

Right now, there's not a set energy policy. That's to come, is it? That's going to come over the next year or two. Now, this part is decided. Is that the order of things?

Senator Bragg

Dan will do more work on it. And my focus will be to do more work on housing and red tape reduction. I mean, we think that the economy should be the focus of the next election. We think that having cheap energy will be a big part of that. But we need to do more work on the tax front, the regulation front, the housing front. We have a lot of work to do in Opposition.

Tom Connell

When you're at the meetings this week, did you look around with a sense that perhaps the Party feels to you, imbalanced, all those urban seats lost at the past couple of elections. Does it feel like balance has been lost in the Party?

Senator Bragg

I think these things have been reported on widely, that there are a mix of different views, and those views were canvassed widely and diversely. And I think people were able to hear a pretty good exchange of different perspectives.

Tom Connell

Are they represented, though, that will give you a chance at winning an election when so many urban seats are gone?

Senator Bragg

I think that if we are to return a government, it will be on economic grounds. And I believe we have a better tax policy, if we have a better small business policy, if we have a more credible budget. I mean, these are some of the prerequisites for government.

Tom Connell

So, if climate's a big talking point at that election, that would not be a good sign for the Coalition?

Senator Bragg

Well, I'm not sure how many elections based on the data you analyse on election night. We've won on climate issues in the past. I think that they are important issues, they're not the only issue. But the driver, I would have thought of a return to government would be on the economic front. Now, the climate, of course, is part of that, and energy policy, because as I say, if you have cheap and abundant energy, you're going to have a better economy overall. But right now, in Australia, we have a very sick economy, very highly taxed, very highly regulated. Jim Chalmers declares his so-called 'finished tax reform,' but that's a sick joke to all the people who work in this economy under duress from the tax man.

Tom Connell

Let me ask you, finally, I understand it was a late push to remove even the relatively small reference, to net zero from party policy. If that were scrapped, would you have considered leaving the Party?

Senator Bragg

I haven't thought about that, but as I said to you, I thought it was important that we had a commitment to the Paris Agreement, which we have. And we have a policy which I think will have a credible approach on emissions reduction because of the NDCs, which we've canvassed extensively this afternoon.

Tom Connell

Andrew Bragg. I appreciate your time. A difficult week. I know you're a regular, and I appreciate you fronting up on this Friday.

Senator Bragg

Thanks, Tom.

[Ends]