Transcript - Sky News with Tom Connell - Thursday, 24 June 2021

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
SKY NEWS NEWSDAY WITH TOM CONNELL
THURSDAY, 26 JUNE 2021

SUBJECTS: Net zero by 2050, nuclear power, NSW outbreak, vaccine rollout

TOM CONNELL, HOST: Trudy, thank you. My next guests, ready to begin thrashing this out, Jason Falinski, Pat Gorman, I'm not sure if the mic caught it, there was almost a guffaw from you when I read about Matt comments, Matt comments? Matt Canavan's comments on regional communities being destroyed. Is he out there spreading misinformation and fear?

JASON FALINKSKI, LIBERAL MP: Mate, look, the fact of the matter, as I say to Matt, you're a smart guy, there is a way to do this that benefits rural and regional communities. And we need you on board to come up with those solutions. Now, the NFF believes that, farmers believe that, the science says that. Stop the arguments about whether we're getting to net zero by 2050 or not and let's talk about doing it in manner and form that helps working Australians.

CONNELL: So what are his motives then?

FALINKSI: I think, look, I think Matt has genuine concerns about this. And he's right to ask questions, well how are we going to do it? To that I say, well, Matt, come and join us and let's work out those solutions, because we can do this in a way that actually benefits Australia, Australians and in particular, working Australians.

CONNELL: Your view on what Labor's going to do, because 2050 is fine, you can make the pledge, can't really be held responsible for it. I don't think you'll still be in Parliament then, I'm going to make that bold prediction.

PATRICK GORMAN, SHADOW ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA: I think you are right on that, Tom.

CONNELL: So, 2035,

FALINKSI: I think you'll still be here in 2050.

GORMAN: I think that Jason has more chance than me.

CONNELL: You might be father of the House by then, but 2035,

FALINKSI: Grandfather the house.

CONNELL: Where the rubber hits the road, what, is Labor going to be scared off again by, you know, this is going to cost Australia. Are you willing to set a bold target and outbid the coalition, how do you see the politics in this?

GORMAN: I think firstly, if you look at how Labor is approached every election over the last decade, we have,

CONNELL: And we have a Division.

GORMAN: We've taken strong action on climate change.

FALINKSI: We will do anything.

CONNELL: And you can keep talking, you've got your microphones on, you better go. Maybe you should keep them on in Division, the way this panel goes up. There they go, in front of the camera. Oh, well, there we go. OK, we might be back with Jason and Patrick, we’ll see.

***

CONNELL: All right, well, we've had some divisions, some changes in schedules of guests, so we've just got them all in here because,

FALINKSI: It's a moshpit!

CONNELL: We like chaos, you heard there, Liberal MP Jason Falinski is going to behave today, Patrick Gorman from the Labor Party and Adam Bandt, leader of the Greens.

FALINKSI: Bringing some dignity to the table, at last.

GORMAN: Welcome to the dream team.

CONNELL: I hope he's watched before and he knows the sort of tone that we usually hit on this, which is chaos anyway. Look, you two both had a brief hit on net zero. I'm interested in your views on this, in particular,

FALINKSI: And I promise to interrupt only three times, so you should be fine.

CONNELL: I'm interested in your view on this, though, and how much we're not talking about China, and it's still classified as a developing nation and, you know, the emissions and how much they dwarf our own. Do we need to focus more on that at these meetings?

ADAM BANDT, LEADER OF THE GREENS: We need to focus more on 2030, that's what we're not talking about. And that's what the G7 tried to put on the agenda. And yes, of course, we need to talk about China and we need cooperation between China, the United States and all the world's developed economies and developing economies, in order to have any chance of tackling global warming. But the real issue is, what are we going to do by 2030? And the reason,

CONNELL: 2035 is the next sort of agreement, because Australia won't change on 2030.

BANDT: Well, no, what we do, well, then that's the problem. And that's where Australia is being left behind, by the G7 nations who said that we need to more than double our cuts on 2005 levels, by 2030. If we don't, we're giving up on the fight against climate change. Now, that was the purpose of climate meeting hosted by Biden, purpose of the G7, it is what is going to come up at the end of this year. There's a reason that the nets might sign up to zero by 2050. It's too late by then and it means you don't have to take action in the next 10 years.

CONNELL: Is 2050 a bit of a furphy, if you like? 2035, the next commitment’s going to mean a lot more.

FALINKSI: Look, I think the transition to 2050 is clear. I disagree with Adam. I think, I mean, in some senses he's right, which is, the decisions we make today can't be baking in problems for the future. So you have to be able to say, for example, if you're going to put a guest peaker in, is it gas and diesel or is it gas and hydrogen? Because if it's gas and hydrogen, then you can, in 2030 or 2035 when hydrogen becomes commercially available, then you can switch to hydrogen, which becomes a clean fuel.

CONNELL: And yet the Nats are talking about maybe getting more coal.

FALINKSI: Yeah, well, it's not going to happen. And the reason that's not going to happen is ESG investment in Australia and globally is basically saying we are not going to invest in coal fired power stations.

CONNELL: And government money, for that would be a red line for you.

FALINKSI: It's a red line. Yeah, absolutely.

CONNELL: Where does Labor sit on 2035, which you started your response?

GORMAN: I started by saying every election over the last decade, Labor has taken a proactive approach to climate change to each election. And we haven't done that with fights where we've got to, Jason relies on being in government, on the National Party, and that's why they're hanging it over them at the moment.

FALINKSI: And you rely on government, but with Joel Fitzgibbon.

GORMAN: You, you are the ying to Barnaby Joyce's yang. What we have that's very sort of is two extreme ends, I mean, like, Jason,

FALINKSI: How dare you call me an extremist.

GORMAN: Like, let's be honest, Jason is more in line with Adam's position.

FALINKSI: What are you trying to do to me?

GORMAN: Than he is with people in his Coalition party room, in the National Party,

CONNELL: Likely, I think what you need for the Senate, interestingly enough, would be help with the Greens if you get into power. So is this a time to figure out what the Greens might tolerate for 2035, how ambitious you might need to be?

GORMAN: Well, I think what you're going to see between now and the election is obviously the Greens, no matter what Labor says, the Greens will say it's not good enough. Because they have an interest, and if you look at the seats where,

BANDT: Well, okay, here. Does Labor agree with the G7?

GORMAN: The G7 Agreement that was put out last week was to say, limit global temperature rise to one point five degrees,

BANDT: By more than doubling emissions cuts by 2030.

GORMAN: And, to agree to get every country to sign up to net zero by 2050. That's the principle piece.

BANDT: And they said 2030. You're missing the big paragraph in there, and this is Jason's point as well. If you have 2050 targets, if you stick with the terrible 2030 targets you guys have got at the moment, then you're making people in the 2030s and 2040s do three times as much as the people in this decade now. So you're pushing the burden onto our kids.

FALINKSI: No, no.

BANDT: And you're ignoring it completely. It's not about saying we've got to, you say it's extreme, what you've got the Greens siding with Boris Johnson and Joe Biden and you guys are off somewhere else.

FALINKSI: And how did Boris Johnson get there? By replacing coal with gas and by building nuclear power plants.

BANDT: 68 per cent cuts by 2030. Would you agree with these targets?

FALINKSI: With gas, and with nuclear power plants.

CONNELL: Do you think nuclear would make it easier?

BANDT: We've got we've got advantages that the UK doesn't have. Last time, I looked at the UK, it was pretty that was pretty small, pretty cloudy and pretty rainy. Australia is blessed with the world's best sun.

FALINKSI: Sure! And that is why we have double the investment in renewables of any other nation per capita by a factor of two. So I go back to my question, the IEA,

BANDT: So let’s turn up the dial.

FALINKSI: The only way you can get to net zero is with nuclear power. Will the Greens come with that?

BANDT: We don't need it in Australia!

FALINKSI: The IAEA, the IAEA report that everyone on the left loves talking about it, and says you can't have more, you can't have more gas. Well, that's a global report. And by the way, Bill Gates says that too, and by the way, Joe Biden says that too. You're running out of people who don't say that, Tom.

CONNELL: But that includes every country in the world

FALINKSI: It's you and Adam, at the moment.

CONNELL: Okay, everyone's trying to colour me here, I'm just the journalist.

FALINKSI: You wore the tie, not me, I didn't ask you to.

CONNELL: That's true. But it doesn't specifically say Australia has to have nuclear to get to …

FALINKSI: No, but it doesn't also specifically say Australia doesn't have to have it.

CONNELL: So are you saying that's something?

FALINKSI: Well, I'm asking, would the Greens vote to allow at least exploring that?

CONNELL: What are you doing about it?

FALINKSI: Well, that's true. That's true.

CONNELL: What are the Greens meant to be voting on? Nothing is being put up.

FALINKSI: Well, OK. If I put something up, will Adam vote for it?

BANDT: We don't need it. We've got sun.

FALINKSI: The answer's no.

BANDT: We've got wind.

FALINKSI: Can I just be clear, no?

BANDT: You talk about the IAEA report, they also say no new investment in coal, oil and gas. We've run out of time for new investments. And yet both of you, Labor and Liberal,

FALINKSI: Sure, sure.

CONNELL: They also talk about carbon capture and storage being vital to getting there and Labor's just voted against these Arena changes.

GORMAN: Well, Arena is there for a specific purpose. There's a range of ways if you need carbon capture and storage, the most obvious is actually to get those companies that need that, to meet their emissions targets, to have it within their own projects. And I know that's been talked about some of the major gas exploration projects in Western Australia.

CONNELL: So it's not that, but, so it's one of those things that's struggling to come forward, so doesn't it need some government help?

GORMAN: I think it's the same point that Jason makes, is that if these things are viable,

FALINKSI: What are you trying to do to me today?

GORMAN: I'm trying, I'm trying to highlight what every one of your colleagues knows, which is you are a sensible, rational person.

FALINKSI: Somehow I feel like,

GORMAN: If you look at what they say about coal fired power stations, you do not need huge amounts of government money …

CONNELL: All right,

GORMAN: To build coal fired power stations.

CONNELL: I'm just conscious of the time.

GORMAN: You do not need …

CONNELL: I want to get on

GORMAN: Huge amounts government money to invest in these technologies if they work.

CONNELL: I want to just get into New South Wales, you know, your favourite premier, Gladys Berejiklian.

FALINKSI: She is.

CONNELL: Is the rubber hitting the road here?

FALINKSI: Absolutely.

CONNELL: I mean, if something like this containment doesn't work,

FALINKSI: Yep.

CONNELL: Do you treat Delta differently? And how do you do that?

FALINKSI: Oh, well, yeah, maybe. Yeah, maybe. But that's the thing, we've got, they have, not we, they have the systems in place, Track and Trace this, work out what's happening, genomic testing, all the sorts of measures you need to make those adjustments.

CONNELL: What do we look at? Either you go, well, gee, we need to clamp down even quicker or you go, we can't do eradication. What would you think?

FALINKSI: We've all, we've known we can't do eradication from the beginning.

CONNELL: Basically happening anyway, though.

FALINKSI: Where, in Western Australia?

CONNELL: In most states.

FALINSKI: Yeah, but we know, yeah, and it still keeps popping up.

CONNELL: What's your view on this?

BANDT: Because of quarantine failures and an unvaccinated population.

FALINKSI: Oh my God. We've had, I mean how many people have we had come back to Australia , half a million people. Twenty eight! Twenty eight, that's a success rate better than Pat Gorman.

BANDT: New South Wales is about to enter its own Morrison lockdown. I hope it doesn't. I really hope that containment works. Having lived through it in Victoria and in Melbourne, I really hope that they get on top of it.

CONNELL: But if they do, if they do, does it show Victoria's being too conservative?

BANDT: No, it shows that we need to speed up the vaccine rollout.

CONNELL: I understand that. And vaccinate has an impact. But also, leaders can still make decisions on health advice, based on how conservative they are. That's part of,

FALINKSI: Well Tom, that may not actually be true. Because, look at the vaccine rollout in the UK and they're at 7000 cases a day.

CONNELL: We've still got some vulnerable Australians not even vaccinated.

FALINKSI: Yeah, I agree with that.

CONNELL: Right now. So if that were the case, then, but what's your view on that? I mean, surely there is something to do with the state premiers and decisions they need to be held accountable and that you can be too conservative with this.

BANDT: The Prime Minister said he was putting the National Cabinet on war footing to deal with the vaccine rollout and to deal with quarantine. Now, they're both federal responsibilities, right? And on both of those, that is part of the reason that we're finding ourselves in this situation in Victoria that we found ourselves in. And any New South Wales.

CONNELL: We're nearly out of time, Pat, should everyone follow the emperor's, the WA emperor's approach and just shut the rest of the country out?

GORMAN: Well, I think, first principles we should respect the state premiers and their rights to make decisions about their states. So obviously, I don't want NSW to go into a lockdown because that means that the virus is spreading further than we would like it to. If that happens, it obviously is one very effective mechanism to prevent the spread. But the simple thing is that each of these problems is driven, will continue to happen, we'll see this time and time again that we break out after breakout and there is no vaccination schedule that is going to stop this any time in the next six months and that for me,

CONNELL: Any time in the next six months? Well basically everyone will be offered one by then. Won' they?

GORMAN: Well, I've heard these promises before, and I am very sceptical about whether the promises today will actually be delivered tomorrow and the six months following.

CONNELL: We'll have to end it there, I'm getting told to wrap and I don't want to get in trouble. But you wouldn't defend that anyway, I'm sure.

FALINKSI: No, I would. I mean, you can't have it both ways anyway.

CONNELL: Jason, Adam and Patrick, it's been different.

GORMAN: It sure has!

BANDT: I'm not sure we've solved anything today but it,

GORMAN: One time only!

CONNELL: All right. Let you get back to the parliament. Thank you.

ENDS