Doorstop interview: Labor climate policy, Adani, ACF investigation

GED KEARNEY: It’s really great to be at Fairfield Park today with Mark Butler, the Shadow Minister for Climate Change, because I’m really proud of Labor’s climate policy. It’s ambitious, inclusive, it allows for a just transition for communities and workers that will be affected by the really important change to our renewable energy sector, and a sustainable economy by-and-large. It is terrific to have Mark Butler here to talk about our policy and support me.

MARK BUTLER: It’s great to be here, I’m so delighted that Ged has agreed to run for the Labor Party in this by-election. I’ve known Ged for many years and we’ve worked very closely together across a range of policy areas including health reform in the last government and also generational reform we were able to do in aged care, which was so important for older Australians.

Over the last several years we’ve also been able to work together on climate change policy. Ged has been a real leader for the nation, but also the union movement in this area. Ged played a very important role on the climate roundtable with the heads of the ACF, WWF, ACOSS, and a range of business groups, in trying to build a consensus in the national Parliament to get through the climate wars that have bedevilled this policy area for so many years.

Ged is also bringing her leadership from the union movement to ensure the transition to clean energy was not just something people talked about but was something that could be delivered in concrete policy terms, and in a way that was, to use the words of the Paris Agreement, a just transition. A just transition that was conscience of the needs of communities, like the La Trobe Valley, that will feel the impact of the transition. The prospect of having Ged as a close partner in the Labor caucus to deliver our strong, ambitious policies on climate change and energy is incredibly exciting and I’m really looking forward to it. It is a great privilege to be here and talk with you during the campaign.

JOURNALIST: Is Labor already looking into Adani’s existing approvals to see if there might be grounds to review them under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act?

BUTLER: Labor is in Opposition and the approvals have been given by the Liberal government for this project. It is a project that I’ve said for a long period of time I don’t think stacks up commercially. The business case presented for opening up the Galilee Basin, a brand new thermal coal basin in Queensland, almost a decade ago, has largely dissolved as the thermal coal market around the world has started to flatten and then turn downwards.

I’ve said for some time I don’t think this project stacks up commercially. I don’t think any project in the Galilee Basin will stack up commercially. The only way it would start, in my view, is if Malcolm Turnbull throws a very large sum of taxpayer dollars at the project to support it. We will oppose that strongly, we always have. Although the government appears to have given up on giving money from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility to Adani, they are still exploring the option of giving taxpayer dollars through the Export Finance Corporation to Adani and other companies working on this project. Labor will strongly oppose any public money going to prop up a project that commercially simply does not stack up.

JOURNALIST: But as Labor does want to be in government after the next federal election, are you guys looking into the existing approvals to see if there might be grounds to review them under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act when and if you are in government? Because you are so close to it, are you not doing that now?

BUTLER: We would take any decision in government based on obviously the law, and information that was available to us at the time which is in the national interest and a broader responsibility we have around avoiding sovereign risk. Those are the touchstones of any decision Labor would take once we come to government about this project or any other project for that matter.

JOURNALIST: So why is Labor trying to play both sides of the coin on this by saying it doesn’t think the mine stacks up but also Bill Shorten says he won’t tear up existing approvals. So why are you guys trying to play both sides of the coin on this?

BUTLER: That is simply not a proper interpretation of what has been happening. It is not just Labor that says this project doesn’t stack up. This company has been thoroughly incapable of getting finance backing for this project, most recently with the big Chinese banks walking away from the project; all of the Australian banks have walked away from the project. So the lack of commercial merit in this project, or in projects in the Galilee Basin generally I think is just a statement of fact. It is a statement of observation on the state of the thermal coal market. For example, the Indian government only reaffirmed last month that they intend to phase out thermal coal imports over the next several years. And thermal coal import numbers to India, which is supposed to be the destination for the Adani coal, have turned down very substantially, by more than 35 per cent just since 2013. 

JOURNALIST: That’s not answering my question, why is Labor trying to play both sides of the coin? Bill Shorten said he didn’t think it would stack up environmentally and economically but he also said he wouldn’t tear up existing approvals if he became PM. Why are you guys trying to play both sides of the coin here?

BUTLER: Again I just don’t accept your interpretation. We’ve reflected the view of almost all experts, certainly the finance industry about the commercial merits of this project, which is why Adani has not been able to get finance for the project and has consistently kicked deadline after deadline down the road. But also of course what we have said is that Labor in government would make any decision about a project of this type, including the Adani project, based on information we had available at the time. Based on the law, based on national interest, and based on our broader concerns to ensure we don’t run sovereign risk.

JOURNALIST: So if you don’t think it stacks up why wouldn’t you agree now to tear up existing contracts if you were in government?

BUTLER: I’ve just said any decision we would take in government would be taken in accordance with those touchstones, which we’ve always had as a responsible government. That is: what information is available to us at the time, whether that is in nine months or fifteen months for any project including this, what is the law, what is the national interest and what do we need to do to make sure we don’t run a broader risk of sovereign risk.

JOURNALIST: Just going to a slightly different issue, what do you think about a possible investigation by the charity regulator into Bill Shorten’s reef trip?

BUTLER: I think this is nonsense. To think this should be anywhere near the top of the list for our charity regulator says a lot about the Liberal government’s priorities around trying to attack the Leader of the Opposition personally and a range of charities doing good work rather than looking out for the interest of ordinary Australians. At the end of the day the charity regulator will do its work, I just think this is a nonsense story.

JOURNALIST: On a slightly different issue, should the states sign up to the NEG when it goes before them in April and do you think the modelling should be released before this?

BUTLER: We are obviously concerned and will do everything we can do to try and reach a bipartisan settlement around energy policy. The lack of national energy policy is a very big driver, according to all experts and the industry, in driving up power prices and driving down reliability of supply in the system. We need a bipartisan energy policy but this government has been completely incapable of delivering one. The Emissions Intensity Scheme almost got there but Tony Abbott vetoed that. Alan Finkel, the Chief Scientist’s Clean Energy Target recommendation almost got there but again Tony Abbott vetoed that.

We of course will look at any sensible policy that has the prospect of bringing through investment, particularly new clean energy over the course of the 2020s. The problem with the National Energy Guarantee is that it came up at the last minute, it was a six-page letter, not a fully worked up idea in the way Alan Finkel had worked up something over several months of deep engagement with the industry. We are very concerned that the modelling we have seen around the NEG, it seems clear that the government’s intention is to strangle renewable energy investment. On those models, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the NEG would see a cut in investment in large-scale renewable energy of 95 per cent off current levels through the 2020s. We are not going to participate in a process which props up old coal-fired power and strangles renewable energy investment.

JOURNALIST: So obviously you don’t think the states should sign up to the NEG when Frydenberg puts a proposal to them in April?

BUTLER: If that remains the purpose of the NEG, rather than sensible policies supported by state governments, supported by Federal Labor and the industry, if it is simply a device to strangle renewable energy investment we won’t support it. If it becomes a sensible proposition that people can maturely negotiate around then that is a different matter. Thanks very much.