| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
  Interview: Bob Brown June 29, 2008  Watch our reportThis week, Ellen Fanning talks to Senator Bob Brown of the Greens about the new role of the Greens in the Senate and the impact of climate change. EF: For the last few years of his government, John Howard had the unexpected advantage of a majority in the Senate, allowing him to pass any legislation he liked without amendment. Kevin Rudd enjoys no such luxury. In the new Senate, five Greens will hold the balance of power, along with Family First's Steve Fielding and South Australian Independent Nick Xenophon. Joining us from Hobart, Greens leader Senator Bob Brown. Good morning to you, Bob. How are you? BB: Good morning, Ellen. I'm well, thanks. EF: You will have just seen our cover story. Do you have any concerns about some of the zealotry attached to the climate change campaign is preventing genuine scientific inquiry? BB: Well, some of the zealotry of the sceptics, for example, on there it was talking about the winter in summer of 1816 and we didn't know the cause of that. We do - it was the biggest volcanic explosion in 1600 years which took place in Indonesia and it sent ash into the atmosphere and produced extraordinary weather. There is good scientific basis for much of the weather phenomenon of the last couple of centuries and there is huge consensus that we're warming rapidly, and that's the feeling of the populous. People know that things have changed. The droughts, the loss of snow, the melting glaciers, and the rise in sea levels of 20cm over the last century. That's all tied in to the predictable outcome of more greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere. EF: Alright. Let's turn to the balance of power in the Senate and allow me a cheeky first question, if you will. Given what happened with Cheryl Kernot, is there anyone in the Labor Government who turns your head? BB: Ha, ha, well, I think it's good that we've got a Labor government in. I think - just look at climate change. The 10 - 12 years of the Howard Government set this country right back, but they absolutely need an innovative party like the Greens. We will be in the Senate chairing the balance of power when they go back in late August and we will use that responsibly. We are very keen to see this country go to the forefront in innovation and technological innovation and we saw the report from the CSIRO and the Australian Conservation Foundation during the week showing that we will be seeing 3 million green-collar workers, people specifically working on environmentally enhancing - in environmentally enhancing jobs, including in heavy industry by 2025. It is an exciting period. As Sir Nicholas Stern said, those countries which take the lead in environmental technology will have the best economies, and we want to see Australia go in that direction. EF: Alright. I'm interested in how you will use that power you have in the Senate. Natasha Stott Despoja said on her way out, "Welcome to a very unstable place." And Kevin Rudd praised the Democrats as being willing to compromise in achieving goals and not simply being a party of obstruction. How will your style compare to the Democrats? BB: Well, the Democrats have been a great force for good in politics over the last 30 years, and we Greens are well-practised in use of the balance of power. I have that here in Tasmania in the Green Labor Accord years and they were very productive. Christine Milne was in the balance of power with the Liberals. We will be sharing the balance of power, as we know. We will be producing legislation which we want to see up on the legislature in the Senate, but we will look at Government legislation has it comes through to get better outcomes for the Australian people. That will require negotiating with all parties and I will be talking with ... EF: OK. So you will negotiate it. That's part of it because Meg Lees' approach on the GST, which many people believe was the downfall of the Democrats was of the view that if the Government has a mandate for something, then you really have an obligation to negotiate. Do you have the same principle to be true? BB: Well, the problem there is if you take that simple point of view, you will get into trouble, because first of all the Government didn't have a mandate on the GST. The second thing is that the Greens got more than a million votes from Australians in the last Senate election. Our vote is growing and we have something of a mandate as well. So you do have to negotiate and you have to keep an eye on what is going to be a good outcome for Australians as a whole. We recognise we're not the Government, but, for example, when it comes to WorkChoices legislation, we will be keen there to see that workers do get better protection in the workplace. When it comes to the intervention for Indigenous people in Australia, we're keen to see that the racial discrimination Act is put back in place. Now, Labor voted for that when that legislation went through the Senate last year, when they were in Opposition. We think they will back Senator Siewert when she moves to restore the power of the racial discrimination Act, and I will be introducing legislation to restore the power of the Territories, the ACT and Northern Territory to legislate in the matter of dying with dignity. And I might add there, one of the things we have been campaigning for and I think we will get a result from, this Government, is an increase in pensions by the next Budget, and I would hope an increase in pensions for single pensioners of $30 a week or so before then, because they so desperately need it. EF: OK. Is it workable, though, I wonder, on really contentious legislation? If the Coalition won't back Labor and it comes down to the Greens and the two Independents, I can't see how it's possible for the Government to come up with a proposal that would satisfy both Steve Fielding of Family First, who after all, wants a 10 cent cut in the petrol excise, and satisfy the Greens. Is just doesn't seem to be workable? BB: Well, that's the beauty of the Senate, and that's why people have voted balance of power back to the Senate because it is a house of review and it is a backstop for the people, and remember, Steve Fielding is there because Labor put him there. They gave preferences to him instead of a Green. Had they given David Ristrom the Green in Victoria, they would now not be dealing with him. They would be dealing with the Greens and Senator Xenophon. And instead of that they’ve got Steve Fielding as well. EF: Sure. But if you don't play ball, I wonder whether or not if it becomes unworkable, you will end up with a double dissolution election before too long and you will lose that powerful position that you have? BB: Not if I have anything to do with it, because we recognise we've got to act responsibly, but if Steve Fielding wants to create that instability, then that's something that the Government will have to negotiate with him about, Ellen. We will negotiate with the Independents and the Opposition and the Government on our legislation. It's the Rudd Government's responsibility to negotiate with all parties on their legislation. The Greens are not a faction of the Labor Party or the Coalition. We're an innovative alternative party. In fact, the differences between us and the two big parties are less than the - are more than the differences between them. They become more and more alike as the years go down the line. So we're going to be innovative, but we will have to temper that with responsibility in negotiating with the other parties, including the Opposition, because most legislation goes through the Senate. We won't be - we will be assuring budgets and we will be in the business of trying to see that how the Government's legislation can get through the Senate and most of it will. EF: OK. BB; Inevitably, and usually you don't see it coming, there will be some tough bits and some difficult negotiations. EF: Let's turn to the emissions trading scheme, speaking of difficult negotiations - the prospect of a bipartisan approach on this between Labor and the Coalition seems to be disappearing fast, so Green votes could make the difference. Is it fair to say that after years and years for calling for such a scheme, you will support it even if Kevin Rudd waters it down substantially? BB: We want to see an emissions trading scheme that is comprehensive right across the board. So does business in Australia in the main, and so we want to see it cover, for example, petrol and agriculture and forests, but where the caps have set is the all-important thing. They have to be - the caps have to be meaningful, and it will lead to the Government having a big income from that, and we want to see that help offset people - poorer people who may be affected by increased costs. But also be innovative and put that money into putting Australia back at the forefront of research and development and manufacture of renewable energy and energy efficiency process. EF: I’m interested in just trying to work out though, is this your best hope for an emissions trading scheme and even if petrol is not in, even if agriculture is not in, isn't it fair to say that in the end the Greens will have to say yes if it comes to that, because this is the best chance you have? BB: Well, yes, but you tell me - show me first your penny, Ellen. Show me what the trading scheme is, and of course we have to wait and see that. Let me say this: I have been impressed by some of the statements that Penny Wong, the minister, has been making. I know she is under huge pressure from the coal industry, for example, to allow them an easy time out of this, but we are in a world facing dangerous climate change and as she pointed out, just 700,000 coastal properties threaten perhaps this century with a $60 billion cost coming down the line. Now, we want to be able to move early to save massive costs for our children and our grandchildren. This is a responsible and a big call on the Australian governments and governments around the world, and we will be working as cooperatively with the Government as we can to get the emissions trading scheme in, make it comprehensive, make it tight, but make it the best that we possibly can to offset dangerous climate change, while ensuring that our economy goes well and that employment goes well, and we can get those things right. We can't - I notice the comments from Wayne Swan. We can't take too long about it, but the Greens know where we're going on that, and we will be - we will help the Government come to the best outcome for Australia that's possible. EF: Alright. Senator, thank you so much for your time. I do appreciate it. BB: Thanks, Ellen. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
