KIERAN GILBERT: Joining us now is the Energy Minister, Angus Taylor. And a lot to talk about, Minister. First of all, the report by BAEconomics and Brian Fisher - it's looking at the cost of the two plans in terms of emission reduction, the Government's and Labor's. Let start with the Government's, because his report suggests that the Government's plan to reduce emissions by up to 28 per cent will cost 78,000 jobs. Is that right?

ANGUS TAYLOR: No. Look, we've laid out our plan. We've made it very clear what our plan is, and the cost, we're not claiming it's free. We put forward a $3.5 billion climate solutions fund a couple of weeks ago. It includes $2 billion for the emissions reduction programs that we've been pursuing for many years, a series of other initiatives, Snowy Hydro, obviously, $1.4 billion being invested by the Government. $67 million into energy efficiency initiatives. But, you know, the contrast Kieran, is the Labor policies, we don't know what they are yet. We don't know if they're going to use Kyoto carryover, but we do know from Fisher's modelling that he estimates the cost to be a $9,000 a year hit on wages, 336,000 jobs, and that's by the way, that's if they use the carryover...

KIERAN GILBERT: Yeah, but why is- just explain to me, why is he right with his right in his modelling when it comes to theirs but not yours?

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well we've laid out exactly what our plans are, Labor hasn't. This is the contrast.

KIERAN GILBERT: Yeah but he's right for Labor, not yours.

ANGUS TAYLOR: No, no. Well, Labor hasn't laid out their plans. And so, the question to ask Labor and the question that Labor needs to be asked is: what is your plan? Are you going to use Kyoto carryover? Are you going to use international credits? What is it you're going to do? Because the truth of the matter is, Kieran, is that their target is at a level that is completely unprecedented in this country. Put very simply, they've got to take half the emissions - just under half the emissions - out of the economy in ten years. Now, the idea that you can do that without wrecking the economy is extraordinary. And what Fisher's modelling shows us is that it is a wrecking ball in the economy; it will trash important sectors like transport, like mining, manufacturing, agriculture. And the simple reason is these sectors are the backbone of our economy and have been for a long, long time. We rely on the prosperity of these sectors to be able to buy cars, and iPhones all the things that are part of a life we all enjoy. If you trash them, you trash the economy, you raise costs of food, you raise costs of basic goods for building materials, and so on. Everyone has to pay for it.

LAURA JAYES: If I could just go back to Fisher's modelling though, you say he's got it wrong when it comes to your energy plan. Does that mean he's got it wrong for Labor and would you suspect that it would be worse or better than he's laid out in terms of Labor's plan?

ANGUS TAYLOR: Laura what I've said is that we've laid out our plans in detail. I mean, just over two weeks ago, the Prime Minister gave a speech in Melbourne where he laid down out to the last tonne how we were going to reach our targets. Now, we are going to use the Kyoto carry over credits, 367 million tonnes. We have laid out that we're going to get 200 million tonnes from the Emissions Reduction Fund and 67 million tonnes from energy efficiency and so on. So we've laid all that out, we've laid out the costs, fully budgeted, fully costed.

LAURA JAYES: What are you doing in the agricultural and transport sector then?

ANGUS TAYLOR: Labor hasn't done that. We're doing enough to reach the 26 per cent target. We're doing enough to reach that, and we can do that without trashing the economy. In agriculture for instance, there is enormous focus on land management through the Climate Solutions Fund and has been for some time. The contrast is you can't even get from Mark Butler and Bill Shorten whether or not they're going to use the Kyoto carry over credits, they won't even tell us. If they're not prepared to use them, the simple mathematics of this is, is they've got to shut down the economy over the next decade every fourth day, every fourth day, they're the numbers. Every fourth day they've got to stop flatulence from cows, they've got to take every car off the road, they've got to turn off every light switch so they're not explaining how'd they do [indistinct].

KIERAN GILBERT: But they might use international permits. Why wouldn't...

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well they might.

KIERAN GILBERT: Yeah but...

ANGUS TAYLOR: We don't know.

KIERAN GILBERT: But what's wrong with international permits? Why don't you use international permits? It might reduce the cost of the government's plan. Can you explain to our viewers why you won't use international permits, a lot of countries do?

ANGUS TAYLOR: We don't need to. So the point about 26 per cent - it's balanced, it's proportionate, it's achievable, we can do it with minimal cost. The contrast is they haven't even explained to you Kieran, you know, get Mark Butler on, ask him - are they going to use international credits? Are they going to use the Kyoto carry over?

LAURA JAYES: It's a good question.

ANGUS TAYLOR: What mechanisms are going to use? I mean they haven't explained any of these.

LAURA JAYES: It is a good question about the Kyoto credits but if you're warning about Labor clobbering the economy, you'd be encouraging Labor to use these rollover credits, wouldn't you?

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well, the point I am making is a very simple one.

LAURA JAYES: No. I understand the point you're making Minister. But with your argument, wouldn't it be better, there'd be a less clobbering of the economy, wouldn't you agree, if they were to use these carry over credits?

ANGUS TAYLOR: Of course we want less clobbering of the economy and that's why we have a 26 per cent target and we're going to use the carry over credits because Australia should get credit for the hard work it's done in the past. We've all had to bear that burden; farmers in particular understand that burden because they've avoided land clearing over a long period of time. There's been enormous investment in the electricity sector and we're working hard now to get those prices down because of some of those effects. So we've born that burden, we should take credit for it. Labor, on the other hand, can't even make its mind whether it's going to use the credits and what its target effectively is going to be and you know, they've got hard questions to answer here. We are a short period away from an election; the numbers here absolutely clobber the economy and Labor won't come clean on what they're going to do.

KIERAN GILBERT: Can I ask about the migration cap now to 160,000? Explain to our viewers why that's necessary. Why do you think a cap of that level is appropriate?

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well, I'm not announcing policy here today Kieran. I'll leave that- it's not my portfolio and I'll leave that to the relevant Minister, but there is a sensible debate to be had about two things. One is the level of immigration - what's a sensible level of immigration in order to be able to balance the congestion we've seen particularly in the outer suburbs and other suburbs in our cities...

KIERAN GILBERT: Can you do that regional settlement policy though? Is that possible? How do you do that?

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well and secondly, getting the balance right in where immigrants go. And of course, you know, I...

KIERAN GILBERT: How can you ensure that someone who arrives under a visa can...

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well, I'm not going to announce the policy here and now Kieran. What that- I'm saying that there is a sensible debate to be had about both the level of immigration and where that immigration is focused. You know, I grew up in one of the great immigrant towns of Australia - Cooma, where Cooma managed to attract enormous numbers of immigrants through the 50s and 60s because of the Snowy scheme - very successful regional immigration program - phenomenally successful. So we know how to do it, we've done it before - I'm not going to announce the policy here and now, but it is a sensible debate to be had and we've got to be balanced. And this is where, again, policy debates have continually got to find that area of balance whether it's in energy or in immigration.

LAURA JAYES: On the shooting - the guns issue, this is really relevant in the context of the New South Wales elections now. Can you give us a sense on what your electorate - your electorate is one of those electorates that sits on the edge of Sydney, but also has a big regional component there in Goulburn. Is there a sense that people do want to see gun laws relaxed as the Shooters and Fishers Party has advocated for in New South Wales? Or is it one of those issues that divides? And what are you advocating for?

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well I was the Minister for Law Enforcement, I had - firearms was part of my responsibility before my current role. So I think we've got the balance right in this country and I think we'll see New Zealand move towards, they should move towards, I believe, a system closer to ours. And they've indicated that they will so you know, it's a matter of getting the balance right here. Again, like all other areas of policy, we've done pretty well in this country - John Howard implemented very, very important reforms and very successful reforms in this country.

KIERAN GILBERT: Finally, Michael Daley's comments in relation to Asian migrants taking the places of young Australians in Sydney. Is that- what is your reaction to that comment this morning?

ANGUS TAYLOR: I'll leave it to Michael Daley to explain those comments, Kieran.

KIERAN GILBERT: Okay. Obviously, not something that he would have liked in the lead up to the election though, you would've thought.

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well, that's something for him to explain to the voters of New South Wales.

KIERAN GILBERT: Alright. Angus Taylor thank you. We'll take a quick break, back in just a moment. Stay with us.