GARETH PARKER: Now, climate change policy has bedevilled the country for probably a decade. It's cost prime ministers their jobs. It's wildly contentious. There's two sort of camps that are very committed in their views and then there's a whole bunch of people in the middle who I think are confused by it at best. We saw in this state last week the Environmental Protection Authority call out a national failure of policy, impose its own rules on big projects, and then were forced to back down and Dr Tom Hatton told us about the reasons for that. Certainly, the Premier wasn't keen on it. The oil and gas industry wasn't too keen on it. As we go towards a federal election, there's two competing policies from the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. It's all about targets, reducing emissions over what timeframe, and then there's the bigger question that people often ask: when we talk about these issues, what difference does it make anyway? In a global environmental system, how important is Australia's contribution? Some people will say it's very important because we've got to supply moral leadership. There's no right or wrong to this. It's confusing. It's complicated. The federal Energy Minister is Angus Taylor. He is on the line. Angus, good morning.

ANGUS TAYLOR: Good morning, Gareth.

GARETH PARKER: This is the poisoned chalice portfolio, by the way.

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well, I think it's important, Gareth, and I think it's important to get this right. And your introduction was a good overview, but at the end of the day, the view I've taken on this for many, many years - well before I got into this portfolio - is it's about a sensible, balanced, proportionate approach. You get craziness from the extremes in this debate. But what most Australians want is just to be absolutely sensible. Don't trash the economy; don't do stupid things to kill the mining industry or agriculture; and of course, that's what we're focused on.

GARETH PARKER: Okay. So the people who say that Australia shouldn't do anything, just don't do anything at all, because we only contribute 1.5 per cent or whatever it is to global emissions so there's no point in us doing anything. What do you say to them?

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well, look, we've got to do our bit but we've got to do it in a way where we're not going to trash the economy. We've seen the independent modelling come out today, which tells you what happens when you set a target that's too high, too fast, where do you trash the economy. Labor's 45 per cent-

GARETH PARKER: Hang on. I'll come to that in a moment but I just-

ANGUS TAYLOR: Yeah.

GARETH PARKER: I will come back to that, but I want to know what your argument is to people who say we shouldn't do anything.

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well, look, at the end of the day, it's global action that addresses this issue and so we've got to do our bit; and we do our bit globally on many issues - this is one of them. But it's got to be done in a way where we're not trashing Australian jobs and industries which are the backbone of our economy.

GARETH PARKER: Sure. But you would clearly-

ANGUS TAYLOR: Of course those industries power Australia.

GARETH PARKER: You would clearly not trash industries if you didn't do anything. You'd have business as usual. Industries would be able to keep doing what they're doing.

ANGUS TAYLOR: That's right, Gareth, but we do do our bit here and we do our bit in many areas; and our view, as a Coalition, is we should do our bit, but we shouldn't destroy the economy in the process...

GARETH PARKER: Alright.

ANGUS TAYLOR: I think that's the sensible, balanced approach that mainstream Australians want us- want the Government to pursue.

GARETH PARKER: So then on the other side, the argument says: well, you should transition as quickly as you possibly can to entirely renewable energy. You should get rid of fossil fuels altogether.

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well, it goes further than that. It actually says we should completely transform our farming practices. Farmers should avoid impacting carbon in any way; that the mining industry should be shut down. I mean, that's the extreme position here. And Labor is surprisingly close to that extreme position because they're saying we want half the emissions, just under half the emissions, 45 per cent, gone within 11 years from now. I mean, this is crazy stuff. The irony of this, Gareth, is that you'll take industries where Australia is a world leader, where our emissions are low, you'll trash those industries and you'll see emissions go up in places like China who replace our clean exports with much dirtier ones. So, this is really mad stuff and the modelling that we're seeing today lays it out in sharp, quantitative terms - a $9000 hit to wages, 336,000 jobs gone, and in particular, industries like the mining industry, like agriculture, construction, transport, absolutely trashed and that's what we won't stand for.

GARETH PARKER: Okay. So-

ANGUS TAYLOR: We absolutely will ensure that does not happen. And yet Labor has set a target where they haven't come clean on the policies. They've just said they're going after the target. It means they're going to have to pursue some pretty fringy, extreme policies in order to achieve that 45 per cent.

GARETH PARKER: Okay. So they want to achieve emissions reductions of 45 per cent within 11 years. How much does the Coalition want to reduce emissions by within 11 years?

ANGUS TAYLOR: Twenty-six. And we've laid out how we're going to do it. We've also said-

GARETH PARKER: Okay. Sorry. I just want to follow this up because this is important. So on 45 per cent...

ANGUS TAYLOR: Yeah.

GARETH PARKER: Reduction for Labor, 27 per cent for the Coalition, 26 to 28 per cent...

ANGUS TAYLOR: Yes.

GARETH PARKER: You say that their plan is madness, it's crazy, it trashes the economy. You're clearly reducing emissions by a lot from what they are now. It's not going to be without cost either.

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well, it turns out that we have to reduce them from what they are now, the trend that they're on, by about a quarter of Labor, less than a quarter of Labor. So, that's how the numbers turn out. And we can do that- you can reduce emissions-

GARETH PARKER: Well, it's about a half. It's actually less than half.

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well, no. No-

GARETH PARKER: They want to get from where we are today to 45 per cent; you want to get to 28 per cent. It's a difference, clearly, but it's not-

ANGUS TAYLOR: It is a big difference, Gareth. They need to find about just over 1.3 billion tonnes of abatement, so that's the tonnage they've got to take out that would otherwise be emitted. We've got to find about 328. Now, part of the reason for that is we've said we will use the carry-over from our 2020 commitments, which we've beaten by a long way. We've said we'll do that. If Australia has beaten our targets we should be given credit for that. And we've said we'll use that credit. Labor has not said they'll do that, and the result is they've got to go after a much, much bigger tonnage - much bigger tonnage - at a very high cost. You've got to remember here, too, that it's possible to reduce emissions by just businesses going about what they do, finding energy efficiencies. You'll have lots of listeners out there who have put in LED lighting; all sorts of other things they've done in their businesses and households to reduce emissions. On the other hand, when you're going after a target like Labor's you can't do that stuff. You've got to go well beyond it. You've got to start shutting things down, and sadly, that's what they're proposing to do.

GARETH PARKER: So, their plan will totally wreck the economy, according to you. What will your plan do to the economy, nothing?

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well, we've laid it out. You see, we've laid out to the last tonne, a couple of weeks ago, how we're going to achieve our target. And we've said it's not free. We've got our emissions reduction fund, which looks at land management, savannah burning, initiatives, how farmers manage their land. We've been pursuing this initiative for a number of years now and we'll continue down that path. We see real opportunity in energy efficiency initiatives for small businesses; again, this can be done at relatively low cost with relatively low impact on the businesses. It's a carrot approach. That can get you to the sort of target we're pursuing. You simply can't get to the much higher target of Labor without doing real damage, and in particular, to sectors that are emissions intensive, and agriculture, transport, mining; the lifeblood of Western Australia are exactly those industries you've got to cut back on if you're going to achieve the very aggressive targets of Labor. We're calling on them to lay out how they're going to do it, Gareth, this is the point.

GARETH PARKER: You've been mentioning this modelling and the modelling talks about the likely cost per-tonne of carbon emissions under your various plans. Here's what it says about yours: that the maximum cost would be $263 per tonne, but if you use the carry-over provisions from Kyoto, which you've just explained you want to, that drops down to $73 a tonne. Even that seems more expensive than what was proposed under the carbon tax that Tony Abbott and your Government got rid of.

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well we've laid out exactly how we're going to do it and what the costs are. We did that.

GARETH PARKER: But hang on, is the modelling right about that point?

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well, we've laid out exactly how we're going to achieve [inaudible].

GARETH PARKER: But hang on, is the modelling right about that point?

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well what I'm saying, Gareth, is we've laid out exactly how we're going to achieve this but Labor hasn't.

GARETH PARKER: But what I'm asking: is the modelling right about that point? Because you say the modelling is evidence that the Labor Party are vandals. I'm wondering if the modelling also means that your carbon emission abatement cost is going to be $73 a tonne?

ANGUS TAYLOR: Let me tell you what our costs are going to be. We've laid out that we are putting in place our climate solutions fund. It's a three-and-a-half billion dollar fund. It's focused on...

GARETH PARKER: This feels like a waste of time, Minister. I'm going to ask you one more time. Is the modelling accurate about your plan or not?

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well I'm answering your question. I'm telling you about the costs, Gareth, and they are the costs. We've laid them out right to the last tonne. What I'm saying to you is when you pursue a target which is more than four times higher, all of a sudden the costs become extreme and you do have to cut back on industries, which are the lifeblood of the country. And that's the point we make about sensible, proportionate targets which can be achieved within a reasonable period of time, versus much more aggressive targets, which might be achievable in 20 or 30 years but not in the timeframe that we have through to 2030.

GARETH PARKER: So the modelling is accurate about Labor's disaster but it's not accurate about your plan?

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well, the problem is, Gareth, is that Labor hasn't laid out what their plan is. And this is my point: they have to- they've got very aggressive targets and no plan. They need to lay out the plan. In the absence of that, what we've got is this modelling telling us that it will trash those key sectors. They need to lay that out, but they haven't done it.

GARETH PARKER: It also says that your plan will be much more expensive than the carbon tax that Tony Abbott and your Government got rid of.

ANGUS TAYLOR: Well look, you know, as I say...

GARETH PARKER: That's what it says, though.

ANGUS TAYLOR: That is not right. Well we have activities- emissions reductions at a cost of around $13 through the emissions reduction fund. We're pursuing the emission reduction fund, energy efficiency gains. We've laid out how we're going to do it, Gareth. We're confident we can do it within the budget. It's inside our budget. You'll see it when we hand down the budget in the coming weeks. Labor hasn't laid it out, and until they do, all we have is this modelling. It tells us the impacts of the sort of target they're pursuing and they need to come clean. They need to actually explain to the Australian people what the costs are going to be. We've laid out our plan; they simply haven't.

GARETH PARKER: Thank you for talking to me this morning, Minister. Angus Taylor, the Federal Energy Minister.