Topics: Kevin Rudd’s ambassadorship, environmental laws

E&OE.......................

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: I want to bring in my political panel for today. Josh Burns is the Special Envoy for Social Housing and Homelessness. Dave Sharma is a Liberal senator and a Shadow Assistant Competition Minister. I've missed you both. Welcome to the program.

‍

JOSH BURNS: Afternoon.

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Thanks, PK. Good to be back.

‍

JOSH BURNS: PK, Dave.

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Hi, Josh.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Let's talk about the big, the sort of big side story, if you like, which is this kind of brouhaha, I'm going to call it, around Kevin Rudd. First to you, Dave Sharma. Was it too much that the coalition called for Kevin Rudd to be pulled out of Washington?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Well, I think the issue here, Patricia, is his past commentary about the now president of the United States, Donald Trump, has become a distraction. It was a distraction at the press conference. It's a continual focus of speculation. It undoubtedly impacts his level of personal access to the White House. And I don't think you ever want to be in a situation where your ambassador is becoming a distraction or detracting from the overall relationship. Now ultimately, that's a decision for the Albanese government, who they appoint. They're accountable for our relationship with the United States. But I do make that obvious point well known.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: And it also isn't an answer to my question, with greatest of respect. Was it too much that all of your colleagues... Was it churlish, like Jane Hume and other senators says in your party?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Look, I'm going to use my own words. I'm not going to, you know, agree or endorse or disagree with those that others have used. But I do think it's a legitimate point of criticism. I mean, I'll make this point. When Kevin Rudd was appointed ambassador, when he was announced as ambassador, these comments were known. They were on the public record. I think when he first took that office, he should've dealt with them then. He should've deleted offensive tweets and otherwise dealt with them. Instead, he waited until the day of President Trump's inauguration, from recollection, to do this. Now, that was always a mistake. I think it's something that the coalition, including myself, rightly criticized the time.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Sure, but it's also, we've... I have to just... That's not my question. Yesterday, was it the wrong thing to say?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: I think this is a this is a decision that the Anthony Albanese government has to answer. I think they have to say and defend and justify why they think Kevin Rudd is doing good job, given that this issue continues to be a distraction and a focus whenever the Australia

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: They have done that. They have They've said, "We got this deal, and Kevin Rudd was instrumental."

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Well, I accept their assurances that they got a deal, and I'd certainly welcome elements of the deal. I don't think we achieved everything we wanted to. We didn't get lower tariffs on steel and aluminium. But you know, I would make this point that if you've got a situation where the ambassador is a distraction from the relationship and taking up all this capital, we've spent five minutes talking about it. You've got to ask, is that in Australia's national interest? It's, it's not about the person or the ego or their job. It's about the person who can best represent Australia's national interest. Yeah, I, don't... My view is, there would be better people than Kevin Rudd to be doing this job right now.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay, um, better people to do the job, Josh?

‍

JOSH BURNS: Well, we've got a former diplomat giving a very diplomatic answer there, unlike his colleagues, Patricia. Uh, and think Dave is very, very carefully trying to skirt around the fact that Sussan Ley, quite clumsily, said that, you know, when the tonk, when the political, lowest common denominator in her comments about the former prime minister, who has done an outstanding job in representing our, Australia's national interest, across the political divide in the United States to ensure that Australia has serious economic benefit and political ties with the administration. And instead of acting in Australia's national interest and a leader of a major party seeking to form government, she went the silly, churlish, political, you know, whack. It caused, it caused Jane Hume to say it was churlish. Dave's, Dave's being diplomatic.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Yeah, yeah, sure, but I'm gonna not be... I've got fair's fair. He did cause a bit of a distraction. Doesn't Dave Sharma's point that he should've apologized when he started, isn't that a pretty decent point?

‍

JOSH BURNS: I mean, Patricia, it's like... You, you asked the question today, which I think is a fair question, but, uh, it's up to all of us to focus on what is important and what is substantial here. And that is the fact that we've signed a critical minerals engagement, AUKUS has been reconfirmed, the prime minister clearly is held in high regard with the president of the United States. Australia's national interest was represented by hardworking diplomats, led by the ambassador, and Dave knows how hard, people have to work in the lead-up to these meetings. I mean, Dave has represented our country, appointed by, the Gillard government, I might add, but Dave understands how important it is, all the work leading up to the leaders meeting actually is. And the ambassador and our entire team have worked hard alongside the US administration to bring the two parties to a point in which, uh, the president and the prime minister can announce the outcomes. And you know, if Sussan Ley wants to be torn down once again by her political party that's, you know, closer to Pauline Hanson than John Howard of old, then that's a reflection of the Liberal Party.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: All right, another issue I want to get to, we've got breaking news this afternoon, an exclusive from my colleague Jake Evans, that a rewrite of Australia's environment laws will not include a climate trigger that could block coal and gas projects. Uh, Dave Sharma, what are your thoughts on that?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Well, if those reports are true, I think we welcome it in the coalition. The, a climate trigger was never part of the Samuel review or recommendations for upgrading the EPBC Act. And I, I think it would have coalition believes it would have a sapping effect on investment in Australia's resources industry. Ultimately, the minister of the day should be accountable for these decisions, and the minister of the day should weigh up any number of issues, environmental, climate, economic, and others, in taking this decision. The idea of, I think, having a climate trigger and tying the minister's hands and putting that decision in the hands of courts or bureaucrats I think is unacceptable in a democratic society.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Josh, how's that going to fly in your seat where people want climate action?

‍

JOSH BURNS: Well, I think what, there's two really important parts here. One is the bills that we've got to govern our emission reduction regime, and we've just made, uh, major announcements about our 2035 targets, how we're going to, uh, continue our policies of reducing our emissions, as a country, ones that the coalition are completely walking away from. But the other point of it is, is around the EPBC reforms. What Professor Samuels actually recommended was that proponents disclose the emissions that would be involved in their project, and that isn't currently a part of the environmental considerations by the minister. The difficulty with something like a trigger that's, you know, that sort of appears in the newspaper is that there are projects like lithium, for example, that are very emissions intensive, that are critical to the future of batteries and to the sort of, you know, renewable technology that we are desperate to see. So, you, know, it, it's not so straightforward to say that, you know, one policy is pro low emissions and one's against. What, what we're saying is that there will be, you know, major reforms to improve emissions disclosure. And the other thing I'll say, Patricia, is that, one thing that I think people in McNamara and right across the country want is honest and true discussions about the actual policies. And I've noticed some ridiculous commentary about the Greens, uh, from the Greens. you know, the Greens are going to green. They're going to, they're going to try and blow this up. But there is some amazing environmental reform that if the Greens walk away from, it would be a true betrayal, the communities who really care about environmental reform. And that's just not going to happen.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Josh, Dave, thank you.

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Thanks so much, PK. Thanks, Josh.

‍

[ENDS]

‍