Media Release

Open letter to Cook residents on Labor's Emissions Trading Scheme

Thursday 26th November 2009

In recent days I have received many messages on Labor’s proposed emissions trading scheme, currently being considered in the Federal Parliament.  I have prepared this response to explain as transparently and openly as I can the position I have taken.

Firstly, I want to acknowledge those who have taken the time to share their concerns or pass on their support.

This is a very complex issue that evokes strong passions and deep concerns. There are no easy answers. As an individual, a father of young children, a local resident, a Liberal, but most importantly as your local MP I have wrestled with these issues for some time, particularly in recent months. Politics and leadership is all about making decisions and ultimately I have to arrive at a decision.

On two occasions in the Parliament I have voted to oppose this scheme and I draw your attention to my speeches in the parliament on those occasions on my website (November, June). If this scheme were not amended I would not even contemplate supporting it.

Throughout this debate I have always sought to respect the legitimacy of everyone’s views and more importantly their shared good will towards our future, whether amongst my parliamentary colleagues or even more importantly within our community.

On the environment and our economy we all want to do the right thing about our future.

I have a personal view that I have stated on many occasions. I do not subscribe to either of the extremes of the climate change debate. This issue is not that black and white for me, nor do I believe is it that way for many in our community. There is no sovereign wisdom on this issue, and we cannot pretend there is simply to make the issue easier for us.

I don’t believe any of us can be so definitive or absolute about the certainty of what may or may not take place in the future. We need to proceed cautiously and carefully. I believe this is one of the many reasons why John Howard supported the introduction of an emissions trading scheme prior to the last election and announced it as Howard Government policy. Like John Howard then, I see this as a risk we need to responsibly manage.

On balance, I believe we need to give the planet the benefit of the doubt, but I do not want to destroy peoples jobs and livelihoods in the process. That is why I rejected the original proposal twice and am only now prepared to accept it based on the significant concessions achieved in our good faith negotiations. These amendments will protect 25,000 jobs, exclude agriculture, support our trade exposed industries and keep the power on. In short, we received 80% of what we asked for.

Many have asked that we delay the decision until after Copenhagen to be held in just a few days time. This has always been and remains our preference, but this position is not available to the Opposition without forgoing the important and significant concessions we have secured from the Government. I believe this is an unreasonable position for the Government to have adopted out of ego. I am not prepared to respond in kind, by passing up these concessions because of any sense of offence.

I have always had very low expectations about what will be achieved in Copenhagen, and do not support the grand treaty suggestions that we were recently canvassed in the media. The issues to be debated in Copenhagen will not be resolved in a few days or a few weeks time. Waiting a few more weeks, is therefore highly unlikely to change any of the parameters we are currently dealing with.

It is important to note that Labor’s scheme will not come into place for several years. It will not be operational next week. I do not believe this is the final word on this scheme, nor should it be. There will be further developments on this issue and around the world which will require a response in Australia to adjust our scheme, or possibly even further delay its introduction if required.

I believe that our choice to actively engage in this debate and secure changes that will make a bad scheme better, will enable us to be a far more effective and credible advocate for necessary changes to the scheme in the future. By taking the alternative path, we would have shut ourselves out of this process and denied ourselves this opportunity to advocate the interests of those impacted by this scheme, i.e. everyone.

We would also be unwise to think that some form of carbon pricing will not inevitably enter the global economy. With this understanding, I believe we are best placed to prepare and provide a more certain environment for business to plan and make decisions.

Rejecting the ETS outright is not a consequence free decision. It will have serious consequences for Australian businesses and jobs that I cannot ignore.

Businesses prize certainty in their operating and regulatory environment almost more than anything else. To highlight this issue there is almost $100 billion of investment scheduled for the electricity generation and supply sector over the next five years. This involves both refinancing and developing new network and generation assets. The absence of a clear direction and certainty on this issue will gridlock the boards of these organisations, and many others, from making decisions on how to invest these funds. This will put thousands of jobs at risk and further upward pressure on electricity prices. As any business knows, risk increases costs, which are ultimately passed onto consumers. Taking a decision now, will at the very least create a framework whereby business can sensibly plan and make decisions for the future.

In our own electorate , companies such as Qantas and Caltex face similar uncertainties. I have discussed these issues with them. They are both supportive of a scheme being introduced and I have argued the case for the concessions they seek.

There are no easy decisions in public life as an MP, as this issue clearly demonstrates. Our communities are diverse and there are a broad range of views. I genuinely endeavour to listen to all my constituents. While I cannot reflect every view in the community simultaneously, what I can do is be as open and upfront with you about the reasons for my decisions as possible. That is what I am endeavouring to do here.

For me, politics is all about outcomes. I believe we were able to get a better deal on Labor’s flawed ETS. I did not think it was the responsible thing to do to reject that deal. We remain at the table to continue to advocate for the interests of all Australians on this issue . Even more importantly, after more than two years of debate on climate change since the last election, we must now come together and move on as a Party to focus our attention on other critically important issues such as Labor’s debt, deficit, financial mismanagement and waste, the failure of Labor to protect our borders and how we are going to deliver the infrastructure we need to serve a growing population.

I thank you for taking the time to read my response. I hope it has given you a better understanding of the complexities and depth of consideration I have given to this matter.

I thank you for your support in the past and hope to win or retain your support in the future, based on my many efforts to date in the electorate and those that will follow in the future.

Yours sincerely


Scott Morrison MP
Federal Member for Cook

PS. Please click here if you would like to respond