When we work through policy review, I have a very strong vision of the fact that we are reviewing the policies, we are not reviewing the values.
What I mean is our respect – with regards to climate change policy, the government challenged us to say: "Your goals were too high. This is what you should abandon."
We must not move forward with the principle on which we base our objectives according to science. If there is room for a compromise, the compromise must be in what method it is to deal with it.
Because, the planet will not come and will say: "We make a compromise, there will be less climate change and we will make an agreement".
The environment when negotiating back is completely uncompromising. We must maintain the same starting point that we must respect and listen to the science of climate change and that must guide our emissions goals.
Once faced with this problem, we will deal with the mechanism, we must make our way through the fact that for 12 years the different mechanisms we have proposed, the Australian people, or the parliament or whatever, have finally said no to
As a result, Australia is in a worse position than it would have been had we obtained our original policy 12 years ago.
Australia is less prepared for the future. Our pollution is higher.
This means that the – and I am sorry, the other political problem we have had with these market mechanisms has been because you are doing what the business has asked for, namely, "OK, here is the most efficient method. You can make a whole series of decisions on how to apply it "that's why you can't have a total answer to a clear answer because of business variables.
I don't have a fixed vision of what the alternative is, but actually the law and the environmental movement have shifted to a model of direct action. Any other theory will tell you that it is less efficient and less efficient.
But now we are going down the road, once we are at the end of the next term, we have been inaction for the last 15 years and that does not count for the 12 years that the Howard government did nothing.
I believe in two things: the climatic part, the scientific part with which we start and then the economic mechanism that is used. Any compromise that occurs must be on the mechanism, not on the fact that you respect science.
I will not specifically say their policy design, I think there are problems with their policy design. But now we need to beat the work table on what are the other ways to achieve goals as well as simply saying that we will have a market mechanism.
Because while I still believe it to be the most efficient policy, every academic will tell you that it is the most efficient policy. You sit and watch it, business knows it's the most efficient policy. But you have come to a point and you say that it is not happening and then you have one of two worlds and you say the Australian people, we do not listen to you and we will not compromise you.
Or you compromise yourself on science, and I think it would be unthinkable.