Bill Shorten, Subject/s: Labor’s plan for the jobs of the future; Tony Abbott’s Royal Commission; Dyson Heydon; 7-Eleven workers; Cabinet division; Hockey job speculation; O’Herns Road; Peter Dutton’s incompetence

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

DOORSTOP
WHITTLESEA
TUESDAY, 1 SEPTEMBER 2015


BILL SHORTEN, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Good morning everyone, it’s great to be at Whittlesea Secondary College with local Member of Parliament Rob Mitchell. Whittlesea Secondary College of course, the school community here was terribly affected by the Black Saturday bush fires back in 2009, where teachers, students and family members were lost in that terrible bushfire. Yet the very premises we’re standing in now on the school shows how the school has fought back and how previous Labor governments have invested, providing the best technical and science teaching available for the students of this community.
What we’ve seen this morning is the students of today preparing for the jobs of the future. The students that we’ve met this morning; they’re brave, they’re optimistic, their parents work hard to send them here. What they deserve is a Government who is as brave and optimistic as they are. It is the job of Government to make sure our kids get the best start in life and they have the skills for the future. Only the Labor Party is talking about providing greater support for science, maths and technical and engineering education. More opportunities to go to university, better opportunities to go to TAFE and also supporting our really hard working teachers. The Labor Party is getting on with the big issues of this nation and there is none more important than making sure that our young people have got the skills for jobs. That’s what a future Labor Government will do, we’ll make sure that our kids get the best start in life. Happy to take any questions.
JOURNALIST: Over to Dyson Heydon if you don’t mind, so why is Labor pursuing a vote in the Senate given that it’s the Governor-General that makes that decision?
SHORTEN: I think it is appropriate that the Labor Party and that the Parliament takes up the matters of this shambolic and tainted Royal Commission. I think a lot of people today will be saying how on earth can the captain’s pick by Tony Abbott, the Royal Commissioner, just simply say that it’s okay to go to Liberal Party events? It sort of speaks volumes for the political nature of Tony Abbott’s royal commission. The man in charge of the inquiry says it is okay to go to the Liberal Party events. But then what we also see, is that, what’s next? Will Eddie McGuire declare himself okay to be the umpire in a Collingwood Grand Final? It is not right that the head of an inquiry thinks it is okay to go to Liberal Party events.
JOURNALIST: But this vote’s not going to produce an outcome, it’s been called a stunt is that what it is?
SHORTEN: When it comes to calling things for what they are, Tony Abbott’s royal commission is a stunt. Labor has zero tolerance for criminal and corrupt behaviour, be it by employers or union reps in workplaces, zero tolerance. But we think it would be a better use of scarce taxpayer dollars to actually support the police and other crime fighting organisations directly than have a political royal commission designed to smear their opponents. It is not right that someone who is in charge of an inquiry investigating unions and also people in the Labor Party, that he think that it is okay to go to Liberal Party events. Tony Abbott set up this Royal Commission to smear his enemies and he is using the taxpayer money to do it.
JOURNALIST: Have you consulted the Crossbenchers, do you even have the numbers to get this motion through the Senate?
SHORTEN: I think that the issue is sufficiently important that we should put it to a vote and then ask people of good conscience to support it. Everyone knows that this royal commission was set up, using taxpayer money by Tony Abbott to prosecute and chase his political opponents. That’s what it looks like and that’s what it is.
JOURNALIST: So have you spoken to the crossbenchers about it?
SHORTEN: It will be up to my colleagues to be speaking in the Senate to crossbenchers.
JOURNALIST: Can I ask you about another thing, about Peter Dutton, it relates to his comments about a ‘jihad’ against the Government. Surely you can relate to that given Labor’s troubles with the newspapers over the years when you were in Government.
SHORTEN: I think you work at the ABC, do you?
JOURNALIST: That’s correct; I do work at the ABC.
SHORTEN: I don’t think it is right for the Minister for Immigration to just start blaming the newspapers for his own mistakes. This is a Government who everything they touch seems to go wrong. Remember last week they were going to have uniformed people asking for peoples’ papers under the clock at Flinders Street. Peter Dutton isn’t in control of his ministry and he’s now seeking to blame everyone else. Tony Abbott famously said and I’ve got a quote for what Mr Abbott said when he was Opposition Leader. He said in 2013: “If you want better coverage, be a better Government.” My advice to Peter Dutton is if you want better coverage, be a better Government.
JOURNALIST: Do you reject that comparison though? Do you feel like Labor was using the complaint against the News Corp papers as an excuse for some of their failings in government?
SHORTEN: How on earth can this be an issue about the Labor Party when it’s Mr Abbott’s Liberal ministers who are complaining that they are getting unfavourable coverage. We know the real problem here. This Government is making a lot of mistakes – it’s not just in terms of that farce last week where they were going to have government people in uniforms asking to see peoples’ papers. There’s 800,000 Australians who are unemployed. Labor’s obsessed about making sure that people can find jobs and create jobs. Mr Abbott’s Liberals are obsessed about finding and keeping their own jobs. What’s happened here is that the Abbott Government is becoming a giant blame factory. All they want to do is blame the unions or blame the media or blame the environmentalists or blame the economists. In fact the only people they never want to seem to blame is themselves and that is where I think they should start looking.
JOURNALIST: Speaking of the ABC, regarding the ‘Four Corners’ story last night, do you think the Fair Work Commission should investigate the claims that 7-Eleven was underpaying workers?
SHORTEN: Absolutely. I think it is outrageous that thousands of people working at 7-Elevens across Australia could be potentially being exploited or as we saw last night, are being exploited. It speaks volumes about Mr Abbott and his Liberals. They’re happy to spend $80 million of taxpayers money trying to smear their political opponents, yet here we have real evidence of people being ripped off, ripped off most extremely and exploitatively and Mr Abbott and his Liberals say nothing. It speaks volumes about the priorities of Mr Abbott and his Government. You always know they’re quick to attack people but they’re very slow to stand up for people. What are they doing about unemployment, what are they doing about people being ripped off? Yet all they want to do is attack the ABC, attack the media, attack the Opposition, attack unions. This Government is out of touch with what’s really important.

JOURNALIST: Just regarding the frontbench of the government, would Labor be concerned or worried if Morrison replaced Hockey as Treasurer?

SHORTEN: I’m concerned that we’ve got a government that is more worried about fighting for their own jobs than standing up for Aussie jobs. What the Labor Party believes is Aussie jobs first, second and third. That’s what we do every time we talk about policy in this country. We want the kids at Whittlesea Secondary College and literally hundreds of thousands and other kids like them all over Australia to be getting the best skills training, with the best equipment and the best teachers so they can get the jobs of the future. Yet all we’ve got is some sort of catfight between members of the Liberal Party. Malcolm Turnbull wants Tony Abbott’s job, you know the story, Scott Morrison want’s anyone’s job. But in the meantime, that’s just politics as usual which turns Australians off politics. I would like Mr Abbott and his Liberal team to stop worrying about their own jobs and start standing up for Australian jobs just for once, put the jobs of Aussies first rather than your own jobs Mr Abbott.

JOURNALIST: With respect the same was said about the previous Labor Government, it was said day after day after day, they’re staring at their navel instead of looking after Australian jobs.

SHORTEN: Is there a question there?

JOURNALIST: No, it’s mostly to do with – this is what is being thrown at you day after day Mr Shorten.

SHORTEN: Well let’s talk about the numbers that count. There are 800,000 Aussies who are on the unemployment queue. There’s over a million Aussies who regularly complain that they’ve got insecure work or don’t get the amount of hours they want. There’s over 800,000 people on the disability pension, who for many of them, they’re excluded from getting work. This is the real problem. We’ve got women who are having children who are getting their paid parental leave schemes taken off them by this government. We’ve got families thinking about returning to work who are going to pay more money in child care, going to lose more money in child care benefits if they go back to work. This government is not focusing on jobs. Economic growth is really low. We see real wages growth doing very badly. These are the real issues and instead you’ve got Minister Dutton complaining about being blamed for the stuff-ups in their own portfolio. It isn’t good enough. This Government’s got to start focusing on Aussie jobs.

JOURNALIST: Mr Shorten, I have a question about the local area.

SHORTEN: Sure.

JOURNALIST: Residents are in desperate need for another highway interchange. The State Government has pledged money for an interchange at O’Herns Road. Does the Labor Government support that project?

SHORTEN: What I’ll do is I’ll ask Rob Mitchell, the Member for McEwen to answer that question in detail. But I have no doubt that Mr Abbott and his Liberals are not doing enough on infrastructure. We all know that the mining boom has eased up. We know that there is a desperate need to build confidence outside the mining sector. One of the best ways you can build confidence in Australia, get opportunities for people to get jobs and also to help small businesses, is to build more infrastructure. Public transport, the NBN, social housing and of course roads. So we will be developing our policies in terms of infrastructure funding. What we’ll also be doing, as we take you away from day to day politics, we want to make sure that what we do passes the test of Infrastructure Australia, an independent body who can assess the best possible merits of each road deal. I might ask Rob to talk a little further about this.

ROB MITCHELL: The O’Herns Road interchange, which is the one you’re talking about, was supported by Federal Labor in government. Unfortunately four years under the State Liberal Party we had no money for infrastructure into the northern suburbs. They were totally ignored. What we do know now is that the Liberal Mayor of Whittlesea claims that he’s had a nod and a wink from the Deputy Prime Minister which has amounted to nothing. Labor’s always supported the O’Herns interchange on the Craigieburn bypass and we’ll continue to support that. As Bill pointed out rightly we’re going to make sure that every project goes through Infrastructure Australia to make it’s clear and it’s above board and that it brings the best benefit for taxpayers dollars. So in that aspect we’re continuing to support that and already Andrew Giles and myself have already written to the Deputy Prime Minister, we’ve already supported this. It’s good to see that we now have a state government that’s actually backing the infrastructure into the northern suburbs.

SHORTEN: Thanks Rob, perhaps another question then we might finish up?

JOURNALIST: Well, just regarding Dutton once more, he’s sort of using the language of war, there’s a war against the Government, I think the word ‘jihad’ was thrown around. Do you have a comment relating to that language?

SHORTEN: Clearly Mr Abbott and his Liberal team, including Peter Dutton, are under pressure because of their mistakes but I would counsel Mr Dutton and national security ministers from conflating using the word ‘jihad’, which is what terrorists do to wreak their violence upon the world, and just using it against the ABC and Fairfax media. What we need from our government is cool heads and temperate language. The issues are too important from national security to pulling up your socks in terms of economic performance. Mr Dutton should not use inflammatory language associated with the war on terror, with attacking the media doing their job in Australia.

Thanks everyone, see you later.


ENDS

Australia faces heightened bushfire threat as El Niño gets set to fan flames

Extract from ABC News

Official forecast for 2015-16 bushfire season identifies most of Victoria and NSW as under heightened risk as El Niño dries areas out

Oliver Milman

@olliemilman

Tuesday 1 September 2015 14.51 AEST 

Vast areas of eastern, southern and western Australia are set to experience worse than normal bushfire conditions this summer, with the developing El Niño expected to significantly exacerbate fire-prone weather.
An official forecast of the 2015-16 bushfire season, compiled by the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC, has identified almost all of Victoria and New South Wales, including Sydney and Melbourne, as having “above normal” bushfire conditions.

Areas of Western Australia, including Perth, are also set for a heightened bushfire risk as summer arrives.
The forecast warns: “Such impacts will challenge the limited resources of the fire and land management agencies and have created the situation where each fire season is likely to be more demanding than the last, both in economic and human costs.”
The forecast, which is compiled with Bureau of Meteorology data, adds: “Many areas have consistently received below-average annual rainfall across successive years. This has produced a cumulative reduction in soil moisture levels and increasingly dry forests and grasslands.”
The dry conditions are set to be fuelled by the El Niño which is developing in the Pacific. The periodic climatic event causes a range of conditions but is generally associated with long dry spells in Australia.
A complicating factor to this year’s El Niño is warming waters in the Indian Ocean, which may bring rain to southern Australia.
But Dr Richard Thornton, chief executive of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC, said it is likely that the El Niño conditions will be the “dominant factor” for the bushfire season.
“The expectation is that there will be an increased risk this year, driven by El Niño and the dry conditions,” he told Guardian Australia. “This is probably one of the biggest El Niños on record in terms of size.
“In areas on the eastern coast we are seeing higher than normal bushfire potential due to 10 years of below average rainfall. The soil is very dry, so once you have a couple of hot days a lot of fuel will dry very quickly.”
The forecast is based on the BoM’s long-range weather forecast, as well as information on fuel loads and precautionary burning. An “above normal” rating is given when it is expected local firefighting services will have to call in additional help from interstate or overseas to contain fires.
“Communities will have to be vigilant and aware that it will be more fire prone than normal,” Thornton said. “We are certainly seeing longer fire seasons, with a pattern of the seasons starting earlier and finishing later. Climate change is certainly playing a part.”
According to analysis by the BoM and the CSIRO, Australia is set to experience a greater number of days with severe fire danger due to climate change. Soil moisture is expected to fall by up to 15% in southern Australia in winter by 2090.

Some Observations on Australia's Post - 2020 Emissions Reduction Target.

http://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/sites/prod.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/files/files/CFI/CCA-statement-on-Australias-2030-target.pdf

Fact check: Why Tony Abbott's claims on emissions targets get mixed verdicts

Extract from ABC News

Updated 31 minutes ago

Photo: Tony Abbott says Australia's recently announced carbon emissions targets for 2030 are "not leading" and "certainly not lagging" the field and emissions reduction targets per capita are the "best in the developed world". (AAP: Greenpeace, Dan Peled)

The Government has announced that Australia will cut greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 per cent by 2030, ahead of the Paris climate change conference in December.

• Claim one: Tony Abbott says Australia's per capita emissions targets for 2030 are "the best in the developed world".
• Verdict one: Australia's per capita emissions targets are behind the developed nations of Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. Mr Abbott is incorrect.
• Claim two: Mr Abbott says that Australia's absolute emissions targets for 2030 are neither "leading" nor "lagging" the field.
• Verdict two: Australia is behind a number of western nations, but sits in front of both Japan and South Korea, and is comparable to New Zealand and Canada. Mr Abbott's claim is justified.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott told ABC Radio's AM program that Australia's goal was environmentally and economically responsible and said he was confident Australia could achieve it "without clobbering jobs and growth".
"Look, what we are doing on a per capita basis, on a per person basis, is the best in the developed world. And what we are doing on an absolute basis, we're not leading the field but we're certainly not lagging the field either," he said.
But some, including the Opposition spokesman for the Environment Mark Butler and chair of the Climate Change Authority Bernie Fraser have disputed the claim that Australia is pulling its weight compared with other developed countries.
How do Mr Abbott's claims about Australia's post-2020 emissions targets stack up? ABC Fact Check investigates.

Setting the targets

The United Nations convention on climate change will meet in Paris in December to achieve international agreement on how to keep global warming below two degrees celsius.
Each country party to the convention has agreed to publish its national contribution to reducing global warming before the meeting.
The new agreement follows the two rounds of international emissions targets made under the Kyoto protocol and will come into force in 2020.
Australia has pledged, under a Paris Agreement, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.
The submission to the UN climate change convention notes that Australia's target doubles its rate of emissions reductions compared with the previous 2020 commitment.
"Across a range of metrics, Australia's target is comparable to the targets of other advanced economies," it says.

Defining the developed world

Mr Abbott compared Australia's new emissions targets with the "developed world".
He compared Australia with the US, Canada, EU, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and China.
There's no international consensus on what constitutes the developed world, but frequently cited measures include the International Monetary Fund's advanced economies (which are classified on per capita income and export diversification), members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and countries that the UN considers have a very high human development index (HDI), based on life expectancy, standard of living and education.
The UN also defines two groups of countries based on their emissions commitments — the industrialised countries and the developing countries. The industrialised list is based on countries that were members of the OECD in 1992, plus countries with economies in transition, including Russia and Eastern European countries and former countries of the Soviet Union.
The UN says its classification takes into account that "developed countries are principally responsible for the current high levels of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of industrial activity".
Twenty-eight countries and the EU have so far submitted their emissions target commitments for the Paris conference to the UN.
Fact Check considers 11 of these countries or regions to be the developed world (see table below). The list excludes the principalities of Liechtenstein and Monaco on the basis of size.
All except Singapore and South Korea are regarded by the UN convention on climate change, the IMF, the OECD and the UN human development index as developed countries.
Singapore is regarded as an advanced country by the IMF and the UN HDI, and South Korea is regarded as an advanced country on all measures except the UN convention on climate change index.

Target contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions
Country	Per cent reduction	Baseline year	Target year
Australia	26 to 28	2005	2030
Canada	30	2005	2030
EU (28 countries)	At least 40	1990	2030
Iceland	40	1990	2030
Japan	26	2013	2030
New Zealand	30	2005	2030
Norway	At least 40	1990	2030
South Korea	37 per cent from business as usual levels by 2030	-	2030
Switzerland	50	1990	2030
US	26 to 28	2005	2025
Singapore	Will stabilise its emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030	-	2030
Source: UN INDCs as communicated by parties

Choosing the baseline year

The UN does not specify which baseline year each country should use to calculate its emissions reduction targets.
CSIRO ecologist Dr Pep Canadell told Fact Check all countries choose a baseline year that is as high as possible to make their emissions reductions appear favourable.
"The reason people chose 2005 was because it was prior to the global financial crisis when growth and emissions, went down in many countries," Dr Canadell, who is executive director of the Global Carbon Project, a global partnership of climate scientists, said.
Data from the Department of the Environment shows that Australia's emissions reached a 25-year peak in 2005-06.

Comparing absolute emissions reductions

Mr Abbott claimed that Australia's absolute emissions reductions are "not leading" and "certainly not lagging" the developed world.
A spokesman for the Prime Minister told Fact Check this claim was based on data from the Department of the Environment comparing Australia with China, South Korea, Japan, EU, US, Canada and New Zealand using 2005 as a baseline and comparing targets for 2030.
The presentation notes that the US targets are for 2025.
Fact Check calculated the absolute emissions reductions of all developed countries, as defined above, that have declared their targets to the UN, using a baseline of 2005 and a target of 2030 to compare with Australia.

Climate advisory panel

• A panel of experts has agreed to advise ABC Fact Check for its work on climate issues.
• For this fact check, all members of the panel were consulted.
• Meet the full panel.

Singapore was omitted from the analysis because its emissions will increase over the time frame, peaking in 2030.
The data is derived from the UN greenhouse gas inventory for each country.
Emissions reductions for the US in 2030 were calculated by extrapolating a straight line from its 2020 and 2025 targets.
For countries with a 1990 baseline, their 2005 actual emissions were used as a comparison with 2030.
South Korea has defined a "business as usual" target, which predicts its emissions cuts up to a target date but does not define a baseline.
Its emissions reductions for 2030 were taken from the Department of the Environment data.
The department predicts that South Korea will cut its emissions by 4 per cent by 2030 compared with a baseline year of 2005.
However, Malte Meinshausen, a senior research fellow at the University of Melbourne's school of earth sciences and a member of Fact Check's climate advisory panel, told Fact Check that South Korea would reduce its emissions by 2 per cent in 2030, based on his own calculations.

Embed: Emissions reductions by country


The results match the Government's data comparing Australia's absolute reductions with Canada, Japan, EU, South Korea and New Zealand and the results for Australia, the US and Canada were independently verified by David Karoly, a professor of atmospheric science at Melbourne University's school of earth sciences.

Middle of the pack?

...if the pack is the EU, we're behind the big pack, but extend it to the rest of the developed world and we are somewhere in the middle.

Dr Pep Canadell, CSIRO ecologist

The data shows that Australia comes in at ninth out of 11 countries, ahead of Japan and South Korea.
Australia's lower target of 26 per cent is only just ahead of Japan and substantially better than South Korea's projected four per cent.
Canada and New Zealand, with targets of 30 per cent, are close to Australia's upper target of 28 per cent.
However, the EU (34 per cent) and the US (35 to 39 per cent) are substantially ahead of Australia and the targets for Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are a long way ahead.
Professor Meinshausen told Fact Check the US targets were 33 to 35 per cent when taking into account its net-net land use accounting.
Net-net accounting means that the land use emissions for each year are subtracted from the baseline year of 1990 rather than just accounting for the gross net emissions each year, which can result in significant emissions credits due to the legacy effects of pre-1990 land use activities.
Professor Karoly's analysis also included the UK and Germany which, although they are not compelled to announce separate targets to the EU, will aim to reduce their emissions by 60 per cent and 45 per cent, respectively.
Dr Canadell told Fact Check the Prime Minister's claim was largely correct with regard to Australia's absolute emissions reductions, if the field was considered to be the developed world.
"[But] if the pack is the EU, we're behind the big pack, but extend it to the rest of the developed world and we are somewhere in the middle," he said.
The Climate Change Authority said the Government's emissions targets put Australia "at or near the bottom of the group of countries we generally compare ourselves with".
These countries were the UK, Switzerland, Germany, Norway, US, EU, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, China and South Korea.
Dr Canadell said being ahead of Japan in absolute emissions reductions was not a great comparison.
"Japan has an incredible energy crisis," he said. "They shut down 30 per cent of their nuclear energy production [as a result of the Fukushima nuclear disaster] and are now reopening them but have huge uncertainty for their future energy."

Comparing per capita emissions

Hugh Bromley, an associate analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance, an independent research firm of 200 energy and carbon market specialists providing research to banks, governments and energy companies, told Fact Check that every government emphasised different emissions metrics over others.
"Different governments will take a view, rightly or wrongly, that a population basis, or intensity basis, or absolute reductions level target is more comparable or relevant to their economy," he said.

...we are so carbon intensive per capita that coming down should be much easier than [countries like] Japan.

Dr Pep Canadell, CSIRO ecologist

The Government's information notes that Australia's population and economy is growing faster than most other developed countries.
As a result, Australia's population growth of 1.5 per cent a year to 2030 will push up its emissions.
Mr Abbott claimed that what Australia is doing on a per capita basis is the best in the developed world.
"So look, the other point to make is that when you look at emissions per person, we've got a 50 per cent reduction, which is the best outcome of any of the developed countries which have so far pledged a target for Paris," he said.
Fact Check calculated Australia's emissions reductions per capita and compared them with the other developed countries who have declared their post-2020 targets.
The Department of the Environment data is in agreement with Fact Check's calculations for Australia, the US, New Zealand, the EU, Canada, Japan and South Korea but the department did not include Switzerland, Iceland or Norway.
The data was checked by each of the experts Fact Check spoke to.

 Embed: Use the drop down menu to explore each country's emissions targets


The results show that Australia will aim to cut its emissions per person by around 50 per cent by 2030, exceeded only by Switzerland, Norway and Iceland, though the latter's per capita reductions are almost identical to Australia.
The Department of the Environment used projected population data from the 2015-16 budget to calculate the per capita emissions for 2030.
When the UN population data is used, Australia's per capita emissions are 47 to 49 per cent by 2030.
The chart above uses the Government's more favourable per capita emissions numbers.
The per capita emissions reductions for the US upper limit, of 49 per cent, are also very similar to Australia.
In addition, Professor Karoly's analysis shows that the UK's emissions per person will be reduced by 67 per cent from 2005 to 2030.
But Australia has the highest population growth of any of these developed countries, growing 50 per cent by 2030.
While that makes the task of reducing emissions per person easier, it makes the task of reducing overall emissions more difficult.
However, Dr Canadell said the results show that Australia was the highest per capita emitter of the group and would remain so in 2030 with emissions per capita around 14 to 15 tonnes of CO2 per person, closely followed by Canada on 13.7 tonnes CO2 per person.
"It means that we are so carbon intensive per capita that coming down should be much easier than [countries like] Japan," he said. "They are already much cleaner to begin with which means that additional cleaning is becoming harder and harder for them."
Japan is the only one of the developed countries with a shrinking population and yet is still aiming to cut its per capita emissions by 21 per cent.
Dr Canadell said only the oil rich countries in the Middle East were higher per capita emitters than Australia.

A fair comparison?

All the experts Fact Check spoke to highlighted the difficulties of comparing Australia's emissions targets with other countries.
Dr Canadell said comparing Australia to Switzerland was problematic because Switzerland, like many European countries, "outsourced" their carbon emissions to other countries because they have almost no production of goods.
"If a country was to decide we're going to shut down our heavy industry so we don't pollute and we'll buy everything from China or Vietnam, that will appear good in your carbon accounting but it does nothing to the global pursuit for carbon neutralisation," he said.
Australia often compares itself to Canada on emissions measures because Canada is a resource rich, large land mass country with a small population.
The data shows Canada will have similarly high emissions per person in 2030 and cuts almost as large, as Australia.
Mr Bromley told Fact Check the difference between Australia and most of the countries it compares itself with is that Australia has a high-polluting energy sector.
"We have such a low population density that there's a lot of emissions already in the system that can be abated," he said.
"Whereas if you have hydro power or geothermal energy as Canada and New Zealand do, there's very little you can do in the power system to make it more efficient or reduce emissions."
He said that comparing emissions targets among countries is "the great challenge".
"This is why climate negotiations have taken the better part of two decades to get to where they are now and that's not far."

Verdict: Per capita emissions

Mr Abbott claims that what Australia is doing on a per capita basis on proposed emissions targets is the best in the developed world.

Photo: Tony Abbott claims that what Australia is doing on a per capita basis with regards to emissions targets is the best in the developed world. (AAP: Lukas Coch)

Fact Check's analysis shows that Australia will cut its emissions per person by 50 per cent by 2030 but Switzerland, Norway and Iceland will cut their emissions per capita by up to 10 percentage points more.
Even using the Government's more generous interpretation, based on its population estimates, Australia's per person emissions reductions are still not close to those countries.
In addition, Australia's rate of per capita emissions, one of the highest in the world, will still be the highest among developed countries in 2030.
Mr Abbott's claim on per capita emissions is incorrect.

Verdict: Absolute emissions

Photo: Tony Abbott claims that Australia's recently announced carbon emission targets are neither "leading" nor "lagging" the developed world in terms of absolute emissions. (AAP: Lukas Coch)

The Prime Minister also claims that Australia's recently announced carbon emission targets are "not leading" and "certainly not lagging" the developed world in terms of absolute emissions.
The data on countries that have submitted their targets to the UN shows that Australia's targets are ninth of 11 developed countries and only just ahead of Japan, whose emissions targets have been negatively affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Nonetheless, Australia's emissions reduction targets of 26 or 28 per cent are close to those of New Zealand and Canada on 30 per cent.
Mr Abbott's claim on absolute emissions is justified.

Sources

• Tony Abbott, ABC radio AM, August 12, 2015
• Mark Butler, ABC radio breakfast, August 11, 2015
• Bernie Fraser, Statement - some observations on Australia's post-2020 emissions reduction target, Climate Change Authority, August 14, 2015
• Paris 2015 UN climate change conference, What is COP21/CMP11?
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Intended Nationally Determined Contributions
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto protocol
• Australian Government, Australia's intended nationally determined contribution to a new climate change agreement, August 2015
• International Monetary Fund, World economic outlook, April 2015
• United Nations development programme, Human Development Reports
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, parties and observers
• United Nations, Intended nationally determined contributions, as communicated by parties
• Department of the environment, Australia's emissions projections 2014-15, March 2015
• Australian Government, Australia's post-2020 emissions reduction target, press conference August 11, 2015
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Greenhouse gas inventory data - detailed by party
• Iversen, Lee and Rocha, Understanding land use in the UNFCCC, May 2014
• Australian Government, Australia's 2030 climate change target, 2015
• United Nations, World population prospects, the 2015 revision
• Australian Government, 2015-16 budget paper number 3, appendix A
• Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian historical population statistics, 2014

Topics: emissions-trading, environment, climate-change, environmental-policy, abbott-tony, greenhouse-gas, australia

Bill Shorten, Subject/s: Tony Abbott’s royal commission; Tony Abbott’s government in chaos.

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

DOORSTOP INTERVIEW
MARTIN PLACE, SYDNEY
MONDAY, 31 AUGUST 2015


JOURNALIST: (inaudible)

BILL SHORTEN, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Labor has always believed that Tony Abbott’s royal commission was designed to smear his political opponents. It has been shambolic – it shouldn’t have got to this question today whether the royal commissioner has to recuse himself. Mr Abbott should have sorted this matter out sometime himself some time ago.

JOURNALIST: Is there any impropriety surrounding your acceptance of $5,000 to your leadership campaign from a union slushfund?

SHORTEN: Not at all. This matter was covered by the royal commission over nine months ago and it was disclosed by the Labor Party.

JOURNALIST: What is your reaction to news that Joe Hockey maybe on the way out if Cabinet Ministers leaking to the press are to be believed.

SHORTEN: Poor old Joe Hockey. Everyone knows he is struggling as Treasurer but it is a bit disloyal of his parliamentary colleagues to be backgrounding against him. I don’t think all the problems can simply be sheeted home to Joe Hockey. Unemployment is up, the deficit is up, growth is down. It has been a team effort by Mr. Abbott and his Liberals and it is a bit unfair of Mr Abbott’s Liberals to be hanging Joe Hockey out to dry all on his own. This has been a Cabinet mess that they have made for the past two years.

JOURNALIST: Would Scott Morrison make a better Treasurer?

SHORTEN: I think they need to change their policies. The issue isn’t which Liberal personality is going for which job. The problem for Australia at the moment is that Mr Abbott and his Liberals are focusing on can Mr Abbott keep his job? Or can Mr Morrison have Mr Hockey’s job? Can Mr Turnbull have Mr Abbott’s job? The problem is that there are 800,000 Australians without any jobs and we need Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey focussing on the jobs of Australians not their own job.

JOURNALIST: What do you make of Arthur Sinodinos publicly berating his colleagues?

SHORTEN: The wheels are coming off the Liberal car, aren’t they? You had Senator Sinodinos come out and attack his colleagues. Australians want a government that is focused on Australians. As we speak, our economy is wallowing in mediocrity – there are 800,000 Australians unemployed. The deficit has been doubled. We see growth is doing very poorly. Real wages for ordinary Australians are at their lowest level of increase in a very low time. We’ve got real challenges in this country and in the meantime, we’ve got Senator Sinodinos, Malcolm Turnbull, Julie Bishop, Scott Morrison, Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott all worrying about each other. This is not good for the direction of our country.

Thanks everyone.

ENDS

7-Eleven investigation: Convenience store empire 'built on something not much different from slavery'

Extract from ABC News

Four Corners

By Adele Ferguson and Klaus Toft

Updated about 9 hours ago

Video: 7-Eleven whistleblower says franchises built on 'something not much different from slavery' (ABC News)

Related Story: 7-Eleven business model rips off workers, former ACCC boss says

Related Story: Greens to refer evidence of 7-Eleven worker exploitation to Senate inquiry

Related Story: 7-Eleven staff work twice as long at half pay rate

Exploitation of workers is a key part of the 7-Eleven franchise network's business plan, a company insider claims.

Key points

• Company insider says conditions "not much different from slavery"
• Head office has known about underpayments "for years"
• Review of 225 stores revealed more than two thirds had payroll issues
• 7-Eleven said it did not condone the actions

Speaking to Four Corners and Fairfax Media on the condition of anonymity, the insider said if franchisees paid staff the correct wages, many would face financial ruin.
He said everyone at 7-Eleven's head office was aware of the systemic wage-rorting of employees, who are largely foreign students on visas.
"They [head office] can't run 7-Eleven as profitably, as successfully, as they have without letting this happen," the source said.
"The business is very proud of itself and the achievements and the money it's made and the success it's had, but the reality is it's built on something not much different from slavery."
The insider said head office had known franchisees were underpaying wages for years, but did little — if anything — to stop it.
"At lower levels it's discussed all the time ... everyone knows about it. No-one likes it, but people want to keep their jobs so they stay quiet," he said.
He added that the knowledge was so widespread it had become the butt of jokes.
"I've heard it [underpayment of wages] being joked about at senior levels at meetings."

Payroll compliance issues in more than two thirds of stores

Since Four Corners and Fairfax Media first notified the company of its investigation, the insider said 7-Eleven head office had gone into "panic mode".
Explosive internal documents reveal store reviews by head office were ramped up, with damning findings.
Between July and August, a review of 225 stores revealed more than two thirds had payroll compliance issues.
"I ask [franchisees] why there [sic] not paying correct rates for this trading period. The reply was to save money," one review of a store in outer-east Melbourne read.
"[Franchisee] has admitted not paying the correct wages," read another review of a store in western Sydney.
In a media statement released on Monday afternoon, 7-Eleven said it would establish an independent panel to "receive, review and process" claims of underpayment.
"The company has committed that any existing franchisee, who no longer wants to participate in the system, 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd will refund the franchise fee paid, and help to sell any store where a goodwill payment has been made," CEO Warren Wilmot said.

"What has happened, has happened on our watch, and we are a company with a proud heritage and a strong reputation, we cannot allow the few to taint the achievements of the many."

Dyson Heydon rejects call to disqualify himself from union royal commission

Extract from The Guardian

Commissioner’s decision will force critics to make application to federal court if they wish to persist with claim of apprehended bias.

Dyson Heydon has rejected calls to disqualify himself from the trade union royal commission, forcing critics to make an application to the federal court if they wish to persist with their claims of apprehended bias.
Heydon, the sole commissioner of the inquiry, rejected the union applications and defended his impartiality in a 67-page decision delivered in Sydney on Monday.
Unions have left the door open to further legal steps, arguing that any findings of the royal commission – due in December – would be “terminally tarnished” because of the row over Heydon’s initial agreement to speak at a Liberal party event.
The attorney general, George Brandis, called for an end to the attacks on “one of the finest intellects in this country” but the Labor party signalled it would press ahead next week with attempts to pass a motion in the Senate asking the governor general, Peter Cosgrove, to intervene.

Heydon, who is a former high court judge, rejected submissions from unions that his agreement to deliver the Sir Garfield Barwick address met the legal test of apprehended bias.
“I have concluded that it is not the case that a fair-minded lay observer might apprehend that I might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the questions which the work of the commission requires to be decided,” he said.
The ACTU secretary, Dave Oliver, said the peak union body would consider and read the reasons for the decision, consult its lawyers and talk to affiliates before announcing whether it would make an application to the federal court.
“Despite the decision today of Dyson Heydon, the reality is that this royal commission is now terminally tarnished. Any recommendation out of this can’t be taken seriously,” he said.
The union applications had sought to rely on the legal test, in a 2000 case, that “a judge is disqualified if a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide”.

The ACTU argued it was a relatively low threshold because of the inclusion of “might” twice. The union representatives focused on Heydon’s agreement to give the Sir Garfield Barwick address – a Liberal party event – and its effect on perceptions of his ability to decide on the commission’s work impartially.
In his decision, Heydon criticised some of the union submissions as “imprecise” and “not altogether easy to understand”.
But he argued that before disqualification “there must be something more than mere party membership or attendance at party functions, e.g. active support of the organisation, or substantial involvement, or proselytising”.
He suggested his own conduct was passive. “How does agreeing to give a public address to a gathering assembled by the chairs of two lawyer branches indicate support which enables an inference that one of the offending characteristics exist?
“Subject to the content of an address, to give an address does not by itself indicate that the speaker supports the views of any person in the gathering. But an address about a topic unrelated to the possible goals of the party with which the two lawyer groups are associated cannot give rise to an apprehension of bias. In that example there is no proselytising and no substantial party activity.”
Heydon said his “understanding at all times has been that the dinner was not to be a fundraiser” for the Liberal party.
The government – which had signalled it was prepared to consider appointing a new commissioner if Heydon had recused himself – said it was “pleased” with the decision.
Brandis called on the Labor leader, Bill Shorten, and the trade union leadership “to stop trying to run interference on a royal commission that is shining a light on the dark corners of the union movement”.
The attorney general said, “Why is it that the Labor party, from Mr Shorten down, is so determined to close down a royal commission whose role is to expose corruption in the trade union movement?”
The employment minister, Eric Abetz, called on the Labor party to abandon its “shameful attempt to drag the parliament and the governor general into this matter through a self-serving political stunt in the Senate” and to “end their vicious, self-motivated campaign against the highly esteemed and independent royal commissioner”.
But Labor said the commisssion had “descended into high farce, riddled with political bias”.
Shorten accused the prime minister, Tony Abbott, of failing to show leadership and said it was now up to the parliament to act.
“Australians can see right through this; they know bias when they see it,” he said.
“Everything the royal commission says may as well have a Liberal party logo stamped on it. This is $80m of your money being spent for Tony Abbott’s smear campaign.”
The shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, said there was no doubt “that this scandal has damaged the royal commission beyond repair”.
He said the invitation to the Sir Garfield Barwick event was complete with a Liberal party logo, had instructions about making cheques payable to the Liberal party, and mentioned that all proceeds would go into state election campaigning.
“It’s clear that Australians no longer have confidence in the royal commission to operate free from political bias,” Dreyfus said.
He dismissed the government’s characterisation of Labor’s stance, saying the Coalition should “reconsider our proposal in February last year for a high-powered national joint police taskforce to tackle any criminality”.
The Greens MP Adam Bandt said Abbott should step in to bring the inquiry to an end because its work would “forever be tarnished”.