Interview with Ashleigh Gillon, News24

ASHLEIGH GILLON (HOST): Now to look at some domestic issues is the Assistant Climate Change and Energy Minister, Josh Wilson. Appreciate you coming into the studio. Thanks so much. I wanted to talk to you about some of the ideas we heard from the coalition down here announcing the energy priorities, essentially for a future coalition government. It included a push to repeal a legislated net zero emissions target and also scrap the Safeguard Mechanism to give corporations more power, essentially over their own emissions targets. We know that business has been crying out for help on the energy price front. Would that be a solution to help get more action in in the industrial place in this country? 

JOSH WILSON: No, and really disappointing to see the coalition come out with no new ideas. This old recipe that they have clutched onto for a considerable period of time now. It's a recipe for uncertainty. It's a recipe for crashing investment in Australia. It's a recipe for higher prices for households and businesses. It would be a terrible, terrible, harmful, costly path for Australia to ever go down and for an outfit that couldn’t manage an energy policy despite 22 attempts over nine years to come out after four years of reflection with that kind of manifesto for uncertainty, for crashing investment, for destroying our comparative advantage when it comes to trade opportunities and jobs and a cleaner and cheaper energy future is bewildering. But I suspect that the Australian community, including the business community, will see it for what it is, and some sensible business commentators have already said that one thing it would introduce is chaos, and with chaos, as I say, a crash in investment, inevitably unemployment, inevitably higher prices. 

GILLON: The business community, though, has been very worried about the Safeguard Mechanism scooping up smaller businesses into that, they have been warning that that could be a recipe for disaster in terms of actual businesses closing down as a result.

WILSON: Well, we've not seen that under the Safeguard Mechanism. It has introduced certainty. It's meant that we're on a path to reduce emissions and to make a transition to what should be our destiny in the 21st century. The best thing for us, for our kids and our grandkids, which is to be a renewable energy superpower and a clean industry powerhouse. We've made so much progress on that front over the last four years after a wasted decade, and so to have a recipe from the coalition, which is the sort of same old pencil scratchings on the back of a beer coaster, the same old tired ideas, you know, bury your head in the sand in relation to the energy reality of the 21st century, which is a renewable energy transition, and then to come out again with this idea that the magic solution is massive government investment that the taxpayers will bear, hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers' funds, into the most expensive form of new generation in nuclear, is bewildering.

GILLON: Well, we are still waiting to see more details around the nuclear. Yesterday, Dan Tehan was mainly focusing on lifting the moratorium on that, and there is a push that then we could see the economics stack up in terms of private investment in that as well. Why not just lift the moratorium, and then if private industries decide to go ahead with that, so be it?

WILSON: Well, they could have lifted the moratorium in the 10 years that they were in power, but the idea that there would be international investment appetite in that is just bananas. I mean, the nuclear industry is in decline. 

GILLON: But what is the actual argument against lifting that moratorium? 

WILSON: Well, the argument is it would be an incredible, wasteful, dangerous distraction. You don't just lift the moratorium by itself. You have to make a whole series of regulatory changes, which in themselves are costly, and if you look at the nuclear regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions that have gone down that path decades ago, very, very, very costly. Big expansion of obviously public service capacity just to serve that, and then you facilitate what you'd certainly see under the under the coalition, which is the nuclear white shoe brigade, coming along for government handouts, and we know from the coalition's proposal last time that that's exactly the path they want to go down. They want to spend $600 billion of taxpayers' money because there's no private investment in it. There's no private investment in nuclear anywhere, and they want to open the door for taxpayer funds to pour into what is the most expensive form of energy generation. 

GILLON: Is there a disconnect, though, between not lifting that moratorium, but allowing US subs to potentially have nuclear weapons on board? Subs that are going to be starting to rotate close to your electorate in Fremantle, just south of there, anyway. We heard from Michael McCaul, the senior Republican congressman, just last week, saying that that is likely the case-that nuclear weapons will be on board those subs.

WILSON: Well, I don't think it's for an individual congressperson in the United States to tell the United States government or represent the United States government. 

GILLON: But that's a logical assumption, isn't it? 

WILSON: Not at all. I mean, nuclear submarines from the U.S. have visited Australia under existing arrangements for a long period of time, and our position in relation to nuclear weapons is clear. Our position and our adherence to the Treaty of Rarotonga, and all of the efforts that we make in pursuit of our commitment to a nuclear-free world through the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The Minister for Foreign Affairs made an announcement about some progress on that front overnight as part of [interrupted]

GILLON: So, would Australia stop those subs from bringing nuclear weapons into Australian ports?

WILSON: Well, you're putting the proposition in a way that that involves an assumption or a hypothetical that I don't think is correct. Australia's position on nuclear weapons, our approach to nuclear weapons and our relationship with the United States has been a matter of stable agreement and observance for a considerable period of time, and there's nothing to suggest that that is going to change. Now, a Congressperson in the United States can freelance on that issue if they wish, but I don't think any of us, any sensible people, would take that as a representation of the reality. 

GILLON: I wanted to ask you about the grand final this weekend. 

WILSON: I like the jacket. I think you know

GILLON: We’re matching. 

WILSON: Yeah.

GILLON: Go Dockers. As a member for Fremantle, you're obviously quite invested in this. I was interested to see that you appear to have joined that campaign to remove Woodside's logo from the front of Docker's jerseys. Is that right? We've seen a photograph surface of you covering over Woodside's logo on the jersey. What's your position on that? 

WILSON: Well, I mean, first and foremost, I'm really looking forward to this Saturday. It’s fantastic that the Fremantle Football Club gets to play in its second grand final, and I hope that we get to bring home the AFL trophy for the first time. I love the Fremantle Football Club, and I'm looking forward to sharing that day with my community. But yeah, as a matter of my personal position, when I wear my Dockers gear, I want to 100% support the Fremantle Football Club. I don't particularly [interrupted]

GILLON: But Woodside's the major sponsor here. You're covering it up. You're the Assistant Minister for Energy. What have you got against Woodside? 

WILSON: Well, if I got to finish my last sentence, I don't particularly want to walk around advertising Woodside. That's my personal view, and that's a matter of consistency for me as someone in the past who has criticised aspects of Woodside's approach to the world, particularly around decommissioning, I think there have been a couple of instances, most notably with the Northern Endeavor floating oil kit, where Woodside didn't really meet community expectations in terms of their responsibility there, potentially putting our marine environment at risk, and certainly putting hundreds of millions of dollars of costs onto the Commonwealth, which we've had to recover through an industry-wide levy. Now, I've been publicly critical of Woodside in relation to that matter, and in a couple of other instances. So, for me, it's a matter of personal consistency, and I think that we should reflect on how lucky we are to live in a in a place like Australia, where people can express their views and their values in colourful and creative ways. 

GILLON: But a personal view is one thing. You're the assistant energy minister, so when you're representing a government that's just extended the Northwest Shelf for Woodside for the next 40 years, you've got your senior minister, the resources minister, your government's position is that gas is a crucial resource that is needed as we transition to renewables, and you're suggesting that Woodside as a sponsor to your football team is a bad thing. Are you essentially suggesting that Woodside's trying to greenwash. Is that what you're saying? 

WILSON: No, I mean in fairness, Ash, I understand that question. I think you're extrapolating a little bit there. I mean, I've been clear in saying that my personal view when I wear my Dockers gear is I want to be supporting the Fremantle Football Club, and I don't particularly want to be a walking advertisement for Woodside. Now that doesn't mean that I don't think there is a role for gas to play in the energy transition. Of course, I do. We need gas as a firming technology as we make a rapid transition to renewables in this country and to support that global cooperative effort. Of course, we have to get out of hydrocarbons as soon as we can. The football jersey issue, which I understand the interest in, particularly this week, is as a result of a personal picture ending up in social media, and I'm happy to explain that. It's really a case of my personal commitment to the football club and not wanting to be a walking advertisement for Woodside, which is also consistent with the fact that I've made criticisms of Woodside in the past.

GILLON: So, just a yes or no. Do you think Woodside does greenwash when it sponsors these campaigns, when it sponsors the Freo Dockers, when it sponsors the Woodside Nippers program that sees West Australian kids everywhere running around in Woodside jerseys on the beach each weekend?

WILSON: I think that that's a bit of a loaded concept, and it's probably not for me to make that judgment. But I think people in the community are free to decide how they want to conduct themselves and how they want to express their views and their values, and we should celebrate that. We should recognise that in a country like Australia, there are ways that community members and community organisations can engage in activism around things that matter to them, and that each of us personally can make those choices. I do in my in my personal regard, as do lots and lots of other Australians. That is a healthy thing. 

GILLON: Josh Wilson, thanks for your time. 

WILSON: Thank you.