Sky News

Sunday Agenda

Liberal Backbencher, Wilson Tuckey

18th October 2009

Interview with Liberal Backbencher, Wilson Tuckey

Sunday Agenda program, 18th October 2009

Helen Dalley: Wilson Tuckey is a Liberal Party elder who’s not afraid to speak his own
mind. He’s certainly doing that in his opposition to emissions trading. But is he voicing a
significant view within the party, or is he just the crazy uncle, to quote Joe Hockey,
someone you hear but don’t pay much attention to? Wilson Tuckey joins us now from
our studio in Canberra. Wilson Tuckey, thanks for joining us.

Wilson Tuckey: It’s a pleasure, Helen.

Helen Dalley: What are you expecting out of this afternoon’s crucial party room meeting
to decide on what your ETS position will be to take to the government?

Wilson Tuckey: Well Helen, this afternoon’s meeting is not about negotiation with the
government. It’s about capitulation to the government. The government cannot alter the
legislation already rejected in the senate by one word if it wishes to utilise it later on as a
double dissolution measure. In other words, to accept or agree to any set of
amendments proposed by the Opposition, there must be also given an iron clad
guarantee that the Opposition will vote for the legislation. And in that situation, were
there other issues to arise out of the blue, the Opposition would be unable to effect
further amendments. Now let us again get down to this issue of what is an emissions
trading scheme. There is virtually . . .

Helen Dalley: . . . No, my question was what do you expect out of this afternoon . . .

Wilson Tuckey: . . . Just listen to me for a minute. You asked, I just told you. It will be a
proposal to capitulate. Now don’t interrupt me for a minute. I want to tell you that an
emissions trading scheme, three letters in the alphabet, is a process by which the
government is going to sell to electricity generators and others the right to continue
polluting, and they are going to pass that cost right down with profit margins at every
stage, right through to the poorest family and the smallest small business. They will all
pay, and to quote a leading commentator yesterday, it would be equivalent to increasing
the GST to 12.5 percent and put it on food and clothing in the process.

Helen Dalley: Well on that, you and the Greens seem to agree. But could I just get back
to the meeting today? Will you vote against the amendments?

Wilson Tuckey: I will argue in the party room, as I have given written notice, that the first
decision to be made is whether or not we abandon our long established policy of saying
any vote called upon on this matter prior to the Copenhagen conference just a month

Sunday Agenda 18th October 2009 Wilson Tuckey

later in December, will be opposed. Now you cannot send a minister off, or shadow
minister off to negotiate with the government with the understanding that we’re going to
oppose it anyway. And I believe we should have a secret ballot on that issue as to
whether we disavow our present position prior to discussing further options. Now I don’t
think the leader is going to agree to that, but I will put it, because it’s the appropriate way
to go. And considering your leading remarks, I believe there would be very strong
support for retaining our existing position. It is logical and it says let’s find out what the
rest of the world is going to do. I just saw Penny Wong on another programme talking
about what they’re doing in China. Not one mention of an emissions trading scheme.
The Chinese are doing as I recommend, investing in renewables like hydro power,
investing in the efficiencies that are technologically available in electrical transmission.
Australia with government investment can do those things and make electricity cheaper,
not more expensive.

Helen Dalley: Alright, but today Malcolm Turnbull will no doubt get his amendments
agreed to. That seems to be all the indications coming out of the party. You’ll be
outvoted and the united position will be presented. You’ll no doubt be rebuffed because
you won’t get your secret ballot. Now if that happens, will the party room be united in
reality?

Wilson Tuckey: Well the point I make in favour of a secret ballot, I mean the Labor Party
has ballots on virtually every issue. And it’s a pity that over the years the Liberal Party
has not. With a secret ballot there is a clear evidence as to whether these proposals are
supported or not. When the leader looks around the room . . .

Helen Dalley: . . . Mr. Tuckey, sorry we have to move on because Mr. Turnbull has said
that he won’t have one . . .

Wilson Tuckey: . . . Well that’s right, that is still . . .

Helen Dalley: . . . So if you get rebuffed on that, will the party room be united?

Wilson Tuckey: Maybe, maybe. Well I don’t think the party room can be united if the
leader takes a unilateral decision on this matter, when a vote may have been to the
contrary. And I think the leader is missing an opportunity to actually get clear evidence
of what the backbench feels. I mean you get three minutes to make a speech in the
backbench. There are a lot of people who fear retribution. You know, when you get
attacked as I was by Joe Hockey trying to protect the Australian people from a new tax,
and he’s the Shadow Treasurer, how do you think other people feel?

Helen Dalley: Okay, well even if today allows Malcolm Turnbull to negotiate with the
government, some in the Coalition, the Nationals and as you alluded to at the beginning,
they have said they will vote against any scheme that comes to parliament before the
December Copenhagen meeting. Will you be one voting against the legislation?

Wilson Tuckey: I certainly will be. My vote in the House of Reps has little effect, simply
because the government has a majority there . . .

Helen Dalley: . . . Of course, so how representative?

Sunday Agenda 18th October 2009 Wilson Tuckey

Wilson Tuckey: I might remind you that recently I called a division when the leader
reversed our position on alcopops. What was your question?

Helen Dalley: How representative then is your view in the party? How many agree with
you?

Wilson Tuckey: Well I don’t count numbers. I send out written messages to my
colleagues, they can take any judgement they like, they’re independent Members of
Parliament. It’s notable nevertheless when I decided to vote against the alcopops back
down, the leader had to send out a message to colleagues that they could abstain from
the vote, because he didn’t know how many were going to come with me.

Helen Dalley: Let’s keep talking about ETS. If the amendments go through today, you
say you don’t count numbers, but what will that prove to you about Malcolm Turnbull’s
leadership?

Wilson Tuckey: Well Malcolm Turnbull has been totally committed to an emissions
trading scheme when he was the Environmental Minister. He included words in a
speech that said this was the beginning and it was on only related legislation, barely
related legislation, that this was the foundation of this you beaut ETS scheme, emissions
trading scheme . . .

Helen Dalley: . . . Alright, in that is he in step with the majority of the party? . . .

Wilson Tuckey: . . . Now he has followed that situation.

Helen Dalley: Is he in step with the majority?

Wilson Tuckey: I do not believe that many people in the party believe an emissions
trading tax is the means of fixing the problem.

Helen Dalley: So is Malcolm Turnbull in step with the majority? . . .

Wilson Tuckey: . . . But there are a number who will not oppose the leader. Well it’s not
a case of being in step, it’s a case of people feeling obliged to create some semblance of
unity in the parliament, when they’re deeply worried for their own constituents who are
going to pay this additional tax which is paid so that it can be passed onto electrical
generators who can go on polluting.

Helen Dalley: So how will the Coalition senators vote when it goes to the senate,
because that’ll be crucial.

Wilson Tuckey: Well the senators typically take advice from the party room, but there
are a number who have indicated they will oppose the legislation. That will be
embarrassing, but their legislation would pass. Please remember, if about ten of the
Coalition senators voted for the legislation, it would pass anyway.

Helen Dalley: Okay, so will today therefore in your view be a kind of false victory for
your leader?

Sunday Agenda 18th October 2009 Wilson Tuckey

Wilson Tuckey: Well I’m not going to say things like that. That’s a rather silly question.
My view is that the leader has put a proposal, I expect a large number of people to vote
against it. If the day after the leader says, well you’re going to get it anyway, I’m sending
Ian MacFarlane off to negotiate, that will be a capitulation to the government, because
MacFarlane can’t go to those negotiations without an ironclad guarantee that every
Coalition senator will line up to vote for this legislation to impose a new tax on
Australians that’s cumulative and gets right down. Wait till the carbon inspectors, the
carbon cops start banging on the door of small business . . .

Helen Dalley: . . . Right, Mr. Tuckey, I just want to ask you a few more questions.
You’ve been busy undermining your leader, you stirred trouble in July when you emailed
every colleague, attacking Malcolm Turnbull as arrogant and inexperienced, were you
wrong about that?

Wilson Tuckey: Are you telling me that I am unable to write to my colleagues and
express views and . . .

Helen Dalley: . . . No, but are you saying that’s not causing trouble? It definitely caused
trouble for your leader, and do you stand by that, that you called him arrogant and
inexperienced?

Wilson Tuckey: I stand by those remarks. I said them as I expected, in confidential

mail. It was leaked by someone else and I’m not excusing myself on those grounds.
What I’m saying to you is, if you as a journalist believe that Members of Parliament
cannot correspond with each other in a recess, and more importantly when you get three
minutes to express a point of view on this highly complex issue in the party room, then of
course you should say that all print newspapers should be closed down.

Helen Dalley: Alright, but then you realise very much that those comments will be
spread around, and that’s precisely probably why, because you only get three minutes.
But how is it that undermining Mr. Turnbull in this way is in the best interests of the
party?

Wilson Tuckey: I’m in dispute with Mr. Turnbull on a policy issue. If you have a political
party that just waits for its leader to announce what’s best for Australia, then that’s
communism. That’s totalitarianism.

Helen Dalley: But you called him arrogant and inexperienced. That wasn’t just policy.
You called him those words.

Wilson Tuckey: Well he’s been in the parliament four years and I believe he’s been
constantly publicising an opposite view to the policy of the party as approved in the party
room. I’ve never got out of step on the party policy. As we speak on this television
programme, the policy is still that we oppose the legislation if a vote is called upon
before the Copenhagen conference. And of course and naturally once we get a view of
what the rest of the world is doing, we believe it’s time for Australia to make up its mind
regarding its response. And I’m on the website and everything else telling people for the
last ten years how that can be achieved without having a hedge fund benefit.

Helen Dalley: Your colleague Peter Dutton said to Agenda on Friday, I say to my
colleagues, it’s time for us to have discussions in private, and in public have a united

Sunday Agenda 18th October 2009 Wilson Tuckey

front to keep the pressure on the Labor Party instead of on us. Essentially he was telling
you to get back in your box, you and others. What do you say to that?

Wilson Tuckey: Well I say to that, that’s very good advice, but he might have taken it
himself. He is a frontbencher who participated in a phone hook-up at which time an
agreement was made to alter the established policy I have mentioned. And that was put
out as a press release. Now the rules . . .

Helen Dalley: . . . Just answer the question if you could, Mr. Tuckey.

Wilson Tuckey: Well I’m answering the question alright. The question is, should the
leadership be out there publishing alternative views to the party room until they’ve got
approval of the party room, and it looks like this time that process is being followed and
even the detail of the proposed amendments have not been released to you in the
media.

Helen Dalley: In 20 seconds, it looks like there are a few more boats on their way to
Australia, potentially with asylum seekers. What’s your view of what we should do?

Wilson Tuckey: Well we should return to the legislation enacted by the Howard
government, that stopped those visitors, those queue jumpers from coming.

Helen Dalley: So return to the Pacific Solution you mean?

Wilson Tuckey: Every day in the paper you read of billions of dollars being spent . . .

Helen Dalley: . . . Sorry, return to the Pacific Solution, is that what you mean?

Wilson Tuckey: Whatever legislation. I mean labels are meaningless. We had enacted
a set of legislation and the boat people stopped coming. Labor has weakened all those
components and the boat people have started coming again. And who are most
disadvantaged from that? The honest people who’ve gone to a United Nations refugee
camp and have applied to be one of the 13,000 that legally enter Australia every year.

Helen Dalley: Alright Mr. Tuckey, we will have to leave it there. Thank you so much for
joining us.

Wilson Tuckey: Good on you, Helen.

Sunday Agenda 18th October 2009 Wilson Tuckey