Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

I suspect Senator Milne probably should address that question to Senator Abetz, but I am happy to have a go. Again we seem to be debating the CPRS rather than the RET, but I want to respond to Senator Joyce’s intervention.

He suggested that this is a game. This is not a game. This is about tackling climate change and increasing investment in renewable energy. This is about the government providing fair and consistent assistance to industries and providing certainty to business. It is about the government doing what we said we would do before the election and it is about the government doing what we believe is right for the nation. We do not do this because we think it is a game. We do this because we accept the consensus science about what climate change means to this nation now and what it will mean in the future.

I said in the CPRS debate that the ability of the nations of the world, including Australia, to prevent any climate change is already lost to us. But what this generation of political leaders have is the opportunity to lessen the risk for our children and for those who come after us. I for one think that is a responsibility we should discharge properly. It is not a responsibility we should walk away from because we are frightened or because we are too weak. So I reject in the strongest terms, Senator Joyce, the way in which you have characterised the approach. You can have an argument with us on the policy, but what you are implying is just incorrect. I do not think it is consistent with the way many Australians understand this issue.

In relation to coupling and decoupling I am reminded of Lenore Taylor’s article about the way in which this discussion has gone on. The amendments that the government moved in the House, which we announced on the weekend, did not make the commencement of assistance under the RET conditional upon the passage of the CPRS. So that is true. But the effective consequence of the agreement with the coalition is precisely what the government have been arguing for—that is, that we should build the renewable energy target assistance onto the architecture of the CPRS assistance. Frankly, I am not sure that it assists in the political debate—clearly it assists inside the coalition and possibly in terms of the Greens trying to have a go at the coalition or the government for the agreement we have come to—whether you say that the date of commencement is the coupling or decoupling or that the architecture of the assistance is the coupling or decoupling. But I can tell you that, from the government’s perspective, we think this was a sensible compromise because it deals with the policy issue about which we were always concerned, which was to reflect industries’ view to us that we needed to consider the cumulative cost. We are pleased that the coalition were able to come to a view. I will quote from Mr Turnbull’s press release that referred to what has been agreed, which is using the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme of assistance, or design of assistance, where that is described as ‘appropriate protection for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries such as aluminium’. So we are pleased with that.

Obviously senators can conduct this debate how we want, but my suggestion to the chamber is that we are not debating the CPRS. With respect to Senator Milne, we are actually not debating whether the coalition got it right. She has put a view about that and I accept that. We are actually debating an amendment on food processing. We will then have an amendment from the government and two amendments, I think, from Senator Milne, which the government is happy to debate and proceed. Obviously this matter has precedence, I think, through you Madam Temporary Chair, until 12.45 pm. I express again, as I expressed last night, the government’s keenness to get this legislation through for the reason that Senator Boswell correctly alluded to—that is, this is investment-sensitive legislation. This is legislation on which a lot of private sector investment hangs and we are keen to pass it and give that signal to Australian business.