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

I will not withdraw that, Senator, because you sat on the side of the chamber with Senator Fielding and Senator Joyce against action on climate change. You can talk all you like about all the bad things about the Labor Party and the government, but that fact is a fact of history—and you will do it again, no matter what we do in relation to this bill. You are so focused on not giving money to the electricity sector, and you brush aside the issue of energy security. You are so focused on trying to differentiate yourself from the government that you refuse to vote for action on climate change. We can debate about this endlessly, if you wish. We do have a view as a government. As a government we acknowledge the science, which is why we are acting. We also believe we have to put forward targets that are ambitious, credible and achievable.

I will remind you what we are debating just so that people are clear on it. The government’s legislation—and we are talking about a parts-per-million clause in the objects clause, and as people will know that is an indication of how much carbon is in the atmosphere—talks about an objective of 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent or lower. Senator Milne says that if we do not put in the word ‘350’ she will vote against the bill. Just to be clear what we are talking about: we are saying 450 ppm or lower; Senator Milne and the Greens want 350 ppm, which is in fact, and regrettably, an atmospheric concentration the world has already passed.

In terms of the advice to me, or the position of the government, I will just make a couple of points. The only factor to which the minister must have regard under the current legislation is to the international obligations that the nation has agreed to through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto protocol. It is the government’s view that it would be problematic to place a legal duty on the minister to have regard to other matters on a mandatory basis, such as the stabilisation of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. This may suggest that these other matters are equally significant to, or can be balanced against or limit the implementation of the international agreements. It is also the government’s view that this would weaken constitutional support for the bill.

The proposed amendment may also create a precedent to have other factors mandatorily taken into account when setting the scheme cap, which could also weaken constitutional support for the bill. Further, amendments that oblige the minister to have regard to other factors will increase the risk of judicial review. This would be undesirable given the importance of certainty in relation to scheme caps.

That is the view of the government. We will not be supporting this amendment. We have already clearly stated as a government that stabilisation at 450 parts per million or lower would be in Australia’s national interest. That obviously can only be achieved through ambitious global action. We again say that what is critical in terms of the legislation before the chamber is that Australia starts to reduce emissions. Every year of delay makes more ambitious targets more difficult. Every year of delay makes the economic change that we have to engage in more expensive. Every year of delay means that we are less likely to reduce our contribution to climate change.