David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate you, Mr President, upon your election and I congratulate the Deputy President upon his election. My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong. Is the minister aware of the Business Council of Australia’s warning that the minister’s emissions trading scheme as set out is a company killer? Has the minister seen reports that the jobs of up to one million Australians who work in trade exposed emissions intensive industries are at risk from a rushed and poorly designed emissions trading scheme? Why is the government putting Australian jobs at risk to this extent by rushing its emissions trading scheme?

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

Yes, I am aware of the work that the BCA has done. We have had quite a number of discussions with the Business Council as well as with other industry groups, and that is as it should be. We are very conscious as a government of the importance of striking the right balance when it comes to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and that is why we are taking a very careful and methodical approach to its design. I do want to make this point, and I hope those opposite at some point get beyond their current confusion on this issue: this is an extremely important issue in terms of preparing this nation for future challenges and it is not an easy policy debate. It certainly requires consideration of a range of factors. Ultimately what government will have to do is to find the right balance, to strike the right balance, in terms of the contribution to reducing emissions and tackling climate change. We need to strike the right balance and we need to ensure that that effort is spread fairly across the economy.

In February I spoke about the need to ensure that we recognise the competitiveness issues associated with introducing such a scheme for our trade exposed emissions intensive industries, and we have had a significant amount of discussion with business on this issue. We recognise that there are important competitiveness issues which arise from introducing this scheme prior to there being a global carbon price. That is why in the green paper we proposed that 30 per cent of all permits to be issued be given free to emissions intensive trade exposed industries in recognition of their need for support. In addition, the government also outlined in the green paper the intention to establish a Climate Change Action Fund to again assist business to make the transition to a lower carbon economy.

There are obviously a range of views across different sectors of the economy and different industries about the best way to develop and to structure that assistance to the emissions intensive trade exposed industries. We will continue to have a constructive dialogue with business on this issue. I hope down the track we can also have a constructive engagement by the opposition with this issue, an issue which is critical to Australia’s future in terms of both the environmental challenge and also the economic challenge that climate change presents. So we are very conscious as a government of the issues affecting the emissions intensive trade exposed businesses, just as we are also conscious of the need to ensure that the costs of this transition are fairly spread across the economy.

Of course, what Senator Johnston fails to acknowledge in the way he poses the question is that there is no menu of easy options when it comes to tackling climate change. The reality is the more sectors of the economy you shield, the higher the cost, potentially, for the rest of the economy. That is the public policy issue here. We will work very closely with industry to find the best outcome. The whole purpose of putting out the green paper was to enable this sort of detailed consultation. As I said, I have certainly had discussions with the Business Council, as with other business groups, and we will continue to do so as we look to work through the issues which have been put forward.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. My supplementary question to the minister is with regard to the Minister for Resources and Energy being so concerned about her emissions trading plan that he is convening a crisis meeting with 50 companies on Friday to discuss alternative options. Can I ask the minister: has she been invited? Secondly, will she listen to and adopt any of the recommendations from that meeting?

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

I think I addressed the issue of consultation across a whole range of different sectors in response to the question from Senator Bob Brown. The fact is, there are consultations across sectors with a whole range of ministers—

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As there should be.

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

so this is not a surprise. I take Senator Faulkner’s interjection—as there should be. There should be, and that is the whole purpose of the process we have outlined—issuing a green paper and working methodically through that and the economic modelling which will be issued and made public in October as well as Professor Garnaut’s report. That whole process is a methodical, careful process of determining the best outcome for this country. I hope that the opposition over time will stop the sort of scaremongering that we have seen in recent months on this issue. (Time expired)