Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong. On 15 December last year, the Prime Minister justified the inexcusably weak target of five per cent and the design of the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on the basis that a more rigorous target would cost jobs and that he had the balance right. Yesterday, however, the government included investment in insulation and solar energy in the latest jobs stimulus package. Does the government now acknowledge that well-designed climate action is a jobs creator, builds manufacturing capacity and generally stimulates the economy?

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

Thank you to Senator Milne for the question. I am pleased that the Greens recognise the importance of yesterday’s announcement and the massive investment in energy efficiency the government made as part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan announced by the Prime Minister. It is an almost $4 billion investment—and, in fact, it is in excess of $4 billion if you count existing expenditure over the forward estimates. It is an enormous investment in energy efficiency measures. The government has always recognised that there are enormous economic opportunities in adjusting to a low-carbon future and in building an economy that is capable of competing in a world where there is global carbon constraint. Where we differ from the Greens, however, is that we recognise the enormous challenge—the hard economic challenge—of making that transition in an economy which is one of the most carbon intensive in the world and in circumstances where there is not a policy magic wand that immediately transforms the Australian economy from a highly carbon intensive economy to the low-pollution economy we do want to build.

So I am grateful that Senator Milne recognises the historic investment in energy efficiency that was announced yesterday, not only an investment that will support jobs for those who are participating in the installation of insulation or solar hot water panels but also a historic investment in energy efficiency to reduce Australia’s emissions. However, the government also recognises that this is a hard economic challenge. This is a transition that needs to be made over a number of decades. That is why we need a scheme to drive that type of economic change in the years and decades to come so we can secure today’s jobs by building tomorrow’s. (Time expired)

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for her response and her recognition that there are huge economic opportunities in adjusting to a low-carbon economy. Will she now revisit the design of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to ensure that the allocation of free permits is conditional on the implementation of the greatest possible energy efficiency opportunities, fuel switching and other emissions-reducing and job-creating options, because the design of the current scheme actively prevents the creation of new jobs in these sectors?

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

We simply do not accept the premise of the good senator’s question. The impetus to drive investment in cleaner energy options, the incentive for Australian business to improve their energy efficiency, the incentive for Australian business to build those low-polluting industries and jobs of the future, is driven by the fact that you put in place a carbon price for the first time. You ensure that the market finally has the information it should have had, which is that climate change costs money and that is reflected in a carbon price. That is the way you drive incentive.

The senator seems to believe that the only way you can drive that sort of change is by making permits conditional. Let us remember that, notwithstanding the fact that the government has put in place unashamedly substantial measures of assistance to assist Australian industries in this transition through the design of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the incentive comes from the carbon price. (Time expired)

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. In announcing the $2.7 billion insulation program, the government claimed that it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by almost 50 million tonnes by 2020. Since that 50 million tonnes is not additional to the emissions cap in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme as proposed, has the government misled the Australian people when it said that this measure would reduce Australia’s actual emissions?

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

Implicit in that question seems to be a misunderstanding of the nature of a cap and trade system, which I understand your party supports. The reality is that if we reduce our energy use and become more energy efficient that does a number of things. First, in the context of higher energy prices, it enables Australian families to reduce their energy costs, and I would hope that would be something that all senators would support. Second, it would enable governments to go for more ambitious targets—that is the reality. The difference between the Greens and the government is that we consider the target range of five to 15 to be an ambitious target. Fifteen per cent is a 41 per cent reduction in the carbon footprint of every man, woman and child in this country between 1990 and 2020. (Time expired)