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. The government has said that it would go to a 15 per cent reduction target in greenhouse gas emissions if there were a global agreement, ‘where all major economies commit to substantially restrain emissions’ and ‘all developed countries take on comparable reductions to that of Australia’. Will the minister tell the Senate how the government defines a ‘major economy’ for the purposes of its target commitment? Can she also tell us what is meant by ‘substantially restrain emissions’ and also which countries are regarded as major economies by the government’s definition?

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

It is the case that the government has indicated different levels of targets depending on what type of agreement or the scope and ambition of agreement is achieved at Copenhagen. That is the responsible thing to do because, of course, the capacity for any single nation to reduce its emissions is affected by the extent to which other nations also take on targets. The Treasury modelling that the government undertook demonstrated that that is the case. Effectively working together we can reduce emissions more quickly than if there is not an effective international agreement, which is one of the reasons why the government makes a significant priority of engagement through these international processes. A number of the issues of definition that the good senator refers to are, in fact, the very issues which are the subject of negotiation. Issues such as restraining of emissions in the context of developing economies is one of the difficult and complex issues, which is at the heart of the international negotiations.

Senator Milne is somebody who has a close awareness of the range of publications on this matter and she will know, for example, that there are different trajectories under IPCC scenarios which look at deviation from business as usual. These are matters which are at the core of the negotiations. The fact is the government realises very clearly that developed countries need not only to commit to reduce their emissions in accordance with their existing obligations under the convention but to reduce emissions. We also have to have action from developing economies and the delinking of economic growth and emissions growth. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. We do not know what the ‘major economies’ are and we do not know what ‘substantially restrain emissions’ means. In relation to the second part of the question, will the minister inform the Senate what specific criteria the government will use to determine ‘comparable reductions to that of Australia’ for annex 1 countries?

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

Again, these are exactly some of the matters which are currently being negotiated and I invite the senator to consider some of the submissions to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations where these issues are canvassed not only by Australia but also by other economies. We in this government do believe that we have to seek to have agreed, through the international process, a range of factors against which comparability ought to be considered. There are different views about what those factors should be, and the Australian government is participating constructively in the negotiations that deal with these issues. Comparability of effort is an important principle. There is a way to go yet to get international agreement about what the factors are to which any international agreement would have regard when considering comparability.

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given the minister’s answer, can the minister confirm that the only certainty this parliament will have when the legislation comes before it, before Copenhagen, is that Australia will go for a five per cent reduction in emissions, since the minister’s answer has been that it is totally discretionary for Australia to determine those parameters after the legislation comes before the chamber and therefore the 15 per cent is an illusion? Is that the case?

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

That is utterly misleading, Senator Milne, and it is typical, frankly, of an approach where you try to ignore the aspects of this legislation which are ambitious. I again say to the Greens that they can take a position where they say, ‘No, we would rather have emissions grow than have emissions reduce.’ That will be a matter for them and their constituency. The government have been clear that 15 per cent is something we are prepared to put on the table but of course, as Senator Milne well knows—and she does well know this—these are exactly the sorts of issues which need to be negotiated in the context of an international agreement and we will take a constructive approach to that as we have to date. If the Greens want to play at these sorts of political games with something as important as this then that is probably something they will need to describe to their constituency.