Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong. Was Yvo de Boer, the head of the UN climate change secretariat, correct when he said that it does not matter whether or not Australia has an emissions trading scheme in place before the UN Copenhagen conference later this year?

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

Thank you to the senator for his question. I would invite the senator to consider the context of Mr de Boer’s comments, where he also made clear these were domestic issues. I would also invite him to consider subsequent comments by Mr de Boer which the senator may not be aware of. He was asked, for example, on 4 August 2009 about this issue and the relevance of the passage of this legislation to Australia’s credibility at Copenhagen. He answered: ‘I think it helps Australia’s credibility to say, “This is the target Australia is willing to commit to and this is how we are going to achieve it.” That will be good for the country’s credibility, yes.’ I think it is quite clear, consistent with what the government has been saying, that if Australia want to go to Copenhagan with a target the responsible thing to do is to ensure that we have the means to meet it. What we have made clear is that we believe it is in Australia’s interest to ensure that when we agree to targets the Australian people know how it is we are going to meet them, because you do not meet your target by talking about them.

The second reason, of course, for the passage of legislation is business certainty. Greg Gailey, the President of the BCA, talked about climate change being a multidecade investment challenge and about uncertainty being the enemy of those investment decisions. We on this side of the chamber understand that this is an economic reform and we need to give business the certainty which drives the investment of the future. I would also say to the good senator that, if you look at what the G8 said, it is clear this is the direction other countries are going. (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Although Mr de Boer may have talked about Australia’s credibility, his comments that the minister cited in her answer had nothing to do with the outcomes from the Copenhagen conference or what relevance an Australian ETS would have to those outcomes. So why is it that the minister is demanding that Australia rush ETS legislation when in respect of the yet to be passed US emissions trading scheme the US Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change, Jonathan Pershing, has also said, with reference to the Copenhagen conference, that you can have a deal without having the legislation first?

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

Let us be clear about what is being proposed on the other side. What is being proposed on the other side is that it is good for this country to delay further on climate change. After 10 years in government, when those on the other side failed to act on this issue, they are now proposing yet further delay—and further delay in the signal to investors when we know what we need is to give that investment certainty so we can start that transformation process.

I would invite those opposite to consider also the comments of Todd Stern, who I think has made some very interesting comments on this front. Also, across the Tasman, Prime Minister Key was asked, also on 6 August, about the signal that it would send to the world: ‘Do you think it is important?’ This was in relation to the emissions trading scheme. Prime Minister Key said: ‘I think it helps. It shows that you are serious.’ Of course it is well known that— (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Why can’t the minister explain without the partisan barbs or politicking why her position on the Copenhagen summit and rushing Australia’s ETS legislation is contrary to that of leading UN and US spokespeople on climate change? Why won’t the government just step back, take a deep breath, see what happens at Copenhagen and use the extra time to consider better alternatives?

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

I might refer those opposite to the comments from the Business Council of Australia on 4 May 2009:

In the interests of business certainty the BCA calls on the Senate to pass legislation this year to establish a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

And the AiG on the same date said, ‘The AiG supports the passage of the CPRS legislation this year.’ The reality is that the responsible economic thing to do is to provide business with the certainty that is required to drive this transformation. This is an economic reform. We are approaching it responsibly and soberly. We have, unlike those opposite, not rushed to come up with an idea after six weeks of modelling. We have been working on this since we were elected, building on the work that was started whilst the Howard government was in power. We have provided legislation to this parliament some 10 years after it was first started to be mooted and discussed by the Howard government. (Time expired)