Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is directed to the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong. Given that the Prime Minister promised in his 2007 election victory speech that working families would be better off under a Rudd Labor government, can the minister explain how working families will be better off under an emissions trading scheme when, according to the Energy Supply Association, the costs of power will increase by 40 to 50 per cent by 2020 and that will, both directly and indirectly, increase the cost of basic necessities such as groceries and other goods?

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

The first point to be made is that I think the comment about working families never having been better off was actually the previous Prime Minister’s. We have been upfront about the fact that in tackling climate change there is not a cost-free option. The Prime Minister and other ministers, including me, have been completely upfront about that. We have also said that Professor Garnaut’s review shows, just as Lord Nicholas Stern’s report showed, that the costs of failing to act are greater than the costs of action now.

We published last year, through the Treasury October modelling report, the low-pollution modelling report, an outline of what was the most comprehensive modelling undertaken by the government. We set out very clearly the economic costs of imposing a price on carbon. We made it very clear what the sorts of transitional costs would be. In response to that, the Prime Minister, in his Press Club announcement of the white paper in December, outlined a very comprehensive household assistance package which focused primarily on low-income families but also on middle-income families. The senator may not recall that under that approach at least half of the auction revenue from the permits will go back to households and around 2.8 million households—that is, some 90 per cent of low-income households—will in fact receive some 120 per cent or more of their cost of living increase over the first two years of the scheme. Some 97 per cent or more of middle-income households will receive some assistance. (Time expired)

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the huge cost of the ETS, and given that it has been reported that China has announced its plan to build one super power station, possessing the same capacity as Australia’s entire power sector, every four months until 2020—that is, around 25 to 35 Australian coal-fired power stations over that period of time—how can the Rudd government continue to think that an ETS for Australia will markedly improve global emission reductions when the rise in China’s emissions during the next eight years will be about 140 times Australia’s planned reduction over the same period?

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

The fact is that both major parties—certainly those opposite, while they were in government, and the Rudd government—have come to the conclusion that it is in Australia’s national interest to act to reduce emissions. It is in Australia’s national interest to introduce a scheme to reduce emissions. Those opposite have had a number of policy changes since the election, but that is certainly what Prime Minister Howard went to the last election with. In relation to the issue of China and other nations, I think the point that was made in the Shergold report to Prime Minister Howard was that, notwithstanding some of those issues, it was in Australia’s interest to act, that there would be benefits to our economy and costs that could be avoided by acting. On the issue that the senator previously raised, I again refer him— (Time expired)

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given the huge cost to the Australian economy and families and given that the Senate is being asked to vote on the government’s ETS legislation this week, can the minister advise whether the government had any discussions with Professor Will Steffen on his invitation to brief senators today? Did the government put any pressure on him not to attend?

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

I certainly do not recall having had any discussion with Mr Steffen about which meetings he attended or did not attend today. I will see if I can take advice on this issue.

I would again remind us all what the science has told us. The fourth assessment report has demonstrated that since the 1950s the warming rate has accelerated to nearly twice that which has occurred over the past 100 years. There have been increases in ocean temperatures, there have been rising average sea levels and there has been extensive melting of snow and ice. Globally, 13 of the 14 warmest years on record occurred between 1995 and 2008.

That is why the G8—the world’s leading economies—have called for action on climate change and have endorsed cap-and-trade schemes. This is the way the world is moving and we think Australia should be moving accordingly because it is in our economic interest to do so.