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

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Minister Wong. Minister, can you confirm that at the recent Barcelona climate talks Australian negotiators were chairing the umbrella group’s trust-building meeting from which African delegates walked out in protest at the refusal by developed nations to put 40 per cent emissions reductions by 2020 on the table?

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

There have already been media reports about various things which occurred at the Barcelona negotiations. I again emphasise that Australia is seeking to play a constructive role at those negotiations and, both at official level and also at ministerial level, has worked not just to engage nations within the umbrella group but also to deal with many nations in the G77 as well as, obviously, the Europeans. An example of that, and one of the issues that I think the senator may be referring to, is that Australia has made a significant effort in explaining some of its proposals around the legal architecture for the Copenhagen agreement. One of the proposals that has got some media here in Australia, and certainly some attention internationally, is the Australian proposal of schedules. That has been well received as a constructive contribution to the international discussions. We will continue to play a constructive role in the negotiations.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: the specific question from Senator Milne—and it was very specific—was about a meeting being chaired by Australia, whether that was the case and whether that was the meeting that African nations walked out of. She should answer that question.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I again draw to the attention of the Senate the fact that I cannot instruct a minister how to answer the question. I draw the minister’s attention to the fact that there are 43 seconds remaining and to the question that was asked by the questioner, Senator Milne.

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

Thank you. As I was saying, Australia will continue to play a constructive role in these negotiations. We believe action on climate change is in Australia’s national interest, and I have traversed in detail in this chamber why that is the case. There remain very strong differences of views in these negotiations. Those differences of views are not a secret. They are well known. The differences of views, whether in relation to legal structure or targets—which was one of the issues raised by Senator Milne—are well traversed and in fact can be discerned from the text on the UNFCCC website. But Australia will do what we can to get the best agreement possible at Copenhagen.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. We still have not had it confirmed that Australian negotiators were chairing the meeting at which the Africans walked out, and so I ask the minister: was the Sudanese delegate representing the G77 correct when he said that developing nations are facing a question of survival and that only 40 per cent cuts from the industrialised world by 2020 could save the world? Was he correct?

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

I know that Senator Milne and her colleagues are pressing for higher targets for Australia than those which have been announced by the government. They are entitled to press for those. The government’s view is that the targets we have set are both ambitious and credible. Our view is that what the world needs to do is to get on a path to a 450 parts per million stabilisation goal. That is consistent with an agreement that is capable of holding temperature rise to two degrees. It is the case, the science shows, that the higher the amount of concentration in the atmosphere the higher the likely temperature rise and the higher the risk to all nations, not just developing but developed nations such as Australia, which is why we need to take action on climate change.

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Minister, given that the developing nations, through their walkout and through the remarks of the Sudanese delegates, have made it clear that they will only sign a global treaty if it requires 40 per cent cuts from the industrialised world by 2020, isn’t it now true that the Australian government’s weak five to 25 per cent highly conditional target is neither ambitious nor credible and is a major obstacle to the global agreement being reached?

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

In fact, if you look at what has been put forward by developed nations, Australia’s most ambitious target compares very favourably with the targets which are being put forward by other developed nations on a whole range of measures. I would have hoped that the good senator, who is focused on these issues, would recognise that. The reality is that, whilst nations bear a different responsibility for the past, we share a common responsibility for the future. Developed nations alone cannot deliver the reductions in emissions that are required to ensure that we hold temperature rise to two degrees; it is simply not possible. So we take the approach in this negotiation that this is not about pointing the finger; this is not about blame shifting. It is about constructively trying to build the agreement that the world needs. That is what this government is doing and that is what it will continue to do.