Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. Does the government expect that the Durban climate change conference, to which Australia is sending a 40-strong delegation, will deliver a new, legally binding framework to replace the Kyoto protocol, which expires next year?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for his question and the new-found interest of the coalition in international climate change policy. However, I suspect it might be short-lived.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, Durban will be.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No—I will take that interjection—I suspect your interest is short-lived, Senator Abetz.

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

Ignore the interjections; just address the question, Senator Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to expectations, obviously Australia will continue to play the constructive role that we have played internationally on the issue of climate change since this government was elected. Obviously these international negotiations are not easy, and it is true that the issue of the Kyoto protocol is something that I have no doubt will be discussed.

At Durban I am advised that our priority is to take forward a range of the structures and systems that support global action on climate change. These include, first, the progress of new global markets for trading in carbon permits, something that those opposite used to support but appear now to be walking away from; second, an adaptation framework, which is intended to help vulnerable developing countries manage the impacts of unavoidable climate change; and, third, establishing a framework to reduce deforestation in developing countries.

It is the case that we need comprehensive and concerted global action if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. It is also true that the Kyoto protocol has been a core part of progress for the past two decades and many of its elements will be important to the post-2012 global framework.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I raise a point of order on relevance. The minister has been going for a while and is almost at time, but she has not as yet indicated whether she is confident that there will be a new, legally binding framework to replace Kyoto.

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

The minister has six seconds remaining. There is no point of order.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have made clear that these are international negotiations. I hardly think that in the Australian Senate I am going to determine the outcome. (Time expired)

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of a survey undertaken by the World Bank which found that nearly 90 per cent of global carbon market participants were pessimistic about there being a new, legally binding, multilateral framework reached anytime soon? Without such an agreement, what guarantee is there that other countries will do anything close to their fair share in reducing emissions?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am not aware of the particular survey to which the senator refers. But I would say this: those on the other side do come into this place and go out to the public and make the assertion which was implicit in the question—that other countries are not acting. That is untrue. Some 89 countries, accounting for over 80 per cent of global emissions and 90 per cent of the global economy, have pledged to reduce or limit their carbon pollution by 2020. Australia's top five trading partners—China, Japan, the US, Republic of Korea and India—and another six of our top 20 trading partners have implemented or are piloting carbon trading or taxation schemes. China has the world's largest installed renewable energy electricity generation capacity, and India has a tax on coal. (Time expired)

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I refer the minister to findings of the UN Environment Program that pledges made under the Copenhagen Accord would at best provide 60 per cent of what is required to meet a two-degree stabilisation target. Why has the government modelled its carbon tax on scenarios that rely on far stronger global action when even the voluntary, non-binding pledges made under the Copenhagen Accord do not come close to meeting Labor's modelled scenarios?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us be clear what is being put in that question. What is being put in that question is: 'Because it is hard for the globe to avoid more than a two-degree temperature rise, somehow Australia should walk away from action on climate change.' That is what is being put. What is being put is: 'Because this is really hard, we should just not do anything.' That is the proposition of the opposition. Paradoxically, they pretend that they actually do want to do something, because they have signed up to a five per cent target, a target that under their policy would be achieved at double the economic cost to the Australian community.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 73(4):

In answering a question, a senator shall not debate it.

Plainly the minister is debating the question.

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

There is no point of order. The minister has 19 seconds remaining.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am responding to what is at the core of that question, which is the proposition that, because avoiding dangerous climate change is hard, therefore we should not do anything about it. That is essentially what is being put by the opposition. It is a ludicrous proposition, one even John Howard did not agree with. (Time expired)

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.