STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
(Senate-Monday, 20 October 2008)

DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND CABINET PORTFOLIO - Department of Climate Change 

Senator «MILNE» -That is a happy coincidence, Senator Wong, because I was about to ask you about bilateral talks in London. I wanted to know whether you met with the new Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband.

Senator Wong -Yes, I did.

Senator «MILNE»-Did he discuss with you their decision to increase their target to an 80 per cent reduction on 1990 levels and give you any reason for doing so?

Senator Wong-I did have the opportunity to meet with Mr Miliband, which obviously was very useful because there has been a recent reshuffle and he has only recently taken over this position and they have restructured the portfolios to combine climate change and energy. That was useful because the Australian government had not had the opportunity as yet to engage directly with him. In fact, I met him the day he made that announcement in the House of Commons. But, to be frank, primarily our discussion revolved around the international negotiations.

Senator «MILNE»-Nevertheless, it has been widely reported in the media that he said that, whilst eight years ago 60 per cent might have been an acceptable target, it no longer is because of the accelerating nature of climate change. That is why they have changed their position and they are going to legislate for the 80 per cent. So I go back to the appropriateness of the government's target of 60 per cent. Is the government intending to review its target in the light of the science, as the energy and climate change secretary has for the UK government, or do you believe the science does not warrant that review?

Senator Wong-I think you and I have canvassed this before, and I understand what your position is. The government's position is that 60 per cent, particularly for an economy like Australia's, is an ambitious target. The government also believes that, consistent with what Senator Xenophon said, there is an issue of certainty here. This is the figure with which we went to the election. This is very clearly the figure that we have committed to and in relation to which we have a mandate. Can I also make the comment-and this is in no way a criticism of the UK-that in some ways these are different sorts of targets. The targets the government sets at 60 per cent and whatever mid-term range it sets are the targets which will underpin hard scheme caps. I think Mr Miliband may have used the term ‘aspirational'-I cannot recall, but it was words to that effect-whereas these are targets that predicate or underpin judgements about what the scheme caps will be after the government sets its mid-term target range. So it is a somewhat different policy context.

Senator «MILNE»-Nevertheless, he is saying the reason they are setting it at 80 per cent, for which they will legislate-so it is a legislative commitment at the very least-is because the science requires it. Is the government still of the view that a 60 per cent reduction by 2050 will avoid dangerous climate change or at least constrain it below two degrees?

Senator Wong-As you know, that sort of environmental target is a question of total global emissions. Our view is that 60 per cent is a reasonable share of that reduction for Australia. We made that clear prior to the election. Your questions about two degrees and related matters are questions that go to the totality of global emissions, which no single country can deliver. We do believe that, as a global problem, this requires a global solution. That is in part why we are engaging bilaterally and multilaterally to the extent that we are able.

Senator «MILNE»-But would you also agree that, if developing countries are permitted to develop, developed countries have to take higher targets so that the developing countries can meet their development needs.

Senator Wong-I think that is clear from all of the available data, and Professor Garnaut's report looks at that. It looks at the fact that the trend in growth in global emissions is in large part being driven by developing countries. And I have previously said that the solution to climate change is not to seek that people remain poor. What we have to do is de-link emissions growth and economic growth in a way that humanity has not previously achieved. It is a very substantial and difficult task. I know that your party's views on this do not correlate with the government's, but it is in one part why the government does believe CCS is a very important technology, because the reality is that for much of the developing world coal will remain a substantial component of energy.

Senator «MILNE»-I will come to CCS in a minute. I would like to just know whether you think it is actually easier for the UK to reduce emissions than it is for Australia? That is implied in the answer you gave.

Senator Wong-I could refer you to Professor Garnaut's review because I think he outlines some of the challenges facing Australia in terms of reductions in emissions. As you know, Senator, we are a very high per capita emitter and that obviously means that reductions off a high level to achieve, for example, a significant cut require a higher level of reduction. And we also are an economy that has a very high proportion of coal as an energy source. I think 80 per cent of our electricity comes from coal. My recollection is that that is significantly higher than a number of European countries. I would note that it is, I think, of a similar level to that of Poland, and you will, I assume, have seen some of the international commentary about that country's concerns about some aspects of climate change policy.

Senator «MILNE»-I do know what Professor Garnaut has said, but I also note that the government has at times referred to him as an ‘input'. Given that he is one input, I am interested to know whether the government thinks it is easier for the UK to reduce its emissions than it is for Australia?

Senator Wong-I am not sure I would just simply go for easier or harder. I would just make the point about the shape of our economy, our population growth over the same time and our current energy source, which presents a certain number of challenges to us, some of which are outlined in Professor Garnaut's report. My recollection also is that the UK, I think, has nuclear power.

Senator «MILNE» -Yes, they do.

Senator Wong-And as you know that is not the approach that this government proposes to take and nor the approach I think that your party seeks.

Senator «MILNE» -That is right. They also have renewables. They have a range of-

Senator Wong -And we have a 20 per cent renewable energy target, as you know, Senator.