PM: Two years ago today the Government was elected to act on climate change, for this is one of the hottest and driest continents on Earth and the impact of climate change will be felt here hardest and first.
Two years ago we said we would move to ratify Kyoto. We've done so.
Two years ago we said we'd act to increase the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. We've done so.
Two years ago we said we would introduce an emissions trading scheme.
Today we stand ready to take that next step for Australia, to move beyond our Kyoto commitments and to deliver a scheme that will deliver Australia a low carbon pollution future.
The Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is a cap-and-trade emissions scheme.
It will place a hard limit on carbon pollution and make those that produce carbon pollution pay for it.
It is founded on the following core principles:
* First, to have maximal effective coverage to ensure the greatest cost-effectiveness and fairness in spreading the burden of reducing emissions;
* Second, to allow international linking to the opportunities emerging in a global carbon market;
* Third, to support industries to make the transition to a lower-pollution future, in particular the emissions-intensive electricity generation sector to a smooth transition to a lower-pollution future.
* Fourth, to avoid what's called carbon leakage from emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries; and
* Five, to assist households, especially pensioners and low-income Australians, adjust to the price of carbon.
Last month, the Government entered into good faith negotiations with the aim of securing passage of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme through the Senate this week.
The deal the Government has developed is consistent with our belief that a global agreement to stabilise levels of CO2 equivalent at 450 parts per million or lower would be squarely in Australia's national interest.
The deal will ensure that Australia can achieve its ambitious unconditional target of 5 per cent, conditional target of up to 15 per cent, and a top-end target of up to 25 per cent off 2000 levels by 2020 if a global 450 parts per million global agreement is reached.
In crafting the deal, the Government continued to listen carefully to business, as well as international and environmental stakeholders, committed to realising the best possible outcome at Copenhagen
The Government's deal complies with the standards we set at the beginning of these negotiations. It is both environmentally credible and it is fiscally responsible.
As Mr Turnbull, Mr Hockey and the Liberal Party consider their position on this Bill I would ask them to consider two simple facts.
* Fact 1 - Australia is one of the hottest and driest continents on Earth.
* Fact 2 - Australia will be hit hardest and fastest by climate change.
Those two facts mean that the only responsible course of action open to parliamentarians today is to vote for action on climate change.
Failing to act today is the riskiest course of action available to the parliament.
Failing to act today is to roll the dice on our children's future.
As Prime Minister of Australia, I will not take that risk with the future.
I will not risk our future, I will not risk our children's future or that of our grandchildren by betting against the climate change science.
The responsible course of action for us to take is a vote for action on climate change.
Today, the Government is asking the Australian Parliament to take action in the national interest.
Today we are asking the Australian Parliament to take action for the future, to take action for our children and for our grandchildren's future.
Today we are asking the Australian Parliament to take action to begin to protect Australia from dangerous climate change; to take action to protect the Australian economy for the future; to take action to protect Australian jobs for the future.
This day has been more than 10 long years in coming. 10 long years where the tough decision have been ducked; where the challenges of today were buck passed to the leaders of tomorrow.
My request to all members of parliament today is simple: Act in the national interest, not in your Party's interest.
Act for the future, not for the past.
Act for your children. Act for your grandchildren.
Act to begin tackling dangerous climate change by supporting the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
I'll now ask the Minister for Climate Change, Penny, Wong, to elaborate on the contents of the deal.
WONG: Thank you, Prime Minister.
Well, this has been a Government deal some time in the making, as you know. We've been working on this scheme over some nearly two years now, and in the final discussions in days gone past we have now landed what we believe is a Government deal that is worthy of support.
I'll just take you through a few of the key elements of this Government's deal.
The first is in relation to the emissions-intensive trade-exposed sector. We have permanently incorporated the global recession buffer into the base rate but we have maintained the decay rate.
We've increased the assistance to the coal sector.
We have listened to the community about their desire to have their action count, and we will ensure that voluntary action - that is, the action of individuals in our community, the action of Australian households - does matter, will matter, and will be counted under the Scheme.
We have provided additional assistance for the electricity sector, reflecting the advice that the Government has been considering.
As has been previously announced, we are excluding agriculture, but we have a program of work and offsets to ensure that farmers can continue to contribute to being part of the solution on climate change, and we have provided some additional assistance for electricity prices.
This is a comprehensive Government deal, a comprehensive deal that deals with the many issues which have been the subject of discussions.
Can I say this: it is important to remember the Government set out with a number of objectives in mind. The first was to preserve the environmental integrity of the scheme. We have done so.
The second was to be fiscally and economically responsible, and we have done so.
This is a deal, a Government deal, for this week. This is a deal to get this vote this week in the parliament. As the Prime Minister said, action in the national interest, action for the first time in this nation's history to choose to reduce our contribution to climate change.
Thank you.
PM: Just as I take your questions, can I also just thank the Minister, Penny Wong, for extraordinary work on this project over a long period of time, and the Minister Assisting, Greg Combet, for his work as well.
Over to you.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you've repeatedly said you've got the balance right. Doesn't this show you were wrong?
PM: It means that when you're in a negotiation it involves some give and take, but the essential environmental and fiscal integrity of the Scheme remains. That's the way we crafted it, they are the principles which govern the operation and the content of the scheme and that's the deal that we have landed.
There and there.
JOURNALIST: So Prime Minister has the Coalition improved this bill?
PM: Well, we're engaged in a negotiation - give and take. You'll see that there are extra provisions here concerning environmental actions, in particular, by households. Obviously, there is some additional assistance for industry in transition. I refer particularly to the measures which were outlined there for coal, for LNG and for the electricity supply industry.
We believe we've got the balance right, and this is a deal which is fiscally responsible.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, there's more money for the electricity sector, more money for coal. It seems in this negotiation that every whinger is a winner? What about families, they get less money, how do you justify that?
PM: Well, in fact, the families receive exactly the undertakings we provided in the White Paper, which is, on average, 120 percent assistance for low-income earners. I'll have the Minister elaborate on this further in a minute if you wish.
What, of course, has changed since we last met on this is the underlying assumption of the future carbon price which was reflected, of course, when MYEFO was put out.
Our commitment's robust for families. When it comes to low-income families, that average assistance of 120 percent remains. We don't intend to allow families, in particular low-income families, to shoulder the pain of the adjustment. This has to be done equitably across the entire economy, and, of course, we are seeking to do that. Obviously, we've taken a decision in relation to agriculture which you'll all be familiar with, but the adjustments are necessary to get people across the hump into this new scheme, and we believe we've got that balance right.
Did you want to add on that question?
There, and then over there.
JOURNALIST: No-one would doubt your sincerity on the issue of climate change, but how do you keep a straight face as you stand there and urge the Opposition not to play politics on this when you've been doing it from day one?
PM: Well, we went to the people prior to the last election and said this is what we would do. We obtained the people's mandate to do this. We have done so. It is entirely consistent with what we said prior to the last election.
Therefore, in executing the people's mandate, we believe that we've taken a rational course of action. Firstly, put out a Green Paper. Secondly, had the Garnaut Review. Thirdly, put out a White Paper. Nine months ago, put out draft legislation. Fourthly, what we've confronted is a Government with a unified position on these matters, and an Opposition which has been less than unified.
That's the reality we've had to contend with, and my appeal, as I've said in the parliament in recent days, is for men and women of good will within the Liberal Party to back this legislation, because it is in the national interest, and when I say this is a day to put the national interest first and your Party's interest last, I mean it.
Climate change and our action on it will go way beyond any of our lives here as assembled - goes to our kids and our grandkids. It is a fundamental, existential question for the future. It's time the country got real about it.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) Prime Minister given all the commitments that have been made around the world, is this the scheme do you think that's going to have to drive our emissions cuts by 5 per cent or 15 per cent and given all the concessions that you've made, is it still possible for us to cut by 25 per cent at the upper end of the range?
PM: Well, firstly, as you would know, both the Opposition and the Government have a common position when it comes to the targets which are contained within the Scheme, both the unconditional target of 5 percent and the conditional targets of 15 and 25.
Why are the latter two targets conditional? Because we do not know yet the outcome which will be delivered through Copenhagen or whatever globally binding agreement will come following Copenhagen.
We think that's the right and responsible course of action.
In terms of the Scheme's capacity to yield the carbon pollution reductions necessary for the future, we believe it's got that capacity within it. It's designed as such, and, of course, the key thing is to get it implemented so that businesses can begin to plan, investors can begin to plan, and the necessary decisions which then kick in the medium to long-term are reflected in the day-to-day decisions on energy efficiency, on what sort of electricity you're going to generate in the future, those sorts of things for which business need the rules to be outlined in the here and now.
Michelle.
JOURNALIST: How confident are you that Opposition will accept this deal and you will get the Scheme this week and secondly what's your latest information from your discussions overseas and on the Copenhagen progress.
PM: On the first point, we believe we've crafted a good, balanced deal for the national interest and that's what been delivered unanimously through our Cabinet this morning, unanimously through our Party room this morning and delivered by the Minister to the Leader of the Opposition later this morning. What happens in their Party room is a matter for them, but I return to the appeal I've made in recent days, and that is for people of goodwill within the Liberal party to get behind this path forward.
On the second part of your question, which is about the preparations for Copenhagen itself, this is still a very tough and hard process. I noticed a confirmation the other day that we now have something like 65 world leaders attending the Copenhagen conference. This is a good step forward. The more leaders you have there, frankly, the harder it is simply to deliver a non-outcome. It doesn't make it beyond the realms of possibility, but it's always good to have a large number of leaders there. It helps increase the incentives for delivering a substantive outcome.
In terms of where things head to from here, the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting which comes up over the course of this weekend, I understand from discussions with the Prime Minister of Denmark and the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, that the UN Secretary-General will be attending the CHOGM meeting. I also understand that Prime Minister Rasmussen will be as well, possibly other leaders. Remember, the Commonwealth brings together some 53 States, developed and developing, including a lot of the microstates who are very strong within the G77 caucus. I believe, therefore, the next step to Copenhagen will be the deliberations which occur this weekend at CHOGM. India will be there; the United Kingdom will be there; the UN Secretary-General will be there; we'll be there, and we see that as one further step forward. But it is a long, hard process.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) your answer on whether or not this is an improvement, but you have stressed, the Government's stressed, that this is a deal for this week. What happens going forward? If the Opposition doesn't get a deal done this week, are these things simply stripped out of the scheme, and the original bill re-put?
PM: It is a deal for this week, because we need to get this thing through.
The world's also watching what happens here. You're sometimes surprised by that, but people are taking, playing close attention to what happens in the Australian Parliament. And partly in answer to Michelle's question before, global momentum towards an outcome on climate change, we're all part of that.
Getting something through the Australian Parliament here is part of that as well. Look at the difficulties which are currently being experienced in the United States on that score. I believe that we have a deal given the circumstances which present themselves to us this week. As I said, any negotiation involves give and take. These have been good faith negotiations. The Minister and Macca have been working furiously in recent days and weeks and we believe we've got a good, balanced outcome for the national interest.
JOURNALIST: Because we haven't had time to scrutinise this before the press conference- does the extra money given to the electricity generators mean the initial price rise of power will be less than forecast under the original scheme?
PM: I'll let you come to this.
WONG: Can I make a couple of comments, I just want to pick up one question from Lenore about the environmental integrity of the scheme.
This is a scheme that has retained its environmental integrity. If you are interested in this issue, you could compare what was put forward by the Opposition and what the Government deal comprises, and you will see that we have ensured that everyone will continue to contribute, all parts of the Australian economy will continue to contribute, to a reduction in emissions; that is a very important aspect of what is being put before the Parliament.
In terms of electricity, it's important to remember that the assistance to the electricity generators which has been, or additional assistance which has been sought, has never, it's never been suggested by them or be it by anybody else that that would reduce the impact on electricity prices. Which is why we have retained, as the Prime Minister said, our White Paper commitments, which are retained in terms of the level of assistance for low-income and middle-income Australia.
The focus in terms of electricity has to be, as the Government, on security of supply. And we believe we've put forward a package, a deal, which delivers security, energy security, for Australia.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) the fundamental existential question for the future- the fundamental existential question for the future- and then you said this is a deal for this week. Does the fundamental existential question for the future end on Friday?
PM: No, what it means, Mark, is this- if you want to land a scheme for Australia's long term future, you deal with the political realities of the day to get it through the Parliament so that certainty can be created for business, that certainty can be created for families, and we have some certainty as we approach our global negotiations. That's what it means. And it means, also, that as we approach the challenges of Copenhagen, that the world knows where Australia stands. That's why we are immediately concerned about the negotiation of this through the Parliament this week. We think it's right. Dealing with climate change for the long-term means putting in place all the building blocks.
We said prior to the last election what those building blocks were. We've honoured the implementation of those building blocks. Whether it's across energy efficiency, whether it's across carbon sequestration and storage, whether it's across renewable energy, direct investments, as well as a change to the target, as well as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. We have honoured these, and, in dealing with the substance of the long-term existential challenge, building blocks, each one of them, practically speaking in the here and now, is important.
JOURNALIST: There's an amendment in this package that will be done next year. Doesn't that show that these changes could be done next year, and they could wait until after Copenhagen?
WONG: That is a technical- this is the fuel tax issue is it? Is that what you're referring to?
JOURNALIST: I've had brief time to have a look (inaudible)
WONG: I'm happy to have a discussion with you. It's a fuel tax amendment which we think would be better done next year. It's a technical issue.
JOURNALIST: You've adjusted the household assistance package to recognise the lower projected carbon price. You expect that will save you $5.76 billion by the end of the decade. That lower predicted carbon price was in MYEFO. Why wasn't that package, that household assistance package, adjusted then to reflect it? Wasn't that then an accountancy trick before these negotiations began?
WONG: Well we did not adjust the dollar figure, that is correct, before MYEFO-
JOURNALIST: Why?
WONG: Well, that was the decision of the Government, not to adjust the dollar figure. What we did, we-
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
WONG: We did decide as you will recall in MYEFO also to extend well beyond the forward estimates, out to a ten year profile, to give the Opposition a very clear indication of the fiscal impact on the revenue of the adjustment. And what we are doing today is calibrating the household assistance scheme to reflect the different carbon price which we now anticipate.
JOURNALIST: Being done in MYEFO- you put out figures that were incorrect in MYEFO.
WONG: I'll leave that commentary to you Chris, about what you think should and should not have been in the Treasury figures. We are being very clear, we adjusted the revenue, and we have now adjusted, very clearly, the household assistance to reflect what the real impact will be.
JOURNALIST: You've also made a decision on the coal mining compensation, the extra compensation, some time ago. Why haven't we had a discussion of these figures, and the additional compensation for mining, before now? And why are we now only discussing this with hours to go?
WONG: Well I'm not sure why you're saying the decision was made some time ago, Dennis. Is this another one of your articles?
JOURNALIST: Well, was it not $750 million extra?
WONG: This was settled this week- this was settled this week- and if you have further questions on that I'm happy to ask the Minister Assisting who has (inaudible)
JOURNALIST: Is that a concession that there would have been problems with electricity supply under what you proposed last time? And also, why do manufacturers deserve to get half of their electricity bills back in the first year?
WONG: Well I think both of those questions, Lenore, go to the nature of what we've been going through, which is, when you're in a negotiation, there's necessarily give and take. You would know from what the Opposition put forward that they placed a lot of emphasis on assistance to industry. The Government has been very clear and held true to its objectives, that we articulated before these discussions started, and we have also sought to put in place changes which deliver, which ensure and improve environmental outcomes.
JOURNALIST: You're about to enter another round of negotiations-
PM: On Dennis' point before- I did call Annabel before and it all went in different directions- but just to add to the point made by Dennis before.
All the elements contained in the deal which we've put to you today have been signed and sealed in very recent times. There are moving parts in all of this Dennis. As far as the coal elements are concerned, we've been looking at permutations of combinations on that until very, very recently. Obviously, once again, Dennis' sources are better than ours, but can I just say, that's as its been, and that's been, frankly, as of where it was in very, very recent days. Why are you laughing like that, Franklin? Annabel.
JOURNALIST: You've just concluded a negotiation, but you're about to start another one overseas. If the Coalition accepts this package and it becomes law, can you guarantee that there won't be any retrospective, further adjustments to it in light of any commitments you might make in Copenhagen?
PM: Well, what we've always said is that, and I think I'll ask for Penny to add to this, is that, intrinsic to our position on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, when this goes to, I think, the question asked before by Lenore about the conditional targets of 15 and 25. Obviously, the nature of the outcome at Copenhagen shapes elements of the deal, and you will see that reflected in the document which is before you. But we are consolidating an Australian position to give our business community certainty for the future. National action's one thing, but frankly, global action is fundamental to our long term survival as a country, as a community.
Let me say this as we wind this up, I'm always taken by where the Nats are up to on this one, I really am. How can you just stand there, as the National party, with your heads in the sand, betraying the interests of the next generation of Australian farmers and their kids. I can't understand that. I cannot reconcile it. If you look at what the CSIRO is saying about the impact of drought and droughtedness into the future, drought intensity, drought duration, look at the problems of water supply already across rural Australia, I can't even fathom how the National party thinks they can get away with some cute piece of retail politics on this, when the fundamental interests of rural Australia for this century are at stake, our future as a food supplier for ourselves and the world, in landing this deal and landing one globally as well. I cannot understand, I really don't get it, how they can in any sense look in the shaving mirror of a morning and say that this is the right and responsible thing, the right and responsible thing, for them to do for rural Australia. I just do not get it, I think it's just dead wrong.
Thanks folks.