Press conference at Parliament House

CHRIS BOWEN: Good morning. Well obviously, today and tomorrow represent significant days for the Parliament and for the country. And in particular tomorrow I'll be introducing the Albanese Government's Climate Change Bill, approved yesterday by the Labor caucus.

This is an opportunity for the Parliament to send a message to the rest of the world and to the country, that not only do we have a Government that gets it, we have a Parliament that gets it as well. A Parliament that wants to provide the framework for private sector investment, to provide the certainty, to provide the signals to the market both here and abroad that Australia is open for business when it comes to investment in renewable energy and storage and in transmission. 

That's what a legislated target does. It's best practice. It provides that certainty and provides that stability. 

That's why the business community has so strongly called for the target to be legislated. Now, the legislation that I'll be introducing tomorrow will be consistent with the principles I outlined at the National Press Club a few weeks ago, it will enshrine 43 per cent by 2030 as the country's target for emissions reductions as well as net zero by 2050. 

It will oblige the Climate Change Authority to advise Government in an open and transparent way on future targets. This is best practice, this is what the Climate Change Authority was set up by previous Labor Governments to do. The Climate Change Authority should be a trusted voice to Government in an open and transparent policymaking sense in the future. It will also advise Government again on progress, on complying with our targets, and will do so in an open and transparent way. 

And of course, the legislation will require me and future Ministers of the day to report transparently to Parliament, on progress in meeting our targets and what actions and policies are being adopted to meet them, and what actions the Government is taking. 

And finally, the bill will also put the nation's targets into the objects and functions of a range of Government organizations, including the ARENA and the CEFC in my portfolio, the Northern Australian Infrastructure Fund, Infrastructure Australia and a range of others. This is an important opportunity, as I said, for the country, it's also an important opportunity for the Parliament. This legislation has been informed and assisted by consultations across the Parliament with people of goodwill. Those consultations have occurred within the framework that the Prime Minister and I have been very clear about, that we have a mandate for the policies we're seeking to implement. We sought and receive that mandate, we won't be moving away from any element of that mandate. Very, very clear. We've also made it clear that we're happy to receive suggestions of constructive nature from people of goodwill across the Parliament who are willing and able to work with the Government and we've done that. So there are things that we've made more explicit in the Bill that we'll be introducing into the Parliament, including how the Paris mechanism works to require future targets to be higher than previous targets. That's appropriate, that's what a sensible Government of grown-ups does.

As I said, we have been and will continue to talk to people of goodwill. People who aren't constructive, like the Opposition have made themselves irrelevant to the process. Now the Liberal Party, or at least the Leader of the Liberal Party, perhaps not the entire Liberal Party, but the Liberal Party seems to not have received the memo from the Australian people on May 21; that it's time to end the climate wars. 

They think they know more about business than the Business Council of Australia, they think they might know more about the industry, Australian industry than the Australian Industry Group who have all called for our targets and for them to be legislated. 

Mr. Dutton is unfortunately making a decision to continue the climate wars, that's a matter for him, but he'll be held accountable for it. He's making his party irrelevant and many of his members and even front-benchers know it. And you know it, that he's made a captain's call to stand aside from constructive engagement with the Government. The Government will get on with the job. Now we'll get on with the job regardless of whether this legislation passes, we'll get on with the job regardless of the approach of the Opposition of the day. But the Australian people sent the Parliament a message, elected a new Government with a mandate, we're getting on with it. And we're getting on with it in a way consistent with that mandate and I'd call on people across the Parliament, regardless of their party, regardless of their historical position to recognize the sea change and the views of the Australian people and support this legislation. 

JOURNALIST: You said obviously, you've made the Paris process more explicit in this bill so that targets can only go in one direction. Is that as far as you intend to go on the so called ratchet mechanism that the Greens and others have been looking for? Also, you said a minute ago, you're not departing, not budging from that Labor's electoral mandate. Labor made no comments or promises ahead of the last federal election in relation to a climate trigger in environmental laws. That's something that David Pocock thinks should happen. It's something that Greens think should happen and it might go some way to bridging some gaps between the Labor Party and the Greens on a moratorium on oil and gas. What’s you position on relation to that?

BOWEN: Well, thanks, Catherine, in relation to the first question, you're right. The Paris mechanism is very clear, the term ratchet mechanism is used, that's as good a term as any, that all future targets must be better than previous targets. So the UNFCCC wouldn't accept the target which is backsliding. We've made that explicit in the legislation. I think that is very clear. Certainly, I don't envisage the need to change that any further. In relation to the other question you raised, of course, that's a matter which Minister Plibersek has addressed in relation to the response to the Samuel review. That's our position and I believe that position continues.

JOURNALIST: Once the climate target is law do you run the risk of it being used by activists to try to shut down coal and gas projects through legal challenges? And what do you plan to do in that scenario? 

BOWEN: I don't believe that's the case no.

JOURNALIST: Just following on from the first question, does that mean that if a Government wants to increase the 2030 target that new legislation will be required? And secondly, if this legislation is not passed, would it impact Australia's standing internationally and affect trade deals? 

BOWEN: In relation to the first question yes, that is the implication because 43 is legislated. And if you want to change that you'd have to legislate it. This Government won't be seeking to change that, because that's our target. That's what we intend to meet. As I've said repeatedly, as I said at the Press Club, as is reflected in our Nationally Determined Contribution signed by the Prime Minister and I, that's a floor not a ceiling. We hope and expect Australia can do even better than that with the combined efforts of industry, unions, communities, Governments State and Federal. But we won't be changing that and yes, you would require legislation because it is enshrined 43 in relation to the legislation. Can you remind me what your second question was? 

JOURNALIST: The impact on international…? 
 
BOWEN: Oh, yes. Yeah, I believe it will impact how the world is seeing Australia if this legislation isn't passed, not in a, you know, determinative way but it would be disappointing. I've met since the election with, you know, John Kerry virtually with Senator Granholm, sorry Secretary Granholm in Sydney, yesterday with the COP president Alok Sharma, and there's great interest in what's happening and Australia's new Government's actions have been warmly welcomed and certainly while I don't speak for foreign Governments, of course, there would certainly be welcome interest in the Parliament acting in support of the Government's agenda as well. 

JOURNALIST: To clarify, sorry, just for some clarification on that, so the Greens want to hold future Parliaments to account with the legislated target. They say they don’t want action from a future climate-denying Government but you say you don't need legislation to be able to proceed with the target. So are those some powers that you're willing to give up in the process to hold future Governments and future Ministers accountable? And during negotiations with the Greens what's your message to them about the future of gas and coal projects? 

BOWEN: Well, in relation to your the first part of your question, no Parliament can bind a future Parliament is my first point. My second point is no Dutton Government will be good for climate. Regardless of what any piece of legislation says, if you want a Government that’s good for climate keep re-electing the Albanese Government. That's the message. Mr. Dutton has made it crystal clear he's not got the memo from the Australian people. He's continuing on like the same old Liberal Party hasn't learnt a thing. Like it's, you know, 2013 all over again. You can change the leader and the face, the modern Liberal Party is a party of denial and delay. That continues and it would continue and in the unlikely and unfortunate event of a Dutton Government.

In relation to discussions with the Greens, those discussions have occurred and no doubt there'll be some further discussions, but they have occurred along the basis of our public position and to be fair, the Greens public position as well. I'm not going to go in the details, but they would reflect the positions we've reflected publicly.

JOURNALIST: With regard to the Greens demand on coal and gas, new coal and gas developments you suggested last week about the safeguard mechanism being adequate to keep those under control. But would coal and gas developments be exempt under the safeguards mechanism because they are emissions intensive trading (inaudible)

BOWEN: Phil, the position on safeguards mechanism is crystal clear. We're not changing the threshold of firms or facilities that get impacted, but any new facility which goes over 100,000 tons would be impacted. I'll be having more to say about the design of the safeguard mechanism in coming weeks, and be consulting about some particular elements about the design of our reforms to the safeguard mechanism, as you'd expect, because it's a complicated undertaking, it is-- it will play an important role in emissions reduction. It currently covers the 215 biggest emitters. That's why we took to the election a policy to deal with it and reform it and improve it, sort a mandate and received it. 

JOURNALIST: (inaudible) around the discussions with Alok Sharma, did he express to you that he'd like to see a more ambitious target on 2030 from the Australian Government? And secondly, on 2030 and the Paris Agreement, what hope do you have globally when we see the EU classing gas as green, the Biden administration can't get its climate legislation through Congress and scientists say they're not going to be able to reach their 203 targets?

BOWEN: I had a great meeting with Alok Sharma, yesterday, actually drove into Parliament House after the meeting in my electric vehicle, which we enjoyed very much. We had a warm discussion about the new Government's agenda. He welcomed the new Government's agenda. We talked about the international situation. And no, he did not ask, he understood the Government's position on 2030 targets, and did not advocate any change to that. In relation to the international situation, Pablo, it's a fair question. But a couple of points. The situation in Europe, which I've talked about ad nauseam in this room and other places, is a reminder of the need to manage the transition to renewable energy very well and carefully. 

And the Australian transition or transformation, as I prefer to call it, should occur more quickly, and in a more orderly fashion than it has over the last decade. It has been too slow and too chaotic. And what you're seeing in Europe is too much reliance on one particular supplier of fuel or one particular type of fuel. In Australia's case, there's no geopolitical crisis which will interfere with the supply of sunshine to our landmass, or the flow of wind on and off our shores. Good renewable energy policy is good energy security policy with the right storage, with the right transmission. And that's, that's-- the situation in Europe reminds us of that. In relation to other countries, look, I'm not going to go into detail but you see countries on, you know, elections change approaches, Prime Ministers and Presidents change approaches. Our job, collectively across the planet, is to make forward progress, to make sure the international institutions through the UNFCCC and the Conference of the Parties and others are strong and robust, and making forward progress. And under Anthony Albanese, we will play a very strong role in doing that. 

JOURNALIST: Yeah, just on the rationale for creating business confidence by mandating a target, sorry, legislating a target Minister, just wondering how that goes together with the mandate, you have to keep the legislated target 43 per cent. Would a future Labor Government increase the legislative target if the Climate Change Authority, for example, advised that it's advantageous to increase it in future years, there's more to be gained, it's more responsible and so on? 

BOWEN: Well, look, the 2030 target is set in legislation and there's our target. We'll stick with it. Of course, in due course, I'll advise the Cabinet on a 2035 target. And we'll be advised by the Climate Change Authority and, you know, perhaps I’m hopefully still Climate Change Minister when we're seeing the 2040 target as well. 

JOURNALIST: Furthering on Eliza’s question, can you expand on why you don't believe environmental groups will be able to use the legislative 43 per cent target to launch court legal challenges against new coal and gas projects. And I suppose in addition to that, if they do attempt to do so, will your Government attempt to intervene in those court cases to prevent precedent being set? 

BOWEN: Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves, the Attorney General in any court case on any matter, the Attorney General will consider the Commonwealth's interest and will act accordingly as he's already done in a number of instances. This legislation is designed not so much to drive Government policies, we'll have a range of Government policies, we will implement safeguards mechanism, we've talked about rewiring the nation, electric vehicle tax cut which we're also introducing legislation for, a whole bunch. This is about a framework for private sector investment, we designed it that way to encourage that private sector investment, that's what this is about. That's what this drives, that's the way the legislation is framed. And I have no legal advice to indicate any concerns of the nature that you raise.

JOURNALIST: Can you guarantee…?

BOWEN: I have no legal advice to raise any concerns of that nature. 

JOURNALIST: …clarification, if this doesn't pass Parliament in terms of legislative target, will you keep some of those elements moving forward of how Labor tries to implement the emissions reduction particularly around, it says here requires the Minister to report annually. Is that something you would do off your own back and same with the CCA?

BOWEN: Yeah, it would be but it wouldn't be ideal. I believe the legislative framework is the best way to go. But yes, if the legislation doesn't pass, we'll still seek CCA advice, I'll still get an annual report to Parliament.

JOURNALIST: So a non-legislated pathway would still be this [inaudible].

BOWEN: The legislation is up to the Parliament, whether the legislation passes or not. We will continue with the mandate we received and that includes all those things. It would be better, best practice if there was a legislative framework around it. For us to work within for the Parliament to work within. If the Parliament doesn't want to give that legislative framework that's disappointing, but okay, we'll get on with the job. 

JOURNALIST: Who has the upper hand in negotiations right now? 

BOWEN: I don't accept the way you put that question. There's been good faith discussions, as I said, with people who are prepared to have them. I’ll tell you who doesn't have the upper hand, Mr. Dutton because he's not in the room because he's made himself irrelevant, because he's made himself irrelevant to the Parliamentary process without I note, consulting with his party room. You know, I know there are very unhappy Shadow Ministers about Mr. Dutton’s captain's call about not backing legislation and Liberals of good conscience can consider their position when the vote comes to the floor of the Parliament.

JOURNALIST: Based on negotiations with the Greens, are you feeling confident?

BOWEN: I haven't sought or received from anybody any guarantees about voting for this legislation at this point. There's been good faith discussions with people of good faith. I think we've shown we are prepared to take constructive suggestions on board where they're consistent with our mandate, we've shown that. You can all look at examples of that but this will have some way to go. It's got to get through two houses of Parliament yet. I do express some confidence we'll get it through the lower house, the upper house, some way to go. Any more questions? 

JOURNALIST: Can you just outline the changes based on the draft amendments coming into this legislation, is it fair to say it’s just been about language, the actual substance…

BOWEN: It's fair to say we've made some things more explicit, you know, we've made the fact that targets can only go up in accordance with Paris explicit in the Bill, we've included some new objects. We've made it clear that we see 43 as a floor, which is what the Prime Minister and I have consistently said what the NDC already says. So it's fair to say that we've taken you know, there were some suggestions that we'd like some things more explicit. A good Government of grown-ups willing to work across the Parliament takes it on board that's exactly what we've what we've done.

JOURNALIST: Is there room to move or…?

BOWEN: This is the Bill I’ll introduce into the Parliament and then the Parliamentary process will take it’s way from it. 

JOURNALIST: Is it possible to, in the lower house you have the numbers, is it possible to present this to the other house and possibly get it passed in this sitting fortnight? 

BOWEN: That's not our intention no. We need to leave, with all due respect to both Houses of Parliament, their ability to debate it. I think it's important it passes the lower house this fortnight, then it will make it’s normal way to the Senate. 

Okay, we’ll wrap up there. Thanks very much.