JOURNALIST: Penny Wong, good morning.

WONG: Good morning to you.

JOURNALIST: You are not short of advice on climate change today, or most days I guess. Can I just check, is the Government's policy, the definite policy of a minimum definite five per cent cut by 2020, is that negotiable?

WONG: Marius, the Prime Minister announced the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme at the end of last year and that followed a very lengthy period of intensive consultation with business and also with the community about the details of the scheme.

It is a package in terms of the design of the scheme that has significant assistance to business to make the transition, bearing in mind - as we did - where the Australian economy was likely to run into the problems of the global financial crisis, but at the same time meeting the long-term challenge of climate change which we know is already with us.

Now, just in terms of the targets, to recall, the target range we put on the table (and it is a range we put on the table depending on what happens in the international negotiations) was between five and 15 per cent less than Australia's emissions as at 2000. Now that is actually a very significant reduction. A 15 per cent reduction, for example, is in excess of 40 per cent less for every man, woman and child in Australia, over that period. So that is indicative of the sort of economic change we need to drive, and this is the scheme that will enable that to occur.

JOURNALIST: So it is, in a word, non-negotiable.

WONG: As I said it's a package. Obviously we have to get this package through the Senate but we are very mindful of all the things that the Government had to take into account and the balance that we believe has been struck correctly in terms of the design of the scheme.

Now, we know - and you said we're not short of advice, and that's certainly the case - there are very strong views on either side of this debate. There are those who want us to have a much more hard scheme and those who want delay and those who want a softer scheme. We think we've got the balance right.

JOURNALIST: Do you accept the argument that's being put, that it will cost jobs, at least in the short-term?

WONG: Look, we were very conscious of the current economic situation and the mid-term or the near-term economic situation in terms of the global economy as we were designing the scheme. You may recall there were quite a lot of people who were critical, from some quarters, of the assistance for business which is in the scheme. We made no apology for that. As I said at the time, this is about securing today's jobs at the same time as building the jobs of tomorrow.

But we do know two things about climate change: one is that it is with us and second, that we have to change our economy in order to meet it.
We believe there are long-term economic opportunities from renewable energy investment to investment in technology such as carbon capture and storage. We need to prepare Australia to compete for those technologies.

JOURNALIST: But just in the narrow period of transition right now, will it cost jobs in the short-term?

WONG: We put in place a very substantial set of assistance. We put in place a Climate Change Action fund – in excess of two billion dollars for companies to make applications to the Government for assistance to make this transition. We also had a significant allocation of free permits to those industries who would bear the most cost impact from the introduction of a carbon price. Those things, Marius, were very much put in place bearing in mind both the long-term and short-term.

JOURNALIST: Can I take the criticism from the other side - not the business and unions who are saying jobs will be lost, but the other side, the green criticism - which is that the science is infinitely complex in climate change, but the scientific advice from the IPCC and others is, if you want to make a difference you have got to have a cut by 2020 of between 15 and 25 per cent. If you don't you will be open to two degrees plus warming. Five per cent is irrelevant in fact it is worse than doing nothing because it gives the appearance of doing nothing while falling way short of effective action.

WONG: Well I don't understand those people who take such a hard position that they say something is worse than nothing. And I think, as I said before, that it is very clear that the sorts of reductions we are putting on the table do involve quite a substantial reduction in terms of Australia's per capita, that is per head reduction.

Can I say this, this is a global issue. We know that the only way from which we can hold global warming to the sorts of levels that we would like is for all the nations of the world to agree to restrain their emissions. We also know that that this is a long-term transition for the whole global economy not just Australia. We made clear that if the world is prepared to move to a more ambitious agreement, that Australia would be prepared to reduce its emissions more significantly, post 2020, to be part of that agreement.

But the people who are throwing around very large numbers seem to forget what sort of economy we currently have in Australia. We have an economy that is highly carbon-intensive, that is heavily reliant on coal as a source of energy. Now it will take a substantial amount of investment and time for us to be able to make the transition to cleaner energy technologies and unless we do we are unable to make very substantial cuts to emissions.

JOURNALIST: Ok I will leave it there Penny Wong. Many thanks.

WONG: Well, another day, another position from the Coalition when it comes to climate change.

And they variously either say that we don't need to act on climate change, such as Senator Minchin, or as Barnaby Joyce has said we shouldn't put in place any policies to take action on climate change. Well now I think you have told me that they are calling for a delay.

What we know is that climate change is here. What we know is that we have to take action. And what we know is that a decision to defer is simply a decision to increase costs, to handball things to our kids and our grandkids and ask them to pay higher costs. I don't think that is the economically responsible thing to do and I don't think that's what Australians want us to do.

JOURNALIST: Do you think that we will be able to avoid flooding the Lower Lakes with salt water? Are we any closer to securing a fresh water supply for the Lower Lakes?

WONG: Good to speak to you.

ENDS.