Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Abetz. Can the minister confirm that the Abbott government's emissions reduction target is not consistent with its own commitment to limit global warming to no more than two degrees Celsius?

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

As the honourable senator would or should know, the two per cent target is in fact a collective goal of the international community. Being responsible for about 1.3 per cent of global emissions, it stands to reason that, even if we were to reduce our emissions to zero, we would not be able to achieve the two per cent target. As a result, there will be a conference in due course in Paris, where countries from around the world will gather and seek to achieve that through combined action.

In relation to Australia's target, which we have now indicated, we will be reducing by 50 per cent per capita our CO2 emissions. That is the biggest effort of any country in the world. Let us put that into perspective. This is a very good achievement by Australia. It is something the Australian Labor Party should be celebrating, rather than having this ludicrous proposition—in a bid to gain Green preferences in inner-city seats—which will mug our economy and severely compromise household budgets.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that the Minister for the Environment spent $660 million to buy just 15 per cent of the required abatement to meet Australia's 2020 emissions reduction target? How much more taxpayers' money will be doled out to the big polluters under the coalition's so-called Direct Action Plan—a polluter's pot of gold—to fund the government's new weak emissions target?

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

The Australian people have a choice between that which the coalition has put out there and the Australian Labor Party, who would allow Australia's GDP to be 2.6 per cent lower in 2030, with a $633 billion cost between 2015 and 2030. I am happy to talk figures anytime.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Is the Australian Industry Group correct to assess that it will cost between $100 billion and $250 billion to reach the new target through Direct Action?

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

There are various cost assessments in relation to the achievement of targets, and we look at those very carefully. I would invite the Australian Labor Party to have a look at their costings—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pause the clock.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. There was one question, not about various assessments but about the Australian Industry Group suggesting that it would cost up to $250 billion to reach the new target through Direct Action.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is your point of order?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you; I am indebted to you, Senator Macdonald. The point of order is direct relevance.

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

Mr President, I have finished my answer.