Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Minister Birmingham. Minister, today the UN asked 30 questions about Australia's lack of ability to meet its pledged climate change targets. In fact, the UN achieved the impossible by bringing the US and China together to criticise and question Australia's climate policy. Minister, how can the government make it all the way to 2020, or even 2030, and achieve a reduction in pollution without any credible policy pathway to get there?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Di Natale for his question. I am very pleased to report to the Senate—and to ensure that Senator Di Natale is well informed of the reality—that Australia is not only on track but ahead of track to meet our 2020 emissions reduction targets. The government is absolutely confident that, just as Australia has been a global citizen, every time we have made a commitment in relation to emissions reduction targets we have not only met those commitments but exceeded those commitments. We are a country—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Kyoto.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that, Senator Back. Indeed, the first Kyoto reporting period saw Australia meet and exceed its commitment. We are confident that the 2020 target will be met and exceeded by the actions of the Turnbull government and predecessors, and that we can deliver—as we do, as a good citizen—the types of actions that people expect us to. We welcome the fact that the Paris Agreement is coming into force of entry. We welcome the fact that there is strong global cooperation, which Australia is, yet again, a party to, in setting 2030 targets that are amongst the toughest targets in the world on a per capita basis, and amongst the toughest targets in the world in terms of their relativity to the size of our economy. This is actually strong action from Australia which, once again, we will deliver. The 26 to 28 per cent reduction compared to 2005 levels under the Paris Agreement is a target that is comparable with other developed countries and delivers significant reductions in emissions per capita and per dollar of GDP, as I indicated. We have met every single target to date; we are confident we will meet every single target into the future.

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

Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Market analysts RepuTex do not agree. They have modelled that by 2030 Australia's pollution will have declined by just two per cent under current policy settings—nowhere near the measly 26 to 28 per cent target, and an insult to the 60 to 80 per cent reduction that the science demands. Minister, will you answer the question from the US government about whether the Australian government plans to introduce any new policies that we do not know about?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia submitted its last biennial report in December 2015, as part of the UNFCCC processes of assessment against activity and actions in relation to climate change policies and the meeting of targets. In that report, Australia scored better than New Zealand and the Netherlands, and the same as France, the US and Germany on completeness. On transparency, Australia scored better than France, Norway and Germany and the same as the EU, New Zealand and the United States. It is a demonstration that we have in place peer assessed and globally assessed measures and activities that demonstrate Australia delivers and meets its commitments. We have policies in place that are meeting the 2020 commitments. Those policies are subject to reviews over coming years that are well-known and well-published. As a result of those reviews, the pathway will become clearer for meeting the 2030 targets—just as we have done on every single prior occasion.

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

Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the government's scare campaign on the carbon price, will the government now answer the question from China requesting modelling on what the repeal of the carbon price has meant for our fast-accelerating energy-sector emissions, and how this has led to poorly allocated investment in our already pollution-intensive economy?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As is frequently the case in this debate, the Greens confuse means with ends. The ends are that Australia is meeting its international obligations in relation to reducing emissions levels. The means that the Greens want to talk about are, of course, the application of new taxes to get rid of parts of the economy that they just do not like. We are committed to the means of reducing our emissions most efficiently in a way that best protects Australia's economic interests and meets our international obligations—but without destroying the jobs or livelihoods of other Australians. The Greens can continue, if they want, with their fixation on wanting to introduce new taxes and new measures that would be focused more on disrupting the Australian economy, creating job losses across the Australian economy and creating higher prices for Australians. We will stand by the fact that our policies in place, right now, are working and are meeting and exceeding the targets we have committed to.