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

My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate representing the Prime Minister. Minister, we're back for our first question time after summer, and since we were last here we've had the hottest-ever January on record, we've seen some of the most devastating bushfires ever in Tasmania, we've seen the Darling River with a million dead fish and we've also seen those horrific torrential rains and flash flooding in Queensland. Minister, do you accept now that these are not simply natural disasters but, indeed, are the result of the breakdown of our climate system?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've got to say I'm somewhat surprised that Senator Di Natale is coming back here. The first point I would make is that, of course, the government is absolutely committed to effective action on climate change. I want to just remind people that Australia has exceeded the emissions reduction targets for Kyoto 1, is on track to exceed the emissions reduction targets for Kyoto 2, and that we will meet and probably exceed our emissions reduction target of 26 per cent on 2005 levels agreed to in Paris by 2030.

What I would say is that on this side of the chamber we believe that we can pursue effective action on climate change in a way that is economically responsible. We don't believe that whacking on a higher tax will be an effective way to address climate change when all it will do is shift emissions, alongside jobs and economic activity, to other parts of the world where emissions will be higher for the same amount of economic output, which, as I seem to recall, must have been the Greens' position when the Greens voted with the Liberal-National Party to defeat Labor's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. If you were so committed to a carbon pollution reduction scheme, why didn't you vote for it? I mean, you come in here, week in, week out, trying to take the high moral ground. The truth is that when you had the chance, you didn't do it. I mean, when you had the chance, I could only assume that you took our view that we needed effective environmental action in a way that was economically responsible, and that is why you sided with us in voting down Labor's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. So don't ask questions of us.

We are committed to effective action on climate change. We are delivering the outcomes that we promised that we would deliver. We are on track to deliver the outcomes that we promised for the future. That has been consistently our position over the last five-and-a-half-years. So, Senator Di Natale, maybe you should ask yourself a question, or maybe you should ask Senator Siewert a question: why she, alongside Senator Hanson-Young, voted with Liberal-National senators against Senator Wong over the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Cormann. The time for the answer has expired. Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question.

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

Malcolm Turnbull doesn't think you're too committed to climate action; he doesn't think so. Given that Australia is the world's biggest coal exporter and burning coal is the biggest contributor to climate damage, is the government willing to accept that the climate damage we've seen right throughout this summer is a result of burning coal here and overseas?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that is a gross oversimplification. I'm looking at Senator Colbeck, who has a fantastic front page, if someone could pass that on to me? Remember Dr Bob Brown? You know what he said? 'Coal power—best option'. That was of course when he was opposing the hydro power in Tasmania. It is true that coal is one important energy source and is also an important export product for Australia, but on our side of the Senate, on our side of the chamber, we are committed to effective action on climate change in a way that is economically responsible. What that means is we're pursuing sensible policy when it comes to promoting renewable energies— (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (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

Minister, 80 per cent of the thermal coal that Australia digs up is shipped off and burnt overseas. Your policy and, indeed, the opposition's policy, is to do nothing about the biggest contributor to global warming in this country. Do you accept that, unless we phase out the mining and burning of coal both here in Australia and overseas, we're going to see more disasters and more Australians affected?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It must be very comfortable being on the pulpit without having to take responsibility for the consequences of your statements. The truth is that Australian coal, when it displaces dirty coal in many other parts of the world, makes a magnificent contribution to environmental outcomes. If you want us to stop exporting cleaner Australian coal so that it can be substituted with dirtier coal overseas, if that makes you feel better that we have somehow sacrificed jobs in Australia, hurt families, damaged the economy, but you feel better, even though emissions in the world are up by more, if that makes you feel better, that is not our way to do business for the Australian people. We care about people as well as the environment. We care about making sure the economy is stronger so that families around Australia have the best possible opportunity to get ahead.