Larissa Waters (Queensland, 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. After the devastating summer that we've had, does the government accept that we are in a climate emergency?

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

The government's position is well known and well understood, and that is that we support effective action on climate change. Indeed, we committed ourselves in Paris to an overall emissions reduction target of 26 per cent to 28 per cent. If you assess and consider that target on a per capita basis, given our relatively small population in a big continent, we are committed to reducing emissions by half. On the basis of emissions intensity in our economy—that is, emissions per unit of GDP—in fact, we are committed to reducing emissions by two-thirds. That is more ambitious than the European Union, than Japan, than Canada, than New Zealand—you name it—and it is an entirely appropriate commitment for us to make. But, of course, our government is focused on an agenda that is environmentally effective and economically responsible.

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

Order! Senator Cormann, have you completed your answer?

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

No.

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

Senator Waters, on a point of order?

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, thank you; on a point of order. My question was very precise. I don't want the waffle that we get every time; I want an answer to whether the Prime Minister accepts that we're now in a climate emergency.

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

Senator Waters, I appreciate the question was quite specific. As long as the minister's directly relevant to the subject matter of the question—and I can't instruct him how to answer a question, but I believe what he is describing is directly relevant to the question you asked, with respect. So I'll call on him to continue.

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

Climate change is a global challenge and Australia is doing its bit to help address that global challenge. We are one of just a handful of countries around the world that are not just meeting but beating our emissions reduction targets agreed to in Kyoto. Indeed, we are leading the world when it comes to investment in renewable energy. I was in Germany the other day, and they were stunned when they learnt that, even in nominal terms, in aggregate terms, we are investing more in renewable energy than Germany, even though we have a much smaller population. On a per capita basis, we are investing more than three times as much in renewable energy here in Australia, under our government. I would have thought that you would celebrate our commitment to world-leading investment in renewable energy. But what we won't do is we will not be driven by the politically motivated, opportunistic Greens scaremongering. We will continue to make calm and considered and methodical judgements on how we can best address this issue. (Time expired)

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

Senator Waters, a supplementary question?

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the government accept that burning Australian coal has contributed to making these bushfires worse?

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

If Australia were to produce and export less coal, global emissions would be going up. The world environment would be worse off. That is a rational economic fact that the Greens clearly do not understand. If we were to reduce the level of coal production and coal exports from Australia into markets around the world where there is a demand for coal, emissions would be going up and the world environment would be worse off. So we would be harming our economy and we would be harming the global environment. The reason for that is Australian black coal has got a lower moisture content, lower ash and higher energy intensity. When you have countries around the world, in particular in emerging and developing markets, that have an existing and, for the foreseeable future, continuing demand for coal, to the extent that we don't supply that coal it will be met by coal from other sources which are dirtier and more polluting. (Time expired)

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

Senator Waters, a final supplementary question?

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's nonsense! Does the government accept that even if it met its emissions targets we would be on track for three degrees of warming, making the consequences for all of us at least three times worse?

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

What the government accepts is that we are doing our bit to help address the global challenge of climate change, and we're doing so through a policy agenda that is designed to be environmentally effective and economically responsible. What we will not do is ask the Australian people to make sacrifices which we know would harm them while making the world environment worse off.

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

Senator McKim, on a point of order?

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters' question was simple, brief and specifically around tracking towards three degrees of global warming, as the scientists are saying, and asking Minister Cormann whether he accepted that. He's not yet been relevant to that question in his answer.

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

I don't accept the interpretation that the minister hasn't been relevant. I do accept that it was a very specific question, and I'm listening very carefully to the minister. He was interrupted mid-sentence then. I will call on him to continue, and I have given you the opportunity to remind him of the question.

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

The directly relevant point I made is that climate change is a global challenge and can only be addressed in an appropriately globally coordinated fashion. Australia is making its contribution to that global effort, and we're making a significant contribution. But we're doing it in a way that is designed to be environmentally effective and economically responsible. We will not be asking the Australian people to make sacrifices which will harm—

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

Senator McKim, on a point of order?

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is also on direct relevance, and it's the same point of order I made to you earlier. The question was not, 'Is climate change a global phenomenon?' which is the one Senator Cormann is addressing. It was, 'Does he accept that we're on track to three degrees of warming?' That was the question and, respectfully, he hasn't yet been relevant to that.

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

I respectfully disagree, Senator McKim. The question, if I recall correctly, referred to if Australia's stated targets were met and then referenced the three degrees of global warming. I think the minister, by responding in this form, is being directly relevant to that question. I can't instruct him on how to answer a question nor to the content of an answer.

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

Let me make that final point again: what this government will not do is ask the Australian people to make a sacrifice which we know would actually not only harm our economy but also harm the global environment.