Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. The Liberal member for North Sydney, Trent Zimmerman, said that, 'Transitioning to net zero emissions by 2050:

… is something that we should be looking very seriously at … Not only will this not be a disaster, there will be opportunity.

Is Mr Zimmerman correct?

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

The member for North Sydney is, of course, entitled to his views but let me tell you what the government's position is. The government's position is that we will continue to make decisions that are environmentally effective and economically responsible. What we will not do is take the reckless approach of the Labor Party, which the Australian people rejected at the last election, and that is to make meaningless promises without a plan, without a costing, without any information to the Australian people on what the impacts on the economy, on jobs, on living standards and, indeed, on global emissions are going to be, because the Australian people actually understand this very well. Imposing burdens in Australia on Australian business will just lead to shifting emissions to other parts of the world where emissions will be higher for the same level of economic output. It is not helping to address climate change. It is imposing a sacrifice here in Australia but not actually helping the environment. I would have thought that out of all people Senator Kitching would have known about this given that she's a senior member of the Otis group.

Of course, we know that there's an opportunity for bipartisan policy in relation to climate change and energy. Senator Farrell is leading the rebellion. Joel Fitzgibbon is leading the rebellion. In fact, I think we've got Jim Chalmers—he's being very quiet about this net zero emissions by 2050 proposition from the Leader of the Opposition. Here we have Mr Albanese, as 'Shorten 2.0', working with Mark Butler, who for some reason escaped the blame for this terrible policy disaster at the last election where poor old Mr Bowen was moved on from the shadow Treasurer's position.

I'm quite surprised that Senator Kitching would be asking me these questions. I would have thought that Senator Kitching would be supportive of our commitment to pursue policies that are environmentally effective and economically responsible.

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

Senator Kitching, a supplementary question?

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me try this MP, Mr President. The Liberal member for Mackellar, Jason Falinski, tweeted yesterday:

Cutting emissions is one of the most serious economic and environmental challenges and opportunities we collectively face.

My focus is on developing an achievable road map which will get us to a point of net zero emissions by 2050, or earlier.

Is Mr Falinski correct?

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

I can tell you what the government's view is when it comes to emissions reductions and that is that we have committed to a 26 to 28 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030, which represents a 50 per cent reduction on a per capita basis, a two-thirds reduction on an emissions intensity basis. What is Labor's commitment to an emissions reduction target for 2030? You seem to have run for the hills when it comes to your 2030 emissions reduction target. I guess—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong says, 'We're in government.' We were always open and up-front about our commitments and what we wouldn't be prepared to do. We are not prepared to just put some meaningless statements out without doing our homework first. We will ensure that the decisions we make are environmentally effective and economically responsible. That is one of the key reasons why we're still in government and why you're still in opposition.

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

Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question?

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian told the New South Wales parliament that net zero emissions by 2050: '… is our target and it is right in line with the Paris Agreement'. Is Premier Berejiklian correct?

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

We will make decisions in the national interest around a policy agenda that is environmentally effective and economically responsible. Let me tell you this: in Australia we are a net exporter of energy. We are net exporters of energy sources. You know what? Our energy supplies like LNG, black coal and others can help reduce emissions by more. If we are not careful, in terms of the decisions that we make here, and if we don't properly calibrate the decisions when it comes to emissions in Australia, we could be doing harm to the global environment. That is why, unlike the Labor Party, unlike Mr Albanese and Mr Butler, who are pursuing an extremist, reckless and irresponsible approach when it comes to these issues, we will continue to make reasonable, responsible decisions focused on being environmentally effective and economically responsible.