Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Minister, yesterday at COP24, Sir David Attenborough highlighted the climate emergency as 'the greatest threat to civilisation' and said we needed 'real urgent leadership'. Last night, the Liberal Party called an emergency meeting to discuss the leadership of the Morrison government. When will this government stop talking about themselves and, instead, get on with meaningful climate action?

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

This government are committed to meaningful action on climate change. We, of course, as a country, have exceeded our commitments on the Kyoto 1. We are well and truly on track to meet our commitments under Kyoto 2. It's a matter of public record that we signed on to commitments in Paris for further emissions reductions of 26 per cent to 28 per cent by 2030 on 2005 levels.

But, of course, on this side of the parliament, we are pursuing initiatives to strengthen environmental protection and reduce emissions in a way that is also economically responsible. I had thought that that was the Greens' position at some point because, of course, you voted with us to vote down the Labor Party's carbon pollution reduction scheme. You voted—and I think Senator Hanson-Young was actually here. Senator Hanson-Young voted against the carbon pollution reduction scheme. No doubt, if the Greens had voted with Labor to impose the carbon pollution reduction scheme, I suspect it would have been very hard for us to unscramble the egg. It is very much the Greens who have helped us pursue environmental policies in a way that is economically responsible.

So, quite frankly, I can't take Senator Hanson-Young very seriously when I'm aware of the track record of her personally and her party when it comes to these matters. We will continue to pursue effective action on climate change in a way that is economically responsible, and it's a matter of public record that we are delivering on the commitments that we have made.

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

Senator Hanson-Young, a supplementary question.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This morning, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said, 'There is a significant percentage of coalition members who don't believe climate change is real.' Can the minister please tell the Australian people who these members are and how many of them are in your cabinet?

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

I don't agree with the former Prime Minister, and I'm not aware that he expressed that view while he was Prime Minister.

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

Senator Hanson-Young, a final supplementary question.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The former Prime Minister has belled the cat over the Morrison government's lack of credible, coherent climate policy due to—and he said this again this morning—'ideology and ignorance'. When will the Prime Minister stand up to the climate sceptics and the science deniers in your party and get real about the climate emergency?

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

The first point I would make is that the emissions reduction target that is the policy of this government is precisely the same as the emissions reduction target under the Turnbull government, so I'm not quite sure what Senator Hanson-Young is referring to there. In relation to the other comments, I just remind Senator Hanson-Young again that it was the Greens, of course, that voted with Liberal-National senators to ensure that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme would not become law. I thought at the time that was because you wanted to protect the Australian economy from an excessive tax which would harm growth in a way that would actually not have reduced emissions but which would have just shifted emissions overseas where, for the same level of economic output, emissions would have been higher. It sounds like you're having second thoughts and that you're now trying to come back at it from the other side, but our position remains consistent. Our position is, as it has always been, that we want to reduce emissions in a way that is economically sensible, and that is our policy.