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, Senator Cormann. Minister, since we were last here, the UN climate summit in New York resolved that countries need to lift their current target by three to five times in order to contain global warming below two degrees. You might not be aware of it because the Prime Minister snubbed the summit to meet with a donor. One of the core demands that has emerged from the protest movement that is building right around the world is for some truth-telling. Minister, are you prepared to tell the truth that, firstly, you have no plan and next to no chance of meeting the weak targets we have agreed to in Paris despite using dodgy accounting to get there; and, secondly, that even if we meet those targets we won't come close to ensuring that we prevent the breakdown of our climate?

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

The answer to the first question is no. Senator Di Natale is wrong. We do have a plan to meet our emissions reductions targets that we have signed on to in Paris. Indeed, we are on track to meet and exceed our 2020 emissions reduction targets as agreed to in Kyoto. And we have a plan to meet the emissions reduction target agreed to in Paris, which is a sensible target. We are focused on doing everything we can to protect the environment in a way that is economically responsible, and that is what we believe the Australian people expect us to do. Senator Di Natale is entitled to his views. We will stick to our plan and do what is right by the Australian people.

Scott Ryan (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

Minister, I want to quote you something from the International Monetary Fund's report last week: 'There's growing agreement between economists and scientists that the risk of catastrophic and irreversible disaster is rising, implying potentially infinite costs of unmitigated climate change including, in the extreme, human extinction.' Minister, do you accept the IMF's testimony or do you believe it is another example of negative globalism?

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

I refer Senator Di Natale to the proposition that some of those scenarios that are put forward by the IMF would lead to a carbon tax in Australia of about $75 to $90 a tonne. And I can confirm for Senator Di Natale that this government does not support the reintroduction of a carbon tax—

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

Senator Di Natale, a point of order?

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

Mr President, a point of order on relevance. I read a quote out and I asked whether the government accepts that quote. I didn't ask for the minister's opinion on a carbon price; I asked him specifically whether he accepted that testimony or thought it was negative globalism.

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

I asked senators, in the last session, to be careful about raising points of order on relevance that were in fact points of order about the nature of an answer to a question and not on relevance. I can't instruct a minister how to answer. The minister was being directly relevant and, in fact, in the point he was just outlining, I believe, he was extrapolating by referring to the report that you quoted. It is entirely directly relevant. Points of order are not to go to the nature of the questions; they go to whether they are directly relevant.

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

I am aware of the report. I have read the relevant parts of it. I can confirm again for Senator Di Natale that we don't support the proposition that Australia should consider a $75 to $90 a tonne carbon tax. We think it would be bad for our economy. It would be bad for the environment. All we would end up doing is shifting environmentally more efficient production into other parts of the world. We would shift jobs and shift emissions, and the world would be worse off at the same time as leaving the Australian people worse off. That is not our way to approach these things. That might be the Greens way, but that will never be our way.

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

Since you raised the carbon price—on truth telling—do you accept that, since you abolished the carbon price, which you said would save consumers $550, wholesale energy prices have almost doubled, that emissions are rising and that they are higher than ever in this country right now under your government?

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Senator Wong, order on my left during questions, as I called for it earlier on my right. I'll call Senator Cormann when there is order, but it is opposition time. Please lead by example. Can those on the left please follow the current example of their leader. Senator Bernardi on a point of order.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong is clearly accusing me of sitting with the Greens or something absurd like that. It offends me, and I would like her to withdraw that on the basis that it is completely inappropriate.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, I think it is a matter of public record that the Greens sat with you to vote down the carbon price.

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

This is a matter for debate; I don't think it's a matter of unparliamentary language or something that requires withdrawal. This is traditionally time for the opposition and non-government parties. We are wasting your time in question time.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Wong, again, this is opposition time and crossbench time; I am trying to ensure it is used productively. I was about to call Senator McKim to order.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not McKim.

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

As much as I enjoy this conversation amongst Labor and the Greens, former coalition partners, let me get back to the question. Firstly, all of the modelling of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the carbon tax actually showed emissions would continue to increase, assuming that the economy would continue to grow. There was a period during the Labor-Greens administration where the economy weakened quite a bit compared to what was anticipated, so emissions in that context were lower than what had been anticipated. That is true, but only the Greens would argue that somehow removing a carbon tax hasn't actually reduced the cost of generating energy. If you reduce a government imposed tax, all other things being equal, that reduces the cost and indeed it has. The cost today would be higher if it weren't for the removal of the carbon tax. Let me tell you again: we have a plan to meet our emissions reduction targets signed onto in Paris for 2030, as we have a plan to meet and indeed exceed our emissions reduction targets for 2020. (Time expired)