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

My question is to Senator Birmingham, representing the Minister for the Environment. The World Heritage Committee gave Australia homework four years ago to show why the Great Barrier Reef shouldn't be listed as 'in danger'. On Sunday, your government sent in its homework in a glossy report pretending everything's fine and downplaying the dramatic decline in conditions as merely 'impacting' on the reef. How can you claim to be actively managing the key pressures when half of the coral cover of the reef has bleached to death, when you've set up an inquiry questioning reef science and when your own reef management authority has downgraded the long-term outlook for the reef from poor to very poor for the first time?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Waters for her question, although I don't accept all of the assertions she made in her question. The government takes the health of the Great Barrier Reef incredibly seriously. That's why we have supported record levels of investment in support as part of our reef protection efforts, which are designed to build resilience for the reef, to address the many challenges that it faces and to do that jointly with the Queensland government, noting the speaker sitting alongside you. As part of our reef protection efforts, we have developed the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan. That has been developed jointly with the Queensland government, who work alongside traditional owners, industry, scientists, farmers and the wider community to implement that plan.

The Australian and Queensland governments are investing some $2.7 billion from the period 2014-15 through to 2023-24 to implement our plans to support the reef. These plans are comprehensive in terms of working to improve water quality and coastal habitats, tackling outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish, addressing plastics and protecting threatened migratory species. Australia's management of the reef is recognised as a leading example in terms of protection for large-scale marine protected areas, and was identified as such in previous UNESCO reports. We are investing in the long-term support for reef activities through the Reef Trust Partnership and with the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, and we are continuing to invest further in terms of additional support for controlling crown-of-thorns starfish and working with farmers to improve reef water quality.

Overall, our efforts are about making sure we take the action necessary to sustain the reef as one of Australia's great environmental assets and one of our prime tourism assets, and we continue to support the communities in the reef to make sure they are able to promote its world-class attributes to the world.

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

The latest IPCC scientific report confirms that, if global temperatures rise by 1½ degrees, 90 per cent of all coral reefs will be lost, and all of them—100 per cent of coral reefs—will be lost if we hit two degrees, yet your government's policies have us on track for at least three degrees of warming. When will your government end its war on science and implement a climate policy to limit global warming to 1½ degrees to protect what's left of the reef?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I completely reject the points that Senator Waters has sought to make there. As I outlined in response, I think, to a question from Senator Waters only last week, our government has detailed, in terms of our Climate Solutions Package, right down to the last tonne precisely how we propose—

Senator Wong interjecting—

I know Senator Wong isn't seemingly interested in the fact that we're going to meet the 2020 targets—

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

Order! Senator Wong on a point of order.

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

He took the interjection. Point of order: that was not what I said. I said that he didn't believe it.

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! Interjections are disorderly, and responses to them are not encouraged. Senator Waters, on a point of order?

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

President, nobody believes it.

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

Even in the Christmas spirit, I'm not going to tolerate it getting like this on a Tuesday afternoon. Senator Birmingham.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Mr President. I'm not sure there was a lot of Christmas spirit in those comments either, so I'm not sure that would be an accurate reflection, even from the chair, Mr President, if I may say. In terms of our commitment, the government has outlined detailed plans to meet our 2030 targets in relation to climate action. That's what the Climate Solutions Package takes us through, tonne by tonne. Senator Waters ought know that, ought acknowledge that and ought to stop misleading, in the sense that Australia has met and exceeded our targets to date, and our plans are about ensuring we continue to do so into the future.

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

If you were truly managing the pressures on the reef to protect it and the 64,000 jobs that it supports, you would revoke all federal approvals for the Adani Carmichael coalmine and not approve any new coal in Australia. Your UN reef homework doesn't disclose the millions in donations from big oil, big coal and big gas to your party over the last four years. When will you ban donations from the fossil fuel industry, an industry which benefits quite nicely from your government's lack of climate policy?

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

Order. Again I remind senators about the rules about supplementary questions. There does need to be a link to the first question. I will call on the minister to respond as far as his responsibility for the portfolios he represents.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That supplementary question from Senator Waters highlights the completely misleading rubbish that we get from the Australian Greens who, when it comes to addressing climate policy, decide instead to bring it into a whole range of other matters and ignore the fact that this is about dealing with a global problem through global cooperation and action.

Australia plays a role. We have done so consistently over recent years in terms of signing on to global climate change agreements and acting in accordance with them, and signing on to future agreements such as the Paris Agreement and acting in accordance with that. It doesn't come down to a single piece of regulatory approval for one mining project. It doesn't come down to what the nation's electoral financing laws might look like. It comes down to working in concert with other nations to make sure that we deliver upon our commitments and to ensure that they deliver upon theirs, and that's what we're committed to doing.

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

Can I remind senators of a previous ruling about supplementary questions. I have taken to start reading precedent on this. I will quote President McClelland:

… supplementary questions are appropriate only for the purposes of elucidating information arising from the original question and answer. They are not appropriate for the purpose of introducing additional or new material or proposing a new question, even though such a question might be related to the subject matter of the original question.

That is a ruling from President McClelland from 1986. It is in Odgers and it is the guiding principle about supplementary questions.