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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and also the climate and environment ministry, Senator Wong. Today, a report from the Climate Council and Emergency Leaders for Climate Action reported that the Queensland floods earlier this year cost nearly $8 billion, and extreme weather events over the past year have cost Australian households an average of $1,532. The report says we need deep cuts to emissions this decade to avoid climate catastrophe, something that cannot happen if more coal and gas projects are approved. Rather than propping up coal and gas projects with fossil fuel subsidies, this government should be addressing the cost of living and preparing communities for future disasters. When will the government cancel the $47.2 billion of public money it's giving in subsidies to the fossil fuel sector?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to Senator Waters for a very lengthy question. It was a lengthy question; that's alright. She's entitled to a full minute, and I'll—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're very touchy, aren't they! They had a bad Saturday night.

Senator, this is a variation on a question that you and your colleagues have asked on a number of occasions. What I would say to you is: (1) we agree with the need to make reductions in the emissions Australia produces. That is a position that I have been arguing, and the Labor Party has been arguing, for many years. We sought to implement that in government. We fought for that in opposition over nine years, and I am pleased, as I'm sure many people across Australia are, that we not only have a government who wants to act on climate but have a parliament that wishes to act on climate.

I think all of those points go back to some of the points you raise. I think the question is: what is your diagnosis, or your assertion, about the test to deal with that? We believe the test is as set by the UNFCCC and as agreed amongst the international community, which is economies over time will make reductions in their emissions, will reduce the emissions they produce. That is why we have an election commitment to a 43 per cent reduction by 2030, which will see the overwhelming majority of energy in the energy sector coming from renewable sources.

I appreciate that the Greens have a different view. I trust they also have a fiscal position that they're prepared to take which reflects that in terms of the revenue to the Australian economy by those sectors. But, unlike you, we're not going to target workers and one industry. We are going to reduce, over time— (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, a first supplementary?

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

Last week, in a case taken by Youth Verdict, the Land Court of Queensland recommended rejection of Clive Palmer's Waratah Coal Wandoan mine. The Land Court found that the mine's contribution to climate change and cultural harm outweighed any economic benefit. Will the environment minister apply the same reasoning when assessing the 114 coal and gas projects currently before her and reject those damaging projects?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That question is actually not in the climate portfolio, as you'd know, but in the environment portfolio. But I'm happy to respond to it.

Thank you, Senator Payne. I'm aware of that. Under the standing orders, we also don't switch portfolios mid-question, but that's fine; I'm happy to take the question.

The response is—as I've previously said, Senator Waters—obviously, for those matters that are before Ms Plibersek, or whomever has held that portfolio at any time over the past years, those are matters that the minister would exercise in accordance with the statutory discretion. As you know, our view is that any project has to stack up environmentally and, clearly, economically. I think the reality is, over time, the global markets will reduce the amount of consumption from fossil fuels. I think that is demonstrated by a net zero— (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, a second supplementary question?

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

Given the environmentally, culturally and economically devastatingly impacts of climate change, particularly for future generations, when will the government commit to introducing a climate trigger into the EPBC Act to require the climate impacts of all large projects to be considered and to allow the outright rejection of big coal, oil and gas projects on climate grounds?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do agree with the characterisation about the urgency of action on climate. And I believe our country would've been far better off had we, first, passed the emissions trading scheme or, second, if we had been able to continue the clean energy package that Ms Gillard's government introduced. Regrettably, that was not the case. I think we would've been in a more competitive position than we are now in a global economy which is increasingly prioritising clean energy.

The question, again, goes to a policy lever that I understand those at that end of the chamber have been advocating for—some have been advocating for in the community. We went to the election with a very clear commitment about how we would reduce Australia's emissions and how we would seek to shift our economy from an emissions— (Time expired)