Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Wong, representing the climate minister. Minister, another UNESCO scientific report has recommended that the Great Barrier Reef be put on the World Heritage in danger list because its outstanding universal values are threatened by climate change. In responding to the report this morning, the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, publicly acknowledged that we need to keep warming below 1.5 degrees to save the Great Barrier Reef. Minister, your government's legislated 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030 is consistent with two degrees of global warming, and the science tells us that this is a death sentence for the reef as we have known it. Millions of Australians who love the reef won't be fooled by this apparent cognitive dissonance. Minister, what is it going to be: a climate plan that limits global warming to 1.5 degrees, and gives the reef a chance, or to two degrees and a death sentence to the reef as we have been lucky enough to have known it in our lifetimes?

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

This government was elected with a plan to take strong action on climate, and that is what we will do. This party, over many years—over a decade—has had a very clear, ambitious and strong position on climate. And we have not just talked about it; we won government and we delivered action on climate. Regrettably, we lost government and it has been a number of years, nearly 10 years, not only of inaction but of denial and delay and dysfunction on that side of the parliament, and Australia is the poorer for it.

I was asked about the 43 per cent target: we were clear with the Australian people before the election, and I would make the point that that is consistent with the net-zero-by-2050 position that we have also been committed to. It is the case—and I'll make two points about the Great Barrier Reef: the first is that—

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Record coal!

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

Senator Canavan! I will make two points about the Great Barrier Reef: firstly, obviously, climate is a risk to all our natural environment. We know that. We've been told that, and that is why we need to take the action we are taking and that is why we need to work as we did at the previous Conference of the Parties—

Opposition senators interjecting—

I know that those opposite don't like to hear this. We need to work like Minister Bowen did at the Conference of the Parties to ensure that there is no backsliding on the Glasgow commitments, and that we maintain the ambitious position and continue to build on the position that was agreed in Glasgow.

We also have a lot of work to do in our domestic economy, and the government is committed to doing so. (Time expired)

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

Senator Whish-Wilson, your first supplementary question.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

SON () (): There are 114 new fossil fuel projects awaiting approval in Australia. Minister, do you agree that every new fossil fuel project approved is a nail in the coffin of the Great Barrier Reef? How can we save the reef and keep warming to 1.5 degrees if we are actively and deliberately making climate change worse?

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

I don't accept the premise at the end of that question, which suggests that a government that is willing to work with the Australian people to shift this economy from being one of the most emissions-intensive economies in the world to a 43 per cent reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2050—the thing about the Greens is they think you can say a target and it will be delivered. You see, we actually understand there are workers and industries and communities and people who have to be part of this journey. We all have to change.

As I've said previously, I am grateful that the Australian people have elected a parliament and a government that is willing to act on climate—and we will. No amount of coming in here and asking questions like that, which suggest that we also don't care, will detract from the fact that we are serious about taking action, and we will. (Time expired)

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

Senator Whish-Wilson, your second supplementary?

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will find out how serious you are very soon, Senator Wong. Minister, the previous Morrison government went to extraordinary and shameful lengths to lobby, deny, dodge and deceive the international community and prevent an 'in danger' listing of the Great Barrier Reef by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. Will your government do the same, or do you now accept the reef's outstanding universal values are in danger in line with this morning's released report?

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

As the environment minister made clear today—

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

Senator Canavan! Minister Wong, please resume your seat.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Go and rub some more coal in your face, Matt!

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

Senator Whish-Wilson, you have asked your question to Minister Wong. She was on her feet with an answer, but there were so many interjections across the chamber—

Senator Canavan, you were one of the people I just called. Minister, please continue.

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

Thank you, President. Look, we understand the position in relation to the Great Barrier Reef. I just make the point that I understand the report is not an 'in danger' listing; it's advice to the World Heritage Committee. Obviously the mission report is one source of information that will inform UNESCO's advice to the committee about the state of conservation of the reef. As Ms Plibersek said this morning, we understand—those opposite might like to deny it—

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

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Whish-Wilson, what is your point of order?

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a point of relevance. I asked the minister whether they were going to back the previous government's stance on denying the UNESCO report and the advice on the Great Barrier Reef being in danger.

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

Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. There was an enormous preamble also to that question, and the minister is being relevant.

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

I was directly responding that the mission report is one source of information that will inform UNESCO's advice to the World Heritage Committee about the state of conservation of the reef. I was also referencing the environment minister's statement this morning that, unlike those opposite, we don't deny that climate change has an effect on the reef and on all of our natural environment— (Time expired)