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

My question is to Senator Wong, representing the Prime Minister. Last week's annual donations data release revealed around $2 million in donations from fossil fuel companies and lobbyists to both big parties, including $960,000 of that to the Labor Party, and in that financial year four big donors were some of the highest-polluting facilities covered by the proposed safeguard mechanism: Woodside, BlueScope, Chevron and INPEX. Collectively, they donated over $200,000 to the Labor Party in 2021-22. How much access to the table did that buy when Labor was designing its weak safeguard mechanism legislation, and are those dirty donations why your safeguard mechanism backs new coal and gas?

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

I really reject the imputation of some form of corruption which is in that question. I'm reminded of when I was a minister many years ago, with much less grey hair, and Senator Payne—sorry, what was her name?

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Milne.

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

Senator Milne! Senator Milne was—

An opposition senator interjecting

Senator Payne did vote with Senator Milne, in fact. They voted together to get the cashless debit card—sorry; I'm very tired. It was the CPRS. They voted against that. She would ask question after question to me about fossil fuel companies, and I remember saying to her at one point: 'You know, it is possible that we take a different position not because we are corrupt, as is the implication, but because we just don't agree. We don't agree with the policy proposition.' And that is the case.

Now, I accept that there will be a contest over the safeguard mechanism. I have faith that Mr Bowen will ensure that what is presented to this parliament will have a cogent policy basis. You may not agree with it, and that is your right, but he will do so, as the cabinet will do so, on the basis of our judgement about what the best economic policy for the nation is. So I do reject—

An opposition senator interjecting

It's very easy, isn't it, as a campaigning tool? But I do reject this proposition that somehow a Labor government which has taken a very ambitious position on climate, and which has—let's be frank—paid a political price for many years as a consequence of holding the position on climate, would simply do what you're suggesting. That is not the case. We are always guided by what is best for the country. (Time expired)

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

Senator Waters, first supplementary?

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

I note that the fossil fuel sector receives over $11 billion in public subsidies every year. I also note that the mineral resources council donated $103,800 in donations to the Labor Party and they recently promised to unleash an ad campaign against Labor unless it ruled out a windfall profits tax. We haven't seen a windfall profits tax, which could fund cost-of-living relief measures to actually help people. Has that donation bought your compliance on that issue? (Time expired)

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

The answer is no. You are talking to a party that has been honest with the Australian people for over a decade; that lost government—let's be clear—about our position on climate. It has been honest with people, and in the previous term of government obviously paid a political price for holding a very clear and consistent position on climate. We have. And we went to the Australian people with a clear position about what we would do, and we will deliver it. We had a clear position on taxation, we had a clear position on climate policy, we had a clear position about utilising the safeguards mechanism, and we were up-front with the Australian people about why we wanted to do it and what we would do. So the implication that you want to make for political purposes in here—that somehow that is all untrue—is wrong. It is wrong, and it does not do you— (Time expired)

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

Senator Waters, second supplementary?

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

Around half the donations given to political parties is dark money. It's not required to be disclosed, because of in-built loopholes. That means cash for access meetings or donations through business forums as membership are not required to be disclosed. When will you shine a light on the masses of undisclosed money washing through this system and fix the system so that big money isn't buying access and outcomes?

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

I make this point: we continue to lead on political donation reform. I understand JSCEM is looking at this issue, and I also understand and am told that donations were taken by the Greens political party from a professional gambler and a pastoral company backed by one of South Africa's richest men. But you want to lecture us about this and make imputations that the Labor Party, which went to the Australian people with a very clear policy position and which is now implementing that policy position—you now want to say for political purposes that that's corrupt. Well, you know what? I actually think that all of the Australians who voted for climate action and all of the Australians who voted for the ambitious position that we went to the election with deserve a Greens political party that might actually back in legislation that delivers on that ambition, rather than taking pot shots from that corner yet again.