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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Responding to the latest IPCC synthesis report yesterday, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, said there should be no new coal, oil or gas projects and no expansions of existing coal, oil or gas reserves. Why does Labor want to open the 116 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Waters for her question. The Australian government of course welcomes the IPCC report. I think even you, Senator Waters, would acknowledge that there's been a significant change, in terms of the issues of climate change which the IPCC were dealing with in their report, between our government and the former government and, in particular, the greater commitments that we have made as a government to addressing the issues of climate change and starting the process of increasing the speed at which our economy is decarbonised. That, unfortunately, is not an easy thing to do. You can't snap your fingers and suddenly go from a fossil fuel supported economy to a renewable economy. You just can't do it. I wish you could. I wish I could do that by clicking my fingers. But we can't do it. This government is moving down the path of decarbonisation, but we're doing it in a sensible way. We're trying to bring the community with us, and I think we're doing that. We brought them with us—

Well, they voted for us at the last election, Senator McKim! They voted for us. You don't like it, but they voted for us as a government. They voted for our policies, not your policies, and they certainly didn't vote for the opposition's policies. (Time expired)

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

Senator Waters, your first supplementary question.

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

The government has called for budget restraint. The UN secretary-general and the International Energy Agency have both called for cuts to public subsidies for fossil fuels, which, incidentally, would save your budget $11 billion every year. Will the government end fossil fuel subsidies to help tackle the economic and climate crises?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Waters for her question. The issue of transitioning from a fossil fuel economy to a renewable economy, which is what we're talking about here, is not an easy transition. It's easy to say and it's easy to talk about—

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

Senator Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Waters?

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

Thanks, President. I specifically asked about fossil fuel subsidies and when they're going to axe the $11 billion a year that they give in cheap diesel and accelerated depreciation to fossil fuel companies.

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

Thank you, Senator Waters. I will remind Senator Farrell of the question.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Waters for her intervention there. As I was saying, if there were an easy way to solve this problem, like simply abolishing the sorts of—

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

Minister Farrell, please assume your seat. Senator Birmingham.

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

If it would help Senator Farrell, Senator Watt has already ruled this change out from being in the budget—

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

Senator Birmingham, please, that's not a point of order! Minister Farrell, please continue.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. Look, can I— (Time expired)

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

Senator Waters, your second supplementary question.

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

Will the Labor Party return the $960,000 it received in donations from the fossil fuel sector just in the last financial year so that it can start making policy decisions based on science?

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

Senator Watt! Minister Farrell.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The short answer is no, we're not going to return those donations any more than you have returned donations from companies which also have investments in fossil fuels and donate to the Greens. I understand that your organisation has refused to return those. Nor do you return donations from companies engaged in gambling.

Can I say this to you, Senator Waters? I agree—

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

Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge?

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister says that—

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

Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat!

Senator Shoebridge! Order! If you rise to your feet during question time it is to call a point of order and not to make a statement. You can make statements at other times in this place. Minister Farrell, please continue.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously, we touched a nerve there! The Greens were embarrassed about their donations. But I'll say this to the Greens and to the coalition: we do need to reform the donation regime in this country, and there's only one party— (Time expired)

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Skills and Training, Senator Watt. The Albanese government has a clear agenda to create the jobs of the future by taking advantage of the transition to renewable energy and investing in skills and training. How is the government's commitment to action on climate change supporting the jobs and skills of the future?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Grogan. You, of course, have a very long history in supporting all of these issues, even before you arrived in this place. Right now, this parliament is faced with a very simple choice. For the first time in a decade we can seize the opportunity to reduce emissions from Australia's big emitters or we can squander that opportunity yet again. Reforms to the safeguard mechanism are crucial to meeting our legislated emissions reduction target, the target that most honourable senators voted for in this place last year. When this parliament voted for a 43 per cent emissions reduction target for our country, the very senators who then argued for a higher target are now the ones who would have it be even lower. Without the changes that the safeguard mechanism involves, our nation is looking at a 35 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030, which is eight per cent lower than what was legislated by this parliament last year. Those honourable senators who said the target should be higher now have a choice to make, because, if they vote against these reforms, they are voting for a lower outcome than what was legislated just last year. Those senators would be voting against a 43 per cent emissions reduction target and against net zero by 2050.

We all have the opportunity here to take 205 million tonnes of carbon out of the air by 2030, the equivalent of two-thirds of the cars on Australia's roads. We have the chance to drive change among the 215 biggest emitters in the country, who represent 28 per cent of Australia's overall emissions. Yesterday's IPCC report, which has been cited here today, showed that this decade is the critical decade for action, the critical decade to make an urgent, rapid and far-reaching transformation across our economy, and that's exactly why all senators should vote for the changes we're proposing for the safeguard mechanism.

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

Senator, Grogan, first supplementary?

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Watt, that was wise advice that you've given there. Given that the jobs and skills of the future depend on industry and business having certainty and confidence, can the minister outline how a predictable trajectory for emissions reduction will give that certainty and confidence?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks again, Senator Grogan. The government's safeguard mechanism reforms that all senators will have the opportunity to vote on in the next couple of weeks are the next step to ensure that Australian industry remains competitive in a decarbonising global economy while reducing its emissions. What this means for Australians is jobs: clean, green and renewable jobs of the future—and jobs in green steel manufacturing, green hydrogen, offshore wind and other associated industries. If we get the policy settings right for business to decarbonise, we will achieve this ambition.

That's why the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry support these reforms, and 80 per cent of facilities are already covered by corporate net zero commitments. It's interesting that the parties who say they support big business aren't backing in those business groups on this point. Business knows that reducing emissions is essential to their long-term competitiveness in a global net zero economy, and that's why they're supporting the safeguard mechanism change. (Time expired)

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

Senator Grogan, second supplementary?

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, are there any threats to delivering the skills, training and jobs of the future?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Grogan. Unfortunately, there are a range of threats, and not always from the sources that you would expect. The truth is that Australia is starting way behind where it should, largely as a result of the Greens voting with the Liberals and Nationals against the CPRS in 2009—

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd be pretty embarrassed about that too! And, of course, it's also due to a decade of inaction from those on the other side.

Now the Greens are faced with the same choice 14 years later, and I say to the Greens senators: do you really want to find yourself sitting next to Senator Rennick, Senator Antic, Senator Canavan, Senator Hanson, Senator Roberts and all of those other people who say that climate change isn't real? Do you really want to be sitting next to them when this comes to a vote in the next fortnight, or will you be on the right side of history? Will you listen to the appeals of groups like the Carbon Market Institute, the Investor Group on Climate Change, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Climate Council, who all say that this whole Senate should back the safeguard mechanism? (Time expired)

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

I remind you, Senator Watt, to please direct your comments and answers to the chair.