Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. In the last hour, the Senate has agreed to the government's Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023, which is another landmark in the Albanese Labor government's proactive approach to taking action on climate change. Minister, how are the Albanese government's safeguard reforms a step forward for the nation's action on climate change?

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

I thank Senator Payman for her question, and I thank all of my colleagues on this side, the Greens and the members on the crossbench who supported this historic legislation. I know those opposite are fools returning to their folly over and over again, but one of the things that they seem not to have understood is that the Australian people at the last election returned a parliament—not just a government, but a parliament—supportive of action on climate change. Those opposite are still stuck in the fights of years past. In fact, I listened to some of the debate, which Senator McAllister handled extraordinarily well, and I thought: I remember this. I remember Senator Joyce standing down there asking the same questions. I remember then senator Ian Macdonald. I remember a whole range of people, like Senator Minchin, who said that climate change was a left-wing conspiracy to de-industrialise the Western world.

These people have not changed. They have not changed. I would say two things to those opposite. The first is: this legislation is one part—not the only part, but a critical and important part—of ensuring that Australia can thrive and prosper in a world that is moving to net zero by 2050.

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

Have you listened to the speech?

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

Senator Canavan—I know you're not going to be worried about me talking at you! Despite your best efforts, the coalition did sign off—

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

Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask you to draw the minister to preface her comments through the chair. It's not about whether Senator Canavan minds or not; it's actually in the standing orders and it's about being respectful to the chair.

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

Senator McKenzie, when you call a point of order—I reminded senators of this earlier in the week—please state your point of order without making a statement. I will remind the minister to direct her comments through the chair.

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

Nobody wants to have fun anymore! No matter how much Senator Canavan tried, those in his party still signed up to net zero by 2050—at least, that's what they told the Australian people, but you know what? They have no plan to deliver it. They're not even interested in a plan to deliver it. (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! There's too much disorder and noise in the chamber. Senator Payman, first supplementary?

Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, President. After a decade of policy delay, denial and dysfunction, how will these reforms deliver overdue policy certainty? What has been the response to the parliament progressing these reforms?

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

I thank the senator for her question. It's a question that goes to the heart of why this reform is needed. It goes to the heart of why this reform is good not only for action on climate but also for the Australian economy and for Australian business. One of the irrationalities from those opposite has been that they have misunderstood, for over 15 years, the importance of certainty in markets. The 22 energy policies that they put in place ensured that there was no investment certainty and that the private sector would not invest in accordance with its desires, much of the time, which is why we have this bizarre situation where most of the business community is not where the coalition is. That really must be hard for the party that thinks it's the party of business. What I've noticed in some of the debate is that they seem to say that somehow it's because business don't understand. (Time expired)

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

Senator Payman, second supplementary?

Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy has said that these reforms aren't just a plan for the climate; they are a plan for the economy. Minister, what will these reforms mean for investment and the economy?

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

I'll pick up where I left off. The reality is that the investor community, the business community, is well ahead of those opposite. It says something about the delusion of a party that goes to an election saying: 'We had 22 policies for 2050. We had no investment certainty, so there was no investment in the energy sector, but guess what? We now, after the election, know better than all of the investor community, all of the business representatives and all of the businesses in this country, who are seeking certainty from the parliament and from the government.' Can I say what an abrogation of responsibility it has been that a party of government has left it to the crossbench and the Greens—we welcome their support, but what does it say about those opposite? As a party of government that says, 'We support 2050'—they're the 'no-alition'; they're nowhere. (Time expired)