Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister. The opposition leader's nuclear fantasy is nothing but a massive distraction from the real work of keeping coal and gas in the ground. This is the only way to prevent a catastrophic climate breakdown over this critical decade. Given that both the government and the opposition are on a unity ticket on expanding the coal and gas industry and making the climate crisis worse, is this government rubbing its hands together on this fantasy-land nuclear distraction?

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

Thank you, Senator, for the question. I would make a few points. The first is that we take the best advice we can from experts about the way we transition this economy, and in particular the energy grid, in a way that increases reliability of supply, increases supply and reduces emissions. I know that there will be aspects of what AEMO—the Energy Market Operator—or other experts say that don't accord with the Greens' position, but that is the advice we are given: how do we ensure that we reduce emissions from Australia's energy grid as part of our net-zero target approach in a way that ensures we increase the renewables supply, reduce costs and increase reliability? That is what we are doing.

You described the opposition's position as a fantasy. I have to say I think it's a blank cheque for a bad bet, because what it does is to say, 'We will subsidise a policy approach which might yield something in 20 years, and we won't even tell taxpayers what the cost of ensuring the most expensive power that we can find is.' We are very clear that what we want to do is to transition the grid and the whole of the Australian economy at the lowest cost we can to meet our 2030 target and our 2050 net-zero target, which I understood was bipartisan, and we think that is the most responsible approach. I appreciate that the Greens political party have different views about different energy sources. We will— (Time expired)

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

Senator Cox, first supplementary?

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For generations, First Nations people in this country have been opposing coal and gas projects on their country. From the Tiwi Islands, Gamilaraay country, Nurrdalinji and Gunditjmara country, they have all been opposed to these climate-destroying projects, to protect and defend their country and their connection to it. This is a government that said it would listen to First Nations voices. When are you actually going to do that?

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

We have a very clear, deep and personal commitment to listening to and engaging with First Nations communities, and we're very proud to have the members of our First Nations caucus with us. What I would say in terms of approvals—because I think this is an EPBC Act question—is that Ms Plibersek has made clear the importance of going through a process of discussion and negotiation with all parties as we look to what further reforms are required in these areas. I would also make the point—speaking in relation to your primary question—that this government has, in fact, approved some 54 renewable projects since we were elected. (Time expired)

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

Senator Cox, second supplementary?

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the May 2022 election, this government told the Australian public it was serious about delivering on climate action. Minister, why has your government, then, produced two plans, the Future Gas Strategy and A Future Made in Australia, that have us baked into gas until 2070 and, in fact, look like a reheated version of the Morrison government's Gas-Fired Recovery policy?

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

(—) (): With respect, Senator, that last comment is a throwaway political comment that actually has no basis in fact, and I don't think anybody looking at our policy approach would say that. I'm sorry. I know that it's part of the political strategy to try and make the two big parties the same, but, unfortunately, here the facts do get in the way. What I have said very clearly, and what has been said by the Prime Minister and, more recently on this issue, the climate change minister, we look to what the best way, the most efficient way, is to transition our economy to meet what are very ambitious—and they are ambitious. And it might be that, in some world, you could theoretically somehow get to net zero or a 43 per cent reduction or two in excess of 80 per cent renewables in the grid by just announcing it, but we have the hard work of making sure we deliver policies that enable that transition at the lowest cost to Australian— (Time expired)