Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry—

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

Senator Rennick, sorry, please resume your seat. Senator Hume! Senator Rennick, I invite you to begin your question again, and we will reset the clock.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, Senator Farrell. In an answer to a question on notice asking for the model used to prove that reducing CO2 emissions to net zero by 2050 will actually achieve a 1.5-degree reduction in global temperatures, the CSIRO replied that there are over 40 global climate models used around the world. Why should the Australian taxpayer stump up billions of dollars in subsidies for renewable energy when the scientific experts can't even agree on the method used to calculate CO2 emissions and their impact on temperature?

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

I thank Senator Rennick for his question. It's pleasing to see that somebody in this place has got an interest in science and industry. That's a very pleasing development.

I don't know the specifics of your question off the top of my head because, of course, this is not my policy area. We have a very fine minister in Minister Husic, who looks after this area, and I will get an answer to your question from him as soon as I can. But can I say this: I don't think the science is in dispute about the need to move to net zero, Senator Rennick. Australia is unique—

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

Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Rennick?

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order: the question is how it's being measured, not whether or not it's in dispute. It's about how it's being measured and the accuracy and quality assurance of those measurements.

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

There was an introduction to your question. I think the minister is being relevant to the question, and I will continue to listen carefully. Thank you, Senator Rennick. Minister Farrell.

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

Thank you for that support for my answer. I said to you quite honestly, Senator Rennick, that I don't have the specific details to answer that question, but I will get them for you. But I'm making the general point that the need to move to net zero is not in dispute. This country is uniquely placed not only to move to net zero for our own economy but to assist the rest of the world to do so.

One of the areas that I'm very directly involved in is the issue of critical minerals. Australia is very fortunate in that we have an overabundance of those critical minerals that we're going to need to move to net zero. (Time expired)

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

Senator Rennick, first supplementary?

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Black Summer bushfires triggered a massive phytoplankton bloom the size of Australia in the Southern Ocean. Phytoplankton is the biggest carbon sink on the planet, and, according to the CSIRO, it absorbs 30 per cent of human CO2 emissions. Yet, when asked in estimates if phytoplankton is used as a CO2 offset when calculating net zero, the CSIRO said it wasn't. Why isn't phytoplankton being used as a CO2 offset when calculating net zero?

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

I thank Senator Rennick for his first supplementary question. I wasn't present during those questions, I don't believe, but I shall make contact with the CSIRO and seek to get an answer to your question as quickly as I can, Senator Rennick.

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

Senator Rennick, second supplementary?

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to a 1½ degree reduction in temperature, two executives at the Bureau of Meteorology were recently castigated for giving evidence to a Federal Court judge that was false and unreliable in a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. The case came after it was revealed that the bureau was no longer meeting its obligations in upper air monitoring. Given this behaviour, why should the public trust anything the bureau says about weather records?

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

Senator Rennick, your second supplementary question should really relate to your primary question. It is hard to—

An honourable senator interjecting—

I'm ruling on this, so I don't need input. It is hard to see that, but I would invite the minister to respond to your question as he sees fit.

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

I thank Senator Rennick for his second supplementary question. Again, I'm not familiar with those issues that you raised or the proceedings that you referred to. Again, I will get a detailed response for you and provide that to you, Senator Rennick, as quickly as I can.