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

My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Birmingham. While the Liberal and National parties are squabbling over net zero by 2050, global leaders are focused on the main game of reducing pollution by 2030. This is the critical decade. If the Nationals agree to the Prime Minister's preference for net zero by 2050, won't that just confirm that delay is the new denial?

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

I am slightly flabbergasted by that question that seems to insinuate that the Greens, who I thought argued very strongly and passionately for commitments to net zero by 2050, now seem to be deviating from that position. They now seem to be saying they have an alternate position. Indeed, the Prime Minister has said he wants to see net zero achieved as soon as is possible. In that sense, Senator Waters, if you're saying, 'Would before 2050 be preferable?' indeed—if it's possible to be achieved in a world in which we get that delivered through the type of technology-not-taxes approach that our government is outlining, through the type of cooperation around the world that we are seeking to strive and achieve in relation to investment in those technologies that are necessary to reduce emissions.

In terms of the short term, Australia can hold its head high as being a nation that hasn't just made commitments, in relation to emissions reductions, but has met those commitments and exceeded those commitments. Often we have done so, in terms of meeting and exceeding those commitments, in a way far clearer, far stronger, than some of those countries that the Greens or others cite. Australia is a country that beat its Kyoto-era targets by 459 million tonnes. Our emissions are down by over 20 per cent in the period from 2005 to the end of last year, compared with 6.6 per cent across the OECD average. That's a track record that shows Australia has been making changes, and we've been able to do it and achieve it as a country whilst still growing our economy, through the growth in investment in technologies. That's precisely what our government is committed to continuing to pursue.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, a supplementary question?

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

The coalition repealed the price on pollution before it was set to link to the European Union. Had you not done so, Australian farmers today could be earning $80 a tonne by storing carbon in the land. The coalition has already lost Australian farmers $1.4 billion of new export income and will cost another $11 billion before the end of the decade. Why are you and your coalition partners acting against the interests and profits of Australian farmers?

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind senators again that I need silence during questions. There were interjections from both sides of the chamber during Senator Waters's question then.

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

Indeed, this side of politics well and truly stand up for Australian farmers. We have made sure that we invest in the type of carbon capture in soil technologies that can help Australian farmers and help to achieve reductions in emissions. In achieving that reduction in emissions, we'll do it in a way without applying taxes that can hit Australian farmers, Australian businesses, Australian industry and Australian households.

What was obvious in Senator Waters's question just then was that the Australian Greens want to see a tax come back. What was obvious from the voting record of the Greens last night was that they oppose investment in soil carbon. Apparently they oppose investment in hydrogen technologies as well. I find it astounding that the Australian Greens, having come into this chamber yesterday, along with the Labor Party, to vote against more investment in hydrogen technology and more investment in soil carbon, now come in here and are asking instead for us to go to a tax route. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, a final supplementary question?

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

With Japan, our biggest customer for coal and gas, lifting their 2030 ambition to 46 per cent, and South Korea, our third-biggest customer, lifting theirs to 40 per cent yesterday, are you really going to give the climate-denying National Party the trade portfolio?

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

Australia's 2030 targets will see our emissions per unit of GDP fall by some 70 per cent. Achieving our 2030 target will see emissions per capita fall by almost 50 per cent. That's the type of scale of activity that Australia is committed to and is taking, and, based on our track record, we'll meet and exceed our target yet again. But, under a coalition government, we'll meet and exceed it by investing in technology that helps farmers, like soil carbon, and by investing in technology that helps the energy regions of Australia—those whose jobs depend upon the energy sectors—through investment in areas like hydrogen.

The actions taken by those opposite last night, so roundly criticised by Mr Fitzgibbon—as Senator Seselja outlined before—don't help to get regions to transform to a hydrogen economy. They don't help farmers to transform in terms of using soil carbon. All you've done is stand as a roadblock to the type of action you say should be occurring. You should all be ashamed of the votes you cast.