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

My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Today a report was released by RepuTex, the modellers who modelled the Labor Party's climate policy for the election. Their report forecasts 56 million tonnes of pollution from just 13 new coal and gas projects. That's an 11 per cent increase on Australia's current emissions. Can you guarantee that the safeguard mechanism will see actual pollution from coal and gas go down, not up.

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

Thanks to Senator Waters for her question. The government has put forward a safeguard mechanism, the purpose of which is to provide a predictable and orderly pathway to net zero by 2050 for the 215 biggest emitters in our economy. And I would make the point, and I understand this is an issue of negotiation and discussion, that this is the only chance that the parliament will have to reduce emissions from all big emitters.

The safeguard changes are expected to reduce 250 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions to 2030. That is the equivalent of taking two-thirds of Australia's cars off the roads. The proposition in the question seems to suggest, or imply, this is not the way we should go about reducing our emissions. That may be the Greens' view; we don't share it. We see benefit in a predictable pathway to actually deliver the 2030 and 2050 targets.

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

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Waters?

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

Yes, reluctantly, a point of order on relevance. I specifically asked whether actual pollution from coal and gas would go up or down under the safeguard mechanism.

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

There was also context before that. I do believe that the minister's being relevant, but I will continue to listen carefully.

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

I understand that the Greens political party are more interested in particular sectors of the economy and targeting them. We believe that an economy-wide approach based on who the largest emitters are with a predictable pathway to achieving the targets—

Senator Whish-Wilson, would you like to stand up and give a speech?

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

Senator Whish-Wilson, please come to order. Minister, please continue.

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

If he wants to ask and answer his own questions, he's got opportunities to do that, but I'm trying to answer—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, someone's got to answer them.

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

Senator Whish-Wilson, I've just called you to order, and I have the minister on her feet! Minister, please continue.

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

The point we make is that an economy-wide predictable pathway is the lowest cost way for us to ensure these environmental targets— (Time expired)

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

Senator Waters, a first supplementary?

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

These new coal and gas projects could force industries that can actually adapt and survive in a net zero world, like cement, steel and aluminium, to have to cut more pollution by almost double. Why is your climate policy pushing the costs of new coal and gas onto everyone else?

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

I don't accept the characterisation. This is a mechanism that is about making sure the largest emitters have a pathway to contribute to net zero by 2050. I know that there are those who would like governments to pick and choose sectors in terms of making a contribution, and I know there are particular political views that the Greens political party have on these issues. We think the best approach is to ensure that the market can see a predictable pathway to achieving these reductions. Because it's all very well to talk about targets, but the most important thing is to have policy mechanisms which actually—

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

Order! Senator Whish Wilson, I've just called you to order! Minister Wong, I've called you back to continue answering the question if you have anything further to add.

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

The point I'm making is that we want a mechanism that actually ensures these targets are delivered, because there's no point in talking about action on climate change if we can't deliver it. And we are determined to deliver it, something that this country has not been able to do because of the attitude of those opposite for too many years. (Time expired)

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

Senator Waters, a second supplementary?

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

WATERS (—) (): These 13 new coal and gas projects would see coal and gas pollution rise in the critical decade for climate action, and there are another 100 new proposals for new coal and gas in the pipeline. Why does Labor want to open more coal and gas in the middle of a climate crisis?

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

As I explained, the safeguard mechanism will target 205 million tonnes of net reductions by 2030 overall through the safeguard. It is correct. We are not looking to pick one sector over another. If you emit in excess of 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, you will be covered. So it's agnostic in the sense of where the emissions occur, other than to say that, if you're a big emitter, you should have a pathway to reducing your emissions. I would have thought that those at the end of the chamber might actually think it's a good thing to get those industries and individual firms who are emitting a very large amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to reduce their emissions so that we can all meet the net zero target that everybody, with some exceptions, and most of this chamber have signed up to.