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

My question is to the new Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. Peter Dutton promised to approve Woodside's mega gas plant in the Burrup Peninsula within 30 days of the election. Not to be outdone in delivering for major political donor Woodside, the Labor government gave draft approval in just 15 days, conditionally approving a carbon bomb that emits more than all of the coal-fired power stations in Australia all the way out to 2070. Minister, will you cancel the conditional approval?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Waters. I congratulate you on your election as Leader of the Australian Greens. I do look forward to you delivering on your commitment to work more constructively with the government in this term. I very much welcome those remarks you made. I assume the Greens heard the message of the last election—that is, being obstructive to progress on environmental matters is not the route to electoral success.

On the question you've asked, Senator Waters, as you say I have made a proposed decision to approve an extension to the existing onshore Karratha gas-processing plant on the Burrup Peninsula, subject to strict conditions. It hasn't suited the Greens' narrative around this topic, but the decision that I was required to make under the act related to the potential impact of that project on the incredible 50,000-year-old Indigenous rock art present on the peninsula.

What I said in the statement I issued on the day of my proposed decision was that the strict conditions that I had applied to the proposed decision are particularly related to air emission levels and their potential impact on the rock art. The Greens have tried to conflate the issue of climate change with this decision, which was about the potential impact of this project on the rock art. The conditions that I have applied to the proposed decision are all geared towards the potential impact of this project on the rock art, and that impact has been central to my decision.

One other thing that the Greens have not wanted to acknowledge as it relates to this project and my proposed decision is that the government, in its first term, legislated the safeguard mechanism and strengthened the safeguard mechanism. I might point out that the Greens voted for those changes, so the Greens were comfortable with the safeguard mechanism, which requires this project to reduce its emissions by five per cent a year and become net zero by 2050. (Time expired)

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

Senator Waters, first supplementary?

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

The marine heatwave that's caused the toxic algal bloom off Adelaide's beaches that's seen tens of thousands of sea creatures wash up on the beach is climate driven. Minister, do you acknowledge that approving more coal and gas projects like the North West Shelf risks more dead wildlife on more beaches right around the country?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've already said publicly on a number of occasions, I as the environment minister and, I think, all Australians, particularly South Australians, are extremely concerned by the toxic algal bloom that currently sits in South Australian waters. That is why our government this week approved $14 million, being half of a $28 million support package, for South Australia to support their leadership of the response to this algal bloom.

I'm not entirely sure what the Greens' position is as it relates to net zero or emissions, but the reality is that our policy is about supporting net zero by 2050 but in the meantime reducing emissions. Of course, we have a legislated target of 43 per cent, and we'll be announcing a new target this year, but the safeguard mechanism, for example—something the Greens said was okay when they voted for it—is already requiring these kinds of projects to reduce their emissions. If you disagreed with that then, you should have voted against it. You voted for it, so you must— (Time expired)

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

Senator Waters, second supplementary?

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

Billions of dollars of public money each year in fossil fuel subsidies worsens the climate crisis and delays the transition. As environment minister, what are you doing to redirect those billions away from fossil fuel companies and towards environmental protection?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're obviously entering into a different portfolio now. It's really a matter for the finance minister representing the Treasurer. But what I will say as a member of the government is that this government is very proud of the fact that we have taken more action and delivered more investment in the renewable transition than any government in Australia's history. We are the first government to set an ambitious interim target by 2030, and we will have a more ambitious target still when it comes to 2035. We are investing enormous amounts of money in renewables. We have also taken a whole range of other measures to tackle climate change. We are party to international treaties.

The thing that distinguishes the Labor Party from the Greens party on these matters is that we are not just a party of protest; we are a party of progress. We are a party that actually comes to parliament to deliver real reform rather than grandstanding and protesting and achieving absolutely nothing. We make no apologies for making progress on tackling climate change, and we will make a lot more over the course of this term. (Time expired)