Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the member for Warringah and her contribution to this debate. The government will be opposing this amendment. Schedule 2, part 2 of the bill allows the Minister for Resources to amend offshore environmental regulations. We've clearly explained why this provision is needed in order to work within the inflexibility of the existing endorsed program in place between the EPBC Act and our offshore resources legislation and to avoid invalidating that existing streamlined arrangement. If we did invalidate streamlining, as has been asked for by the member, it would mean two sets of approvals, increasing the regulatory burden, particularly on traditional owners in the community as well as of course on industry. This is precisely what we've been asked to repair and what we are seeking to repair through amendments to the consultation provisions and regulations.

Accepting the member's amendment would prevent the government from clarifying this system of optional consultation for the better—and better for everyone. But I do accept the genuinely held view of the member in relation to the potential reach of the power, notwithstanding that any regulatory changes I would make would be subject to parliamentary oversight, inclusive of scrutiny and disallowance. That is why the government has moved an amendment that reflects our longstanding intention to maintain the integrity of our environmental protection regime. This amendment will require any minister for resources to be satisfied that any proposed regulatory improvements to offshore environmental regulations are consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development as set out in Australia's environmental laws. The amendment will mandate that consultation on any proposed improvements occur between the minister for resources and the minister for the environment. As the member said, it will include a sunset provision in 12 months time.

If I can speak to the various discussions relating to this amendment during this debate through the course of the day, the member for Ryan, the member for Melbourne, the member for Griffith, the member for Indi, the member for Goldstein, the member for Kooyong, the member for Mackellar and the member for North Sydney have all spent the day questioning my integrity and making imputations as to my motivations and those of the government. I note the hypocrisy of those members, who continually call for a better standard of debate but instead choose to assassinate my character in this place. They also continue to push the misinformation that has been spread by the Greens political party. Each of these members has, in their own special way and for their own electoral advantage, continued an egregious misinformation campaign about this bill and about the review of offshore environmental approvals, as well as the consultation process that was proposed in May of 2023. I entirely reject their assertions.

I also reject the many assertions made through the course of the date by each of these members as to my integrity and the imputations they have made against me. I reject the absurd and untrue accusations that a single letter could somehow drive the policy of this government. What an absurd thing to say in this place and to say about me as the Minister for Resources!

I reject the assertion made by the member for Ryan that somehow the tens of thousands of jobs in the gas industry are not valuable. These workers are valuable. Their work is valuable. Their jobs are important, and I value them. Of course, I value their safety, and that is why I'm moving the safety parts of this bill.

I also reject the assertion of the member for Griffith, which has been followed by a number of people, about supposedly cancelling the export of gas in this country. That would, of course, be an economy-wrecking proposition, but it is not unexpected from the Greens political party. We are a nation with an economy built on trade with the world, and the size of our population means we can never consume all that we make. That includes the gas we extract. Without international investment to make sure those gas fields have been developed and will continue to extract gas for the use of our neighbours, we would not have the gas at all. These arguments that are continually put forward show staggering ignorance or wilful blindness to the economic reality of our export industry in this country. I might say that international investment goes the same for every other kind of export industry, whether in the agricultural sector, such as with grain, or with gold or iron ore. This is the case even for international investment in wine, and it will continue with critical minerals and rare earths.

See this speech in context