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

I accept, Member for Goldstein, that that is the job of each of us here as representatives of our local community. I accept that. I don't think character assassination is necessarily part of that, but I guess everyone makes their choices in this House. I do reject the assertion you made during the second reading debate and just then that I've ever characterised any part of this bill as—I think these were the words you used earlier today—'not a big deal' or, just then, a 'sidebar'. I have absolutely not. Safety offshore is a big deal, as we all recognise, and enabling much-needed improvement in consultation for offshore projects is absolutely a big deal. As I have explained often and as remains the truth, this is so that we can improve consultations, and a technical amendment will be required to make it so.

That would be the same for the Greens political party private senators' 'spirit of sea country' bill as it is for this. This bill enables improvement to consultation and enables more voices to be heard, and if the member for Goldstein and others would rather that their voices not be heard, we can progress on the path that they would like. Of course, I would not agree to that. The thing is, if we don't reform this, fewer voices will be heard because they will be limited in restraints or guidance or, in fact, absolute rules around regulations for offshore projects to adhere to. That is what I'm trying to get to. As I've explained often, it's certainly not simple, and if it were, I'm sure we would be in a different place, but I'm working within the legislation I have to work with for that objective.

There is no diminution of environmental approvals or who they go to. I've explained amendments, and I'll explain the government's amendments later once this debate is finished on the member for Warringah's amendments. The case remains that this is not exempting the industry from Nature Positive reforms—the sunset clause that we've added in the amendment is, surely, indicative of that. As I have said all along, we welcomed any participation in discussion on this, and that is why I have moved the governments amendments.

See this speech in context