Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

No—by the Leader of the House.

My concerns are very similar to those raised by the member for Curtin. Let me talk to each of them. The first is a question of timing—I'm sorry, the minister is running away but she can still hear me; that's good! The point that has been made about timing is a sincere one. This is an important bill. There is real concern in the community, across the House and across the environmental movement. I give credit to the environmental movement, who, on many issues, are very willing to work with the government on issues of environmental protection as well as climate action. I think it is an issue that the environmental movement is, as a group and almost as a united voice, deeply concerned with this bill; I take that very seriously. I urge the government to consider some very thoughtful contributions saying: 'Take this part of the bill out.' We all support worker protections. Take this part of the bill out and make sure it has the inquiry and the consideration it really needs. The minister says this should give great opportunities for consultation of First Nations people. I say: if that is the case, that is certainly not the message any of the First Nations communities that have been consulted around this are saying to the community and to Independent and other members of this House. Either there is a deep misunderstanding or perhaps the bill is not right. On that first point, I'm saying: stop it now, take it out and reconsider.

My second concern on the bill is about the environmental protections. I quote members of the Biodiversity Council, who spoke on the bill—and these are sincere, serious members from a wide range of our universities. They say the bill:

… is wrong in principle because it would override, indefinitely, an important environmental protection in the … (EPBC Act). Second, the Part is inconsistent with the Government's wider environment policy, as set out in its Nature Positive Plan.

This is the legitimate concern of myself and others on the crossbench. I do not want to see the environmental protections of our country overridden by this bill. The government is amending this bill. I think it indicates that there is some area of at least ambiguity in the original bill, and real concern that people sincerely hold about what this bill means and what protections this may stop the government or the parliament using to protect our environment.

Thirdly, I'd like to raise the point that the minister made earlier in relation to new gas. The minister made the point that gas is a transition fuel, and I accept absolutely that gas is a transition fuel. But the IEA that the minister earlier quoted also said 'no new coal or gas'. New coal and gas are not needed if we're going to reach the environmentally consistent maximum warming of 1.5 to two degrees. New coal and gas are deeply concerning to our collective efforts to retain our climate. We know that retaining warming to the 1.5 degrees is going to have the biggest positive impact on nature.

Any bill that is going to fast track the opportunities for new coal and gas—new gas in this case—to be moved forward is going to be of deep concern to the community, who cares about climate action. These are the very legitimate concerns that the community have, which are about the timing of the bill. If the best actions of the minister have not managed to convince the environmental movement and the First Nations community, if the minister is not addressing the legitimate concerns of the scientific community, then this is why I support the amendment from the member for Warringah.

See this speech in context