Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Milne for her New South Wales campaign speech, which appears to be what we just heard, with a whole bunch of allegations about approvals processes or what may have transpired in relation to processes completely within the control and domain of the New South Wales government. The motion that she has moved, which is before the Senate, relates particularly to calling on Minister Hunt to suspend this mine. His powers purely exist within the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Matters you want to talk about as to processes in New South Wales—whose donations went to who, the Obeid family or any of those matters—are completely irrelevant under that act. All Minister Hunt or any minister of the Crown would be doing were they to take those matters into consideration would be to expose the Commonwealth to the risk of litigation and compensation. That is what you seem to be calling upon Minister Hunt to do.

I look forward to the contributions to this debate from those in the Labor Party. The reality is that the Maules Creek mine has been assessed and approved in appropriate terms under the EPBC Act, under our national environmental laws. It was under those opposite that these approvals were granted. The member for Watson, Mr Burke, was the responsible minister for the approvals. So I look forward to their contributions in this debate and I trust that they will be reflective of the decisions that were taken at the time, reflective of the fact that Commonwealth law—the EPBC Act—has boundaries about what is assessed and considered. You can shake your head all you want, Senator Milne, but that is the reality of the situation. The EPBC Act is about environmental assessments, limited to matters of national environmental significance—

Senator Milne interjecting—

And I know that you actually know this, Senator Milne, and I know that you are not a fool on these matters. I know that you do actually understand the EPBC Act and its limitations, and I appreciate that you are just coming in here to create a political debate and a political situation around this issue. That is fine. Everybody is allowed, in the run-up to state elections, to decide in the states chamber to run their campaigns for their state causes, and clearly that is what you are going to do.

The Maules Creek mine is subject to 40 conditions, and it is the expectation that conditions would be met, as it is the expectation for any EPBC approval that occurs. But it is also the expectation of this government that, when approvals through a legal process are given, whether they are approvals that we have made or approvals that our predecessors made, those approvals will then stand under the law of the land. That is just as, when we came to office, if there were contracts in place that had been entered into by the previous government, much as we might sometimes have disagreed with those contracts, we of course sought to honour those contracts. If there are legal approvals in place, we honour those legal approvals, because to do otherwise would be to expose the Commonwealth, the taxpayer, to risks of litigation and compensation.

At its heart, we know that the Greens, if they had their way, would stop all coalmining in Australia. They would stop all gas extraction in Australia. They would be making sure that all of those sorts of resources projects simply ground to a halt. That is fine. That is their political philosophy and that is what they are entitled to campaign for, but they might as well be honest about that: it would not matter what the circumstances of this mine were, they would campaign to have it stopped. They argue in these debates that we should be stopping it from occurring because of a collapse in the coal price. Once again, I draw the Greens back to the terms of the EPBC Act. The price of coal is not a relevant consideration; it is the impacts on matters of national environmental significance that are absolutely appropriate considerations.

It is a condition of the approval of this project, a condition imposed by the member for Watson, Mr Burke, the former Labor minister for the environment, that a biodiversity corridor plan to protect and maintain a new biodiversity corridor adjacent to the mine occur; that offsets of nearly 10,000 hectares must be obtained for the threatened Regent honeyeater, the Swift parrot and the greater long-eared bat; and that 5,500 hectares of offsets must be secured for ecological communities. These conditions are in place and we expect them to be applied and implemented. Equally, as a government, we expect that we abide by the terms of the legislation passed by this parliament.

Since the EPBC Act came into force in the year 2000, projects around Australia have been subject to what are robust and comprehensive assessments, some of the best in the world. Over the last 14 years the act has been successfully implemented by governments of both persuasions, maintaining good standards, maintaining appropriate standards but of course also facilitating development. What we do not want to do as a government—and what I would hope those opposite, as an alternative government, would not want to do—is shift the goalposts, create business uncertainty, add to costs, create an environment where there is a risk that approvals, once given, may, because of political pressure, be withdrawn, because that would be a very damaging environment for investment in Australia and it would be a situation where there is a real threat to jobs and to security and to our economic wellbeing. As I said before, the Greens would happily shut down not just this mine but coalmines right around the country. I am sure they would live with the economic consequences that would have—the significant job losses and the significant loss of export income that would occur. That is not the way of this government. I do not believe that is the way of those opposite, although sometimes it is hard to tell from their approach and their relationship with the Australian Greens.

Those opposite can try to defend the Obeids and some of what has occurred in New South Wales if they want to. They can choose, if they want to, to respond to Senator Milne's allegations of corruption being at the heart of approvals. But it is important to note that, when Senator Milne stands here and says, 'This mine was corruptly approved,' I assume she was talking about the New South Wales government. I would be very concerned, Senator Milne, if you were making any reflections on a member of our government or, frankly, on Mr Burke or a member of the previous government, about whom I am not aware of any allegations of wrongdoing in relation to this mine. At the Commonwealth level—