Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Resources) Share this | Hansard source

This bill is purportedly but not practically aimed at reducing emissions-intensive activities through Australia. It's irresponsible. It's hysterical, but we should be used to that, and I will get to this later. Its contents reflect the Greens' ongoing ambitions to encourage increased Green lawfare and impose tougher, more stringent environmental conditions and standards than already apply to economic projects and activities across this country.

Adam Bandt and Sarah Hanson-Young have each openly stated in their second reading speeches that the purpose of the bill is as much about trying to stop new coal, oil and gas projects as anything else. But it is the Australian resources industry that is creating jobs, business opportunities, investment, especially in regional Australia, and I really resent being implied as a FIFO politician living in North Queensland, as I do—a little bit more research would be appreciated from the Greens.

The Australian resources industry is the one paying the bills in this country. We do an incredible job to extraordinarily high international standards, which means that, as a country that mines, whether it be coal, oil, gas, critical minerals, rare earths, we provide agricultural security to Australia and to a good part of our neighbours. We export those standards as well as those products. That is something that we should be proud of.

The resources and energy sector accounts for over 14.5 per cent of Australia's GDP, which was $354 billion in 2022. I am not sure what the plan is when those royalty regimes, those corporate taxes, those well paid PAYG jobs dry up. Who is going to pay the bills in this country? Who will allow us to have the First World health and education system that we have? Who will allow us to live the quality of life that we enjoy in this country? The sector's exports will peak at $464 billion in 2022-23, the highest ever export earnings. The Greens continue to make up numbers about the sector while ignoring the fact that it is ensuring our energy security. The lessons of the past few months are that energy security equals national security for all Australians. So now we've got energy security, we have financial security and, would you believe, environmental security, because it is those well-resourced, profitable businesses who are able to afford to be good environmental managers. In fact, it is mining companies who employ the vast majority of environmental scientists and researchers and who invest in land management projects in this country. If we look at the work that Ranger Mine has done in Kakadu, their engagement with managing invasive species and in other activities there, that is never spoken about. That is never spoken about—who is actually doing the heavy lifting in environmental management on country.

This bill incorporates provisions that would add a new category to the list. We've heard details of this, of the already nine matters of national environmental significance that are defined in the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the EPBC Act. More specifically, passages of this bill would require the federal environment minister to intervene to halt activities causing at least 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent scope-1 emissions annually if they were to adversely affect Australia's national carbon budget and the fulfilment of the nation's emissions reduction targets. But the key effect of this bill, if it was to be passed, would therefore be to, disastrously, force the federal government to limit or curtail many forms of industrial activity in Australia.

Unfortunately, most Australians won't hear this debate. Most Australians are at work today. Some are listening to this on the radio, but the vast majority are at work, and they're very pleased to know that they are taking home a salary or a wage to support their family. For those employed in these industrial projects, particularly well-paid mining resource industry projects, they are able to try and deal with the cost-of-living rises that, in many cases, are the result of these rushed, poorly thought through environmental legislative changes that Labor has introduced and that the Greens would take so much further.

It is Australians who suffer most from this kind of legislation, and it is the Greens who only want to talk about legislation. A friend of mine used to say, 'To a man with a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.' That is exactly how the Greens look at this place. It's legislation, legislation, legislation. There is no understanding of the modern society that we live in. There is no understanding of the work that these businesses are doing to introduce new technologies, new environmental programs, because they live in these communities. They live in these communities, not in Canberra, not in inner-city Melbourne or Sydney, but actually in the regions where these activities are happening, and they care.

The Greens have failed to specify the financial and regulatory impacts of this legislation. However, it is patently clear that, if this bill was to be passed, these impacts would be substantial. It would give rise to even more environmental assessments and approval processes that already exist. Many businesses are already forced to spend months and years navigating and meeting exacting green tape and compliance requirements associated with these processes, not to improve environmental outcomes but just to pay bureaucratic fees. This new legislation would only exacerbate these problems. As the final report of the recent Samuel review noted, the creation of a climate trigger would also result 'in muddled responsibilities, further duplication and inefficiency' across the various tiers of government in Australia. In short, a climate trigger would be economically destructive.

Senator Payman previously spoke about Australians putting solar panels on their roofs and buying EVs, but there was no acknowledgement that this is Australians' only way of trying to offset the gross and fast-rising cost of living, particularly electricity costs. In Queensland, under the Labor government there, the introduction of the renewables rebate drove up electricity prices by a billion dollars. Guess what? That's paid by the Australian consumer and Queensland consumers—the people who can least afford it. It's harder to build a house. In Darwin, they can't expand to build more houses because of the existing environmental regulations, and it will be harder to have a job.

Australia's high-quality coal and gas play an important role not only domestically but in other countries around the world. The Liberal-National coalition is committed to supporting these industries. Yes—we're happy to say it out loud. It's no secret, because these industries supply Australia's high-quality resources not just for this country but to export markets, to help lift millions out of poverty. Coal provides affordable, reliable electricity to both industry and families. Australian coal is of the highest quality in the world. We produce it more efficiently than most, meaning more energy with less emissions. That puts our coal and gas sectors and the thousands of Australians who work in them in prime positions to benefit from the increased global demand for energy resources.

As China and India increase their demand for coal, both for steel creation and energy generation, and as Japan and Korea demand more gas to fuel their transition, it is in everyone's interest that our high-quality resources are the first choice for our partners around the world. Japan has publicly called on the Prime Minister to guarantee gas supplies over the coming years. It would be both embarrassing and inexcusable if we were to let down our international trade partners who rely on our natural resources. Were we to shut down our coal and gas production and refuse to step up to our responsibilities to meet demand around the world, those countries who need our resources would—as we saw during the recent crisis—turn to lower-quality, higher-emitting resources from other countries. We saw this in Africa, where countries were forced to turn back to burning wood and dung, because they couldn't afford other energy generation.

Moral grandstanding about Australia's coal and gas industries may make the Greens feel better, but shutting down our industries will have the opposite effect that they have hoped for. If Australia withdraws from exporting our high-quality coal and gas, global emissions will rise. Our energy exports provide a benefit beyond Australia. They support new technologies and new infrastructure across our regions. They bring hundreds of millions of people out of energy poverty and into the growing global middle class. Nearly everything that allows us to enjoy a first-world lifestyle would not exist without mining. From high-tech manufacturing to the food on our plates, from energy generation to the steel frames that hold up our homes, the Greens cannot tell us where they would source these vital imports that support our way of life. Coal and gas are not just used for energy; they're critical in a number of vital products in modern society, like steel, like concrete and like fertiliser. Gas plays a pivotal role in the production of fertiliser. It's critical to supporting the billions of lives on this earth. Ammonia, urea—these sustain the food security of billions of people around the world. Petroleum is a vital component in the creation of plastics and pharmaceuticals. Coal is vital in many non-energy industries. I've mentioned steel and cement. There are also coal-to-chemical processes, rare earth extractions and carbon fibre production, to name just a few. According to the World Steel Association, 780 kilograms of metallurgical coal are required to make a single tonne of steel. Over 200 kilograms of coal are required to produce a tonne of cement. It would appear that the Greens have forgotten that wind turbines require hundreds of tonnes of steel in the production of every turbine, as well as cement for the base. It has been said: if it is not made of steel, it's made in a factory made of steel. Thousands of different products have coal or coal by-products as components—soap, aspirins, solvents, dyes, plastics and fibres, including rayon and nylon. It's just another example of how disconnected from reality the Greens truly are.

This legislation would just offshore our responsibilities and send them off to countries that are less regulated, less capable and less able to deliver than ours. We have countries in other parts of the world, like in Africa, who are now starting to raise the flag and say in global forums: 'Do not deny us the opportunity to enjoy a quality of life and a lifestyle that you already have. Do not deny us the opportunity to live in homes that aren't smoky and to have a higher quality of living.' Affordable energy is the pathway to that. Labor can claim they support jobs in the coal and gas industries, but their actions show that they are more committed to securing Greens preferences than supporting the workers of Australia. Labor have a chance now to reject the extreme position of the Greens, put their money where their mouth is, and actually start approving new coal and gas projects in Australia. It's frustrating that the Greens are so divorced and so detached from reality that they continue to talk down a vital Australian industry that provides jobs and funds services across this country. Labor's reliance on the Greens continues to threaten Australia's coal and gas industries, which are key pillars of our economy that continue to provide cheap and secure electricity, jobs and funding for vital services.

Debate adjourned.