Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This motion is calling for us to rule out something that is currently in the middle of a process. The Greens are getting quite vexed about the fact that the EPA WA advice has caused this project to be put on hold while further information is obtained, but that is surely exactly what we want in this country—that, when projects and ideas are put forward, they are fully scrutinised and the process is followed so that that scrutiny follows all of the various elements of the EPBC Act. That's so we know that, at the end of the day, if a project gets up then it's going to be a good project and that, if it's not going to get up, that's because it will do too much damage and will not be an appropriate pathway. But this is what happens in every single case. The decisions are looked at in accordance with the facts and in accordance with the law. It is not appropriate to unpack that specific detail while those processes are ongoing.

The federal environment department has paused the assessment, so this assessment is on hold. Just to be clear, because there seems to be a great deal of confusion here, it's on hold because there are questions to be answered. That is exactly what the process affords, and that is exactly what's occurred. The decision about this project will go no further until that information has been received from the Western Australian government and from Woodside. Surely that's exactly what we want?

We know that there are shortcomings with the EPBC. Labor's been talking about that for years and years. We have tried so hard to get movement on this. It could well be that, if the Greens want stronger laws, as Labor does, they get onside with our EPBC work. Rather than standing in the way, refusing to engage and whipping up excitement with the environmental groups, they could actually become constructive. They could maybe come up with some ideas, maybe get on board with that whole consultation and the work that we're doing and be the collaborative partner in getting a better outcome—a novel idea, but worth a thought, though. Right?

We have done so much since we came to government, two-and-a-bit years ago, to try and strengthen our environmental protections. We've done so much to try and strengthen our climate scenario here, to put in place solid policies to deal with emissions and to improve and increase the renewable energy that is available in this country, and we are, once again, stuck in a situation between 'too much' and 'not enough'. What is missing from a lot of these debates is any form of collaboration or any sense of having a meaningful conversation about what this country needs. What this country needs is more renewable energy to bring down those prices. So, Senator Duniam, it's exactly the case you're making: we need to lower energy prices. One of the ways to do that is to increase our renewables—to make a structured change in our electricity sector that also recognises the change we need in our economy.

We have in front of us a motion that is, to be honest, quite ridiculous, because the process is in train. There are laws, structures, going along as they should. Issues have been raised with this project. It has been placed on hold, while further information is obtained to work out what the situation is here: is it a project that should go ahead or is it a project that should not? That process is underway.

This motion is another stunt so we can sit around and talk about the 'Don't do anything,' and the 'You're doing too much,' which will get us precisely nowhere. (Time expired)