Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The mover of this bill, the Blayney Gold Mine Bill 2024, is the shadow minister for the environment. Up until the point when this bill was introduced, I had always thought that he had a position and that the Liberal and National parties had a position that we should apply the law, that the law should be upheld and that the rule of law was an important thing. But what this private senator's bill indicates to us is that, if the mover of this bill were ultimately the minister for the environment under a Mr Peter Dutton led government, the law would not be upheld and actually it would be overturned when it suited the minister. That's not what this parliament should do by considering this bill, and it's not what the Australian people would want.

I think it is really important to get the facts on the table when it comes to this piece of legislation and the minister's decision. There have been a number of pieces of misinformation out there, particularly by the mover of this bill but also by others who have been talking about this decision, so it is really important to get the facts on the table and to reiterate from the very beginning that applying the law is something that, on this side of the chamber, we think is the appropriate thing to do. Those opposite seem to think that you can pick and choose the laws that you apply. The Liberals and Nationals rightly know that our government is required to make environmental decisions in accordance with the facts and in accordance with the law. It's what happens in every single case. It's what's happened here. It's what happened under the previous government.

It's not appropriate to comment on the detail of the specific approvals before the minister, because we know there are processes involved with a decision like this. But I can say that the government understands that the company wants the cheapest and easiest option for this project. That's their prerogative. That's their job to do. The company wanted the government to tick off on this project exactly how they had planned it, and others wanted the project to stop altogether. But that's not what the minister decided. The minister did neither of those things. The minister, in making this section 10 decision under the law, protected a small area so that a waste dump can't be built on the headwaters of a springs of a river that's significant to local Aboriginal people. Protecting heritage and development is not mutually exclusive; we can do both. The government hasn't blocked the mine completely. But the minister's decision protects around 400 hectares of a 2,500-hectare site. It's about 16 per cent of the site that's being considered.

The company has an opportunity to find a more appropriate site for their waste that avoids cultural heritage, and I welcome the news that they are working with the New South Wales government to do just that. I note that both the CEO and the chair of the board have bought tens of thousands of shares in the company since the minister made this decision, and the share price is up 20 per cent. So these doom-and-gloom predictions for this project are not accurate; they are misinformation, and they don't reiterate the facts of this case. Clearly, the company and shareholders think that there is a way through, looking at this project and other places to put this tails dam.

The minister has ticked off on more than 40 mining projects, and we don't assess projects without knowing the details or applying the law. We don't do what those opposite are promising to do, or what this legislation promises to do, and ignore the law completely. What should be deeply concerning to the Australian people and to those in the Senate is that the opposition leader has said that he would approve projects without knowing the details or applying the law. This is deeply concerning. It's proof that the Leader of the Opposition would plunge Australia back into the type of chaos we saw under Scott Morrison. Nobody in Australia forgets the situation where we had multiple ministers in multiple ministries because the previous Prime Minister didn't like the decision that was being made on PEP-11, so he decided to become the minister for resources, the Treasurer, the health minister and a couple of others, and go beyond what the scope of the decision would ever be. It is really important that we don't go back to that type of lawlessness. We need transparency and accountability because those who oppose the decisions and those that agree with them need the facts in front of them. We don't want to go back to a process where, like under Scott Morrison, the Leader of the Opposition is showing he's prepared to ignore the law, cut corners and play favourites.

Clearly, the opposition want a system where getting projects approved depends on whether they like you or not or whether you're mates with them rather than whether you comply with the law. That's no way to run a government. We would go back to the world of sports rorts, car park rorts and robodebt all over again if the government started behaving in that way. It's a dangerous way to operate—a recipe for uncertainty that will scare off investment and kill jobs and that won't increase the amount of renewable energy projects we need to transition to net zero.

The Leader of the Opposition must immediately explain whether there are other projects that he'll approve or axe without knowing the details or applying the law. The Liberals have said they'll halve environmental approval times, but they haven't said how they'll get there. We know that environmental approval times blew out under the previous government because they failed to fund the environment department properly. We know what Peter Dutton really means when he talks about quick approvals; it means Peter Dutton will waive through approvals on his pet projects without any consideration of their environmental impacts. Not even the previous government were prepared to do that—and we've talked a lot in this chamber about the decisions made under the previous environment minister, including a section 10 decision. It is extraordinary that we're now in a situation where the Liberal and National parties would go against that type of decision and say, 'There is no place for a decision like that under the law, so we need to change the law itself.'

I understand why the Liberals and Nationals are sensitive about the environment and economic development and projects, because under their government they had 22 energy policies and landed none. We saw them abolish climate laws and laugh about sea levels rising in the Pacific and we saw renewable energy investment scared off. It was a world in which there was no further economic development, because nothing was getting done, and the environment was being destroyed at the same time. Their response to this process has been to say that a decision like this shouldn't have been made under the law, and we don't agree with that. But it does make me concerned about what would happen if the Liberals and Nationals were in government. What would happen to the environment and cultural heritage if that were the case? Would they propose to abolish the ability to protect cultural heritage under section 10? That is essentially what's being proposed in this legislation today. A decision was made by their current deputy leader, Sussan Ley, under section 10, and a decision was made by our minister, under section 10, to protect cultural heritage. What they're essentially saying today is that they would abolish that protection.

We have seen what happens in this country when cultural heritage isn't protected. We saw the damage to Juukan Gorge. We saw the irreversible destruction of cultural heritage, which is a shame on this nation and should never happen again. There should never be another Juukan Gorge. So it is incredibly important that we have laws in place to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage, and it is really important that rulings are applied according to the law, not with the minister being given an opportunity, like those opposite are proposing, to overturn decisions and overturn these laws.

The bill also makes me incredibly concerned about what the Liberal and National parties have in store for other types of environmental laws. We know they don't support changes to the EPBC legislation. We know they don't support nature positive laws. We know they don't want to protect the environment. It makes me really concerned about the other types of legislation they'll overturn on day one in office. It is really concerning when we hear from those opposite that there are things that are more important than cultural heritage and environmental protection. We need to have laws that protect the right to develop projects but also ensure that we protect our environment.

We've heard from those opposite, from time to time, their intention to repeal water quality legislation that protects the Great Barrier Reef by ensuring that we have better water quality. We know there's a lot of work to do in that space. Would they rip up those laws if they had the chance? I think so. Would they rip up laws that regulate the amount of land clearing that can happen and the regulations involved in that? Would they abolish cultural heritage legislation altogether, so that there is no system to protect our ancient cultural heritage.

I come to this debate and this decision from a point of view of wanting to protect our environment and our cultural heritage but understanding that we also need to have a systematic way in which to approve the construction of projects across the country. I don't deny that the balance is difficult, but it's something we must grapple with. Those opposite are saying that there's no need for a balance because there's no need to protect cultural heritage and the environment. The problem with that is that, once we lose cultural heritage and special protected places, things like the Great Barrier Reef, they are gone forever. You can't get them back. You absolutely cannot get them back.

If the Liberals-Nationals are proposing to abolish laws that protect cultural heritage and protect our environmental assets, like the Great Barrier Reef and other World Heritage listed assets, they should say that. If that is their plan, they should tell the Australian people that, because once we lose those very important environmental and economic assets, like the World Heritage listed places they are talking about, we will never get them back. I don't seek to speak for the traditional owners in this country on Aboriginal cultural heritage. I'm very grateful for the time with them and the way I've learnt from them. But cultural heritage is a gift to this country that we should protect. It is recognised by people around the world as something unique and important to our country, and we should have laws in place to protect it.

That is the view of our government: that when there are laws in place to protect cultural heritage they should be applied, and decisions should be made with the full raft of evidence available. Cultural heritage is a gift, and once it's gone you cannot get it back; it is gone forever. What an incredible loss, if we see those opposite, given the opportunity, destroy the environment, destroy cultural heritage and slow down environmental approvals by defunding the environment department. That is what we would see under the Liberals-Nationals. That is why we are not supporting this legislation. It's an outrageous stunt from the Liberals-Nationals. It is a complete degradation of their responsibility in wanting to be an alternative government. They should be ashamed of themselves for even putting this forward. (Time expired)