Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Senator Conroy) to a question without notice asked by Senator Boswell today relating to Cape York.

It has been a great victory for the Wilderness Society, which made a one-page submission to the minister, Tony Burke, and was able to stop a planned $4 billion bauxite project going ahead. What a wonderful victory for stupidity and what a great loss for common sense when a one-page submission can halt a $4 billion project.

We cannot say the Wilderness Society did not keep trying. First they found the bat—a bare-rumped sheathtail bat was found in the region. The Wilderness Society can always find something. When the bat did not work to stop the bauxite project, they found a crab. When the crab did not work, they found shipping. They said, 'There will be more ships going through the Barrier Reef.' Aha, that was the trick! That was the thing that stopped it. Do not worry about how the refineries are going to work without bauxite in Gladstone. New bauxite refineries are being developed in Gladstone and unionists who the Labor Party purport to represent have got jobs, but there is no bauxite because it cannot come down on the ships. Do not worry about the loss of Aboriginal jobs, because when it comes to a black vote or a green vote the Labor Party will always bow their knee to the Greens. What has happened to the party who said they represent the underdog, the underprivileged and the Aboriginals? They do not represent anyone except the Greens.

It is passing strange, and I raised it in question time today: would you believe that the very day the minister announced that the South of Embley project was halted there was an announcement from the Greens that their Queensland election preferences would go to Labor candidate Kate Jones in the electorate of Ashgrove! Who was the person who passed the wild rivers legislation? Kate Jones. One thing about the Greens is that they do not forget their friends. They do not worry about the Aboriginals and they do not worry about the workers, but they do not forget their friends. We learnt on the very day of the announcement to halt the project that Kate Jones would get Greens' preferences.

It is a pretty sad state of affairs when Rio Tinto can go to enormous trouble, conduct all sorts of environmental reports and spend billions to get this project up and running and the Wilderness Society can put in a half-page submission—it was not actually a full page—and the whole project is run on the rocks. This is mickey mouse stuff. Who is going to invest in this country when someone puts in a half-page protest and a $4 billion project is stopped? Who is actually going to put any money into this place? You would not invest Confederate money in Australia if you were an investor at the moment. You would not take a punt on this mob because you would never know where your money was going to end up.

Rio Tinto have said that most of the bauxite will be going up through the Gulf of Carpentaria and to the north and not travelling through the Barrier Reef. They say that to maintain their bauxite refineries in Gladstone another 70 ships will have to come in. That is going to happen whether or not the South of Embley project goes ahead. They anticipate that another 30 ships will be going through the Barrier Reef. It is not as though the bauxite ships are running up on the reef every now and again or every year or every 10 years. Bauxite ships have been going up and down the reef for 40 years and none of them have ever run on the reef.

What a limp-wristed excuse to stop a $4 billion project, a project that was going to create huge numbers of jobs for Aboriginal people. Do not worry about them, Mr Labor Party; consign them to passive welfare for the rest of their lives. That is what is what you do. (Time expired)

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the motion moved by Senator Boswell to take note of answers in question time today. We heard the answer from the minister during question time. This is a standard process which I would have thought that people in this chamber would understand. If there is a complaint about the environmental impact of any project—it does not matter which one—it is a requirement that the minister refer it for further investigation. We have had this debate on both sides of this chamber. I can remember questions across the chamber when senators from this side invoked the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to ensure that any questions about the impact of any project would go through agreed standard practice to look at the environmental impact of development. In this case, I think that there would be no doubt in this chamber that the protection of the waterways of the Great Barrier Reef and the cape is the most important thing that we have.

In terms of the Great Barrier Reef, we have heard passionate speeches over many years about the need to protect this treasure. Anyone who has visited the area would understand just how important, how extraordinarily beautiful this area is, and there must be absolute surety that no matter what the project, no matter who the sponsors of the projects are, there will be no impact on or danger to those waterways.

In hearing Senator Boswell speak, he argues for in many cases the very action that the minister took. We need to understand that it must be ensured that the shipping as a the result of any development up there poses no danger to the reef, the waters and the environmental protection in that area.

We know that there have been occasions in the past when there have been quite delicate issues where that wonderful environmental area could well have been damaged as a result of the development processes. None of us want that to happen, and a valid issue has been raised. Whether it was one page or not, the issue must be whether it was a valid concern. The minister has agreed that it was a valid concern. He agreed that the previous application from the proponent did not take into account the shipping dangers that were there and, part of the job of the minister is to make sure that all people in the country can feel safe that the legislation will be independent and look at the issues before us.

I will not even make much more than a comment about Senator Boswell's inference that there was some linkage to the Queensland state election. These things happen over years. It happens when there is an application by anyone drawing attention to a threat.

Several years ago in this place we had a degree of discussion about an application that was put through in very short terms about the protection of a parrot with respect to wind farms in Victoria. Immediately, the then minister took into account the environmental protection agencies and went back to have a full review of that claim. We asked questions about whether it was appropriate and whether it was going through due process. The answer from the minister, as is the answer today from the minister, was that the job of the minister is to ensure that the community has faith in the environmental protection legislation. In this case, when you have any question about the protection of environment, there must be an independent review. The minister has done that. They have reassessed the time frame for when this particular proposal will be assessed.

There has to be agreement that people, if they are going to respect the legislation, have to accept that it does not matter who puts the complaint or the question in but, when it is done, they will have the certainty that the minister of day, regardless of flavour of politics, will implement the appropriate legislation. This is what has occurred. The timing has been assessed. Rio Tinto knows the process. They have been well versed in the way the EPBC Act operates. They know how it works. It is now going through the process that has been put in place. There will be an investigation to see whether the extra shipping will cause any danger. There will be an assessment made which will be fed back into the process.

It is not unusual; it is standard process. I cannot control the date of the state election. The minister cannot control the date of the state election. We have a formal response to a real issue, and we are now invoking the legislation which has been agreed in this chamber. The only process we have is the EPBC Act, and we are using it. (Time expired)

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As those of us who live in Queensland know, the thing about the Australian Labor Party is you cannot believe a word they say. Notwithstanding the superficially plausible account of these events that came from Senator Claire Moore, let me remind those listening to this broadcast of the facts. The facts are these: there was a major development proposed by Rio Tinto of a $4 billion bauxite project on Cape York called the Embley project, which was objected to by the Wilderness Society and the Australian Greens. It would have created jobs for thousands of Indigenous people, but the Greens did not want it because the Greens want to deindustrialise Queensland just as they have deindustrialised Tasmania. So they promoted a series of fatuous, flimsy, insubstantial objections to the Embley bauxite project.

First of all they discovered a species called the bare-rumped sheathtail bat and they said, 'This project, which will give jobs to thousands upon thousands of Aboriginal Australians, has to be stopped out of deference to the bare-rumped sheathtail bat,' and that was found to be insubstantial. Then they discovered a new species of freshwater crab—with no doubt an even more exotic, perhaps comic, name—that nobody had ever heard of. And, finally, they came up with the expedient 'increased shipping in the Barrier Reef'—shipping that has been passing through the Barrier Reef for decades, indeed since the 19th century—that will damage the Barrier Reef. And at last, the minister who had to exercise the discretion under the EPBC Act, Mr Tony Burke, a minister in the federal government, announced that an environmental impact study would be expanded to include the Embley project, and the project would have to be put into mothballs. The Greens got their way. The Wilderness Society got its way and, as we have learned from the Senator Boswell, the application was a one-page application. How absurd that a major development bringing jobs to thousands of people in Queensland, in particular Indigenous people, could be stopped on such a specious, vexatious ground. But it is worse than that because, as everybody who lives in Queensland knows but Labor politicians are too ashamed to admit, the Queensland Labor government is corrupt. One of its ministers, Mr Gordon Nuttall, lies in a Queensland prison today because he was corrupt. And lo and behold, on the very day that the suspension of the Embley project was announced as a result of the vexatious claims of the Wilderness Society and the Greens, do you know what was also announced? That the Greens would be giving their preferences to the Labor Party in the Queensland state election. And not just preferencing the Labor Party; they would be preferencing the Labor Party in the key seat of Ashgrove, the seat where Mr Campbell Newman, the extremely successful former lord mayor of Brisbane, is the Liberal National Party candidate—the seat that is the focus of all attention at this state election.

So join the dots, Mr Deputy President. I am sure the listeners will. The Greens demand an absurd outcome as a result of a series of flimsy and insubstantial applications; eventually Mr Tony Burke gives the Greens what they want; and, lo and behold, on the very day of that announcement the Labor Party secures Greens preferences for itself in the critical seat of Ashgrove. I do not have to draw the conclusion because anyone listening to this broadcast can draw it themselves. That is what Queensland Labor is like. (Time expired)

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to take note of the comments that Senator Brandis and Senator Boswell made on essentially the preposterous proposition—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Keep a straight face while you say that!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can laugh, Senator Brandis, but this is an absolutely—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Senator Brandis?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I just want those listening to this broadcast to know that Senator Farrell is not saying this with a straight face. He is as amused by the irony of his own remarks as everybody else in the chamber.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order, Senator Brandis. Before I call you again, Senator Farrell, would you address your remarks to the chair, and you are speaking on the motion taking note of the answers by ministers, not opposition senators.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy President. If I was smiling, as I am sure I was, it was because I was laughing at the comments of Senator Brandis and Senator Boswell, in particular the proposition that somehow the decision of Minister Burke in relation to this particular project is in any way casting doubt on the support that this government has given to the mining industry in this country. This is but one of very many mining projects that the federal government has supported in the past and has continued to support today, including, in my own state, the Olympic Dam project, which the government gave approval for and the only decision it is now waiting upon is a decision by BHP as to when they will proceed with that great project. In terms of jobs and development in this country, that is going to be one of many magnificent projects which this government has supported and will continue to support into the future. So I reject any suggestion that there is in any way a reflection on what this government is seeking to do in terms of the mining industry.

I would also like to pick up on some of the points that have been made in relation to the price on carbon. One of the suggestions that has been made in the last 24 hours is that the price that this government has set for carbon is going to be too high. The $23 price—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I am a little reluctant to interrupt Senator Farrell but perhaps he is under a misunderstanding. The motion is to take note of the answer of Senator Conroy to the question asked of him by Senator Boswell; it is not a motion to take note of other answers given to other questions today. Even applying the broad test of relevance, I think the bare-rumped sheathtail bat is something of a stretch too far for the European carbon price to be relevant.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis, I listened very carefully and Senator Boswell did say that the motion was to take note of the answers of Senator Conroy and other ministers, so Senator Farrell is relevant. Senator Farrell, you have the call.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that clarification, Mr Deputy President. That is a point I would have made myself but I am still laughing at Senator Brandis's earlier comments about our attitude to that bauxite mine in Queensland. I think it is worth making a point about the decision of the federal government to impose a $23 tax on carbon and the suggestion that that is too high. I want to point out some of the figures that other countries, including countries that are part of the G20, have imposed in pricing carbon.

In the case of Britain, my understanding is that they will have a carbon price of between $24 and $30 per tonne. Obviously that is higher than we are proposing in Australia. In Scandinavia, Sweden is proposing a price of $130 per tonne. In Switzerland, also a modern industrial country, they are proposing a price of between $30 and—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Please continue, Senator Farrell. I am calling order to my left.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that protection, Mr Deputy President. Switzerland is proposing a price between $30 and $60 a tonne. Norway is proposing a price of $53 a tonne. Ireland of course, one of those countries that is not doing particularly well in the current economic environment, is proposing a figure of $24 a tonne and moving to $37 a tonne. So any suggestion, I think, that the figure that the Australian government has selected for the price on carbon of $23 is out of the ballpark, is quite incorrect. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Anyone from Queensland who might be listening to this broadcast this afternoon will know that it is uncontested that the Wild Rivers legislation in Queensland eventuated in West End, a suburb of Brisbane, in a West End coffee shop over a cup of latte between officials of the Australian Labor Party and the Greens political party before the state election a couple of years ago. That is fact. That is uncontested by anyone. Even the Labor Party in Queensland accept that as fact.

As Senator Boswell said today in question time, this ridiculous decision on the Embley mine in Cape York, a mine that would provide jobs for hundreds of Queenslanders, many of them Indigenous Queenslanders, was stopped. It was inquired into by the federal minister, who is a Labor Party politician, the very day that the Greens political party in Queensland announced that it was giving preferences to the Australian Labor Party in the Queensland election and particularly in the seat of Ashgrove.

Fortuitously of course, many Greens supporters do not follow their how-to-vote cards. Many of the candidates—for example, two of the candidates in the state election in Queensland in the Townsville region for the Greens political party—will not be directing preferences to the Labor Party. They at least are principled when it comes to that. The Greens political party and the Labor Party in Queensland have done this deal and the price for the deal was to stop the Embley mine in Queensland.

I just put this to the senators: if the Greens had their way, there would be no mining in Queensland. They have actually stopped forestry in Queensland. It used to be a very substantial job-creating industry in Queensland. They have practically stopped fishing in Queensland. With their support for the carbon tax, what little manufacturing industry there was in Queensland is now rapidly going overseas. With what they are doing with the sea freight and the cabotage on the seafront industries, they will close down the cement industry in Gladstone and encourage it to go overseas. You will be able to bring ships full of cement cheaper from Asia into Queensland and you will be able to send cement from Gladstone up to Townsville in Queensland. The Greens and the Labor Party support all of these actions. So in the end, what jobs will there ever be in Queensland in the future? Everything will be locked up.

You look back in history and you see that if a political party, like the Communist Party of old, wanted to create strife and foment in any particular country around the world, what did they do? They created a huge pool of the unemployed so that there was rioting and insurrection on the streets. Now perhaps it is taking a step too far to say that this is the goal of the Greens political party in Queensland, but one must wonder where people in Queensland are going to work. Where are they going to earn money? Where are they going to gain employment if every single aspect of operations in Queensland is shut down?

The Greens do not want dams in Queensland. Dams of course create wealth on irrigated farms, but the Greens do not want that either. And the Labor Party, because they are now controlled by the Greens political party, simply roll over and go along with them. Mr Deputy President Parry, truthfully I fear that should this Greens-Labor Party coalition in Canberra continue any longer, Australia will be in dire straits. We know already in Queensland that the Queensland government, despite having some of the greatest means of wealth and jobs creation in the Federation, is now struggling with a debt burden of over $90 billion. We have lost our triple-A credit rating, and this is because the Australian Labor Party, led by Anna Bligh, and the Greens political party in Queensland who support them with preference deals—as happened in exchange for the Embley mine project—continue to drive Queensland economy down and create unemployment. Senator Boswell's question today was right on the mark. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.