Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter from Senator Siewert:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move that, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

"The need for Minister Hunt to suspend the approval for the Maules Creek coal mine on the NSW Liverpool Plains and to act immediately to prevent further land clearing, due to commence on 15 February, of critically endangered vegetation in Leard State Forest."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the Clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to call on the federal Minister for the Environment, Mr Hunt, to immediately stop the Maules Creek Coalmine in New South Wales. The date of 15 February marks what will be an act of ecological vandalism and economic stupidity. It is of national significance as we have in New South Wales Whitehaven Coal, with the full blessing of New South Wales Premier Mike Baird and the Leader of the Opposition, Luke Foley, together with Prime Minister Abbott, Mr Shorten and no doubt Mr Turnbull—the whole lot of them—keen to recommence smashing down the critically endangered white box gum in Leard State Forest and to destroy the habitat of at least 396 species of plants and animals, including owls, koalas, birds, bats and parrots. Of course, the bat species are renowned in that particular area. Of those species, 34 are threatened species, including three that are critically endangered. The number is so high because they are dependent on the box gum woodland, of which only 0.1 per cent survives nationally. I will say that again: only 0.1 per cent of this vegetation type survives nationally. Yet the Premier of New South Wales, the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales—the Labor Party—think it is fine to go and smash down that remnant vegetation.

The Department of Premier and Cabinet in New South Wales has recognised this forest as having irreplaceable, ecologically unique values. But it took a land and environment court case to stop winter clearing. But now they are about to start again. I have heard endlessly from the Prime Minister and Treasurer Hockey that we must not be stealing from future generations. If there is one thing that they are stealing from future generations it is critically endangered habitat, plants and animals, and of course a safe climate.

It is hard to believe the stupidity, the backwardness, the ignorance of knocking down the Leard State Forest to build a coalmine in an age of global warming, when the coal should be staying in the ground. That is the fact of the matter. That coal needs to stay in the ground. We cannot afford to burn that coal because of the climate. Yet we have got this ridiculous situation where we are going to lose this critically endangered vegetation. We will lose sites that are of cultural significance to the Gomeroi people. We will see precious water resources all wasted and all to facilitate what has been a corruptly approved—I say that again, 'corruptly approved'—Whitehaven coalmine. It is likely to be not only an ecological disaster but also an economic disaster.

The only thing that is standing behind future generations actually being able to enjoy this forest, ensuring that this threatened vegetation community—and the plants and animals that it supports—can remain and that is preventing this intergenerational theft is the community.

Today, I really want to pay respect and give absolute encouragement to people who have been prepared to stand there in Maules Creek and put themselves on the line. They have done that. More than 250 people have been arrested there. We have alliances like the Leard State Forest alliance and the Front Line Action on Coal out there. We have had all the conservation groups out there. We have had incredible support from people as varied as Bill Ryan, who is 92 years old and a veteran of the Kokoda Trail; Cliff Wallace, who is a property owner there, who has facilitated and helped the protesters make the stand that they have; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author Colin Butler, who was arrested there; and of course former Wallabies captain David Pocock was arrested as well. All of these people have made a major stand for the forest, the environment, the climate and against corruption. We will see more of those people putting their lives on the line this weekend and calling out the Baird government in New South Wales and the Abbott government federally, because all of this should not be happening, because it was all corruptly approved.

Now we find that Whitehaven is trying to squirm out of even the minimal biodiversity corridor, saying it presents:

… a material risk to the project’s success …

And the company cannot accept it. This is how marginal the coalmine is. They are saying that they cannot even meet the minimal biodiversity corridor, because it jeopardises the project. The fact is that the project is jeopardised anyway because there has been a complete collapse in the coal price globally and that is going to continue. There is a structural change here and it is not going to recover. We are going to see the stupidity of smashing down the Leard State Forest to put in a coalmine which will never be viable.

This is a disgrace in a country like ours. People pride themselves in Australia. They look at other countries and say, 'Look at the corruption that goes on there,' and they never recognise that the corruption goes on here just as much. In fact, it has been even worse in New South Wales. I want to go to that in terms of the offsets, and my colleague Senator Waters will talk about this a bit later. The offsets never, ever offset the critical vegetation type and yet the mine was approved. I make the point that it was former Labor Party environment minister Tony Burke who approved it, but they are up to their neck in it in New South Wales and the approval by the Liberals.

There should have been a judicial inquiry. When ICAC got right into what happened, they found that Nathan Tinkler was central to a series of corrupt dealings in New South Wales and that it involved this mine. There were political donations to the Liberal and National Parties and there has never been a proper investigation into what actually went on. It is totally disgraceful. You cannot believe that, in this day and age, this mine was not stopped the minute they found out that it had been corruptly approved. There were a whole series of events: donations went from Aston Resources, Boardwalk Resources, Chris Hartcher and the Free Enterprise Foundation eventually to the New South Wales Liberal Party and then the ministers in New South Wales assisted in various approvals. What sort of corrupt behaviour is that? Now a whole community has to fight for their land, for their water, for biodiversity and for their forest. Why should they have to do that?

It is even more shocking that a former leader of the National Party and former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, Mark Vaile, is the chair of Whitehaven Coal. This really sends an appalling signal to people around the country: get yourself involved in corrupt dealings, hand over the cash in back rooms to make prohibited donations, get it through things like the Free Enterprise Foundation, absolutely hide it from the public gaze, get it through to the Liberal Party and you will get it back in approvals.

The Labor Party is not exempt from this, as the Obeid cases in New South Wales show. This should have been stopped. It should have been stopped by a proper judicial inquiry. The corruption goes on to this day. The fact that Mike Baird, the Premier of New South Wales, could stand there last week opening this mine and saying what a great thing it is shows you the extent to which corruption has seeped into the body politic of New South Wales.

The Greens are going to stand with that community. The Greens are going to stand with everyone in New South Wales who turns out in Maules Creek to stop the destruction of the Leard forest, the logging that will start there and the bulldozing of that forest as it continues, because the people there deserve to have decent, democratic representation that is honest and transparent, not corrupt. We, along with the next generations, have to do what we can to save the critically endangered species that the Leard forest contains. If Minister Hunt was really a Minister for the Environment he would step in and say now that he will not be a party to final federal approval of the plan that will see Whitehaven go broke after having destroyed the environment.

I wish the very best of luck to everyone who turns out this weekend to stop this destruction. We stand with you and we will articulate this in the Senate.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to 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—

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The laws are already so weak, Senator Birmingham; you know that. That is why you can get away with it. You call it legal, but it is not.

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

I am not sure who you are making an allegation against there, Senator Rhiannon—

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the state laws.

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

At the state laws? You are in the Commonwealth parliament now, Senator Rhiannon. You might not remember that you made that change! You might have forgotten that you changed from the New South Wales parliament to the federal parliament; but, here, we have to work with the federal laws. Here, we are confined by those federal laws.

Senator Rhiannon interjecting—

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham has the right to be heard in silence. Please continue, Senator Birmingham.

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

Here, we have to work within the Constitution, within the limits of federal power, and the ministers of the day exercise their powers in accordance with the legislation passed by this parliament—this parliament. You can exercise your right to campaign against this mine in New South Wales. You can make whatever allegations you want to make about New South Wales governments, past or present, if you so choose. But in this place we have to deal with federal laws, and in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 we have a law that has been appropriately applied, where the public servants and the ministers of the day have acted within the terms of the law—and this mine has those approvals. We will uphold those approvals, subject to the conditions in place, because as a government we believe in providing certainty to businesses who go through our legal processes.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise today to speak on this urgency motion. We in the Labor Party are very concerned about the impacts of development on our environment. I am a member who lives on the Central Coast, which was a hot spot for many of the shenanigans—which I think might be an appropriate term to describe the way in which the Liberal Party raised funds in the lead-up to the last election—that have been the subject of considerable discussion at ICAC. As a person from New South Wales who lives in an area where the heartbeat of that plan to redirect funds was exercised I am very aware and very concerned about the influence of inappropriate donations and their impact on how development proceeds in New South Wales. But let us be clear: we the Labor Party share the concerns of others in this chamber that mining operations minimise their impact on the environment and on communities, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

With reckless disregard, the Abbott government is pushing ahead with its move to hand over environmental approval powers to state and local governments. This is the key in any debate about environmental approvals and about the protection of our environment generally. This government—a government that has been governing badly for 520 days that is now, as expressed by the Prime Minister yesterday, attempting 'good government'—would happily allow state and local governments to approve developments on a mighty scale in some of Australia's most iconic environmental and agricultural assets.

On the Abbott government's watch, we will have Colin Barnett in charge of the Ningaloo Reef and Will Hodgman and his 'cut it down' government in charge of Tasmania's iconic World Heritage listed forests. But this government's approach goes beyond pro-development state governments. It provides the ability for these same state governments to accredit local government to undertake critical assessment and approval processes. This is a matter of great concern. It should be a matter of great concern to every Australian. This government is presiding over a period of devolution of responsibility that puts at risk not just the piece of land nominated for discussion by the Greens this afternoon but also the entire country. This is a government intent on allowing the states to approve anything anywhere, without limitation. That is worrying.

The states are planning on further diluting accountability by putting local government in charge of Australia's major natural assets. We know the real work of delegating approval powers is being done in the bilateral agreements that this government is making with the states; and one of Labor's concerns about this is the lack of quality and consistency in the processes with the states. Under the Abbott government's approach, World Heritage sites and species protected under international treaties will be put in the hands of state and local governments. I keep repeating it because it is hard to believe that there could be a government so intent on abrogating its national responsibilities.

Labor will steadfastly oppose this approach. We continue to support streamlining environmental assessment processes for major projects, but final approval on matters of national environmental significance should remain with the national government. Labor began negotiations with the states to establish agreements to reduce regulatory doubling-up in 2012. Through those negotiations, it became clear that some states could not be trusted with Australia's unique environment. The Australian government has the responsibility of protecting Australia's precious environment, and the EPBC Act, in particular, accounts for matters of national environmental significance.

The Abbott government has no interest in protecting Australia's environment for the future. Since coming to government, Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt have made bad decision upon bad decision that have clearly hurt our environment, and have ignored the community. This government simply has no credibility when it comes to the environment. Its record makes one ask why ministers for the environment have not gone the way of ministers for science, because clearly the government is ignoring the realities. The record, so far, of the 529 days of 'bad government' is simply astounding, ranging from moving backwards on climate change to risking our reputation for outstanding World Heritage icons.

Soon after coming to office, the Abbott government began rushing through environmental approvals that included the Abbot Point coal terminal on the Great Barrier Reef.

Let me tell you that in my public encounters I have had conversations with young people, including a person as young as four, who presented me with a picture of her concern about what Tony Abbott was planning to do at Abbot Point. The risk to the environment that this government presents is so evident that a four-year-old can come and lobby a federal politician on the issue. That is how clear its abrogation of responsibility is. This is the government that disallowed the endangered community listing of the River Murray from the Darling to the sea. This is the government that went against all reason and all advice and sneakily had the world's largest marine reserve system re-proclaimed to undo the management plans that gave it effect. The government has begun a process of handing over environmental approval powers to the state, as I said. It has given Colin Barnett the keys to Ningaloo marine reserve and Will Hodgman control of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area—as if these great, iconic environmental assets belong only to one state, or even down to a local government level. They belong to every Australian. We are a Commonwealth, a federation of states, and the national responsibility is the responsibility of the national government. This government has all but abandoned efforts to have Queensland's Cape York added to the World Heritage List.

But it does not end there. The government has disenfranchised communities across Australia by ripping Commonwealth funding from the Environmental Defenders Offices, which means that those who have a concern about environmental approvals will no longer have the capacity to protect the places they love and to contest decisions. Not only the Environmental Defenders Offices but legal aid, women's legal services, and welfare rights and community legal centres all agree that this wicked slashing of federal government funding has hit them hard. Access to justice for people who wish to use the law to stand up for and protect their environment will be effectively lost when the EDOs have to close. For this government, that is what it considers a good outcome. That is the great shame of witnessing in this place every day the stripping away of the capacity of Australians to fundamentally protect the things that are of value to us.

Defending the environment and defending community amenity and cultural heritage will simply become unaffordable for many Australians, as the local EDO has often been the only place many people could afford to go for expert legal advice on complex matters of public interest with regard to environmental law. The government's ridiculous decision to remove funding from environmental legal centres will expose communities to damaging developments and reduce scrutiny, particularly on the very powerful and cashed-up mining industry.

The government has taken us backwards on climate change by repealing the carbon price in favour of a taxpayer funded, dressed-up slush fund that certainly will not work. Tony Abbott abolished the Climate Commission, which was established to provide public information on the effects of and potential solutions to global warming. The government also wants to axe the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the Climate Change Authority, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the renewable energy target—all that blood on its hands.

The government approached the World Heritage Committee to delist 74,000 hectares of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. This embarrassing application was dismissed out of hand by the World Heritage Committee. The government ripped nearly half a billion dollars out of Landcare, taking money away from landholders and local communities to run its Green Army program instead. The government has the National Water Commission in its sights, with plans for its abolition for a small budget saving at a time when water management in Australia is at dangerous risk of backsliding.

The government has been entrusted with one of the great honours of public life: to protect and promote Australia's magnificent natural assets. The problem with this government is that it has no mindset for the environment. (Time expired)

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the matter of urgency, regarding the approval of a 13-megaton coalmine in the middle of a critically endangered forest. Sadly, the approval was given at the federal level by the former Labor government and it was given at the state level by the state Liberal government—and I will have more to say about that in the course of my short contribution.

I want to focus on the farce that was the granting of this approval, in particular the granting of the approval on the promise of this critically endangered woodland being protected elsewhere, when the company lied about finding appropriate offsets. Subsequent independent investigations revealed that the company's purported offset was in fact 95 per cent an entirely different ecosystem. Somehow, the federal Department of the Environment had not realised that until they had already issued the approval. To their credit, they then commenced an investigation, which demonstrated that, indeed, the offsets were mis-described—in my view, proving that the company had used false and misleading information in order to gain an approval. That is a prosecutable offence. Instead, we saw an investigation that rolled on for months and months and, ultimately, was dropped. That left us with a situation of a mega-coalmine approved in the middle of a forest with critically endangered woodland and endangered species, with an offsets plan that was totally inadequate and that, two years down the track, is still not finalised. This company has an approval to destroy critically endangered woodland, of which there is 0.1 per cent left in this entire country, and it still has not worked out where it is going to find replacement vegetation. If that does not make an entire mockery of our environmental legal system, I do not know what does.

Of course, we saw one of the activists involved in trying to protect this forest, Jonathan Moylan, issue a fake press release which caused a temporary dip in the share price of the bank that was proposing to fund this mine. He had the book thrown at him and was subjected to charges which would have borne a 10-year penalty. Thankfully, he got off, but it highlights the difference of approach between a company which has provided false information to get an approval and then has the investigation dropped and an activist who was faced with a potential 10 years in jail.

The other point I want to talk about is the fact that the bulldozers are about to go in. On 15 February, this coming weekend, this company, which two years on still has not finalised its offsets plan and still has not finalised where the biodiversity corridor that the conditions require it to identify and protect is going to go, is going to send the bulldozers in with all of these question marks still hanging over the entire approval.

There are question marks about the company's financial state as well, so I am worried that we might see a situation where this endangered woodland gets cleared and then the mine does not even get up at all. I would love for the mine not to happen; but for the trees to be cleared and the company then fall over would be an absolute travesty. We have got to see the minister step in and pause this approval—I think he should revoke it entirely—protect the climate from this 13-megatonne coalmine and protect those 500-plus hectares of critically endangered woodland. That is what we are calling on Minister Hunt to do.

I was very interested that Senator Birmingham said he has got confidence in the enforcement of the 40 conditions that were placed on this coalmine. It is great that he has got confidence; sadly, the federal environment department's staff have been slashed under his government's administration, so I do not have confidence that they have the people to enforce the conditions. But it is a very interesting comment for him to make given that that the company is now seeking to weaken those very conditions. Senator Birmingham said that his government would uphold the approvals, subject to the conditions in place. We will hold him to that. We will not allow this company to get in the back door and try and weaken the conditions about where the biodiversity corridor should go. So I thank Senator Birmingham for a perhaps offhand remark that we intend to hold him to and ensure that those conditions are indeed enforced. What a mockery it is for this megacoalmine to be approved right when the cost of thermal coal has halved in the last three years. This mine is not financial. It is going to have an absolutely atrocious effect on the climate. It would pump out 30 million tonnes of CO2, which is equivalent to the annual emissions of New Zealand's entire energy sector—massive climate disaster, massive biodiversity disaster. Minister Hunt needs to step in and act like an environment minister and stop this. (Time expired)

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have had the pleasure of sitting in the chamber on whip's duty and I must say I am amazed by some of the comments that have come from the Greens in particular. The Maules Creek Whitehaven coalmine is a project that has been talked about for some time. It was approved in accordance with environmental law. As we mentioned, it was approved by the member for Watson, the Hon Tony Burke, who was the responsible minister when the Labor Party was in government. The mine is subject to appropriate conditions—some 40 of them—which Senator Waters seems to think are a waste of time. These conditions have been put in place by a robust planning process, including the preparation of a biodiversity corridor. I note that the senator, in her contribution, said the offsets plan was a complete waste of time. But when you consider that we are talking about 550 hectares being affected by this particular project, and that the offsets that have been proposed are nearly 10,000 hectares, even if there was some level of error in the offsets you would have to question whether the senator is not just going to pick on anything that she can possibly get her hands on to complain about—because she and the Greens do not like any mines whatsoever.

This government, like those opposite when they were in government, obviously understands that you have to run a country on a number of bases. You cannot just run a country thinking that the environmental considerations are above and beyond all other considerations that take place. We understand that we have to have a robust economy. We understand that we have to have social things in place. We understand that we have to have a multifaceted economy—because there are lots of different things that happen in Australia, not just the environment. Therefore, the responsible approach to these things is to accept that there are some things that are going to have to occur that may actually require a tree to be cut down or a whole to be dug. So what I would say to the Greens, who have come in here today and had a lovely little grandstand about this mine—and I am sure they will continue to grandstand about every project that they do not like—is that I do not think anybody in this place is disputing the fact that this mine will have an environmental impact. But what we have to understand is that, right now, we do not have the capacity in this country to have an entirely clean option for our energy. We do not have the capacity at the moment to deal with baseload power from clean energy sources.

You often hear those up in the top corner of this chamber, in the area where the Greens sit, carrying on about the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and refusing to allow the government to pursue its economic agenda to get the budget back in shape. But all we seem to have seen is a lot of wind farms being approved by these kinds of organisations. If, instead, we had started to invest in things like how we are going to store some of this clean energy that we purportedly will need into the future, then maybe we could be arguing that perhaps we do not need to pursue coal. But, right now, the Australian community has no choice whatsoever but to continue to use fossil fuels for the delivery of energy in this country. I think it is a bit rich for us to suggest that this mine, and every other coalmine—which the Greens hate so terribly much—needs to disappear. I would be really surprised if every one of the 10 Greens who sit down at the other and of the chamber does not use a significant amount of energy; and, given that we do not have the capacity to provide baseload power without fossil fuels, I am not quite sure how they intend to turn the light on in the morning or use their electric toothbrush.

One thing that annoys me more than anything else in these sorts of debates is the outrageous comments that come out. When Senator Milne opened this debate this morning, she commented that the whole approval process had been corrupt.

Not once in her contribution did Senator Milne actually describe in any detail what evidence she had that would be the basis of 'corruption'.

She also said that this mine will never be viable. I am not quite sure where Senator Milne got her evidence to suggest that the mine would never be viable. I accept the comments that Senator Waters made that the price of coal has dropped. There is no question that, at the moment, the resource sector is in a very depressed state. But, unless Senator Milne has some sort of crystal ball and can see into the future and tell us what the prices of these fuels are going to be in the future—and I would be delighted if you were able to, Senator Milne—unfortunately, I do not think that we have any evidence. Senator Rhiannon, when she gets up to make her contribution to this debate, may well be able to provide us with the evidence of this specifically 'corrupt' behaviour that Senator Milne refers to, and also the evidence for this mine—and I quote from Senator Milne—never being viable.

So what I would say is that it seems a little rich that senators come in here and carry on in this sort of way. I was quite astounded, actually, during the discovery of formal business today, to hear Senator Waters get up and ask to make a one-minute statement after Senator O'Sullivan had put a motion before this place and to hear her being critical of Senator O'Sullivan 'wasting the Senate's time on business motions'. I thought, 'My golly gosh! I have never seen any party waste more of the Senate's time on motions that have no relevance apart from giving them the opportunity to grandstand about something that is factual. I'm surprised they don't come in here and move a motion that the sun's going to come up tomorrow morning!'

As to this sanctimonious and hypocritical rubbish that we hear from the other end of the chamber, I am quite happy to have a sensible and reasonable debate about the clean energy future that I think this country deserves; I am more than happy to have that debate. I am more than happy to sit down and work through the relevant committees. I am the chair of a standing committee on the environment. I am happy to sit there and work through what the options are so that we can get Australia to the position we want, where we have the cleanest possible future when it comes to energy. But to just say that everything and anything that is on the ground at the moment that burns any fossil fuel element whatsoever should not go ahead is just absolutely ridiculous.

But the thing that probably annoys me more than anything else is that we have crocodile tears in here for the farmers. If the Greens were really genuinely interested in looking after Australia's farmers, what they would do is to start to support some of the initiatives that we put in place to enable our farmers to be more profitable and more competitive on the economic stage, and to support us in some of our trade activities to make sure that Australian businesses are competitive, instead of continuing to put more and more compliance and regulatory burdens on them, duplicating the things that they have to do. I think that, if you were genuinely interested in the future of Australia's farmers, then you would not be in here carrying on about—

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

About coal-seam gas?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fact of the matter is that in Australia we do rely on energy. There is no question about it: we rely on energy. And, sadly, if we want to have energy, we have to produce it. So, for those people who obviously do not like this mine—and I understand that there are quite a number of them where the mine is being located who have some concerns; I also understand that there are quite a number of them who come down from Sydney who don't like it either—the fact of the matter is that New South Wales actually imports the majority of its energy from Queensland. So there is this whole nimby idea: 'Not in my backyard'. We are quite happy for the Queenslanders to dig up their backyards so that they can send the energy down south. But Senator Waters probably would not like that. She would probably prefer it to happen in Western Australia, Senator Sterle, because we can dig up your backyard so she can have the energy—just like we will dig up Queensland backyards. I am not quite sure where Senator Milne wants to get her energy from, but, given that more than 50 per cent of Tasmania is tied up under wilderness arrangements, I do not imagine that there is much opportunity to get it from there either. So I think that we just need to be a little realistic about the total picture. (Time expired)

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Ruston said that 'more than 50 per cent of Tasmania is tied up' in wilderness; that is an incorrect statement. She may like to retract it.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order!

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Ryan. That is a debating point, thank you, Senator Singh.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to this debate on this urgency motion. We in the Labor Party care very much and are very concerned about the impacts of development on the environment. We have had a longstanding history of concern and care, as custodians of the environment, for the environment. So of course we do take the issue of the impact of development on our environment very seriously. We also share the concerns of others in this chamber in relation to mining operations. Mining operations should always minimise their impact on our environment and our communities and also on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. That is why, when we were in government, the then Labor environment minister put in place very strict conditions on this particular proposal—very strict conditions. I acknowledge at the outset that Senator Waters has raised concerns with the way in which some of those conditions, at least by the company, have been acted upon—the misleading aspects as to offset by the company and the process, raised by Senator Waters, in the department for dealing with that—but those strict conditions were put in place for that very reason.

The fact is that this urgency motion actually asks Minister Greg Hunt to do something. Therein lies the problem with this urgency motion, because Minister Greg Hunt is, in name and title, the environment minister, but, for all intents and purposes, he does not act like an environment minister. He actually acts like an anti-environment minister—he acts against the environment.

On top of that, this government cannot be trusted. So not only are you asking a minister of the Crown who is not carrying out his portfolio duties in a way that an environment minister would, one would think; on top of that, you are dealing with a government that simply cannot be trusted at all.

We have seen that in the last day, with the heralding in by Prime Minister Abbott of a new good government, starting from today—basically admitting that for the last 16 months we have had, therefore, a bad government. That is correct; it has been a bad government—but I know that that bad government is still here. It is very much evident when we look at the environment portfolio. Senator O'Neill went through the record of failures by Minister Hunt in the environment portfolio area recently. That list clearly shows why this government cannot be trusted when it comes to the maintenance and care of and concern for our environment.

One of the most alarming components of this urgency motion concerns the one-stop shop legislation that Mr Hunt wants to introduce. That is a piece of legislation that basically allows him to give up his powers under the EPBC Act and give them to Premier Baird and to Premier Hodgman in Tasmania when it comes to the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. When a minister himself wants to give up his approval powers, you cannot have faith in that minister. Minister Hunt was in my home state last month, sharing with the Tasmanian community how much he cared about the wilderness and heritage values of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area and how under the current draft management plan for the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area he would ensure that the environmental, cultural and heritage values of the area would be protected because he had the final say. It is that exact final say that he is trying to give up; it is that final say that he is trying to give to Premier Will Hodgman because that is what his one-stop shop legislation is all about. It is all about this government giving up a role of federal government because it simply does not care about the environment, and Senator O'Neill went through the huge list of points demonstrating why that is the case. Those points included going to Qatar last year and, embarrassingly, seeking to delist some 74,000 hectares of the pristine Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. That request to UNESCO's World Heritage Committee was laughed out in less than 10 minutes—it was rejected in less than 10 minutes as a ludicrous proposal and Australia returned home with its head hanging very low, having wasted not only taxpayers' money but also its own time with such a stupid proposal from Minister Greg Hunt and Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

Senator O'Neill raised the cutting of the Landcare program—a fantastic program that brings together so many community members who care for their local area, who care for their local environment. There is the slashing of funds for Environmental Defender offices—again, taking away another level of our democracy, another level of freedom and rights and justice in our democratic system. On top of that, we know that there is a complete backward flow when it comes to any action by this government on climate change. It does not matter if it is Tony Abbott, it does not matter if it is Malcolm Turnbull, it does not matter if it is Julie Bishop—they are all the same. They all want to take Australia backwards on climate change. We had that last year with the abolition of carbon pricing, we had it with $2 billion of taxpayers' money going into a dud scheme called Direct Action, which will not reach our emissions reduction target, and we had it with their efforts on the international stage recently in Lima, where minister Julie Bishop had to take the trade minister to hold her hand just in case she went a little beyond the conservatives' position on climate change—a very backward position.

Their record on the environment is certainly something to be very embarrassed about and ashamed about. It shows that they simply cannot be trusted. That is why what the Greens are asking of Minister Hunt in this urgency motion is something that will not ever be achieved, because Minister Hunt fails to be able to do his job effectively. It is only a matter of time before he tries once again to bring that legislation forward, to give up his own responsibilities and pass them to the states. At least we know now that he cannot pass to Campbell Newman the responsibilities for environmental approvals and care for the Great Barrier Reef that the federal government currently holds, because, fortunately, there is no longer a Premier Campbell Newman. Premier Campbell Newman is now Mr Campbell Newman thanks to the good people of Queensland who saw fit to vote him out of office—completely out of office—because of his appalling record on the environment and in relation to Abbot Point, a record achieved with the support of this federal government and Minister Greg Hunt. Of course Labor is concerned about the impacts of development on the environment; of course Labor is concerned about mining operations, understanding that they must always minimise their impact on the environment. That is why when we were in government we put in place very strict conditions. Those conditions must be met but we certainly do not support efforts by this government such as putting in Mr Bob Baldwin as a parliamentary secretary—someone, again, who is a veteran climate change sceptic—and having Greg Hunt as a minister, who simply is an anti-environment minister who has given up completely.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The world is turning its back on coal. So many communities and so many countries are recognising that renewables are the way of the future, that they are commercially and industrially viable, and they are putting them in place. But in Australia, because of weak planning laws at a state level and weak environment laws at a federal level, it is so hard for communities to be heard. It is so hard to ensure that we do not allow greedy, selfish coal companies at this stage when the coal industry clearly is at a point of transition to engage in an unseemly coal rush just to boost their profits when it causes so much damage.

That damage is so extensive when it comes to the Maules Creek mine. Thirty million tonnes of carbon dioxide will be released every year for the 30-year life of this mine if it goes ahead. I congratulate the many farmers and supporters across the country and, indeed, across the world who are working so hard to ensure the right thing is done here and that protection for the Leard forest is put in place, that Aboriginal sacred sites and special places are not destroyed and that the climate action that we so urgently need is taken seriously and becomes a reality. There are so many reasons this mine should not go ahead. I congratulate my colleagues Senator Christine Milne and Senator Larissa Waters, who have set out the case very clearly. I congratulate locals Phil and Rick Laird, Ros Druce, Adam Ryan. They have done a fantastic job in welcoming thousands of people to their community. More than 300 have now been arrested in direct action. Jonathan Moylan, a Second World War veteran of the Kokoda Trail, and Bill Ryan are some of those people who are regularly there adding their voices and alerting the world to the crimes of Whitehaven.

This is a mine that, as I said, has been so destructive in many aspects. It is not just limited to environmental destruction. The way this has played out has also damaged the very fabric of our democracy. Some of the other senators have asked the question, 'Where are the corrupting aspects of it?' It is well documented now thanks to the strong ICAC corruption watchdog that we have in New South Wales. They have exposed the unhealthy association between mine owners, members of parliament and candidates and how that corrupting relationship plays out.

The former owner of Aston Coal 2, which was merged in with Whitehaven, the current owner of Maules Creek, was Nathan Tinkler. He was overseeing the Maules Creek project. Aston Coal 2, the company that merged with Whitehaven, was fined in 2013 because two of its directors had made reportable political donations which were not disclosed during the assessment of the Maules Creek planning application. This is one of the greatest tragedies in New South Wales. Labor and the coalition, for over a decade, voted together to weaken the planning laws and we have ended up with this situation where it is so hard for communities to have their voices heard.

Then Nathan Tinkler set out why he gives these large donations. His very words were, 'That's the way we do business in New South Wales.' ICAC received evidence that Tinkler made illegal donations to the Liberal Party and associated entities Eightbyfive and the Free Enterprise Foundation, and that he tried to bribe a Labor MP. ICAC has evidence that Eightbyfive received $66,000 in secret payments from Buildev, a development company also associated with Mr Tinkler, in exchange for political favours from the former New South Wales Liberal energy minister Chris Hartcher. So all the way along we see these connections. The very corrupting influence these political donations are having has been made easier because of the weak planning laws and it is conducive to a climate that is so deeply damaging.

The Greens are working to promote a fast transition of our energy systems from fossil fuels to renewable energy. There is no need for this damage to occur in such a wonderful area as Leard forest. Senator Waters set out how extensive this offset con job was and how it was perpetrated on the people of that region. This weekend I congratulate all those associated with Bat Attack and urge people to attend. (Time expired)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Senator Milne's motion be agreed to.