Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this important piece of legislation, the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017. This parliament, every day—as we did today—opens with an acknowledgement to the traditional owners of the land on which we stand. In the halls of Parliament House, we appreciate the stunning Indigenous art from all over the country. We have a former Prime Minister who apologised for the stolen generations in this very building.

In beginning my speech today, I want to take the opportunity, as I have many times before, to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land, the Ngunawal and Ngambri people—to acknowledge their elders past and present and to note that sovereignty over this land was never ceded. Let us think about the last part of that sentence, 'this land was never ceded.' It was not ceded—it was taken.

To try and make some reparations for taking this land, this parliament passed the Native Title Act in 1993, and native title has been an important step along the way towards land rights. For such an important act, one would think that any changes would be considered extremely closely and follow proper process: scrutiny, consultation and engagement. But what we are debating today really seems to just fly in the face of that. In fact, it is basically saying: 'Why bother with all that scrutiny at all?'

Here we are in this parliament about to vote on changes to this important act, despite the fact that there has not been enough consideration of the implications of these amendments and that the consultation with Aboriginal people has been anything but full and thorough.

The Greens opposed this bill in the House of Representatives. This bill was introduced and rushed through the House of Representatives pretty soon after the Federal Court decision because of the threat to the Adani mine if the Indigenous land use agreement which covered that mine were found to be invalid. The timing of this bill is about the Adani mine, not about proper consideration of native title. We know that Indigenous owners have made many representations and have raised concerns about the native title legislation and the decisions made under the Bygrave court decision for some time with the government. We know that, despite that, legislation is being rushed through, with an incredibly short time for our Senate inquiry, which was totally inadequate to hear the concerns and to thoroughly debate and understand what the consequences of this legislation are going to be. We as Greens have had concerns about the time frame from the very beginning, and we attempted to extend the reporting date for the inquiry, but unfortunately this was not supported by the Senate. Consequently, submitters did not have enough time to compile their submissions and the committee was only able to have one hearing for such a substantial change to our native title legislation. This is of huge concern, given the complexity of native title arrangements and the significance of these amendments.

A core concern that we have had with this bill and its process has been the lack of adequate consultation undertaken with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The Greens accept there is a need to address the issues raised by the McGlade decision, but we cannot support this bill until there has been proper consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, communities and organisations and a really thorough consideration of all the consequences of this proposed legislation. Given that has not occurred, I reiterate: why are we here today? Why are we about to vote on this legislation? It has got nothing to do with native title. We are here today to help the Labor and Liberal mates of the Adani coalmine and their dirty polluting, reef-cooking, climate-destroying coalmine. That is why we are here today. It is to support something that goes completely against the interests of Indigenous peoples across this country, of all the peoples of this country and of all the peoples of the world, given the consequences of this coalmine and the carbon pollution that it will entail if this coal is mined.

Acknowledging the traditional owners in this parliament is hollow when you support changing the Native Title Act to favour your mates in a coalmining company over the rights and interests of traditional owners. It is despicable the way that traditional owners are being used as pawns in this debate and how the members of the Wangan and Jagalingou people who dare to disagree with the ILUA that has been made over their land, the destruction of their land by a massive coalmine, have been vilified. These traditional owners have been speaking out over the last week, and probably the most well-informed person in the country about the legal issues involved in this issue and the interaction with Indigenous rights is Tony McAvoy, who is a senior counsel and the first Indigenous silk in the country. He is a Wangan and Jagalingou traditional owner. He was reported on the weekend strongly rejecting the claim that Marcia Langton had made that Indigenous people had become 'collateral damage' as the so-called 'environment industry' hijacked the Adani issue. Mr McAvoy was reported in the article as saying:

… to suggest that “the greens are puppet masters pulling the strings and we’re somehow puppets” was wildly off the mark and disrespectful to the many families opposing the mine, including his.

His view and that of the other W&J traditional owners is that there is no need to rush the passage of a law that changes how critical issues around Indigenous property rights are dealt with through future land access deals. The other information that has come out since we were debating this in the chamber last month has been about the sham of a process for the supposed approval that was given for the ILUA for the Adani mine. Spokesperson for the W&J Traditional Owners Council, Murrawah Johnson, giving a keynote address at the National Native Title Conference last week, said:

Adani's approach seems to be 'fake it until you make it,' but the reality is they can't and won't proceed in the face of our resistance.

The W&J traditional owners have said that they will bring evidence to the Federal Court hearing that is to be heard in March next year on the Adani ILUA to demonstrate that Adani did not negotiate and achieve the free, prior and informed consent of the W&J people. Murrawah Johnson says that the meeting, which Adani and its barrackers claim achieved consent with a 294 to one vote, was not a true expression of the W&J traditional owners. Over 220 of the attendees at the Adani meeting were people who have never been involved in the W&J claim or decision making. They identify with other nations and claims or do not identify a particular descent line. Many of the people were bussed in and paid for at Adani's considerable expense. The majority of the claim group, which had rejected an ILUA with Adani three times, refused to participate in this stitch up of a meeting. Many members of the claim group stayed away. At least now, with this Adani mine, they have a Federal Court case to be heard in March next year.

But what of the other ILUAs that stand to be retrospectively agreed to where it is clear that there is considerable controversy over them, like the Cape York agreements that were made despite the fact that all of the native title claimants were deceased? Clearly, after the McGlade decision, there is a need for change. Clearly, there need to be changes made to the situation at the moment as to who needs to be involved in an ILUA. We need to listen to the way forward that Tony McEvoy is proposing. He has identified that the problem with the majority approach being proposed in this bill is that, in many native title claims, the claim groups have needed to ensure that each family group or clan is represented within the applicant or registered claimant to protect the differential interests of that family or clan. This is particularly so where one large family or clan can outnumber the other groups, as is often the case. On the bill, as it is presently drafted, that large family or clan, or a group of families or clans, could win a majority vote at a meeting to approve a mine, for instance, over the land or waters of another clan, or over sites for which another family has special rights and responsibilities. This is not a fair, considered, appropriate or just outcome to achieve. What Tony McEvoy asks for, and what the Greens ask for, is a detailed and nuanced approach to amend the Native Title Act that protects rather than undermines the property rights of the various clans and families that make up each native title claim area. McEvoy notes that it:

… must be done with care as the failure to get it right will permit the property rights and interests of particular families and clans to be extinguished or impaired without their consent.

Tony McEvoy says:

I encourage the members of federal parliament to take a deep breath, and come to terms with the fact that the property rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people all over Australia will be affected by the proposed amendment to s 24CD of the Native Title Act. This amendment should not be rushed in order to appease some other agenda.

Surely, that is good advice that we would be wise to take. Clearly, action is required. Clearly, amendments are required. But we owe it to ourselves and the Indigenous landowners and native title claimants across the country to be making these changes properly and taking time.

The Greens are committed to working for sovereignty and a treaty with Indigenous Australians, and we know that we will never be at peace with ourselves as a nation until we have achieved a treaty or treaties that recognise the prior occupation and sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This bill goes against all of that. So let's repeat the real reason why we are here today. The real reason why we are here today is not about good governance. It is not about getting things right. It is not about making sure that we have a fair and just process for native title into the future. We are here today to help the Liberal and Labor mates of Adani and their climate disaster mine, and in doing that we will be trashing the rights of traditional owners whose land was never ceded.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 as well, and I want to start by saying this whole debate has got skewed, if you like. This debate started with the successful appeal of the WA Noongar land claim, and that has become known as the McGlade decision. I want to remind people here today that 'McGlade' is not a tagline, and that is what we hear in this place—McGlade this and McGlade that. McGlade is Mingli McGlade, a Western Australian Noongar woman, a proud woman, a woman who used her legal rights to appeal a decision that she felt was not right.

Quite frankly, I am sick of the side arguments here. Let's get back to what is central here, and that is the Noongar land claim, a $1.3 billion claim covering more than 300,000 hectares of the South West of Western Australia—a significant claim. But four people involved in that claim—one of them being Mingli McGlade and the others being Mervyn Eades, Naomi Smith and Margaret Culbong—legitimately appealed that decision. Yes, the unintended consequence of that was that, according to the Turnbull government, it seemingly disrupted other settled ILUAs. Well, we have not seen the evidence of that, and my understanding is that, for that disruption to occur, there needs to be an application. What I want people to focus on today is to get back to the issue at point, and that is the South West Noongar land claim, a significant claim that, if we get it right, will benefit all people in Western Australia, particularly Noongar people and hopefully including the four people who chose to use their rights under whitefella law to appeal a decision that they were not comfortable with. That is what is at the heart of this issue, and 'McGlade' has just become a tagline. People seem to have forgotten that there is a real person behind that.

The point today here is that we have seen the Turnbull government change this native title amendment bill. The way that they have handled this is their usual rushed way. We have seen four amendments. We have seen an absolute lack of consultation. The government gave such a short period of time to the committee inquiry that we had on this decision that it did not even go to Western Australia, where this decision originated. What an insult to the Noongar people of Western Australia to not be able to have the opportunity to come before the committee and put their legitimate grievances! Whether it was the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council or the group who appealed the decision, they were not given any opportunity to appear before the Senate inquiry, and the responsibility for that absolutely rests squarely at the feet of the Turnbull government. We had the inquiry go to Queensland, yet it did not bother to come to Western Australia, where the Noongar land claim that we are all here today to try to sort through originated.

I know that Senator Dodson and Senator McCarthy have done a lot of work with Western Australian groups, whether they oppose or support the claim, to try to get a reasonable outcome here. But the Turnbull government was so intent on rushing this through to appease someone other than the Noongar people that it refused to have the Senate committee come here.

In passing this bill today, it does not fix what has happened in Western Australia. That still needs to be sorted out. We would be asking the Turnbull government to resource that so that people can sit down properly and sort through a significant claim. It is the biggest claim in Western Australia. It is worth $1.3 billion. Quite frankly, we need to get it right. The Noongar people need to get it right. Everyone involved in that claim needs to be reasonably satisfied at the end of the day that they have had a fair hearing and that their issues have been put on the table. So the Turnbull government needs to resource that to happen. That is what has to happen next. But they are so intent on dealing with all of the side issues raised by this appeal that they have not focused on that. So I would be urging the government to sit down, put some money on the table and work this through. It is very clear to me that we do want this settlement. The vast bulk of Noongar people in Western Australia want this settlement. But, legitimately, people have objected, and that objection has been held up by the Federal Court. So that is the issue we need to focus on. That is what I want it to be brought back to. That is why I remind this Senate today that Mingli McGlade, Mervyn Eades, Naomi Smith and Margaret Culbong are real people with a legitimate grievance, as is the south-west land council. And that is really the issue that needs to be dealt with here today.

Certainly, native title in this country does need a fresh approach. It is far too complicated; it takes way too long. Quite frankly, the Turnbull government is ill-equipped to undertake to get it right in relation to native title. When we look at Western Australia and history of Western Australia, it is disgraceful—in terms of the way, since white colonisation, Aboriginal people in Western Australia have been treated appallingly. I do not want to see this Noongar land claim go the way of so much of the rest of our history in Western Australia where First Nations people are dealt with last. I want to see them front and centre. I want to see them being given the resources to sort this out for themselves. But I do not think that the Turnbull government is equipped to undertake that and to be respectful.

As I said, the amendments are questionable. Nevertheless, the certainty needs to be there. The haste in which this bill has been brought before the parliament was unnecessary. The unintended consequences of the McGlade decision is what is being dealt with here. But the genuine grievances of the Noongar people of Western Australia remain. They are not recognised by this decision, but they still need to be addressed. I would urge the Turnbull government to put some funds toward making sure that this significant claim for Western Australia can be sorted out in the best interests of everybody.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As many of my colleagues in the Australian Greens have made clear, we have a number of extremely serious concerns relating to this legislation. Again, as many of my colleagues have made clear, we have significant concerns around the haste with which this bill has been introduced into this parliament. It has been rushed through the House of Representatives. It is now being presented in an equally rushed way to the Senate.

Part of our concerns about that indecent haste is the lack of genuine consultation that has been able to be undertaken with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples regarding this bill. It is worth pointing out that normally when there are policy considerations that relate to Australia's first peoples those considerations are done in a calm way and they are done in a very considered way. That is as it should be, because we need to do more of getting out and listening to Australia's first people when we make policy that has the potential to impact on them. But this piece of legislation has been done in indecent haste. That is because the government's motivation for this legislation is not the best interests of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The government's motivation is to look after the Adani company, to try to get up the Adani Carmichael coal mine—the climate-destroying megamine that appears so beloved of the Liberals and, for that matter, so beloved of the Australian Labor Party.

Given the complexity of native title arrangements and the very high level of significance of the amendments contained in this legislation we need more time not less to think about this, more time not less to listen to the views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and more time not less to think about the positions that we will take on this legislation. That is not what the government is doing. They are acting in indecent haste. In doing so they are, effectively, admitting this is not about fixing up native title but about trying to stampede, through this place, a piece of legislation that is designed to get up a coal mine proposed by the Adani Group of companies for the Carmichael basin. Let us not make any mistake about the motivations here. The motivations of this government stick out like a sore thumb. They are acting in indecent haste and, in doing so, are trying to bring in amendments that will trample the rights of some Aboriginal people in Australia. Those concerns have been placed on the record and I will go to them later in my speech. They are doing it because they are trying to look after big coal in this country.

Why would major parties in this place try to look after big coal? There are a few reasons they would look after big coal. It is interesting to watch the performance of Senator Canavan who seems to think it his job to shill for big coal, because that is what he has spent most of his time doing in the last couple of months: shilling for big coal, spruiking for big coal, talking down banks, like Westpac, who have said they are not going to fund the Adani coal mine, personally insulting one of the big Australian banks because they happen to take a position that Minister Canavan did not agree. That is all part of shilling for big coal, Canavan style, and we have seen it again and again.

Why would he do that? It is because of $3.7 million donated in the last three years by big polluters—that is, big coal and big gas—to both sides of politics in this place. There is the Liberal Party and the National Party on one side, and the ALP—another Liberal Party, in effect—on the other; those initials stand for, in this context, the other side of parliament. They are both in here, regularly, doing the business at the bidding of our big fossil fuel polluters. They get the donations in, the donations that allow them to get elected into this place. Then they deliver on the policy outcomes, like their decisions on the Adani mine, their decisions on native title and their bipartisan, ongoing support for the $24 billion that was contained in the most recent budget in direct taxpayer subsidies for the fossil fuel sector. Then, when they leave this place, they know there is a good chance they will get offered a job, because there is a revolving door between the floor of the Senate and the corporate boardrooms of the big polluters in this country—and it is a revolving door that needs to be slammed closed. It is why we need cooling-off periods once someone has sat in this place so that they cannot go straight from the floor of the Senate into the corporate boardrooms or into the spin departments of Australia's big corporate polluters. It is why we need more effective control on lobbyists. It is why we need a Commonwealth anticorruption authority—because of those donations and those positions that are taken on the floor of this place, with the revolving door back the other way, and from the floor of the Senate into the big corporates, whether it be the gambling corporates, the banking corporates, the coal corporates or the gas corporates. We have seen it all, time after time. Those donations and that delivery of public policy, with the revolving door from the floor of the Senate back into Australia's big corporations, are corrupting our democracy and they mean that the votes and the positions that we collectively take in this Senate are inappropriately influenced by big corporations.

The Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 is a case in point. This has nothing to do with fixing up native title and everything to do with getting up a giant, new, mega-polluting coalmine in this country that will contribute massively to the world's emissions profile and, therefore, contribute massively to dangerous climate change, which, as we know, is going to adversely impact on the world's poorest and most vulnerable people to the greatest extent and, as we also know, is over time going to kill the Great Barrier Reef. That is the choice facing us in Australia and decision-makers in Australia today. You can have one or the other of the Adani mine or the Great Barrier Reef, but you cannot them both. That beautiful natural icon, that treasure that people come from around the world to see and experience, is at risk of dying. Parts of it are already dead. Other parts may or may not recover and, if they do, it will only be till the next bleaching event occurs. It is the Adani mine or the Barrier Reef. You cannot have them both. This legislation is about the Adani mine. The Adani mine has bipartisan support from the Labor and Liberal parties and that bipartisan support is going to mean free coal for Adani through the royalty holiday granted by the Queensland Labor government. It is going to mean free water for Adani, again delivered by the Queensland government, and free money for Adani, delivered through Minister Canavan's northern Australia infrastructure fund.

It is an absolute crock. Once again, we are in a situation where we are being asked to come in here and ride roughshod over the wishes of the Wangan and Jagalingou people, who have been very clear that they do not support this legislation or the Adani mine. We are being asked to basically come in here and lay out the red carpet for a company that is in trouble in various places around the world because of its corporate behaviour. We know it is a company that destroys the environment and a company that does not seem to care or understand that coal is in structural decline. We have an Indian government that is transitioning rapidly into renewable energy, an Indian government that understands that, if you want to bring electricity to the countless Indian people who do not currently have access to electricity, the best way to do that is through small-scale, locally distributed, renewable energy projects like solar—and that is what they are doing right now. India is going to phase out the import of coal within three years. It is an announcement that has been made. How on earth the Labor and Liberal parties think that hitching their wagon to this giant, emitting, polluting, corrupting coalmine is good public policy has absolutely got me beat.

We know from the Wangan and Jagalingou people that they do not support this coalmine. I want to place on the record the views expressed only a week or so ago by a senior spokesman for the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners Council, Mr Adrian Burragubba, who said:

Adani can put on whatever song and dance they like but the reality is that we have never consented to Adani's mine being constructed on our land.

It is worth repeating: they have never consented to Adani's mine being constructed on their land. Look at the statements that have been made. They go into detail about the lengths that Adani have gone to to try to make it appear that there are Aboriginal people in that area who support their mine. It absolutely beggars belief.

Once again we are in this situation where we have the bipartisan support of the Liberal and National parties on one side and the Labor Party on the other side for this coalmine that is so divorced from the real world. It is so divorced from the commercial realities of coal. It is so divorced from the wishes of the traditional peoples of that area. It is so divorced from the realities of global warming. You have to ask yourself: how could these people who purport to be intelligent, who purport to think their way through issues, take positions that are so divorced from reality? Follow the money. Follow the millions of dollars in donations that flow from big coal, big gas, big banks, big gaming into this place, into the coffers of the ALP on one hand and of the Liberals and Nationals on the other hand. If you want to understand how policymaking in this place has become so divorced from the real world, follow the money. Follow the money and follow the career trajectories, because it is by following the money and by following the career trajectories that you will understand—and I hope the Australian people can understand—exactly what is going on here. It is not pretty.

Climate change is a threat to everything that we hold dear as a country and as a community. Our national security is threatened by climate change. Our education system will be threatened by climate change. Our health system, our law and order, our wellbeing, our property—they are all going to be threatened by climate change. All of those things that we hear so much about from the Liberal and National parties and the ALP in this place are under threat from climate change. This mine, the Adani mine, should it ever go ahead, will contribute massively to global warming.

I have a warning and a message for people in here who are going to continue to back-in the Adani mine. My warning and my message is this: this mine is not going to be built. What will stop this mine being built is the Australian people, because, when governments and political parties lose touch with reality to such a degree that they are prepared to ignore commercial markets, that they are prepared to ignore global warming, that they are prepared to ignore the views of traditional owners—when we get to that place, people get angry. And we are at this place right now in regard to the Adani mine, and people are getting angry—and understandably so.

Ultimately, it will be people that stop this mine. I have seen it time after time in my home state of Tasmania. When projects have been proposed that make people angry, that make people think that their political representatives are not listening to them, people will take action into their own hands. They will participate in peaceful blockades, peaceful protests and peaceful civil disobedience. I have participated with them in the past in Tasmania, and I will participate with them again should Adani be silly enough to start trying to build the railway or start trying to construct this mega-emitting coalmine. People will flock from around this country to stop this project, because it is a decision point for this country.

It is a decision point that will allow us to make a determination about whether we are going to change the way we are going to do business in this country to reflect the harsh realities that we are facing—most importantly, from climate change—or whether we are going to continue on the business-as-usual path that ultimately will lead us and, tragically, most of the rest of the world into disaster. And it will not just be disaster for people; it will be disaster for things like the Great Barrier Reef, and for a range of other species and ecosystems on this plant. This beautiful, resilient, but in the short-term very fragile, planet ultimately supports all of our lives, all of our hopes, all of our aspirations, our families, our jobs, our health, our education and all of the things that we spend so much time in this place talking about.

So we do have those concerns about this legislation. I make no apology for the majority of my contribution here today focusing on coal and focusing on global warming. While this legislation is masquerading as a piece of legislation designed—as the government would have us believe—to fix up native title, that is not what it is for. The indecent haste with which this government has introduced and is trying to pass this legislation is an effective admission that it is not at all about native title; it is about— (Time expired)

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017. I would like to say today how happy I am to be speaking to an audience of schoolkids who are here in the Senate today seeing the business of big politics. I am just about to get started, kids; I am sure you can stay another couple of minutes. The business of big politics on Capital Hill in Australian Parliament House in Canberra.

It reminds me of one of my favourite quotes, which I am always reminded of in this House in the Senate. This quote goes like this—and you might have to think about it a few times, kids. I am not speaking to the children on this side of the chamber, I am speaking to the audience directly in front of me. Let us think about this quote, and this quote says:

The only force more ruthless and cynical than the business of big politics is the politics of big business.

And when the two come together, when the two join forces, they create an unstoppable force. That is what this legislation is here in front of us today. This legislation is the business of big politics helping out big business. That is what this is. Whether it relates to the Adani mine or whether it relates to native title claims in Western Australia, this is big business getting its way again in the people's house. I have absolutely no doubt about that.

This native title legislation is being rushed. It is being rushed and being brought to the Senate to be voted on for one reason only, and that is to satisfy this nexus, this connection, between big business and big politics. It is ruthless and it is cynical. Nothing gets in their way when there are profits to be made by big multinational corporations, and nothing gets in the way of big politics when there are big donations to be made to their coffers which help them get elected and keeps them in power. That is what this is about. That is entirely what this is about. Democracy is the best system we have, kids. It is the best system we have. Have no doubts when you leave here today: it is often hijacked by special interests trying to get their way. And big politics, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, are only too keen to give them what they want. That is why you need the Greens in the Senate. That is why you need the Greens in the Australian parliament, because we consistently stand up to vested interests in this place. And that is what we are doing today. We will not be supporting this legislation in its current form.

I would like to pay my respects to my colleague Senator Siewert, from Western Australia, who has worked very closely with Australia's first peoples over a long period of time. And I will pay respects to you too, Senator Scullion—I am sure you are on our side of this debate but you are not allowed to say so. Nevertheless, I would like to pay respects to my colleague, who has worked tirelessly with Indigenous Australians since she has been in this place. She sat on the Senate inquiry. She has been involved in the consultations. And if Senator Siewert says this legislation is rushed and it pays no heed to the unintended consequences in an extremely complex and sensitive area of the law in native title claims, then that is certainly good enough for me. I have also read Senator Siewert's dissenting report and the information that has been provided on Adani by my colleague Senator Waters, from Queensland.

There are two issues we need to deal with here with today. I will get to the more substantive issues if I get a chance on the legislation in front of us in a second, but the most important issue is: why is this being rushed? We have a proposal for the biggest coal mine in the world in Queensland and the reason Senator Canavan, the minister for coal, the National Party and his colleagues in the Liberal Party—and also, seemingly, sadly, the Labor Party—want to see this coal mine get up and running is because of the business of big politics.

Guess who they are most afraid of? Guess who they are most afraid of in their marginal electorates, where they stand to lose seats? One Nation! This is a sop to One Nation. This is chest-beating, dog whistle politics, trying to get up a coal mine that cannot stand economically, or financially or environmentally on its own two feet. This is not a project that should proceed on any grounds. This is your future, kids. This is your future at stake. This will be the biggest coal mine in the world; it will have a remarkable and marked effect on global warming. It is your future. It is future generations of Australians that we are representing in here today.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, the allotted time for debate has expired. You will be in continuation, Senator Whish-Wilson.