Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator McAllister. In relation to Minister Plibersek's Indigenous cultural heritage decision against the McPhillamys goldmine, she said on 28 August:

… the tailings dam can't be built on the headwaters of a river. Once you destroy this river it is destroyed forever.

If this is true then why did the minister and her department approve the project, on environmental grounds, in the EPBC Act assessment that was completed last year?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Duniam, for the question. I think that Minister Plibersek has made it clear repeatedly—in statements to the parliament, in statements publicly—that she acted on the evidence before her and followed the advice and recommendation of her department, consistent with the law. So I don't think it assists our understanding to take a single comment that is made in a media interview, because it overlooks the balance of information that Ms Plibersek has put into the public domain about how and why this decision was taken.

The truth is that the decision protects around 400 hectares of a 2,500-hectare site—16 per cent of that site—and the company now has an opportunity to find a more appropriate site for the tailings dam, one that avoids cultural heritage impacts. If they do so, the mine can proceed, and the minister and I—everyone in the government—welcome the news that they are working with the New South Wales government to do exactly that. The department that Ms Plibersek administers stands ready, of course, to look at other options that the company proposes, to ensure that any assessment that might be required can happen quickly. Of course, that willingness, and the capacity to do so, reflects the investments that the government has made to improve on time approvals rates. Some projects recently were ticked off within nine weeks.

So I think, Senator Duniam, the minister has made very clear that she's acted consistent with the law. She took advice from the department and she considered the evidence that was before her.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Duniam, first supplementary?

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not sure I agree with what was just said. But, on 1 September this year, reinforcing the findings of their extensive assessments of the area, the New South Wales EPA said, 'Environmental risks to receiving waters are minimal and can be effectively managed with standard practices and relevant licensing conditions.' When will this minister concede that her claim about destruction of the river was entirely false?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Duniam, your question doesn't really follow from the information I've already provided to you. The basis of the decision that Minister Plibersek made is—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Please continue, Minister.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Plibersek has been very clear about the basis upon which she made this decision. An application was put before her under the act for protection on the grounds of cultural heritage. As a consequence of that, she took evidence from a range of parties, she sought advice from her department and she made a decision to partially protect some of the site. The truth is that protecting cultural heritage and economic development aren't mutually exclusive, and they must not be. We can actually do both, and that was a proposition that only a few months ago the coalition agreed with. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Duniam, second supplementary?

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 28 August, New South Wales Premier Chris Minns said that the state Independent Planning Commission's decision to allow the McPhillamys gold mine project to proceed was comprehensive and that it was also based, significantly, on the advice of the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council. He said: 'And under those circumstances, I think the correct judgment was made.' Given the environment minister has taken completely the opposite position, can she explain how the IPC, the Orange land council and the Premier of New South Wales, Labor's Chris Minns, have managed to get this so very wrong?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm asked about comments made by the Premier of New South Wales. Really, it is up to the New South Wales government to explain their processes and the application of their laws to this particular project. Minister Plibersek's obligations are different to those of the New South Wales minister. She is responsible for applying federal law and to responding to applications that are made to her under federal law and, as I have previously explained to this chamber and to you, Senator Duniam, she takes that process very seriously. The minister's responsibility is to consider the evidence, to weigh it, to consider its relevance to the law and to make legally sound decisions, and that is the approach she has taken in this instance also.