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

I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 8 October 2024, from Senator McKim:

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

The Albanese Government is fuelling the climate and extinction crises by approving three coal mines that will destroy hundreds of hectares of threatened species habitat and lock in 1.4 billion tonnes of climate pollution out until the 2060s."

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with informal arrangements made by the whips.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The Albanese Government is fuelling the climate and extinction crises by approving three coal mines that will destroy hundreds of hectares of threatened species habitat and lock in 1.4 billion tonnes of climate pollution out until the 2060s.

I rise to speak in this debate. Of course, we've seen many promises made by the Albanese government in relation to things that they would do during their time in charge of this nation's laws and, time and time again, what we see is that, when it comes to the environment, when it comes to nature, when it comes to climate, they continue to break those promises over and over again.

Despite the fact that this government has promised to stop further extinctions of our precious wildlife and stop making the climate crisis worse, last week we saw this country's environment minister approve the expansion of coalmines, including a coalmine directly hosted on the land of critical koala habitat. Koalas in this country are facing extinction, and I say this very solemnly and very clearly on the same day that our environment minister is hosting a global summit here in Australia about the need to be nature positive.

Well, let me tell you that there is nothing nature positive about killing koalas. There is nothing nature positive about making the climate crisis worse by making more fossil fuel pollution. There is nothing nature positive when it comes to native forest logging. There is nothing nature positive about clearing and bulldozing hectare after hectare of critical koala habitat. It is an absolute international disgrace that this government has the gall to host a global summit called 'nature positive' while, in the same week, destroying and allowing the destruction of koala habitat and our environment.

The world loves Australia's koalas. The world knows that the koala is a symbol of the unique biodiversity of Australia. Koalas symbolise our forests, our coastline and our connection with land and country, yet we have the environment minister signing off on the destruction, because the laws don't stop her. The laws allow the environment minister to agree that a big coal company can come and bulldoze precious woodland and native forest to make way for more fossil fuels at the expense of our wildlife and our environment.

What on earth is going on in this government? On one hand you've got the environment minister saying that she wants Australia to be a leader when it comes to being nature positive; on the other hand you've got the Prime Minister, whenever he can get a chance, taking his jet over to WA to tell Gina Rinehart and the fossil fuel industry that they can keep going hell for leather. Dig more, burn more, make more profit—at the expense of our environment, at the expense of our climate, and at the expense of Australia's international reputation.

This nature positive summit should be called 'nature negative'. It's been a flop, and it's been a flop because this government does not have the courage of its convictions and won't do what is needed. Our environment laws are so terribly broken that they allow loggers to keep on logging native forest, despite the swift parrot. They allow loggers to keep logging, despite the danger to koalas. They allow coalmines and gas mines to open and expand at a time when world scientists say that we can't keep having more.

These laws allow big companies to ride roughshod over the rights of Indigenous and First Nations communities. (Time expired)

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

As ever, I am delighted to be able to contribute to this debate today, one that reeks of hypocrisy and with all sorts of falsehoods being peddled again in this place, trying to whip up Australians into a sense of alarm and feeling like the world is about to end tomorrow. It's just madness to suggest, based on everything we have just heard, that this motion in any way should be supported today. Frankly, to put in a silo consideration of environmental impact on any development to the exclusion of economic and social impacts is bad policymaking and bad decision-making. The coalition, for one, doesn't think that's the right approach. But if you were to read this motion and follow it through to its natural conclusion and we didn't have coalmines or any other developments taking place I just wonder what sort of economic impact there would be. I wonder what would it mean for jobs, power prices and the hospitals that rely on energy to actually do what it is they need to do. I don't think that comes into the considerations of the Australian Greens when they move these motions.

It's interesting, though. We read this motion and it talks about this terrible, dastardly Albanese government:

… fuelling the climate and extinction crises by approving 3 coal mines that will destroy hundreds of hectares of threatened species habitat and lock in 1.4 billion tonnes of climate pollution out until the 2060s.

Why didn't they move such a motion when the dastardly Albanese Labor government decided to roll out 28,000 kilometres of high-tension electricity power networks across our countryside, removing hillsides of natural vegetation and depriving these poor koalas of their habitats that these powerlines will remove, or when wind farms scraped the tops off mountains when they were put in place? Oh, I know why—it's okay to do it for certain projects but not others. It's a bit like when the rather less-than-impressive Premier of Victoria said, when the environment minister rightly knocked on the head the port terminal in the Port of Hastings for the offshore wind zone, that the Labor government in Victoria will stop at nothing to get this wind farm built, even if—and this was the reason the port terminal was knocked on the head—the port is built in a Ramsar listed wetland, a fragile part of the world. But, according to that premier in Victoria, a Labor premier, it doesn't matter if we trash the planet to save the environment. What hypocrisy! There are people in this place who have responsibility for environmental impacts who have themselves overseen the destruction of the environment, which is why I use the word 'hypocrisy'. Nothing reeks of hypocrisy more than people who are willing to support a motion of this nature but turn a blind eye to their own activities. Honestly!

But, again, I'll come back to this general proposition. We've a country where the economy is slowing, where jobs are hard to secure, where the cost of living is out of control and where the cost of doing business and being able to make ends meet, frankly, is not in any way competitive with elsewhere around the world. We then have these motions which would, as I said before, taken to their natural conclusion, just drive up the cost of doing business. If it becomes more expensive to do business in this country, the jobs in those businesses will be less secure. When jobs are less secure and people don't have take-home pay that they can rely on, they struggle to pay their mortgage, they can't pay their power bills and they can't keep food on the table.

This is the problem with this sort of thinking. It's great to be paid every fortnight by the taxpayer and not worry at all about what regular Australians out there who don't have the same benefits are dealing with. That's what this motion is all about—turning a blind eye to the real-world problems that Australians, be they business owners, mums and dads or ordinary Australians, and most households are dealing with. Not once in that contribution from the Australian Greens, the movers of this motion, did we hear any reference to 'cost-of-living crisis'. Not once did we hear any reference to bringing down the cost of electricity. The reason why is that they don't care about those issues. Ideologically, they pursue these ones, with no regard for what impact they would have on a regular Australian household. So I say to most Australians: understand that, when we vote against these motions, we are doing it in your interests.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government rejects this motion from the Greens. Our government has extended three existing operations. These are not new projects. Our government will continue to consider each project on a case-by-case basis and against the safeguard mechanism. This is the emissions reduction policy that the Greens political party voted for, the policy about which Senator Hanson-Young said, 'Because of this policy, emissions will go down, not up.' Minister Plibersek was the first Australian minister in history to block a coalmine. She blocked Clive Palmer's big Queensland coalmine that could have leaked pollution into the Great Barrier Reef. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, is responsible for the safeguard mechanism.

I understand, when some in this place focus on individual projects, they miss the big picture, and the big picture here is a massive shift in our sources of energy and our economy. The sad truth is that, when the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens political party teamed up to delay climate action, it put renewables way behind. I understand why the Greens political party are sensitive. The Greens might regret teaming up with the Liberals to kill off Labor's carbon pollution reduction scheme. The Greens might regret that teaming up with the Liberals led to $80 million extra tonnes of carbon pollution. The Greens might regret teaming up with the Liberals to put renewables years behind. And, if the Greens want action on renewables, they should point out that nuclear is a diversion, a guarantee of more coal for longer.

The good news is we, over on this side, the Labor government, are working overtime to catch Australia up. Under Labor, we will see 40 per cent of our power come from renewable sources this year. The environment minister is ticking off renewable energy projects at record rates. Our government has green lit 63 renewable projects in just over two years, enough to power over seven million Australian homes. We also have record numbers of renewable energy projects in the approval pipeline. To deliver cheaper power bills and cleaner energy for Australians the best thing everyone in this place can do is back Labor's renewable energy boom.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is anyone else feeling like we've just given up on the climate? It's like everyone has run out of steam, and we don't have the energy to care anymore. Scientists have raised every flag they possibly can, warned us time and time again, and yet I feel like energy and ambition for climate action is fading. I know many people are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. I know there are conflicts around the globe causing so much heartache and pain. I know the systematic spread of disinformation by fossil fuel companies makes it exhausting to have these conversations over and over again. But please don't give up on the climate, because our climate connects all of us. It keeps us safe. This is about protecting the people and places we love and the things that make us who we are. This is about protecting ourselves, at the end of the day. Future generations will judge us on our actions today, and it is up to us, as leaders, to have the courage to make hard decisions that are right for our future.

But we're not seeing courage from the government. In fact, approving three coalmine expansions last week shows the opposite. It shows a weakness and an unwillingness to stand up to vested interests and protect young Australians from a future shaped by climate change. So I'm asking you all to please keep showing up. Keep raising the need for climate action with your elected representatives. Demand real change so we don't sleepwalk into a future that we will all regret. And I'll be right there with you, raising your voice in this chamber.

We've seen time and time again the Labor government talk about the transition, talk about the great things that they are doing when it comes to investing in renewables, in industries of the future. And, to their credit, they have a range of policies in that area, which I welcome—and I spoke earlier about the Future Made in Australia. But, at the same time, they're in here doing the bidding of Woodside, Santos and Chevron, companies with business models built upon not taking climate action. That is totally negligent in the face of what we know—and not just in the face of what we know but in the face of what we are seeing around the world, with record temperatures being set and with weather that climate scientists are looking at in horror.

I introduced a bill to this place that would legislate a duty of care to young people and future generations. The Liberals, the Nationals and the Labor Party don't like it. They don't think that it should proceed, despite the Labor Party's criticism of the former government when the latter argued that they don't have a duty of care to young people or to future generations.

If we're not here to make decisions that are good for young people, what are we here for? What are we doing if we're not in here actually taking into account how this will affect young Australians and even unborn Australians—future generations? What are our decisions doing for them? It's incredibly disappointing to hear all the rhetoric from the Labor government and yet, when it comes to meaningful reform on climate and the environment, see them doing the bare minimum and saying, 'Well, it's better than the coalition.' That bar is so low you could step over it, no jumping required. It's no longer an excuse, and we're going to see Australians say: 'We want elected representatives who will take this seriously and who will actually act in the best interests of Australians now and Australians in the future.'

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the point of an environment minister when there is nothing positive about her actions on nature? The world is burning. The globe is boiling. The alarm bells are ringing. The red alert on the climate crisis has been sounding for years now. It's clear what needs to be done: no new fossil fuels. The planet cannot handle more extraction, more burning, more destruction and more devastation. And there are no jobs on a dead planet.

But what does the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, do? She approves coalmine after coalmine, gas project after gas project, and refuses to end native forest logging. Two weeks ago, the environment minister outdid herself by approving three coalmine expansions in my home state of New South Wales—two in the Hunter Valley and one in Narrabri. In just one day, Labor gave approval to the release of 1.4 billion tonnes of climate pollution until 2060. That's three times Australia 's annual emissions over the lifetime of these coal projects, in the midst of a climate crisis.

These climate bombs will destroy hundreds of hectares of threatened species' habitat. On the very same day that the environment minister announced three new coalmine expansions, she posted more photos on social media, this time with bilbies in the Sturt National Park. This is hypocrisy to the highest level. The environment minister is so fond of photos of native animals and cuddly koalas. I'm not sure if she realises that, if she keeps approving coalmines, the only koalas left will be the stuffed variety in a museum.

The decision to approve three new coal projects in a single day is environmental and ecological vandalism. While the coalition denies the science, the Labor government refuses to do what the science tells us to do. What a complete betrayal of science, the environment and the people who voted for climate action. The Prime Minister is shaking hands with Pacific leaders one week, and his environment minister is signing away their future the next. Our Pacific neighbours have water lapping at their doors, and this government is too captured by coal and gas corporations to do anything.

The latest coal project approvals are climate-wrecking actions that will kill the planet, rob young people of their futures and create havoc for communities here and around the world. What is the point of the environment minister, who makes decisions that are the polar opposite of climate action? There is no point.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens misinformation on coal has gone on long enough. Fifty thousand Australians rely directly on the coal industry for their livelihood. Given the services to coalmines, add another 50,000 people that coal keeps afloat in mining communities—actually, it's much, much more than an additional 50,000, with a reported multiplier across Australia of six times the number of jobs directly from mines. They're communities that, if this unscientific rubbish from the Greens goes on much longer, the Greens will decimate.

Modern coal plants are free from particulates and noxious gases. The only thing that leaves their steam stacks is water vapour and carbon dioxide: nature's fertilisers. Australian and international firms now offer a process to capture those gases and convert them to productive things like fertiliser, AdBlue and ethanol—some things that the Greens will need so they can keep blasting the tops off mountains for wind turbines; that's explosives. With this new capture and conversion technology, coal uses fewer resources and has a smaller environmental footprint than any nature-dependent power the Greens can advocate.

Coal is not damaging to the environment. To those who post photos online of coalmines, alleging environmental vandalism and that the planet is boiling, please tell the whole story and please tell the truth. Coalmines are rehabilitated after use. A few moments ago I posted a link to the New Hope Group's website, showing the remediation of their coalmines that I've personally inspected. It's beautiful green countryside supporting thousands of cattle and in turn supporting rural communities. Mines remediate; that is fact. And damage from wind turbines and their access road construction is permanent; that is fact.

Under current legislation, mining must pay into a bond fund to pay for remediation. No such provision exists for the net zero madness. Once this orgy of taxpayer and electricity-user subsidies is exhausted, these solar and wind companies will sell their installations into a shell company and scoot on back to whatever foreign tax haven in which they're based. On humanitarian and environmental grounds, One Nation opposes this reckless, destructive Greens motion. Taxpayers will be left to clean up the mess. Communities will be destroyed, and it will cost electricity users and taxpayers tens of billions of dollars more to clean up after this insane green nightmare.

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

As usual, from Senator Roberts, that was a contribution completely lacking in science and completely lacking in compassion. Since Labor came to power two years ago, they have approved 26 new coal and gas projects in Australia. I want to step back and look at the context within which those 26 new coal and gas approvals from Labor, in just two years, have occurred.

For the 10,000 years prior to the Industrial Revolution, we were on a pretty constant 280 parts per million of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. In 1958, when observations started in Hawaii, we were on 315 parts per million. So from the Industrial Revolution to 1958, when we were at 315 parts per million, it's an increase of about 35 parts per million. From 1958 to 2024—we find ourselves today at over 420 parts per million. Between 1960 and 1970, the rate of increase of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere was less than one part per million per year, and the rate of increase now is over 2.5 parts per million per year.

We are failing. We are collectively failing, and billions of people are going to pay the price. The only antidote to this depressing fact is action and disruption. We have to disrupt and we have to act. If we don't disrupt, billions of people are going to pay the price.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.