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

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator McAllister. Today the Minister for the Environment and Water is hosting her Global Nature Positive Summit in Sydney. Yet in the last month alone the minister has approved three coalmines, has green-lit the destruction of precious bushland in Manyana in New South Wales and has not addressed the illegal destruction of koala habitat by a coalmining company in Queensland. In the parliament the Prime Minister is refusing to negotiate with the Greens for environment laws that actually work. Shouldn't the summit be more accurately called 'the nature negative summit'?

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

That was a long list of grievances which effectively come down to a set of questions around why the Labor Party and the Labor government won't apply the law in the way that the Greens political party assert it should be applied, which is essentially on the vibe of things. We take a very different approach. The approach taken by Minister Plibersek, as should be taken by all responsible parties of government, is to consider the matters placed before her, to consider the evidence associated with those issues and those decisions that are required and to then apply the law. That is the approach we take. It's not about considering the vibe of things and choosing projects that we like, people that we like or proponents that we like, as you would suggest and is so frequently and shamefully suggested by those sitting opposite us. It's about applying the law.

I'll tell you what: we are working incredibly hard to restore all of the damage and all of the destruction that has been wreaked upon our environment by the people opposite over the last decade. There was a wasted decade when so much could have happened and very little did, but we are working on it. We are seeking to set up our first environmental protection agency with strong powers, a new tough cop on the beat, and we would like the Greens party to support that. The Greens political party should support that legislation, because it would be good for the environment—and, incidentally, it would provide a great deal of certainty for the business community.

We have doubled funding to better look after national parks, including Kakadu and Uluru after the Liberals left them to fall apart. We are protecting Jabiluka from mining; we're adding it to the Kakadu National Park. We've protected an extra 40 million hectares of Australia's beautiful land and sea—an area bigger than Germany—and there's more to come. We've tripled the size of the Macquarie Island Marine Park. We've kept the Great Barrier Reef off the World Heritage in Danger list. That's a set of achievements, in a short time, to be proud of. (Time expired)

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

Senator Hanson-Young, first supplementary?

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

Could the minister please tell me what is nature positive about approving three new coalmines that will create 1.4 billion tonnes of emissions out to 2060 and will destroy hundreds of hectares of koala habitat? What is nature positive about your three new coalmines?

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

As I explained to the senator in my answer to her primary question, the job of government is to make decisions based on the national environmental law and on the facts. The truth is that the decisions that the senator refers to extend three existing operations. These are not new projects.

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

You promised to fix it, and then you broke your promise!

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

Minister, please resume your seat. Order, particularly Senator McKim! Minister, please continue.

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

These are not new projects. The senator essentially asks the environment minister to consider the emissions associated with these projects, and the truth is that they are considered, of course. They're considered under laws that were developed and voted for in this chamber by the Greens political party. The safeguard mechanism ensures that all new industrial facilities, including new and existing coal mines, are subject to binding limits to reduce their direct emissions to net zero by 2050. That law is in place, and it's a law that you voted for, Senator.

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

Senator Hanson-Young, second supplementary?

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

The government have broken their promise to fix Australia's environment laws. The Prime Minister has told the mining lobby he wants to weaken them even further, contradicting his environment minister. The Prime Minister says one thing in WA; the environment minister says another thing in Sydney. Why has the Prime Minister rolled his environment minister?

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order across the chamber!

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She's more popular.

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

Senator McKenzie, seriously, your choice is to sit here in silence or leave the chamber.

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

The truth is that there are a set of laws before this chamber which you could vote for. They are a set of laws that we committed to. We did say we wished to reform the EPBC—

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

You can't do both things.

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

You promised to fix them!

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

Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson-Young and Senator McKim, I don't need to hear a running commentary. You are being disrespectful to the chamber.

Senator Hanson-Young, you're not in a debate with me. Minister McAllister, please continue.

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

The government has made it very clear—and this is from the Prime Minister down—that these are laws that should be supported in their current form because there is something in this legislation for everyone. There's a new tough cop on the beat, the first-ever national EPA with strong powers and the ability to issue orders, audit and monitor businesses to make sure they're doing the right thing. Those are measures that a party that claims to seek to protect the environment should vote for. Those are things that you should vote for. But it would be important for business, too, because what business say is that they want certainty, and these laws offer that. It is a very great shame that the coalition refuses to support them.