Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. According to reports in today's Australian paper, Prime Minister Albanese is planning to tell the Australian Industry Group that he strongly values the mining sector in Australia, despite the government spending the last two years attacking it from all sides. Given the Prime Minister is now wanting to appear pro-mining, will he now promise Australians that he will permanently abandon the government's so-called nature positive laws and that they will not be reintroduced after the election should your government be returned?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This legislation will not be reintroduced. I think you would have seen the Prime Minister's views on that. We are committed, obviously, to law reform, which I would point out was the in Samuel review initiated by the former Liberal government, because business and environment groups agree that the current act is outdated and needs reform. Unfortunately, your side of politics and other parts of this chamber are very obstructionist. What we do want is to see greater consensus across business, NGOs and states to ensure that we can deliver laws which deliver faster project approvals and better environmental protection, and that is certainly the view of the government and the approach we will be taking.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the Prime Minister wants to appear pro mining, will he now commit to reversing the environmental minister's decision on the McPhillamys gold mine in New South Wales, which was a project endorsed by local community, the resources sector, the Australian Workers' Union and the New South Wales Labor government?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, my recollection is that that is a decision under the law and a decision which is appropriately a decision of Minister Plibersek as the responsible minister, who has certain statutory powers. I think I and others have responded to that. I'm advised, in fact, that the company has commenced legal proceedings in the Federal Court, so obviously I'm not in a position to comment any further. I would say we have been very clear about our support for the mining industry, which employs many hundreds of thousands of Australians, and the minister has approved some 40 mining projects and has doubled the rate of on-time approvals since coming to government.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that it remains your government's ability to reverse the refusal of that mine and that, even if the nature positive laws do not come back in the same form, there is a string of similar laws coming back under a different guise, how can the Prime Minister and your government plan for the AIG tonight that it will be pro mining and get Australian resources back on track?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect, that was quite a confused question. What I'd invite the senator to do is, therefore, when we are providing production tax credits for the mining sector, which will particularly but not only benefit WA—and I assume that vote will come up later today—maybe the test for you, Senator, if you were pro-mining, would be for you to cross the floor and actually vote with us for production tax credits for the mining sector. And if you don't, you and your colleagues will be demonstrated for what you are. You're prepared to play politics but not actually to put your money where your mouth is.