Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

What an extraordinary contribution from a government member. You would think that he was in no position to actually make a decision. This is a decision of this government. The New South Wales government have come out with a good position on PEP-11. Those opposite, including Keith Pitt, the minister, are in a position to rule this out today, to make a decision today, which would be not as good as making a decision yesterday, not nearly as good as making a decision last month and nowhere near as good as making a decision last year, but at least it would be a decision.

The fact is that I've travelled up with the member for Dobell. We stood at Terrigal and made it very clear that we were opposed to PEP-11. That was a process that went through our processes of shadow cabinet and through our caucus unanimously because this is a bad proposal. It is no wonder that the member for Warringah now sits on the crossbench rather than as a Liberal Party member; the truth is that the people of the northern beaches have been abandoned by this government. The people of the Central Coast have been abandoned by this government. The people of Newcastle and the Hunter have been abandoned by this government. The people of Sydney around the Kingsford Smith and, indeed, Wentworth electorates have been abandoned by this government as well.

Keith Pitt, of course, has given various interviews where he has said that there is a whole lot of investment, that investment comes from shareholders, and therefore we need to take that into account. The PEP-11 proposal is for offshore drilling off some of the most pristine beaches in the most densely populated communities of our nation. The idea that you would have oil drilling off those beaches, be it Manly, Maroubra, Bondi, Terrigal, Avoca or Newcastle's Merewether Beach, is an extraordinary proposition. This is a complete no-brainer. But from a government led by a man whose attitude towards the environment is one of ridiculing renewable energy, ridiculing electric vehicles—ridiculing anything to do with protecting the pristine natural environment in this country by taking action on climate change and other environmental issues—it's not surprising. It's not surprising that we have in the position of Minister for Resources and Water a man who never sees anything he doesn't want to dig up. So, rather than having a strong environmental position to balance up the need for extraction of resources against protection of our natural environment, what we have from this government is a let-it-rip approach that has complete disregard for these issues.

It's interesting that the member for Mackellar, in his rather bizarre contribution here today, spoken as if he really had no influence over the government, spoke about his lobbying of Minister Pitt. He didn't speak about his lobbying of the Minister for the Environment—no, not a word. The environment minister just sits there, does nothing, doesn't take any action, doesn't take environmental protection seriously at all. It's no wonder that the member for Mackellar is under siege from local community organisations in his own electorate, because he's shown himself to be impotent. He was okay at taking action to remove the former member for Mackellar from this parliament—and I say to the member for Mackellar that I congratulate him on that effort—but since he arrived here he hasn't troubled the scorers.

We all have responsibility for our electorates. There was a proposal a few years ago for coal seam gas drilling in St Peters, in my electorate—a rather interesting proposition that was put forward!—and I joined with the community in opposing that proposal because it simply wasn't appropriate. There is a role for resources extraction in this country, but let me just say this as well: the resources sector is undermined as a whole by proposals like this. This damages the resource sector's reputation. That is why legitimate resource businesses are horrified by this proposal, because they all get tarred with this brush. The resources sector is very important for employment.

We have a proposition before this parliament for the suspension of standing orders, which the member for Mackellar has said he's going to vote against. Let's be clear about what he's voting against if he votes against this proposition: he's voting against the member for Warringah having a debate on her bill. He's not voting against the bill; he's voting against the bill being debated and determined by this parliament.

This is a parliament that used to be able to debate issues. We used to have suspensions of standing orders. Leave used to be granted to have discussion. I've sat in this parliament, under the Howard government as well as under the Rudd government and under the Gillard government, and had debates about private members' bills. I've moved private members' bills in this parliament. We have had debates about significant issues, both here and in the Federation Chamber, and had those issues determined by the parliament. That's called democracy. The way this government approaches these issues is just to shut down debate. It's only because this motion's been moved by an independent member that I've been able to contribute to this debate, which is why I didn't want to miss the opportunity to make a contribution consistent with my stance on this issue.

To be very clear: this is a suspension of standing orders to allow the member for Warringah to have a debate about an issue which, quite clearly, is of interest to a range of members in this House, not least of which are the member for Shortland, the member for Dobell, the member for Newcastle and the member for Kingsford Smith, as well as the member for Mackellar, the member for Robertson, the member for Melbourne and the member for Warringah. It seems to me to be quite extraordinary that you would not then have a debate allowed, which is why this suspension should just go through on the voices if those opposite are fair dinkum at all. But, if the member for Mackellar and the member for North Sydney and the member for Robertson vote against this motion, let me tell you, it won't just be the member for Warringah telling her constituents about it; it will be others as well.

This PEP-11 project should be consigned to the dustbin of history, where it belongs. Here we have a government that has been in office until towards the end of its third term. They're in pre-caretaker mode already, struggling as they are to get to 2022 as they fall apart, with chaos on the opposite over climate change. They've got a conference in 10 days time, and they don't have a government position, as of today, on net zero by 2050. It is just extraordinary. They don't have a position on this either, and this is not a big call. This is a complete no-brainer. Minister Pitt could make a decision immediately which would mean that the member for Warringah wouldn't have to proceed with her bill, and that's the preferred action. The minister should just do his job and say no to this proposal.

See this speech in context