Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Your proposed EPBC changes have received support from Chevron, BHP and the Minerals Council but have been widely criticised by environment NGOs like the Australian Conservation Foundation as failing to protect nature and the planet. Why has Labor prioritised the interests of big corporations over people and nature?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for her question. The truth is that our environment laws aren't working. There is a very broad consensus that that is the case, and we are working to get it right, because they're not working for business and they're not working for the environment. Approvals take too long; processes lack certainty and need to be streamlined. These are laws that were drafted in the Howard era for the Howard era and are just not fit for purpose. We believe that the laws that are before the parliament are balanced. They will help to grow the economy, but they'll also help to make sure that future generations of Australians get to enjoy the benefits of our unique environment. The author of the report that was commissioned by the former government, Graeme Samuel, has come out very clearly and said that the laws that have been put forward are consistent with Graeme Samuel's review.

I'm not quite sure that the member is being fair dinkum with the quotes that she says of the groups that are supporting this legislation, to be honest. What we need to do is to not play these games, which led to nothing being carried during the last term, of a 'no-alition'—people saying they're against it. They sat in the parliament for a long period of time and were up there in the Senate, waiting for them to be carried.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Mallee on a point of order?

Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaker, you have made a ruling in the past about the Prime Minister and others referring to those on this side of the House as the 'no-alition', and I bring that to your attention.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have dealt with this. The Prime Minister was talking about the 'no-alition' of everyone opposing it. If he were describing the coalition as the 'no-alition'—

Opposition members interjecting—

Well, there is a difference, but it would greatly help me if people just referred to everyone by their titles and political parties. We've had this discussion before.

The member for Lindsay! I don't need that sort of commentary. It's not very professional or helpful.

Order! The member for Barker is not helping either. I remind everyone—with their correct titles. But the terms the Prime Minister is using, he believes, are correct.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, Mr Speaker, they out themselves, because 'no-alition' is just a word describing people who are against everything. It doesn't refer to the coalition, necessarily, or the Greens political party. It's a self-identification from that point of order by objecting to everything. But it has expanded, because now we have people who say no to everything that the government puts forward, but they also say no to everything that each other puts forward as well. That's what we've seen from the disorder, if I can use that term, of those opposite over the last period.

This is sensible reform. Everyone in the Senate, regardless of where they come from, should look at it on its merits and should vote for it, because this is sensible. It's good for the environment, it's good for jobs, it's good for certainty, it's good for industry. What people want is quicker yeses or quicker noes—that's what this legislation is about.