Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) | Hansard source

I, too, wish to rise briefly to talk on the ministerial statement on critical minerals. The key thing here, following on from my friend and colleague Senator Scarr, is that this government is saying one thing but then doing another. It's doing one thing in terms of its legislative performance and it's doing another in terms of the legislative performance of state Labor governments. It's saying on the one hand that we want to see more gas developed but then it is changing the law to make gas development less likely. On the one hand, it is saying we need to see these critical minerals because they will drive things like our development of lower emissions energy systems, such as battery technology, solar technology, wind technology, and that these minerals are critical for that yet, at the same time, we are seeing a regulatory environment that is getting worse and worse for minerals development in this country.

In my own home state of Western Australia, regardless of what you think about the law itself, the Cultural Heritage Act, in its implementation, there is no doubt it has been an absolute disaster. It's been an absolute disaster. It has put a stop to everything from minerals development to literally the planting of trees by greening groups. When you have legislative overreach of that sort then you will have a freeze on investment in things like critical minerals.

The federal Labor government also has a cultural heritage bill somewhere. We don't know where. We don't know what stage it is up to. We don't know any details. We are told it won't override the state law, though I'm not sure how the minister can say that when the state law has been put back on the drawing board, and the Constitution clearly states that federal legislation overrides state law where they conflict. So I do not see how the federal minister can say that the federal law, when it comes to the light of day, when we see a draft of it, will not override the state law.

This government can't have it both ways. It can't say one thing to the left and then another to the right and for both those things to be true because they simply cannot be.

Question agreed to.