Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The Environment Minister continues to approve new coal and gas projects without having to consider the climate damage they will create. In the face of the climate and biodiversity crises, national environment laws must be urgently fixed to ensure the Environment Minister cannot ignore climate pollution when giving environment approvals."

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

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

At the request of Senator McKim, I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The Environment Minister continues to approve new coal and gas projects without having to consider the climate damage they will create. In the face of the climate and biodiversity crises, national environment laws must be urgently fixed to ensure the Environment Minister cannot ignore climate pollution when giving environment approvals.

I rise to speak to this very important matter, and I would like to ensure that, as we debate this issue today, people understand the real urgency of this matter. We have environment laws in this country that allow for the environment minister, when giving approval for new projects—whether it's a mine or a new gas well—to not even consider the climate impacts of such projects. We live in an era of climate crisis and biodiversity crisis. We are edging quickly this year to a summer that is going to be absolutely horrible—hotter, drier and more extreme. And yet we have laws in this country that do not even consider how those climate fires and the climate crisis are being made worse by the expansion of fossil fuels.

Every new coal or gas project risks the future of our Murray-Darling Basin, the food bowl of our nation. Every new coal or gas project puts our reef at risk. Every new coal or gas project risks the future of our children. Every new coal or gas project puts Australia's risk of more frequent, more devastating and more dreadful bushfires nearer and nearer in front of us. Every new coal or gas project fuels extinction. Australia was the first country to record mammal extinction as a result of climate change, and we can't afford any more. Australia was one of the first countries to really experience the extreme weather events of the bushfires and of the floods this millennia. And we know that those extreme weather events are made worse and worse by the climate crisis.

Every time a new coalmine or a new gas mine is opened up or expanded, it is making our climate crisis worse. This year the environment minister, whose job it is to protect the environment, has given the stamp of approval to not just one but two, three, four, at least five fossil fuel projects that are fuelling the climate crisis and will make this summer's bushfires worse—just this year. And the reason is that we have environment laws that ignore the climate damage and climate risk of pollution from coal and gas.

We urgently need to fix this. We cannot rely on the goodwill of government to deny approval to these projects; we've seen that. We know that the fossil fuel lobby in this country is too strong, is still calling the shots and is still applying pressure to members of parliament and government. In 2023, as we face an even worsening climate, it is time to fix these laws and make the minister do her job.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset I want to recommit the coalition's view that, when it comes to environmental laws, we need to have balance. We need to balance economic needs against environmental needs and make sure we have an economy that's functioning while we have an environment that sustains life. That is paramount in this debate, and it sometimes gets lost. We shouldn't have it too far one way or too far the other way.

This motion doesn't achieve balance. There is inflammatory language, and at the end of the day, as evidenced by what we've just heard and, indeed, from some of the remarks earlier in the day, it is leading us to a point that is really just about saying no to these projects. They'll say it's about assessments but they will say it is all about 'no' at the end of it: 'We just don't want these projects to happen.' That doesn't take account—

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that's right! We're in a crisis!

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rice!

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rice, who has been interjecting—and I know you are about to call her up, Acting Deputy President Polley—says, 'Yes, that's right.' But that attitude and argument does not take account of the fact that we as a society require energy to sustain jobs, to live, to run hospitals, to keep the lights on. That is the terrible approach that's been taken by the Australian Greens, which does not achieve balance. That is why we won't be supporting a political motion of this nature.

Having said all that, and despite the fact that such an approach would be bad for Australia in so many ways right across the country—particularly in the regions, I might add—there is a lot more at play here which is cause for concern in relation to our environmental laws. It was quite clear today; in listening to an answer that was given to a question asked by Senator Hanson-Young about reforms—and this very issue, as a matter of fact—it was apparent to me that the government is considering going down this pathway or a version of what's being proposed. Of course, the Greens would like to have it happen tomorrow. The government is working through its protracted, delayed and blown-out process. But, at the end of the day, it looks very much like another deal has been done between Labor and the Greens. We will see the detail of that over time.

I want to talk more broadly about the issue we face with environmental laws in this country. Senator Hanson-Young makes some very valid points around the fact that the laws aren't fit for purpose. They need reform; the Samuel review said so and the minister said so. I will never forget that Press Club address that Minister Plibersek gave, talking about the urgent need to act on environmental law reform, to protect our environment, to stop extinctions, to make sure the laws are fit for purpose, to provide certainty to business, the community and the environmental movement and to have streamlined processes. It was all very urgent.

All of that seems to have just been words, because, despite those calls for urgent action and a commitment by the minister that things would get cracking—'we don't have a day to waste'—despite the commitment to zero new extinctions, despite the commitment to 30 per cent of land being preserved for conservation purposes by 2030 and despite all of the other commitments that have been made, we are still nowhere near conclusion on reform of environmental laws. Again, Senator Hanson-Young's good work revealed that there's at least a 12-month delay in the government's efforts to reform these laws. So this is far from a need for urgent action and the government firing on all cylinders to reform this area of work. We are now around two years behind schedule on these reforms. They were announced and they were going to happen—we'd be fixing everything, we'd be stopping extinctions and we'd have a clearer pathway for businesses to seek approvals to do anything—but now that's another two years off.

That's why I look at this motion, which is kind of odd given there is a position in this chamber to not deal with the nature repair market legislation before we see the full suite of environmental law reforms in this country. That's a wise course of action, because we very much have a scrambled egg when it comes to the EPBC Act, which we are seeking to reform, yet the government is trying to stack up schemes and programs that will no doubt be out of date by the time these laws have passed because the basic laws we need to reform in this place will change. The motion here today, and the legislation that I understand has just been introduced, is another version of that too.

We're tinkering around the edges rather than the government getting on and doing what they promised they would do as a matter of urgency, which is reforming national environmental laws. The changes need to happen at the base level. We need to get the basics right. The environmental laws need to happen. I have not heard from the government about what they intend to do. Others have and some in the community have, but the opposition hasn't. (Time expired)

Linda White (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Contrary to the assertions made by the Greens Party in the chamber today, the federal Labor government is committed to bringing down emissions and protecting our natural environment. The evidence of this commitment exists in the statute books, the pieces of legislation made law often with the support of the Greens, who have brought this motion to the Senate today. It's true that we worked with the Greens to implement a climate target to legislate a net zero commitment and to legislate a climate safeguard mechanism.

But, as is usual when it comes to motions moved by the Greens, the bigger picture of what the government has achieved and the evidence of the government's commitment to climate reform and environmental protection has been ignored. For example, it's still true that any decision taken by the climate and energy minister when considering coal and gas projects must comply with emissions targets and our net zero commitment. Our climate safeguard laws were introduced to ensure that any new projects emitting over 100,000 tonnes of emissions must cut those emissions by up to 4.9 per cent per year or offset those emissions. This also applies to the 215 largest polluting sites in Australia and acts as a five-year rolling cap.

The government's whole environmental and energy transition framework is concentrated on locating an appropriate balance, which requires the climate minister to assess whether new fossil fuel developments are consistent with the goal of bringing down industrial emissions. That was the point of the safeguard mechanism that we developed with the Greens and the Independents. In that vein, it is clear to everyone that our transition to net zero emissions and renewable energy is a massive job. Transitioning smoothly towards meeting our targets is an economic challenge, as well as an environmental one. Getting to 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030 is still the government's commitment, and that shows Labor is serious about addressing climate change.

But, of course, the necessary transition can't happen overnight. Nevertheless, we have ramped up approval of renewable projects, which have almost doubled, with 104 projects in the pipeline to date. In fact, just this week, the government approved the biggest battery project in Asia, and a few weeks ago a massive new solar farm at Smoky Creek in Queensland was given the green light, which will produce enough power for around 200,000 households, with a million megawatts of more power entering the grid. These are just two of 37 renewable energy projects that have been approved since Labor came to office and acted quickly to renew the Commonwealth's focus on our renewable energy transition. In relation to the transition, I acknowledge that in the recent past things haven't moved as quickly as some would hope, but the sad fact is that we have had more than a decade of political fighting that has cost us much in our energy transition and action on climate change. Because of the infighting in the coalition and the single-mindedness of the Greens, emissions have been higher for longer and the delivery of certainty for renewable energy projects looking to invest in upscaling clean energy was set back.

In their time in government, the coalition had 22 failed energy policies, which got us nowhere. They harboured in their party, and still do harbour, climate denialists who would happily see all our good work on climate change undermined and reversed. Of course, how could we forget the greatest betrayal of all when it came to the climate future of Australians, when the Greens and the coalition teamed up to sink Labor's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme when we were last in government? It was a tragic moment for our nation when the odd bedfellows of the coalition and the Greens got together to sink a good policy which by now would have prevented more than 80 million tonnes of emissions being released into the atmosphere.

After this decade of lost policy and missed opportunities, Australians rightly had had a gutful and chose to elect a Labor government in 2022. We acted almost immediately to implement our ambitious climate agenda, including capping emissions, legislating net zero and reshaping the tone of the debate around climate policy in Australia to acknowledge that the economic challenges of transitioning our country towards renewable energy were something we could no longer shy away from. It is in that spirit that the government will continue to act, striking the balance and building the framework for a clean energy future where fossil fuel developments are held up to the light and measured against our legislated targets and renewable energy commitments. The agenda of renewable energy development and ending the climate wars will rightly be at the forefront of the government's agenda now and in the future.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Three years ago, Professor Graeme Samuel was commissioned by the previous government to do a report on our national environmental laws. It was scathing. They are not working and need to be updated. He found:

The impact of climate change on the environment will exacerbate pressures and contribute to further decline. In its current state, the environment is not sufficiently resilient to withstand these threats. The current environmental trajectory is unsustainable.

What we're seeing in Australia is state capture by the fossil fuel companies and a negligent failure to act by both sides of politics. We know too much now to continue down this path. We have Labor ministers, Labor senators, telling us about the projects they are approving when it comes to renewables, and at the same time they're ramping up our fossil fuel exports. We know how urgent this is. It is now negligence. We are throwing our future under the bus for short-term profits.

During my last year in high school, 2005, the now Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, introduced his own private member's bill to insert a climate trigger into our environmental laws. That was 2005. Here we are in 2023 and we've got a Labor government that has the numbers to do that today but won't do it. You have to ask yourself why. Why are we seeing this inaction from Labor? We are disrespecting our climate scientists. We have scientists, like Dr Joelle Gergis, who have put their life into raising the alarm, into telling us how bad it is. She was the lead scientist on the sixth IPCC report. It was the last one, the last warning before the window of 1.5 degrees to two degrees closes, yet we're seeing inaction from Labor. We must do better. (Time expired)

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

People might not realise it, but there is no requirement to even think about the impact on the climate when the environment minister has to decide whether to approve or refuse new coal, oil or gas projects. It sounds insane, doesn't it? That's what our environmental laws, written in 1999, when then Prime Minister John Howard was in charge, say. Twenty-three years ago it was decided—and it hasn't been changed since—that the environment minister didn't have to think about the climate when they were ticking off on anything, including coal and gas mines. It is utterly ridiculous.

I say this as a former environmental lawyer. I was an environmental lawyer before coming to this place, and I've been involved in several court cases that have tried to fix this. I want to pay tribute to all of the other community members and environment groups who have continued to challenge this patently ridiculous notion through the courts and have, sadly, been largely unsuccessful. Just last week, we saw the environment minister stand not with the community or the environment but with the coalmining companies and argue against the fact that she should think about the climate when she ticks off on yet more coalmines.

We've seen five new coalmines approved so far under this new Labor government, who promised to be different to the last government. Many of these new coalmines are in my home state of Queensland and will turbocharge those bushfires that have already started. I'm getting SES warnings every day and it strikes fear into my heart, as I'm sure it strikes fear into anybody's heart who has gone through the bushfires or the floods—any of these turbocharged natural disasters—that we've seen in the last few years. We've got the IPCC, the International Energy Agency, our Pacific neighbours and everybody saying, 'No new coal, oil and gas.' We can't keep warming to 1.5 degrees. We are threatening the livelihood and the very existence of not only human settlements but also our precious biodiversity.

Nature is meant to have an ally in the environment minister. But, I'm sorry; we do not have that in our current environment minister. When she stands with coalmining companies rather than with nature, it's just heartbreaking. So do better. We need a climate trigger in our environmental laws. We needed one 23 years ago. We definitely need one now. Usually, it's something that says you've got to consider an impact on something that's internationally or nationally significant. We think the climate trigger should say, 'You just can't approve new coal, oil and gas.' But we're open to the conversation.

At the moment, the environment minister is legally allowed to ignore the impacts on the climate. What they're not ignoring are the political donations made by the fossil fuel companies that flood into the coffers of both of the large parties in this place. We need to stop approving new coal and gas mines and we need these two parties to stop taking the money from the coal, oil and gas companies.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ROBERTS () (): One Nation joins Senator McKim in mourning the current environmental damage as a casualty of destructive net zero climate policy. We do, though, disagree on who's responsible. As we speak today, heavy machinery using diesel engines are still crushing the rock that was bulldozed and blasted off the top of mountains in the Atherton Tablelands to make way for wind turbines. A year after Kaban, when turbines turned pristine Australian landscape into an industrial landscape, the crushers are still going. There was that much destruction. That act of environmental vandalism disturbed arsenic in the rock, released into the environment with an unknown cost to our flora and fauna and to humans.

Koala habitat has been taken. While the Greens talk frequently about saving the koalas, they pick and choose which koalas they care about. The Morrison government refused the Lotus Creek wind installation because of the amount of koala habitat the industrial landscape would remove. The Albanese Labor government reversed the decision and approved the creation of another industrial landscape holding 55 turbines. Native habitat protecting biodiversity included the masked owl, the magnificent broodfrog, the sarus crane, the red goshawk, the northern greater glider and the spectacled flying fox—and the devastation is just starting. Mount Fox will have 193 of these machines—these destructive wind turbines; Chalumbin, 94; Windy Hill, 20; High Road, 20; and Mount Emerald, 37. This is in just 300 kilometres of pristine North Queensland mountain range.

At the end of mining, a mine can be filled in and remediated. Chopping the top off beautiful mountains and cutting 70-metre-wide roads into a mountainside to bring in the wind turbines on diesel powered trucks is permanent environmental vandalism.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is so much to be despairing about in the world at the moment. There are thousands dead in Israel and Palestine. We have a humanitarian catastrophe in Palestine, with war crimes being committed and complete disregard for international law. We have the rise of racism across the world. Very sadly, we had the defeat over the weekend of a very moderate proposal for a First Nations Voice to Parliament. We've got authoritarian, oppressive regimes rising around the world. We have the climate crisis. It's not hyperbole to say that the climate crisis is an existential threat to our wellbeing, to the lives of billions and billions of humans on this planet and to our food supplies. In so many of these huge things to despair about, these existential threats to the wellbeing of billions of people on the planet, Australia only plays a pretty small role. There is not much we can do other than advocate and use our influence on the global stage. But on the climate crisis, we are powerful. We can act, and act we must.

If you are in any doubt about what we are facing, I do recommend reading the book I'm currently reading—Humanity's Moment by IPCC lead author, Joelle Gergis. It leaves you in no doubt at all just how freaking serious what we are facing is. I remind people, as I have in so many speeches in this place, that with four degrees of global heating, which the world is currently on track for, the climate of our wheat-growing areas here in Australia will become like the climate of the central deserts. We will not be able to grow our food. I remind people that with four degrees of global heating, billions of people who currently live in the tropics will not be able to live in the tropics; they will die. The land that they are living on will be underwater. They will not be able to grow food. They will not be able to survive the extreme heat. Their water supplies will be completely cactus, as will the lives of so many other species that we share this planet with, from the penguins currently affected by the melting sea ice and the unprecedented warm ocean temperatures to all the sea creatures that depend on the Great Barrier Reef. No-one looking clear eyed is going to say that the Great Barrier Reef is going to be in very good shape after the next two summers. The animals that live in our incredible tall wet forests across the country are going to be under threat of massive bushfires that we have never seen before over the next two summers and then getting worse as the temperatures get hotter and hotter.

Balance doesn't cut it. Balance means catastrophe. We have to act. We can and we must act. Australia is the largest exporter of gas in the world. We are the second-largest exporter of coal. We have the power to stop approving and to stop opening up new coal and gas mines. We have the power to stop exporting what is causing the climate crisis. We have to do that if we're going to be playing our role in tackling the climate crisis. We have the power to listen to the climate scientists, to treat the crisis as an emergency. We have the power to shift our energy supplies here to 100 per cent renewable energy and to slash our overall carbon emissions. And we have the power to change our environment laws so that the minister has to take account of the climate crisis in considering whether or not to approve projects.

For goodness sake, the very minimum that we must do as Australians is insert a climate trigger into our environment laws, absolutely. But you hear both sides saying it is too much. I tell people if they will not listen that there is only one thing we can do. We have to chuck them out, because we know what is at stake. If people are concerned about climate then don't vote for them, chuck them out, let the consequences be felt at elections to come, because we know there are things that we can do. The Greens are committed to taking action to build a safer climate, to restore a safe climate for all of humanity. I encourage people to work with us so we can do our best to make it happen.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

or ALLMAN-PAYNE () (): It is unconscionable for an environment minister to continue to approve new coal and gas projects. Each approval makes the climate and biodiversity crisis worse and it means the destruction of our environment. I recently accepted an invitation to travel to Poruma Island to meet with members of the Torres Strait 8 and young community leaders from Zenadh Kes, who are living the consequences of these decisions. It was a real honour and privilege to spend a day with such an outstanding group of young people who, together with their elders, are working together to protect their island home.

After joining the group for a morning of workshops and important conversations, we began the afternoon sessions with a tour of the island, led by Councillor Pearson, to see firsthand how the ever-increasing erosion caused by sea level rise is bringing the ocean right up to their front doors. Councillor Pearson explained how the amount of land lost to erosion is increasing each year, and he showed us the walls of sandbags that are the only thing standing between people's homes, which are now perilously close to the water's edge, and the rising seas. I also listened to distressing firsthand accounts of islanders having to collect their ancestors' bones from the beach, as their burial grounds are repeatedly inundated by seawater, and I listened to their pleas for no new coal and gas and for government investment in seawalls.

If the Labor government are serious about tackling the climate and biodiversity crisis then, instead of fighting tooth and nail to approve new coal and gas projects, they must consider the damage that will inevitably flow from each approval of a new coal or gas mine, and they must fix our environment laws so the minister cannot ignore the impacts of climate pollution.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You couldn't make this stuff up. We have an environment minister, Minister Plibersek, approving coalmine after coalmine after coalmine and never having to check on the climate change implications of that. How could you possibly come up with laws that look at environmental assessment and, when it comes to coalmines, not assess the climate impact of approving a coalmine? I'll tell you how you do that: you do that because the Labor Party and the coalition joined together to gut our environment laws and ignore the impact of climate.

Just since coming into office, Minister Plibersek has already approved four new or expanded coalmines. We're talking about 55 million tonnes of additional coal. That's about 150 million tonnes of CO2, all on Minister Plibersek's watch, actually approved by her, and not once did the minister have to consider climate impacts when doing that. That is absurd, and it's actually dangerous to our national security. It's dangerous to our regional security, as we've heard from speaker after speaker.

But what's worse is that there are another 29 of these projects lined up, waiting for Minister Plibersek to sign off—another 29 new or expanded coalmines—and under the current laws the minister will never have to consider the climate impacts. We're talking about more than 5,000 million tonnes of coal and about 12 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. Could you imagine having environment laws that see Minister Plibersek signing off on 29 new coalmines, with billions of tonnes of carbon emissions, and never considering climate? The only way that happens is that Labor and the coalition are in the pocket of the fossil fuel industries and they want to burn our planet down.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.