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

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator McAllister. The ABC's Landline program has reported that the Victorian Labor government is considering the compulsory acquisition of about 3,000 hectares of farming land around Horsham by a Chinese mining company to extract mineral sands. Families have been farming much of this land for generations, while other mineral sands mining operations in the region have left a legacy of damaged soils and contaminated water sources. There are also concerns about impacts on water quality in the Murray-Darling Basin. Minister, why hasn't this project come under review according to the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conversation Act.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call you, Senator McAllister: I heard the general comment you made, Senator Ruston. It was unparliamentary, and I ask that you withdraw it.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Minister McAllister.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Emergency Management) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, I am not aware of the particulars of the project that you reference, but I can say this about the way that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act works. Essentially, there is a list of things that, if engaged, causes a matter to be referred to the Australian government for consideration. Otherwise, for the most part, decision making about environmental impacts is a matter for the states and territories. So many of the things that are raised—they are often raised in estimates by members of the crossbench, in particular—go to issues that are properly the area of the states and territories, and the Commonwealth doesn't seek to take over those responsibilities.

The EPBC Act covers nine protected matters. If they are engaged to a significant degree, it can be grounds for the Commonwealth to consider those matters. Those matters are world heritage areas; national heritage places; wetlands of international importance that are listed under the Ramsar convention; listed threatened species and ecological communities; listed migratory species protected under international agreements—we are talking about birds; Commonwealth marine areas; the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; anything to do with nuclear—uranium mines or other nuclear actions; and water resources that relate to coal-seam gas development and large coalmining development. You listed a range of factors that you consider are relevant in relation to this project. I'm not in a position to comment on whether or not they do engage Commonwealth legislation. More generally, I would say to you that in many instances the kinds of questions that you're asking are usually the responsibility of the states and territories.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, first supplementary?

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

Thank you for your list. It's a shame there isn't anything about prime agricultural land on it. WIM Resource, the Chinese owned mining company in question, plans to extract up to 490 tonnes of ore exclusively for China. This includes rare-earth minerals and other valuable minerals including rutile and zircon. Minister, why is the Albanese government and the Allan Labor Victorian government allowing a Chinese mining company to extract these precious materials for their country instead of engaging an Australian mining company to extract them for our country? (Time expired)

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Emergency Management) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm asked about a project that is reported in the media, according to the senator, in Victoria. I've already indicated to the senator that I don't have information about that particular project. I'd also make the point that she asks me this question in my capacity as the minister representing the minister for the environment. But the question that is now directed to me goes, I think, to much broader questions around investment in Australia and the approach we take to the development of mineral resources. Those aren't within the portfolio area that I represent. I have given Senator Hanson the information that I do have about the way that the environment laws would apply to a project of this kind, but, as I've already indicated, I really am not in a position to provide specific information about this project. It is simply not something that I am briefed on.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, second supplementary?

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

I can understand that, but I have to say that there are families living on this land who have worked the land for over 100 years, so I think that has to lot to do with it. The Wimmera region around Horsham produces up to $2 billion worth of high-quality grains every year. You say you don't have anything to do with it, but why did the Albanese government scrap the goldmine over a mythical insect and is holding up a $29 billion gas project for a poisonous sea snake? When will Australia's world-class farmers be given the same protections against mining as mythical and poisonous animals?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Emergency Management) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The senator asks, I think, why prime agricultural land is not presently considered a matter of national significance. I think the answer is: because these are the laws that have been in place for many decades now, arising from their passage during the Howard government era. The EPBC Act lists nine specific matters that the Commonwealth takes an interest in. It is the case that states and territories do, as I understand it, in some circumstances, consider land use planning questions, including the significance of land for agricultural purposes. That's not actually a feature of the national environment law. Obviously, should senators consider that it should be a feature, it is open for you to bring forward reforms of that kind in your capacity as senators.