Senator McDonald has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today. It's shown at item 16 on today's order of business:

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

The Albanese Government must take immediate action to reject Scope 3 emissions forming any part of approvals processes and restore Australia's standing as a pro-mining, pro-industry country, before our prosperity suffers any more.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

I see that it is supported. With the concurrence of the Senate, the Clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

I move:

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

The Albanese Government must take immediate action to reject Scope 3 emissions forming any part of approvals processes and restore Australia's standing as a pro-mining, pro-industry country, before our prosperity suffers any more.

I brought forward this urgency motion today because the risk to our resources sector from scope 3 emissions uncertainty is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to our nation's prosperity, to our standing and to future investment success, and it sets a dangerous precedent when we start bringing in this kind of scrutiny. We cannot keep making it harder to produce the very commodities that bring Australia its prosperity. Australia is a resource superpower. We have been for some time. We all benefit from mining, whether it be in the wonderful, well-paid jobs right across this country, whether it be through the corporate taxes or whether it be through the royalties that we receive that pay in large part for the schools, hospitals, roads and other programs that Australia is so fortunate to be able to provide.

But we are becoming one of the hardest places on the planet to invest. We are becoming uncertain. We now have sovereign risk greater than other countries that previously we would have scoffed at. We have endless approvals, regulatory uncertainty, activist litigation and now, it seems, an ideological opposition to mining. And the latest threat is the use of scope 3 emissions to obstruct Australian projects. We are effectively allowing emissions produced in other countries to determine approvals for our own projects. Now, this sets a dangerous precedent. For years, mining ministers—resource ministers—in this country had rejected any attempt to include scope 3 emissions. Ministers Canavan and Pitt had held the ground on this. Unfortunately, Minister King has folded to pressure to include scope 3 emissions in the statement of expectations for NOPSEMA, the offshore regulator for gas. Most recently, the recent High Court decision concerning the Mount Pleasant expansion included the idea that we should be considering scope 3 emissions on that approval. This highlights the legal uncertainty facing Australian miners. And, of course, activists started sharpening their pencils for a wave of legal action. We should not be held responsible for project approvals—decisions—made by sovereign countries about their own energy consumption, not to mention the complexity of calculating emissions generated in other countries that may well be offset by their own carbon emissions reduction programs like CCUS and others. Yet we seek to do that here.

Mining's contribution to the Australian public purse is between $65 billion and $75 billion every year. There are 300,000 well-paid jobs. Investors have choices. Capital has choices. Indeed, capital goes to where it is wanted and stays where it is appreciated. We are not sending that message to those investors. Labor's ideological attacks mean that we are delaying projects. That means fewer jobs, fewer investments and less revenue for hospitals, schools, roads, defence and essential services.

We have to stop appeasing international activists. We must start looking after Australians first. Limiting Australian coal is crazy. Our higher calorific, high-quality coal, mined to world's best standards—whether that be workplace health and safety or environmental—means that coal demand will not reduce. It means, simply, that it will be extracted from other jurisdictions with lower standards. The coalition's alternative is the belief that Australia should be proudly mining. It should be proudly pro-mining, pro-industry and pro-development. We will stop these scope 3 emissions being used to block or restrict Australian resources projects. We will ensure that we maintain national prosperity and sovereignty, because we believe that we should be a nation that can feed itself, fuel itself, defend itself and make choices for itself.

One of the problems with the intense fervour that is attracted by this debate around climate change and our resources industry is that it leads people to extreme positions. It leads to extreme positions from the Greens political party, and it leads to alarmist positions from the coalition. Senator McDonald is normally very thoughtful about this. But I have to disagree with the motion that she's put forward today and the consequence or the ill that she says it's designed to address. I think it fundamentally overstates what is happening or what has happened. I think the consideration of scope 3 emissions is not particularly radical and that the High Court decision, which turned on an interpretation of New South Wales law and an interpretation of a New South Wales planning regime, should not cause a rush to implement federal laws to either override or address it in some sort of universal way that can have unintended consequences. The High Court decision is the High Court decision. In fact, the entire court said that scope 3 may fall within relevant considerations. It was determined on the basis of whether that relevant or mandatory consideration had, in fact, been taken into account in the appropriate way.

As a Western Australian, I know the importance of the resources industry. It's vitally important not only to our state but to the national economy. It's the bedrock upon which much of Australia's national prosperity is built. We support the resources industry. I also agree that, in terms of the way the structure of our efforts to address climate change have currently been legislated, we don't really consider scope 3 emissions. Our primary focus is on scope 1 and scope 2 emissions. Those are what that our targets are based on. We signed up to an agreement, with Paris, that focuses on the scope 1 and 2 emissions that nations deal with themselves. It's not a scope 3 focused issue.

So I can't agree with the premise of this motion. I don't think that what has been stated as the basis for it justifies federal legislative intervention or some draconian attempt to go over the top. Nor is it obvious from the motion of Senator McDonald what the reason for the federal government overriding a decision that's been made on New South Wales law might be. On some level it's surprising given that Senator McDonald, among others in this place, espouses principles of federalism except in instances where they disagree with a particular state's course of action. There are no outstanding applications before the federal government in relation to that Mount Pleasant mine. Decisions that will be made by the federal government will be made in accordance with the EPBC Act, and the obligations to mitigate or reduce emissions are governed by the relevant mechanisms, including the safeguard mechanism that will ensure our compliance with the Paris Agreement.

This is not a moment to try and universally outlaw any consideration of scope 3 emissions, but it's also not a moment to overstate the role of those types of emissions in the decision-making of Australian lawmakers or regulators at the moment. It is important that Australia act to mitigate climate change and reduce our carbon emissions, it's important that we address this threat in a holistic way, and it's vital that Australia do this as part of global efforts.

Australian greenhouse gas emissions are something like 1.2 or 1.3 per cent of global emissions, so it's not something we can do alone, and that's why we've signed up to the Paris Agreement as part of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and then the Conference of Parties that set up a structure by which we address this issue globally. That structure essentially indicates that countries are responsible for the emissions they create in their country. The coal or gas that is burned in Australia to power homes and businesses counts towards Australia's emissions, and we need to reduce and mitigate that. Coal and gas that is extracted in Australia but sold and burned overseas to power homes and businesses in other countries will count towards those countries' emission. For instance, most of our major energy export destinations are countries that have also signed up to the Paris Agreement, so they're required to mitigate and reduce their emissions as well. That method allows for a clear understanding of the role that each nation is playing in terms of reducing emissions.

Fundamentally, it doesn't involve the use of scope 3 emissions in terms of determining how we mitigate this problem in a global and cooperative way, but that doesn't mean scope 3 emissions should be irrelevant to everything or that, if a state parliament decides that it's one consideration that a decision-maker should take into account, that's somehow invalid or requires federal intervention.

Again, we come back to a debate where we've got to address a really difficult problem, which is climate change. We've got to do it in a way that doesn't destroy national prosperity and doesn't put the burden of that transition on people who are on the downside of advantage or on working people in this country. That requires a balanced approach. That's the approach the Albanese government. The extremes on the left and right on this are not helpful in solving the core problem.

What Australia is currently dealing with here is essentially a 'uniparty' special because what we're dealing with is decisions made by Liberal governments and Labor governments in New South Wales and now a complete failure to take responsibility for these decisions or any action at a federal level. That is now severely impacting not just the state of New South Wales but the entire country.

A lot of the legislation that has resulted in this originated under the Liberal Party. There's a gentleman named Matt Kean who has his hands in this. It is so vitally important that the Australian people understand that what we are now having to deal with is the end result of what you will always get when you have governments obsessed with the net zero ideology. It creeps into everything. It creeps into all parts of our legislative agenda. The next thing you know, you have a High Court forced to rule that, because of emissions from an overseas country and a box that hasn't been checked properly, a very important coalmine in the state of New South Wales cannot be expanded now.

The consequences of this will rattle through the entire economy. There are many things the federal government could do that aren't necessarily legislation but. if they wanted to legislate, they could. They have all the power in the world to do so. The constitution allows them to do so. They could take steps, but they want to wash their hands of this, because they care more about their net zero obsession than they do about jobs—about important jobs in places like the Hunter Valley. Families are going to suffer because of these continued decisions. It is upon all of us to ensure that we turn it around. That is why I'm very proud that One Nation in New South Wales has said they will destroy all of these net zero laws.

Let me explain scope 3 emissions in plain English. Imagine you run a car yard, you sell a car and then the government tells you that you are now responsible for every kilometre the car is ever driven by whoever ends up owning it wherever they live. That is the absolute madness of what scope 3 is. It is a fact that scope 3 emissions are not a business's own emissions. They are the emissions of everybody else: the suppliers, the customers and the people who use its products—this is where it gets even madder—often on the other side of the world. In other words, making Australian businesses answer for scope 3 emissions is sheer madness. But then again, it's the Albanese government who dreamed this up.

This is how businesses have described the compliance burden in relation to scope 3 emissions. It creates significant compliance costs and administrative burdens throughout the supply trains and, lo and behold, traps small businesses in yet another regulatory nightmare. Alternatively, scope 3 carbon accounting is a form of grey tape, again basically putting another regulatory burden in particular on small business. Now, last week, as we know, it was the High Court that said the approval for the Mount Pleasant mine in the Hunter Valley was invalid not because of anything that happens at that mine—not dust, not noise, not water. It was because of, lo and behold, what happens when the coal is burned in another country. That is stark raving mad.

Now, the court was admittedly applying New South Wales state law, but who runs New South Wales? It is the Minns government. In other words, the Minns Labor government could actually change their own law tomorrow. Here in Canberra, guess what we could actually do. We could lead this through National Cabinet or, alternatively, the Albanese government could legislate itself. And yet what has it done? It has not lifted a finger. Labor in Sydney, Labor in Canberra—two Labor governments, one Hunter mine and not one of those Labor governments willing to stand up for the workers.

But here is the part that should make every Australian angry. Ninety-eight per cent of the emissions counted against that mine happen overseas. They are counted in the country that burns the coal. Then they are counted again here in Australia against an Australian mine. In reading the judgement, I have to say that the types of conditions that were argued in this case were to sell the coal only to certain countries and require power stations overseas to use particular technology before they can buy Australian coal. A planning approval in the Hunter trying to tell a power station in Asia how to run—you actually could not make that up. And federal Labor has made it worse, because, of course, this is a requirement that the Albanese government passed in 2024 that forces big Australian companies to report on emissions that are created overseas. So it is not just their own pollution; it is their customers, their suppliers—things they don't own, don't control and can't properly measure. It is guesswork and, sadly, it costs a fortune.

And we know who ends up doing the paperwork: the local trucking company, the family farm, the small engineering shop in a regional town. More forms, more consultants, more costs—the hallmarks of the Albanese government. What does it end up with? Well, the consumer at the end of the line actually pays more. We voted against this in 2024. Sadly, Labor teamed up with the Australian Greens and voted for this madness.

So what have we said? You've got to get rid of scope 3. That's what you've got to do. The coalition plan is simple. Australian projects should be judged on what happens in Australia. That's it. And what Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, could do tomorrow is scrap Labor's scope 3 reporting rules because Australian businesses, yes, can answer for their own emissions but should not answer for emissions that are created overseas. Labor has a choice: stand with the Hunter, stand with the workers or, as they'll do, stand with the Australian Greens. Australians will be watching.

():  Well, this is the coalition all over. They think that you can pass a motion and suddenly you can remove physics from the planet or that you can pass a motion and suddenly we'll have a whole extra planet and scope 3 emissions will just find their way off to some other magic planet that the coalition have got in their mind. I don't know if they've realised, but, when the coal is dug up in Australia, put on a ship and sent over to be burnt somewhere else, it's on the same planet. When the gas is exported out of the North West Shelf, I hate to tell the coalition, but it doesn't go into space. This is not a Mars export facility that we have in place. I know you love Elon. I know you love the whole project. But I've got to tell you we live in a world that is governed by really, really important things like geography, physics and reality, and it's about time you learnt that.

I too rise in response to Senator McDonald's urgency motion, where she states:

The Albanese Government must take immediate action to reject Scope 3 emissions forming any part of approvals processes and restore Australia's standing as a pro-mining, pro-industry country, before our prosperity suffers any more.

Heavens! Let's be clear: these claims misrepresent both the facts and our government's approach. The Albanese Labor government supports a strong resources sector, we support a strong industry, and Labor supports the workers whose livelihoods depend on it. We also support robust environmental protections and credible action on climate change. These objectives are not mutually exclusive. Our responsibility as a government is to strike the right balance between economic growth, environmental protection and long-term national prosperity.

There's also been considerable discussion about a recent High Court decision, and it's important to understand the facts of that one: the Australian government wasn't a party to the proceedings, it was a matter concerning an application of New South Wales legislation by the High Court, and it doesn't relate to a decision of the Commonwealth government. In fact, the Federal Court had recently considered the Australian government's role in approving resources projects, including the Mount Pleasant coalmine in New South Wales. There are no outstanding applications before the Commonwealth relating to that project.

The position of this government is straightforward. We apply the national environmental laws as enacted by this parliament through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Whether the proposal before us is a housing development, a solar farm, a transmission project or a coalmine, federal decisions are made in accordance with the law. That is what Australians expect, and that's what we will continue to do.

At the same time, there's been a lot of commentary about climate impacts and those scope 3 emissions, and those on the other side are suggesting that the government is doing nothing about the impact of major projects on climate change. That claim is simply untrue. Our government passed laws including the safeguard mechanism, which requires Australia's largest industrial emitters to cut their emissions by five per cent each year on a pathway to net zero emissions by 2050. This places a clear obligation on heavy emitting industries to reduce pollution and invest in cleaner technologies. I don't think that's unreasonable to ask, because households are doing the same in record numbers. Households are installing more batteries because of our Cheaper Home Batteries Program, and they are installing solar panels with solar rebates. It's not unreasonable that business also make those investments. We are taking meaningful action through the mechanisms that are designed to reduce emissions across the country.

On the scope 3 emissions, it's important to note that almost every country in the world has signed the Paris Agreement. That agreement is built around the responsibility of each nation to reduce the emissions produced within itself. In Australia, that is the emissions made in the production of energy, not in its use. Likewise, Australia is only responsible for the emissions made by Japanese and Korean cars, not the emissions made during their production. So there are a range of mechanisms already in place, both domestically and internationally, to manage the climate impact of developments. Of course, people across this chamber will argue that we should do more, and some will argue that we should do less. However, being in government means we must strike the right balance between protecting our environment and supporting industry, investments and jobs that Australians rely on.

That brings me to the topic of workers. The hypocrisy coming from some on the other side when it comes to mine workers is outrageous. They're happy to pose for photos in hi-vis and they're happy to stand in front of the cameras and claim to support working Australians, yet, when legislation comes before the parliament to increase wages and improve conditions, they disappear or, even worse, vote it down. Let us remember that the coalition and One Nation voted against closing the loopholes legislation, opposed measures that criminalise wage theft, opposed measures that stop workers being undercut through dodgy labour hire arrangements and opposed reforms that strengthen protections and standards in the road transport industry. I've spoken to people who are tens of thousands of dollars better off because of those laws.

Well, here we are. It's another day in this alternative reality that is the Senate in the Australian parliament. People elect us to come into this place to fight to protect them and to fight for their communities, but instead we have these corporate parties who are more interested in going in to defend coal barons and who are more interested in protecting corporate profits than they are in standing up for the Australian people, who are staring down the barrel of a terrifying El Nino and who are going to court to fight for their communities and to fight for a safe climate future.

We had a member of the Labor Party describe the Greens as the 'extreme left' for wanting a safe planet for our children and for future generations and for fighting for ecosystems that are on the brink of collapse. There is nothing extreme about that. The only extreme thing is two parties that are absolutely wedded to coal and gas and are failing to take the sort of climate leadership that the Australian public deserve and expect. We have seen the High Court make it incredibly clear that you cannot ignore emissions from Australia just because they were burned overseas. The High Court is doing its job, the communities of the Hunter Valley are doing their job and the young people are doing their job.

I had the AYCC, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, in here today, desperate to get a meeting with decision-makers about the sort of planet they're going to inherit. But they got fobbed off to staffers. Do the coal lobbyists get fobbed off to staffers? Do the gas industry? Tomorrow we're going to see the Labor Party, another corporate party, going in to bat for the gas industry by introducing their watered down, weak gas reservation policy. It's a policy that they initially said would be '20 per cent' but that has now been rewritten by the gas industry to 'up to 20 per cent', which could mean a big fat zero. Well, we say enough of this corporate protection racket these corporate parties are running and more action for climate and for the communities who voted us in to keep them safe.

This is a debate about uncertainty—uncertainty in the context of scope 3 emissions. Legal uncertainty leads to investment uncertainty. Investment uncertainty delays mining and resource projects. Delayed mining and resource projects mean fewer jobs, less regional investment and less revenue to governments. The decision around scope 3 emissions requires more certainty, not less, and this is particularly important for a state like Western Australia.

This afternoon's debate is not abstract and just about accounting conventions. It's about jobs, investment, exports and the economic future of a state like Western Australia. The High Court's decision on the Mount Pleasant coalmine should ring alarm bells across every resources boardroom in Western Australia. Why? It's because Labor governments, federal and state, cannot be trusted. The court found the New South Wales planning authority was required to consider conditions to minimise greenhouse gas emissions, including scope 3 emissions. That means emissions generated not at the mine, not necessarily in Australia and not by the company but potentially thousands of kilometres away, where an exported commodity is ultimately used. That principle should be deeply concerning, which is why it has raised alarm across this country, and especially concerning to a state like Western Australia.

As has been said by me in this place before, Western Australia is the engine room of the Australian economy. More than 136,000 full-time-equivalent jobs are directly supported by mining, with another 11,000 people directly employed in oil and gas extraction. Mining and petroleum investment reached $34 billion last year alone, and there are $55 billion worth of projects committed to or under construction, with another $121 billion further down the investment pipeline. The sector also delivered $10.6 billion in royalties and related revenues. That means jobs, business and revenue funding for our hospitals, schools, roads and essential services. But those investment decisions depend on confidence—confidence that projects can be proposed, assessed and approved under clear and predictable rules. The Mount Pleasant decision puts that certainty at risk.

Consider Western Australian iron ore, for example. If iron ore mined in the Pilbara is exported to China and processed into steel, should a Western Australian miner be responsible for the emissions generated by a Chinese steel mill? Of course not. Australia exports around 900 million tonnes of iron ore each year. Processing that overseas generates more than 1.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, around three times Australia's entire annual domestic emissions. Are we seriously suggesting Australian miners should dictate how their customers operate steel mills in China, or that Australian LNG producers should be responsible for decisions made inside power stations in Japan or South Korea? It is neither practical nor consistent with the international emissions framework. If Australian coal is burned in India, India accounts for the emissions.

Scope 3 requirements risk making Australian businesses answerable for emissions already accounted for by another sovereign nation. Worse, it does nothing to address global demand. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy in Western Australia, in response to this decision, has warned that shutting down Australian projects will not make global demand disappear; investment will simply move elsewhere—potentially, to countries with weaker environmental protections, lower workplace standards and poorer safety records. The emissions remain. Australian jobs, investment, royalties and taxes disappear with those investments. That is environmental policy defeating itself.

WA has particular reason to be concerned. Petroleum exploration expenditure has already fallen to its lowest level in 30 years. Major projects, such as Browse, require billions of dollars of patient, long-term capital. Investors need certainty, not the prospect that an approval granted today can face years of litigation tomorrow over emissions generated by someone else in another country and beyond the project operator's control. People are alarmed, because this has imported investment uncertainty and Labor can't be trusted with these matters.

The question is the urgency motion as moved by Senator McDonald be agreed to.