Environment

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:12): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. It's been reported by multiple media outlets this week that the government's quick-fix legislation, introduced yesterday to work around the environment minister, who's proved incapable of making a decision on the future of Tasmanian's salmon farming, was the subject of multiple heated caucus meetings and political fixes inside the Labor Party, including a promise to bring back the disastrous, job-destroying EPA that you promised not to. Approximately how long ago was the idea of using the futures of Tasmanian salmon workers and businesses as bargaining chips when it came to reinitiating Ms Plibersek's dangerous, job-destroying nature-positive laws and EPA first discussed inside the Labor Party?

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: I am going to ask for silence when Minister Wong responds.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:13): Thank you, President. Well, I have to say, it takes a certain amount of front to be a member of the front bench of the Liberal Party and ask about internals today, given all the leaking and backgrounding against Mr Taylor that we have seen, and Mr Taylor himself refusing to rule out a tilt at the leadership after the election. In his disastrous interview on Insiders, amongst the many things he did—

The PRESIDENT: Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Duniam?

Senator Duniam: A point of order on relevance: I wonder if the minister might answer the question I asked.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: I will direct the minister to your question. But I'm going to ask, once again, for silence, because actually it is very hard for me to hear the minister answering. Minister, please continue.

Senator WONG: I acknowledge that. It's simply the reference by a Liberal frontbencher to the issue of internals. At this time it just seemed to be something that really required comment. It really required comment. But what I would say to the senator—and I note that by the second question we seem to be off the budget, which is interesting. But we're here. We hope to have many, many dixers so we can tell the Australian people about not only what the government is doing but what the opposition are doing on the budget and their opposition to tax cuts.

This legislation is before the Senate. You've made these points, and I'm sure that these points will be made in estimates and also in the committee stage. You would know that the Prime Minister and Senator Urquhart have made really clear the importance of jobs in Tasmania. You would know that this is something that as a cabinet government we have worked through. You would also know that this is a very specific amendment to address a flaw in the EPBC Act and that Labor Party is not going to stand by and let workers lose their jobs because of a broken law.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Duniam, first supplementary?

Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:16): First, can I make a point—and I know that they're always desperate for scare campaigns. I would make the point—

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Order! Minister, please continue.

Senator WONG: I would make this point. I make two points. The first is that my recollection, when I went to WA, is that this was asked of me—that this is an approval that has been before the state government for six years.

Senator Cash: Six years!

Senator WONG: I know that Senator Cash and others are complaining about that, but obviously that is a matter for the state government. It has been before the federal government for a very short period of time, and I understand that Ms Plibersek has indicated, in accordance with the legislation, when she will make a decision on that.

I also understand that Mr Dutton's announcement puts North West Shelf at risk, because he's reckless. Just like PEP-11, when Scott Morrison stopped the process, Mr Dutton is now proposing to do the same thing. What a reckless thing to do—to put Western Australian jobs at risk for a political stunt. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Duniam, second supplementary?

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:17): Given the Prime Minister has previously said that the disastrous, economy-destroying EPA was dead and buried, when did the government decide that it would break this promise to Western Australia so that it could pursue green votes in Sydney and Melbourne?

Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:18): What I would say to you is that we are supporters of the resources sector. We are supporters of jobs in the resources sector. We are supporters of jobs in Western Australia. I might remind you how Western Australia has benefited from the opening up of the China market—you might want to remember that—under this government.

What I would say to those opposite is: why are you doing a Scott Morrison again? We saw how he stuffed up the process on PEP-11. That's what happened. Now we have Mr Dutton doing the same thing because he wants to play a stunt. Now, let's be really clear. The Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party is desperate to try and claw some seats back. Western Australians know that they will cut everything but their taxes, so they're trying to find another scare campaign. (Time expired)

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:19): My question is to the minister representing the environment minister, Senator McAllister. This is the last day of the parliament for this Senate, and the Prime Minister has stitched up a deal with Mr Dutton to gut our environment laws—all in the name of a toxic, polluting salmon industry. Labor came into government promising to strengthen our environmental laws. Isn't it true that, once these laws have passed this place tonight, environment laws in this country will be weaker than they were when you took government?

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for Emergency Management and Minister for Cities) (14:20): This is a classic contribution from the Greens political party, because the environmental reforms that we committed to bringing through this place were before the parliament for many months. We put on the table a proposal that would have increased the penalties available to people and that would have established an independent EPA, yet you refused to vote for it. And then you come in here and ask us why this outcome that you say you desire has not occurred. I'll tell you what: it is a reflection on your overall approach to politics, because the truth is that the Greens political party absolutely depend not on progressing reform but on stymieing it. You would prefer to keep issues hot and unresolved and to keep a continuing conflict on foot so you can make electoral progress, not environmental progress, and that is the entire story of your political party from beginning to end.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, first supplementary?

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Hanson-Young has the right to be heard in silence. Senator Hanson-Young, first supplementary?

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:21): Now that the rotting, toxic salmon industry has a carve-out from our environment laws, what toxic industry will be next—coal, gas or more forestry? Tell us who will get the next carve-out under your government.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Once again, I will wait for silence. Order! Senator McAllister, you need to address your answers to me.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for Emergency Management and Minister for Cities) (14:22): This is another question which, by its tone and content, demonstrates everything about the Greens political party's approach to politics and its approach to public debate, because we should be able to have a public debate about our national environment laws and we should be able to have a debate about environmental law reform, but it is very difficult when every contribution to the debate from a party that claims to care about environmental outcomes and environmental progress is underwritten by mistruths, misstatements and exaggerations. That is exactly everything that was premised in the question that has been asked now.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, second supplementary?

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:22): The Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian Marine Conservation Society, WWF, Greenpeace and the Australia Institute have all condemned these laws. On the eve of the election, have you sold out your environment credentials for a rotten, stinking extinction salmon?

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, remove the prop from the chamber.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, you are not in a debate with me. It's a prop. Remove it from the chamber.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order across the chamber! It is my role to attempt to keep order in this place. Senator Hanson-Young, it is a prop. Remove it immediately. Senator McAllister.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Order! Senator Hanson-Young and Senator McKenzie, if you want to have a chat, take it outside the chamber.