Interesting from last time Zali wanted to Kill PEP11 what Tony...

Interesting from last time Zali wanted to Kill PEP11 what Tony Burke had to say i Parliament before the division: (note: my bold highlight)

Chamber

House of Representativeson 29/03/2023

Item

MOTIONS - Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Stop PEP11 and Protect Our Coast) Bill 2023

Speaker :

Burke, Tony MP

Download Hansard

View XML

Download speech

Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House) (12:58): I'll open by explaining the reasons why the government will oppose the suspension of standing orders. But, in doing so, I want to indicate the utmost respect for both the member for Warringah and the member for Mackellar and the reasons they wanted to bring this forward.

The position that the Albanese government finds itself in regarding the PEP-11 licence is simply because of an indefensible administrative process that was undertaken by the previous government. Both the New South Wales government and the Australian government are required, under law, to consider any future decision on PEP-11 in a manner that's fair and in accordance with proper procedure. While I respect the member for Warringah's bill, which proposes an alternative pathway—that is, that rather than it being dealt with under current law it be dealt with through parliamentary debate—the government intends to consider the PEP-11 application under current law.

Going back to the reason we are in this situation, the member for Cook took an extraordinary course of action when he was Prime Minister. He provided an ongoing commentary on official decisions of government and then took a portfolio for himself. The member for Cook expressed a view on the project and then intervened on an official decision to end the project. That's not a defensible process, and, as a result, we as a government weren't able to defend the decisions of the previous government when they were being considered in the Federal Court.

We're not going to involve ourselves in a similar abuse of procedure. Any decision that is with the current minister and any decision that the minister makes will be based on the facts and consistent with legislation. This is the approach that any responsible government would take. It's a basic competency that the Australian public expect of their elected representatives.

In terms of the straight procedural issue of whether we give this precedence over other legislation, I'm wanting the House to be able to return to the gender equality bill. I do believe that under current law we have an appropriate process of being able to deal with PEP-11, but we have nothing under current law that allows us to deliver the various issues that we're wanting to deliver on the gender equality bill. I'll leave time in case anyone else wants to contribute, but for those reasons the government will be opposing the suspension.