Here are some of the problems identified by Coalition MPs to explain why the government is trying to limit the ability of environment groups to mount legal challenges to the government’s application of Australia’s environment laws.

Brett Whiteley (Liberal, Tasmania) The mung bean soup problem.

“This country needs to grow up. We need to move to a balanced position. We need jobs. Australian families need incomes. They need jobs to be able to feed their families, stop living off the benefits provided by government and have a fulfilling life as a part of a working community. We need to have balance. We cannot simply, as the Greens and those opposite that are of the left would like, have us hanging from trees and drinking mung bean soup. We have to find the balance ... Some might be happy for many in our community who depend on these sorts of jobs to eventually just hang from trees like something out of prehistory and eat nothing but mung bean soup. But, at the end of the day, we cannot continue to live on the teat of the Australian government welfare program. We need jobs.”

Eric Hutchinson (Liberal, Tasmania) The ‘environment groups making up problems to scare people into giving them money’ problem.

“Reference was made to the Great Barrier Reef. This has been a disaster for Greenpeace Australia. Minister Hunt did some outstanding work in getting the World Heritage Committee to take the Great Barrier Reef off the ‘watch list’. This has been an absolute disaster for Greenpeace’s fundraising activities, because they can no longer go out there and scare people. They can no longer use those images of polar bears dying due to a harvested forest in Tasmania or images of a piece of the Barrier Reef that has coral bleaching. They can no longer use those things, because it has been taken off the ‘watch list’ due to the good work of Minister Hunt and this government. That is a tragedy for Greenpeace, because it makes it more difficult for them to scare people and do their fundraising. It was the same with the Tasmanian forests. Never did the truth get put in the way of the emotive campaign that they used to generate funds. It is not about the forests; it is about the organisation’s concern.”

David Gillespie (National NSW) The ‘current special treatment of environmental groups’ problem.

“But this section gives environmental activists special treatment. We are all equal under the law but, like in Animal Farm, some people are more equal than others. That is essentially what section 487 is saying. Under the proposed law, those concerned people can still have a say but they do that when the environmental impact statement is being made. They can make a submission there, which is quite reasonable and sensible. It does not mean that any Tom, Dick or Harry from anywhere in Australia can turn up and bring legal action, which is, in effect, what section 487 is doing. This has shone a very bright light on quite a distorted bit of legislation.”

Andrew Nikolic (Liberal, Tasmania) The ‘disgusting treasonous sabotage’ problem.

“It was never the intent of the EPBC Act to be used to disrupt and delay much-needed infrastructure developments across our great country. And, as we know, the intent of this legal activism is not to help but to hinder ... These are groups, by the way, that often receive considerable taxpayer-funded charitable status and taxpayer funding. Think about that for a moment – taxpayer funds being used to make Australia a much riskier place to invest. It just beggars belief. Groups involved include Greenpeace, the New South Wales and Queensland Environmental Defenders Offices, Lock the Gate, Beyond Zero Emissions, GetUp and a range of other organisations, including the Australia Institute … It is little wonder that, in the correspondence that I have received on this issue, many people use words like ‘disgusting’, ‘sabotage,’ ‘treason’ and ‘un-Australian’ to describe what it is going on.”

Dennis Jensen (Liberal, Western Australia) The ‘too many environmental scientists trying to create work for themselves’ problem.

Jensen said in 1972 only one environmental science degree was offered in Australia, whereas “in 2006, by contrast, and this is nearly 10 years ago, there were 28 separate environmental science degrees in Western Australia alone. Extrapolate that out and you would have 300 environmental science degrees Australia-wide in 2006. No doubt it is more now. Clearly, there is a need for environmental science and environmental protection, but do we really need 300 to 500 times the number? ... Is this legitimate or are we seeing rent-seeking behaviour, where people start creating all sorts of things that need to be investigated, hence loading us up with red tape and hence requiring an incredible amount of time to go through an environmental approval process where you may have not just one environmental approval process but, in some cases, hundreds for one project? Is this artificial creation of additional places a good policy to have for our universities, where you build it up and the people then have to create the work?”

Luke Howarth (Liberal, Queensland) Returned to the ‘environment groups lying to get money’ problem.

“People in these organisations have no qualms about lying to the kind-hearted Australians who donate money to their causes with genuine concern for the environment … They pretend to stand for the environment, yet they are really haters of humanity. That is what they are. They somehow justify what they are doing by saying it is going to save us all and without them we would all be stuffed. The fact is that they have absolutely no care for people, for jobs or for our future as a country … I love the environment and I have been lucky enough to caravan right around our great country ... You know what? I love our environment. I love our freshwater ecosystems. I love fish and the little native turtles. I love all that.”