Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. I declare that I am a landholder. I have interests in both freehold and leasehold land in Central Queensland, and the details of my landholdings can be found on my statement of interests.

The purpose of this bill is to create biodiversity credits, along similar lines to energy generating credits, which will enable landholders to obtain tradeable certificates to be used in a similar way to carbon offsets. These proposed certificates would be administered by the Clean Energy Regulator, and they would be a national voluntary market incentive. There are issues which have substantial ramifications for the agriculture, mining and resources, forestry and fishing that could last for generations if these voluntary agreements are made. While this was originally an initiative of the previous government, it has been substantially widened in scope, and as such the future ramifications will not be fully understood by those taking up these agreements or by the general public. The biodiversity agreements will last for periods of 25 years or up to 100 years in duration. Such long periods of time do not allow for the ever-changing political climate, both domestic and international, nor do they consider fluctuating economic demand and supply, which change with time and which are a complete unknown 100 years from today. There is no allowance to adjust or change these commitments should the need arise. Furthermore, the agriculture, mining and resources, forestry and fishing sectors could possibly be forced to take up these biodiversity credits for economic reasons which do not help the future overall economy of Australia

The government is literally proposing to legally lock up land so that it will see no production for generations. The bill proposes to include virtually all types of land tenure, including the territorial waters of Australia, regardless of ownership or legal right. This would include all native title areas, including exclusive-possession native title. It would include all Crown land and Australian waters, irrespective of whether that land or those waters are subject to lease or licence, including whether the land or water is subject to native title agreement or application. The bill would include all Torrens system land title, which is basically all freehold land. In effect, what the government is proposing is that it would be possible to commit vast areas of Australian land and waters to a zero production scenario to help achieve the commitment to net zero by 2050. Paragraph 69 on page 23 of the explanatory memorandum says that 'native title land will be either Crown land or Torrens system land'. This would include all grazing homestead perpetual lease, forestry grazing lease and freehold agricultural land. At paragraph 77, the EM states:

In practice, this means that all biodiversity projects to be carried out on native title land or waters would need either to be undertaken by the relevant native title holders, or would require the consent of the relevant native title holders before the project could be registered. This would ensure that native title holders have the final say—

have the final say—

on whether, and what kind of, biodiversity projects are carried out on or in native title areas.

In other words, the native title holders would have control over much of agricultural Australia, should people wish to take up these biodiversity agreements.

The minister's explanatory notes say that the bill would enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to 'promote their unique knowledge on their terms'. What exactly does that mean? Is the minister suggesting in this statement that, if you are of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent, by birthright, you are automatically gifted some sort of knowledge that enables you to better manage land and have better outcomes than anybody else? This is just absurd. Define 'unique knowledge on their terms'. Are we supposed to surrender to this unsubstantiated knowledge, which could encapsulate anything, with no boundaries or parameters? I have no issue at all with Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people having an input, but giving this group of people exclusive right of veto or approval over a proposed agreement is something I take great exception to. This is specifically eroding the rights of everybody else and legally legislating the final say to Aboriginal corporations.

Furthermore, to be given the ability to impose requirements, as well as prohibiting specific activities, is outrageous. Recently, we have seen several instances of this sort of thing happening. The beach at Burrum Heads in Queensland is now closed to all those except native titleholders. No longer can you climb Mount Warning apparently because of some cultural heritage claim, which in my view is totally unsubstantiated. We have seen name changes at Fraser Island, for example. What's next—no tourists, no fishing, no camping? Is that where we're going with this?

The bill is proposing to allow a small group of Australians the ability to impose requirements on all others and prohibit activities with respect to biodiversity credit agreements. Where does this take us as a nation? Is this what Australians want? I think not. As a matter of fact, I think there are a large number of Australians who would vehemently disagree with this. This, in effect, is legislating certain control to a specific group of Australians. Where have we heard that one before? The Voice. Is this where we're going? Are we legislating principles of the Voice? This warrants an explanation by the minister. The Australian people want to know, and I would like to know.

Let's assume that a company has a mining lease on a piece of Crown land, and they want to make a biodiversity agreement on that land—on the mining lease—and claim credits. They would then have to seek approval from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who would now have the power to approve or disapprove the biodiversity agreement and, therefore, the potential to stop the mining development altogether, unless the rent-seeking agendum is adhered to. I have no doubt the Greens and the radical Left will love this, as they want to stop all gas and coal production in Australia. In the explanatory memorandum, on page 5, under the heading 'Registration of biodiversity projects', the notes say:

… the registered native title body corporate would be able to consent to another person being the project proponent and carrying out the project in or on the native title area.

The way I read that is that an environmental group or any other particular group could make an agreement with an Aboriginal body, make a biodiversity project agreement, take over vast areas of land and lock it up for possibly a hundred years.

This will affect agriculture, mining, resources, forestry and fisheries—the very industries that are the basic economic generators of wealth in this country. It would be locking up land for possibly a hundred years that would become a haven for any number of feral pests and invasive and noxious weed species. To make a comparison, our national parks are already overrun with any number of these feral and invasive noxious weed species. They are mismanaged, become firetraps and, ultimately, destroy more nature than what they save.

The very title of the bill—nature repair bill—has inference. It is saying that nature is broken. Nature is not broken. In fact, it is alive and well. Mother Nature is relentless, unforgiving, cruel and heartless, and, at the same time, beautiful, bountiful, nurturing and loving. Above all, nature is adaptive, flexible and changing. One rule applies: survival of the fittest, and it gives no quarter to the weak. I would argue that there are very few places left in Australia that you could call 'pristine'. The Australian ecosystem has changed, and it will not be undone. There are donkeys, horses, camels, pigs, rabbits, cats, dogs, cane toads, fire ants, carp and any number of weed species—rubber vine, lantana, mother-of-millions, parthenium, lovegrass, giant rat's-tail grass and parkinsonia, just to name a few. The point is that, if we lock up vast areas of Australia for biosecurity credits with no management, Mother Nature will ensure the survival of the fittest to the detriment of the native flora and fauna of Australia.

We struggle to manage our feral pests and invasive species now, and by locking more of Australia up this problem will get worse. Up in the hills here, south and west of Canberra, we can't even control the feral horse population, causing enormous environmental damage, all because of some bleeding-heart 'Man from Snowy River'mentality. What guarantees are there that biodiversity credits will provide better environmental outcomes? Page 3 of the explanatory notes says:

Buyers are expecting to be able to invest in nature to achieve philanthropic objectives, meet their social and environmental responsibilities, compensate for their impacts on nature and manage risks associated with their dependencies on nature.

I'll translate that statement. The wealthy virtue-signalling elite want to invest billions of dollars in Australian agricultural land, lock it up and forget about it to appease their own self-loathing of their irresponsible lifestyles while they continue their jet-setting, latte-sipping affluence, whilst priorly declaring they're environmentally aware. This is just some more of the monumental hypocrisy we hear from metropolitan Australia.

To sum this bill up, the government is proposing to create a system of voluntary biodiversity credits on Australian agricultural land that could possibly see it locked up for 100 years. This, in theory, will help big industry and the wealthy achieve the government's 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. The bill also gives right of veto or consent to a small group of Australians, eroding the rights of others. In effect, agricultural Australia, if they choose to take up these biodiversity agreements, will, in some cases, be in the position of having to pay rent to Aboriginal land councils. Once again, it's agriculture, mining, resources, fisheries and forestry that will pay the cost of zero net carbon policy, which, in terms of the rest of the world, is achieving absolutely nothing. It's for these reasons that I oppose the bill.

See this speech in context