Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

We've just had the cartoon version from those opposite, but now you're going to get the movie! It's very important that the Australian people understand what this bill is really about.

I rise today to speak on the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. Under the previous coalition government, comprehensive work was undertaken which led to the development and introduction to the House of Representatives in early 2022 of the Agriculture Biodiversity Stewardship Market Bill. Sadly, this lapsed at the conclusion of the 46th Parliament. The core purpose of the coalition's bill was to establish the legal framework for the operation of a voluntary national market in biodiversity certificates. The coalition believed that incentivising farmers to improve the landscape would create better outcomes for the agricultural sector and the environment.

It's no secret in this place that, in my previous life, I was a tomato farmer. So, when the conversation around climate change, biodiversity and farming comes along, I'm well positioned to put my hand up to speak. I know our farmers want what is best for our environment and their land. I know what they do to protect our landscape and our natural environments. I believe farmers should be growing food and fibre, not being suffocated by government green and red tape.

So, at first glance at this bill, I thought: 'Why not support this? This could mean our farmers and landholders are financially rewarded when they conduct projects to repair and protect nature.' As I started delving further into the bill, I started to become extremely distressed. This bill has been changed so much from the coalition's proposal that now it is impossible to support. The Minister for the Environment and Water has added more complexity to this bill, and that's typical of how the Labor government roll. We see it all the time. There is absence of key detail, and there are so many question marks. It is clear that we will see many negative impacts on landholders, farmers and all Australians for generations to come.

The Albanese Labor government has made the choice to not build on and complement the hard work and stakeholder consultation that has already been done by the previous government. Instead, they bizarrely decided to reinvent the wheel and start the consultation process all over again, wasting precious time and taxpayers' dollars. From the evidence provided at the October 2022 Senate estimates hearing, the Clean Energy Regulator and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water spent $11.4 million in carrying out these activities that the previous government had already completed. It concerns me that $11.4 million can be spent without thought or need when we are in a Labor-created cost-of-living crisis and so many across my electorate right now, including our farmers, are just scraping by.

Let me remind the House that the former coalition government's proposed land stewardship scheme would reward farmers who restored and protected nature on their properties. All the work has been done. The stakeholder consultation was done, and the bill was deliberately confined to agricultural land. However, the Albanese Labor government's proposal expands this to all landholders, and that would apply to terrestrial, coastal and marine areas. This proposed bill will open it up to all freehold land, Crown land, Australian waters and native title areas. This is of great concern. At paragraph 69 on page 23 of the explanatory memorandum, it says:

Native title land will … be either Crown land or Torrens system land

So this would include all grazing homestead perpetual leases, forestry leases, grazing leases and freehold agricultural land. Then, at paragraph 77, it is noted:

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.

What this essentially is telling us is that native title holders will have the final say on what kind of biodiversity process is carried out on or in native title areas.

The minister has also put private investment at the centre of the government's plan for the environment, which includes a zero-extinctions target and a commitment to protect 30 per cent of Australia's land and sea areas by 2030. Under the scheme, when a landholder conducts a project to repair or protect nature, they will be issued a tradeable certificate. Once projects are approved by the regulator, these certificates can be then sold to a third party, like a philanthropist, a business, a government or an individual. These biodiversity agreements will be for periods of 25 to 100 years in duration. It doesn't take a genius to realise that a 25- to 100-year period could see so many economic, political, government, domestic and international changes. The future is unknown. Recent events like the COVID pandemic just prove that we have no idea what could be around the corner in a year's time, let alone 25 to 100 years time.

I note there are no allowances listed in the bill to adjust or change these committed time frames should the need arise. So there is a danger that unscrupulous green groups could target farmers in bad years and then lock up the land, leaving farmers stuck and unable to move for generations to come. This could mean a shortage of food, higher prices for individuals at the check-out and also fewer export dollars. In the explanatory notes of this bill, it 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.

So this will encourage our biggest corporate emitters and wealthy elite to invest billions of dollars to effectively lock up good-quality agricultural land just to tick a box and to offset their carbon emissions to make themselves feel better. All the while, we could potentially have excellent agricultural land locked up with no management, and it will just go feral, creating yet another set of problems like fire traps and an overrun of feral and invasive animals and noxious weeds. These pests don't just stop at the fence. Seeds blow next door and animals roam, all of which can be detrimental to our nation's environment and is exactly the opposite of what is trying to be achieved.

It's pretty clear, when you drill into the detail of these bills, what the Albanese Labor government is trying to do here, and that is just a bandaid to meet unrealistic net-zero targets. But who will pay for this bandaid proposal if it's voted through? Our farmers will pay, our fishermen will pay, our resources industry will pay, our forestry industry will pay, our regional and rural communities will pay, and ultimately it is the Australian people who will pay. At the end and down the line, the Australian people will have to pay. We will see job losses and ultimately cost-of-living increases, and, when we start to have food supply issues, that is how you weaken a country.

I am sceptical of this emissions trade-off scheme. I don't think it will achieve the outcome that is desired at all. It will not be good for Australia. It will not be good for the environment. Once again, rural and regional Australia will be all the worse off for it while the cities continue to create the bulk of the emissions with no consequences. I cannot stress enough that it is essential to look after our ag industry and our ag land. Rest assured, if the decision-makers in this place dared to visit a farm or even consult the National Party, we would be happy to let you know how farmers all around the country care for and look after the land.

It is very disappointing that this Albanese Labor government decided to take this program from the department of agriculture and place it under the department of the environment. Not only did the government strip away funding from the ag and give it to the environment department, but they also took this program with it. It says a lot about where the Albanese Labor government's priorities really are. They let the ideology of the environment department take over the intent that was at the heart of this bill, which was rewarding farmers not just for carbon abatement but also for biodiversity improvement. Farmers are the real greenies in this country. They are doing their bit for the country and they need to be rewarded—rather than punished, which is what this bill will do.

Our farmers value and protect land. It's what they do every day. It's how they make their money. Many of our farmers have had their farms for multiple generations. Of course they want to look after them. So why don't we bring a bill into this place that will support and look after our farmers? Perhaps offer a carrot rather than a stick. That's how you deliver better outcomes. Our farmers value and protect plant and animal species. The graziers spend multiple times trying to eradicate Chonky apple, rubber vine and all the invasive species that make their farming and grazing land unproductive. That's what they do. They are all united in their desire to produce safe, delicious and healthy food for the rest of us in Australia and throughout the world.

I believe this bill has enormous potential to have a negative impact on farmers, landholders and our natural environment. Ultimately, all Australians will pay. All Australians will be worse off if this bill goes through. We need to support our farmers. They provide the food and fibre for all of us. If we don't have food and we don't have energy—because, clearly, the Albanese Labor government's energy policy isn't working—then we could be subject to a takeover. Let's get behind our farmers. Let's support them. Let's vote this bill down. I strongly oppose this bill.

See this speech in context