Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

When I was interrupted in the course of having started my contribution to this debate, I was just making the point that the world-wide Rotary organisation has added the environment as the seventh pillar of Rotary service, in recognition of the importance of environmental sustainability to human wellbeing. In my local area, only last month, I attended the official opening of an environmental restoration project in the Cobbler Creek Recreation Park. The project was a joint effort of the Salisbury Rotary Club, Friends of Cobbler Creek Recreation Park, Trees for Life and the South Australian government Department of Environment and Water. Throughout the Makin electorate, the Friends of Cobbler Creek Recreation Park, Friends of Dry Creek Trail and Friends of Anstey Hill Recreation Park, working together with local councils, local schools, Trees for Life, Rotary and Lions Clubs, and the Department of Environment and Water, have for years taken a lead in environmental restoration and preservation projects. I commend all of them for their efforts.

There is no single solution or response to the scale of environmental degradation. It will take a collective of different actions. Even in Australia, where I believe there is much goodwill and understanding across all sectors of society about the importance of environmental sustainability, the biodiversity losses are very concerning, as the 2021 State of the environment report makes absolutely clear. This legislation provides for biodiversity protection and restoration by rewarding environmental preservation projects. In summary, the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 establishes a framework for a voluntary national biodiversity market, where landholders who participate in projects that enhance or protect biodiversity may be eligible to receive a tradeable certificate that will be tracked through a national register. The proposal provides an incentive for investments in nature. It is the first of its kind here in Australia.

The legislation includes several provisions, including the establishment of an independent expert Nature Repair Market Committee to ensure both integrity and public confidence in the process. That is absolutely vital, because if there is no integrity and there is no public confidence in the process then people will not participate. Importantly, the same integrity measures will contribute to a better understanding and more accurate data on biodiversity. That is one of the areas that I have a personal concern with—that sometimes the data we rely on is itself inaccurate. Having this process in place means that you have to have accurate monitoring in order to assess the viability and the outcomes of the different programs. That in itself is a good thing because it will enable all of us to better understand the biodiversity losses and the gains, or the regains, once a project has been in place.

Additionally, biodiversity restoration is also expected to create economic and employment opportunities for participants. That too is a good thing, because having more people embark on economic activities that in turn sustain our environment will start to also build up a level of expertise and understanding that will also be beneficial well into the future.

Consistent with the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity goals, Australia has committed to protecting 30 per cent of Australia's land and seas by 2030. Obviously, to do that will require a range of measures, but the very fact that we have committed to those goals means that we have now made a decision that programs and projects will be looked at in order to get there. That commitment alone, I believe, is going to begin the path and the roadway back to rebuilding our biodiversity.

Caring for country requires the collective efforts of every sector of society, and this legislation rewards those who do that, rather than simply relying, as we have done in the past, on punitive measures against those who engage in destructive environmental activities. The reality is, and history will show, that punitive measures alone have simply not worked. If they had, we probably wouldn't be in the situation that we are in today with the loss of biodiversity, and there probably wouldn't be the need for this kind of legislation. The reality is that we need both punitive measures and measures that reward those who do the right thing, and, again, this legislation, in my view, sets out to do just that.

I have listened to much of the debate on this legislation and noted the extraordinary claims made by some members of the coalition and the Greens. To me, that suggests, as I said from the outset, that this legislation strikes the right balance. I'm not surprised to hear the coalition attack the program because of its focus on Indigenous contributions to the schemes; likewise, I'm not surprised to hear the Greens attacking the corporate interests that will probably want to participate. The reality is that everyone who can make a contribution should. With respect to the corporates, it is not just the corporates who are responsible for the environmental damage that we have seen across this country; a lot of it has come from a whole range of other sources. This legislation is consistent with proposals already in place and being trialled in other countries. Whilst it might be new to Australia, the concept is not new to the world, and I note that some countries have been participating in similar schemes for many years.

Just as importantly, there are several safeguards in the bill, which I referred to earlier, particularly the establishment of the independent expert Nature Repair Market Committee. That committee will be made up of people who understand—experts—and it will ensure the transparency, accountability and integrity of the scheme. Furthermore, the scheme will result in better monitoring and understanding of biodiversity, as I emphasised in my remarks earlier on, and that can only be a good thing. I accept that quantifying biodiversity is difficult. It is something that we need to do much better. However, the fact that it is difficult should never be a barrier to a proposal which does good for our environment. In my view, the fact that it's difficult should simply be viewed as another challenge that we need to overcome. If we're committed to doing that, I believe we can overcome that challenge.

As with climate change, where crossing tipping points becomes disastrous, so too is crossing environmental tipping points disastrous—a warning well made by the United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres. This legislation is not the sole solution to biodiversity loss, and it may not be perfect. However, it will make a worthwhile difference. Once it is in place, any flaws that arise will be exposed and can then be rectified, but if we don't trial something, if we don't start somewhere, how will we know what impact it will have? How will we know what needs to be changed? How will we know how it can be improved?

There is no good reason for delaying this legislation. On the contrary, the sooner it is passed the sooner we can get on with the task of biodiversity repair. I'm pleased to see that so many other countries and so many community groups are now on board with not only this type of program but doing something about restoring our environmental losses. It is one of the areas I have pick up on when out in the community. From school children through to adults, people are concerned about the state of the world we live in and the damage that is being done to the environment. As former Bolivian President Evo Morales said—and I think this sums it up beautifully—'Humans cannot live without Mother Earth, but the planet can live without humans.' That quotation sums up the importance of protecting the world we live in. We cannot continue to expand our population and our footprint on the world without at the same time understanding the impact that has on our earth and on our marine environment. We need to start responding with more than just lip service and tokenistic schemes. We need to start responding in a way that will truly make a difference. I believe this legislation is part of the solution—not the sole solution—and we should get on with it as soon as possible.

See this speech in context