Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the member for Clark's amendments. I would also like to respond to the comments from the member for Lalor. With respect, this is a process that we're all involved in for the good of our communities and for the good of our environment, and this is a process that my office and I have engaged in in good faith with the minister. We have the process of a second reading debate, the consideration-in-detail stage and then a third reading in order to improve legislation, and that's what I think the member for Clark's amendments would do.

These amendments clarify that biodiversity certificates can't be used for offsetting unless the outcome of the project and the impact it's being used to offset affect the same species and ecological community—that is, like-for-like offsetting—and also that alternative biodiversity certificates can only be relinquished if the original biodiversity certificate is not available for relinquishment. These are very reasonable amendments, particularly in the context where there is a lack of trust around offsetting. I agree with the member for Clark about those concerns, and there are many stakeholder groups that I and my office have engaged with who continue to have those concerns.

I'm here in the chamber to support the member for Clark, but I'm also here to ask the minister to answer some of these concerns directly. For example, if the regulator finds that biodiversity certificates are being used for offsetting without following the hierarchy—avoid, mitigate and, as a last result, offset—what will be the consequences? How does the minister guarantee that this offsetting market, which will be set up as a default position as a result of nature repair—it will be part of it—will have integrity? How does the minister address the concerns within our communities and within expert environmental stakeholder organisations, including the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, the Environmental Defenders Office and others, who continue to have deep concerns about this bill? I stand here today with the member for Clark, in good faith, to have this conversation and hear those answers from the minister.

See this speech in context