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

by leave—I move amendments (1), (4) and (5), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Page 238 (after line 2), after clause 219, insert:

219A Qualifications of members of the Regulator

Despite any other law of the Commonwealth, at least one member of the Regulator must have:

(a) substantial experience or knowledge; and

(b) significant standing;

in at least one of the following fields:

(c) agriculture;

(d) biological or ecological science.

(4) Clause 236, page 244 (after line 4), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) A review under subsection (1) must consider:

(a) the operation, administration and regulation of the nature repair market established by the Act; and

(b) the extent to which the Act has implemented, or contributed to implementing, recommendations set out in the Final Report of the Independent Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units, published in December 2022; and

(c) levels of compliance with the Act and the adequacy of enforcement powers in the Act; and

(d) any interaction between the nature repair market established by the Act and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and

(e) whether the functions and powers of the Regulator should be transferred to a Commonwealth environment protection authority.

(5) Clause 236, page 245 (line 2), omit "5", substitute "3".

The Clean Energy Regulator's primary business is focused on reducing carbon emissions, but it is now tasked with also regulating the Nature Repair Market. It's concerning that the regulator's membership may not possess skills necessary to make crucial decisions pertaining to biodiversity and nature. While the consequential amendments bill does introduce new fields of expertise that the members of the Clean Energy Regulator board may have—namely agriculture or biological or ecological science expertise—there is no requirement that any of these fields must be represented. Therefore, we may end up with a regulator that has the responsibility to administer the market but has no expertise to actually do so. Knowledge of and experience in areas most pertinent to the market are essential in a body tasked with designing methods and assessing projects in the Nature Repair Market. To this end, amendment (1) requires that at least one member of the Clean Energy Regulator board have expertise in agriculture or biological or ecological science. It serves to improve the capacity of the regulator for more effective decision-making and priorities.

My final two amendments build on my previously moved amendment (3), which requires the periodic review of the Nature Repair Market to consider how the regulator is performing. As I've said, this legislation precedes crucial environmental reforms, including amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the establishment of a federal environment protection authority. We're also yet to see the full implementation of the recommendations of the Chubb review of the carbon market, recommendations which the government has already accepted.

Amendment (4) provides important considerations for when the operation of the Nature Repair Market is reviewed. We're asked to take the government's word that, in time, as the environmental reforms are rolled out at the end of this year or early next year, the harmonious relationship with the Nature Repair Market will fall into place. The amendment stipulates that the review must consider the outcomes of environmental reforms and the market's interactions with new and improved environmental legislation. It also requires that the review assess how the regulator, in the context of the new market, has met or not met recommendations made by the Chubb review, and it stipulates that the review consider whether regulatory functions should be moved from the Clean Energy Regulator to the newly established EPA.

Finally, amendment (5) brings forward the reporting period for the review from five years to three. With Australia being a world leader in species extinction, there is no time to lose in waiting for a review on whether the Nature Repair Market is delivering. Three years strikes a reasonable balance. These amendments to improve the bill's thoroughness and timeliness serve to increase accountability and trust in the review process of the Nature Repair Market.

I'll finish by saying that I do very much appreciate the engagement of the minister and her team on this bill. It does remain cart before the horse in many ways though, with no EPA, with the Chubb recommendations not in place and with the high potential for it to become another low-integrity offset market. I understand that the government will not support these amendments, but I ask that the minister justify her position on that.

See this speech in context