Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 2, pages 2 and 3 (table items 2 and 3), omit the table items, substitute:

(2) Clause 2, page 3 (line 1), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".

(3) Clause 2, page 3 (after line 3), at the end of subclause 2(1), add:

Note 2: The Nature Positive Plan (see table items 2 and 3) could in 2023 be viewed on the Department's website (http://www.dcceew.gov.au).

Let me start with where there is agreement, and there is significant agreement, I think, across this House on many issues, and certainly with the minister in charge of this portfolio. I think the minister and I agree strongly that the environmental laws in this country are inadequate for the protection of our climate and for the protection of nature. They need urgent and wholesale reform. I think the minister and I also agree that these reforms are absolutely critical and that to do them well we need to get business, the environmental movement and so many different groups on board to make sure that we come up with the right environmental protection laws, because our nature and our climate are too precious for us to ride roughshod over, and we need that vital protection. I congratulate the minister on the efforts that she has made in bringing people together and trying to bring this together, and I appreciate that from the outside it can look easier than it is from the inside in terms of how those efforts are progressing.

My fundamental concern with the bill that we have now is that without those rigorous protections—without the protections that the minister and I agree are absolutely critical for the protection of environment and nature in this country—putting through this legislation that could enable fossil fuel projects and other projects to go ahead and be approved with inadequate environmental protections, with inadequate consideration for nature and climate, is not appropriate.

My amendment is pretty simple. It is that for this bill to come into place we need to have the reforms that the minister is working so hard on—the EPBC Act reforms—in place before this bill comes into effect. It is absolutely critical that those laws are passed, that we get those appropriate protections for nature and for climate in place before we pass any bills that may enable technologies to go ahead that would otherwise jeopardise our environment. I don't have an objection to CCS in principle. The truth is that it just hasn't worked yet. So I have deep concern about the potential for projects to be approved and to be enabled by technology that has no actual strong proof that it's actually going to work.

I urge the minister to consider the amendment. I appreciate that the minister has said that they won't consider it in this House. I say: at least consider it in the Senate or come back and extend the debate, because I think it is a simple, reasonable request which is very consistent with the minister's own commitment to environmental law reform and simply seeks to bring those two things in harmony.

See this speech in context