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

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

(1) Clause 6, page 6 (lines 19 to 22), omit subclause (1), substitute:

(1) Nature positive is halting and reversing the decline in diversity, abundance, resilience and integrity of ecosystems and native species populations by 2030 (measured against a 2021 baseline), and achieving recovery by 2050.

(2) Clause 13, page 10 (line 2), omit "(1)".

(3) Clause 13, page 10 (lines 7 and 8), omit subclause (2).

I do not wish to take more of the House's time than is necessary to air my strong objection to the weaknesses of the Environment Information Australia bill and to move these amendments that have been circulated in my name. These objections have been expressed in detail in my second reading speech. This amendment goes to the definition of 'nature positive' at part 1, section 6, of the Environment Information Australia bill.

The government has been parading its credentials by asserting how groundbreaking it would be for Australia to be the first jurisdiction in the world to enshrine a definition of 'nature positive' into law. But none of that matters if the definition does not line up with what nature positive actually is. The government's definition that nature positive represents an improvement in the diversity, abundance, resilience and integrity of ecosystems from a baseline is almost as vague as the coalition's case for nuclear power because it remains fundamentally undefined. It includes no reference to reversing the decline and restoring the populations of our native wildlife, for example.

Goldstein, like all electorates across the country, has seen an observable decline in native wildlife populations, and additions to the endangered or threatened species list. A suitable definition of 'nature positive' in this legislation would not only refer to these urgent threats but collect and use the best available data to protect them. Absent this, the government will not be held to account on the measurable impact that commercial activities and project approvals may have on our native wildlife. The bill unamended would set an international precedent, in fact, that a government can legislate a subpar definition of 'nature positive'. Comparing the improvement of our environment against an indeterminate baseline is asking the parliament to in effect sign a blank cheque on environmental protection.

I understand the government's intent that the head of the EIA will collect data and subsequently establish a baseline but nothing here prohibits the government from setting one that is weak and irreflective of the threats that our environment and native wildlife face. My definition sets an explicit baseline of 2021, which deliberately provides the EIA with the best available data set out in the latest State of the environment report. The legislation is also missing a target date at which point environmental recovery would be achieved. My amendment insert specifics. It defines 'nature positive' as halting and reversing the decline in diversity, abundance, resilience and integrity of ecosystems and native species populations by 2030, measured against a 2021 baseline and achieving recovery by 2050. A definition of this strength is critical if Australia is to be seen as serious about restoring the damage caused to our environment by decades of weak regulatory practice. My concern is no baseline means backsliding is a real threat—and it wouldn't be the first time we have seen that, would it?

Multiple government members have spoken to this legislation and the groundbreaking nature of defining 'nature positive' in this bill—except the bill does not define 'nature positive', and that is what this amendment seeks to do.

See this speech in context