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

I just have a couple of points to pick up on in reference to the minister's remarks. The first is that we do have the Australia state of the environment 2021report, which has data and was expert driven, so I think there's a strong argument that we are going to have to find a baseline and that's it. Indeed, that might be where the EIA lands anyway.

The second point that I would make is that I think we have a fundamental problem with this three-part package of flagship legislation. This critically important legislation is badged 'nature positive', and yet we can't even explain to members of the Australian public what 'nature positive' actually means. To some degree, this is a communication question, given that business and communities will be trying to understand the implications of this legislation without the baseline definition, as outlined by the member for North Sydney and the member for Curtin, having any measurability or specific numbers behind it.

The third point that I would make harks back to the debate that we had around the Climate Change Act and the conversations around 43 per cent being the floor, not a ceiling. We've jumped forward a couple of years, and the current debate on one side of this chamber is around backsliding on those kinds of targets. I think there's an immense risk that, when you don't enshrine numbers in the law, some future government will either backslide or set weak targets that do not get us to where we need to be. I accept the minister's good-faith aspirations and genuineness around what she is trying to achieve, but I don't think that we can assume that any future government will do the same.

See this speech in context