Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

As the State of the environment report declared in 2021 nature is in crisis with the general outlook for our environment deteriorating. It showed Australia has one of the highest rates of species decline in the developed world, with more mammal species lost here than anywhere else, and we are the only developed country that is a deforestation hotspot. Yet four years on from that report, logging of native forests is still exempt from federal biodiversity approval processes in some parts of Australia, and hectares of threatened species habitat is routinely destroyed by both approved and unauthorised clearing. And while our legislation does not recognise it, climate change is absolutely compounding the damage from deforestation, invasive species, pollution and urban expansion with species from Australia and New Zealand among the most at risk of extinction globally.

As the 47th Parliament enters its final days, it's little wonder that greater protection for nature is the call I hear most consistently from my community of North Sydney. Indeed, my office is frequently inundated by people across my electorate asking me and this parliament to do more to protect nature. Meanwhile the sentiment is amplified when you look at the results of recent polls, with the Biodiversity Council poll showing nearly nine in 10 Australians support stronger national nature laws while two in three people support the establishment of national environmental standards. This is further supported by the results of a YouGov poll that showed seven out of 10 voters want the government to do more to protect and restore nature.

Fascinatingly, these sentiments are reflected consistently regardless of age and political allegiance. Yet, after almost three years of discussion, development and debate, this parliament has failed to deliver on any of the ambitions, leaving our communities, rightfully, bitterly frustrated—frustrated at the government, frustrated by the opposition and frustrated by this parliament's forgoing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to strengthen Australia's environmental framework. They are frustrated that, according to media reports, a deal on the nature-positive reforms was scuttled at the eleventh hour, following political pressure from Western Australia's Premier. They are frustrated that, since the last federal election, we've approved 10 new coalmines or expansions, with 2,449 million tonnes of lifetime emissions. And they are frustrated because they, like me, recognise both the huge economic potential and the nature-positive potential of the renewable energy transition.

The transition to renewables presents a once-in-100-years opportunity to reset how we address environmental concerns, how we engage in community consultation and how we honour First Nations cultural heritage protection, in a way that is fundamentally different to that of the fossil fuel and mining industry of the past. But none of this will be possible without stronger environmental laws and adequate funding. Australia has no lack of environmental expertise, but we certainly need more political ambition, commitment and financial support. We must halt biodiversity loss that is currently occurring both on land and in our oceans, and we must stop approving new coal and gas projects. As a parliament, we should have delivered this reform of Australia's nature laws as a national priority, including legislating an independent and well-resourced environmental protection agency. But, in the absence of this outcome, I would argue this government must invest in nature repair and recovery, while the current opposition must be clear on their intentions in this space in the lead-up to the next election.

Current federal government spending on protecting nature equates to just 0.1 per cent of the total budget. While funding has increased in recent years, it is nowhere near the level required to meet our commitments to protect 30 per cent of Australia by 2030 and prevent native species extinctions. Scientists and conservation groups are urgently calling for a measly minimum—just one per cent—of the federal budget to be allocated towards nature protection. The shocking thing is that this would still be a significant increase in nature funding. And the money is there. According to the 30 by 30 alliance, the federal government is currently spending 16 times more on subsidies for oil and gas production and consumption than it is on protecting biodiversity. In this context, surely it is beyond time that we finally break with our fossil fuel reliance and redirect that investment towards nature protection.

Everyone in this place could choose to set aside petty political point scoring to make nature a priority at the next election. But, if they're unable to make that commitment, I call on all voters: in 2025, cast your vote like your kids' future depends on it, because it does.

See this speech in context