Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, it's always good to see you in the chair. Of all our wonderful deputy speakers, you are certainly up there, experienced, charming. You love it when we push the envelope. It's excellent. It's always good to see.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Bruce, and I ask him to return to the legislation at hand.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, finally you are in the chair for some good news for the environment, and that, sadly, is a rare thing. To be frank, many Australians—me included—too often switch off when they see stories in the news about climate change or the environment, as it's generally bad news. It's depressing. There is a lot to be despondent about. The State of the environment report released by the minister last year shows that the Australian environment is in a bad way and is getting worse. The trends are wrong due to degradation, loss and inaction under the decade of the previous government. We're winning a prize that I don't think anyone in this chamber would actually want to win. We are the extinction capital of the world. Our country is the extinction capital of the world. It's a gold medal you don't want to win. That's after a decade of neglect, dysfunction, decay, division and dereliction of duty from those opposite.

The government is committed to protecting 30 per cent of Australia's land and seas by 2030—the same goals under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. This bill is a key part of delivering on the government's positive nature repair plan, with the establishment of a nature repair market. Why? It will make it easier for people to invest in activities that actually help to reverse that decline and repair nature. The government is deadly serious about reversing the decline—not just stemming the tide or flatlining but reversing the decline and starting positive repair of our natural environment to reverse disrepair and degradation and to leave nature in better shape for our kids and grandkids. There's a lot of rhetoric like that bandied around in this parliament: 'We're going to leave things better for our kids and our grandkids.' With regard to the natural environment, that's exactly what we have to aim to do, and that's exactly what the government's bill will contribute to. It will contribute to the notion of stewardship—that, as custodians of this world right now, we should leave the place in better shape than we found it. We're at risk of being the first generation to leave a lower standard of living and a degraded natural environment for the generation to come after us, and that's a disgrace.

This bill will support landholders, including farmers and First Nations people in particular, to plant native species, repair damaged riverbeds and remove invasive species. It will make it easier for business and philanthropists to invest with confidence in these efforts. The critical point is the focus on getting investment into privately held land. That is so important because 60 per cent of our country's land mass is in private hands, the majority of which is controlled by farmers and First Nations communities. It's on private land, also, that a large percentage of the critically endangered habitat rests. You cannot reverse the decline in our natural environment without investment in private land rehabilitation. There's only so much you can do with national parks and publicly held land, be they riverbeds or railway tracks. You just can't get there without dealing with privately held land. Of course, reversing the decline has environmental benefits in its own right, but it's also absolutely critical if we're to hand back that gold medal that we don't want of being the extinction capital of the world because the primary reason for the extinctions that we're seeing is the loss of natural habitat for threatened species.

This is a positive, practical, long-term plan which, I might add, contrasts with the shameful record of those opposite. As I said, last year the Minister for the Environment and Water released the official five-yearly report card on the Australian environment, the State of the environment report. The former minister, now deputy opposition leader, the Hon Sussan Ley, hid the report from the Australian people, refusing to release it. She actually commissioned the State of the environment report and then hid it in the cupboard because the then government were too ashamed of what the report revealed about trends in the environment and their record. It's a catalogue of horrors. It reveals, in black and white, just how much damage a decade of the Liberal and National parties' neglect did to our environment. It's in bad shape and getting worse. It found that Australia has lost more mammal species to extinction than any other continent. For the first time, Australia has more foreign plant species than native species. Habitat covering the size of Tasmania has been cleared between 2000 and 2017. Plastics are choking our oceans—up to 80,000 pieces of plastic per square kilometre. Flow in the Murray-Darling rivers has reached record low levels as at December 2019.

Earlier, I said 'neglect'. I'd like to withdraw that. I was wrong. It's worse than neglect; it's active hostility. Those opposite took positive actions to damage the environment. In the last decade, they axed climate laws. They actually withdrew them. That's not neglect; that's damage. They failed to fix Australia's broken environment laws, despite having a blueprint which they commissioned which mapped out how they should proceed. They failed to act on it. The Leader of the Opposition actually laughed about our Pacific island neighbours going underwater. They failed to land a single one of the 22 different energy policies that they had in nine years. In a decade in government, they had 22 different energy policies, none of which were implemented. They sabotaged the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. They promised $40 million for Indigenous water but never delivered a single drop. They set recycling targets—they announced them. That was one of their special talents, announcing things but then not actually delivering. They announced the recycling targets but had no plan to actually deliver them. They had a recycling target that sounded very good, of 70 per cent. They were going to recycle 70 per cent of things. They were stuck at 16 per cent for four years, but they just kept re-announcing it. It's all about the press release. It's all about the Australian flags behind you while making announcements but not actually doing anything positive.

They voted against the safeguard mechanism this term. It's a policy that they previously championed, of course. Such a rabble, they voted against themselves. They voted against energy price relief for households and small businesses. They actually cut the highly protected areas in marine parks by half. That was their great initiative to protect the marine environment. They cut the marine parks in half. They cut billions from the environment department. They then went and complained that there was green tape everywhere and that people weren't getting approvals for new infrastructure, developments and resource developments while they cut the environment department by billions. Who knew? If you don't have the Public Service processing approvals, the approvals don't get done! A decade of environmental crime. Is it any wonder that the Australian people voted these vandals out?

On the government's positive plan, Deputy Speaker—how will it work? I'm glad you asked, rhetorically! The bill is establishing the machinery for a nature repair market. The 3Rs: register, rules and regulator. The market will apply to projects that enhance or protect existing environments or those which establish and restore habitats on land, in lakes and rivers, or in marine and coastal areas. The scheme will be open voluntarily—there's no compulsion. We've heard some of the histrionics over the last few days from those opposite. Smelling salts, I was thinking yesterday, may be in order. It will be open voluntarily to farmers—yes, we're allowed to say farmers too—First Nations communities, conservation groups, businesses and councils. When a landholder chooses, of their own volition, to conduct a repair project they get a tradeable certificate. It's setting up a market. That certificate will have standardised information, stuff like the land size; the kinds of work which are being done and a description of that; an outline of the environment, habitat or threatened species which will be protected as a result of the work; and the length of time that actions will continue. That certificate will be tracked, recorded and publicly available on a public register, setting up a transparent market.

The market, importantly, will be based on science and will enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to promote their unique knowledge about land management on their terms. Establishing the marketing legislation, though, is key. I've actually had people to say to me: 'Why can't people do this now? They can just go and invest their own money. They can leave money in wills. Companies can do their corporate social responsibility and invest money now.' The importance of establishing a market in legislation is about ensuring its ongoing integrity; to encourage investment; to give investors, philanthropists and business confidence to invest in a tradable commodity; and to drive environmental approvements across Australia. Capitalism actually only exists because governments underwrite it. It's a serious point. You can only enter into a contract because the governments will set up the courts to enforce the contract. In this regard, we're setting up a market that has a tradeable certificate and transparency so people can invest with confidence.

The bill will enable the third of the three Rs, the Clean Energy Regulator, an independent statutory authority with significant experience in regulating environmental markets, to issue those tradeable biodiversity certificates, which can then be banked or sold to businesses, organisations, governments and individuals.

The projects will deliver real, long-term, nature-positive outcomes: weeding, planting trees and pest control, as I said, on land or water, in marine and coastal environments. They will create more opportunities for economic participation for First Nations communities through doing, and being funded and supported to do, environmental repair and maintenance on their lands, contributing to the reversal of habitat loss and stemming the loss of threatened species. There will be opportunities to actually design those projects that reflect that connection to country and the knowledge and wisdom of First Nations peoples.

The market, importantly, will operate in parallel with the carbon trading market facilitated by the same regulator. Putting the two markets together under the same regulator will create both efficiencies and synergies. That alignment will encourage carbon-farming projects and also deliver benefits for biodiversity. The administrative efficiencies in this approach and, more importantly, the clear and accurate oversight of claims are critical to both markets.

It is important that the regulator is competent, properly resourced and properly empowered lest we see more accusations and incidences of so-called greenwashing. People need to have confidence in making these investments, that the things they're investing in, the outcomes they're buying and the certificates they hold have a real and practical impact, and value on their balance sheets—on the books. That's important. Again, only government, through the power of government, can set up an enforceable regulatory regime, which is critical in giving confidence to philanthropists and businesses to invest.

The biodiversity certificates have to have integrity. Through that transparent regulatory approach, people will be confident that there will be an actual environmental improvement as a result of their investment. The key integrity measure will be an independent expert committee responsible for ensuring that projects deliver high-quality nature -positive outcomes underpinned by a consistent approach to measurement, assessment and verification. There will be assurance and compliance requirements, including monitoring, reporting and notification of the delivery of project activities. And the regulator—all that transparency—will have strong monitoring and enforcement powers to ensure that things actually happen in accordance with the rules. The department is now working with the ACCC and ASIC to ensure that certificates are not victims of more greenwashing claims, that the statements made on certificates accurately reflect the projects and the investments made, and that projects in both the carbon and biodiversity markets will not be affected by misleading claims.

The Nature Positive Plan reflects the government's commitment to actually restoring accountability and trust in public administration after the damaging decade of those opposite. As I said, that information will be available on a public register. The bill will also establish the Nature Repair Market Committee, which will be responsible for providing advice to the minister following public consultation on the submission and their advice. There will be five to six experts who have significant experience and significant standing. Of course, the qualification to be one of those experts won't be being a member of the National Party or the Liberal Party; they'll be appointed on merit. Again, that might be triggering for those opposite, given how they stacked out every board and committee they could find. Look at the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation: half of them were ex-Liberal and National MPs, but not one of the people on that board had expertise in affordable housing. And it would be unkind to go over Infrastructure Australia again, wouldn't it, member for New England? We don't need to go over that—

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unless you want my participation!

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right! I have to give you something to do over there!

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will return to the bill at hand.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those five to six experts will have substantial experience and significant standing in one or more areas of expertise, including agriculture, science, environmental markets, land management, economics or Indigenous knowledge. So we have committed to reversing the decline we inherited from those opposite.

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've just had the cartoon version from those opposite, but now you're going to get the movie! It's very important that the Australian people understand what this bill is really about.

I rise today to speak on the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. Under the previous coalition government, comprehensive work was undertaken which led to the development and introduction to the House of Representatives in early 2022 of the Agriculture Biodiversity Stewardship Market Bill. Sadly, this lapsed at the conclusion of the 46th Parliament. The core purpose of the coalition's bill was to establish the legal framework for the operation of a voluntary national market in biodiversity certificates. The coalition believed that incentivising farmers to improve the landscape would create better outcomes for the agricultural sector and the environment.

It's no secret in this place that, in my previous life, I was a tomato farmer. So, when the conversation around climate change, biodiversity and farming comes along, I'm well positioned to put my hand up to speak. I know our farmers want what is best for our environment and their land. I know what they do to protect our landscape and our natural environments. I believe farmers should be growing food and fibre, not being suffocated by government green and red tape.

So, at first glance at this bill, I thought: 'Why not support this? This could mean our farmers and landholders are financially rewarded when they conduct projects to repair and protect nature.' As I started delving further into the bill, I started to become extremely distressed. This bill has been changed so much from the coalition's proposal that now it is impossible to support. The Minister for the Environment and Water has added more complexity to this bill, and that's typical of how the Labor government roll. We see it all the time. There is absence of key detail, and there are so many question marks. It is clear that we will see many negative impacts on landholders, farmers and all Australians for generations to come.

The Albanese Labor government has made the choice to not build on and complement the hard work and stakeholder consultation that has already been done by the previous government. Instead, they bizarrely decided to reinvent the wheel and start the consultation process all over again, wasting precious time and taxpayers' dollars. From the evidence provided at the October 2022 Senate estimates hearing, the Clean Energy Regulator and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water spent $11.4 million in carrying out these activities that the previous government had already completed. It concerns me that $11.4 million can be spent without thought or need when we are in a Labor-created cost-of-living crisis and so many across my electorate right now, including our farmers, are just scraping by.

Let me remind the House that the former coalition government's proposed land stewardship scheme would reward farmers who restored and protected nature on their properties. All the work has been done. The stakeholder consultation was done, and the bill was deliberately confined to agricultural land. However, the Albanese Labor government's proposal expands this to all landholders, and that would apply to terrestrial, coastal and marine areas. This proposed bill will open it up to all freehold land, Crown land, Australian waters and native title areas. This is of great concern. At paragraph 69 on page 23 of the explanatory memorandum, it says:

Native title land will … be either Crown land or Torrens system land

So this would include all grazing homestead perpetual leases, forestry leases, grazing leases and freehold agricultural land. Then, at paragraph 77, it is noted:

In practice, this means that all biodiversity projects to be carried out on native title land or waters would need either to be undertaken by the relevant native title holders, or would require the consent of the relevant native title holders before the project could be registered.

What this essentially is telling us is that native title holders will have the final say on what kind of biodiversity process is carried out on or in native title areas.

The minister has also put private investment at the centre of the government's plan for the environment, which includes a zero-extinctions target and a commitment to protect 30 per cent of Australia's land and sea areas by 2030. Under the scheme, when a landholder conducts a project to repair or protect nature, they will be issued a tradeable certificate. Once projects are approved by the regulator, these certificates can be then sold to a third party, like a philanthropist, a business, a government or an individual. These biodiversity agreements will be for periods of 25 to 100 years in duration. It doesn't take a genius to realise that a 25- to 100-year period could see so many economic, political, government, domestic and international changes. The future is unknown. Recent events like the COVID pandemic just prove that we have no idea what could be around the corner in a year's time, let alone 25 to 100 years time.

I note there are no allowances listed in the bill to adjust or change these committed time frames should the need arise. So there is a danger that unscrupulous green groups could target farmers in bad years and then lock up the land, leaving farmers stuck and unable to move for generations to come. This could mean a shortage of food, higher prices for individuals at the check-out and also fewer export dollars. In the explanatory notes of this bill, it says:

Buyers are expecting to be able to invest in nature to achieve philanthropic objectives, meet their social and environmental responsibilities, compensate for their impacts on nature and manage risks associated with their dependencies on nature.

So this will encourage our biggest corporate emitters and wealthy elite to invest billions of dollars to effectively lock up good-quality agricultural land just to tick a box and to offset their carbon emissions to make themselves feel better. All the while, we could potentially have excellent agricultural land locked up with no management, and it will just go feral, creating yet another set of problems like fire traps and an overrun of feral and invasive animals and noxious weeds. These pests don't just stop at the fence. Seeds blow next door and animals roam, all of which can be detrimental to our nation's environment and is exactly the opposite of what is trying to be achieved.

It's pretty clear, when you drill into the detail of these bills, what the Albanese Labor government is trying to do here, and that is just a bandaid to meet unrealistic net-zero targets. But who will pay for this bandaid proposal if it's voted through? Our farmers will pay, our fishermen will pay, our resources industry will pay, our forestry industry will pay, our regional and rural communities will pay, and ultimately it is the Australian people who will pay. At the end and down the line, the Australian people will have to pay. We will see job losses and ultimately cost-of-living increases, and, when we start to have food supply issues, that is how you weaken a country.

I am sceptical of this emissions trade-off scheme. I don't think it will achieve the outcome that is desired at all. It will not be good for Australia. It will not be good for the environment. Once again, rural and regional Australia will be all the worse off for it while the cities continue to create the bulk of the emissions with no consequences. I cannot stress enough that it is essential to look after our ag industry and our ag land. Rest assured, if the decision-makers in this place dared to visit a farm or even consult the National Party, we would be happy to let you know how farmers all around the country care for and look after the land.

It is very disappointing that this Albanese Labor government decided to take this program from the department of agriculture and place it under the department of the environment. Not only did the government strip away funding from the ag and give it to the environment department, but they also took this program with it. It says a lot about where the Albanese Labor government's priorities really are. They let the ideology of the environment department take over the intent that was at the heart of this bill, which was rewarding farmers not just for carbon abatement but also for biodiversity improvement. Farmers are the real greenies in this country. They are doing their bit for the country and they need to be rewarded—rather than punished, which is what this bill will do.

Our farmers value and protect land. It's what they do every day. It's how they make their money. Many of our farmers have had their farms for multiple generations. Of course they want to look after them. So why don't we bring a bill into this place that will support and look after our farmers? Perhaps offer a carrot rather than a stick. That's how you deliver better outcomes. Our farmers value and protect plant and animal species. The graziers spend multiple times trying to eradicate Chonky apple, rubber vine and all the invasive species that make their farming and grazing land unproductive. That's what they do. They are all united in their desire to produce safe, delicious and healthy food for the rest of us in Australia and throughout the world.

I believe this bill has enormous potential to have a negative impact on farmers, landholders and our natural environment. Ultimately, all Australians will pay. All Australians will be worse off if this bill goes through. We need to support our farmers. They provide the food and fibre for all of us. If we don't have food and we don't have energy—because, clearly, the Albanese Labor government's energy policy isn't working—then we could be subject to a takeover. Let's get behind our farmers. Let's support them. Let's vote this bill down. I strongly oppose this bill.

Alicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. I was in here listening to the member for Dawson just now talking about farmers. I agree with him that farmers do a lot to take care of the land on which they have their farms. I see that with the farmers in my own family, and I know that's important. But this bill is about making it easier for farmers to invest in protecting the land they use. It's about rewarding people for looking after parts of their land, protecting areas, removing weeds, improving waterways, all those sorts of things. So it's about working with farmers and First Nations communities to improve our land. It's a really important bill.

I want to congratulate the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, on this bill as well as all the hardworking public servants in the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water for their efforts in putting it together. I want to commend the minister for her commitment to protect Australia's incredible natural environment and all the work that she has done in just one year since being sworn in.

I've been so impressed by what we have achieved as a government, already, in this space. It builds on a strong Labor legacy of environmental stewardship and protection. We are the party that has delivered every significant environmental reform in Australia's history. Whether it's protection of the Franklin River, the Daintree, Kakadu or K'gari, formerly known as Fraser Island, or the creation of the largest network of marine national parks in the world, Labor has and always will stand up for our environmental heritage.

This government is taking action to bolster that proud legacy. Our nature-positive plan pledges the federal government to protect our land and sea and to leave it in a better state than we found it. That's what nature positive means. Every day in government we want to improve and care for our wonderful natural environment, here in Australia, which we depend on as well.

That's a stark difference to the decade of environmental decline that we saw under those opposite. As the minister points out in the forward of this plan, the equation facing Australia is simple. If our laws don't change, our trajectory of environmental decline will not change either. This legislation is part of those changes. It will help us to deliver on our nature-positive plan. It is just one part of this plan. We're amending our environmental protection laws—incredibly important, and something I discuss with my constituents on a daily basis. People are really keen to see laws that actually protect our environment going forward. It's something that Labor is committed to delivering. We've already legislated strong climate action. Just a few weeks ago, the minister tripled the size of the Macquarie Island Marine Park. We have also committed to no new extinctions. That is a really important commitment. It almost goes without saying, but it is a large commitment in terms of the work that is required, and it is something we are really serious about.

The establishment of the nature repair market, a voluntary national market that will deliver improved biodiversity outcomes, is a key reform that will go a long way to leaving a stronger, more resilient environment for future generations. Why are we taking this approach? The Albanese Labor government knows that we need significant investment in conservation and restoration and that business and private sector investment can contribute to reversing environmental decline. This was highlighted in the findings of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act review by Professor Graeme Samuel. We also know that private companies, conservation groups, farmers and other landholders are increasingly looking for ways to achieve positive outcomes for nature. A recent report prepared independently by PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates the market for biodiversity in Australia could unlock $137 billion in financial flows by 2050. This legislation responds to that incredible demand. By passing this bill we will generate investment, job opportunities and new income streams for landholders, including First Nations native title holders and agriculturalists.

It will also deliver on Australia's international commitments by building a nature-positive economy. It is of vital importance that we protect and repair ecosystems and reverse species decline and extinction. How will it work? Eligible landholders who undertake projects that enhance or protect biodiversity will be able to receive a tradeable certificate that will be tracked through a national register. The Clean Energy Regulator, an independent statutory authority with significant experience in regulating environmental markets, will be responsible for issuing these tradeable biodiversity certificates to Australian landholders. The certificates can then be sold to businesses, organisations, governments and individuals. All landholders, including First Nations Australians, conservation groups and farmers can participate in the market. Projects will deliver long-term, nature-positive outcomes through activities such as weeding, planting native species and pest control. They can be undertaken on land or water, including lakes and rivers as well as marine and coastal environments.

Open participation and extensive opportunity for project locations will support regional Australia through jobs and nature-positive economic activity. The nature repair market will be based on science and enable First Nations Australians to foster their unique knowledge on their own terms. It will promote and enable free, prior and informed consent for projects on their land or waters. It will create opportunities to design projects that reflect the knowledge and connection to country of First Nations peoples and utilise their skills and knowledge for a nature-positive future. This bill is deliberately designed to encourage participation and create employment and economic opportunities for First Nations peoples.

Ultimately, the establishment of the nature repair market will facilitate private investment in biodiversity, including where carbon storage projects have biodiversity co-benefits. By establishing the market in legislation we will ensure its going integrity, encourage investment in nature and drive environmental improvements across Australia.

Something that's important to highlight is that our nature-positive plan presents a different approach to biodiversity offsets. In this bill we are enshrining in legislation that offsets are a last resort. Our government is already designing and consulting on new national standards for matters of national environmental significance and environmental offsets. These will be legislated under the new nature-positive laws. The standards will provide certainty and confidence in the use of biodiversity offsets under Commonwealth laws. They will no longer rely on averted loss but on protection and restoration of ecosystems that provide a nature-positive outcome where avoidance and mitigation cannot prevent a significant impact.

It's important to note that projects under the nature repair scheme won't be used as offsets unless and until they meet the new standards. The nature repair market will be an opportunity to create a supply of projects certified through purpose designed offset methods and it will operate in parallel with the carbon market, facilitated by having the same regulator. This alignment will encourage carbon-farming projects that also deliver benefits for biodiversity. There will administrative efficiencies in this approach and, more importantly, clear and accurate oversight of claims made in both markets.

Our government acknowledges the recent review of carbon crediting led by Professor Ian Chubb. Lessons learned from the carbon market have informed the bill and will continue to be reflected upon as environmental markets develop. Overall, alignment between the carbon and nature markets will help ensure that investments in land sector carbon projects deliver biodiversity co-benefits. The new register proposed by this bill will be a comprehensive and public source of information on these projects and the biodiversity they're protecting. Ensuring transparency and integrity in the market is vital, and that's what we'll do. The Nature Positive Plan reflects our commitment to restoring public accountability and trust. We want buyers to be able to invest in the market with confidence, knowing that the biodiversity certificates have integrity and represent an actual environmental improvement.

There are a number of key methods in this bill which achieve this outcome. First, the bill establishes an independent expert committee which will be responsible for ensuring that projects deliver high-quality nature-positive outcomes underpinned by a consistent approach to the measurement, assessment and verification of biodiversity. The bill also establishes a public register and citizen oversight facilitated by the Clean Energy Regulator, which will regularly publish relevant data from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. Comprehensive information about projects and certificates will be available on a public register, additional information will be regularly published by the regulator and there will be an active release of relevant data by the department. This will enable parliament and the public to monitor the scheme and will provide an opportunity for citizen oversight. And it will support certainty and value to the market. The Clean Energy Regulator will be responsible for monitoring, reporting and notifying stakeholders on the delivery of project activities and progress on the environmental outcomes. The regulator will also have enforcement powers to ensure that projects are conducted in accordance with the rules.

The bill also establishes the Nature Repair Market Committee. The committee will be responsible for providing advice to the minister following public consultation. It will be made up of experts with substantial experience and significant standing in one or more areas of expertise, including agriculture, science, environmental markets, land management, economics or Indigenous knowledge. The bill also mandates public consultation on methods and the instrument for measuring and assessing biodiversity, as well as conducting ongoing consultation and engagement on our environmental reform agenda. We'll work with the ACCC and ASIC to ensure that certificates issued in the nature repair market are not subject to greenwashing. It is of vital importance that the statements made about certificates accurately reflect the projects and investments they represent, and that projects in the carbon and biodiversity markets are not affected by misleading claims. Transparency will be a core element of the scheme.

In the time remaining to me, I just want to comment on the Conservation Council ACT Region's World Environment Day dinner here in Canberra, which I attended recently. It was a night to gather with all the environment movement here in Canberra, to celebrate and support the incredible work that they do. Significantly, they do mostly volunteer work through Landcare groups, friends of grasslands and friends of waterways here in Canberra. They volunteer to improve those areas. I'm not sure of the awareness out there of how much of that work is done by volunteers. I think that's why I am so proud that we have this Nature Positive Plan, that we're able to say we're working every day to leave the environment in a better state than when we came into government. When I see all those people who work so hard and fight so hard for this, I'm really proud that we in this place have the opportunity to vote on, and deliver, this one part of that plan.

There was an incredible speech given at that event by Richard Swain, who is an ambassador for the Invasive Species Council. He's an Indigenous man from the Snowy region, and he is a river guide in the Kosciuszko National Park. He talked about what modern Australia has to learn about respecting country and caring about country and how really the problems that we have created and the damage that we have done to our environment are because of these modern ways. He talked about the very significant changes that we need to make if we really are to change that attitude and to care for country. We have so much to learn from First Nations peoples about the way that they cared for this country for 65,000 years. This bill, importantly, supports First Nations landholders and communities to look after land. It specifically creates opportunities to bring that knowledge into this process, and I think that is really important. I'll pick up on what the previous speaker, the member for Dawson, said about farmers and people in agriculture. They do work every day on the land, and they do care about the land, and this is about helping them and supporting them to look after it through these methods. It is a really important bill, and it is part of an incredibly important plan to protect Australia's environment that is long overdue, and I'm very proud of this work.

I commend this bill to the House.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Nature Repair Market Bill and the related bill. I welcome these bills, which represent a step towards achieving a nature-positive Australia. I also acknowledge the government's professed commitment to protecting 30 per cent of Australia's land and seas by 2030. However, I call on the government to be bolder and to state clearly and definitively that it is committed to achieving a nature-positive Australia at a minimum by 2030. To this end, there are more actions that need to be taken. For example, we must, without delay, stop all native forest logging, and we must protect rainforests, particularly in incredible areas like the Tarkine in Tasmania. These must be protected. We can't talk about biodiversity loss and conservation and continue to ransack pristine and important ecosystems and environment. It's my hope that this bill is a step towards that and that we're going to do better.

In Warringah, my constituents are passionate about the protection of nature. We celebrate our access to the ocean in the protected Cabbage Tree Bay marine park reserve, the Sydney Harbour trust and the national parks at North Head and Middle Head, as well as the protected areas of Manly Dam and Bantry Bay. We would love to see more of these areas, as well as greater protection of wildlife corridors and investment in the restoration of nature. It's my hope that this bill will assist in the achievement of that and that we can do better in protecting our environment. We need to pull all the levers at our disposal to rebuild nature, and, if private investment is a willing participant, then that is great. I'd also like to thank for their active engagement the many groups concerned about this issue, including the Australian Land Conservation Alliance, the World Wildlife Fund, the Australian Conversation Foundation and many others.

The bill establishes a nationally regulated market for investment in nature. It sounds great, but the question is: who will invest and for what purpose? There is much discussion at present about the value of nature. The Australian Conversation Foundation and the Pollination Group found that roughly half of our economy—or some $900 billion in Australia's economy—directly depends on nature. So this is not a nice-to have; this is a must-have. Also, 50 per cent of global GDP depends on nature. We're talking about food and water. All these aspects are directly linked to nature. Despite this, there hasn't been significant investment in its protection, let alone its repair and conservation. There's this idea often that these things are separate and that somehow it's a nice-to-have, when it's intrinsically linked to so much of our way of life.

In briefings about this bill, the government has made many speeches in this place about the predicted $137 billion in investment that this market could drive into nature, as modelled by the PwC report. Many also dispute this advice. It's important to put into perspective that even that report by PwC argued that a regulated market is just one pillar of the four needed to drive investment in nature. The other pillars that are urgently needed include: a national biodiversity strategy and plan; the establishment of national standards and foundational science; a regulatory framework; and compliance and enforcement measures—and, I would argue, government investment to kickstart this market.

These points are supported throughout the submissions to the Senate inquiry, with the key concerns surrounding the integrity of the market and the lack of driver for investment without all the other pillars lining up. Again, this looks good in practice and on paper, but, for it to work, it's going to need a much more significant and serious commitment. The Australian Sustainable Finance Institute in its submission stated:

… the development of a nature market framework will not be sufficient to redirect financial flows towards nature positive outcomes.

I've called on the government and discussed this with the minister, and I call on the Prime Minister to show leadership. There needs to be public funding to incentivise, to kickstart, this market. Just as we saw with renewable energy, where the CFC and ARENA took care of some of the initial market risk so that the private sector could follow, the same needs to happen for this market to work and be successful.

The first pillar is a national biodiversity strategy and plan. Australia is a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity. It has had an overarching strategy for biodiversity since 1996. The latest iteration is Australia's Strategy for Nature 2019-2030. However, the Samuel review, released in 2020, showed our current national environmental protection laws are not working. The 2019 Samuels review of the EPBC Act criticised the act. It said:

The Act is complex and cumbersome and it results in duplication with State and Territory development approval processes. This adds costs to business, often with little benefit to the environment.

The reform of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conversation Act is urgent. We need to see those enhanced protections in place now. That was in 2020. The last government failed to meaningfully implement those recommendations, and, to date, this government has also failed to implement those recommendations. When in opposition, the current government called for urgent action and implementation of the recommendations. Now, in government, we see further delay.

Many are now saying that, despite the government's commitment to implement the reforms by the end of the year, the time line is slipping and next year is now more likely. This is all vital for this bill to have meaning. If we want this to work, the EPBC Act amendments are needed and the Samuel review recommendations need to be implemented. Without these reforms there's no true transparency about how this nature market will operate. The reform of the EPBC Act will determine whether the credit generated from this scheme can be used as offsets and, therefore, whether they will enhance nature or merely maintain the status quo at best. I believe offsets can be a useful tool, but the net result must be nature positive. Business as usual is not working and is not acceptable. I welcome the minister's assurance that it is in the intent, but I won't be convinced of this until we see the EPBC Act amendment legislation.

The second pillar is standards and foundational science. National environmental standards are and must be part of the EPBC Act reform. They were central to the Samuel review recommendations. In addition, both government and industry need timely data and analytics to provide them with a robust baseline. I welcome the funding in the federal budget for the establishment of Environment Information Australia to enhance that data collection and improve the transparency of the performance of our natural environment protection. This new body will be essential in monitoring the performance and success of the nature market.

Specifically, within this bill, there are concerns about the permanency of the credits. The bill allows for a creation of credits for anywhere from 25 to 100 years, or less than 25 years as agreed by the regulator. What is the value of a biodiversity credit of less than 25 years is a very relevant question. The government's response to this has been that it will be a market driven price. However, when this is combined with broader concerns about integrity, I don't support the inclusion of this level of flexibility. The 'less than 25 years as agreed by the regulator' is problematic and undermines the integrity of the scheme.

My third point is on a regulatory framework. Arguably, this bill will help to achieve some regulatory control through the establishment and role of the market regulator. However, there are questions about whether the Clean Energy Regulator is the right body to oversee this market. There are clear conflicts in certain cases. The Clean Energy Regulator acknowledges in its submission:

While the CER has sophisticated tools and a strong regulatory framework, there may be some gaps in our current skills and toolset to monitor compliance for some NRM methods.

While there are clear benefits in having the same body oversee the carbon market and the nature market, we need to make sure that the Clean Energy Regulator is resourced to effectively fulfil both roles, or else we will see further questions of the integrity of the markets, such as we're still dealing with in the carbon market space. My proposed amendments in relation to this bill and the amendments of other crossbench members are seeking to implement some of the recommendations of the recently completed Chubb review to ensure better trust and integrity in the market system—the carbon market into the nature market.

My fourth point is on the compliance and enforcement aspect. Clearly, in addition to the overhaul of the EPBC Act, there must be an authority set up to police and enforce obligations under the relevant legislation—in particular, the overhauled EPBC Act. The establishment of Environment Protection Australia will be essential as an independent cop on the beat to enforce standards and compliance. Without this, the government strategy, however well intended it might otherwise be, will fail. Tradeable certificates such as those envisaged by the Nature Repair Market Bill may serve well as a carrot, but the hard reality is that there also must be a stick.

On government investment, I and many groups who are active in this space strongly feel that the government investment in this market is key and absolutely essential to the achievement of the desired nature-positive outcome. The government has a responsibility to kickstart investment and help mitigate risk. In order for this market to be successful, we need co-investment from government. We need a Clean Energy Finance Corporation equivalent—a nature finance corporation, I would suggest—that the government and the Treasurer should be putting some significant funds behind. We can't achieve the objectives without it. The government argues that the Natural Heritage Trust can fulfil that role, but I don't believe they have sufficient mandate or resources to adequately fulfil that role at present.

The Bob Brown Foundation put it well in their submission:

The purchase of submarines under the AUKUS deal is direct Government investment of $368billion. It is not tradeable certificates or offsets; it is straight up Government spending because 'prevention is better than cure' on national security …

I absolutely agree. But prevention is better than cure when it comes to conservation as well, especially if 50 per cent of our GDP is tied up in nature. And so it is incredibly important that we address that. I fear that, however well intentioned this bill is, it doesn't go far enough to enable that target to be achieved, and the government has missed an opportunity today. Repairing nature is a key part of making sure that we have a sustainable future and of having any chance of negating the worst effects of climate change. We know there are so many impacts already locked in, so restoring and regenerating the degraded natural environment is a critical part of ensuring the planet's survival and that of our way of life and our ecosystems. We can bring back to life dying ecosystems, and delicate natural balances can be recognised and restored.

In other words, participating in a market which puts a value on strategies to achieve nature positive must not be just convenient and a new way of offsetting other shortfalls in corporate behaviour; it's a critical end in itself. These tradeable certificates need to be additional to other measures taken by individuals and corporate entities and should not be just used as offsets. There are many groups that have raised concerns in relation to that, so it's really important that the government grapples with these concerns so that this can have some integrity.

Of course, there must be a balancing of priorities. For example, the National Farmers Federation made a submission:

… that this legislation must first and foremost address the needs of the farm sector, others can follow.

Again, that is an interest at work. WWF indicated:

The use of nature repair certificates to meet mandatory biodiversity offset obligations should be ruled out or at least deferred until the Nature Repair Market is established …

The Property Council of Australia submitted:

Our members have further reported there will be a significant appetite for purchasing biodiversity certificates, and engaging in projects, if the NRM functions effectively and delivers high-integrity environmental outcomes.

We can see from all of this that there are some concerns.

Empowerment of rural and remote Indigenous communities is incredibly important, and I have provided amendments to that effect to ensure that remote and regional communities, and in particular Indigenous communities, are at the centre of this land conservation.

Finally, I'd like to thank the many organisations and volunteers who dedicate so much time, so many hours to cleaning up and protecting our local environment. There are some incredible initiatives. We know Australians care about their environment. To date, politics and regulations haven't properly reflected that. But we are now at a time where it is a priority and so many, especially our young people, are calling on this place to do more to protect our environment.

Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to rise to speak in support of the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. Sometimes people might recoil at the notion of markets being deployed in policy areas such as the environment or the promotion of biodiversity. In those contexts, we are perhaps more used to using other regulatory mechanisms such as setting standards or limiting damage. But markets can have a very important role. In my contribution I want to talk about the ways in which this bill sets up extremely important architecture that will benefit our environmental protection policies more broadly.

I think it's worth remembering why markets can be so beneficial not just in the broader economy but in the achievement of policy goals as well. Firstly, markets, at their heart, are about connecting people—not just buyers and sellers, which is the context in which we usually think of markets, but in all sorts of other contexts. In this context, the parties being connected are landholders and those seeking an environmental outcome. It might be a developer seeking to offset damage that is being incurred as a result of a development, or it might be a company seeking to achieve an ESG outcome. But ultimately at the heart of markets is connecting people. I want to start with that, because that's why it's so critical that the right regulatory framework is established.

Secondly, markets are about achieving effective, efficient outcomes once people are connected. One thing I think that's often forgotten with markets is that, particularly where markets involve voluntary transactions, those transactions will involve a benefit for both parties. That's something that I think is extremely important and sometimes forgotten when we think about markets. They're win-win transactions. But markets need to be well designed in many contexts in order to achieve the maximal win-win aggregate across those transacting. There are many contexts in which markets are used—obviously throughout the economy but also in many areas of public policy, in our employment services and in the NDIS. There are many areas of public policy where markets do both of these things: they connect people and they achieve mutually beneficial transfers. But there are also many contexts where markets need to have regulatory architecture.

We talk about free markets, but even the markets that we often think of as free have a great deal of regulatory architecture. They often have disclosure arrangements. They often have consumer protection arrangements. There are often clearing houses, for example, in equities markets. Stock exchanges can only open at certain times. There are often standards applied to goods or services. So regulation is key even for markets that we think of as 'free', but regulation is doubly important where we are seeking to achieve complex and important public policy goals.

Markets for biodiversity and environmental outcomes are becoming more common around the world. The Wetland Mitigation Banking Program in the US was the first, or one of the first, biodiversity environmental protection markets, but other schemes have since been trialled or implemented in the UK, France, Germany and, indeed, some state jurisdictions in Australia. These schemes take a number of forms, but at the heart of them is connecting different parties, through appropriate and well-designed regulation, to achieve the maximum mutually beneficial gain and policy outcomes.

I want to talk about the importance of well-designed regulatory arrangements for markets in the context of what we're trying to achieve here, because this is a setting where well-designed regulation is absolutely fundamental. Let's think for a moment about a simple possible transaction between a developer and a farmer or landholder. We could leave that to a bilateral arrangement, as we might do in other situations. For example, in the situation of a consumer looking for a seller of food we tend to leave those people to find each other. We set some regulatory standards—for example, by having minimum standards for the food—but we generally let people find each other. But in this context, if we didn't have a well-designed market—if we instead left developers or other companies seeking ESG outcomes to find those who hold land—extremely complicated searches to find matches between those parties would be required, and that wouldn't occur in practice. That's why well-designed markets in this context are extremely important. We would also find there was insufficient integrity in these markets in many cases. In some contexts in the case of offset markets a party might have an obligation. Not in this context at the moment but in examples of similar markets overseas, integrity is absolutely critical in seeing those obligations satisfied, in order for the ultimate objective to be achieved. It's also critical, when there is complexity in the transactions, that markets are designed in order for there to be transparency.

We have here a situation where we are trying to achieve biodiversity or environmental outcomes but there are a number of complexities. I want to run through a couple of the complexities that make absolutely clear why we can't simply leave it to people to find each other, which is what happens in some other parts of the economy. There can be what you might describe as transactional complexities. Let's say, for example, that somebody is trying to achieve a particular outcome by planting five of tree type A and three of tree type B. They might be able to find a landholder who can achieve part of that but not all of it. In trying to achieve environmental outcomes there will be many instances where the person who is trying to achieve the outcome has to find multiple landholders. That adds a great deal of complexity to the achievement of the goal. The other side of the transaction in these contexts can also be complex. You might have a landholder who has a great deal of environmental benefit to gain from repairing their land, but that potential may not be realisable through an engagement with just one particular developer or corporation.

So what we have here is a double-sided complexity where, on one side, landholders have to transact with multiple parties—multiple developers or corporations—with ESG obligations or goals and, on the other side, each of those parties needs to seek multiple landholders. In reality, that often won't be possible through letting people find each other. That's where markets, if they're well-designed, can step in, because they can match those different parties in such a way that their obligations and goals can be simultaneously achieved.

There are other transaction complexities that arise in the particular context of environmental goals. It's often critical that certain environmental goals be achieved by coordination across multiple landholders—for example, if you're trying to achieve a wildlife corridor. That will require a degree of coordination that may not be possible if you let everybody engage with each other in bilateral transactions in, what you might call, a free-for-all.

There might be benefits from achieving environmental outcomes of a particular type—for example, the planting of particular trees or the development of particular ecosystems at a certain scale. That might require contiguous developments. Again, that kind of coordination may not be possible if you allow everybody to engage in a free-for-all. So achieving the environmental obligations will often not be possible unless you set up arrangements that are well designed and a market that connects people in a way that maximises the achievement of policy goals.

There can often be policy complexities in this setting. There might be dozens or hundreds of different tree types, dozens of different types of ecosystems that are being repaired. It can be very difficult, in practice, for those who are seeking to achieve these policy objectives to do it through bilateral transactions between themselves and landholders. There can often be strategic difficulties. Well-designed markets can help because integrity is achievable, and that won't be achieved if the market doesn't have some standards set for each transaction.

There can be thin markets. If there are many different types of ecosystems or trees, for example, it might be that there aren't that many people transacting on either side. This is a problem that we see in many contexts. That's why many markets establish what are called clearing houses or central trading areas, where all the different buyers and sellers come together to thicken markets, to make markets more effective. While that is a beneficial regulatory move, in and of itself, the critical thing in this context is that it often won't be enough to achieve the objectives. Where you have thin markets, where you have not many buyers or sellers in a particular type of transaction—for example, for a particular type of tree—you also need to deal with all of the complexities that I talked about earlier.

All of these are examples of why, if you don't design markets well, if you don't bring people together, the kinds of outcomes that you're seeking—the kinds of environmental outcomes, the kinds of offsets from particular types of development or the satisfaction of ESG goals, ultimately repairing the environment as the goal—won't be achievable. They won't be achievable unless you set up markets that can coordinate people's activities and bring them together. A well-designed market can match people, bring them together and coordinate their activities.

As other speakers have talked about, the potential here for gain is massive. It has been estimated that biodiversity markets could generate more than $137 billion in financial flows. That represents a huge amount of repair of the environment. So the potential gain here is massive. But that potential gain relies upon well-designed markets, which take us from a position of relying upon very limited bilateral swaps to one of helping bring people together, to achieve win-win transactions in a much more socially optimal way.

I've talked a lot about market design, which can become a very technical subject but it's a very important one. Just about everybody in this chamber agrees that nature repair is important, but the mechanism we use to achieve that is also extremely important. It's not enough for us to have aspirations to achieve public policy goals. In some contexts, we also need to define, design and implement mechanisms that, in practice, overcome a lot of the transaction and policy difficulties that can thwart those attempts. As I mentioned earlier, and also in other speeches in this place, there are many other contexts where I believe that these kinds of markets could produce significant social gains. Whether it's services in areas like assisting people to get a job—our employment services market—or whether it's the NDIS or a range of other areas, well-designed markets have the potential to bring people together in ways that significantly increase the surplus and the mutual gains that arise from trade.

At their heart, markets are about connecting people or organisations. We usually think about that in the context of very simple transactions—somebody down at the market looking for fruit and deciding whether or not to buy the fruit based upon whether they value that particular object more than the price it's being offered for. Or it's somebody wandering around a supermarket, or hopping online to buy services. I think it's absolutely critical to remember that, at their heart, markets are about connecting people and doing so in a way that brings together mutually beneficial transactions. That's what drives so many of the benefits that all of us enjoy in our broader economy. But in the context of many public policy applications of markets, we need to be very careful in how we use markets. That's why I think this bill is so important. If we don't have a well-designed market in the context of the environment, we're not going to achieve the ultimate goals—the biodiversity goals and the nature repair goals which we're seeking. That's why this bill is such an important step forward.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. I want to state from the outset that I'm not opposed to farmers being compensated for protecting the environment for the benefit of the greater good. But I will say that I've been watching this debate with some interest, and speech after speech has been by people who actually have no concept of what this means in a practical sense. These are people who live in suburbia, who live in completely concreted and altered parts of the environment. I haven't heard one speech where they talk about the people they represent maybe changing what they're doing.

One of the great misconceptions is that the environment in Australia is somehow in a terrible state of decline. I find that deeply offensive to the people of regional Australia. My own family—my brothers and I—was one of the first to experiment with zero-till farming back in the 1970s. That has been a revolution which increased soil carbon, reduced erosion and made large areas of Australia highly productive. I'll say from the outset that the motivation for protecting the environment and biodiversity is always around the increase in production. The motivation to look after the land that you're in charge of is in production-earning income, because if you let your land decline and haven't looked after the health of your soil or planted trees along waterways, shade lines or whatever, then you're not productive. Many of those issues which are being spoken about here may have been relevant in 1920 but they're certainly not relevant today.

I've heard that in some of the speeches. The member for Warringah was a classic example. She called for the stopping of old-growth logging in forests. She lives in an electorate that's completely altered. Where do the houses in Warringah come from? Trees are being cut down and there are holes in the ground where the bricks were made. Carbon has been emitted while the cement was being made. What sort of a fairyland do these people live in? And then they say, 'We've got what we want, so you folks out there can just stop what you're doing.'

The world's population is at seven billion, and heading to 10 billion in a very short time, but not one of these speeches has talked about what they're going to eat. These credits and agreements that are being signed up to are for 25 to 100 years. How do we know what the circumstances will be in that time? Are we locking future generations into poverty because we reduced or stopped the ability to produce food because it suited people who live in urban areas to balance off their emissions—the large corporations to pay farmers to lock-up their land and plant trees? What possible benefit is that going to have for future generations of this country? It's breathtaking to see. It's like we're in a vacuum, in a debating chamber in a first-year university class where people are signalling their virtue and having all the theories under the sun but not having one practical idea of what it means to people on the ground.

Returning to my friend the member for Warringah and cutting old growth forests, 15 years ago the Labor government in New South Wales wiped out the cypress pine timber industry in the Pilliga Forest. It employed hundreds of people in a forest that was managed. The undergrowth was managed. Since that time, it has burnt in large amounts in incredibly hot fires. Koalas and sensitive vegetation have been destroyed by very hot fires because the forest has just been locked up and left. At the moment we have an issue with some very sensitive caves in the Pilliga that have great value to the local Gamilaraay people that are being destroyed by feral goats because there's no management in there looking after these things. In the wetlands of the Gwydir River west of Moree there are thousands of feral pigs because there's no-one in there to manage them.

So the idea that locking up land—I'll tell you what the idea is, Member for Macquarie. Locking up land, thinking that locking it up is good for the environment, is a falsehood. It's an absolute falsehood. Adjoining my property at Bingara is a stock route that hasn't been used for years. It is now overgrown with cypress pine and prickly pear; rabbits and feral pigs live in there. Over the fence on my property, where we rotationally graze—we manage the level of vegetation—the hardest working people on my farm are the dung beetles. They are the unsung heroes of regional Australia, building up soil carbon. We're going into a dry time. The livestock are still doing well. It's a healthy, active environment.

This idea of locking it up—and then the next step over is somehow this idea that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have an innate ability to be the overall best land managers. Handing over the final say in a deal that you might be doing on conserving a part of your land, taking the money—I understand all of that; I'm not opposed to that—but then having another body, the local land council or someone like that, come in to have a final say on whether this ticks off or not is not what Australia is all about. Freehold land is freehold land, and the decisions should be made on that by the people that own it. Bringing in a third party is not going to help this process. It will be just another clip of the ticket, another lot of rent-seeking going on in this process.

My concern, if we go forward into the years to come, in a hundred years—if you go back a hundred years, in Australia people were farming with horses, in horse teams. The government with closer settlement would take blocks of land from people if they actually hadn't cleared it and turned into it productive use. Soldier settlers—I was at Piallaway hall celebrating its hundredth birthday on Saturday. That community was built by closer settlement, by people coming in and changing the landscape. A hundred years on, that is still a productive area. It's still a vibrant living environment that's sequestering carbon, that's doing its bit because of the stewardship of the people that are there. We need to be very careful with what we do here. As I said at the start, I'm not opposed to farmers being compensated because they are using part of their property for conservation. This was actually a policy started under the previous government, and I was supportive of that. But, as per usual, because of the current government's lack of any practical understanding outside these four walls of what this stuff means, it's going that step further. It makes this unworkable. It impinges on the rights of individual Australians to produce and own land. But, big picture, it's about understanding that Australia feeds 50 million people outside of Australia. Countries around the world that can't produce the protein that we can rely on us. So why on earth are we trying to restrict that ability?

Members opposite know the balance of payment. The sectors that got us through the pandemic, agriculture and mining, are all being negatively impacted by this sort of legislation. Back to the idea that we will cut all old-growth forests—we'll just buy our timber from a Third World country's old-growth forest where they don't have any regulations. 'That's all right. We'll let them denude their country because they need a balance of payments.' No regulations and it comes in on a ship, but boy we feel good. We've stopped our timber workers, the ones down in Gippsland now being told by the Victorian government that they have no future, but we feel good about ourselves, don't we? Now the timber is going to come in from Indonesia, South America or somewhere like that.

We live in a global environment. It's not just about signalling our virtue with what we do here. We need to understand that, if we do things here and start importing things from somewhere else, the environment of the globe actually suffers. We saw that with the cement industry. Way back in 2008 or 2009, when the first discussion on a carbon tax came in—I'll digress a bit, Deputy Speaker, please—just on the strength of that, Cement Australia shut the plant at Kandos. It had been there for years and years. So where does the cement that comes in to build the suburbs that our good friends on the other side live in come from now, do you think? It comes in on a ship through the harbour, probably from Indonesia. No environmental laws there, but we feel good. We've closed down an industry in Kandos that was there for dozens of years, maybe 100 years or so. Those people don't have a job, but we've done our job here in Australia, haven't we? That's what happens with going a step further.

If it had stuck to its original concept, I would have supported this bill, because the other thing that's related to this is offsets. Taking your family to Disneyland for a holiday and ticking the green box so someone locks up a bit of forest somewhere or plants a few trees helps your conscience, but it still hasn't reduced your own emissions. What I want to see and hear is a debate where everyone in here looks at what their electorates can do to reduce emissions and look after the environment. It's all well and good for the member for Warringah to talk about the Tarkine—how far is that from Warringah? It's across the Bass Strait. Seriously, when will we start to see policy in here where all Australians can carry the weight evenly rather than just regional Australians, the people who have actually been carrying the economic responsibility of keeping this country solvent? We keep trimming away their ability to do that, whether we're restricting mining—we've had the Greens over here wanting to ban coal mining and gas—or, now, having this attack on productive agricultural farming.

A bit of this is fine. I've got some carbon sinks in my electorate. A bit of it's fine, but I don't want the whole of my electorate covered in trees. We're talking about the environment. You take out a productive farm, you plant it with trees and everyone feels good about themselves. What happens to the people that ran that farm? What happens to the business that supplied the drench, the fertiliser, the seed? What happens to the people that sheared the sheep on that farm? What happens to the company in town that owned the truck that carted the grain to the terminal? It's all gone. Then what happens to the person in town who's a schoolteacher with a reduced number of kids? What about the hairdresser, the coffee shop, the supermarket? This is an attack on country Australia. While we're all feeling good over there about protecting the environment but not doing one thing ourselves, bit by bit you're strangling regional Australia to a point where it's no longer viable.

I'm opposed to this bill. I'm sorry that I have to be, because in its original form, as put up by the last government, it would have been a positive one. Now I'm afraid to say it is potentially dangerous in the longer term for this country, and I no longer will support it.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise in support of this bill before the House of Representatives today, the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. Labor wants to leave our natural spaces better off for the next generation. I listened carefully to the speech from the member for Parkes. We represent quite different regions within New South Wales. I'm sad that he feels unable to support a bill that will leave this country better off for the next generations.

There are plenty of farmers who actually regard themselves as some of the best stewards and guardians of this land and are very, very keen to participate in a scheme that would assist them to ensure that their productive farmlands are able to both produce product for the nation and export but also conserve really important parts of our biodiversity in this nation. I look forward to working with farmers not just in New South Wales but across this country who have a deep, deep connection to this land, and their knowledge and skills will be vital in helping ensure that we do leave our natural spaces better off for those that come after us.

This bill is going to introduce a world-first scheme. No-one has tried this before. But it should not be beyond Australia to lead the world in these matters. This is going to be a scheme where landowners can be paid by a third party for protecting and restoring nature on their land. We're supporting farmers and First Nations communities—who, of course, are significant landholders in this nation—to do things like replanting vital stretches of koala habitat, repairing damaged river beds or removing invasive species. It will mobilise and make it easier for business, philanthropists and others to invest in repairing nature across Australia, and it will allow them to buy a quality product that is verified and regulated so that they can be sure that their investment is big, long lasting and has great environmental impacts at the end. Investors, philanthropists and landowners everywhere want to know that their investment is going to count for something. This scheme will help ensure that is the case.

A recent report found that by creating this biodiversity market Australia can unlock $137 billion to repair and protect our environment by 2050. That is an extraordinary sum of money—$137 billion. It is extraordinary that those opposite might be offended by the creation of a market solution to our biodiversity issues, but there you go. Strange things happen in politics. The purpose of this bill, let's not forget, is to establish a voluntary market framework to support landholders in protecting and restoring nature. It will include, importantly, a traceable biodiversity certificate, assurance and compliance arrangements, a public register and a nationally consistent approach for measuring biodiversity outcomes.

There are some terrific examples of what this scheme might deliver and some of the possible projects that it could include. Where landholders see that they have a natural marsh that needs restoration because it's a critical habitat for diverse native frogs, fish, turtles and wetland bird species, this scheme might assist in the provision of money to help remove drainage ditches and carve out livestock and feral herbivores from those areas as necessary. It might include projects like the Indigenous rangers, who undertake a lot of feral animal exclusions now but need additional support. They do things such as buffel grass removal, feral cat control and cultural burning, like we see in the central desert and the savannas in northern Australia. The certificate generated for projects like that could support Indigenous rangers working on country for activities for many years to come. It's a whole new source of income for the Indigenous rangers project, which we know is phenomenally successful in this country. It could help with projects like restoring a seagrass meadow permanently lost from historic poor catchment water quality, providing habitat for sea turtles, dugongs, marine fish and seahorses. Monitoring could be provided by local commercial and recreational fishers, who foresee local increased fish stocks. That's what they want to see in their waters, which they want to see as continued productive spaces in this nation.

After 10 years of inaction on this front—we heard that there were some possible thoughts and some groundwork being laid by the former government, but nothing happened—the Labor government have taken up that baton, and we've said that we can't tolerate inaction on this front any longer. We can't see the state of our natural surrounds fall to disrepair and misuse. We need to rebuild trust. We need to restore public confidence and public accountability. These are key to the government's Nature Positive Plan. The market will be regulated by the Clean Energy Regulator, which will have monitoring and enforcement powers, to ensure that projects are conducted in accordance with the rules. This includes monitoring, reporting and notification on the delivery of project activities and progress on the environmental outcomes. An independent committee will be there to provide advice to the minister about the methods that set the rules for the projects. That's important too. The status and ownership of certificates will be tracked through a public register. So high levels of accountability are built into this scheme.

As I said, this scheme is a world first. Australia is absolutely well placed to be a leader in this regard, and it comes as no surprise to me that it will be the Australian Labor Party to lead on this front. We are, after all, the party that has delivered every significant environmental reform in Australia. No other party has consistently acted to protect our natural assets, as the Australian Labor Party has. In 1983, Labor saved the Franklin River from being dammed. Labor protected the Daintree, Kakadu and Tasmanian World Heritage areas. Labor reformed the native forest industry and protected the most important old-growth stands across the country. Between 2007 and 2013, the federal Labor government built the largest network of marine national parks in the world, and we set Australia on a path to a low-carbon future. We protected 170,000 hectares of Tasmania's forests as World Heritage and halted the supertrawler.

While these are big, headline actions that inspire, Labor, importantly, have also embedded environment into our planning processes, and we've built ways to assess, regulate and enforce environment controls. In the early 1970s, former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam appointed Australia's second federal environment minister, Moss Cass, and the country's first urban planning minister, Tom Uren. Under Whitlam, the nation's first environmental impact statement inquiry was established and found that the sand mining on Queensland's Fraser Island was untenable. Embedding environmental outcomes while building the nation and its prosperity was central to the endeavours of the Whitlam government and the modernisation of the Labor mission.

Australia is home to some is of the most stunning natural environments in the world, but, after a decade of neglect under the Liberals and the Nationals, many of those places are now in a state of unacceptable disrepair. This has jeopardised efforts to protect threatened species and conserve natural habitats while undermining tourism opportunities for our regional economies. The nature repair market forms part of our Nature Positive Plan to protect more of what's precious to us all, repair more of what's damaged and manage nature better for the future. The government is rewriting Australia's old, broken environment laws to better protect our environment and make clearer, faster decisions. At the heart of this plan is $121 million to establish Environment Protection Australia to restore trust to a system that badly needs it. The EPA will be a tough cop on the beat. It will transform our system of environmental approvals. It will be transparent and independent. It will make environmental assessments, decide project approvals and the conditions attached to them, and it will make sure that those conditions are being followed on the ground.

Our budget last month provided urgent funding to save some of Australia's most precious places and those who look after them, including $262.3 million to support our Commonwealth national parks. This is new funding that will go to upgrading or replacing outdated infrastructure, ensuring staff can carry out threatened species protection, increasing opportunities for First Nations employment and businesses and much more. We also had $92.8 million for urgent upgrades in the town of Mutitjulu within the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park to provide critical infrastructure like water, sewerage and electricity—basic essentials many of us take for granted. We'd like to provide those and make sure that the Mutitjulu community also get to enjoy important infrastructure and connectivity. We want to help deliver better outcomes in terms of health and housing in that community, too. This is an important investment.

We also had $163.4 million to ensure the Australian Institute of Marine Science can contribute to providing world-leading scientific marine research and protect our oceans, including the Great Barrier Reef. We had $45.2 million for the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust to address a critical backlog of repairs there. There are deteriorating walls, docks and seawall stabilisation, and there are safety concerns, like the rock falls from the cliff. Other maintenance is needed to ensure public safety and avoid permanent loss of heritage value. We're also investing $236 million to establish a national and reliable flood warning system—an issue that is important to each and every one of us in this parliament, I would have thought. The funding will be used to purchase and upgrade gauges, ensuring that communities in flood-prone areas can be better prepared and supported.

We want to protect our environment from destruction, but our ambition for nature is much bigger than that. Just like the Hawke government established Landcare, we want to restore environments that have been damaged in the past. That's how we build a truly nature-positive Australia, leaving our environment in a better state for our kids and our grandkids. The Albanese Labor government is investing in projects that repair nature, including money to support our programs that repair world heritage properties and restore Ramsar wetlands. I have a Ramsar wetland in my electorate, at the Hunter Wetlands National Park. They are critical to our natural wellbeing. Having money go into those wetlands is something we should all applaud.

We also have funds towards conserving threatened species and ecosystems. There's another $118.5 million to help community groups, NGOs, local governments and First Nations groups carry out projects to clean up and restore local urban rivers and waterways. These projects include activities like planting native species along creeks and building small-scale wetlands to filter pollution and improve water quality. We're investing $7.7 million to support landholders to carry out activities to repair nature, by establishing a world-leading nature repair market. That's the subject of today's bill. That's what I seek support for from everybody in this House. We want to be a country that stops environmental decline and does the heavy lifting of repairing our nature now.

I ask everyone to join the government in this ambitious goal. As I said, it should not be beyond the Australian government to do so. We have long fought for nature on the world stage. Let a Labor government again put us on the world stage with the passage of this legislation today.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this bill, the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. The need to repair and restore our natural environment, particularly in the face of alarming species loss, is upon us. Australia is experiencing high rates of extinction, with countless species teetering on the edge of disappearance at a faster rate than anywhere else on this planet. It is our moral duty and responsibility to take immediate action to protect and restore nature, preserving the incredible biodiversity that sustains our ecosystems and enriches our lives.

The Nature Repair Market Bill provides a sensible framework to assist landholders to facilitate the repair of our lands and waterways, through a market mechanism. Such a mechanism will encourage the committal of land that would otherwise not be offered for this purpose.

I would just like to consider a couple of the issues raised by the member for Parkes. It's fair to say that there is potentially a concern about prime agricultural farmland. About four to six per cent of South Australia is considered prime agricultural farmland. I don't think we want to see that locked away. I think that that's reasonable. We know we are going to have a growing global population, and we want to be able to produce as much food as we can. I do think, though, in many of our electorates, it's actually urban sprawl that's the biggest challenge our farmland faces. We need to make sure that we are limiting urban sprawl. Certainly in my electorate I'm seeing far too many really good hectares carved up and lots of tiny 400 square metre blocks put in their place. The cows are gone, the lucerne's gone and there are wall-to-wall houses. We need to make sure that, when we do development, we need to do it sustainably so that it still keeps our farmland—much like they do in France and most of Europe—and that, when we're looking at urban development, we do it within those urban areas.

We know from experience that market driven systems are an effective way to provide an outcome by financial incentivisation. Allowing diversity certificates, that may also be sold to interested persons in the market, will create an opportunity for landholders to assess the value of their land in terms beyond its agricultural or other working use. It will provide landholders with the opportunity to remove portions of their land for specific environmental projects, with appropriate financial compensation.

I might also say that I do recognise what the member for Parkes was saying with respect to us sharing, right across this parliament and right across our electorates, the burden of reducing our emissions. That shouldn't just be sitting purely with regional Australia. We need to make sure we're all doing our fair share of lifting. I know, in my community, many farmers are concerned about the conversations in here that some people have had with respect to methane, and those conversations have often been from members that I don't think would even have a cow in their electorate. However, I digress.

It is so important that we consider all options to improve the health of ecosystems that are vital for the survival and recovery of species. This bill is just one tool and complements the suite of other environmental legislation that seeks to preserve our natural habitat. This bill will foster a sense of stewardship and promote sustainable practices, and it will inspire individuals and communities to actively participate in the protection of endangered species and their habitats beyond present levels.

Landholders, particularly in the agricultural sector, are proud custodians of their land, despite the many wrongful criticisms of this sector, having engaged in continual land management improvement practices. This has resulted in linear improvements in crop yields, low fertiliser use and the maintenance of soil profiles. I'm confident that this bill will encourage these custodians of the land to look at how they can further improve the land beyond its productive capacity, and I know that within my own electorate I have many landowners who would jump at this opportunity to set aside sections of land for projects that will result in tradeable biodiversity certificates.

One such landholder is a lovely gentleman I know called Richard Lintern. I've spoken about Richard in this place previously. Richard is a generational landholder in Mount Torrens in the Adelaide Hills. His property has been used over the generations for various farming enterprises, including grazing. Richard's property has a unique history. Not only was it used for productive agriculture; it was also home to the locally renowned Boundary Race. The race brought riders and their horses from surrounding areas to battle for the honour of winning the local race, which criss-crossed his property. Riders would race past many historical buildings, which were used for barbecues, tickets, betting and beer service. These buildings and the home straight posts remain as a reminder of the once grand community event. Richard is proud of the history and natural beauty of his property and wants to return a significant portion of that property to native vegetation title, to create a conservation oasis for the many flora and fauna species—such as kangaroos, echidnas and black cockatoos—that are thriving on his property now. In Richard's case, this Nature Repair Bill will provide an opportunity to monetise a great contribution to environmental repair. This is about choice for farmers, and it is about monetisation, which I think is really important and certainly due. I'm sure there will be many others like Richard, and the environment will be a beneficiary. So I support this bill.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australian poet Judith Wright wrote of the wild black cockatoos:

Tossed on the crest of their high trees

Crying the world's unrest.

And the world is restless. We have come to a point where our own actions have made life more difficult for many species, both flora and fauna. Where I come from, in Noongar boodja, the karak—the black cockatoos—of three subspecies are under severe pressure. Mammals, birds, reptiles and vegetation are under threat in different ways and through different causes all over Australia. If we agree that this is an issue—and I'm sure we agree on that point—then we can only differ in the way in which we decide we need to respond.

There are different ways to respond to biodiversity threats, and they are not exclusive. One way is to improve protection. The budget provides for a new Commonwealth protective regime for the environment, an overarching EPA, which will better ensure that development occurs in a manner consistent with environmental values and outcomes. This is no small change: $121 million has been budgeted over four years for Environment Protection Australia and $51.5 million for Environment Information Australia to ensure that decisions by the EPA are well founded and better information is available to the community as well.

It would be wonderful if protection were enough. The parlous state of many of our environments tells us that we need to do more. Members are often on their feet in this place speaking of evidence based policy, and that is fair enough. We should always look for evidence to underpin our policymaking in health, in education and in every area of government. Failure to base our policymaking on the best available evidence leads inexorably to ills such as the terrible delays in this country taking proper climate action, with this Labor government now having to play catch-up. Protection has not been enough. The evidence for this is contained in many places—in the hills and the valleys, in our towns and waterways, and in the diminishing count of many species that once flourished in this country. It is contained in the Samuel report. In October 2020, Graeme Samuel stated:

Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat.

He called for:

… actively restoring the environment and facilitating the scale of investment needed to deliver better outcomes.

The new Commonwealth environment protection agency, as good as it will be, will not be charged with actively restoring the environment, nor will it be charged with facilitating investment. It will have a different regulatory role. The current bill is designed to meet Samuel's challenge. He further stated:

The scale of the task ahead is significant and is too large for governments to try to solve alone. To support greater collaboration between governments and the private sector, new mechanisms are needed to leverage the scale of investment that will be needed for decades to come.

We already engage positively as a society with nature, through cultural activities like hiking and camping, and we engage positively through laws and regulations designed to protect. The budget goes further than ever before in that regard, as I mentioned earlier. This bill for a nature repair market seeks to allow more people to engage positively with nature through the economy, by making the repair of nature more visibly and actively an economic good. It encourages those who already do this work to do more and to receive benefit, and it encourages more people, businesses, not-for-profits, associations, councils, Indigenous organisations and companies to engage. I have heard the usual wobblies from some members opposite, that the scheme will somehow be compulsory. It isn't. I've heard that it will eat up valuable farmland. It won't. Members need to catch up.

On 29 April this year, I attended an incredibly informative workshop hosted by the knowledgeable Chris Ferreira, founder of the Forever Project. That organisation is proud to have provided environmental education to over 130,000 people over the last 30 years. Chris taught us how to create our own patch of rural paradise through healthy soil, water and land management. Sharing details with the workshop attendees of the government's nature repair market plan gave life to those ideas and gave hope to those landholders as to how they could enact that change to restore their land by having the backing of those businesses, not-for-profits and community organisations through the unlocking of their share of the $137 billion that this is forecast to provide. This will enable them to put into practice the nature restoration that Chris spoke about.

There are dozens of environmental groups within the peri-urban electorate of Hasluck, each with a particular focus. I will name just some: the Perth Hills Climate Change Interest Group, Trillion Trees Australia, the Citizens Climate Lobby Hasluck Chapter, the Susannah Brook Catchment Group Inc., the Blackadder Woodbridge Catchment Group, the Jane Brook Catchment Group Inc., Kanyana Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre and the Ellenbrook Bushland Group. These groups and others will follow this debate with keen interest, and some of them will no doubt seek to add economic action to their political advocacy. The business community, too, is happily waiting for this scheme to begin. Law firms up and down the main street of every city—Minter Ellison, Corrs and others—have already published advice to their clients about this new market.

I invite members opposite to get on board. I understand that this legislation is heralded as the first of its kind in the world. That, by itself, it might cause some disquiet. I've only been here for a year, but I know this about legislation: for every piece of legislation, sometime, somewhere, it was the first of its kind. Pensions, universal education, Medicare, superannuation—some innovative person somewhere came up with an excellent idea and then everyone else copied them and later called it normal, even mundane. It's okay to be first. It's wonderful.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is particularly interesting in this debate is how city-centric members come into this chamber—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't interrupt either of you, so don't you interrupt me—and tell us what is good for country people, like they'd know, as if they're some sort of authority as to how regional people should be living their lives. I note that the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and the amendments have amendments by the Teal members for Goldstein and for Wentworth. I also note the procession of metropolitan Labor MPs who have lined up to tell us what is good for us. When I say 'us', I mean country people.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, they're doing us a favour.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Forrest says, as though 'they're doing us a favour'. I'm glad that the member for Flynn is in the chamber. I would urge and encourage anybody who wants to know more about this Nature Repair Market Bill to read the speech he delivered in this chamber last night. He had five years of experience in the Queensland parliament before he came here. He's doing a great job as a first-term member for Flynn, an electorate that is large and wide and takes in a considerable amount of agriculture. The member for Flynn himself knows all about transport and farming and comes to this place with lived experience. When you finish reading Colin Boyce's speech, then read the Member for Parkes's speech. He just delivered a great speech. It's one of his best ever. He got quite animated—and for good reason—because when you hear the Nationals and the Liberals talking about this Nature Repair Market Bill legislation, they come here with lived experience. They give firsthand accounts of having spoken to people in their electorates, in their communities, about the important things that we need to do to improve soil, to enhance productivity and to improve agriculture—not necessarily what is contained in this legislation.

I note in the Treasurer's May budget speech, very early in his address, he obliquely—and it was very obliquely—referenced the 'high prices for the things we sell overseas'. I note that he could not possibly bring himself to say what those things actually were—coal, gas, iron ore, farm production, agriculture. They're the things that those opposite just don't seem to have a reality around. They don't seem to have that lived experience concept about what might be good for the mining or the agricultural industries.

The member for Flynn will back me up on this. The Queensland budget surplus this week—apparently a record on the back of what we dig out of the ground and what we produce from regional areas—will pay for a lot of public servants, a lot of their pay increases, a lot of power, a lot of state hospitals and a lot of public schools, hospitals and schools which were once always the remit of state governments. Somehow, someway, as the Commonwealth, we have to pay for everything nowadays. But we're not going to be able to continue to pay for everything if we cruel those industries which are carrying this country, which, certainly during COVID-19, provided the backbone for this country to keep people alive.

It absolutely angers me when members opposite, from their Labor dirt unit talking points, say, 'A trillion dollars worth of Liberal debt,' which ain't true. It's nowhere near a trillion dollars. But they say, 'What did we get for it?' What did we get for the debt that we are in now? I'll remind those members opposite, and I'll remind any member of the public listening, what we achieved from the spending during the worst times of COVID. I'll note we're not out of the woods yet with the global pandemic. We kept at least 60,000 people alive. That's 60,000 Australians who are alive now who otherwise would not be alive had we not spent that money, and who have jobs now who otherwise would not have jobs had we not spent that money. There are those businesses whose doors are still open that would be closed and bankrupted and forever have their doors shut but for the money that we spent. I say: good on the former member for Kooyong, the former Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg; he did an outstanding job and I hope to see him back here in the not too distant future.

This city-centric Labor government does not, unfortunately, have a high regard for the regions. If it did, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would have seen the Treasurer, the member for Rankin, help those regions with infrastructure money. Do you know what? For very first time in a quarter of a century the Treasurer of Australia stood at that dispatch box, just there, and did not mention the word 'infrastructure' once—not once, for the first time in 25 years. I call that out and I say it is a disgrace.

I'll credit Labor with one thing: they are very sneaky, tricky and clever when it comes to naming bills. Some might say these bills, the 'nature repair market' bills, are cleverly titled. I call it out. I say they're deceptively titled, because, as the member for Flynn quite correctly pointed out in his contribution last night, nature is not broken. It's challenged, but it always is. It's challenged by the very fact that we live in a country of floods and droughts followed by more floods and more droughts. That is the nature of this country. It always has been; it always will be. Let me tell you, when we have a drought and then we have rains, nature bounces back far more quickly and far more easily than the farmers who till the soil, the farmers who work that land for a living—the farmers who every day we should say thank you to. We should say it every day, three times a day. Do you know when that is? When we tuck our knees under the table and eat something. We should say: 'Thank you, Australian farmers, for doing the job that you do. Thank you, Australian farmers, for the service that you provide, often without getting the money that you deserve.' That is because they are price takers, not price makers, our Australian farmers.

I am proud to say that I come from a family of generational farmers. I am proud to say that my Riverina electorate produces some of the finest goods that our nation eats and our nation exports. I stand here beside a fine dairy farmer from Western Australia, in the member for Forrest, and I know how proud she is of her farm, her electorate and, indeed, the good folk of Western Australia who till the soil to provide market opportunities to help our balance of payments and put food on the table of Australians three times a day, every day.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I'll tell you who will be broken if Labor continues its anti-rural policies. It won't be nature; it will be our farmers. The coalition is extremely worried about the passage of these bills. You only have to look at some of the media releases that the member for Capricornia has issued recently about her concern for farmers forced off the land because of renewables. We all like renewables. I appreciate that they are part of the transition to a clean energy future—I get that. I can stand here and say that. I can stand here and voice that view. And I know that certainly in the halls and classrooms of our schools, in community halls and in the corridors of power right across this nation renewables are widely and readily accepted and discussed, and that is a good thing. I also appreciate that at the last election, for whatever reason, people voted in some members who, quite frankly, have probably hardly ever visited regional Australia. It is a shame, because I think every member of this House needs to know what goes on in regional Australia and needs to know those industries that pay for the things that we all need in this nation. Unlike the Treasurer, I'm not frightened to say what those things are. I talk about things, not in oblique terms but in real terms. We do need to keep the lights on. We keep the lights on, at the moment, because of the mining industry. We keep the lights on, at the moment, because of coal. We keep the lights on, at the moment, yes, because of hydro energy. There's a mix, and it's important to have that balance.

As the member for Capricornia rightly suggested in her 15 February 2023 media release, titled 'Farmers forced off land for renewables,' we shouldn't have renewables pushed at some holy altar ahead of what our farmers are doing. Farmers have been forced off prime agricultural land because of a situation with the Queensland government—and, no doubt, the Commonwealth government too—putting in place the risks for a dire situation which is facing farmers and locals of the Pioneer Valley and Eungella. What we're doing there is sacrificing prime agricultural land for renewables.

At the moment, in my electorate, we've got a situation with massive solar farms taking the place of vital prime agricultural land. We only have a certain amount of prime agricultural land. You can't create prime agricultural land from the desert in the middle of Australia. Maybe they might invent something in the future that might be able to do that, but at the moment that's not quite possible. I appreciate that renewables are important, and also appreciate making sure that we have an energy transition in the future. I appreciate all of those things. But there's going to be a place for coal and gas, and that place is going to last for decades and decades and decades. That's not just because of the thousands upon tens of thousands of workers that they provide with jobs, but also because they keep the lights on, they keep us cool in summer, they keep us heated in winter and they pay for a fair amount—a jolly good amount—of exports which keep our schools and hospitals running.

The member for Parkes, in his contribution, talked about the dire consequences of this strategy that Labor seems to engage in, and that is to lock it up and leave it. When you have a situation—and the member for Flynn mentioned it too—whereby some beaches and some hilltop walks are now shut to all of those except for native titleholders, I think that's a worry. I know the member for Flynn does too, because those sorts of places are important places for fishing, boating, camping and tourism. But we saw in the Black Summer bushfires what happens when you lock it up and leave it; what happens when you go down the Greens' way. The Greens' way would never, ever consider regional Australia and make it a priority. When you don't have controlled burning, when you lock up state forests and national parks and leave them, they get overrun by pests. They get overrun over by feral animals. They get overrun over by weeds and they get overrun with undergrowth. Then when you get hot summer weather and bushfire-prone conditions, it just takes a spark, or some idiot to throw a cigarette out the window of his or her car, and next thing—boom! You've got a conflagration. You've got a bushfire season, like we had in 2019-20, that costs lives, houses and businesses, and which comes at the expense, dare I say, of koalas and so many other native animals.

So this legislation, the Nature Repair Market Bill, is, like most things with Labor, a doozy. It's ill-named. You've got to read the detail before you think, 'Well, is this worth supporting?' As with everything that this government brings forward, it's probably not, because the devil is in the detail. We want to have the best soils—and the member for Paterson and I are co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Soil—and we want the best outcomes, but they have to be practical. Locking up land and leaving it isn't doing the trick.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I only caught the last portion of the member for Riverina's speech, but there was a fair bit of hyperbole there, I think, in those comments. I would say this to the member: what's clear about the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 is that we're committed to taking the necessary steps to ensure that nature, our nature, is better off for future generations. That's the fact. Our local parks and reserves don't just provide a precious habitat; they're also a place for people to get together for picnics, for kids' birthday parties, to enjoy nature and to enjoy being out there in the great outdoors. We teach our kids to ride their bikes out there, and we walk the dogs. So fixing up the waterways and the catchment areas around them gives people in the community better access to a higher quality of living, and will help protect threatened plants and animals in those spaces.

The Albanese government wants to make it easier for people to invest in activities that help repair nature because they've invested in it; they're committed to it. We want to support landholders such as farmers and First Nations communities to repair the environment. This is through a whole range of activities such as planting native species, repairing damaged riverbeds and removing invasive species. The nature repair market is being formed as part of the broader Albanese government strategy to deliver on its Nature Positive Plan. This sets out the government's plan to reform our environmental laws to better protect, restore and manage our unique environment.

At the moment, Australia's natural environment is deteriorating. That's just a fact. Our environment is simply not resilient enough to tolerate the threats that exist and are to come over the horizon. Native species are going extinct, habitat loss is occurring and cultural destruction is on the rise. That's why reforms are urgently needed. That's why the Albanese government is reforming our environmental laws, ensuring that we can protect our land and leave it in a better state than we found it. This includes taking steps to improve the repair of nature.

The government is committed to protecting 30 per cent of Australia's land and seas by 2030. This is the same goal adopted internationally under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. In order to attain these goals, we need significant investment in conservation. Business and private sector investors play an important role in helping to reverse environmental decline. These were important findings that Professor Graeme Samuel AC had highlighted as part of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act review. The government is committed to supporting positive outcomes for nature. But we don't have to do it alone. Private companies, conservation groups, farmers and other landholders continue to seek ways to support positive outcomes for nature.

A biodiversity market could unlock hundreds of billions of dollars in financial flows by 2050. This includes things like real estate, agriculture, mining, tourism and hospitality, which can help build nature-positive opportunities for Australia. When it comes to environmental protection, broader stakeholder engagement and collaboration is absolutely essential. All landholders, including Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, conservation groups and farmers, can be and should be involved. The projects will deliver long-term, nature-positive outcomes through activities such as weeding, planting native species and pest control—all good, practical measures. I'm not sure why those opposite are opposing that. These projects will even have scope to support regional Australia through jobs and nature-positive economic activity. Working with Indigenous Australians in a co-design capacity, we will listen to their unique knowledge and understanding of the land on their terms. There will be free, prior and informed consent for projects on their lands or waters. There will be employment opportunities for Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders.

The nature repair market will work in line with the carbon market. This will be made simpler by the fact that they will have the same regulator. This alignment not only encourages carbon farming projects but also, in turn, delivers biodiversity benefits. This speaks directly to the recent review of carbon crediting led by Professor Ian Chubb. We're listening to the experts and ensuring learnings from the carbon market have shaped the bill. This bill will require that biodiversity certificates have integrity and represent an actual environmental improvement. This helps buyers invest with confidence. It will also have an independent expert committee that will ensure projects can deliver high-quality nature-positive outcomes. This is a key integrity measure this government is putting in place. Ongoing compliance requirements will also be monitored and reported on to ensure projects are implemented in accordance with the rules and procedures. The regulator will of course play an important role in this.

The Nature Positive Plan will also help restore public accountability, trust and transparency. Transparency is clearly important to our government. We will ensure that detailed information about projects and certificates will be available on a public register. Additional information will also be published by the regulator and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. This will ensure additional oversight by the public and community. The department is also committed to working closely with the ACCC and ASIC. We want to ensure that certificates that are part of the nature repair market are reliable and that projects in the carbon and biodiversity markets are not impacted by misleading claims.

But, as I've alluded to, those opposite are not only opposing these measures and this bill; when they were in government, our environment was simply deteriorating on their watch. They received, when they were in government, so many reports showing this. One of the biggest issues was having an offset system. The Nature Positive Plan approaches biodiversity offsets in a new way. We're making a commitment to offsets being the last resort. This government is also designing a new national standard for matters of national environmental significance and environmental offsets. These standards will give us the confidence we need in using biodiversity offsets under Commonwealth laws. Projects under this scheme will not be used as offsets unless and until they meet these new standards. This government—our government—actually wants to protect our environment. Last year, the Minister for the Environment and Water released the official five-yearly report card on the Australian environment, the State of the environment report. The former minister, now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley, refused to release this report to the Australian people. The opposition put their heads in the sand, thinking, 'If we ignore all these problems, they will simply go away.' They're not going to go away. That's just not true. That's just not our reality. Under the Liberal and National parties, there was a decade of damage and neglect to our environment.

The report that was released by us, the Labor government, tells us that our environment is deteriorating. It tells us that Australia has lost more mammal species to extinction than any other continent. It tells us that plastics are choking our oceans. It tells us that the flow in most Murray-Darling rivers has reached record low levels. It's no surprise, given the environmental neglect by the opposition when they were in government over the last decade. They axed climate laws, they failed to fix our broken environmental laws and the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, publicly laughed about our Pacific Island neighbours going underwater, as if it were a funny joke. They set recycling targets, I'll give them that, but they had no actual plan to deliver them. They voted against the Safeguard Mechanism. They halved our protected areas of marine parks. They slashed billions of dollars from our environmental department. They've left this government, the new Labor government, with plenty of work to do. We recognise that. But it's no wonder the Australian people had had enough of them and their neglect. That's why today's bill is so important. It is important, as it gives our environment the attention and the support that it needs.

I can't talk about positive outcomes for nature through this bill without also referring to one of my local residents in my electorate of Wills. Her name is Anne McGregor. She is President of the Merri Creek Management Committee and Vice-President of the Friends of Merri Creek, and she was awarded an OAM this week for her services to conservation. Anne's pivotal volunteer role has helped restore and repair Merri Creek and its surrounding areas—the nature in our area. Anne and her husband, Bruce McGregor, helped establish the Brunswick Merri Creek Action Group, which has advocated to protect and support important community areas and nature. I want to take a moment in this place to congratulate Anne and acknowledge the incredible role she plays in protecting the environment and protecting the nature around us in our electorate of Wills, in the northern part of Melbourne.

I also want to reiterate this government's genuine commitment to repairing and restoring our environment through this bill. And, of course, as part of the Albanese government's first budget, we delivered our commitment to secure much-needed investments to recover and revitalise two creeks in my electorate, particularly—Merri Creek and Moonee Ponds Creek. We made a commitment of half a million dollars for Merri Creek and $2.16 million for Moonee Ponds Creek to remove the concrete, to renew those urban waterways that are so important as part of the local nature that can be enjoyed by our local communities.

This government is genuinely committed to ensuring that our environment and our precious sites can be looked after. We've already got a track record on it since we got elected. This bill helps us to collaborate, ensuring that we make it easier for people to repair the environment. This bill also creates a new market for investing in nature-positive outcomes. It will support our commitment to repair ecosystems and reverse species decline and extinction. It also creates more investment and employment opportunities for a nature-positive economy. This will be a world-first scheme.

Under our nature repair market, landowners can be rightfully paid for protecting and restoring the nature on their land. We'll make it easier for business, philanthropists and others to invest in repairing nature right across this wonderful continent. This bill will make it easier to protect and repair what we have, ensuring that nature is looked after for the future and, yes, for our kids and our grandkids. We've heard this being said by many members here. This is about future generations and our obligation and responsibility to do the best we can as lawmakers to protect our environment.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.