Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is beyond belief how I feel this evening in this House, having seen the Greens once again team up with the Liberals to vote down, to vote against nature, to vote against weed eradication, to vote against communities like the Blue Mountains—and for the member for Macquarie to vote against communities like mine—to vote against nature itself.

The Greens have once again come into this chamber to show to the Australian public that they are not the party they claim to be. Their voting record demonstrates a very different idea than I know, than people in my electorate who tell me they are Greens supporters—and I know how disheartened they will be tonight seeing this. It is a perfectly reasonable bill, setting up a market to attract private and philanthropic funds into a market where they might support nature repair—the repair of areas like mine, where noxious weed infestations are an absolute blight and risk infesting a Ramsar wetlands site. The Greens have come in here tonight to vote against a solution to a problem.

I listened to the Liberals speak across this debate. I listened to those opposite and their speeches, and couldn't believe that they were against a market—that they've finally found a market they're against! But to know that the Greens have come in and said, 'Sorry, you might have found a solution, you might have found a way to attract investment into our communities to ensure that we can build back degraded land in our communities, to create employment potentially for Indigenous communities, to create employment for locals in these spaces'—the Greens have come in here and voted against repairing nature. That's what we're looking at now. I know that, in my community, the people from the Greens party that stand beside me election after election are going to be absolutely bewildered this evening.

This bill offers a solution. Let's face it: we are talking about a bill put forward by the member for Sydney. Is there a person who has fought harder for conservation and the environment in this place? Is there a person who has fought harder and is there a person who has voted more often to support the environment than the member for Sydney? The problem, as I see it, is that no solution is good enough unless a small group of people sitting in this chamber thought of it first. That's how it feels to me.

I think that, across this consideration in detail, there should be some members of the Labor Party taking notes, so we can go back to our communities, to our neighbours who support conservation, to our neighbours who care about the environment, to our neighbours who are saying to us, 'It is so good to have a government getting on with action to reduce climate change, so good to have a government who is doing the things we've wanted them to do.' They will be bewildered by the fact that the party they thought was founded on environmental values has voted against this bill in this House tonight. It is an absolute shame.

When this bill came into the parliament, I found the member for Sydney and I said, 'Does this include noxious weed eradication?' The member for Sydney said, 'Yes, Jo, it does.' I went home and I rang my council, and I said, 'We've got a bill in the House that might help our community eradicate the noxious weed that has taken over what was farmland in my community.' And the Greens think this is not a good idea. It is extraordinary. It is almost beyond belief for those of us on this side of the House to see this as a voting pattern for the Greens. Housing is one thing, but the environment—the Greens voting against a creative way to solve problems and to create a market that will attract investment into communities across this country to see nature be repaired and be taken back to a better place than it is currently? I cannot believe I'm seeing this this evening.

I know there will be people in my electorate that will be bewildered. I know there will be people across the country who will be bewildered. But we now know who's going to team up with who, and who stands with the Australian public.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 7, page 13 (after line 30), after the definition of non-corporate government body, insert:

offset means a measure that compensates for the residual impacts of an action on the environment, as required under Commonwealth, State or Territory law.

(2) Page 99 (after line 15), at the end of Division 3, add:

76A Use of biodiversity certificates for offsetting

(1) A biodiversity certificate cannot be used for the purpose of offsetting unless:

(a) the biodiversity outcome of the registered biodiversity project in respect of which the biodiversity certificate was issued; and

(b) the impact on the environment to which the offset relates;

affect the same species and ecological community.

Note: This means that a biodiversity certificate that was issued in respect of a project that enhances or protects biodiversity in a particular species and ecological community can only be used to offset impacts on the environment that affect the same species and ecological community.

(2) This section has effect despite any other provision of this Act or any other Act.

(3) Clause 151, page 168 (line 18), before "both", insert "the original biodiversity certificate cannot be relinquished and".

(4) Clause 151, page 168 (after line 33), at the end of the clause, add:

(3) Rules made for the purposes of subsection (2) must provide that a biodiversity certificate (the first certificate) only meets the relinquishment equivalence requirements in relation to another biodiversity certificate (the second certificate) if the first certificate and the second certificate were issued in respect of registered biodiversity projects that:

(a) are covered by the same methodology determination; and

(b) relate to the same species and ecological community.

In essence, these amendments seek to ensure that, should offsetting be permitted under the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 scheme, the effectiveness of such biodiversity offsets is strengthened by ensuring the integrity of the potential biodiversity offsets which the government intends to permit. They do this by clearly defining a biodiversity offset as a measure that compensates for the residual impacts of an action on the environment, as required under Commonwealth, state or territory law. They also include clear limits on the use of offsets to ensure that certificates can only be used for offsetting if they are like for like with the harm they are offsetting. 'Like for like' is an established principle in offsetting, based on the notion of equivalence. These amendments define the requirement for like for like to ensure that a biodiversity certificate that was issued in respect of a project that enhances or protects biodiversity in a particular native species or ecological community can only be used to offset impacts on the environment that affect the same native species or ecological community—in other words, same species for same species and same ecosystem for same ecosystem. For example, should platypus habitat be affected by a project seeking to offset an impact, any certificate used to offset that project must repair and restore platypus habitat.

The amendments mean that certificates which relate to critically endangered species and unique biological communities should not be able to be used as offsets. We must end the practice of offsets being used as a smokescreen to cover up the destruction of irreplaceable habitat. Surely this principle should underpin our environmental laws, especially if we are to avert the extinction crisis that we currently face. The amendments also enhance the relinquishment requirement for biodiversity certificates to clearly establish that equivalent certificates are based on the like-for-like principle and ensure that they may only be relinquished where the original certificate is no longer available for relinquishment. I'd add that efforts to protect, improve and restore our unique biodiversity are welcome, and government should provide supports and incentives to landholders to protect and restore biodiversity of habitat, but the nature repair market cannot do this alone. It must be backed up by critical reforms which strengthen the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, by a strong national environmental protection agency and by greater public funding for conservation and environmental management.

In closing, I would note that recommendation 27 of the Samuel review called on the Commonwealth to reform the application of offsets under the EPBC Act to address environmental decline and achieve restoration. Strong new standards should apply to the nature repair market, but they are sadly not yet in force or even before the parliament for consideration. Hence I speak for many people when I say I hold concerns about the effectiveness of the current proposed nature repair market in protecting our environment and not simply being used to greenwash harmful activities. Indeed, without an ironclad commitment to strengthening the integrity and governance of the scheme, I find it difficult to see how the bill can be supported. No wonder some stakeholders have noted that bringing the Nature Repair Market Bill before parliament now is a case of putting the cart before the horse, and I'm tempted to agree. Nonetheless, I move these amendments in good faith, expecting the government will hold true to its commitment to zero new extinctions and a nature-positive approach to our environmental laws and policies. To that end, I call on all members to support these amendments and on the federal government to ensure reforms to related environmental laws are brought forward which strengthen the ability of the market to operate in a way which genuinely supports restoration and addresses the extinction crisis.

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

I rise in support of the member for Clark's amendments. I would also like to respond to the comments from the member for Lalor. With respect, this is a process that we're all involved in for the good of our communities and for the good of our environment, and this is a process that my office and I have engaged in in good faith with the minister. We have the process of a second reading debate, the consideration-in-detail stage and then a third reading in order to improve legislation, and that's what I think the member for Clark's amendments would do.

These amendments clarify that biodiversity certificates can't be used for offsetting unless the outcome of the project and the impact it's being used to offset affect the same species and ecological community—that is, like-for-like offsetting—and also that alternative biodiversity certificates can only be relinquished if the original biodiversity certificate is not available for relinquishment. These are very reasonable amendments, particularly in the context where there is a lack of trust around offsetting. I agree with the member for Clark about those concerns, and there are many stakeholder groups that I and my office have engaged with who continue to have those concerns.

I'm here in the chamber to support the member for Clark, but I'm also here to ask the minister to answer some of these concerns directly. For example, if the regulator finds that biodiversity certificates are being used for offsetting without following the hierarchy—avoid, mitigate and, as a last result, offset—what will be the consequences? How does the minister guarantee that this offsetting market, which will be set up as a default position as a result of nature repair—it will be part of it—will have integrity? How does the minister address the concerns within our communities and within expert environmental stakeholder organisations, including the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, the Environmental Defenders Office and others, who continue to have deep concerns about this bill? I stand here today with the member for Clark, in good faith, to have this conversation and hear those answers from the minister.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government won't be supporting the amendments proposed by the member for Clark, but I thank the member for Clark and the member for Goldstein for their comments. I have to say that, while I don't support these amendments, I do share the concerns of the member for Clark about the way offsets have been used in the past. That is the reason that we are absolutely determined to reform the use of offsets in this country.

There is a misunderstanding by some people who have been observing this legislation that this nature repair market is being established to provide offsets for development proposals. It's not being established for that reason. It's being established to provide a transparent system with integrity that is publicly verifiable, trackable and traceable, with baseline and measured improvement, to facilitate both private sector investment and philanthropic investment in nature repair. If none of these projects are ever used for an offset, that's fine. That's not the primary reason for the establishment of this market.

The government has committed to a major overhaul of Commonwealth environmental laws, including the use of environmental offsets. The member for Clark has very sensibly asked, 'Why do this first when those laws are not ready?' The reason they're not ready is that this is a huge drafting task with extensive public consultation that we have to do. The reason we want to introduce these laws now is that we need a year to get the methodologies right and for the staff to be employed by the Clean Energy Regulator—all of the foundational work needs to be done before we can open the nature repair market for business.

We've made clear, in our response to the Samuel review into Commonwealth environmental laws, that offsets will only be used as a last resort and to deliver like-for-like benefits for the environment, as the member for Clark has said. The government will regulate these changes as part of its reform to Commonwealth environmental laws and will release those for public consultation later this year. The laws will include a new national environmental standard, including an offset standard, that will regulate the integrity of projects used to offset environmental impacts.

The government is hoping for the passage of that legislation in the first half of 2024, after there has been extensive opportunity for the member for Clark, his constituents and anybody else who has an interest to give us feedback on those laws and those environmental standards.

Once the Nature Repair Market Bill passes, however, project methodologies can begin to be developed. The expert committee can be appointed to assess whether the draft methods meet the requirements in the legislation. The Clean Energy Regulator can bring in new expertise and set up its systems. That will take 12 months. That's why the bill includes a clause that provides for me as the minister to make a legislative instrument that opens the scheme for business so the regulator can start receiving project applications later, not with the commencement of the bill.

The member for Clark also asked why the government won't regulate the use of offsets in this bill and then repeal those provisions as part of the new EPBC laws. The answer is that regulating the use of offsets interacts with the rules that are used for assessing the impacts of a development and whether everything was done in the first place to avoid and to mitigate any impacts on nature. We can't do that through this bill. We are absolutely determined to restrict when offsets can be used in the first place to reduce the reliance on offsets. I can't say clearly enough to the member for Clark and the member for Goldstein that I know the offset standard has to improve on what is being done at the moment.

The member for Clark and the member for Goldstein have talked about stakeholder support. If I had a bit more time I would go through some of the stakeholders that do strongly support this. Stakeholders like the Northern Land Council, the Australian Land Conservation Alliance and Australian Ethical Investment see this as a great opportunity to draw more money to nature repair.

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

Minister, picking up on your response, will you guarantee that the nature repair market will not be operational until the new offsets national environment standard is legally enforceable?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just distinguish: when you say 'open for business', we want to employ the staff, we want to start to develop the methodologies and we want to set in place the frameworks that will be required, but we won't take projects until the offset standard has been passed.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for her responses so far. In fact, the minister has brushed up against two very specific questions I have, but for the sake of absolute clarity for my community I'd like to ask these questions. I'll do them one at a time, if you don't mind, Speaker. First of all, through you, Speaker, to the minister, many people are concerned about the potential for offsets to be allowed under the nature repair market without sufficient protections to ensure their integrity. For absolute clarity, if you won't pass my amendments: can you guarantee that the reforms to the EPBC Act and related reforms to strengthen the integrity of offsets will be in place before any offsets are granted under the nature repair market?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, but I also need to remind the member for Clark that passing the reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, including the national environmental standards on offsets, will be determined by this parliament. They will have to pass through the House of Representatives and they will have to pass through the Senate.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. Again, for absolute clarity, even though we've touched on this point already: Minister, I understand that the government does not want to regulate offsets twice through the Nature Repair Market and through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. But, given that the reforms to the EPBC Act are not yet even out for consultation and certainly are not before the House, why not amend this bill to ensure integrity of offsets in the interim and then repeal these changes in consequential amendments in the EPBC Act reforms later on?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To be super clear on the timing unfolding: as I said, the reason this bill needs to be passed soon is that we want to allow the Clean Energy Regulator adequate time to hire the expertise they need—because developing methodologies is highly specialised work—and adequate time to develop those methodologies. It's also to make sure that the IT that will be required for the public register is available and up and running.

This bill, I hope, will pass through the House of Representatives this week. It will then go to the Senate, and there will be an extensive Senate inquiry. It will take some time to go through the Senate. In the coming weeks, I will also be releasing the changes that we are proposing to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, including the first of the National Environmental Standards, for public consultation. So there will be an extensive opportunity for, first of all, the Senate to further examine this bill and, secondly, for members of the House of Representatives, senators and the broader public in the not-too-distant future to look at the national environmental standard on offsets.

Of course, this chamber and the Senate will have an opportunity to move amendments and to have their view on the National Environmental Standards and on the biodiversity conservation act amendments when those come before the parliament. So I hope I'm reassuring the member for Clark that there is both a substantial process to still be gone through on the nature repair market through the Senate investigation of the bill, and there will be extensive public opportunities for the member for Clark, the member for Goldstein, all of the crossbench, environmental organisations, scientists and anybody who has an interest in the offset standard to be able to examine first and then publicly comment on what we're proposing with the offset standard.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While I appreciate the response from the minister, regrettably the minister didn't answer the substantive question which is: why not put in place what I'll call 'stopgap integrity measures' with the offsets in this bill to cover the time between now and the improvement to the EPBC Act? Then that stopgap in this bill can easily be removed in the consequential amendments later on.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason, Member for Clark, is that there won't be any projects before the changes to the EPBC Act go through this parliament. The projects will not be up and running by then. The nature repair market won't have its doors open for business for at least a year from when this legislation passes because the underpinning work will take at least that amount of time. There will be no projects to offer offsets in the time period that he is worried about.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

TINK () (): by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name on the sheet revised on 19 June 2023:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (cell at table item 1, column 2), omit the cell, substitute:

(2) Clause 3, page 3 (line 7), at the end of the clause, add:

; and (f) to promote the enhancement or protection of biodiversity against the urgent threat of climate change, drawing on the best available scientific knowledge.

I rise today to move amendments to the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. I do so very cognisant of the systemic failure of national environmental law we have witnessed to date. We've failed to adequately protect Australia's biodiversity and iconic places. Australia has the shameful distinction of having achieved greater mammal extinction than any other continent. We don't just top extinction leagues among countries; we trump entire continents. My community of North Sydney has made it very clear that comprehensive reform of our environmental laws is needed, including increased government regulation and investment. We recognise the size and scope of the reforms required to not only protect but also restore and repair our environment, and we are anxious to ensure this market based scheme is a positive step, not one which sets efforts back.

The Biodiversity Council survey released this week found a majority of people are concerned for Australia's biodiversity, with at least two-thirds 'very' or 'extremely' concerned about waste and pollution, land clearing, extinction of species, loss of pollinator species and loss of natural places. About three quarters said more money should be spent on the environment. Scientists have said we need at least $2 billion annually to recover Australia's full list of almost 2,000 threatened species.

Given the concern of many across my community and across the wider sector, my first amendment relates to delay in the commencement of the act. The truth is many in my community are confused as to why the government is introducing a market based solution as its first priority, given the size and scope of the new environmental reforms. I would like to reassure the chamber, though, that I have heard the minister, in terms of explaining her timing. I still move this amendment, though, because my community fears that, without these as a strong foundation for reform, the market based scheme that this bill establishes may well fail. Failure in biodiversity protection could lead to adverse outcomes and set all of our efforts back significantly.

It is my very clear view that this market should not be operational until after the new offsets National Environmental Standard is legally enforceable and the new environmental protection agency is legally established. The minister has indicated these reforms are on their way, with an exposure due in the second half of 2023. So my amendment allows for a 12-month period for the broader reforms, within which this repair market would sit, to be developed, debated and passed. I ask the minister, then, to outline to all in this place and to my community once again her rationale for proceeding with this market mechanism before we have the framework of solid environmental standards and a regulator to enforce them.

My second amendment would recognise that action on nature repair cannot happen in isolation from action on climate change. Overwhelmingly, my community of North Sydney have told me their No. 1 priority for the environment portfolio is to address the underlying causes of poor biodiversity, which are human impacts, invasive species impacts and climate related impacts. The impacts of climate change—including drought, bushfires, storms, ocean acidification, sea level rise and global warming—on our ecosystem are clear. We know many plants and animals cannot adapt to the effects of climate change, with 1,000 plant and animal species and ecological communities already at risk of extinction in New South Wales alone. For this reason, I am proposing to amend the objects of this act to ensure that climate change drivers and impacts are incorporated and integrated into every step of environmental and biodiversity protection.

The amendment adds to the objects of the act the objective:

to promote the enhancement or protection of biodiversity against the urgent threat of climate change, drawing on the best available scientific knowledge.

This wording mirrors changes that were recently passed in the Climate Change Act. I understand the minister is not accepting these amendments because actions on climate change are being covered by other legislation, like the safeguard mechanism. However, I would appreciate confirmation from the minister that she recognises that action on nature repair cannot happen in isolation to action on climate change.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for North Sydney for her amendments and for the constructive way that we've been able to discuss them. The government won't be supporting these two amendments. The reason that we won't be supporting the first amendment, which relates to delaying the commencement of the nature repair market, is similar to the reasons I gave the member for Clark. We're not proposing to open the doors for business to have projects out there immediately, but we need the legislation to pass so that we can begin to employ staff, employ the specialists we need, begin to develop methodologies and establish the database and the capacity we need to monitor the projects once they're up and running. We need the legislation to pass so that we can allow the Clean Energy Regulator to grow the part of their organisation they need to regulate a whole new market. That's why I don't want to delay the commencement of the bill. But what I will say is that clause 11(2) prevents the Clean Energy Regulator opening its doors for project applications until a date set by the minister by legislative instrument. That is the opportunity I will have to say that we're not opening it until these things are all in place. So it's in there, in clause 11(2), and that will be at least 12 months after the legislation passes, while we put in place all of those measures that I've described.

On the objects of the bill including responding to climate change, I completely understand why the member for North Sydney is raising climate change. Obviously one of the biggest threats to nature, to biodiversity, is the impact of climate change—no question about that. As the member for North Sydney said, we've got the safeguard mechanism, along with our legislated pathway to net zero, the ozone bill that I passed, the methane pledge, the 82 per cent renewable energy and the vehicle emissions work we're doing. There are a bunch of things that the government is doing in relation to climate change. This is specifically about biodiversity, which is of course impacted by climate change, but there are projects that can have a really positive impact on biodiversity without having a particular impact on carbon emissions. One of the best examples would be projects that deal with feral or invasive species. If we get rid of cats from a national park, there is a huge biodiversity benefit and no real carbon benefit. So we need to give ourselves the flexibility to have projects that are just specifically about biodiversity. I will give another example of where biodiversity becomes important. We're going to be planting more trees—it's one of the most important things we can do to generate carbon credit units to deal with climate change. But any tree has a carbon benefit; if you also want a biodiversity benefit, you will be more selective about the types of trees that you plant, and you'll want trees that are also food sources or habitat for particular species. I'm very aware of the impact that climate change is having in relation to biodiversity. I respect the member's putting on the record that these two things are very closely linked, but the reason I don't want to put climate change into the objectives of the act is to give projects that are great environmental projects but don't have a carbon benefit the chance also to prosper.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (3) to (7), on the sheet revised on 19 June 2023, as circulated in my name, together:

(3) Clause 172, page 192 (line 21), omit "publish on the Regulator's website", substitute "prepare".

(4) Clause 172, page 192 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add:

(3) The Regulator must:

(a) give the report to the Minister; and

(b) publish the report on the Regulator's website;

as soon as practicable after the report is prepared.

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

(5) Clause 175, page 194 (line 17), before "The Secretary", insert "(1)".

(6) Clause 175, page 194 (line 17), omit "publish on the Department's website", substitute "prepare".

(7) Clause 175, page 195 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add:

(2) The Secretary must give a report prepared under subsection (1) to the Minister as soon as practicable after the report is prepared.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of a report received under subsection (2) to be:

(a) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister; and

(b) published on the Department's website as soon as practicable after the report is given to the Minister.

My third amendment relates to the activity reports of the regulator and the purchase reports of the department. A dominant theme in the 30,000 or more contributions received by the Samuel review was that many in the community simply do not trust the EPBC Act to deliver for the environment and that institutional reform should promote, firstly, transparency, accountability and integrity in the administration of the act; and secondly, monitoring, evaluation and improvement in the delivery of the environmental outcomes.

I'll be moving amendments to ensure the Clean Energy Regulator activities reports and the secretary's reports on biodiversity certificates will not only be published on relevant websites but also tabled in parliament within 15 sitting days after the end of the financial year. Increasing public access to information about this untested scheme will ensure it runs smoothly and effectively. Importantly, tabling reports on the operation of regulatory schemes like the national repair market promotes transparency and accountability. As the Scrutiny of Bills Committee outlines, there should be appropriate justification for not requiring the documents to be tabled.

I am pleased to hear that the government will be accepting these amendments, and I commend them to the House.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

PLIBERSEK (—) (): I thank the member for North Sydney for these amendments. The government supports these amendments. The bill requires reports to be published by the Clean Energy Regulator and the secretary of the department of the environment to support the transparency of the scheme. These amendments would require these two sorts of reports to be also tabled in the parliament: an annual report on the activities of the regulator in relation to the nature repair market, and a report about any purchasing activity under the bill by the secretary of the environment department.

I thank the member for North Sydney for the amendment and I commend it to the House.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (8), on the sheet revised on 14 June 2023, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 7, page 11 (after line 3), after the definition of engage in conduct, insert:

environmental offsetting purpose: a biodiversity certificate is used for an environmental offsetting purpose if it is used for the purpose of meeting an environmental offsetting requirement (however described) under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.

(2) Clause 68, page 94 (after line 17), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) The approved form of application must require the project proponent to indicate whether or not the biodiversity certificate can be used for an environmental offsetting purpose.

(3) Clause 70, page 96 (lines 2 and 3), omit subclause (3), substitute:

(3) A biodiversity certificate must:

(a) if the project proponent has indicated in the application that the certificate cannot be used for an environmental offsetting purpose—include a statement that the certificate cannot be used for an environmental offsetting purpose; and

(b) set out such other matters (if any) as are specified in the rules.

(4) Page 96 (after line 19), after clause 70A, insert:

70B Variation of biodiversity certificate in relation to envi ronmental offsetting

(1) The project proponent of a registered biodiversity project in respect of which a biodiversity certificate has been issued may request that the Regulator vary the certificate to:

(a) include a statement that the certificate cannot be used for an environmental offsetting purpose; or

(b) remove a statement that the certificate cannot be used for an environmental offsetting purpose.

(2) The Regulator must vary the certificate in accordance with the request unless:

(a) the request is to include a statement that the certificate cannot be used for an environmental offsetting purpose and the Regulator is not satisfied that the certificate is not being used for an environmental offsetting purpose; or

(b) the project proponent is not the holder of the certificate and the holder has not consented, in writing, to the requested variation.

(3) The request must be in a form approved, in writing, by the Regulator.

(5) Clause 71, page 96 (line 26), after "section 70A", insert "or 70B".

(6) Page 99 (after line 15), at the end of Division 3, add:

76A Limitation on use of biodiversity certificate for environmental offsetting

(1) If a biodiversity certificate includes a statement that the certificate cannot be used for an environmental offsetting purpose, the certificate must not be used for such a purpose.

(2) This section has effect despite any other provision of this Act or any other law of the Commonwealth, or a State or Territory.

(7) Clause 164, page 186 (after line 11), after paragraph (1)(d), insert:

(da) whether the certificate includes a statement that the certificate cannot be used for an environmental offsetting purpose; and

(db) if the certificate does not include a statement that the certificate cannot be used for an environmental offsetting purpose—the following:

(i) whether the certificate is being used for an environmental offsetting purpose;

(ii) if the certificate is being used for such a purpose, the law that creates the relevant environmental offsetting requirement; and

(8) Clause 212, page 233 (after line 19), after paragraph (f), insert:

(fa) a decision under section 70B to refuse to vary a biodiversity certificate;

Australia is blessed with an incredible natural environment, but nature is in crisis. We're the deforestation capital of the world, we're the mammal extinction capital of the world, and we are at risk of losing treasured species like the koala forever. The parliament has a responsibility and an imperative to act. I know the minister shares my passion for protecting and conserving our amazing natural environment, and I welcome the commitments the government made at COP 15 and as part of this nature positive plan. As part of this, the minister is right to point out that we need investment from more than just government to address the scale of challenges ahead.

The Nature Repair Market Bill has the potential to help mobilise the additional private sector investment that we need. That is a good thing, but there are ways in which this bill could be improved. The Samuel review made it clear that Australia's current system of biodiversity offsets is not about protecting our environment but is instead contributing to environmental decline. So the most critical improvement is clarifying how biodiversity offsets will be treated in the new market and ensuring that the nature repair market cannot become a vehicle for corporate greenwashing.

I welcome the minister's commitment to reforming our biodiversity offset laws, and I welcome her desire to ensure the standards in this new market will be even higher under the reformed EPBC. But because those EPBC reforms are not yet legislated, we need to put down some guardrails today. My amendment does this by allowing landholders to specify whether their projects can be used for offsetting or not. It has the support of the environmentalists who don't want their projects to be used to compensate for nature's destruction; it has support from investors, many of whom want to invest in conservation but are worried about being accused of greenwashing; and it allows for flexibility over time so that landholders can change their mind if circumstances evolve in the future.

This is a commonsense amendment. It empowers those who are engaged in conservation work, it provides additional clarity and assurances for business and it is aligned with the government's intention for the market. I want to thank the minister and her staff for engaging constructively with me and my team in drafting this amendment and for working with the crossbench to improve legislation before the House.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wentworth for these amendments. The government will be supporting all of these amendments. These amendments will enable the proponent to easily choose and control whether any project that they are involved in can be used as an environmental offset even after that project is onsold—if it's sold on to future owners. When applying for a biodiversity certificate, proponents will be asked to confirm whether the certificate can be used as an offset. That information will be included on the Nature Repair Market register so the public can very easily see the chosen purpose of the project.

I also say to the member for Wentworth and the crossbench that the design of the register will be maximum transparency. My intention is that members of the public will be part of the scheme, making sure that projects do what they say, do what they promised. One of the problems with the offsets that are used currently is that there is little oversight. Project proponents can commit to offsets that are very rarely checked over the years. This will give us the transparency and the searchable data that we need to make sure that projects continue to do what they promised in the first instance. The certificates' status would be able to be changed without the project proponents' agreement. That's very important if certificates are onsold. That'll apply even if the certificate has been sold to a third party.

I want to thank the member for Wentworth for the amendment and commend it to the House.

Question agreed to.

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

EGGALL () (): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Page 193 (after line 4), at the end of Division 2, add:

173A Information about market for biodiversity certificates

The Secretary may publish information on the Department's website about the market for biodiversity certificates, including information about any of the following:

(a) the development of the market;

(b) opportunities to participate in the market;

(c) the way in which the market contributes, or could contribute, to the enhancement or protection of biodiversity in native species in Australia.

(2) Clause 219, page 237 (line 15), after "persons", insert "(including Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders, other individuals and small businesses)".

(3) Clause 219, page 237 (line 17), after "applicants", insert "(including Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders, other individuals and small businesses)".

(4) Clause 219, page 237 (after line 30), after paragraph (j), insert:

(ja) to advise and assist persons (including Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders, other individuals and small businesses) for the purpose of supporting participation in the market for biodiversity certificates;

These amendments are important in that they seek to incorporate into the biodiversity credit market, which will be established by the Nature Repair Market Bill, the recommendations of the Chubb review into the operation of the carbon credit markets. I firstly thank the minister for her responses and clarifications to questions just provided, in particular in relation to the timing, essentially, of when the Nature Repair Market will commence trading and confirmation that it will not be trading prior to offsets standards being established and the EPBC Act amendments occurring. That is where reassurance is sought by so many in our communities, including in Warringah.

The amendments that I have proposed seek to increase participation into the biodiversity credit market by small landholders and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander landholders by increasing the level of awareness and education about the scheme. These landholders in particular can generate great dividends for biodiversity in Australia. First Nations people have been great custodians of Australia, our land and our waters, for over 65,000 years. We can and must do everything possible to incentivise their participation in the repair of nature as well. Education about the incentives available through the Nature Repair Market and their ability to participate in that market are the minimum we should be doing to develop their participation in this scheme.

Similarly, small landholders are often those who are more willing and able to participate in schemes such as this and can be vital to the development of consistent corridors for migration and rapid restoration of habitat. So these amendments, therefore, are critical to the overall success of biodiversity restoration in Australia.

I'd like to thank the Australian Land Conservation Alliance for their engagement, advocacy and advice and their incredible work in conservation in years to date—in fact, doing much of the work that we hope is now going to get supercharged from this nature repair market. I'd also like to thank the minister and her staff for their engagement on this issue and on these amendments in particular, and their willingness to proactively meet and discuss it. It is this place working at its best when the government proposes legislation that can be discussed, debated, amended and improved for the better of all.

Since the Samuels review, I've certainly passionately advocated for strong national environmental standards and amendments to the EPBC Act, so I do look forward to taking note of the comments of the minister, to working closely with the minister over the coming months on the development of lasting reforms through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and to working towards the establishment of a nature finance corporation, both of which I hope would be key to the ultimate success of this nature repair market. And I do pledge advocacy to getting that push for additional financial support to ensure there is that incentive and that collaboration from public and private finance.

As identified by so many members here, and acknowledged by the minister, the greatest threat to nature and biodiversity is ultimately climate change and global warming, and so I look forward to further opportunities to improve our response in that respect.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Warringah for her contribution and for this amendment. We absolutely support the amendment. It makes a very constructive improvement to the bill as proposed. The amendment will ensure that First Nations people, small businesses and remote communities can directly participate in the nature repair market by firstly clarifying that the functions of the regulator include providing assistance and advice to Aboriginal persons, Torres Strait Islanders, other individuals, small businesses and others. It also empowers the secretary of the environment department to publish information that supports the development of the market, including information about opportunities to participate in the scheme.

The member for Warringah mentioned the Australian Land Conservation Alliance as one of the organisations that has been instrumental in doing nature repair without the support of this scheme, and who have welcomed the proposed scheme. They are doing excellent work.

The member for Warringah also mentioned in particular that we'd love to see First Nations communities participating in the scheme. I want to draw the attention of the House to the comments of the Northern Land Council on the scheme. The Northern Land Council has welcomed the scheme and the chair of the Northern Land Council, Dr Samuel Bush-Blanasi said:

Aboriginal people have been caring for Country for tens of thousands of years. But so much damage has been done in the last two-hundred and fifty years. This new law will help Traditional Owners fix it.

He said:

Traditional Owners know their Country. Indigenous Rangers have also played a key role in using traditional knowledge to manage Country through land and sea management across the Territory. This new market is good news for Traditional Owners and Rangers.

He added:

Making sure Traditional Owners agree to projects on Aboriginal land goes without saying. I want to see Aboriginal projects on Aboriginal land being run by Aboriginal people. This is our future.

Mr Martin-Jard, also from the Northern Land Council, pointed out that the region covered by the Northern Land Council has:

… a vast array of habitats representative of northern Australia which face major threats such as feral animals, weeds and saltwater intrusion into the vast wetland ecosystems.

Without the incentives and interventions available through a nature repair market, there is a high risk these once pristine ecosystems will be further degraded and lost forever. We will be working hard to promote a suitable area in the NLC region for a potential pilot site and method development for the Nature Repair Market.

That's what Mr Martin-Jard said. Can I reassure the member for Warringah once again that this is not a replacement for government investment. We have, in the most recent budget, doubled funding for our national parks, including incredible places such as Kakadu that have been really, I have to say, let go in recent years, with the intrusion of feral animals, the intrusion of weeds and declining infrastructure, even for tourism. We've doubled the funding for national parks. That comes on top of the $273 million—I'd have to check the number; it's more than $200 million—that we had previously promised to upgrade the tourism facilities in the park.

This is not a replacement for government spending; it is an additional opportunity—in this case, for First Nations communities—to draw in investment from businesses, companies and philanthropists that want to invest in nature. It is a great opportunity for traditional owners to manage their country in the way they want, with additional financial support to do it. I commend the amendment to the House.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (2) and (3) as circulated in my name together:

(2) Clause 224, page 240 (after line 23), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) Despite subsection (1), the Secretary must not delegate any of the Secretary's functions or powers under Part 6 (purchase of biodiversity certificates by the Commonwealth) to a person who is an official of the Regulator.

(3) Clause 236, page 243 (after line 24), after paragraph (2)(a), insert:

(aa) the extent to which the Regulator has contributed to the achievement of the objects of this Act by performing the Regulator's functions, and exercising the Regulator's powers, under this Act; and

These amendments serve to address integrity concerns with regulation of the Nature Repair Market. The Nature Repair Market is slated to unlock $137 billion in financial flows for biodiversity by 2050 and will no doubt reach across and impact a wide range of habitats and species. Therefore, it's crucial that we have public confidence that the regulator which will design and administer the methods through which biodiversity certificates are traded and purchased on the market is performing in a way that generates the best outcomes for biodiversity and nature.

The Clean Energy Regulator is the designated regulator of the market. I have expressed my concerns with this, especially given the findings of the Chubb review into the carbon market, which found that reforms are needed before the Clean Energy Regulator is fit for purpose. While I would not go so far as to refer to this as a perk of copying and pasting the model of the carbon market onto the Nature Repair Market, there is the benefit of foresight to learn from the mistakes of the carbon market.

One of the recommendations of the Chubb review was that it's a conflict of interest in the carbon market that the regulator can be delegated to purchase carbon credits on behalf of the government. Amendment (2) serves to remove this similar power from the Nature Repair Market Bill. The provision in the bill that allows the government's power to purchase biodiversity certificates to be delegated to the regulator—the same body in charge of ensuring the integrity of these certificates while simultaneously tasked with finding the best deal on behalf of the government to buy such certificates—is a conflict of interest if ever there was one.

Acknowledging the Chubb review's recommendations, and to ensure that the Nature Repair Market does not repeat the mistakes of the carbon market, this amendment removes the provision that allows the government to delegate the purchasing of biodiversity certificates to the regulator. This is a crucial change. Given that this legislation is to pass pending the implementation of the Chubb review's recommendations relating to the regulator, it's important, too, that the legislation includes an assessment of whether the regulator is performing as intended. Rather than it being left on trust that the regulator is doing its job, amendment (3) specifically requires that regular reviews of the Nature Repair Market assess the performance of the regulator in achieving the objects of the act, performing its functions and exercising its powers.

These amendments will go some way to improving the integrity and accountability of the regulation of the Nature Repair Market.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the member for Goldstein's amendment preventing the delegation of purchasing powers to the regulator, the government supports this amendment.

The amendment prevents the secretary from delegating the power to purchase biodiversity certificates to the Clean Energy Regulator. As the member for Goldstein has pointed out, that is consistent with the Chubb review, which recommended that purchasing under Australia's carbon crediting scheme should be separated from the Clean Energy Regulator to remove a potential conflict of interest.

I thank the member for Goldstein for proposing this amendment and for moving it, and I commend it to the House.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1), (4) and (5), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Page 238 (after line 2), after clause 219, insert:

219A Qualifications of members of the Regulator

Despite any other law of the Commonwealth, at least one member of the Regulator must have:

(a) substantial experience or knowledge; and

(b) significant standing;

in at least one of the following fields:

(c) agriculture;

(d) biological or ecological science.

(4) Clause 236, page 244 (after line 4), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) A review under subsection (1) must consider:

(a) the operation, administration and regulation of the nature repair market established by the Act; and

(b) the extent to which the Act has implemented, or contributed to implementing, recommendations set out in the Final Report of the Independent Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units, published in December 2022; and

(c) levels of compliance with the Act and the adequacy of enforcement powers in the Act; and

(d) any interaction between the nature repair market established by the Act and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and

(e) whether the functions and powers of the Regulator should be transferred to a Commonwealth environment protection authority.

(5) Clause 236, page 245 (line 2), omit "5", substitute "3".

The Clean Energy Regulator's primary business is focused on reducing carbon emissions, but it is now tasked with also regulating the Nature Repair Market. It's concerning that the regulator's membership may not possess skills necessary to make crucial decisions pertaining to biodiversity and nature. While the consequential amendments bill does introduce new fields of expertise that the members of the Clean Energy Regulator board may have—namely agriculture or biological or ecological science expertise—there is no requirement that any of these fields must be represented. Therefore, we may end up with a regulator that has the responsibility to administer the market but has no expertise to actually do so. Knowledge of and experience in areas most pertinent to the market are essential in a body tasked with designing methods and assessing projects in the Nature Repair Market. To this end, amendment (1) requires that at least one member of the Clean Energy Regulator board have expertise in agriculture or biological or ecological science. It serves to improve the capacity of the regulator for more effective decision-making and priorities.

My final two amendments build on my previously moved amendment (3), which requires the periodic review of the Nature Repair Market to consider how the regulator is performing. As I've said, this legislation precedes crucial environmental reforms, including amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the establishment of a federal environment protection authority. We're also yet to see the full implementation of the recommendations of the Chubb review of the carbon market, recommendations which the government has already accepted.

Amendment (4) provides important considerations for when the operation of the Nature Repair Market is reviewed. We're asked to take the government's word that, in time, as the environmental reforms are rolled out at the end of this year or early next year, the harmonious relationship with the Nature Repair Market will fall into place. The amendment stipulates that the review must consider the outcomes of environmental reforms and the market's interactions with new and improved environmental legislation. It also requires that the review assess how the regulator, in the context of the new market, has met or not met recommendations made by the Chubb review, and it stipulates that the review consider whether regulatory functions should be moved from the Clean Energy Regulator to the newly established EPA.

Finally, amendment (5) brings forward the reporting period for the review from five years to three. With Australia being a world leader in species extinction, there is no time to lose in waiting for a review on whether the Nature Repair Market is delivering. Three years strikes a reasonable balance. These amendments to improve the bill's thoroughness and timeliness serve to increase accountability and trust in the review process of the Nature Repair Market.

I'll finish by saying that I do very much appreciate the engagement of the minister and her team on this bill. It does remain cart before the horse in many ways though, with no EPA, with the Chubb recommendations not in place and with the high potential for it to become another low-integrity offset market. I understand that the government will not support these amendments, but I ask that the minister justify her position on that.

Andrew Gee (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the amendments, and I commend the member on bringing them to the House. I'll be very brief because I know time is of the essence this evening. In particular, the amendment that at least one member of the regulator must have experience, knowledge and standing in the fields of agriculture or biological or ecological science, I think, adds a certain robustness to this legislation that will increase public confidence.

We also have to keep in mind that this bill is all about, to a large extent, agriculture—boosting the agricultural sector, making our agricultural land work better for farmers and also working for the environment at the same time. So I think to have the regulator with expertise in those fields makes a lot of sense. I commend the amendments to the House.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Goldstein for proposing these amendments and the member for Calare for his contribution. The government will not be supporting amendments Nos (1), (4) and (5) as proposed by the member for Goldstein. The amendment suggests that there would be a requirement for at least one of the five statutory members of the Clean Energy Regulator to be an expert in agriculture or biological or ecological science. What we are doing instead of requiring that one of these must be a member is we are amending the Clean Energy Regulator Act so that members may have qualifications in agricultural, biological, ecological sciences and so on.

Really, the reason why we can't support a requirement that there be a person on the board of the regulator at all times, as this would require, is because a legal risk is created about the integrity of projects or validity of decisions if, for example, a member of the committee dies and we have not replaced that member. There is a legal risk about any decisions made about the scheme during that time. So I think it is perfectly right of the member for Goldstein to seek assurances about the expertise and performance of the Clean Energy Regulator. That is absolutely standard and absolutely fair. The regulator will need to build up its expertise and recruit staff who have additional skills to administer the scheme. This is a new area of operation for them, and they will need people who know how to do it.

The Clean Energy Regulator Act allows officials from other government agencies to support the Clean Energy Regulator in their functions, and the regulator has begun discussions about this with my environment department. We are supporting the separate amendment proposed by the member for Goldstein to include a specific requirement for the regular statutory reviews of the bill to include the performance of the regulator.

I just want to respond to the proposal that the reviews become more frequent. The bill already provides for a statutory review every five years. We are saying that the statutory review provision is already built in to the bill. In addition to that five-yearly regular review, the amendment expands the scope of that review to include the performance of the Clean Energy Regulator in administering the scheme. Already, the Clean Energy Regulator has a broad suite of skills and systems that can be efficiently adapted to the new scheme. This includes compliance processes, IT systems, deep knowledge of land and vegetation development and, of course, environmental markets. One of the reasons that we wanted to locate the new scheme side-by-side in the Clean Energy Regulator with the carbon credits is because we expect that a lot of the projects will have carbon plus biodiversity benefits. In the example we were using earlier about tree plantation, you will have an obvious carbon benefit. But if you choose the right types of trees you will get a better biodiversity benefit. Having those projects administered by one regulator rather than by separate regulators makes a lot of sense.

But I completely accept what the member for Goldstein has said about learning from the Chubb review about how to ensure that this scheme has integrity. I think it is absolutely vital that we take the lessons of some of the low-quality carbon credit units and how we fix that problem, make sure that we are taking those insights from the Chubb review and from other information available to us now, to make sure we don't repeat those mistakes.

I'm not proposing to agree to the amendment to reduce the review period to three years, in particular because, as I've said, it'll be a year before the scheme is opening its doors for the first projects; it would really be too short a period. But what I have said is that the statutory review period is at least every five years. That means there can also be an early review if there are any concerns. The review can be brought forward if concerns arise about the scheme.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the amendments be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 3, page 2 (line 15), omit "or", substitute "and".

(2) Clause 3, page 2 (line 18), after "biodiversity", insert ", including the Biodiversity Convention".

(3) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 18), after paragraph (b), insert:

(ba) to contribute to meeting Australia's domestic goal of no new extinctions; and

(4) Clause 7, page 7 (after line 30), after the definition of biodiversity conservation purchasing process, insert:

Biodiversity Convention means the Convention on Biological Diversity, done at Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992, as in force for Australia from time to time.

Note: The Convention is in Australian Treaty Series 1993 No. 32 ([1993] ATS 32) and could in 2023 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au).

These amendments are to the objects of the Nature Repair Market Bill, to ensure the market has a clear purpose. There's a review of the nature repair market built into the bill for every five years, under clause 236. This review looks at the operation of the nature repair market and assesses it against the act's objects. This means that it's vital that the objects set clearly measurable and definable policy goals, especially given the challenges in creating a market mechanism to deliver an outcome as complex as the protection and enhancement of biodiversity. Objects provisions are also important because they not only provide general guidance for the interpretation of an act but can be used to resolve uncertainty and ambiguity.

I am proposing a few changes to the objects of the bill. Firstly, my amendment will change the object to promoting the enhancement and protection of biodiversity, not one or the other. This may seem like a minor change but threatened species and communities are already in a perilous state of decline, which means we need active management to ensure rehabilitation and recovery. Setting the purpose only to protect biodiversity would set the standard too low and not account for baseline decline. Protecting and enhancing biodiversity will lead to a positive outcome for nature beyond maintaining the status quo.

My second change to the objects include a specific reference to Australia's international obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity. This provides a measurable policy outcome and specifically refers to achieving Australia's commitment under the Kunming-Montreal global diversity framework, that being 30 per cent of terrestrial and marine ecosystems under protection and 30 per cent of degraded terrestrial and marine ecosystems under restoration by 2030.

Finally, I propose the objects of the bill include contributing to Australia's domestic goal of no new extinctions. The operation of the nature repair market should be measured against this goal as well insofar as it should not only encourage species recovery and protect critical habitat; it must also avoid exacerbating threats or contributing to species decline.

These amendments will strengthen the objects clause, providing a clear benchmark against which the operation of the act will be measured in the future. Strengthening the objects clause is particularly important when dealing with a new type of framework like the nature repair market, with many aspects of the market to be determined in related legislation or regulation.

I thank the minister, and her staff, for her constructive and collaborative engagement on this bill and for her sincere consideration of reasonable suggestions for the improvement of the bill from myself and from other members of the crossbench. I look forward to working with the minister on the review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to implement important changes the minister has acknowledged tonight are needed, such as the new offset standard and a clear hierarchy showing that offsets are a last resort.

These changes will improve the likelihood of this bill and the EPBC Act making a real difference to the protection of nature in Australia. I commend these amendments to the House.

Andrew Gee (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support these amendments and I commend the member for Curtin for bringing them forward. They are practical; they are also commonsense amendments. You've got to keep in mind, and it's the reason I'm supporting this bill, that it's a win-win. It's a win for farmers, so it allows the farmers in the central west of New South Wales and, indeed, all around Australia to get an income stream to supplement their farming income, which can be very handy in a dry time. But it's also a win for the environment, and I think these amendments, these commonsense and practical amendments to the objects, enhance the effectiveness of the bill now but also into the future.

I note the member for Curtin has moved the amendment that the bill protects and enhances biodiversity so that's not an optional extra. It's not either/or; it's got to be both. It ensures that the bill specifically helps to achieve Australia's domestic goal of no new extinctions, which I think the community would wholeheartedly support. And it also ensures that the bill refers to achieving Australia's commitments under the convention on biodiversity.

I think the outcome of all of these practical and commonsense amendments is it that you'll get a more effective bill, and you'll get measurable outcomes, which is what the Australian public want to see from a bill like this. They want farmers and other landholders to get the benefits. They want the environment to get the benefits. And they want this bill to be as effective as possible. So, again, I commend the member for Curtin for bringing forward these amendments. I commend these amendments to the government, and I also urge the opposition, who in many ways were the architects of the principle of this bill, to get behind these amendments. They didn't get behind the bill, but they can still get behind these amendments.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Curtin for these amendments. I think they improve the bill. And I thank her for the very constructive way that she has negotiated the amendments. And I want to thank the member for Calare for his comments as well.

This set of amendments enhance the objectives of the Nature Repair Market Bill, and they will clarify what the bill is trying to achieve. It's important because those objectives are what we will measure the success of the nature repair market against when it's reviewed every five years. I thank the member for Curtin and commend the amendments to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.