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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I rise in support of the amendments moved by the member for Goldstein. I actually think they are incredibly reasonable amendments. In my 30 years working in the business environment, it was always fundamental for us in a business sense, when we were seeking to shift the dial, to ensure that any objective or goal that we set for ourselves was defined as having five key parts. We used to call them SMART. It's a SMART objective. They need to be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely. Those five measures always helped in defining a starting point that you knew you could move forward from.

I understand there is a lot of excitement about introducing legislation that begins to talk about what nature positive may mean, but the fact of the matter is the opportunity is here for us to set that. I wouldn't be arguing in favour of this as strongly as I am had we not had the 2021 state of the nation report, so we do have a baseline, as the member for Goldstein has already alluded to, that we could commence from this point in time. I do commend the member's amendments and again add my voice to hers.

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

I would like to speak in support of the proposed amendments moved by the member for Goldstein. Nature positive represents generational reform of our environmental laws, and it's really important we get this right. And what must remain as a central purpose of these reforms is that it's about improvement, not just protection. That's what nature positive means. Words really matter. Nature positive adopts language that's globally accepted to refer to a net gain in nature. And, to achieve a net gain, we need to include ambitious and quantifiable targets.

Australia signed up to the global biodiversity framework, which includes concrete commitments to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030, and that goal has been consistently adopted around the world to guide urgent action to get nature visibly and measurably on the path to recovery. It makes complete sense that we would include this measure in the definition of nature positive in this bill, but this bill falls short. There is no goal for recovery; there is no baseline. The bill leaves it to the head of Environment Information Australia to determine the baseline for nature positive.

I strongly agree with the amendments that the definition of 'nature positive' should reflect a clear goal to halt biodiversity decline by 2030 measured against a 2021 baseline. It makes sense to make the 2021 baseline consistent with the current national State of the environment report data. I commend this amendment.

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 moving the amendment. I want to acknowledge that the intent behind it is absolutely in line with the intent of the government in moving this legislation. There will be a baseline, but it will be set by experts—not by me, not by this parliament at an arbitrary date.

We need to know what the baseline is because we need to make sure that we're measuring progress and that we've got a consistent baseline measurement from which to measure that progress. As members know, one of the additional things that this package of legislation does is establish an independent head of Environment Information Australia, and then we ask that independent expert to set the baseline in consultation with other experts. We're looking for data nerds to do this work, if I can put it that way, rather than the parliament doing it. It will be one of the first tasks given to the head of Environment Information Australia. The legislation says that the baseline must be set by 31 December 2025. That's in schedule 13 of the transitional and consequential amendments bill.

The head of Environment Information Australia will consider factors that affect the condition of ecosystems across the country from time to time, like droughts, bushfires and floods. One of the problems with just picking a date that covers all of the indicators right across Australia is, if you've had particularly bad bushfires in one half of the country but not the other half of the country, if you've had flooding somewhere but not elsewhere, or drought, you can have the baseline thrown out by those sorts of anomalies, so we actually need someone who's an expert at evaluating data to make sure we're getting the baseline right.

As the member for the Goldstein's acknowledged, we need to make sure that we're measuring progress in the improvement of our ecosystem but not from a baseline that has been either positively influenced or negatively influenced over a longer trajectory because of an anomaly in the weather or some other type of anomaly. As the member for Goldstein said, the baseline will provide a national reference point for key indicators and metrics for measuring diversity, abundance, resilience and integrity of ecosystems and species. Nature-positive reporting may include additional reference points as indicators, metrics and data improve over time.

When reporting on nature positive, the Head of Environment Information Australia will be able to evaluate and report on actions to improve our ecosystems. The Head of EIA will start by looking at the priorities that I've agreed to with the states and territories. The state and territory environment ministers have already agreed with us that Australia's national priorities include a coming out of the Kunming-Montreal agreement, protecting and conserving 30 per cent of Australia's land and sea by 2030, restoring degraded land, controlling and eradicating invasive plants and animals, no new extinctions and creating progress towards creating a circular economy.

It's also very important—and I thank the member for Goldstein for acknowledging this—that the term 'nature positive' will be defined in this bill. This is a world first. Australia does have a right to be proud of it, and I understand why members are determined to make sure that we go beyond definition to implementation in our progress towards nature positive. It's a relatively new term internationally, and creating progress towards that includes that progress resting on a commonly understood definition of what nature positive means.

While goals and objectives are also important, we've demonstrated our commitment to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 through our support for the Global Biodiversity Framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity, and through our national biodiversity strategy and action plan, which is something that Australia has given to the international community to show that we are prepared to be judged globally on the progress that we make. I thank the member once again for her very thoughtful contributions.

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

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

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

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

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

The question before the House is that the amendments (1) to (3) moved by the honourable member for Goldstein be agreed to.