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

I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The urgent need for this Parliament to set aside political difference and do more to protect Australia's nature and biodiversity.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for North Sydney for bringing forward this important topic. I absolutely respect her as a champion for the environment and someone who is passionate about the incredible biodiversity in this country, and it is so important that we work to protect that.

I agree that this parliament, as a whole, needs to do more to protect Australia's nature and biodiversity. I would hope that this would be an issue where the parliament could come together to get the action that we need to see. Certainly, from our point of view, from the government side, we have been working tirelessly to put together the bills that we brought forward to deliver a new, sensible, federal Environmental Protection Agency. I want to pay tribute to Minister Plibersek and to the work that she's done to bring that proposal forward, because that is what governments do in this place. We bring these really important reforms forward, and we seek the support of a parliament to pass them. And it is important to reflect on how we got to this disappointing place, where these sensible laws are not being passed by the parliament, when, in fact, all of us in this place do know that the current EPBC Act is outdated and does need reform.

Even those opposite had an inkling of this, when they commissioned the Samuel review. Yet, when the work was done, when Minister Plibersek put together these laws and brought them to the parliament, we had the typical reaction that we get, particularly from those opposite—obstructionist and negative, saying no. On this occasion, they were joined by the Greens political party. The Greens, the Liberals and the Nationals all worked together in the Senate to block our nature-positive laws. We have been here before, of course. This is, in some ways, history repeating itself, and I know that this has been said in this place before, but it is important that we learn from our past, and, as a parliament, that we learn from some of the mistakes we've made before, because we know that it was that same trio of political parties—the Greens, the Liberals and the Nationals—who teamed up to block the CPRS, and it led to 80 million extra tonnes of carbon dioxide being in our atmosphere.

The reality of this parliament, of how it is made up, means that if the coalition and the Greens both say no in the other place then a bill does not pass. That is what, unfortunately, has happened with our very sensible, very necessary nature-positive reforms. As I said, it is perhaps not all that surprising from those opposite who, in the main, spent almost a decade in government ignoring the needs of our environment, ignoring the pressing need to protect our unique biodiversity.

I think it is more disappointing from the Greens political party. For Greens supporters out there in communities like mine, I think there is a sense of disappointment and frustration that the Greens chose to also stand in the way of environmental reform and that they chose to say no to a strong new environmental cop on the beat, an environmental protection agency that could have done the work from a federal level to help protect our environment and our biodiversity.

I am proud of our government's efforts. We have engaged across the parliament to try and find a pathway forward, and I thank those on the crossbench who engaged in good faith in those discussions, who did try and help us find a nature-positive way through this parliament. This is my message to voters in my community, and communities right around Australia who value our environment and know how precious the biodiversity we have in this country is and understand how urgent it is: this is unfinished business for a Labor government, and by voting Labor, you are getting our commitment that this is unfinished business that we will complete and that we want to get done.

I know there's more to be done, but our government has brought a focus to the environment and to the need to protect our biodiversity that we haven't had in this parliament before. Just like the member for Sydney, I want my kids and my grandkids to be able to grow up and see a koala in the wild. My four-year-old son is particularly obsessed with koalas, so I'm putting that on his list.

We don't have much time left. We need to act now. I greatly appreciate all the people in my community who raise this really important issue with me, over and over again, and who urge us to keep doing the work that needs to be done. We have invested more than half a billion dollars to help protect our threatened species. This includes $224 million for our government's Saving Native Species program, which has done important work to protect 73 species, like the swift parrot and the Australian sea lion. We've doubled funding to our national parks. We've added more oceans under our country's protection—an area, in fact, that's larger than the size of both Italy and Germany put together. We've saved the Great Barrier Reef from an endangered listing, investing $1.2 billion to protect the reef with water quality projects, land restoration and much more. Again, I want my kids to be able to snorkel, dive and see the beauties of that incredible part of Australia and the legacy that is there.

We've legislated to establish the world's first national nature repair market, we're increasing recycling by 1.3 million tonnes a year and we're keeping more rubbish out of landfill. Last year, $7 billion in green bonds were issued in what was a first for Australia's sustainable finance market, backing projects right around the country that focus on nature repair and restoration as well as energy transformation.

We are investing in Indigenous rangers, which is a fantastic program doing wonderful work in so many communities—$1.3 billion, doubling the number of rangers. Twelve new Indigenous protected areas have been established, allowing traditional owners to manage these areas for nature conservation.

So there is a lot being done and, as I say, there is more to go. We do know that all of this work is at risk if the Leader of the Opposition and his Liberals and Nationals get the opportunity to be back on this side of the House after the next election. In fact, the one policy pledge in this space when it comes to the future of the environment, the climate and biodiversity in this country that we know those opposite are committed to is slow, expensive, risky nuclear energy, a plan for climate denial, really, dressed up with a risky $600 billion commitment to drive up the cost of Australians' power bills. That is all we have from those on the other side. All we get from those on the other side is denial and a failure to back laws that would have allowed us to do this work on a national level and put in place a sensible Environmental Protection Agency with that national focus, making sure that these unique and precious spaces and species that we have in Australia are protected.

We know that environmental action and climate action go hand in hand. That is why we are on track to meet our 2030 targets. It's because of the policies that our government have put in place. It's why we are bringing emissions down in the electricity and land sectors. It's why emissions have fallen to 28 per cent below 2005 levels. It's why again the Minister for the Environment and Water is approving projects for renewable energy—to get that renewable energy that we need into the grid. In fact, our government has boosted the wind and solar capacity in our system by more than 40 per cent compared to what it was in 2022 when we entered office. And it's why we've got our commitment to A Future Made in Australia—to unlock the jobs and the investment that also go with this commitment.

So I'm passionate about doing this work. I do want to see a future parliament pick this up and run with it. I say the way to get that done is to make sure that the Labor government is re-elected to this place so that we can make sure that we are protecting our climate, nature and our very important species and special places in this country.

Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for North Sydney for bringing this matter of public importance to the House. Right now, families in electorates like mine are making the impossible choice between paying rent and putting food on the table. In these circumstances, when people are struggling to afford the basics, it is difficult to talk about biodiversity. However, let me be clear: protecting Australia's environment is not just an environmental issue; it is an economic one. The government must not treat biodiversity and the cost of living as separate challenges. They are interconnected, and neglecting one will only deepen the crisis in the other. Our parks, green spaces and bushlands are not just picturesque landscapes; they're essential to our wellbeing and economic resilience. Access to nature improves mental and physical health, reducing healthcare costs. Healthy individuals mean a more productive workforce, fewer sick days and lower public health expenditures—real economic savings for our nation.

Biodiversity is a critical asset for current and future generations living in Australia. Healthy ecosystems act as natural buffers against extreme climate impacts, such as floods and droughts. Within the Fowler electorate, biodiversity plays a significant role in producing clean oxygen and the improvement of health, with the benefit of green spaces and minimising urban heat. As we know, in Western Sydney, during the summer, we feel extreme heat. There are an abundance of parks, reserves, wetlands and critical ecosystems such as Chipping Norton Lake, Cabramatta Creek and Bossley Park reserves. I have walked in my local parks and seen how these parks play such an important role for families in Fowler. My local councils have invested a lot of money to develop these parks, because in suburbs big families live in small units and they don't have the room and space to have recreational space. Therefore, it's important to provide recreational spaces. I acknowledge both Fairfield City Council and Liverpool City Council for investing in these recreational facilities for our community.

Fairfield city's biodiversity strategy has also set targets for 30 per cent of the city to have tree canopy cover, a 60 per cent reduction of priority weeds, that 30 per cent of both sides of the creek banks will be rehabilitated to a naturalised condition, and to give away 4,000 Indigenous trees, shrubs and ground covers each year to our local community. These efforts are to ensure that constituents can continue to enjoy the green landscape and nature's benefits for many years to come.

These natural spaces should not be viewed as luxuries. They are lifelines, particularly in times of economic hardship. I encourage the Commonwealth government to play a much more important role in investing in and preserving this limited but natural environment, especially in communities in Western Sydney. While my community's immediate certain is making ends meet, I understand that we can't ignore the bigger picture. If the government is serious about addressing the cost-of-living crisis then it must see protecting Australia's nature and biodiversity as an investment in economic stability, not an afterthought.

We cannot afford to be short-sighted. Protecting nature safeguards our health, jobs, food security and, ultimately, the affordability of life in this country. This parliament must put aside political differences and commit to policies that recognise a deep link between our environment and our economy. By investing in our natural capital, we are investing in our people, ensuring that families, especially those in Fowler, can have not only a thriving environment but also a real chance at a better future.

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

I thank the member for North Sydney for bringing this topic today in the spirit and which it is brought. I acknowledge her contribution this term, though I am sorry that her seat will no longer exist and that she is leaving the parliament. I have really enjoyed working with the member for North Sydney on a lot of things, as well as her genuine commitment to seeing better outcomes for the environment and a range of other issues. I'm sorry to see her go.

This is a really important topic, because we do need to work together. I appreciate the spirit in which this matter of public importance has been brought. We have seen, over many years—longer than the last decade—climate wars in this country. I guess we would have thought that by this upcoming election in 2025 that those wars were over. We hoped that us coming to government at the last election was the end of climate change being a political fight, that the science would finally be accepted and that all people running for parliament in Australia would finally accept that this was a pressing challenge for the entire world that Australia has to play its very important part in. This is something that matters to Australians, not least because of our precious and unique environment that we all value, and that Canberrans value very much. This is the issue that they talk to me about more than any other.

Unfortunately, that's not what we see, because we have an opposition that is going to this election with a policy to go down a path of nuclear power and build seven nuclear reactors around the country. It is just laughable. With the really great ground that the Albanese Labor government have made in the last three years, in not much time—what we have achieved in setting targets and being on track to meet those targets, in record investment and in renewable energy—it is devastating that this will again become a fight at the next election and that all of it is at risk. The experts tell us we are at a tipping point for Australia. We are on track at the moment, and if these things do not continue we will be set back forever.

This is an opportunity for our economy, as well, and our government wants to make the most of that. We want this to be a jobs opportunity for Australia, to be involved in the manufacturing of what we need for the transition to a sustainable economy. And we want to play our part in a world that is transitioning to clean energy and away from fossil fuels.

So I want to say that I agree with the member for North Sydney when she says that at the next election you need to vote as though your children's future and their children's future depends on it, because it does. I couldn't agree more. But I would say that the biggest risk is a Dutton Liberal-National coalition government, because we will see everything that we are trying to do for climate and for the environment completely trashed, among other things.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Trump light.

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

Yes. This is an opposition that still don't know if they believe in climate change. This is an opposition that is suggesting a nuclear policy so ridiculous that even one of their own senators has said it is merely a political distraction. We can't risk that. When members of the Canberra community come to me, though, it is concerning that they don't always realise everything we have achieved. It is ambitious, and I will always stand for the most ambitious action on climate and protecting our environment that we can. But the fact is that it is governments—and Labor governments—that deliver that. We need a government that is committed to this, as we always have been.

I had planned to talk about all the things we have done over the years, and I'm nearly out of time, but our record speaks for itself. We are the party of environment; we always will be.

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

At the 2022 federal election, then aspiring prime minister Anthony Albanese committed to delivering an ambitious package of environmental reform named the Nature Positive Plan. Nature Positive is a global movement to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 and achieve recovery by 2050. Three years later, the lack of substantive progress on this critically important area of policy is one of the most substantive failures of this term of government, and it's frequently raised in that vein with me by my constituents in Goldstein.

In the final sitting week of 2024, after much political brinkmanship in the Senate, Minister Plibersek was within striking distance of a deal with the crossbench to pass these reforms. But an intervention by the Prime Minister and the Western Australian premier left it and the urgent action that our native wildlife and environment need shelved indefinitely. The government has a record to folding to powerful corporate interests. This is just one example displayed during the term of this parliament.

Australia is endowed with diverse natural beauty and unique native wildlife. Both are central to our lifestyles, our culture and our national identity. With that comes a responsibility on us all to preserve and protect it. As an example, data provided by BirdLife Australia shows that 11 bird species that called Goldstein home are now classified as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable—the Swift parrot, the fairy tern and the blue winged parrot—and 2,142 Australian animals, plants and unique ecological communities were officially recognised as being in danger of extinction last year.

Yet, even with clear data on the disastrous outlook for those species, this government's proposal for environmental reform in this term of parliament has not been the systemic reform our environment deserves. It was first chopped up across multiple packages of legislation and now terms of parliament. At every possible opportunity, I moved amendments to strengthen our environmental protection laws—for example, proposing an ambitious and world-leading definition of 'nature positive' and proper parliamentary oversight of the government's proposed environmental protection agency. Neither of these common-sense improvements were supported by the government. This is incredibly frustrating not only for the crossbench but also for our communities who put us here to get this done.

National environmental standards are the low-hanging fruit in this debate. Ambitious standards should form the foundation of Australia's environmental protection laws. Standards would provide assurance to conservationists that action is being taken, provide industry with the guardrails needed to make decisions with certainty and provide our environment with the urgent intervention it needs to restore and recover. Indeed, as Professor Graeme Samuel recommended in his review, legally enforceable standards should be legislated immediately. Standards should precede other areas of reform, such as an EPA, because they form the basis for environmental impact assessments across all levels of government, not just the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, this was not the approach adopted by the government. In fact, the government did the opposite. The legislative package didn't even mention standards. It is among the greatest missed opportunities of the 47th Parliament that we could not agree on a package of environmental reform, one with national environmental standards at its core. And I agree with the assistant minister to some degree: that's on all of us.

Australia has some of the most biologically diverse and carbon-dense native forests in the world. They're inhabited by among the most unique and diverse wildlife in the world: the koala, the kookaburra and the fierce little Tassie devil. Meanwhile, industrial logging of these natural assets results in huge amounts of carbon pollution into our atmosphere. The regional forest agreements that enable such logging should be abolished. This would be of benefit to a range of sectors, including ecotourism, and enable soil stability for agriculture. Untouched native forests enable more effective bushfire prevention. Older trees are more fire resistant, a healthy canopy holds more moisture and logging often leaves behind debris that can act as extra fuel for fire. The economy is turning away from this anyway and is increasingly taking many state governments along with it, but there's been the usual sluggish approach from the major parties on environmental reform throughout the 47th Parliament, while only the crossbench has stood up for the policies to protect and restore our native wildlife while providing certainty and establishing fair guardrails for industry to operate within. This is a balance that is possible to achieve, one missed by this government and this parliament, and, in that, we have failed our children.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our government thanks the member for North Sydney for moving this matter of public importance. As the member for Canberra did also, I want to personally thank her for the spirit in which she has engaged in her work in this parliament, and I wish her well for the future.

The truth is that our government does have some serious runs on the board when it comes to protecting nature and biodiversity. We completely agree that this parliament should set aside its political differences and work to do more to protect Australia's incredible nature and biodiversity. But it was a bit remiss of the previous speaker and others to try and pretend that the coalition, those opposite, haven't partnered with the Greens political party to block more action in this regard. But we persist, and we are doing more and more to protect nature and biodiversity.

This is a very important issue to us in the Northern Territory, and that's why our government committed $3.82 million in funding to restore urban waterways in my electorate. In Darwin and Palmerston, we did this through the commitment to the Darwin Harbour Catchment Waterways Project. I thank the member for Sydney for that investment in the capital of the north.

Landcare NT welcome this exciting news, and they're leading the project in partnership with local Landcare groups, such as the Ludmilla Creek Landcare Group just near our family home. This is part of our government's Urban Rivers and Catchments Program. Landcare NT represents over 20 community Landcare groups across the NT, in my electorate and in the member for Lingiari's electorate. They play an essential role in the ongoing monitoring and improvement of the health of our natural landscapes. This particular project will help improve the health of beautiful waterways, including Rapid Creek, Ludmilla Creek and Sandy Creek and Mitchell Creek in Palmerston. By enhancing community biodiversity and improving water quality to benefit native species in these regions, the project will ensure that these natural habitats and recreation areas are protected for the future for our Territory children and our communities to enjoy.

We are also protecting our nature and biodiversity through our action on climate change and in our significant investment in renewables. The Albanese Labor government are committed to northern Australia, and we're committed to net zero and becoming a renewable energy superpower—and those three things are quite interlinked. Australia is lucky, of course, to be one of the sunniest places in the world, with some of the best solar and wind opportunities in the member for Lingiari's electorate. Our government is harnessing those opportunities and executing the lowest cost pathway to a clean, affordable, reliable and resilient energy system.

The north is playing a critical role in supporting our nation's transition to a net zero economy, which, as I'm sure the member for North Sydney would agree, is important as well. The Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct will play a key role in the transition to this net zero economy. SunCable and other companies are set to harness the Northern Territory's world-class solar resource, driving green—or, as I prefer to say, golden—Territory electricity into Darwin and the broader region, including markets such as Singapore. This energy will drive a new wave of green industrial development both at Middle Arm and, I believe, in the future, at East Arm. New green industries include critical minerals processing, hydrogen, ammonia, sustainable aviation fuels and data centres. Of course, there are also very serious CCS proposals to deal with CO2 emissions.

For their own narrow political ends, the Greens political party like to pretend that Middle Arm has nothing to do with our renewable energy future, but Australia will only be worse off if they are successful. Territorians know better, Australians know better, and our regional neighbours know better as well.

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

I completely agree that this parliament must set aside political differences and work together to protect our natural environment, because nature in Australia is in crisis. Every hour, we bulldoze an area of unique and threatened species habitat the size of eight Melbourne Cricket Grounds. Over the last 200 years, we have suffered the largest biodiversity decline of any continent, and while we've made progress towards our 2030 targets climate change continues to pose an existential threat to our environment, with reports yesterday that we reached the critical threshold of 1.5 degrees of global warming last year.

Now, this is dire, but I want to acknowledge the progress that this parliament has made. We will now have more investment in nature protection through measures like the nature repair market. We stopped fossil fuel exploration in PEP-11 to protect Sydney's coastline from oil and gas extraction. And I want to pay tribute to the communities who have really driven this, many of whom are in my electorate of Wentworth. You have stood up, and government has listened. We have strengthened our environmental laws, with a water trigger to properly assess the impact of major projects on water resources. And, again, this is something I am very proud that I advocated for and am proud to have seen done. Finally, we are now on track for a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. We need to go further, but this is absolutely critical.

But this is nowhere near enough. People in Wentworth know we need to do more—people like Marnie, who wrote to me about the need for an independent environmental regulator, people like Nicholas, who are calling for action to protect 30 per cent of our land by 2030, and people like Jennifer, who are demanding stronger environmental laws. I share their concerns and their ambitions. From saving the maugean skate to conserving the northern jarrah forests, the need for urgent action to halt and reverse biodiversity decline has never been clearer.

To protect our environment for future generations, we need to do five things. Firstly, we need to end native logging. This is an industry that destroys koala habitat, worsens the climate crisis and costs New South Wales's taxpayers millions each year because the state-run logging corporation is not even economically viable.

Secondly, we need to fix our broken environmental laws. The EPBC Act doesn't protect the environment and it doesn't work for business. Professor Graeme Samuel provided the blueprint for reform back in 2020. We have not made the progress we should have in this parliament, and this must be a priority for the next parliament.

Thirdly, we need to account for climate pollution in environmental assessments. Climate change is the biggest threat to nature, yet our environmental laws don't even consider it. That must change so we can accelerate clean energy projects and take account of harm caused by large amounts of climate pollution.

Fourthly, we need an independent environmental protection authority. Our environmental laws are not being enforced, and too many decisions are being left in the hands of politicians. We need a tough cop on the beat to ensure decisions are based on the evidence, not decided by vested interests.

Fifthly, and finally, we need to increase our investment in nature. Over the past decade, federal spending on biodiversity has been just 30 per cent of the OECD average—a fraction of what the scientists say is needed. While funding has increased in this parliament, the government still spends 16 times more on subsidising fossil fuels than protecting nature. That must change.

None of these actions alone are a silver bullet, but together they would put us on a path to protecting our environment for future generations. Implementing them won't be easy. It will require conviction to change the status quo. It will require collaboration between parliamentarians, business and civil society. We can no longer afford to go back and forth, parliament by parliament and see good work reversed. It will take courage to stand up to vested interests. It is now up to all members of this House to work together to protect the Australian natural environment we all treasure.

I want to particularly thank the member for North Sydney for bringing this really important issue to the House today. It is absolutely critical. I know that the environment and climate are issues that North Sydney is passionate about, and the member for North Sydney has represented her community extremely well in consistently advocating for this. I'm sure she will continue to do this after she leaves this House.

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

Thank you to the member for North Sydney for putting up this matter of public importance to the House. Protecting Australia's unique environment and biodiversity is certainly a responsibility that should transcend parties, partisanship and party lines; I agree with that a hundred per cent—that element of her motion. It's very important. With respect to the member for North Sydney and other previous speakers, though, there is a reality that has kind of been glossed over a bit. The reality is that this government, in three short years, has been committed to and delivered real, tangible action to safeguard our land, oceans and wildlife.

We know Australia is home to some of the most diverse ecosystems on the planet. We know they are under increasing threat. We know we must act decisively to ensure our environment is protected for future generations. This government has set an ambitious national target to protect and conserve 30 per cent of Australia's land and 30 per cent of our marine areas by 2030, and we're delivering on this commitment with more than 70 million hectares of land and sea added or provided with stronger protections. That's an area bigger than Germany and Italy combined. Australia now leads the world in ocean conservation, with 52 per cent of our oceans protected thanks to our expansion of marine parks. We've established 12 new Indigenous Protected Areas, covering 7.5 million hectares of land and 450,000 hectares of sea—I didn't know sea could be counted in hectares, but there you go; it's a lot.

On balance, I'd be interested to know if there was any government prior to this one that spent as much on or invested more in the environment as this government. The funding of critical programs has been significant: $200 million to restore our city waterways, after the former Liberal government left them to ruin; double the funding for Kakadu and Uluru, after the Liberals let them fall apart; $1.2 billion to protect the Great Barrier Reef, after the Liberals were happy to risk it; and $550 million to protect threatened species, while the Liberals gun for fewer protections.

It is interesting that the other element of the member for North Sydney's motion is that we should set aside our political differences in order to make these commitments. I also agree. We had a $353 million investment for an independent environmental protection agency and it was the opposition—the Liberal and National parties, the coalition—and the Greens political party who worked together and voted together to block it. They clearly have a difference of view about whether we should have an environmental protection agency. That is what this place is for, isn't it—debate? We will not agree on everything. They made a very clear statement that they rejected an environmental protection agency.

I know that environmental reform requires cooperation and commitment. We have demonstrated that commitment. We hoped to see bipartisanship and cross partisanship in this place when it came to reform yet we have seen again and again the opposition and the Greens political party obstruct progress at every turn. It is odd because the coalition began the review around the Environmental Protection Act. They knew it was something that needed to be reformed, looked at, but now they refuse to support the changes needed to strengthen it. And the Greens political party, a minor party in this place, despite claims to champion the environment, have repeatedly shifted their demands, have repeatedly blocked the reforms, have repeatedly obfuscated and blocked progress that would have delivered real protections for nature, so I have to ask the question: are they opposed because they differ in view?

The opposition might have a different position. They might not rate or value those protections, or they don't agree with the amount of investment—many reasons. The Greens political party—why are they opposing? They want to make the perfect the enemy of the good maybe, or they are interested in political point scoring. They both teamed up together and blocked the environmental protection agency. That is just a reality of the political difference in this place. I have no problem and I don't think any of us have a problem with difference that is really based on very well-considered views and on an understanding of what is going on. But that does not seem to be what is happening here, especially with the attempt to do political point scoring with some on the crossbench. This government remains committed to delivering real environmental protection that balances sustainability with responsible development, and we are making those historic investments to safeguard our national heritage, from the oceans to the outback.

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

Through a unified and future-focused approach, Australia can be a super power in an emerging global green economy and protect and incredible and unique environment. I would forgive many of the young people here watching this debate who feel a little bit jaded listening to the hubris we hear on this issue, because there is always blaming the other side and blaming everyone else, when the very topic of this MPI is in fact to put political differences aside and come to this place with a commitment to protect the environment, because we can safeguard the environment for our children. They will inherit it. The degradation of our environment and the escalating impacts of climate change are the worst generational debt any generation has ever left, and that is on all our heads.

Our environment needs us now, not tomorrow, not next term—now. The politicisation of environment policy has resulted in a failure to pass necessary laws, resulting in rapid biodiversity loss and degradation of our environment. This ultimately threatens our society and economy. We depend on the systems for clean air, water, fertile soils, crop pollination, for protection from weather events and for the biodiversity that keeps the whole system working.

In Warringah, residents are passionate about protecting our environment and nature. At every school visit, children ask me to fight for the environment. It is the No. 1 issue. Locally, we celebrate and value our access to our oceans—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 protected areas of Manly Dam and Bantry Bay. These areas have a deep historical significance, and community support has driven stronger government protection. Of course, that community support and activism were all the more obvious through the PEP11 campaign, where, ultimately, that strength, dedication and perseverance of communities, environmental groups and local industries saw the government finally reject that licence.

Australia has some of the most unique ecosystems in the world, but they're under threat. My community wants to see greater protection of nature through wildlife corridors and investment in the restoration of nature and biodiversity. The first step must be to stop native forest logging. Members of Labor simply have no credibility in protecting nature by their stated means if they continue to fail to require this within their party room. This has to be a line in the sand—that native forest logging must stop. It makes no sense economically and is quickly driving biodiversity loss.

Everyone has to have the courage also to use existing legislation. The biggest threat to our environment is ultimately our rapidly warming climate. Stop approving fossil fuel projects and extending their licences well beyond 2050. You can't say that you want to protect nature and then continue to make the problem worse. It flies in the face of all expert advice about how we can preserve our environment and biodiversity. Respectfully, as much as you want to point the finger at the Greens and at the coalition, you have not lived up to expectations and promises.

Protecting our environment is woven within First Australians' love and respect of country. Just today, I met with First Nations Australians from the Beetaloo Basin, who discussed the serious concerns their communities have in relation to water because of fracking. They are desperate for the minister for the environment to use the water trigger to call in and investigate the concerns about groundwater availability, water quality and the increased risk of chemical and wastewater spills, but these concerns have fallen on deaf ears. Whilst we have implemented a water trigger in the legislation, the minister has declined to actually action it and use it.

What our future generations need, what children need and what our environment needs is action, not just words and rhetoric in this place. We know that it's not working for communities. A government that cares about safeguarding the health and wellbeing of our communities and is serious about a re-energised and strong economy has to take the protection of nature and biodiversity seriously. This is a must have. Roughly half of our GDP, 49 per cent or some $896 billion, has a dependence on nature. Major industries like agriculture, fisheries, transport, logistics, accommodation and construction will all be impacted if we don't take action. In Western Australia—the ones who we understand have been responsible for blocking some progress—they are exposed to 67% of their gross economic value being dependent on nature.

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

I thank the member for North Sydney for introducing this motion. As my colleagues have expressed, I'm sorry that this is her last term as a consequence of the electoral boundary changes because she has brought a great deal to this House. This motion is a case in point. It is about sensible debate to set aside political differences to do more to protect Australia's nature and biodiversity, and I agree wholeheartedly with the need to do exactly that.

When Labor took office in 2007, we worked to create a carbon pollution reduction scheme. The scheme was due to start in July 2010. The Leader of the Opposition, the Liberals' Malcolm Turnbull, supported it. Our hopes were high. In December 2009, there was a leadership spill in the Liberal Party. The member for Wentworth was defeated by one vote by the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott. The member for Warringah opposed the carbon pollution reduction scheme. Did anyone else oppose it? As it turns out, it was the Greens. Two Liberal senators actually crossed the floor when it came to the vote. We could have had the carbon pollution reduction scheme. The Greens senators voted against it.

It's been estimated that if that bill had passed, Australia's carbon emissions could be more than 200 million tonnes lower. Electricity would be more affordable and the air we breathe healthier, for all. It didn't happen. But Labor didn't give up. In 2011, the Gillard Labor government managed to achieve the passage of a world-leading package of measures to reduce carbon pollution and shift the Australian economy to a clean energy future. The Abbott government repealed it. Now the coalition and the Greens have teamed up again to block Australia's first national environment protection agency and Environment Information Australia. Contrary to the suggestion from, sadly, the member for Warringah, this is not hubris and this is not rhetoric; this is the real reality of the numbers. We did not have the numbers in the Senate. The Greens had the opportunity in August to vote in support of it. They told us they had no issue with any of the content in that bill, but they chose to play politics and simply blocked it. You can say that was a consequence of anyone else, but it wasn't; the only people that mattered in that time and place were the people in that Senate. They did not pass the bill.

My community, like me, want to support better environmental laws, and they've seen how I voted on this matter; I voted in support of a federal EPA. But clearly it was not enough. For this upcoming election, to the voters in my community: you need to understand that if you want these reforms to get through you have to not only vote for me to be back in the House to vote as I did, as my record shows; you need to vote for Labor in the Senate. The Greens and the Liberals have shown their colours. They will not support the environmental change that you are asking us to deliver. We will deliver it but we need your support. We need you to vote for Labor in both the House and the Senate.

Unlike that record of the Liberals and the Greens—opposition and blockers—Labor has an extraordinary track record, as I've already articulated. But what about the present time? It's Labor that is saving the Great Barrier Reef and its abundant life forms from the 'endangered' list. It's Labor that's rescuing the Murray-Darling Basin, investing $2.8 billion in new dams; the Liberals promised 100 new dams and they delivered two! It's Labor that doubled the funding to national parks. It's Labor that stopped Jabiluka from being mined for uranium. It's Labor that's worked for heritage listings for places like Cape York and Murujuga. It's Labor that funds the science and teaches us to understand what we need to protect. It's the Liberals who defunded the CSIRO and closed down laboratories. We voted to invest $1½ billion in Antarctic science; the Liberals voted against it. It's completely unbelievable. It's Labor that invested $550 million and saved threatened species. The Liberals want to withdraw us from the United Nations nature treaty. I could go on.

Right now I've got Liberal candidates and Nationals candidates, unbelievably, trapsing around our territory in Western Australia, up in the Perth Hills. My community wants people who will vote in both the House and the Senate for environmental reform. It will only be Labor who does it.

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

We take many things for granted in this country. One of them is our freedoms; we take it for granted that we'll always have them. Our national prosperity is taken for granted all too often. Another thing that's often taken for granted is our environment. We just take it for granted that we'll always have fresh air to breathe, that the rain will always fall when we need it and that our land which has always sustained our regions and our country will always provide for us. But, like our freedoms and prosperity, we can't take our environment for granted.

My parents ran a wholesale and retail nursery; I grew up working in them and valuing our trees, native shrubs and native flora. They're so crucial in providing shade, stunning beauty and homes and food for our native wildlife and also in combating global warming. That's why last year I launched the Gee Tree Challenge, where we threw down the challenge to schools, community groups and not-for-profits to tell us what they'd do with 24 native trees in 2024. The winners were Deb Porter and her wonderful team from the Bathurst Early Childhood Intervention Service and the team from St Joseph's Catholic Primary School at Manildra. We've already had a wonderful community tree planting at the Bathurst Early Childhood Intervention Service that involved students, staff and parents and the team from Charles Sturt University, and we'll be going out to St Joey's to do their planting soon. I thank Ian and Sue Rogan from the Millthorpe Garden Nursery for their support in this important initiative.

I pay tribute to some key organisations in the electorate of Calare doing such a huge amount of work to protect and care for our flora, fauna and land.

Firstly, Secret Creek Sanctuary—Secret Creek is situated just on the outskirts of Lithgow on the edge of the Blue Mountains. It was set up to provide a feral-animal-proof enclosure where endangered native species are protected from predators. The sanctuary is best known for the reintroduction of the eastern quoll to New South Wales in 2001, and it's also home to brush-tailed rock wallabies, potoroos, Tasmanian devils, tiger quolls, dingoes, koalas and a growing colony of endangered mountain pygmy possums. The sanctuary was almost destroyed in the devastating Black Summer bushfires, but, thanks to a number of state and federal grants, the sanctuary is being protected and revitalised with a new wildlife hospital and rehabilitation centre; a new cultural community and visitor centre; repairs to the sanctuary, which was damaged during the Black Summer blazes; and also upgrades to the camping facilities.

I also want to thank Trevor Evans and his family—he is the founder and owner of the Secret Creek Sanctuary—for his wonderful work. It's a passion. I want him to know how grateful the community is. It was an honour for the member for Bathurst, Paul Toole, and me to recently attend the sanctuary for a pre-opening of the new community centre.

I also wish to pay tribute to the hardworking team from Little River Landcare, which is based in Yeoval in the Cabonne shire. Their mission is to engage, empower and support the Little River community to manage and restore natural environments and to improve the sustainability of agricultural activities within the catchment. To date, they have successfully delivered $10 million worth of projects since 1998, one of which is the very successful Soil PET project, which stands for 'people, education and technology'. It's a pilot project involving soil testing right around the Little River catchment and beyond. It's designed to ensure that farmers are getting the best out of the land in an environmentally friendly and sustainable way, and it has been wildly successful. I'd like to pay tribute to the chair of Little River, Don Bruce; vice chair and long-term board member, Allan Nicholson; the secretary, Mel Kiel; the treasurer, Belinda Reynolds; and also Phoebe Gulliver, who is the CEO of Little River Landcare.

Lastly, I'd like to pay tribute to the hardworking team at Burrendong arboretum. The Burrendong Botanic Garden and Arboretum is situated on 164 acres just outside of Wellington and Stuart Town and Mumbil. It is basically a native flora reserve. It's a plant bank, and it currently houses over 50,000 specimens covering 2,000 species. The Friends of Burrendong Arboretum do a wonderful job in caring for it. I'd like to pay tribute to Alice and John Newton for their decades of service and also to Rachel MacSmith from the Burrendong Botanic Garden and Arboretum for the wonderful work they all do.

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

The discussion has now concluded.