Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Perhaps I can decode the LNP's concerns about lack of consultation. I think what the senator is saying is they haven't had a chance to talk to their fossil fuel donors about this yet! They haven't been on the phone to Santos, Woodside, Tamboran or maybe Origin Energy! It surprises me, Senator McDonald—through you, Deputy President—that you haven't talked to the other stakeholders you claim to represent, who are farmers.

Let's look at this. There are two consequential things we're doing here. The first thing is we're passing a strongly amended version of the Nature Market Repair Bill, which was a Liberal Party policy. This was brought to me by Mr Littleproud's office when I had the agriculture portfolio in the last parliament. This was put up to help farmers. I might remind the senator that Farmers for Climate Action—who have over 10½ thousand members now and are a big part of the NFF—recently surveyed their members, and over 5,000 members, two-thirds of them, supported an amendment version of the Nature Market Repair Bill passing the parliament. What they didn't support was using biodiversity credits to offset developers and environmental destruction. And they had some other sensible suggestions for amendments. So you claim to support farmers, Senator McDonald, but here you are trying to run interference on a bill that's actually going to help farmers if we get it right.

The second thing I want to point out—and I respect, Senator McDonald, that you come from a big grazier's dynasty up in Queensland—is this: what about the farmers and graziers in the Northern Territory or the Beetaloo basin, who have consistently raised concerns about the impact fracking is going to have on aquifers and water resources in the Northern Territory? Where are they being represented in this parliament? They're being represented here tonight by the Greens and the government, who are at least passing sensible checks and balances so that these things can be assessed. If you claim to represent farmers, at least get your facts straight—or don't try and sell only one part of the story to suit your political spin.

I want to say a few words in addition to that; I know we've got our Senate end-of-year party on soon, and I didn't get a chance to do a second reading speech! Like Senator Hanson-Young, I really hate the name of this legislation—the Nature Repair Market Bill. Markets can't repair nature. Governments can, and people can help—farmers want to help—but markets are probably responsible for all the problems we've got in nature and are the reason it needs repair in the first place. Any economic student will tell you the government's role is to solve externalities caused by business activities and markets. But, sadly, when you're in the pocket of fossil fuel donors, that's not going to happen.

Senator McDonald is saying there has been no consultation on this bill. This bill has gone to inquiries and there has been significant consultation. The Australia Institute told us that the use of markets to solve biodiversity problems is about six per cent of the estimation of what actually needs to be put in to solve the extinction crisis we have before us—things such as protecting land and water, more national parks, more marine parks, new environment laws that actually do their job and fully-funded threatened species recovery plans. There is so much we need to do if we are going to help nature and help restore nature.

I wanted to put on record here that I do not support the idea of markets repairing nature. Nevertheless, as Senator Hanson-Young has so eloquently pointed out, voluntary markets already exist. You can already get credits in biodiversity markets. You can already make donations to programs—some of them are very good. But this will actually help put some regulation around that, and I look forward to seeing the detail when it comes before the Senate.