Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Nature Repair Market Bill. The process for the consideration of this bill could not be more flawed. It was not supposed to take place until at least April next year when the committee report was to be tabled. However, in a last-minute move, the government yesterday brought forward the committee report tabling and then passed a motion to consider this bill at the 11th hour. This means this was surely an intended move to pass a deeply flawed bill without scrutiny. The Senate was not prepared for the consideration of this bill, and many of the senators here had to scramble to get amendments done to pursue drafting. The drafters were so overwhelmed that the drafters were actually coming back to us and said, 'We can't do your amendments in time; we just don't have the time.' In most cases, our requests were met with an answer from the drafters basically that they couldn't keep up with the load because of what the government has done to this place.

However, it is convenient for Labor to push through a bill which they, in the committee report, recommended should pass without amendments, managing to completely ignore the evidence provided in the process. There is absolutely no need to rush this bill regardless of what dirty deals you are doing. The government wants to pride itself on being the international frontrunner in establishing a nature repair market; however, there being no precedent for this at all, it should be approached in a very considered way. One of these considerations should be the nature repair market's interaction with other nature-positive reforms and the planned EPBC Act reforms.

A large number of submitters to the inquiry made it very clear that the government's sequencing is all wrong and that the EPBC reforms need to come first. Therefore, I foreshadow my second reading amendment to postpone consideration of the bill until the EPBC bills have been considered by parliament next year. The EPBC reforms include the setting of legally enforceable national standards for matters of national environmental significance, which would set an important framework for the nature repair market to operate in.

Further, they would establish a federal environmental protection authority which would be a more appropriate regulatory body with relevant expertise for compliance and enforcement of the nature repair market rather than the Clean Energy Regulator. The Chubb review, the independent review of Australian carbon credit units, found that the brief of the Clean Energy Regulator should be simplified and its role clarified yet this bill would add to the challenges and make the CER responsible for achieving both biodiversity outcomes and the creation and operation of a certificate trading market, which is different from the carbon trading market. While the CER has neither the expertise nor the resources to fulfil these obligations, we cannot pass this legislation without the EPA being established and, indeed, all of the EPBC reforms being in place first. Indeed, this bill should not be passed without removing the possibility of national biodiversity certificates being used for environmental offsetting.

This is a core concern raised by pretty much all environmental and other stakeholders in the process—including the Greens' mates and the people who are meant to provide advice to the Greens, such as the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian Marine Conservation Society, WWF, the Wilderness Society and the Law Council of Australia to name just a few—as well as in hundreds of campaign emails received by the committee. Unfortunately, as you know, my drafting request to remove the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme components of this bill could not be met by the drafters due to the time constraints they found themselves in and the many short notice requests coming from all sides of the political divide.

Other amendments I wanted to put to the Senate today centred around respecting First Peoples' knowledge—which the Greens obviously sold out on again—and ensuring that our rights as traditional custodians of the lands and waters are being respected. I could not propose the following amendments due to Labor's failure of accountability and the Greens' dirty deal that cut out First Nations, so I'll start with my amendments that the drafters didn't have time to do. First there is the inclusion of a requirement to consult with First Peoples on proposed methodology determinations or biodiversity assessment instruments. Next is the inclusion of a requirement for the Commonwealth to consider First Peoples' traditional knowledge, perspective and cultural practices—those things you all talked about in your 'yes' campaign.

Another amendment concerned managing diversity while ensuring that the intellectual property of this knowledge is respected—you don't want to know about that, do you, Labor or Greens? Then there is the inclusion of a requirement for the provisions of the nature repair market to be in accordance with international instruments: the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Well, thanks, Labor and the Greens coalition! Another related to a requirement to develop safeguards to protect against harm and destruction to First Peoples' cultural heritage, including following the process of free, prior and informed consent of affected traditional owners.

You spent $250 million on a referendum that you shouldn't have had—and you'd been flagging for 12 months how great you were going to be and how much First Nations needed justice and needed to determine their own destiny—but, when you come to the chamber to actually vote on this stuff, you've got your heads in the sand. You're behind the doors doing deals with the Greens to deny First Nations' rights in December 2023. Is it because you're still sad about the campaign? Seriously, when are you going to get over it?

This is another thing that Labor and the Greens sold us out on: the recognition of the interests of registered First Nations claimants under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 in the Northern Territory and the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 in New South Wales as eligible interests where their claim has not yet been determined. So you're just riding roughshod over First Nations' rights to get this bill done and dusted. Where's the self-determination in that? Once again, our rights as First Peoples have not been properly considered in a Labor bill that will significantly impact our people. Once again, we have not been properly consulted, despite this legislation concerning our land and despite First Peoples worldwide being at the forefront of biodiversity protection. The International Institute for Sustainable Development reported last year that lands inhabited by First Peoples contain 80 per cent of the world's remaining biodiversity and highlighted that first peoples' traditional knowledge—that you talked about in your Yes campaign—and knowledge systems are key to designing a sustainable future for everyone in this country. It's not for just us; it's for everybody.

Environmental organisations fear that biodiversity and climate outcomes might actually be worse if this bill is passed as it is. Shame! This bill is a stark example of the government rushing through ill-considered legislation and doing dirty deals, with significant impacts on country, people and the climate. This is why I cannot support the bill as it is before us today, and it's why I think the Labor and the Greens coalition is gammon. I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:

Omit all words after "That", substitute "further consideration of the bills be postponed until 1 July 2024 to enable them to be considered alongside the further bills the Government intends to introduce to implement its response to the second independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, led by Professor Graeme Samuel AC".