Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a delight to be able to speak in the Nature Repair Market Bill debate, which is something that has had a rather protracted examination through the Senate committee process. It has taken a few turns that I confess have surprised me, but let's take stock of where we're at with regard to this legislation: how we arrived at it, the perceived need for it and why the government is now apparently rushing this legislation through, despite only a few days ago having a further four months of consideration by a Senate committee to go.

Let's have a look at the history. The bill was referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on 30 March this year with a reporting date at that point in time of 1 August. An extension was granted to extend examination of that bill, given the frankly near universal condemnation of this legislation, to the beginning of November this year. Again it was extended, at the request of the government. It was the committee chair, Senator Grogan, who is a terrific chair I might add, who suggested that the minister may be very interested indeed in having the committee report extended. The minister was very keen to extend that date based on the comments of the chair of the committee on 30 June, when that extension was granted, through to 18 April, which was when the bill was supposed to be reporting as at the end of last week.

Then, out of nowhere, with just a couple of days notice, we get this indication from the government that legislation needed to be brought on urgently and the committee reporting date be brought forward by four months. It was rather a stunning move, I've got to say, when, as I said before, there was near universal condemnation for the way the government had constructed this legislation, how they had consulted on it and how, frankly, they had ignored many of the pleas from stakeholders to look at how best they could structure the legislation. I gather the government could see the writing on the wall, hence the extension, but somehow something has happened in recent days which has precipitated this expedited bringing on of the legislation.

The concerns of the stakeholders were many and varied. The most common theme threaded through all of these submissions by people from the environmental movement, the ENGOs through to the business community, was in fact that we should be dealing with the reforms to the EPBC Act, the national environmental approvals legislation, which has been reviewed by former director of the ACCC Professor Graeme Samuel. Deal with that first. Get the overarching framework legislation in place before we progress to dealing with all of the other bits of legislation. That was a view shared by the Australian Greens and many of the other members of the Senate crossbench. It's something that the government completely ignored, so here we are today rushing this through.

It was clear from the contributions by many in the Senate committee hearings and based on indications made publicly that the bill would be opposed. The Senate committee report was provided to senators at the end of last week, with roughly a day to respond. Interestingly, there are two dissenting reports: one from coalition senators which clearly indicates we will be opposing this legislation because it is bad legislation, and one from the Australian Greens political party. I'll be interested to see whether the Australian Greens stick to their dissenting report, or whether it was just words at a point in time which can be easily expunged from the record. We will see though.

But here we are today having this legislation rushed through. Four months of scrutiny has been cut off completely with no notice. A deal has been done—a deal, clearly, that was done on the same day these committee reports were tabled, including the dissenting reports. A deal has been done of which we do not have the details. A deal has been done which will receive no scrutiny, because, of course, the Australian Labor Party in partnership with the Australian Greens political party have decided to end scrutiny: 'We don't need to see anymore. We don't need to ask any more questions. It's not your business. Good luck.' And here we are having the bill rushed through.

Of course, I think it's important for us to examine some of the elements that have raised concern by way of evidence provided to the committee, which I'm sure other senators paid attention to. Professor Helene Marsh, Chair of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee, argued:

… we would agree that trying to harmonise this bill and the reforms in the EPBC legislation—and particularly the standards associated with subordinate legislation associated with those reforms will be very important. We'd like to see the whole package harmonised.

Again, it's about the EPBC Act coming through first and not rushing this. Kurt Winter, Director of Corporate Transition at the Carbon Market Institute, said:

… issues around how the market is used by the private sector and then demand driver really need to be clarified before this bill is progressed. We think that as a matter of priority clarity should be provided around reforms to the EPBC Act …

He also said:

… the EPBC Act reforms and, indeed, some of those critical Chubb review recommendations should be a matter of priorities, given that much of this market is premised on some of those underpinning legislative instruments.

Anna Vella, a committee member of the Australian environment and planning law group of the legal practice section at the Law Council of Australia, said:

The Nature Repair Market Bill, if passed, must work seamlessly with the EPBC Act going forward, which means we need to understand reforms being proposed to the latter act—

the latter act, I will point out to those listening, is something that will be sitting off in the never-never. This is legislation we were going to see by the end of the year. Well, here we are, with just a couple of sitting days left, and of course that legislation is nowhere to be seen. The consultation process took place with the Australian Labor Party's select group of supporters, who have been a part of this process all the way through. They were given something like 50 pages of a handful of high-level principles, which are supposed to replace the more than 1,000 pages of the EPBC Act. We're not going to see that legislation. Robyn Glindemann, Chair of the Australian Environment and Planning Law Group at the Law Council of Australia, said:

If there is a potential for projects that are created to be used as offsets under the EPBC Act, then I query how we can make the two pieces of legislation work when we haven't seen the second bit. … the sequencing is of concern when the fundamental piece of legislation that the Commonwealth has is the EPBC Act … the benchmark for the Commonwealth to achieve its international obligations—

which, of course, everyone is supportive of—

but it needs to work in concert with other legislation, and other legislation needs to work in concert with it.

The list goes on, right the way through to Lyndon Schneiders, Executive Director at the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation, which was reaffirmed in the content of their supplementary submission:

We recommend that the NRM (Nature Repair Market) Bill be delayed until Parliament has been presented with key EPBC reforms, including proposed National Environmental Standards—

again, we haven't seen them—

for environmental offsets, regional planning, and threatened species protection, to demonstrate that a rigorous and high integrity regulatory system will support the operation of a Nature Repair Market.

Well none of that has happened, but here we are actually debating this legislation.

I do want to turn to the Greens dissenting report. It's interesting to see what has been put on the table. At this point in time I'm not seeing any government or Greens amendments to this legislation. They may have been circulated while I've been on my feet, but as yet I'm not aware that they have been circulated. There was, of course, a motion moved yesterday, which I will come to in a moment, which is very nebulous in its construct. But the Greens talk about issues related to offsets. In fact, the dissenting report, signed by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, the deputy chair of this committee—who, as I understood, was firmly opposed to this bill—goes on about: offsets being a major concern; nationwide offsets earlier this year; concerns around how offsets have not been working for years; 'these goals will not be met with a scheme that facilitates further destruction'; and 'to give any credibility to a potential biodiversity accreditation scheme, the use of offsets must be explicitly excluded'. Well, we will see whether there is an amendment to that effect, because that's what the Greens were calling for.

Indeed, I might just turn to some closing comments from Senator Hanson-Young in one of the hearings in the inquiry into this bill, where Senator Hanson-Young says:

Every expert we've had today, and the exact report that the minister has used to promote this policy—by PwC of all people!—suggests otherwise.

She goes on to say:

You can't point to any evidence that says this is going to be net positive. In fact, what does 'net positive' even mean when you're talking about biodiversity? It is clear that this bill is in absolute tatters. It has no friends. Even the people the minister had thought would back it have not backed it in. It's in tatters. I can see the looks on your faces—

Senator Hanson-Young says, referring to the departmental officials who were sitting at the table during this hearing—

It must be totally demoralising to have put in all this effort and then to have it put up in lights, given some scrutiny and be shown to be an absolute sham.

Anyway, I'm finished—

said Senator Hanson-Young.

Yet I have this sneaking suspicion that the Australian Greens are going to support this bill. For what? We don't know. What we have thus far is a motion relating to some further amendments to be made, extraneous to the bill, around the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the EPBC Act, which is under reform and under review at the moment, which we haven't seen. These amendments will expand the circumstances in which certain petroleum mining developments must be assessed and approved by the minister administering the act. They're very nebulous—certain projects, unspecified at this point in time—and give us no clarity as to what backroom deal has been done between the Australian Greens political party and the government.

So how have we got there? What does it mean? The Greens have been able to secure, clearly, something they didn't ask for or expressed concern about during the committee process, during interrogation of the legislation that was before us, but, as far as I can tell today, nothing relating to what they actually did express concern about with regard to offsets. Now, that may change. As I say, here we are debating the legislation and I've not seen any further amendments; they might be running around the chamber here somewhere, but I've not yet got them. I've got amendments from Senator Thorpe and Senator Pocock, which I look forward to debating at a point in time. They've clearly stuck to their guns and seen what needed to be fixed. But, as for the Greens, I can't actually see where they're going with this. It's an interesting arrangement, isn't it? In the last week of parliament, a bill that had absolutely no support in this place has been rushed in, on the basis that they somehow thought they were going to get it through. I was in disbelief at the government's attempts to do this. I thought the Australian Greens political party would—with their virtue always on display—stick to their guns. You heard yourself what Senator Hanson-Young, the deputy chair of the committee, said, in reflecting on this legislation as it stood.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believed what they said. I believed it.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believed it, too. So, when I saw the motion to bring this on, I thought, 'Oh, well, the government's being silly! Why would they be doing this?' But, clearly, a deal has been done. We don't know the price yet. We don't know what they've secured. We don't know what smoke-filled room they were sitting in when they hatched this plan. But we do know that it is going to be a terrible one, because every time the Australian Greens political party get their hands on the levers, on decision-making powers in this place, things go south. Businesses that need certainty—

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

They sold out.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I actually will take that interjection from Senator Thorpe. It was: 'They sold out.' Senator Thorpe and I may not agree on a range of issues; I will openly admit that here, and I don't think that would surprise many people. But, Senator Thorpe, on this occasion I stand shoulder to shoulder with you, because the Australian Greens political party have done what they do so often, and that is to sell out: 'Virtue, virtue, virtue, virtue;' sell out.

And there'll be good reason for it; don't worry. We'll hear the contributions soon, from the Australian Greens political party, about why they've sold out; why they spoke so strongly in the Senate committee hearing around this legislation; why it was bad; why the government was doing terrible things and was going to allow greenwashing. I wonder if those concerns around greenwashing exist today, or whether we are going to hear anything on them in the contributions from the Australian Greens political party. And I like saying 'Greens political party', because they are politicians who get elected to this place. They actually do things like hatch little deals with the Australian Labor Party to get legislation through, which, once upon a time—only less than a week ago—they were dead against. They are not beyond reproach. They are not the paragons of virtue they say they are. They are deal-makers. They'll do whatever they want, and they'll tell people out there in the community that they've done something good—something else. But if you go back and have a look at the history of this bill, if you go back and have a look at exactly what those opposite said was wrong with it—they had concerns about the lack of integrity in the process, concerns around greenwashing—no assurances have been given. As far as I can tell at this stage, debate already having commenced, there are no amendments from the government or the Greens, no assurances around integrity—probably not a concern to them—no assurances around offsets, some other nebulas deal we have no detail on at all and a committee process truncated by four months to rush this bill through. The Australian Greens political party—dealmakers extraordinaire—have done it again. As Senator Thorpe said, and I hope she says it several times in her contribution, they sold out. That is exactly what they have done and Australians need to know it. There will be less certainty than there was in the first draft of this bill. It is amendment city and it is going to be a disaster.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to 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".

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

():  I also rise to speak on the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023. They aim to establish a world-first nature repair market in Australia. We'll just leave all the politics to one side for a minute and look at what we're trying to achieve here.

The bills provide a legislative framework for a voluntary national market in biodiversity certificates to enable private investment in high-integrity projects to protect, manage and restore nature. The market will be open to all landholders, including farmers, First Nations people, conservation groups and business. It will enable project proponents to undertake projects that protect or enhance biodiversity on a range of land tenures, including aquatic environments. Project proponents will be able to apply to the Clean Energy Regulator for a unique biodiversity certificate that could then be sold to an interested person or market. The market would be strictly regulated to prevent greenwashing and to monitor progress towards specified environmental outcomes. It is framework legislation, with significant elements of the scheme to be provided in a series of legislative instruments to be made by the minister, including rules, biodiversity assessment instruments and methodology determinations. Those legal instruments will be the subject of consultation. That process will be done in line with the review that is currently underway of our EPBC legislation so that they stand hand in hand. The Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 would make minor amendments to the Clean Energy Regulator Act 2011 and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 to facilitate the establishment, operation and regulation of the nature repair market.

How did we get here? What was the catalyst for this? It was the fact that we've seen our environment decline significantly and the fact that we've seen the state of the environment reports show declines for a number of years now. The Australia state of the environment 2021 report was a serious wake-up call. The devastating results that came out of that report sent out shockwaves, but nothing was done. That report found that significant investment is needed to reverse the decline in the areas of conservation and restoration. Part of reversing that decline is to create a very clear and regulated pathway for all avenues to be explored to restore our natural environment. That means bringing in businesses, philanthropists, environmental groups, First Nations people. It's about bringing everyone into this space and creating an environment where we can work together to protect our nature. The Samuel review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act also suggested that attracting private sector investment would be crucial and that a regulated nature repair market would encourage voluntary investment from the private sector towards the task of restoring Australia's natural environment.

Senator Duniam has told us that this bill has no friends, so I'll give you a quote from the National Farmers Federation, friends of Senator Duniam's. They said that they were delighted. They said:

Linking farmers with investors who will partner with them to invest in environmental protection is a significant step forward in how we protect and care for our country.

That's a very wise comment. There are a range of people who support the idea of a nature repair market, and that is evidenced in the 105 submissions that are on the website for the committee's inquiry and in the Hansard from those hearings.

Prior to these bills being introduced in the parliament, they were subject to two rounds of public consultation that further informed the development of the market framework. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water noted that as part of this public consultation they conducted over 60 engagement events, including sessions focused on Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders, public information sessions and targeted meetings with individuals, organisations and Commonwealth and state and territory representatives. A request for submissions resulted in over 180 written responses to the department. So there has been quite a lot of consultation and a lot of transparency and scrutiny, contrary to the claim of Senator Duniam, who says there has been none.

On 30 March 2023 the Senate referred the provisions of these bills to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry. As I've said, we received 105 submissions. We got responses from individuals, environmental organisations, peak bodies, businesses, various interested groups and associations. The committee held two public hearings in Canberra, on 30 June and 11 September 2023. Overall, there was strong support from submitters for the intent of these bills: to give effect to a market based mechanism to enable people to engage in improving our environment and to do so while being able to engage in a financial market and a biodiversity market. Key areas of interest for the people who submitted included offsets, market design, integrity, governance, broader environmental reform, market operations and the role of First Nations. Throughout the submissions, the general support for the market remained strong. Despite some concerns about particular elements, there was a general thrust that people thought this idea was a good one.

I seem to remember that, when the bills were first introduced into the lower house, there was a lot of positive commentary coming from the Nationals, particularly from Mr Littleproud. He said that the bill is 'basically verbatim our legislation'. So this is legislation that the Nationals had drafted and, in the words of the Nationals, it's very much the same. He went on to say that he was 'proud of the fact that it's stood the test of time—of a changing government'. That seems quite supportive, I think, at the point in time when this legislation was introduced, in March 2023. But I suppose it's more about playing politics, isn't it? It's not about sticking to the idea that we would protect our natural environment, that we would enable landholders to engage in this as another stream of income, that we would enable First Nations people to engage in this market or that we would enable people to go out and protect our environment and find some level of recompense for that work.

We also had the Nature Conservancy supporting the bills. They said:

We welcome the creation of a Nature Repair Market and its applicability to all landholders. Overall, TNC is supportive of the need to incentivise and reward landholders for the protection, good management and restoration of native vegetation, threatened species habitat and other natural values. There is a role for governments in ensuring there is consistency, integrity and transparency and a baseload of demand, particularly in emerging market mechanisms …

Just for fun, let me quote the National Farmers Federation again:

The NFF supports the proposed Nature Repair Market Bill and recognises the opportunities it will offer to farmers and landholders in contributing to ecosystem services and participating in a broader marketplace.

The Bill provides a critical step towards achieving sustainable and resilient ecosystems in Australia.

That sounds very supportive, too, I would say. Other supportive stakeholders included Climate Friendly, the Indigenous Desert Alliance, the Kimberley Land Council, Farmers for Climate Action, the Australian Sustainable Finance Institute, the Property Council of Australia, the Australian Business Council of Australia and the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation. That's quite a lot of support, really.

Importantly, throughout the inquiry, the recognition of the role of Australia's First Nations people in caring for country was well articulated through the evidence. The New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council highlighted that local Aboriginal land councils possess specific traditional ecological knowledge and land management expertise accumulated over millennia. Why would we not enable those people to not just continue to care for the country that they have presided over for 65,000 years but provide opportunities to extend that, where land has been taken from them? We know this. We could enable them not just to start building a means of continuing to protect that land but to do it with an economic base and have an economic benefit from that. I know from a lot of the hearings that we've had—we hear this a lot—that that is what First Nations people want. They want an opportunity for an economic benefit, and I believe we should provide that.

Who else have we got? Emeritus Professor Jon Altman pointed out that, due to the scale of First Nations landholdings across the country, the NRM bill would disproportionately impact First Nations people. Yes, it would. Wouldn't it be great if we could make that a positive impact? Professor Altman said:

First Nations people are not just another landowning interest group alongside governments and private landowners and leaseholders … First Nations people will be the dominant players in any real or imagined 'nature repair' or 'biodiversity' market in Australia today because of their rights and interests in a majority part of the continent, much in remote and very remote Australia, that is relatively environmentally intact and so has relatively high biodiversity 'value'.

That also sounds positive to me, as well. The department's submission outlined how, indeed, First Nations Australians can participate in the market:

… by undertaking projects that deliver biodiversity improvements or protect biodiversity on land which they hold through different types of tenure. This includes exclusive and non-exclusive Native Title, land rights, leasehold and freehold. First Nations people could also provide on-ground management services or advice to support nature repair projects managed by others.

That sounds like a good stream.

I would say that the claims on this bill that I've heard in this chamber so far don't seem to be supported by genuinely looking at the evidence and don't seem to be supported by looking at those 105 submissions or the 180 submissions that the department received when they did their consultation prior to the bills. It doesn't seem to stack up. Were there concerns raised about certain elements of the bills? Yes—but that's the point, isn't it? That's the whole point of having the inquiries. That's the whole point of having the committees: so you can refine, improve and identify where the challenges are and do something about them.

There were several crossbench initiated amendments agreed to by the House of Reps, and, as we've heard, there'll be other amendments being brought forward from various senators today. We will debate those in the committee stage of this process. It is in the view of the committee, in its printed report, that following the passage of the legislation there will be a lengthy period of design of methodologies that will underpin this repair market. We're confident that that will be a great process to develop what will be a world first and, I think, a fundamentally changed position for our country and for our natural environment: to protect nature.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to participate in this debate on this very important bill, the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. As Senator Grogan correctly identified, the intention of this bill was first proposed by the Liberals and Nationals in government. We were absolutely not opposed in principle to the creation of a biodiversity market, and we actually pioneered work in this very important area of policy in Australia. We undertook comprehensive work, including a significant level of stakeholder consultation and engagement, on creating a voluntary national market in biodiversity certificates. We worked extensively with the Australian National University to actually develop a world-first accreditation scheme for biodiversity credits. But this bill, the bill that is now before us today, and its related amendments are not as we proposed.

This bill has all the hallmarks of the pig-headed ignorance of this government that they continue to demonstrate through how they go forward and implement. Their lack of consultation and their ability to take a good idea and absolutely destroy it are becoming a standard mode of operation by this government. We saw it last week with the passage of the restoring our rivers amendments through this place, and we see it again today. Another key hallmark of the way they operate is their claims of consultation: 'We've put something online. The department accepts submissions. We got 180 submissions; look how well we've consulted. We've held a Senate inquiry. We took written submissions. We held two public hearings.' Where were those public hearings? This government is almost allergic to holding public hearings outside of Canberra, because where were the two public hearings for this bill that impacts rural and regional Australians more so than anyone else held? Here in Canberra; what a surprise!

Let me be clear: the original purpose of the bill that the coalition presented was to create the biodiversity credits along similar lines—robust and measurable credits through our work with the ANU—to the energy-generating credits which would allow a landholder to obtain tradeable certificates that could be used in a similar way to carbon offsets. The bill we are presented with today is far more complex, is less understood and creates unknown risks. Senator Grogan just said it herself: 'There is still so much work to be done on the design and methodologies.' It's typical of this government with their 'trust us' approach: 'Trust us; she'll be right. We'll work out the actual implementation phase later.'

One of the risks that this bill presents is the decision to extend the parameters of the market. The bill presented by the coalition was limited to agricultural land, but Labor's bill goes far wider and proposes to include all types of land tenure, including territorial waters, regardless of ownership or legal right. It includes all native title land, all Crown land and all Torrens system land titles. This means that the agriculture, mining, resources, forestry and fishing sectors could possibly all be forced for economic reasons to take up biodiversity credits which are of no overall benefit to the Australian economy.

The coalition did a considerable amount of work on our legislation, particularly with the ANU. It was based strictly on the application to potential projects and the specialised carbon and biodiversity and enhancing remnant vegetation assessment models. But Labor has veered away from that robust methodology. They're proposing to employ a very different way of legislating and regulating, by allowing potential participants in the market to define and apply their own idiosyncratic methodologies to the projects. This just adds to the confusion, the unknown implications and the limits of this legislation. 'But trust us.' they say. It's also not clear how Labor's work on new arrangements for offsets as part of the changes to the EPBC Act will interact with this legislation. There are a lot of unknowns here, which brings into question: what deal have they done with the Greens in order to bring forward this legislation and cut short their own request for an extension to the committee process?

I refer to what Greens spokeswoman, Senator Hanson-Young, said on Sunday. When asked about this legislation on Insiders, Senator Hanson-Young said: 'The idea of allowing the protection of one part of nature, a particular area of koala habitat, to be saved, in order to justify the destruction of nature somewhere else—I mean, that's bonkers. That's not environmental protection.' She went on to say: 'That's a red line for us. I want to see the offsets gone. If the offsets go, then I'm happy to sit down with the government and talk about where we go next.' If that was the position of the Greens on Sunday, given that we have not seen such amendments circulated as yet today, what deal has been done? What have the Greens traded off in order to bring forward this legislation?

There are grave concerns about offsets right through our communities. I have to quote my colleague from the other place, the member for Flynn, Colin Boyce, when he spoke on this bill. He had such a turn of phrase when talking about offsets:

The wealthy virtue-signalling elite want to invest billions of dollars in Australian agricultural land, lock it up and forget about it to appease their own self-loathing of their irresponsible lifestyles while they continue their jet-setting, latte-sipping affluence …

That is such an accurate description of the approach to offsets that is taken by sections of corporate Australia. Given this government's track record in the environment space and the lack of understanding by the minister of so much of what she's been pushing through this place, I would have thought it better governance to wait and allow the Senate committee to complete its work, as per the government's own request for an extension until April. Then they could've taken the time to consider all the implications of what is being proposed and come back to this place for a sensible and informed debate, as recommended by my colleague Senator Thorpe, who supported the full completion of the Senate inquiry and the full and informed consideration of this bill. That responsible approach is clearly not one favoured by the Greens or Labor. It's not one they want to see, so they're pushing through the bills, which few understand and even they haven't finalised. They haven't worked out how the bill will apply. The similarities and potentially disastrous consequences of this bill remind me of last week's debate on water.

I really want to be clear here: it was the government that requested the extension of the reporting time lines of the Senate committee and proposed April next year. How disingenuous! We were happy to support it because we believed that this bill needed thorough investigation and needed to hear from all stakeholders. We would've supported the committee going out into regional areas to hear from stakeholders. But, no, the government only wanted to hear evidence here in Canberra. We would've supported that, but what we are now finding out is that the government just wanted more time to negotiate a dodgy deal with the Greens. We have no idea what the deal is or what it means and we are still waiting to see what it is. What 30 pieces of silver have been traded off today with this legislation? It's unfortunate that yet again in this place we find ourselves, as senators, unable to do our duty of scrutinising and testing the legislation comprehensively through the committee process. We are unable to listen to affected community groups and stakeholders, unable to go out on ground and talk to people on ground and hear their concerns and their evidence.

During the now curtailed work of the Senate legislation committee on this bill, there was frequent evidence from stakeholders about and frequent reference from stakeholders to concerns about this bill and its intended impacts, particularly concerns about offsets. There were concerns about putting this bill up before the proposed changes to the EPBC Act, and Senator Thorpe referenced that earlier. We've heard at length from this government of their desires and of their review of the EPBC Act and of the fact that they want to establish an environmental protection authority at a federal level, which raises all sorts of concerns. It flies in the face of less government and smaller government and creates concerns about duplication, but they want to put this bill up first. How is it going to interact with any proposed new authority? What will the governance arrangements be? But trust us; we'll get there!

I understand, and I take Senator Grogan's point, that the NFF has made some welcoming noises about the bill and about the intention of the bill. As I said, from the outset we supported the intention of the bill, but in the way this bill is drafted it has far too many red flags, far too many concerns and certainly not enough clarity about how it actually will be implemented, how it will operate and how robust the assessment and accreditation scheme will be. As I said before, despite the very good work the coalition did with the ANU and the robust, world-leading accreditation proposal that we had put forward, Labor have gone off on their own track: 'We know better. We just don't know how we know better, because we haven't got there yet. There's still work to be done on design and methodology, and we'll duck-shove that to delegated legislation. Trust us—it'll all be okay.' Well, I can tell you regional Australia doesn't trust this government, agricultural industries don't trust this government, the mining sector doesn't trust this government and I don't think the Senate should trust this government. I do not think we should be supporting this bill.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A nature repair market sounds positive but, without the right settings and safeguards, I fear that at best it may do very little good and at worst it will facilitate greenwashing on a grand scale. The first object of the bill before us, the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023, is to promote the enhancement and protection of biodiversity and native species in Australia. This is clearly a very worthy goal. In the words of EO Wilson:

There can be no purpose more inspiriting than to begin the age of restoration, reweaving the wondrous diversity of life that still surrounds us.

We are truly lucky to live on this continent, a megadiverse continent, but we know that we are failing nature. We have seen catastrophic declines in our lifetimes. In the last 40 years, there has been a decline in most bird species of 60-plus per cent.

To change this, to change the fact that one of the wealthiest countries in the world can't find a few billion dollars to implement what our ecologists and environmental scientists are saying, takes cultural change. It takes leadership. It takes making the case for why we can and should do things differently and talking about the fact that we are heading in the wrong direction by somehow believing that we exist outside the bounds of nature and that nature is something out there. We are part of nature, and if nature goes down we are going down with her. We're starting to see the impacts of a mindset, a way of making decisions, that treats nature as something out there, something that's a nice-to-have, rather than as critical to our very survival and to our physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing.

We are fortunate here to have some of the world's leading environmental scientists, and they've got solutions. They are putting forward a path to deal with this, to truly turn things around. Clearly, that starts with stopping the destruction of habitat—things like native forest logging which are now costing taxpayers money. We're paying to cut down native forests that are home to threatened species. We clearly need to preserve habitat. We also need funding for threatened species programs, and we're just so far off the mark. A group of Australia's leading environmental scientists calculated that we need to spend about $2 billion a year to do that. Two billion dollars is a sizeable amount of money but, for a country like Australia, it's very affordable. In the last few weeks we've seen Snowy Hydro get another $6 billion for costs blowing out and there was an extra $10 billion for the frigates project. If this mattered to us, if this truly mattered to us, we would be able to fund it.

We know that the government has committed to improving our nature laws, and this is long overdue—I welcome it. They need to be drafted and legislated in a way that actually protects nature and halts the catastrophic decline that we're witnessing. We also need to support better land management, including by this continent's First Peoples. We have commitments from the government to double the Indigenous Rangers Program this decade, but we also need to ensure that First Nations' knowledge is implemented and that First Nations people are actually allowed to manage the land. I hear too often from ranger groups, including here in the ACT, that they're sometimes viewed as a box-ticking exercise, 'Yes, we'll do cultural burning and all these sorts of things, but only if it fits in with our pre-existing approvals and bureaucratic way of managing land.'

This bill looks to create a market for biodiversity. There's clearly a range of issues here, starting with dealing with something that's not that fungible—it's hard to measure. But I'm also concerned whether this is something that shouldn't or couldn't happen until we're actually doing the fundamentals well—when we're taking care of nature and looking for additional money for the environment. That's not the case here in Australia. It's not the case; we've been underfunding it for decades. We have bold promises around no new extinctions, but we're not seeing those backed up.

Clearly, this is not a new issue which humans have been grappling with. Almost 100 years ago Aldo Leopold wrote what was later published in Round River:

Considering the prodigious achievements of the profit motive in wrecking land, one hesitates to reject it as a vehicle for restoring land. I incline to believe we have overestimated the scope of the profit motive. Is it profitable for the individual to build a beautiful home? To give his children a higher education? No, it is seldom profitable, yet we do both. These are, in fact, ethical and aesthetic premises which underlie the economic system. Once accepted, economic forces tend to align the smaller details of social organization into harmony with them.

The task of developing a land ethic here in Australia is critical—having a government that's willing to go out on a limb and say: 'We need to change the way we think about our place in nature. We need to think of land not as something that belongs to us but of us belonging to the land.' I fear that this legislation is the other way round: we're simply trying to use the existing system rather than acknowledge that it hasn't been working.

What are some of my concerns with this bill? Firstly, it sets up the potential for future links to an offset market—to offset damage to the environment. We've seen the disastrous consequences of this; just look at the report on the scheme in New South Wales. It's not good! It seems to me that when you're left with a couple of per cent of temperate grasslands and box gum woodlands, it's incredibly hard to offset that. Where are you going to find that offset? There are just too many examples of offsetting gone bad. Take the Whitehaven Maules Creek coalmine. They ended up extending the offset period for a decade because they couldn't get the right offsets. Then they somehow managed to wangle their way to getting them accepted, but anyone who has seen some of those offsets will tell you that it's very hard to argue that they're like for like.

Secondly, I'm concerned about some of the integrity provisions. This is set up in a way that's parallel to the Emissions Reduction Fund. It's managed by the Clean Energy Regulator, who specialise in managing carbon projects. We've seen the issues around the application of methodologies. I'm sure this will be up for debate in this place, but clearly it seems to me that there are integrity issues, and yet we're just going to give them a whole other body of work. It's very hard to say that carbon is similar to biodiversity in terms of managing it, coming up with methodologies, enforcing those methodologies, issuing credits. I have real concerns around that. Based on those concerns, I will be putting forward an amendment that would add third-party open standing provisions. These are standard provisions in many modern acts, including the EPBC Act. These would allow third parties to initiate enforcement proceedings to uphold the law and seek judicial review of administrative decisions. If the government are comfortable that the CER will do the job well, then I'm very hopeful that they will have no problem with third-party standing.

Thirdly—and this goes back to my earlier point about the sequencing of this—there doesn't seem to be a clear pathway for government investment in biodiversity. We've seen $50 million here and $100 million there. It's very unclear if that's new money or if it's just coming from the trust.

Fourthly, the bill creates no role for First Nations peoples in the governance and integrity provisions of the nature repair market. This is a concern to me. I think there should be a requirement for a First Nations person on the committee, given that I'm hearing that a lot of this is aimed at Indigenous protected areas. Again, I will be putting forward an amendment on this.

Clearly, when we're talking about biodiversity, we can't not talk about climate change. Climate change is having a devastating impact on our biodiversity, from the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef to mass die-offs of spectacled flying foxes in Far North Queensland, to many of our very heat-sensitive species like gliders, which are in a lot of trouble when you look at habitat fragmentation and a warming climate. I would like the government to take that seriously. It's obviously not in this bill, but it very hard to talk about one without the other.

I'll be moving a second reading amendment highlighting some of my recommendations for actions to get better outcomes from this bill. These include creating a government investment strategy, which is something that came up a lot in the roundtables I held on this bill when it was in front of, I think, the first Senate committee that looked at it. I believe that the government should give a firm commitment to and time line for implementing the recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. If you're going to set up a market, you've actually got to ensure that you're creating some demand there by ensuring companies are disclosing their nature risk. It's been something that we've done in Australia for decades, where we've just externalised the cost of production, of extraction, onto nature. Nature has picked up the tab for too long. With TNFD, we now have a structure to be able to put that in a report, put it on a balance sheet and show how exposed companies in Australia are, and drive some change that way. The third thing called for in my second reading amendment is a review of the governance of the nature repair market, once the EPA is legislated and up and running, as to whether or not that is a more suitable place for the governance of a biodiversity credit market.

I can see what the government is trying to do with this bill but, again, as such a wealthy country, we've got to start to fund biodiversity and threatened species, rather than not giving them funding but pointing to a market mechanism where there may be some demand but where, from all the consultation I've done, it's very unclear just how much demand there will be. On top of that, we don't have a firm commitment that the government will kickstart demand with funding for that, as they did with the carbon market.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As is often the case, it's always a good thing to sit in this chamber and listen to the contributions of other senators. In terms of Senator Pocock's last contribution, I think there is enormous scope for agreement on the fundamental questions that lie before us on the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 but also more broadly. He is right to point to all of the concerns that should mobilise this Senate, which are much broader than a narrowly constructed environmental one. They go to ethical, aesthetic, economic and legal questions that ought to mobilise our thinking. I want to come to those issues in substance. I also listened to the contributions by Senator Davey and Senator Grogan. They both pointed to the fact that the genesis of this framework lay in the three previous terms of coalition government, and Mr Littleproud was an early advocate for this kind of framework. In the previous nine years of coalition government, this was viewed as a good idea.

It's not the whole answer to the biodiversity challenge, and it's wrong to identify one measure and insist that that one measure cover the field of what is required in this area of policy. There are other things that must be attended to. It is just one of the tools. Reservation of marine and terrestrial environments is one of the tools that the government has. Getting the approvals process right so the EPBC Act meets the public policy grounds upon which it should properly be founded is one of the tools. Support for good practice from the Commonwealth, in cooperation with the states, is one of the tools that should be employed when protecting biodiversity. I single out Indigenous ranger programs and what might be contemplated in terms of extending that important work to country towns and, yes, to First Nations communities but also broadening the scope of that kind of caring for country work, which is of enormous benefit to protecting biodiversity. The range of programs that the Commonwealth funds, some of it in cooperation with the states, is another vector of activity, as is supporting our science and research communities and making sure that our science and research programs meet the biodiversity challenge as well as the other big challenges that they are required to meet. All of these are vectors for activity. This is just one program or one legislated measure that should assist. I want to come to the substance of that in a moment.

The position of the coalition is, of course, what's interesting here. They say this was their idea, but they didn't legislate it. It reminds me of Saint Augustine's prayer: 'Lord, make me pure, but just not quite yet.' They say, 'We were going to do it, but we just didn't.' They extend that incapacity for action to: 'We were going to do it. We didn't. Now you're doing it, we're bitterly opposed to it. ' That is why nothing happened over the course of the last nine years, not just in this important area of reform but also in others. They, in government, didn't want anything to happen then, and they don't want anything to happen now. If we followed Mr Dutton and the coalition's prescription, there would be no progress. Nothing would ever get done. That is the case of so many areas of public policy reforms that are necessary for the country and in the national interest: climate, housing, energy policy, industrial policy, Australia's place in the region, and our environmental objectives more broadly. The coalition were determined to achieve no progress then, and, even in areas where they talked a good game in government but delivered nothing, they are determined that their successes in government should not proceed with any reform at all. It's a confluence of ineptitude in government with a backward-looking culture-wars bigotry against reform and action, a bias for inaction, an easy recourse to saying no, a determination to plumb the depths of public debate on these questions, and a refusal to accept, whether it's founded on a sense of entitlement or not, that anybody but them could form a proper government.

Well, in this area of world-leading reform, we are determined to get on with it. We are a government that will work across the chamber to deliver this package of legislation. It is world-leading. It will, in my view, require administrative action and adjustment over time as we make sure that this works effectively. In the end, what will it do? It will provide, particularly for our agriculture sector, a set of incentives to encourage actions that support biodiversity on farms, on leaseholds and on native title land. We will do it collectively with the agriculture sector. We will work with farmers to deliver these kinds of projects. I know from my own background that, on almost every farm in the country, there is land that is productive and there is what we used to call scrub country that is unproductive. This legislation would give most farmers a more diverse income base and a capacity to use the land, which was not productive land before, in a way that's in the public interest and that will improve the quality of their property and, over time, improve the public good that their private holdings can support.

Will it achieve all of the objectives that we need to achieve in reform in terms of biodiversity? Absolutely not. It does not claim to do that. All of the issues that Senator Pocock went to require attention. But, in this area of reform, this will represent significant progress and a way of engaging the private sector and privately held land in a constructive way in biodiversity efforts. Consider the natural diversity of the Australian continent at colonisation. And consider what it was when the original occupants of this country had it in their hands. Consider the diversity of the continent at colonisation. Consider what it looked like then. Consider it a hundred or so years ago. Consider the impact that economic and agricultural development and industrial development have had on the landscape, on habitat and on species diversity. Think about biodiversity as we were growing up. For me, it was on farms and in country towns in northern New South Wales in the 1970s and 1980s. Think about the access to biodiversity that we had around our farms and our properties, and then have a look at what it is now. There is a retreat measured not just in terms of species extinction, the reduction of habitat and the reduction of infrastructure that is critical for nature—such as streams, creeks, rivers and billabongs that support species diversity—but also in terms of the access our kids have to experiences in nature.

It has more than an economic dimension. I think that's what Senator Pocock was talking about: the cultural and aesthetic issues that are fundamental. This government is determined to take action in the areas that I pointed to, including by means of this bill, because, if that trajectory just continues uninterrupted, the experience of our kids, our grandkids and our greatgrandchildren will continue to be constrained and to diminish. Aside from all of the economic, agricultural and environmental questions that the scientific community might point us to—where areas like the Murray-Darling system reach a tipping point and where the drivers of habitat reduction mean that you reach a tipping point in biodiversity terms—actually, there are national identity, cultural and aesthetic community questions in terms of maintaining species diversity that are critical. This bill is just another measure of us saying that strengthening the national estate here is government's core responsibility.

This does mean that, on private land, there will be stronger incentives for property owners to take action. I was recently on a relative's property near Hillston, with my son that was founded under the old Soldier Settlement Scheme. The family built a remarkable sheep and grain property. There are native grasses all over it. One of the things that that family has done—and it's often a thing that farmers do as they get a bit older and when they've been on that land for a long time and know that country really well—is identify areas for natural development. In that old cypress pine country that used to exist there, they have found some sections of that farm and, at their own expense, done a remarkable job of replanting the original vegetation. The species diversity that they have been able to re-establish in that bit of country is remarkable. In fact, it's very interesting. I could bore you for hours, but I only have a minute to go.

The First Nations artefacts that they have discovered there and worked with local land councils and others to make sure they are protected and maintained in that country—let's find a way of the whole country doing this work. Let's find a way of engaging and providing incentives so it's not just a matter of charity or a sense of what is in the interests of future generations that mobilises it but a set of economic incentives that support that kind of development.

That is part of the way forward here. I stress that it's not the only measure that the government is undertaking. Minister Plibersek, as Minister for the Environment and Water, and the other ministers in the government who are engaged in this work, will continue to outline and deliver areas of reform. I look forward to the amendments and to working across the chamber to make sure that this piece of legislation is passed. I hope that we will continue to watch its progress closely and make sure it delivers in the national interest in the way that it should.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm totally opposed to the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 because I'm against these artificial, corrupt, government-imposed markets which do nothing to help the real world but end up making a whole lot of people money. In effect, what we have in front of us here is a modern form of indulgence. We had these old indulgences in the old days, where if you sinned and you did the wrong thing, you could go the Pope or the Catholic Church and pay some money and you'd be absolved and could go to heaven. Now, we have a new form of indulgence where you commit some sin against the Green gods and you pay a price—an offset, it's called—and I suppose you go to wherever the Greens go when they pass from this world. You still get to heaven. That's what this is all about and that's what these bills do. It says that you can destroy the environment a little bit—that's okay, as long as you do something over here.

What inevitably happens is these markets tend to be totally corrupt. They don't work, and I'll go through some examples of that. They don't even generate anything for the real world. At least, as much as the Catholic Church has sinned over the years, at least the old form of indulgence has got us St Peter's. We got Saint Peter's Basilica out of it, and that's pretty impressive. I was lucky enough to go this year, and it's pretty impressive. There was at least some corresponding benefit of the corruption that involved the medieval form of indulgences. We'll get nothing from these bills. This will do nothing for the environment. It just sets a whole new level of bureaucracy, which is what this town loves. That's why the Labor Party are for it and that's why all the trade unions are for it. They love it—more jobs, more bureaucrats assessing artificial things that will never generate any real-world improvements.

What happens with the situations is a bunch of big companies decide that they want to burnish their green credentials—you've probably seen it yourselves if you've ever flown recently. You will see those little boxes that say you can tick here, pay a little extra money and you can be green. You can offset the evil thing you are doing by flying from one place to another by paying a little bit extra on these green offsets. That's what these bills try to encourage and grow. What do these offsets do? There was a recent big international study of these offsets, used around the world by companies like Shell and even Gucci—all of these companies that like to tell us all how moral and ethical they really are. This study found that 94 per cent of these carbon offsets—run by this company called Verra, and all this company does is environment offsets—did nothing. They did nothing for the environment. They didn't change any deforestation at all but they were still sold for money. You still paid for them when you ticked the boxes or decided to get green power or whatever you decided to do it. Fair enough, if you want to do that and spend money on that, that's fine. But it's not fine when that money you are spending does not go towards an actual benefit. That happened in 94 per cent of these cases. In fact, one of these offset programs is in the Brazilian Amazon, and an auditor who worked in a lot of projects in the Amazon was quoted in the study, saying:

I have worked as an auditor on these projects in the Brazilian Amazon and when I started this analysis, I wanted to know if we could trust their predictions about deforestation. The evidence from the analysis—not just the synthetic controls—suggests we cannot. I want this system to work to protect rainforests. For that to happen, we need to acknowledge the scale of problems with the current system.

That is what is happening right now, and these bills do nothing to improve the auditing of practices that occur in this processes. In fact, I think these types of systems are fundamentally broken. You're never going to create an artificial environment that will work, because bureaucrats will never get this right. They will never do this right. There will always be this level of corruption. This is not the way things should go down.

The other aspect here that gets forgotten is that when these offsets do anything, if they do, it's not usually to protect the environment; it is to shut down economic production. That's what happens. We'll say we're going to protect this mulga country—this is a real example happening right now—in South-West Queensland. We'll say: 'Just take all the cattle off the property, and that will become a carbon offset, because cattle are terrible and woeful and do bad things. You take all the cattle off, and we'll designate that area now, without cattle, as being environmentally pure.' You can generate an offset and sell that through this carbon market, sometimes the biodiversity market, et cetera. That happens right now without these bills. It's happening.

I heard the previous speaker, Senator Ayres, saying it's great for farmers. Okay; the guy who sells it, the guy who owns the land, yes, gets some money. He gets paid some money for that. Good luck to him. Nothing much happens except that the cattle leave. Weeds grow, pests grow. No-one manages the property anymore. It's worse for the local environment. And the unspoken victims of that are economic—the small businesses, the people and the workers who live in that area. If there are no cattle anymore in that area in South-West Queensland, there are no fencing contractors, there are no mustering teams to muster the cattle and there's no longer any need for helicopter pilots to help muster. Truck drivers have less business. Fewer people are coming out to motels. A whole country town is then affected by this.

I spoke to the Cunnamulla mayor just a few months ago about this. There are now long roads in her council area where all cattle have been completely removed. In one part, eight of 13 cattle properties down one road have no cattle anymore because big rich investors from these big companies have come in and bought out all the cattle. They've bought out the economic base of these country towns and communities. As I say, it does nothing for the environment. You just get weeds and pests growing. It's great for all the wild dogs and pigs. They have a great old time because no-one is there managing the property anymore, but nothing is done for the real environment except real people are hurt.

There's another example, not a farming example. Some other people have come to me in recent years about a situation here, around the ACT. There's a large suburban community near the ACT called Jerrabomberra. It is growing rapidly, and there's a need for a new road out to this new suburb because the current roads are getting very congested. That road was set and designed to go through a certain area, a rural area. It wasn't going to impact anyone's homes or anything like that. But then, it turned out, the New South Wales government discovered that part of the road reserve that they had identified went through an area that had been offset against someone else's project. It was a mining or manufacturing project or something. Some other project had bought this area of land and said 'Nothing can ever happen on this land anymore,' for however many years—these bills say 25 to 100 years or something like that. So they couldn't build the road through this offset area. I've asked questions here at estimates, and apparently once something is offset like that it's done. It's set in stone. You can't offset the offset, and you're stuck. They've had to redesign where this road is going out to Jerrabomberra, and guess what? They've put the road through people's homes.

Now we have a situation with these stupid offsets where you're protecting some scrub outside of the ACT and saying it's wonderful for the environment. You can't cut down those trees. You could have cut down all the trees leading up to that offset area and the ones beyond that; that's fine. This little area, this little pocket, is inviolable now and can't be touched. So we'll just move the road and we'll knock out people's homes. We're going to displace human beings, who are living here, who have built their lives, some of whom would have built their forever homes here. Bang—don't worry about you; we're not going to worry about you anymore. This is ridiculous. These offset regimes cost people in real terms, and they do nothing to protect the environment.

I thought Senator Pocock made a very good point before, too, that if we want to protect the environment, why isn't the government paying for it, if it's a social good? I think we should have government funded environmental protection projects and biodiversity projects. We should do these things. The former coalition government established the Green Army, which did great, practical things at a local level to improve the environment—not these grand schemes but getting down into the environment, removing weeds, getting rid of pests and cleaning up rivers and bank channels to help your local environment. Those things are really important.

But the reason we've got this type of scheme coming before us is that the government is broke; they've got no money, and they want the rest of us to pay for it. That's what's happening here. This is a scheme that's being set up so companies can put more and more surcharges on your airfares and at your shops, to say that they're green without doing anything and cost you more money. That's what's going to happen here. It happens all the time.

You can see it at the shops right now; it's a little bit different from this, but it's scratching the same itch. Has anyone noticed how, when you go into Coles and Woolworths now, you pay 25c for these ridiculous paper bags? They say they're good for the environment. My mum was telling me the other day that when they introduced plastic bags a generation ago they made a big song and dance about how that was protecting the environment, because they were getting rid of paper bags, which meant chopping down the trees. Now they're making the same claims about these paper bags, which break and don't last. Do you know what it is? It's a money-making scheme, because they're 25c, they break every bloody time, and you've got to get another one when you go back. Coles and Woolworths are just making more money from this—saying that they're green and they're environmental. This is just a way of making you pay more, and they're hoping you'll feel good about it because it's green and environmental. That's what this is about.

We hear constantly from this government that their No. 1 priority is the cost of living. We hear that from the Prime Minister, and we've heard it from them this week in question time. Their No. 1 priority is the cost of living. Where are the bills this week that deal with the cost of living? Has anyone noticed any piece of legislation coming forward to this chamber this week that's actually going to lower the cost of living for Australians? I haven't. I haven't seen a single one. They say it's the No. 1 priority, but all we get are more and more bills that add costs onto people, that add red tape, that add regulation and that increase people's costs of basic life here, and that's what this bill will do. It's setting up a regime which will either force, make or pressure companies to buy these indulgences, these environmental offsets that will cost them money. And then they have to pass on those costs to all of you, in your shopping bills, in your power bills, in your mortgages—because the banks are big in this, too; the banks love all this stuff—in your interest rates. All these things will go up because of this legislation.

So why isn't a government that says they're in favour of doing something about the cost of living actually doing something to help? Why aren't they doing something to help our nation's farmers increase their productivity? They could still protect the environment but also increase food production. Why have they got a bill before us that shuts down agricultural production across our country, which reduces and makes it harder for farmers to produce goods and help to bring down the costs of food in your shops? We saw during the last week we were here the government forcing through legislation to rip water out of the Murray-Darling Basin, our nation's food bowl. There's now going to be much less water used in the Murray-Darling, because this government is obsessed. They did another deal with the Greens last week to take water off farmers. And if you have less water you grow less food, and that's going to increase the costs of food production—another bill that increased the cost of living for Australians. It's a constant theme here, from a government that seems committed to not doing anything without the support of the radical Greens political party, which has no interest in bringing down costs for consumers but simply wants to end intensive agriculture in this country, de-industrialise our nation and make us weaker and poorer because of that.

That's what this agenda is all about. We'll hear from other senators about how David Littleproud supported this. Well, I don't support it. Deal with the arguments. You're constantly wanting to resort to personal attacks and play politics with these sorts of things. Drop the politics. Tell us how this will actually help bring people's cost of living down, because that's what you say is your No. 1 priority. So, tell us, in very simple terms, how this bill is going to help Australians. That should be what we're here for. That should be why we decide to spend time away from our families and come to this place. How is this bill actually going to help the lives of real Australians? It's not. This is a bill that's all for big business. It's a bill for the big businesses of the world who want to assuage their moral guilt for other things and ways they might conduct themselves by buying these indulgences. That's what this bill is about. It's to help big business.

It's certainly not to help small businesses. Small businesses aren't there buying these environmental offsets. They don't care about these things. They're too busy running their own businesses, trying to keep their payroll in check, trying to deal with the red tape in the ATO and all the other things that oppress their lives. They don't care about this stuff. It's not for small businesses. It's certainly not for families who are struggling to pay their kids' school fees, to keep them in sports at ever-increasing costs, and right now to buy their kids' Christmas gifts. It's not for them. This bill is not about them. It's for a small group of people, elites in among our society, who talk a lot to the Labor Party. Labor are very close to big business now and the big banks. We've seen it in the last few months. Alan Joyce would have loved this bill. Qantas is one of the biggest buyers and consumers of these green offsets; they would love this. And the Labor Party these days seem constantly to be talking just to them. Everything that comes to this place seems to be driven by and the result of what big business needs and wants, not what small business needs and not what families need. It's certainly not to help Australians who are being crushed by the homegrown inflation and cost-of-living crisis created by this government's wanton spending and lack of ability to get anything under control.

I won't be supporting this bill, and I would hope that the Greens and others stay consistent to their principles against this. I actually share a lot of the Greens' criticisms of these systems. They are artificial, they are corrupt, they are for big business and they shouldn't be supported. Let's hope that common sense prevails and we don't end up with some dirty deals done cheaply here this evening that sell out the Australian people in favour of big business. Let's act to get the cost of living down for Australians, not make things harder for them.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to rise in support of the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and the associated bill, particularly after the completely nonsensical contribution from a senator who claims to stand up for regional Queensland. I live in regional Queensland, and this is something that people there are calling for. We know how important it is, and we know that there are three things that will get lost in this debate when senators, particularly those of the Liberal and National parties, come into this chamber. These are three really important things that I need people to understand and consider while these post-fact contributions are happening.

Firstly, there is a crucial need to repair our natural environment right now. We can't wait. We've lost a decade to bickering, politics and negativity from the Liberal-National coalition. We've lost a decade. We have lost time and we need to make it up urgently. That is what everyone is telling us, particularly when it comes to the environment. The Australia state of the environment report, which I'll speak about shortly, confirms that.

Secondly, the things that are being lost in this debate are the very real and exciting opportunities that this scheme could unlock. They get lost by those opposite—they don't want to see those opportunities—but I see those opportunities firsthand in the work of nature repair happening in catchments around Queensland, all the way up the coast. I'm really proud see the work that's been going on. Just imagine the possibility if those small-scale projects that have had such a crucial environmental impact were given the ability to go full-scale. There would be so many jobs and so many partnerships supported. Those very real opportunities won't be spoken about by those opposite, but they are what we on this side of the chamber know will result from this bill.

The last thing that anyone in this chamber or outside this chamber should ever forget is that the Liberal and National parties will stand in the way of environmental reform every day of the week. It doesn't matter what type of reform it is. It wouldn't matter if they had actually drafted this bill themselves—which they did; they had a version of this bill and a version of this scheme. It doesn't matter what's in this bill; it's for the environment and it's for working alongside people to make sure we can repair our environment, so they're against it. Their arguments and the debate they want to have aren't about improving the environment or creating more jobs; they are just dead against any environmental reform. Anyone who lines up with them also lines up with their decades-long record on environmental destruction, vandalism and complete disregard for how important our environment actually is for our economy.

Labor today, in supporting this bill's passage through the Senate, is creating a world-first nature repair market. The Nature Repair Market Bill will see the introduction of a world-leading voluntary market framework to support landholders in protecting and restoring nature. This will make it easier for businesses, organisations, governments and individuals to invest in projects to protect and repair nature, because we don't want just to stop environmental decline; we want to repair it. We must. We need to right now.

It's about bringing people together on this journey. We talk about that a lot—not just in this chamber; I talk about it a lot in my work as this Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef. For so long when it came to these debates, and it continues today through this discussion, the Liberals and Nationals would have you believe that we need to fit people, particularly people from regional Australia, into boxes, into a binary situation where it's farmers versus scientists, landowners versus conservationists, agriculture versus traditional owners, environment versus the economy, or farming jobs versus jobs on the reef. Respectfully, I'd argue that sometimes those from the Greens Party fall into that trap as well. But that's not how you deliver reform, and it's not how you deliver outcomes in regional Australia. Actually getting farmers, scientists, landowners, conservationists and First Nations people to sit down, partner and find the way that we can work together is how you get results. That's what the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 identifies: that there's an opportunity here if we bring people together instead of saying that you must always be on opposite sides of this debate.

That's why Labor bring people together in this space. It's what we've continued to do in the work that we've done for the environment, and for very good reasons. You don't have to delve too far into the State of the environment report to understand the seriousness of the task that we have at hand: one of environmental degradation, loss and inaction. We want to see our environment protected. Australians love the outdoors. We're so lucky to have such a diverse range of incredible landscapes, waterways, and ecosystems around us in our country. Maybe this is something that people like me who live in regional Australia take for granted sometimes, that we can just drive 45 minutes up the tablelands and jump into a waterfall and that we've got these pristine environments that are so beautiful. But, if we lose them, we lose so much about what makes Australia special. A healthy environment is important to communities, economies and our First Nations culture—our way of life. It impacts everything that we do. Just last week we saw an intense debate in this place and right around the country about protecting the mighty Murray-Darling, another critical environment asset. It's so important to our country, our regions and the people that live there. It's a river system that we want to ensure becomes healthier and more sustainable and one that we want to protect from future droughts.

The Nature Repair Market Bill represents another important, pivotal moment for our environment. This is, despite what those opposite will have you believe, what the bill will do. The Nature Repair Market Bill, together with the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill, aims to establish a world-first nature repair market. The bills provide the legislative framework for a voluntary national market in biodiversity certificates to enable private investment in high-integrity projects to protect, manage, and restore nature. The market will be open to landholders, farmers, First Nations people, conservation groups and businesses. The market will enable project proponents to undertake projects that protect the environment and protect and enhance biodiversity on a range of land tenures, including the aquatic environment and the ocean to the extent of Australia's territorial sea. Project proponents will be able to apply to the Clean Energy Regulator for a unique biodiversity certificate that could then be sold to interested persons in the market, very simply being rewarded for the hard work that you put into the environment. They will be able to monetise this really important work that's already happening and be able to lift the scale of these projects from small-scale and admirable projects to big-change projects that make a huge difference to our environment.

The bill is framework legislation, and there will be rules and biodiversity assessment instruments introduced so we can get the methodology right. These legal instruments will be subject to consultation. It's really significant, I think, that what we are talking about is a market that will include tradeable biodiversity certificates, insurance and compliance arrangements, a public register and a nationally consistent approach for measuring biodiversity outcomes, because we know around Australia there are different credit schemes in place. People are talking about the opportunity that this could capture—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 1.30 pm, we will now proceed to two-minute statements.