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

I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes the devastating damage to nature that was identified in Australia's most recent State of the Environment Report;

(2) acknowledges the welcome commitments the government has made as part of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the Threatened Species Action Plan, and the Nature Positive Plan;

(3) notes the feedback from environmental organisations, businesses, and community groups, that significantly stronger environmental laws are a necessary prerequisite for a successful Nature Repair Market;

(4) calls on the government to:

(a) explain clearly how it will meet its objectives of preventing new extinctions and protecting and conserving at least 30 per cent of Australia's land mass;

(b) prioritise critical reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, as well as the establishment of the new Environmental Protection Agency, before trading of certificates begins in the Nature Repair Market; and

(c) urgently clarify how biodiversity offsets will be treated in the Nature Repair Market and confirm that no offsets will be traded until reforms to the EPBC Act have been legislated".

Our country is blessed with an incredible natural environment, from wallabies to the wombat, from the koala to the kangaroo and from the dingo to the Tasmanian devil, Australia is home to amazing animals, unique plants and diverse aquatic life. In my own electorate of Wentworth, I feel privileged to be able to watch the annual whale migration from Bondi Beach, swim with the seahorses in Parsley Bay and walk the shores of the Sydney Harbour National Park.

Nature in Australia is unparalleled, but it is also in crisis. The most recent State of the environment report pulled back the curtain on the devastating damage that is being done to our natural world. We have the highest rate of deforestation in the developed world. We have the highest rate of animal extinction of any country. We are doing irreparable damage to the Great Barrier Reef. Add the existential threat posed by climate change, and our environment has never been in greater danger. We have a responsibility and an imperative to act, but our actions so far have been inadequate. Our environmental laws are weak and ineffective. We're investing just 15 per cent of what is needed to avoid extinctions, and we continue to use taxpayers' money to subsidise destructive activities like native forest logging. The government's ambition to address these challenges is welcome.

I know the minister shares my passion for conserving our environment. I welcome the commitments made at COP 15, the new Threatened Species Action Plan and the desire to reform our environmental laws. The minister is also right to point out that the scale of the challenges ahead means we need action from more than just government. This brings me to the legislation before the House, the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. The objective of this bill, to increase private investment in conservation, is a good one. As an economist, I see value in finding ways to use market mechanisms to achieve our policy objectives. But despite this optimism, the prioritisation of the government's environmental policy remains confusing. As the Hippocratic oath says, 'first, do no harm', so, before we embark on untested ways of funding environmental protection, we could stop actively supporting environmental destruction by ending native forest logging for good.

Native forest logging destroys our environment, accelerates climate change and, over the last two years, has cost taxpayers in New South Wales $29 million in bailouts to the loss-making state Forestry Commission. I commend the actions of the Labor governments in Western Australia and Victoria, who have agreed to bring this destructive practice to an end. But native forest logging shows no sign of stopping in New South Wales and Tasmania, so the federal government must step in. The commitments made by the minister to me in question time last month are very welcome, but they're not sufficient. We need to end native forest logging across the whole of Australia for good. The community is ready to back this. The crossbench is ready to back this. Even the minister's backbenchers are ready to back this. Now is time the time to show courage and act decisively.

After ending native forest logging, the government's second priority must be to do what is promised and legislate critical reforms to the EPBC Act. We have had over a year of Labor government, and these reforms seem only a little closer than they were when they first took office. I acknowledge that the EPBC reforms are complicated and will take time, and that is why they must be a priority. Only having done this, and only when a strong environmental protection agency is established, should we allow trading in this new market.

Let me turn now to the specifics of the bill and outline some of the areas where I would like to see the legislation strengthened. These come from the experts I have consulted but also from the people in Wentworth, many of whom attended my recent community forum on this bill, and I'd like to pay tribute to the Environmental Voices of Wentworth, particularly Brooke, Daniela, Chloe and James, for their advocacy on these issues.

The biggest concern raised with me is the potential for a new market to be a vehicle for further environmental destruction through the trading of low-integrity biodiversity offsets. Let's be clear, whilst high-integrity offsets make sense for carbon emissions biodiverse ecosystems are fundamentally not transferable. It is simply not possible to fully offset the harm caused by damage to one habitat by pumping money into another. The damage caused by mass clearing of koala habitat in the forests of New South Wales cannot be mitigated by planting trees in WA. Only if biodiversity loss is unavoidable and reasonable steps have been taken to avoid and minimise loss are offsets appropriate to consider, and if they are used they must be of the highest integrity. Unfortunately, that is just not the case in Australia today.

The Samuel review made clear that offsets currently used under the EPBC 'contribute to environmental decline rather than active restoration'. This is the offsets currently under the EPBC Act, and they contribute to environmental decline rather than active restoration. A similar picture has emerged across various state level offset schemes. The government has acknowledged this. They have committed to developing a national environmental standard for environmental offsets, and they have committed to a clear hierarchy to, first, avoid and, then, reduce and mitigate and only to offset when there is a net gain for the environment and payment for conservation.

These are absolutely critical reforms, and yet before they are implemented the government is embarking on creating a new market that facilitates the trading of offsets and creates a new form of environmental certificate that may be used as an offset in the future. This has left many in my community confused. The government says there's no need for concern and that the standards in this new market will be even higher than under a reformed EPBC. This may be the case, but I would like to see the proof.

At a minimum, we need to see some guardrails. First, the government must clearly communicate its intention regarding how offsets will be used in this market. Second, the government must fully implement its reform to the EPBC Act before any offsets can be traded in this market. Third, if project proponents do not want their projects to be used for offsetting, the legislation should allow them to specify this.

The amendment I will move during the latter stages of this debate will achieve that third objective. It has the support of environmentalists, who don't want their projects to be used to compensate for nature's destruction, and it has the support of investors, many of whom want to invest in conservation but are worried about being accused of greenwashing. This is a commonsense amendment. It empowers those who engage in conservation work, it provides additional clarity and assurance for business and it is aligned with the government's intentions for the market. I urge the government to accept it.

There are several other challenges that my constituents have raised with me and which are reflected in submissions to the Senate inquiry made by the financial sector, environmental groups, leading academics and many others. Firstly, there is an absence of clear guidance from the government on the road map for meeting our 30 by 30 goals, how the new nature repair market will support these goals and what the priorities are for investment. Without a clear plan and without certainty for business, the much touted $130 billion in Australian biodiversity outcomes that this bill is supposed to achieve are, at best, wildly optimistic and, at worst, completely fanciful.

Secondly, there is a lack of clarity on where the demand for certificates in this market will come from, beyond environmental offsets. The government has touted future obligations under the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures as a source of demand, but any meaningful and mandatory obligations are many years away. We also don't know whether the government itself will participate in the market. I also have regulations about whether the Clean Energy Regulator has the capacity and skill set to effectively regulate the market. It is particularly confusing that when the government is setting up a new environmental protection agency to be the tough cop on the beat it has chosen a different regulator for this new market.

It is clear that we need vastly increased investment in nature if we are to protect and preserve our natural environment. It is also clear that we need to try new and innovative ways of achieving this, because the status quo is just not working. I'm not opposed to the idea of this market in principle, but there are improvements that should be made to this bill. Even more importantly, before we experiment with trading in this market, we must legislate reforms to the EPBC and put an end to native forest logging.

See this speech in context