Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. We wouldn't leave the minimum wage of some of our most vulnerable workers up to the market. It's accepted, including, I think, by this government that we need regulation to step in because there's a power imbalance. And if we don't put things in law to protect people then the market, which very often means big corporations having more power than others, gets its way. And that would mean wages go down. That's why we have minimum wages and award wages putting in more.

In aged care, we wouldn't say, 'Well, we'll just leave it all up to the market.' It's because we know that if for-profit providers come in and decide to make a profit out of aged care and there are no minimum standards in law then they will drive the standard of care into the ground just to make a quick buck. That's why we have laws in place which are meant to protect people, because we know that corporations will do what corporations do: seek to make a profit. That's what they're there for. Government needs to step in and provide protections in law because the market won't do it. We know that with wages and we know that with care for looking after people. But when it comes to protecting the environment from greedy developers who are destroying habitat right across this country and contributing to the extinction crisis, this government says: 'We'll leave all that up to the market. Let's turn that over to the market and leave it up to them.'

The first significant environment bill that they have brought in here doesn't put in place strong standards to protect the environment and doesn't deal with the climate crisis, the biggest threat to our precious environment according to the State of the environment report. What do they do? They bring a bill into this place that says, 'Let's turn nature into a market.' It's in the title of the bill! The minister went on to say, 'We want to have a green Wall Street.' Well, Wall Street crashed, Minister Plibersek! Why do you want to put protection of our environment into the hands of the stock market? Into the hands of speculators? Into the hands of people who only exist to make a buck? This is critical when it comes to protecting our precious environment—it's as critical there just as much as it is with wages or aged care, where the government is willing, rightly, to step in and regulate.

Why is that? Because we know that some of the biggest threats—for example, to koala species—and one of the biggest threats, driving the extinction crisis in this country, are developers coming in and destroying land that's currently habitat and environment. That's what developers do. Instead of putting in place strong protections, the government says: 'Let's turn it into a market,' and there are no protections in this bill; so much is left up to the minister, 'Let's make it so that developers can come and say, 'We're going to destroy that koala habitat, but it's okay because we're going to pay to protect a little piece over here that was probably never going to be under threat anyway and we'll call it an offset. So we can go ahead with destroying the environment here because we've bought an offset somewhere else over there.' That's not protection of nature. That is handing the fate of our precious environment over to the market when we should be protecting the environment from the ravages of big corporations. I heard the previous speaker say that the government has got a comprehensive agenda that involves responding to the previous Samuel review that said there are many holes in our environment laws. I agree. But the first bill that the government brings in isn't to close those holes. It isn't to implement the Samuel review—and there are lots of good bits about that and some bits that need to be thought about further.

The government doesn't rush in here and say, 'We've got to put in place legislation to protect the environment.' No—they bring this in instead. Where did this idea come from? It didn't come from the groups who've said, 'We've got to stop destroying our environment if we want to make sure we've got places not only for animals and wildlife, but if we want to protect our country for our kids and our grandkids, because we know that one of the best ways of tackling climate change is to stop chopping down trees—let the trees stay where they are.' The government doesn't come in and say, 'We're going to do that.' The government scrapes around for ideas from someone else. In this case, they picked up this idea from the coalition. The government beat its chest when it came in here and said, 'The coalition should support it because it was their idea.' My goodness, Labor! You're in government. You've got a Senate with which you could pass strong action to protect the environment and the climate, and what do you do? You pick up an idea that the coalition chucked around when they were last in government. The last coalition government does not have a pretty record when it comes to protecting our environment. Why would you want to copy them? Why would you want to come in here and boast, 'We've picked up an idea and a bill that were previously floated by some of the very same people that just got turfed out by the Australian people at the election'?

You know the government is not serious about protecting the environment because they won't even follow the advice that has been presented to them. The last government—as I said, a terrible government for the environment and the climate—hid a very key report. They sat on it. They didn't want to release the State of the environment report. Why? It's because the report said the No. 1 threat to our environment is climate change. The minister rightly released that report and rightly pointed out the fact that the previous government was trying to hide it because they weren't interested in taking action on climate. We know that the biggest threat to Australia's environment—to our precious places, our biodiversity and our wildlife—is climate change. So you would think that the first piece of environmental protection legislation that the government would want to bring in would tackle that and say, 'We need to close the gaping loophole in Australia's environment laws that says you don't have to take into account climate change when the minister decides whether to approve a project.'

Just think about that for a moment. Climate change is the biggest threat to Australia's environment, and our environment laws are meant to protect the environment, but the environment laws don't need you to take climate change into account. Perhaps that's why this minister is approving new coal and gas projects when we know that coal and gas are the main cause of the climate crisis. This minister and this government are backing projects that will destroy our environment. If you were serious, you would do what everyone who wants to protect our environment has called for, and that is to put what's called a climate trigger into our environment laws. That is how you protect our environment. That is how you protect nature. You say, 'You can't keep opening up coal and gas projects in the middle of a climate crisis.' You can't do things that will make the climate crisis worse, because that will fast track the extinction crisis that we're in and will also fast track climate collapse.

The government's not doing that. The government's not saying that they want to stop projects that are going to make climate change worse. They're coming in here, instead, and saying, 'Let's let developers and others make a buck, even as we continue to destroy our environment, as long as they don't buy some offsets somewhere else.' If the government were serious about protecting Australia's environment they would put a climate trigger into our environment laws, and that should be their first order of business.

Do you know who else used to think that a climate trigger was a good idea, as well as the scientists, as well as all of the groups who are fighting to protect the environment, as well as the Greens? The Prime Minister. When he was in opposition, he introduced a bill to insert a climate trigger into our environment laws. He made a very eloquent speech and said that one of the biggest problems in Australia's environment laws is that you don't have to take into account climate change, which leads ministers to start approving projects like coal and gas projects that will make it worse. It was the Prime Minister who came into this place years ago and said it.

It's even more true now. The fix that's needed to our environment laws to protect nature is not to hand it over further to developers, like Labor wants to do, and let them buy their way out of the destruction of this bit of environment because you're protecting another bit over there that was probably never under threat anyway; it's to stop opening new coal and gas projects. That is what we need to do.

The UN Secretary-General, the International Energy Agency, the world's scientists and our Pacific island neighbours have all said, 'If Australia keeps opening coal and gas projects we will fast track climate collapse.' There can be no new coal and gas projects opened if we're to meet even the government's net zero by 2050 targets. That's what the conservative International Energy Agency is saying.

During the safeguard debate, the Greens managed to stop about half of the 116 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline or the equivalent thereof. But we know that Labor wants to open the rest. Labor is out, at the moment, in Western Australia and Queensland saying that they want to keep opening new gas projects. In the Northern Territory, we're seeing the Middle Arm project proceed with public money. That's public money at a time that they say they can't find a bit of extra money to fund some more affordable housing in the country and fund the rent freeze. They can find $1½ million though to fund the Middle Arm project in the Northern Territory. Down in Victoria, they're wanting to go ahead and drill near the 12 Apostles.

When everyone is telling us the best thing you can do to stop the climate crisis and the threat to the environment is stop opening coal and gas, Labor wants to keep opening more. This bill, that attempts to allow developers and others to make some money out of some offsets, that allows the destruction of the environment to continue, does not put in place the protections that are needed.

If the government were serious, and if the government wanted to do more than just be a pale imitation of the opposition, they would stop picking up the bills that were discarded from Liberals and Nationals when they were in government and start legislating to protect the environment. They would not say the answer is a green Wall Street, when we all know what happens when stock markets crash. They would say the answer to protecting nature is not to open it up to the speculators. The answer to protecting nature is to do what we do when it comes to protecting people and put in place protections in law. Just as we wouldn't say we're going to leave the minimum wage up to the market or we're going to leave the standard of aged care up to the market, we shouldn't leave protection of the environment up to the market either, because that means those with the most money win. And the environment loses.

Now is the time for strong protections in law to stop opening new coal and gas projects, because that is the single biggest and most effective thing that we can do to stop the climate collapse and protect Australia's environment and biodiversity.

See this speech in context