Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you to the member for North Sydney for putting up this matter of public importance to the House. Protecting Australia's unique environment and biodiversity is certainly a responsibility that should transcend parties, partisanship and party lines; I agree with that a hundred per cent—that element of her motion. It's very important. With respect to the member for North Sydney and other previous speakers, though, there is a reality that has kind of been glossed over a bit. The reality is that this government, in three short years, has been committed to and delivered real, tangible action to safeguard our land, oceans and wildlife.

We know Australia is home to some of the most diverse ecosystems on the planet. We know they are under increasing threat. We know we must act decisively to ensure our environment is protected for future generations. This government has set an ambitious national target to protect and conserve 30 per cent of Australia's land and 30 per cent of our marine areas by 2030, and we're delivering on this commitment with more than 70 million hectares of land and sea added or provided with stronger protections. That's an area bigger than Germany and Italy combined. Australia now leads the world in ocean conservation, with 52 per cent of our oceans protected thanks to our expansion of marine parks. We've established 12 new Indigenous Protected Areas, covering 7.5 million hectares of land and 450,000 hectares of sea—I didn't know sea could be counted in hectares, but there you go; it's a lot.

On balance, I'd be interested to know if there was any government prior to this one that spent as much on or invested more in the environment as this government. The funding of critical programs has been significant: $200 million to restore our city waterways, after the former Liberal government left them to ruin; double the funding for Kakadu and Uluru, after the Liberals let them fall apart; $1.2 billion to protect the Great Barrier Reef, after the Liberals were happy to risk it; and $550 million to protect threatened species, while the Liberals gun for fewer protections.

It is interesting that the other element of the member for North Sydney's motion is that we should set aside our political differences in order to make these commitments. I also agree. We had a $353 million investment for an independent environmental protection agency and it was the opposition—the Liberal and National parties, the coalition—and the Greens political party who worked together and voted together to block it. They clearly have a difference of view about whether we should have an environmental protection agency. That is what this place is for, isn't it—debate? We will not agree on everything. They made a very clear statement that they rejected an environmental protection agency.

I know that environmental reform requires cooperation and commitment. We have demonstrated that commitment. We hoped to see bipartisanship and cross partisanship in this place when it came to reform yet we have seen again and again the opposition and the Greens political party obstruct progress at every turn. It is odd because the coalition began the review around the Environmental Protection Act. They knew it was something that needed to be reformed, looked at, but now they refuse to support the changes needed to strengthen it. And the Greens political party, a minor party in this place, despite claims to champion the environment, have repeatedly shifted their demands, have repeatedly blocked the reforms, have repeatedly obfuscated and blocked progress that would have delivered real protections for nature, so I have to ask the question: are they opposed because they differ in view?

The opposition might have a different position. They might not rate or value those protections, or they don't agree with the amount of investment—many reasons. The Greens political party—why are they opposing? They want to make the perfect the enemy of the good maybe, or they are interested in political point scoring. They both teamed up together and blocked the environmental protection agency. That is just a reality of the political difference in this place. I have no problem and I don't think any of us have a problem with difference that is really based on very well-considered views and on an understanding of what is going on. But that does not seem to be what is happening here, especially with the attempt to do political point scoring with some on the crossbench. This government remains committed to delivering real environmental protection that balances sustainability with responsible development, and we are making those historic investments to safeguard our national heritage, from the oceans to the outback.

See this speech in context