Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Hansard source

As I said, Senator Pocock, the intention is not to prevent payments into the Restoration Contribution Fund for every single critically endangered species. Sadly, that is a relatively long list in Australia, and that's why it's a Labor government that is proposing reforms to our laws which we'd really like you to support, Senator Pocock. Don't ever forget that it's Labor governments that actually deliver environmental reform.

One of the objectives of these reforms—and Professor Samuel made this point in his report—is to get away from the ongoing managing of decline in nature and shift the dial towards restoration of nature. We do want to see critically endangered species recover. There's a range of government policies and investments directed towards that, and it's very pleasing to see that there are critically endangered species whose numbers are growing. It's still not at the rate we'd like, but it's good to see that there are some critically endangered species in which we're seeing a recovery. We want to see more of that. It's not and never has been the intention to effectively rule out contributions to the restoration fund for every single critically endangered species. But the opportunity exists for the Threatened Species Scientific Committee to provide advice to ministers—and, again, I'm paraphrasing what the amendment says—if there are species for which, in the judgement of that committee, contributions to the restoration fund are not enough.

You also asked how you would calculate this. To my surprise in taking on this role, as it stands, our department has developed a calculator that proponents can use now to determine what their environmental offsets are required to be. We will need to adapt and upgrade that calculator to determine what the financial contribution will be. But one of the really important things that we've done and committed to in that process is that there needs to be a net gain for the environment in that process. Again, this comes straight out of Professor Samuel's report. Rather than having the current system, where environmental offsets need to deliver no net loss to the environment, we are lifting the requirement so that any environmental offsets deliver a net gain for the environment. That calculator, as I was saying, needs to be adjusted to recognise that change.

In summary, what this means is that proponents in some cases would be able to make a financial contribution that delivers a net gain for the environment—not more of the same but something better—and that would be possible for a range of species. But, with the Threatened Species Scientific Committee having the ability to provide advice around particular species, that opportunity should not arise.