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

I want to come back to the idea that you can offset a critically endangered species. My understanding of a critically endangered species is that it is under almost immediate threat of being extinct in the wild. Populations are on the edge of being functionally extinct. The IUCN talks about some of the criteria: a very fast population decline; catastrophic drops over the last 10 years or three generations; a tiny population size; sometimes only a few hundred or fewer mature individuals left; an extremely small range, living in a very limited area, so one disaster could wipe it out; ongoing decline plus fragmentation; and quantitative models showing a very high probability of extinction soon. I'm wondering how that will square with the government's commitment to no new extinctions—if we are, in fact, saying that you could, in some circumstance, offset the destruction of a critically endangered habitat or affect a critically endangered species. That's one question: whether you think you can do that and still hold your 'no new extinctions' commitment to the Australian people.

The other question is on net gain. I'm interested in what circumstances will the regulations prescribe or the minister be satisfied that a net gain has been achieved. How will net gain actually be determined?