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

In relation to your first question regarding critically endangered species, for starters, I want to say the government is absolutely committed to our commitment made last term to not see any further extinctions of species. That is the reason why we're investing heavily in programs like the Saving Native Species program and a range of other investments. It's one of the reasons why we're keen to change these laws, to provide greater protection to critically endangered and all threatened species.

Before I answer your question directly, Senator Pocock, I might just add to what I said earlier about the ability to prevent financial contributions being made to the restoration contributions fund in some circumstances. The amendments that have been introduced will allow the minister of the day to create a list of matters that cannot be compensated through financial contributions to the restoration contributions fund. The minister would need to get advice and consult with advisory committees, including the Threatened Species Scientific Committee, in making or changing the list. That list would be a disallowable legislative instrument and would be published on the department's website. What that's all about is that these amendments recognise that there are some matters and some species that cannot be appropriately compensated through financial contributions to that restoration fund. That's what we're doing.

Regarding the point around critically endangered species, I recognise that it is not easy to offset significant impacts on critically endangered species. In the short time I've been the minister, these are some of the most difficult decisions that you need to make around whether a project that is going to have a significant impact on critically endangered species can be offset. I'm sure there would be occasions where it's simply not possible to find an offset, whether that be in the traditional way of finding an offset, a like-for-like offset. I'm sure that will be difficult, at times, to do through this new fund as well, but that's not to say it can't be done.

One example that I've dealt with—and I know it's a project that not everyone in this chamber supports—is the Robbins Island wind farm in Tasmania. It is a large wind farm that will produce enormous amounts of clean energy, not only for Tasmania but also for the mainland, to be transported through Marinus Link. One of the concerns that many in the community have had about that project is its potential impact on the orange-bellied parrot, which is a critically endangered species. It would appear, from recent data monitoring, that there has been some recovery in the numbers of that species—nowhere near as much as we want—but it's still a critically endangered species. One of the decisions that I had to make was whether that project and any impacts that it may have on that species could be offset. Again, there would be people in this chamber who say that can't be done, but the evidence that I reviewed in making that decision persuaded me that those impacts could be offset in certain ways.

For example, we have required the proponent in that case to make financial contributions toward captive breeding programs, which are very successful in helping recover the number of particular threatened species. Those sorts of programs don't always work, but much of the time they do. We've seen them work quite successfully with other critically endangered species. Also, for that case, as I recall, there were conditions attached to the approval of that project that required the preservation of habitat for that critically endangered species, again, to give it the best chance of not just surviving but growing and recovering. Of course, there were a whole range of other conditions attached to that project which were all designed to reduce the impacts on that and other threatened species. The point is that, in my view, based on good scientific evidence, it can be possible—not always, but it can be possible—to offset the significant impacts on a critically endangered species.

I think that addresses your first question. The second question regarded net gain. Can you just remind me exactly what the question was?