Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator David Pocock, which has been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red.

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for investment in nature conservation to protect and manage our incredible landscapes and species, given at least half of Australia's GDP is moderately or highly dependent on nature and only 0.1% of the federal Budget is spent on its protection.

Is the consideration of the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with informal arrangements made by the whips.

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

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for investment in nature conservation to protect and manage our incredible landscapes and species, given at least half of Australia's GDP is moderately or highly dependent on nature and only 0.1% of the federal Budget is spent on its protection.

Last week was Sir David Attenborough's 100th birthday—a remarkable man, someone who has seen more of the natural world than almost anyone alive. He told us that to restore stability to our planet we must restore its biodiversity, the very thing we have removed. It is the only way out of this crisis we have created. Reflecting on the budget last night, there were undoubtedly good things and some tough decisions made, and I applaud the government for doing that.

But, yet again, nature has missed out. If we look at this through the view of the importance we attach to managing and protecting the natural world, our priority is not there. That is not a priority in this budget. We know that we are in a biodiversity crisis. More than 2,000 species and ecological communities are threatened. Nineteen ecosystems are showing signs of collapse on this megadiverse continent that we call home. Growing up, I used to hear stories from my father and grandfather about what the area we farmed in was like when they were growing up. It sounded like a much richer place—more wildlife, more adventure. I remember feeling a sense of loss and a bit of anger even as a kid—'Why didn't I get to experience that?'

Then you look at the statistics. This is actually what's happening. That was in Zimbabwe. Here in Australia, we've seen a 75 per cent decline in threatened and near threatened species since 1985. That is a disastrous drop. We have an impoverished environment. Growing up, I had no idea that that was what we now call shifting baseline syndrome, where we go into what are still incredibly beautiful landscapes in this country and we enjoy them. The Murrumbidgee River Corridor is a place that I have just fallen in love with since moving to the ACT, but it is but a fraction of what it used to be. There's less birdsong. There are almost no small mammals left along that corridor. Cats and foxes reign supreme. The river is being starved of water. It's in a perpetual man-made drought.

We have a choice as a country. If you just want to look at the economics, there's a strong argument: $893 billion of GDP, nearly half of our economy, depends directly on nature and the services it provides. So, if you don't care about nature—still, if you care about the economy, you should care about investing in the environment. This shouldn't be a left versus right issue. I don't see what is more conservative than actually conserving the environment and protecting our natural heritage. Yes, we need money. We currently spend just 0.1 per cent of the federal budget, $474 million, on protecting it. I think this is both an economic failure and a moral failure.

The Biodiversity Council says that we need to lift that to at least one per cent. If we just took a third of the destructive subsidies in this country, that would solve it—that would be one per cent. This is doable for us as a country. The money is there. This is about priorities. A relatively small investment would be a down payment on our future, both the future of the places and species we love and ultimately our future as a species because our survival is inextricably tied to the environment that we have evolved out of and we rely on.

The ask is for an increase—an investment of one per cent of the budget—and there's a lot at stake. As EO Wilson reminded us:

The one process now going on that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us.

Yes, we need money, but clearly we need a change in attitude. We've got to stop viewing land as something that we just own and can demand a return from and view it more as something that we actually belong to and is there not just for us but for everything else that we share it with and for future generations.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the opportunity to put on record our disappointment about the budget's commitment to biodiversity and its failure to protect the environment. We think they could have done better.

There is a particular emphasis I want to make in this contribution around invasive species, which is a really big problem for our country. We have so many invasive species across our country destroying local flora and fauna and destroying habitat. I think of my own experience growing up in northern Victoria seeing the impact of the European carp and how the European carp would eat the small native fish and even some of the other introduced species which were not causing any great damage. I note your enjoyment of this contribution, Senator Ayres. It's a small example of a much bigger problem for our environment and our economy, particularly when you think about some of the bigger problems, like the fire ants in Queensland which offer a significant threat to human life as well as the ecosystem that we all rely upon. That's why the 2026 budget's failure to provide the right sort of funding in the invasive species space is particularly disappointing.

The government have rebranded the Saving Native Species fund as Protecting Australia's Native Species, but there appears to be a 27 per cent fall in funding, from $64 million to $46 million, and that then provides uncertainty around fire ant eradication, for example. That is, of course, a huge concern for people in Queensland. It also creates uncertainly for deer eradication in World Heritage zones, yellow crazy ant control and feral cat eradication on Kangaroo Island. These all need sustained focus. Minister Ayres, I'm enjoying your smirking there, but these are serious issues. The rabbits cost $197 million. Almost everyone who's got an interest here is saying that there's not enough certainty on the funding, and we want to see from this government a long-term commitment to the eradication of these invasive species. We also note that the national rabbit coordinator expires in late 2026. There's no replacement funding in sight there for the rabbits. The agriculture portfolio overall faces almost $200 million in cuts. These are serious issues for our future.

We note the budget removes a significant amount of funding, and it doesn't have the certainty that is needed to provide the eradication, which takes many years. It would be no surprise to you, Minister Ayres, on the point I made before, about European carp, that this is still a major issue in the waterways of the Murray-Darling and in other parts of Australia. These things take decades to get rid of. That's why putting it on an annualised basis, where governments look to nickel and dime these programs, creates great uncertainty for people who are worried about our environment. Farmers and the like all have genuine concerns about the funding profile here.

We want to see a stronger commitment, over the next year, from the government on these issues. We will of course be considering our own program on this in terms of a funding envelope and also a policy that is a serious policy that can be put against all these different invasive species. The government so far have had a terrible record here. We want them to do better, and we'll be encouraging them to do better.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Protecting Australia's environment is essential to our future. Our incredible landscapes and unique and magnificent ecosystems are vital to Australia. They're vital to life on this continent. Our environment is important to our economy. Our environment is loved and enjoyed by Australians around the country. I love and enjoy our environment. I cherish time spent in the wilderness. I, as Senator Pocock did, grew up watching David Attenborough. The videotape of The Trials of Life got a repeat run in the Ghosh-Nagarajan household. As an adult, I enjoy bushwalking in our magnificent national parks, swimming at our beaches and fishing in our rivers and oceans.

But I don't agree with the approach set out in this motion. The protection and conservation and management of Australia's environment is not just about cherrypicking a proportion of GDP as a spending amount and then using it as a method of criticism. It's a number selected artificially to create an impression because it's small. But the reality is that this government's environmental agenda has been large. I think it has been the biggest environmental agenda a government has had in this country in terms of its substance, not only in terms of addressing climate change but in terms of those vital reforms we made last year to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. So, while I understand and agree with many of the things Senator Pocock said today, I think the logic of the motion is flawed and I think its purpose is misguided.

But—but—I do just want to take a moment to address my colleague Senator Bragg's comments about the environment. Senator Bragg is a very serious policy person, but he made a number of statements that did not gel with his party's attitude to the most significant piece of environmental reform in this country in a generation last year. He made a number of comments that didn't gel with Senator Henderson's comments on the earlier motion, about wanting to defund the Environmental Protection Agency and not establish or give proper funding to Environment Information Australia. It is well and good to mention yellow crazy ants in some abstract way, but, when you want to address the problems of the environment, you have to do it holistically. You have to do it through a framework that's going to work. Last year, when we were debating and passing these reforms, senator after senator from the coalition stood up and decried them. Now, when Senator Bragg comes in—and, again, I have a lot of respect for Senator Bragg—and suggests they are serious about environmental protection and rattles off some invasive species names and then walks back out, it's a little hard to take seriously.

The Albanese government does, however, take a substantive and broad approach to environmental protection. The government has increased funding for the environment over the next four years in relation to our Saving Native Species program, a highly successful program which ensures that many of our unique plants and animals get a better chance than they had before. These are the same animals that are unique to this country and well known around the world—our koalas and our bilbies. I was heartened to hear Senator Pocock talk about biodiversity and the importance of genetic variance in our environment, because that is something that will ensure that our environment can survive the many challenges that come and are coming as a result of climate change.

The government has taken significant action to try and address the issue of climate change and reduce Australia's emissions, not only through a commitment to a net zero target but through a commitment to significant adaptation in the way we produce electricity in this country and, significantly, through trying to clean up the way we do industry in this country. The government has taken very significant action to protect the Great Barrier Reef, trying to invest to deal with that climate problem and climate adaptation, to improve water quality and to ensure fishing is sustainable around the country and invasive species are managed. Our aim is to conserve 30 per cent of Australia's land and 30 per cent of our marine areas by 2030. Our significant investment in this aim is something that will ensure that species can thrive, that species that are endangered do not go extinct and that species that would otherwise become endangered are safe.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the Maugean skate in Macquarie Harbour?

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, we are undertaking these measures. I appreciate you—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it's knocking on death's door.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

are very specifically interested in skate, but they are part of a holistic approach to environmental protection which, mercifully, your party supported last year. We are engaged in a process of trying to make Australia's biodiversity safe from the challenges that are coming down the pike. I don't think that one budget number as a proportion of GDP is an accurate reflection of what is an incredibly ambitious environmental agenda.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is disappointing that, despite all of the work that this chamber has done over the last 12 months in relation to laws to protect the environment, the government has failed to match the legislation with the investment in nature that is needed. It's disappointing because not only do we know that less than 0.1 per cent is being spent on nature from the overall budget but experts have told us over and over again that, if we want to halt extinction of our native species, if we want to halt and stop the destruction of biodiversity and the loss of biodiversity for good, we actually have to be spending much, much more.

In fact, we should be spending at least one per cent of the overall budget and GDP on nature. That's what we should be doing. That's what a number of the experts have told us. There were a number of budget submissions from organisations right across the country pleading with this government to spend what is needed on nature. One per cent of what is spent across the board on all these other things could have been spared for investing in our environment, saving our native species and protecting our biodiversity—but, of course, it was not. Over and over again, this government, just like previous governments, sees looking after the environment as some kind of luxury, when of course it's not; it's fundamental. It is fundamental to the health of our communities, to the health of our air, to the health of our soil, to the wellbeing of our communities and to the sustainability of jobs in this country.

Rather than invest with what is called for—one per cent of the budget—we saw significant cuts. This budget handed down last night had $4 billion in cuts to the climate transition. That is going to leave Australia's environment in a very, very perilous position. While they cut $4 billion from the climate transition, they forked out $46 billion in fossil fuel subsidies. There is $46 billion going to subsidise the polluters and wreckers of nature and nothing more for the environment itself. It's shortsighted, it's dumb politics and it won't save us from this environmental decline.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Protecting our natural environment—what does that mean? We hear about individual preferences from certain people—be it Senator Bragg and his rabbits, Senator Whish-Wilson and skate or various other groups—looking at one particular element without understanding how important it is to look at this holistically, to think very, very clearly about what the totality looks like. It's not just about that individual piece and individual program; it's the totality. It's reducing pollution, it's improving recycling, it's increasing renewable energy generation to help protect the planet, it's the development of biofuels—and so much more. This government has invested significantly and made a lot of inroads since 2022, when we were elected, and, if you cast your mind back to when we were in government the time before that, we did the same thing. Committing to looking at it holistically and improving the state of the environment is critical; it is really important.

The investments from this government have been in Indigenous rangers, the 30-30 target that Senator Ghosh was talking about previously, Indigenous protected areas, renewable energy, threatened species, protecting plants and animals, managing our feral animals and weeds, greater Barrier Reef investment, the new EPA and better environment protection. There's just so much that we have done and so much that we are still doing, and there are so many plans that we have articulated about that holistic approach.

It's easy for Senator Pocock as an objection politician to look very narrowly at and to think very narrowly about particular issues. I appreciate a lot of the work that you do and a lot of the stuff that you commit to in this chamber, absolutely. But what we have seen over many years—when we were in government last time and being in government this time—is things that genuinely are going to make a difference being slowed down, thwarted or blocked on the basis that perfection is the answer and good is not good enough. If there were no barriers, then protection would be lovely. If there were no hurdles to jump over, no objections from across the chamber, then, sure, let's all go and be perfect. But doing a good job, making progress, is where we're at. Making progress is what we focus on, and this budget is making progress.

Since 2022 we've delivered significant and targeted work to generate real momentum towards reducing and reversing environmental decline. We know that, on the curve over there, it's never good enough. We know that. From your perspective, it is never, ever good enough. But we are committed to protecting our environment now and into the future. And we have been so much more ambitious and so much more successful than our colleagues on the benches across the chamber. But, if we had more support from our objection politicians in the corner over there, then we might well make more progress.

I know that I've wittered on about this quite a lot, but climate change would have been a whole different ball game if people had made different decisions in 2013. We might have seen much less damage to the environment, had those things gone ahead. But that's not what we saw, and so we're always going to disagree on this. It is great to have people pushing the boundaries, pushing the edges—absolutely. That's what helps move things along. But the progress we have made has been significant. There is so much more to do, but we need to continue to make progress. I could cite a whole range of examples here of where I've seen that holistic approach, like protecting great swathes of land so that we can see regeneration. We can see our environment improving in areas where it has been catastrophically devastated. These are the kinds of progress points that we need to look at. These are the kinds of things that are going to make a difference.

As a last point, on Senator Bragg's commentary about the Murray-Darling, later this year and early next year we'll be really looking forward to his support when the issues around the Murray-Darling Basin, following the review, come into this chamber. We'll be very much looking forward to his support.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One Nation agrees with Senator Pocock that protection of the natural environment is a fundamental duty of any government. I do, though, disagree with Senator Pocock on the definition of environmental protection. ABARES executive director Dr Jared Greenville said last December that research indicates that projected land-based carbon sequestration goals for our net zero transition will require sequestration projects across 18 million hectares by 2050. While some of this land is co-used, agricultural land locked up for carbon credits is not environmental land. Inevitably it becomes a refuge for pests which infect local farms and devastate native fauna and flora. Carbon dioxide farming is the enemy of the natural environment and the enemy of food production.

Add to this total the 205,000 hectares of farmland and native forests which are being clear felled for the construction of wind turbines and access roads, plus the land for the 1.25 billion solar panels needed to reach net zero—that's billion with a 'b'. Then add the 20,000 kilometres of new transmission lines necessary to take power from where it is being generated to where it is needed. Each transition line runs through an easement, usually 75 metres wide, of clear felled land. In 2020 the AEMO cost estimate for most of the transmission line projects was $8.5 billion. Now the transmission line cost is estimated to be at least $120 billion and is more likely to blow out beyond $200 billion. Add another $160 billion for wind and solar generators and we have a $350 billion net zero cost being financed with high-cost loans, which in turn blows out the total 35-year outlay to above $1 trillion.

For environmentally destructive projects like Snowy 2 and for most of the wind projects in North Queensland, those transmission easements run through forests of national significance. I've been there, in the very forests this motion is calling to protect. They're the same projects in which so-called green environmentalists are installing wind turbines and blowing the tops off mountains to make space for the huge concrete bases of massive wind turbines.

Here's what I don't understand. Here's a sensible motion about the need to protect our beautiful environment, yet the motion ignores the massive environmental damage from net zero measures. How can anyone look at one of Australia's beautiful landscapes scarred with wind turbines, solar panels, access roads and transmission lines and think: no damage here; this is beautiful. No, it's not. It's vandalism. This is not just happening on land. Offshore wind turbines harm the environment. A new study in Science Advances shows that offshore wind turbines actually warm the sea surface. Turbines slow the wind. This weakens mixing, shuts down upwelling and in turn traps heat at the surface. This changes the microclimate for more than 10 kilometres behind and stirs up sediment which interferes with marine life, including whales. Add this to bird kills, underwater noise and microplastic shedding and the picture is clear: offshore wind isn't solving an environmental problem; it's creating one. This does not even take into account the environmental cost of manufacture, transport, insulation, maintenance, decommissioning, disposal and remediation of massive wind turbines.

One Nation will care for the natural environment. We will ensure that the land is in the hands of the best stewards: farmers. We will cancel the entire project and protect those beautiful landscapes from net zero vandalism, returning land, where possible, to its best use, be that farming or native forests. Unfortunately, we can't put the tops back on mountains. That damage is there for eternity—a testament to hubris and the tragedy of the paradox of virtue. It's the killing of the environment in the name of saving the environment. One Nation is now the party of the environment.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Luckily I don't think Australians are going to get their environmental and climate information or misinformation from an individual, a senator, who thinks the Bondi shootings were a false flag operation.

I just want to state that 0.1 per cent of this budget went into protecting the environment. The Australian Conservation Foundation reported this morning—simple back-of-the-envelope calculations, which all of us can do—that at least seven times more was spent in this budget on damaging climate and nature than on protecting it. I did my own calculations. I think you can total around $10 billion, if you're really generous, that might have gone towards climate and positive nature allocations. But then you look at: the $13.6 billion subsidising liquid fossil fuel use; 153 million fast-tracked approvals for new oil and gas projects; $2.2 billion cut from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water; $46.2 billion on fuel tax credits and rebates for fossil fuel companies; $1.9 billion for the Middle Arm fossil fuel development project; and so on.

The simple definition of sustainability that we teach schoolchildren is that we leave the joint in at least as good a condition as we found it, if not better. How can this not be borrowing from future generations? We know that we have no intention of ever repaying those borrowers if we do this year in, year out. I'm pleased that David Attenborough has been quoted by a number of speakers today. I remind the chamber that he said in his recent film Oceans:

After almost 100 years on the planet, I now understand the most important place on Earth is not on land, but at sea.

And 'If we save the oceans, we save ourselves.' While Senator Grogan talked about some money for the Great Barrier Reef, and I welcome money for the Great Barrier Reef—for the crown-of-thorns starfish project, for dealing with reef restoration projects—there was not a single cent for the Great Southern Reef in this budget, an arguably equally important ecosystem in this country. You weren't interested in the Senate inquiry into the longspined sea urchin—and I understand you have a real issue with the government doing something about that—but that is a good example of what the government could be funding that helps create an industry and solve an environmental problem.

I note also $28 million to facilitate native forest logging under the new environment laws—that is, $28 million to put swift parrots, one of the most critically endangered species in our country, at further risk, or Tasmanian devils. Then we have the Maugean skate where we funded the salmon industry to push species that to the brink of extinction. Come on, get serious. (Time expired)

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.