Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Biodiversity Offsets Scheme) Bill 2024 – Second Reading Debate

Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie): I contribute to debate on the Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Biodiversity Offsets Scheme) Bill 2024. It has long been my view that the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme is broken and that is now a view shared by many of us here, but perhaps for different reasons. Earlier I was speaking to Emily Dyball about my recollections as mayor of the City of Lake Macquarie during that period when some of the changes came in, with biobanking in particular. A complex matter we dealt with were major developments. To me, biobanking seemed to be costly and complicated. The intention might have been clear, but it was very hard to explain how that intention could be delivered. I have always believed that it was like a shell game, and the loser was always the environment. That needs to change. I am not saying that this bill will be the ultimate conclusion to the problems. We will need to continue to learn and adapt.

The scheme has been examined by the New South Wales Audit Office, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART], and the Legislative Council's Portfolio Committee No. 7 - Planning and Environment. At each turn it was found to be fundamentally flawed. It is failing to deliver no net loss of biodiversity from development and biodiversity in New South Wales is fast declining. I therefore speak very strongly in support of the bill. I commend the Government on introducing this long-overdue reform and congratulate the Minister and her team on their efforts. Today's bill makes changes which would make the offsets scheme better. In particular, it requires the scheme to deliver net positive biodiversity outcomes—that is, the scheme as a whole must transition from one which requires, but is failing to deliver, no net loss to a scheme which delivers net gains overall.

I also voice support for changes which would decrease the flexibility of the scheme and, in turn, increase its integrity and efficacy. For example, the bill allows regulations to be set which make it harder for developers to pay into the Biodiversity Conservation Fund. In 2023 IPART found that developers were paying into the Biodiversity Conservation Fund five times faster than the trust could find the required credits. It has historically been easier for developers to pay into the fund than to find like-for-like credits on the market. Making it harder for developers to shift their offset obligations to the fund as well as requiring the fund to retire credits within three years, or otherwise enter into an agreement with the Minister, will help limit biodiversity loss.

To that end, it is vital that the regulations restrict developers' use of the fund so as to not distort the intended outcomes of the scheme, and we must not be shy of further reform to the scheme. Like many others, I would like to see the scheme apply to part 5 projects and see more changes to ensure that offsets are genuinely like for like. I would also welcome the introduction of no-go zones, being areas of high-biodiversity value, which should not be developed or cleared. I encourage the Government to work with both a broad range of stakeholders, including environmental experts and industry, to develop regulations and its net positive transition strategy. That is necessary for the scheme to actually deliver on its aim of net positive biodiversity outcomes.

There needs to be a balance between essential development, including housing and energy infrastructure, and thriving biodiversity and habitats. Achieving that balance is obviously difficult; maybe it is impossible. But it does not mean that we can ignore the task or simply accept that the loss of our natural environment and species is inevitable. We should instead strive to ensure that we leave nature better off than we found it. I thank Minister Sharpe and her staff for taking on the issue. I commend the bill to the House.