To explain my amendments to these bills, the bills comprising the first overhaul to our nature laws in a quarter of a century, it's useful to go back to first principles. Why do we have nature laws? What's the purpose of them? I think, if you ask the average person on the street those questions, they would answer, 'Surely, the primary purpose of nature protection laws is to protect nature.' That's a proposition that's really hard to argue with. The next question is: if the purpose of nature laws is to protect nature, what does nature need protecting from? There are many threats to nature, but the key ones that have fuelled the species extinction crisis of the past 25 years are habitat destruction, invasive species and climate change. In their current form, the government's EPBC reforms do very little, if anything, to address these things.

In relation to habitat destruction, the current law and the so-called reform bills contain exemptions for land clearing and for logging of native forests. This is just nonsensical, as is the fact that this bill also does very little, if anything, to address climate change impacts. Climate change is among the greatest threats to biodiversity now, with compounding impacts predicted for the future. The federal environment minister is currently not legally bound to consider or authorise to refuse project proposals based on their alignment with Australia's nationally determined contributions made under international treaties, such as the Paris Agreement. This is administratively nonsensical, commercially nonsensical and, frankly, environmentally nonsensical. How is it possible that in 2025 stronger nature laws are drafted without any consideration for two of the most significant threats to nature this decade and for future decades? That's why my amendments are being tabled. This is where they come in.

My first amendment takes us back to first principles, which is where we started. It amends the objects of the act, which broadly set out the purpose of the act. The amendment inserts a set of climate principles to be taken into account when decisions are made under the act. They include protecting the environment from climate change, the impact of greenhouse gas emissions and the need to reduce emissions, and Australia's international climate change obligations. To repeat, this is because climate change is one of the greatest threats to nature. We need to consider all laws that can mitigate the climate crisis, and we are committed to an international rules based order. That's why I think nature laws should seek to protect nature from climate change and recognise the contribution of a healthy environment towards mitigating against the physical impacts of a changing climate on all Australian communities. My second amendment deals with the same issue in the substance of the bill. It adds climate change matters to the list of issues that must be taken into account when decisions are made to approve projects.

These amendments are the absolute bare minimum that this bill should do to address the consequential impacts of climate change on nature. The approach I've taken with my amendments differs from the concept of a climate trigger, which has been so widely discussed in connection with this reform. That's because the government has been very clear, despite how beneficial it would be for nature, that it has no appetite for the introduction of a climate trigger, asserting that greenhouse gas emissions from industrial facilities are adequately addressed under the safeguard mechanism. Just for the Hansard, let it be known the member for Bradfield is currently raising one eyebrow. Instead, my proposal adopts a mainstreaming approach to making the current act responsive to climate change, setting out generally applicable principles which apply across all provisions. The broad application of my amendments will ensure that climate change is considered in all relevant decisions under the act—for example, in deciding whether a threatened species should have a recovery plan or in developing a regional plan.

I do not expect the government will support my amendments, but I could not in good conscience be involved in this debate in this place about nature and not raise climate change as something from which nature needs protecting. This is the reason that I commend these amendments to the House.