UN World Environment Day

Mrs PEARCE (King) (16:35): By leave, I move my motion in an amended form:

That this house—

(a) acknowledges that 5 June 2022 was UN World Environment Day;

(b) acknowledges that the focus for 2023 was solutions to plastic pollution under the campaign #BeatPlasticPollution; and

(c) notes the work of the Malinauskas Labor government to support sustainable solutions to the climate crisis and reduce plastic pollution.

The day 5 June shone a light on the state of our environment and what we can actively do to make improvements in this space. It was, of course, United Nations World Environment Day—its 50^th year in fact since its inception on 5 June 1973. Since its inception, it has been used as a platform to raise awareness and promote action to protect and preserve our precious environment. It is very much an opportunity for everyone, whether they be individuals, community organisations or governments, to come together and collaborate within their respective capacities to ultimately help protect the environment whilst also working together to address the many challenges that our environment currently faces.

In line with this year's UN World Environment Day theme, we were asked to beat plastic pollution by making choices that in turn will help make a big difference. By ensuring that we are making a choice not to use single-use plastics, we are helping to not add to the massive plastic problem we currently face in this space. Every year, 21 million shipping containers' worth of single-use plastic is created and, if we do not make the small changes to the way we interact with plastic, this is only going to increase.

It is chilling to think that half of all plastic produced is used only once and then thrown away. Even more chilling is that worldwide, out of all the plastic that is produced, only a fraction of the plastic is recycled. This waste ultimately finds its way into our landfills or, even worse, out into our highly valued natural areas and oceans. This problem, which is only going to get worse if we do not change our relationship with plastic, is what has caused the United Nations to declare that the plastic pollution of our oceans is a planetary crisis.

We may use these plastic products only once, but they live on much longer than that. They simply do not break down, only ever becoming even smaller bits of plastic, which we all know as microplastics. The plastic problem has become so enormous that we have found microplastics in deep oceans, in Antarctic ice and even in our own food supply, ultimately ending up in humans. By adopting more sustainable practices and reducing or even eliminating our use of single-use plastics, we will play an instrumental role in combating the environmental, health and increasing economic impacts that plastic waste is causing.

It is imperative that we act and that we think about the ways we can pull back on consumption and learn to live within the capacity of our natural world. To do this in the face of the risks posed by climate change, while also doing all we can to protect our biodiversity, is one of the greatest challenges we will face in human history. We must learn to embrace other ways, such as the circular economy, re-using rather than exhausting our finite resources.

South Australia has often been at the forefront of initiatives to keep rubbish out of landfill, and recycle it. As far back as 1977, we introduced the container deposit scheme, which also had the benefit of keeping this rubbish out of our streets, our local waterways and our pristine beaches. By incentivising people to return their containers, we have managed to lead the nation with an impressive return rate. Beverage containers, even more impressively, contribute to only 2.8 per cent of the litter on our streets and in our precious ecosystems.

We have also seen that around the country other states are finally following suit and implementing their own container deposit schemes, something we have proven works over these past 46 years. Keeping this sort of waste out of our ecosystems keeps waste from polluting our precious waterways, keeps litter away from our native wildlife and ensures it does not wash out into our amazing beaches. It is about preserving our ecosystems and ensuring that they have what it takes to thrive.

In recent years, we have found ourselves again on the front foot, having banned the use of single-use plastics, including straws, cutlery and polystyrene cups, and in 2009 we were the first state to implement a ban on lightweight, check-out-style plastic bags. Last year, we went further to allow people to bring their own containers to cafes, restaurants and supermarkets for takeaway food items. Businesses still have a right to choose whether they will or will not allow customers to use their own containers, but in South Australia businesses know of the need to reduce waste and want to be an active part of that change, helping to contribute to the climate change response.

Small businesses are especially keen to act on climate change and reduce their use of plastic. In fact, there were 900 attendees at South Australia's inaugural Industry Climate Change Conference, which was held on Thursday 20 and Friday 21 April 2023 at the Adelaide Convention Centre. The need for business and governments to work together and for collaboration between all businesses, big and small, was a key theme across the two days. The desire and opportunity for knowledge sharing were highlighted, including an SA-specific community of practice for carbon accounting and decarbonisation.

We have asked a lot of our planet, but we are quickly approaching a threshold where our demands of the planet for unlimited resources can no longer be met and we will have to be responsible for ourselves, our wildlife and our waterways. We will have to make better environmentally conscious choices, and as a government we are set on enabling businesses and consumers to be able to make these choices. One way we are doing this is by supporting the development of the circular economy to transition away from a throwaway economy to one where resources are recycled and re-used.

Shortly after coming to government, we also declared a climate emergency in May 2022. This signalled our clear intent to act and reaffirmed our state's commitment to building science-based policies to prepare South Australia for the realities of an increase in extreme weather, climate shifts and increases in global warming. In the Malinauskas Labor government's first state budget last year, we committed to action on climate change. That commitment included:

$3 million for Friends of Parks groups for nature restoration activities;

$6 million for private landholders to preserve existing natural environments, which are often found on private land and can form part of wildlife corridors;

15 new Aboriginal rangers to give Aboriginal people greater say over our natural environment;

the creation of a biodiversity coordination unit in the Department for Environment and Water to work with university researchers; and

$2 million for the Citizen Science Fund to involve the public in collaboration with scientific research to increase scientific knowledge.

Governments certainly have a role to play in addressing climate change, but it is not a job for government alone. We all have a role to play in this collective effort, with everyone from individuals and small businesses all the way to the top able to make a difference and play their part and act on climate change. Together, we can act and ensure a sustainable future for our planet, which for so long has given us everything we could have asked for, and we need to give back. I know for sure I will continue to play my part.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Leader of the Opposition) (16:44): It gives me great pleasure to be able to make a contribution on this motion, which seeks to acknowledge World Environment Day and particularly focus in on the theme of World Environment Day 2023, which is to beat plastic pollution. We have some amendments to follow, but I will not move them; I will leave that for a colleague. However, I would like to spend just a moment reflecting on South Australia's heritage as a really significant leader in relation to sustainability, particularly when it comes to reducing the impact of pollution and litter and, particularly in more recent times, reducing the impact of plastic pollution on the natural environment.

It gave me a great deal of satisfaction, as environment minister, to be able to continue our bipartisan heritage in South Australia around litter reduction and plastic reduction, in particular, when we saw passed the single-use plastic ban legislation—the first state in the nation to ban a whole range of single-use plastics. We set up the legislation in such a way that items could continually be added to it as the market provided solutions or as the community demanded or, perhaps even better, a blend of both.

We went with the ban, seeing straws, cutlery and drink stirrers banned in the first tranche and then, moving through that tranche, polystyrene cups, expandable polystyrene bowls and a whole range of other items booked into the legislation into the future. It has been pleasing to see the new government take advantage of that legislation and continue with it, albeit at a slightly slower pace and perhaps with unnecessary delay in some of the bans.

However, we are at least continuing to move forward on that trajectory, which has seen South Australia establish itself with a national, if not international, legacy when it comes to dealing with the scourge of plastic pollution in our outdoor spaces, in our creeks and, of course, in one of the areas that particularly comes to mind when dealing with plastic pollution—that is, our seas and oceans. We know the impact of that is so significant on our wildlife, which consume these items and suffer as a consequence.

South Australia's heritage in this area can be traced back to the late 1970s, when we brought in our container deposit legislation. In fact, Victoria is only now catching up, some 46 or 47 years later, with legislation to bring in a container deposit system in that state. It is nice to be ahead of the Victorians, but perhaps this is one area where we wish we were not that far ahead because, with Victoria being such a laggard in this space, it has meant significant plastic pollution entering the natural environment via Victoria and probably, from time to time, ending up in South Australia through our rivers and shared coastline. That is disappointing, but at least they have been able to get their act together and catch up after almost half a century.

Our heritage in this area can also be pointed to in 2008-09, when single-use plastic bags at point of sale were outlawed, resulting in the customer having to bring their own bags along with them to supermarkets. At first, there was a bit of an outcry, but South Australians quickly adapted and realised that this was the right thing to do.

The single-use plastic ban came in 2021 and then, as the member for King pointed out, the Greens, the Labor government and the Liberal opposition worked together on a small piece of legislation last year that has the potential to make a big difference: to remove liability from the point of sale, the vendor, when someone takes their own re-usable container—whether that is Tupperware or some other plastic item—down to the supermarket or the deli to get filled up. It was really important to undertake the small piece of legislative change removing that liability so that there were no barriers in the way of people or vendors trying to do the right thing.

Our heritage in this space is substantial and it is something that we should be really proud of. I reflect on our four years in government and what we were able to achieve not just along the lines of the single-use plastic ban but also in getting a huge amount of practical action in the environment, such as trees in the ground through the Greener Neighbourhoods program and working with local councils to get our urban areas climate ready. We know that more trees, more shrubs and more greenery in our urban areas reduce the urban heat island effect and more canopy cover cools our streets, increases amenity and, of course, creates habitat for native wildlife.

We were really disappointed when the current minister chose to discontinue that program—an active disincentive towards people and particularly councils greening our parks and greening our streets. In fact, in the last budget—and I really hope it is not repeated in tomorrow's budget—the Malinauskas Labor government instituted cuts of $70 million across practical environmental programs.

There were cuts to the Home Battery Scheme, cuts to opportunities to see electric vehicle charging infrastructure put in place, cuts to the Greener Neighbourhoods program, cuts to a program that would have restored the River Torrens in the heart of the CBD and cuts to a program that would have seen a turbocharging of the Greener Neighbourhoods program in Adelaide's central business district.

So, while we had the focus on the suburbs, that was cut. There was additional funding under our government to green our CBD to create green walls, green roofs and cool corridors through the city, but it was all cut under this government as part of a $70 million onslaught against a practical environmental program.

It always bemused me—and it was the greatest example of virtue signalling and gesture politics—that on a Tuesday we declared a climate emergency in South Australia and on a Thursday, two days later, the budget ripped $70 million of practical environmental initiatives out of the environment portfolio and the energy portfolio where there was some crossover.

None of the pre-budget announcements have involved extra assistance for our natural world in South Australia. Anything that has been announced in the lead-up to tomorrow's budget has been an environment-free zone. I really hope that tomorrow's budget does not continue Labor's legacy of cuts in the environment department, which are catastrophic and do not go back one year; they go back 20 years.

We had the most significant cuts instituted by the environment department handed down by Minister Ian Hunter between 2014 and 2018. It left that department a withered husk of its former self and unable to fulfill its basic legislative requirements, in my view, around areas like compliance, native vegetation clearing and elements of the Landscape Act. I see that legacy continuing. I see where they left off with the cuts in 2018 continuing again under the current minister. We really hope that is not the case tomorrow, but we will be watching very closely.

When it comes to biodiversity protection and biodiversity conservation in this state, an act will not cut it by itself. I support the government's endeavour to create a biodiversity act, but not if it is duplicated legislation and not if it is more compliance for the sake of compliance. I want it backed up with practical action and financial incentives for councils, landscape boards, private landowners, individuals and NGOs across this state to be able to get active in the space of conservation and biodiversity enhancement in this state.

There are plenty of great things about this state's natural environment, such as about 5,000 kilometres of coastline and 21 per cent of our state as national parks. We have a great legacy on this front, but let's not squander it by putting gesture above practical action.

Mr BATTY (Bragg) (16:54): I move to amend the motion as follows:

Delete all words in (c) and replace with the words:

(c) condemns the lack of action by the Malinauskas Labor government to implement initiatives which support ecosystem restoration or address plastic pollution in South Australia; and

Add a new paragraph (d):

(d) congratulates the previous Liberal government for their practical initiatives to invest in restoration and preservation of ecosystems, and to maintain South Australia's reputation as a world-leading jurisdiction on waste management initiatives, including reducing plastic pollution.

I have spoken in this house before about the approach of those opposite when it comes to protecting South Australia's environment. I have said it is all virtue signalling, it is all gestures and it is all words. Well, today they could not even get the words right. This motion before the house I think still has a typo in paragraph (a) referring to 2022 World Environment Day, but the original motion as it stood was very curious indeed, referring to the theme of 2023 World Environment Day as being ecosystem restoration, which is a very fine theme indeed except it was the theme two years ago, not this year.

It is little wonder that those opposite want to talk about the environment in South Australia two years ago because it has been at least a year of Malinauskas Labor government in which we have seen nearly no action when it comes to protecting our environment. Perhaps the even more curious thing about the motion as it originally stood is that presumably it was meant to be an opportunity for those opposite to talk about the Malinauskas Labor government's great efforts in ecosystem restoration in South Australia.

What was the one big highlight that those opposite wanted to talk about in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem restoration? It was in the former paragraph (c), which congratulated the Labor government on prioritising biodiversity protection through the introduction of a biodiversity act. Again, I checked the Notice Paper. There is no biodiversity act on the Notice Paper. The one great achievement from one year of Malinauskas Labor government is a piece of legislation that has not even been introduced into this house. It is all virtue signalling, it is all gesture, it is all words and today they could not even get the words right.

If we were going to talk about ecosystem restoration, we would not be talking on this side of the house about a bill that has not yet even been introduced. Instead, we have been talking about practical policies that help to restore ecosystems in South Australia. We might have spoken about our record investment in national parks by the former Liberal government, underpinned by record investment and record expansion.

We have seen the creation of Glenthorne National Park. We have seen the creation of the largest national park in the country. We have seen a number of parks across the state be upgraded in their level of protection, including Cleland National Park in my own electorate. It was a pleasure to be out on a very wet day last Friday planting trees with the Friends of Cleland National Park.

Speaking of Friends of Parks, if we were talking about practical action that you could take to restore ecosystems, we might have spoken about the previous government's boosting of Friends of Parks funding to $750,000 per annum. We might have spoken about our increase of park rangers, a 45 per cent increase in park rangers. Right across our ecosystems, in our parks but also our coastlines, we have seen investments by the former Liberal government. Investments were made in shellfish reefs as well as seagrass restoration, and indeed in our suburbs as well.

We saw last year the Malinauskas Labor government cruelly cutting programs like the Greener Neighbourhoods program, which would have seen up to 10,000 trees and shrubs planted in streets across metropolitan Adelaide and across our suburbs. We have seen the Greening Adelaide's Heart program slashed, which would have seen a range of initiatives for a greener, cooler, wilder CBD and really important projects for our River Torrens as well.

On this side of the house, when it comes to ecosystem restoration, what we want to talk about is this big list of practical projects I have just spent five minutes outlining. What those opposite want to talk about is a piece of legislation that does not exist, a bill that does not even exist. That is some record for one year of the Malinauskas Labor government when it comes to taking practical action to protect our environment. But, of course, we are not meant to be talking about any of this today. We are not meant to be talking about any of this at all because the theme for this year's UN World Environment Day is beating plastic pollution.

That is a very apt theme indeed for us here in South Australia because thankfully, now the motion has been amended, it is an excellent opportunity to talk about South Australia's world-leading efforts when it comes to tackling plastics pollution—whether it be our incredible work as far back as 1977 in introducing a container deposit scheme, a groundbreaking and hugely successful scheme; whether it be work in 2009, when South Australia became the first state in the entire country to ban single-use lightweight plastic bags; or whether it be more recent work by the former Liberal government, spearheaded by the now Leader of the Opposition, in banning a whole range of single-use plastic items, whether it be plastic straws or cutlery and then, a little bit later, cups and bowls and plates.

Again, whether it is ecosystems two years ago or whether it is plastics today, we see one side of the house focused on real, practical action. The work the previous Liberal government did in banning single-use plastics was nation leading; in many respects, it was world leading. Importantly, the legislation we introduced was drafted in such a way that allowed the phased rollout of more single-use plastics over time. Pleasingly, we are going to see that happen over the coming months and years here in South Australia—real practical action on the ground.

One of the biggest challenges we are facing at the moment in South Australia, and indeed around the country and the world, is soft plastics; particularly, we have noticed that here in Australia and South Australia in the wake of the collapse of REDcycle. I do again note that it was the work of this side of politics that was interested in helping to solve this problem going forward, and I commend the work of the Hon. Heidi Girolamo in the other place for setting up an inquiry to look into just that and to look into the opportunities for South Australia to recycle soft plastics right here in the wake of REDcycle.

Whether it is plastics or whether it is ecosystems, on this side of the house it is real, practical action. On the other side of the house, it is virtue signalling, it is gesture, it is words but, perhaps most extraordinary of all today, it is words that they cannot even get right.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (17:02): I, too, rise to make a contribution to the amended motion, and I think it is important that we do have that contribution to put government priorities into perspective. For a long time, I have been a very strong advocate for reducing the use of single-use plastics in particular. South Australia has a long history of reform in single-use plastic, and I think it all started way back with the container deposit, which really set a platform for South Australia to be the leaders nationally in reform.

We have seen the banning of single-use plastic bags or the shopping bags they once were; sadly, we still see some of them, but they are part of the retail sector. It is about how we address the ever-emergence of those single-use plastics essentially into our waterways and onto our roadways, and eventually a lot of it goes into our landfill.

For a very long time now we have seen the benefits of what the container deposit scheme has meant here in South Australia. I travel the highways extensively and have done for the majority of my life. What I have seen and continue to see, once you go across the borders into other states, is a significant change in the landscape. If the sun is in the right spot at a certain time of the morning or the afternoon, there is a glistening of plastic containers and plastic bottles. We see all sorts of glass on the roadsides as well, and that is a real indicator of what we as South Australians now take for granted. Most of us collect them, store them and return them for the deposit. In some instances, it is quite a valuable asset to people who are professional can and bottle collectors and that is their income. I think that has been a highlight in South Australia leading the way.

In my travels, whether it is here in South Australia or whether it is nationally, or even if I look at some of the international waterways, I am absolutely horrified by what I see, that is, the legacy of some countries. For example, if you go to some of the South-East Asian countries and you go to their oceans and their marine sanctuaries, you see large cohorts of plastic floating in the ocean, in the surf, in some of those bays and coves.

One of the experiences I have had has been a trip to Bali where, as far as I can see, there are more single thongs floating in the ocean than are manufactured. An absolute horror and a vivid picture in my mind is going out on a fishing boat for a day's fishing and having to push your way through myriad plastic and rubber products. We should hold our heads high that here in South Australia we are pioneers in being strong advocates for removing single-use plastics and single-use products out of our waterways, our roadways and our landfill.

Obviously, this year's theme is focused on beating plastic pollution, and it has had an impressive history. I have already covered some of it, as well as now being able to reflect on the former Liberal government's mantra. The now Leader of the Opposition is a very strong advocate and, proudly for him, it was one of the legacies he left as a minister—I think proudly, because he made a difference.

As his contribution has already stated, we did see a little bit of pushback, but we saw the benefits of that, whether it be the single-use products in the first tranche of non-use or then the polystyrene cups and food containers. They are the scourge of visual pollution and what it means for the roadsides and the waterways. Not always are people prepared to go into those environments and remove it, but we do see great action by some of the volunteer environmental groups.

However, I look for improvement opportunities here in South Australia. We have the River Torrens that runs through this beautiful city. It comes out of the foothills and runs through the city and down to the ocean. For far too long, my memory has been scarred by the amount of rubbish and pollution that the River Torrens carries through the course of its journey out to sea. Maybe, as a government or with an opposition's bipartisan lead, we need to look at ways that we can put more structures into our waterways to capture that pollution and build on the great work we have already done. I think that is a legacy I would very much like to see.

I recently attended Hort Innovation, which was a great expo, an AUSVEG initiative here at the Convention Centre, where I ran into a South Australian manufacturing business that are the only business manufacturing BioBags. Those BioBags are 100 per cent compostable and used for food containment. We are now seeing them in a lot of our supermarkets, particularly the independents, and we are actually seeing them in Woolworths. They are the BioBags in the fresh food section that we now see taking over from what was traditionally a single-use plastic bag.

I urge the other major retailer—I think it comes by the name of Coles—to hurry up and get with the program. They need to get the BioBags into their supermarkets so that they, too, can play their part in reducing the number of plastic bags that eventually can hit our waterways. They threaten native species. They are a scourge on the biodiversity of our waterways. Eventually, it all ends up in landfill one way or another, and I think it is important that we continue to bang the drum and be proud.

Sadly, we are seeing this motion that has been put before us today. I am quite alarmed at the lack of government contribution to this motion. I notice that we have seen three on this side, with maybe another one to come. We have seen one on the government side. I would like to see more of you make a contribution. I think it is only fair. I am not being critical, but I would just like everyone to step it up. If I was going to be critical, the next two minutes might be it, because I am going to touch on the River Murray and environmental water.

The South Australian Labor government have been very vocal on their ethos with saving the River Murray and making sure that we have the right amount of environmental water back into the river to sustain a healthy working river and to sustain a healthy environment, yet, blow me over, last sitting week that I was here I heard that the Minister for Climate, Environment and Water is now going to take water out of the River Murray for hydrogen. They cannot even meet their targets when it comes to meeting the basin plan.

I have heard the Minister for Energy and Mining talk about 200 megalitres. If my calculations are correct, between eight and 10 litres per kilogram of hydrogen is the water usage, deionised water. I think if we do our sums, the target for this $590 million plant will be somewhere in the vicinity of 36,000 kilograms of hydrogen. I do stand to be corrected, but that is a lot of water. That will take somewhere in the vicinity of six to 10 gigalitres of water. I am hoping that that minister will come up and make a contribution. He might even be able to correct my figures, but I fear that they are somewhere around the mark.

This government must uphold the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It must continue to look at all ways of contributing to the environment, making sure that we have sufficient water. Whether it is through buybacks, whether it is through infrastructure programs or whether it is through efficiency programs, we have to put all the cards on the table so that here in South Australia we are playing our role in having a healthy working river and a healthy environment. It is critical that the government of the day does everything in its power to achieve that.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (17:12): I rise in what looks like being somewhat constrained circumstances to make a contribution in support of the motion as amended by the member for Bragg just now. As I do, I take the opportunity to reflect on the motion as it stands on the Notice Paper, as I understand it is proposed to be amended and corrected thereby by the member for King and in its form as proposed to be amended by the member for Bragg, which really does the motion a great deal of favour because, as has been traversed, clearly, whatever has occurred, the original presentation of the motion has gone off on some completely different tangent to that which was intended. Can I start by saying that we certainly embrace the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration and that is important. Some years ago, I understand there was a UN World Environment Day that was dedicated to ecosystem restoration, and I think we would do well to maintain a focus on that throughout.

I am conscious at all times when it comes to the environment that I represent an area that constitutes one of Australia's recognised biodiversity hotspots in the Mount Lofty Ranges. We know that that recognises both its diversity and its vulnerability, something that Professor Chris Daniels remains a keen advocate for with the range of different contributions that he has made to the environment including, very particularly, in those areas of the Adelaide Hills that I represent.

We had the occasion, just some short while ago, to recognise the important work of Professor Chris Daniels, including presently, importantly, as the chair of Green Adelaide. It is important when we talk about ecosystem restoration that, yes, it is good to focus on a global initiative, the sort of things that the UN can bring, but we would do well here in the state parliament to look also very close to home, indeed to the square mile that surrounds this parliament, because it is recognised worldwide for its uniqueness, for the contribution it brings to wellbeing in the City of Adelaide, and it is part of what makes Adelaide and South Australia so special and unique.

So it is in those circumstances that was it not just truly fabulous news to see the results of the campaign that has been sustained by members of the community and Friends of the Parklands—led, I am very proud to say, by the Leader of the Opposition, and my friend and colleague the member for Bragg—calling in a dedicated way for the Malinauskas government to reverse the ill-fated course that would have been a terrible outcome for those beautiful Parklands at Park 21, that would have built structures on those precious Parklands, and recognise the 8 June decision of Labor finally to heed those calls, to cave to public pressure, and to scrap the proposal to build those barracks on the Parklands.

It is a result, as I have said, of months of the opposition standing shoulder to shoulder with the community at rallies and events focused on that single objective. I can tell the house that that decision, that change of course, has been noted not only here in South Australia but among those who follow things like UN initiatives within the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, and I know that it will stand Adelaide and South Australia in good stead for the long term.

The amended words focus on the challenge that is plastic pollution, and beating plastic pollution is what the member for King would amend the motion to focus on. There are all sorts of ways of bringing attention to this global problem. I notice 4Ocean bracelets are out there now that people can acquire, that constitute a reduction of plastic in the Pacific Ocean, an important way to address something that is known globally, but again, close to home.

It is an occasion to congratulate the work of the then Minister for Environment and Water, now Leader of the Opposition, for his tremendous leadership in this state, and it ought to be celebrated, in bringing to the parliament and passing legislation to ban single-use plastics. It continues a strong legacy that we enjoy in South Australia, but it takes practical action. It takes more than just making signals about what we all feel is good to do in the environment. You have to do practical things, take practical steps and, when you talk about legislation, not come along and talk about how you might aspire to introduce this or that, and then not find it on the Notice Paper more than a year in.

You need to see it introduced, passed by the parliament and then implemented in practice, and that is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition managed to do in his time as Minister for Environment. I commend to the house the motion as amended by the member for Bragg, and I look forward, through the twists and turns of amendment that the motion has been assisted by in the course of this debate, to its finally being adopted in that improved form.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Stinson): Do you seek leave to continue your remarks?

Mr TEAGUE: I do note the time. I had rather anticipated the ringing of the bell. If it assists the Acting Speaker, I will seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.