Hansard

Motions

State of the Environment Report

Motion

Hon Jess Beckerling (1:04 pm): I move:

That this house:

(1) notes that in its 2023 platform WA Labor stated that in government it will develop and publish a current state of the environment report, noting Western Australia has not done so since 2007;

(2) seeks confirmation from the Minister for the Environment that the government will implement this 2023 platform commitment; and

(3) calls on the government to fully resource and instruct the Environmental Protection Authority to immediately commence developing an updated state of the environment report with a requirement that the report be published by the first quarter of 2028.

I am delighted to bring this motion to the house, particularly given the significant degree of public support for it. It will come as no surprise to anyone in this place, I am sure, that this motion means a lot to me personally and that a love of nature and commitment to its protection is central to my reasons for being in this house in the first place. We are lucky in WA to live in such a staggeringly beautiful place. From the forests in the south to the Pindan in the north and the wild and stunning rivers that connect this vast country across the lands and out into the sea, ecosystems and species have developed over millennia in isolation here and we have this incredible degree of endemism as a result. This means that many of the species and ecosystems that we have here exist nowhere else on earth. It is uniquely our joy to have them here on our home country and it is our responsibility to ensure their protection.

I want to acknowledge the Cook Labor government for including the commitment to producing a state of the environment report in the 2023 platform. That was an important commitment, given that there has not been a report for the past 18 years. There are multiple important reasons I will outline why producing an updated report is considered vital to good environmental, social and economic planning and performance.

I also want to acknowledge the First Nations people across this state who have an ancient and enduring knowledge of the state of the environment here, one that is based on science, multigenerational wisdom and a complex totem system that provides for a rich understanding and precise practice for environmental management, a practice that is based in reciprocity, interconnectedness and a deep care for country. I note that the next state of the environment report will be a far strong stronger document if it is written in partnership with First Nations people and organisations across the state.

We all know that there have been myriad major changes to the state of our environment since 2007—not many of them are good, I am afraid—and that producing an updated report will not be an easy task given the time that has elapsed since the last report and also the breadth and complexity of the issues and matters that need to be addressed. I will describe what some of those changes have been in broad terms, but mostly I will use my time to focus on the benefits of this kind of reporting and what I hope it will provide for.

I will start by briefly looking at the last report. In the 2007 State of the Environment Report, the EPA identified seven key areas requiring attention. They clearly articulate the value of state of the environment reporting, so I will start there. It is worth noting that the findings that were made in 2007 were made in the context of the previous report having been completed nearly a decade earlier. After the 1998 report, the state government, which was the Court government at the time, of course, produced an action plan that set out 180 specific actions that needed to be taken to respond to the 1998 report. At the time of writing the 2007 report, around half those actions were either not complete or had not been initiated. It is clear when reading the 2007 report that the gap between the state of the environment reports and the action plan not having been adequately implemented were significant factors in the findings that the EPA made in 2007 about the lack of strategy, scientific understanding and follow-through. I think it is a useful reminder, too, that when we are thinking about the effectiveness of state of the environment reports, we need to remember that they are a starting point from which action must follow and that they are best implemented when they have multipartisan support and community buy-in.

The first finding in the review of the 2007 report was this:

Strategic leadership for environmental matters in WA needs to be strengthened …

The point goes on, but if we look at it from a positive perspective, it articulates that having strategic leadership on the environment means that as a state we can develop priorities, allocate resources and establish work plans accordingly. Ultimately, from this clear and considered position we can change the trajectory, which is what we need to be doing for environmental restoration and recovery and which I think is a path that we can all agree we want to be on.

The second finding was this:

Knowledge of many aspects of the WA environment is lacking …

Effectively, this finding points out that we require comprehensive knowledge about the state of the environment and reliable baseline environmental monitoring and data to be able to make good decisions and plans. I expect there is also consensus that, essentially, a scientific understanding provides for good decision-making and ultimately for improved environmental outcomes.

The last key finding I will mention from the 2007 report was this:

Ensure that the State of the Environment Report is an ongoing publication, and that an environmental action plan is developed that clearly influences policy decisions and priorities for budget expenditure on the environment.

As we all know, this obviously has not been the case to date, but it is very positive that we are now in a position where this can be changed and as a state we can get back on track with what the 2007 report recommended and what other states, territories—of course, with the exception of the Northern Territory—are doing, which is publishing reports every two to five years that are then available to underpin good decisions and priorities for budget expenditure on the environment. Of course, the Greens, and I am sure many others in this place, are also of the view that the overall budget expenditure for the environment must be substantially increased. The first step to sound environmental planning and management is a strong scientific understanding of what is going on out there and what the strategy and priorities are for action, so it is heartening that we are now in a position in this house to discuss the merits of getting this underway.

This really is a matter that transcends party politics. WA is arguably under more pressure to carefully manage its environment than any other state or territory, and I will give three reasons for this. Firstly, we are largely a resource-based economy, which means that our natural environment is under particular pressures that other states do not have to contend with to anything like the same extent. Secondly, we are a vast state covering myriad diverse and complex ecosystems. We have eight of the continent's 12 biodiversity hotspots to look after and one of the two global biodiversity hotspots. Thirdly, we are at the coalface of the climate crisis, with the south-west of WA drying out faster than any other part of the continent and the Kimberley looking ahead to extreme heat forcing people out of their communities. All of these things mean that having a clear long-term strategy and comprehensive, up-to-date scientific understanding of the state's natural environment is absolutely critical. Whether our primary concern is economic, social or environmental, we need to know the health, the trajectories and the threats facing the natural environment and to be making informed decisions about its protection, maintenance and, where necessary, recovery.

I want to acknowledge the good work that has been done in recent years, because so often we only hear about the disasters and the lack of action. Right up the top of that list is the commitment to end commercial logging of native forests and securely protect an additional 400,000 hectares of forests, bringing the total protected area to two million hectares. This was a huge breakthrough and it means that high–conservation value karri forests are no longer being clear-felled, and ancient jarrah and wandoo forests are no longer being industrially logged. There are of course significant issues that still need to be addressed as the thinning program gets underway, as well as prescribed burning and the ongoing clearing of approximately 1,000 hectares of the northern jarrah forest by mining every year. But on top of this, we no longer also have 7,500 thousand hectares of forest being clear-felled and intensively logged for 85% woodchip, firewood and charcoal. It is impossible to overstate the significance of this for wildlife habitat and for the climate, with the avoidance of up to 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions and significant additional sequestration benefits that this brings.

This was an example of listening to the science. As the Minister for Forestry at the time said:

The ever increasing impacts of climate change, the importance of maintaining biodiversity and forest health, the need for carbon capture and storage, and declining timber yields meant it was essential that we acted now to protect ... (WA's) forests.

The science is very clear. Mature biodiverse forests are far better able to withstand the impacts of climate change, much better able than regrowth forests, which have lower biodiversity and monoculture plantations. The older and more biodiverse a forest, the more resilient it is to disturbance. As climate change brings extreme heat, droughts, insect attacks and new diseases and more severe storms, we need to be removing threatening processes.

The other landmark decisions that I want to note are the Plan for Our Parks, protecting five million hectares from the Kimberley to the south coast, creating the South Coast Marine Park and the Exmouth Gulf Marine Park, and preventing surface water being taken from the Martuwarra Fitzroy River. Of course, there are other more discrete individual area protections as well, but these have been excellent decisions made in the absence of a state of the environment report. So, yes, it is possible to do things without comprehensive studies, and I have heard an argument that smaller individual studies cover the field, but it is only these fully resourced regular statewide reports with an appropriate scope that provide the state, its agencies, community organisations and philanthropists with what we all need to understand the big picture and then to create action plans from an informed position from which we are able to strategise and prioritise at the scale that is now required of us.

Just on that point about philanthropy and NGOs, one of the reasons that community environment peak bodies and experts are so keen to see another state of the environment report is that they unlock investment and action from the private and community sectors. I know from my time in the environment movement that when these informed, big-picture positions and clear action plans are available, the major investment in protection and restoration work starts to flow. We have huge opportunities here in WA, as we all know, to attract these investments and to see largescale landcare projects get underway, but the lack of state of the environment reporting and the detailed scientific understanding and clarification on priorities that comes from that is currently standing in the way of unlocking that investment.

I go back to 2007. I remember the year 2007, when the last report was published. It was a year of great optimism when we had cause to believe that ambitious and scientifically robust climate policy was within reach. I am sure members will remember that the Prime Minister at the time, Kevin Rudd, brought together a national climate summit in Canberra and said that climate change was the greatest moral challenge of our generation and that it was beyond politics. Of course, none of us knew in 2007 just how toxic climate politics was set to become or how dramatically climate change was set to accelerate. In the context of both of these things, in my mind, it has never been more important for us to have a thorough scientific understanding of the state of our environment and an associated strategic plan for its protection that is grounded in science and educates and brings people along. So much has changed in 18 years. Three years after the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's 2007 climate summit, we had our first major forest drought. Sixteen thousand hectares of the northern jarrah forest collapsed and one-quarter of the mature trees in that area died. This was one of the first events of its kind globally. Murdoch University scientists at the time said:

Recent, unprecedented, climate-driven forest collapses in Western Australia show us that ecosystem change can be sudden, dramatic and catastrophic.

There was this general sense of shock and dismay that the climate crisis was not going to go easy on us. It was not going to slowly alter our landscapes and ecosystems at a pace that we could keep up with, but it would throw us these sudden ecosystem collapses. It was a major wake-up call, but, sadly, too many of us hit the snooze button. Then last year, 14 years after this first collapse, the heat and drought were significantly worse. Scientists are now estimating that the total impacted area this time, remembering the first case was approximately 16,000 hectares, was 385,000 hectares—a massive area of native vegetation across WA's global biodiversity hotspots all the way from Shark Bay to Esperance. A leading scientist on this work explained this to me in a graphic way that made a lot of sense. He said that it was like a tidal wave had started in the north and rolled down the continent, with the northern areas suffering the longest effects and therefore the most severe impact.

When temperatures soar and vegetation collapses and dies like this, the consequences are profound. I have mentioned before in this place that in January 2010, at the beginning of this unprecedented heatwave, the Esperance Carnaby's cockatoo population was almost completely wiped out in one single day when the temperatures reached 48 degrees in Esperance and 200 birds were found dead on the ground. A year after the forest collapse, the birds were stressed and struggling to find food and we saw a catastrophic 34% drop in Carnaby's black-cockatoo numbers. We are still waiting to see what the result of this latest extreme heat and drought has been on the cockatoos, but with the far greater area impacted there are serious fears for all three species.

Protecting forest from clear-felling and other intensive commercial logging was critical, but it by no means finished the job for the forests and certainly did not address the broader issues that we are facing across the vast breadth of this state. Just like our economic and social policy and planning needs to keep its finger on the pulse of the realities around us and a long eye on what is coming up, so does our environmental policy and planning. Regular, comprehensive state of the environment reporting is fundamental to achieving this.

In conclusion, I again commend the Cook government for committing to an updated state of the environment report in its 2023 platform and I reiterate that this matter should always be beyond party politics. A comprehensive understanding of the state of our environment and a clear action plan for protecting and restoring nature and the many vital ecosystem services that it provides should be an absolute baseline of good governance. As I said earlier, whether our primary concern is economic, social or environmental, we need to know the health, trajectories and threats facing the natural environment to make informed decisions about its protection and maintenance. It is only through regular, comprehensive state of the environment reporting and the implementation of associated action plans that we can achieve this. I commend this motion to the house and I urge all members to support it.

Hon Amanda Dorn (1:20 pm): I would like to thank Hon Jess Beckerling for such an important motion that I fully support. As a matter of urgency though—time is of the essence—I would like to amend the motion as follows.

Amendment to motion

Hon Amanda Dorn: I move:

To insert after (3):

(4) calls on the Minister for the Environment to table a written update in this house by 30 April 2026 reporting on activities to deliver the state of the environment report, including current or planned stakeholder consultation programs, report drafting timeframes, and progress made to date.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn (Minister for the Environment) (1:22 pm): I want to make it very clear that the government does not support the motion and it does not support the amendment to the motion so that we do not take too much time away from the substantive debate. The government does not intend to provide a state of the environment report. The requirements at (4) would essentially be, if included, that the government report back to the house on 30 April 2026 that no progress has been made because we do not intend on doing it. That is the government's position. This is therefore a pointless amendment to the motion.

Hon Dr Steve Thomas (1:23 pm): I indicate that although the opposition takes a slightly different approach in that it will be supporting the motion before the house today, I am unconvinced that the amendment as proposed adds significantly to the motion. As the minister has said, the government does not propose to do this anyway so the motion before the house simply provides something that is not going to happen.

I think it is perhaps more important that we conduct this debate in the manner that I think it should be conducted in. We want to give the government the opportunity to see reason around the motion before the house today. I will give a substantive set of reasons why I think we should support the motion before the house today upcoming. I know that I have not always agreed with the Greens. Sometimes I am vociferously the other way, but we have found some common ground on this one and I think that is quite useful.

Unfortunately, I think that the amendment before the house simply pressures the government in a way that is unnecessary and unhelpful. First off, the government says that it is not going to do it. Secondly, adding in a timeframe appears to be political rather than necessarily cooperative and conducive to outcomes. I understand that the intent of the proponent is to get the government on the record saying, "We're not doing it." The government is now on the record doing that. I do not think having it in a statement in April adds to that at all. It just makes the motion itself appear more political. I think that is to the detriment of the debate before the house. There might just be an opportunity that the motion gets with the intent of the Legislative Council in a really positive and cooperative matter. We will find areas that we agree and areas that we disagree, but I think the intent of improving environmental outcomes should be universal. I am particularly keen that we do not politicise that any more than we need to. For those reasons, the opposition will not be supporting the amendment that is currently before the house.

Hon Jess Beckerling: I support the amendment and thank Hon Amanda Dorn for bringing it forward. I hope that as this conversation develops, there will be an opportunity for the Labor government to acknowledge the benefits of state of the environment reporting and perhaps have considered by April next year that it was right to put the position in the 2023 platform and that it would be appropriate for the government to follow through on the commitment to provide an updated state of the environment report. I also appreciate what Hon Dr Steve Thomas has brought forward and it seems that the amendment will not be successful, but I just wanted to put on the record that we support that amendment. I thank the member for bringing it.

Amendment put and negatived.

Motion

Hon Sophie McNeill (1:26 pm): I would like to start my contribution by acknowledging the hard work of my colleague Hon Jess Beckerling on this particular motion, which is incredibly timely and perfectly reasonable. I think it is not too much to ask for a thorough, statewide, in-depth report that examines our environment here in beautiful Western Australia. I can go into any classroom in this state and ask the kids what they love, value and find beautiful about Western Australia, and they will talk about our oceans, the beautiful jarrah forests and going for walks in the hills on the weekend. We know what the future generations care about and I would like to see that reflected today in the chamber and for every adult who makes a contribution to this debate to put those little children at the front of their minds. We know what is so important to them.

I talked about how timely this motion is. That is because last week, the hottest place in the whole world was in Western Australia. In fact, the top five reported hottest places in the whole world were here. At Onslow in the Pilbara, it reached 43.5 degrees. That is about 10 degrees above normal for this time of year. That is what has changed in Western Australia since the last in-depth state of the environment report . This planet and this state have entered a full-blown climate emergency. That is where we are at 18 years later. Our beautiful environment here in Western Australia, our forests, native wildlife and our oceans, are bearing the absolute brunt of those rapidly warming temperatures. That is why it is so critical that we need an updated state of the environment report.

I will just paint a picture of how much has changed since we had the last one. Think back to the situation we were all in 18 years ago in 2007. That was the year that the iPhone was invented. Think about just how much our lives have changed—perhaps not in a good way—since 2007. Try to remember life without one. That is the length of time since we have had that in-depth critical state of the environment report in this place. This is something that both sides have ignored. There have been four governments since the last state of the environment report. So many people have come and gone from this chamber in those 18 years, but we have not received that formal update on the cumulative impacts on our environment and, most importantly, the guidance on what to do about it.

As my colleague Hon Jess Beckerling pointed out, the Labor Party adopted this as part of its platform in 2023. This is something that its members deeply cared about. I used to work in the non-government organisation sector here in Perth with the Conservation Council of Western Australia, which represents so many incredible little groups. This is something that members would always talk about. They cared about it so much. They know their little areas and the issues they are working on, but they want to see what is happening across the state, what the priority is and what it means when we add it all up.

It is something that Labor Party members deeply cared about. It is something that they committed to. I had written here that I hoped the government would support this motion. Unfortunately, before I even had the chance to speak, it was a punch in the gut to hear that the government was not going to support it. There is really no excuse not to, because so much has changed since then and we desperately need resourcing to fund decisions and really look at these issues strategically in the long term. I am going to run through a little of what our precious WA environment has endured in the past 18 years.

In 2010, not long after that state of the environment reportwas released, we saw the Gascoyne River flood when the region received 6,000 times the monthly average rainfall. Those floods resulted in significant soil erosion and created a risk of asbestos contamination. They were record-breaking floods in the Gascoyne. In 2011, devastating forest fires took place in Perth's north and south. A significant amount of bushland was destroyed in those fires—440 hectares in Roleystone and over 1,000 hectares in the Red Hill area. Again, the incredibly hot temperatures in 2011 were record breaking. We had a massive marine heatwave off our coast with devastating impacts. One of the hardest hit places during that marine heatwave in 2011 was Shark Bay. It caused catastrophic destruction from which Shark Bay has still not recovered today. The ancient seagrass meadows of Shark Bay were impacted, and when those seagrass meadows were wiped out in that marine heatwave, between two million and nine million tonnes of CO2 was released. That is equivalent to the annual emissions of 800,000 homes. That is what happened in Shark Bay in 2011. It destroyed nearly 1,300 square kilometres of that ancient seagrass, representing nearly one-third of the total coverage of the seagrass in Shark Bay. That might not sound like a big deal, but these are ancient seagrass meadows that are estimated to be thousands of years old. One specific meadow of Posidonia australis in Shark Bay is believed to be at least 4,500 years old. It has never recovered. Research has shown that it has never been the same since. What has happened in Shark Bay is that large temperate seagrasses are now bare and have been colonised by small tropical seagrass, which just does not provide the same habitat for animals. We get animals such as dugongs in Shark Bay; these are the creatures we are talking about. It is a primary habitat for endangered green turtles and dugongs, and the seagrass being wiped out in 2011 led to significant declines in reproduction for those beautiful mammals.

That marine heatwave also had a really devastating impact on our fishing industry, impacting the number of crabs, scallops and prawns, which led to massive numbers of fishery closures. The abalone industry has still not recovered and has not reopened after that one marine heatwave. I acknowledge the work of Bianca McNair. She is a Malgana woman from Shark Bay and her incredible work to document the climate impacts on her country should be acknowledged.

In 2013, not long after that massive marine heatwave, two huge cyclones hit the North West causing extensive damage to the environment. There was flooding and erosion. The high temperatures of that year caused coral bleaching—some of the first coral bleaching we had seen at Ningaloo. It was nothing compared with this year, but that is when it started. The vulnerable coral at Shark Bay was damaged in those cyclones and it really reduced coral cover in some areas.

The Perth hills bushfires hit us in 2014 and that was devastating for not only residents—those bushfires were absolutely heartbreaking for people—but also the native forest, which was hit so hard. One really devastating impact was that the Beraking pine plantation went up in flames. My honourable colleague spoke about Carnaby's black-cockatoos and how critically endangered they are today. They feed on those pine plantations that went up in flames in that bushfire.

In 2015, the bushfires in Esperance burnt over 300,000 hectares. That wiped out the only known wild population of the western ground parrot and destroyed significant proportions of its habitat. Now only a remnant population of that bird species remains. Fewer than 150 western ground parrots survive today and the species is listed as critically endangered. They are one of just 22 birds in our Threatened Species Action Plan. In 2016, 70,000 hectares were burnt in the Waroona–Yarloop bushfires resulting in significant loss of soil organic matter and vast biodiversity values of that area.

Of course, one particularly devastating impact has been the increase in the frequency of cyclones and the impact that is having on Western Australia's oceans and land. We know that is increasing due to climate change. There has been Cyclone Hilda, Cyclone Joyce, Cyclone Kelvin and Cyclone Veronica, all of which have placed significant pressures on our coastal ecosystems. As the occurrence of cyclones increases, the coastal ecosystems' ability to recover decreases—it just does not happen. The cumulative impact of the increasing rate of cyclones on our already vulnerable mangroves and fringing reefs is becoming devastating and we are increasingly seeing those impacts today.

In Perth itself, we had a record-breaking heatwave in 2022. I am sure that people can remember that we had six days in a row of temperatures over 40 degrees. I remember that because it really felt that the climate emergency had arrived in Perth. That is how it felt for me. I remember my children not being able to go outside and play for days on end. It was the summer holidays and after about 8:30 in the morning it was too hot to go outside. I think that horrific record-breaking heatwave of over 40 degrees that we endured for six days in a row that summer is seared in people's memories. I could stand here and talk for an hour about the impact that had on our native animals, but one incident that really sticks in my mind is volunteers going out to our dried-up lakes and wetlands across Perth to rescue baby cygnets, because there was just no water in those wetlands. A lot of studies have been done to try to measure the impact that these increasingly hot temperatures are having on our native wildlife. One study that came out from the University of Western Australia is really alarming because it is on my favourite bird, the magpie, and how a heatwave can cause cognitive decline. Their ability to forage for food and feed their young is hindered by these kinds of extreme temperatures. As we know, it has always been hot here, but we are seeing record heat affecting our Western Australian environment in this increasing climate emergency.

In 2023 we saw Ex-tropical Cyclone Ellie. That was devastating for people in our Kimberley region, particularly for First Nations communities who bore the brunt of it. It was the worst-ever recorded flooding in Western Australia. It had devastating impacts that killed thousands of animals, displaced significant native animal populations and damaged really critical ecosystems.

Later on that year there was a catastrophic event that actually is not very widely known, but if we speak to any bird lover in Western Australia, we find that it really sticks in their mind. As a proud donor to BirdLife Australia, I remember reading the updates about this at the time. That year, Cyclone Ilsa caused extensive damage at Bedout Island, which is a small island off the Pilbara coast that is home to several populations of vulnerable seabirds. That cyclone stripped all vegetation from the island's surface and killed thousands and thousands of vulnerable seabirds. The photos are horrific. Researchers discovered that between 80% to 90% of the island's population of masked booby, brown booby and lesser frigatebird populations were killed in that cyclone. That is 80% to 90% wiped out in one cyclone, so we are talking about the deaths of thousands of birds. Researchers say that the frequency and intensity of such storms that we are experiencing because of climate change is approaching a threshold beyond which these seabirds will never fully recover, so we are talking about localised extinction of these beautiful seabirds. That kind of cumulative impact is capturing that total cost of the climate emergency on our state. We are not getting a picture of that because we do not get these reports anymore.

Again, 2023–24 was one of the hottest and driest summers ever recorded in WA. Only 28 millimetres of rain was recorded in the South West from October to April that year. Perth experienced its lowest ever recorded rainfall, as did Cape Leeuwin. In 2024, Broome recorded its hottest ever dry season day. The hottest day ever recorded during the cool part of the year in Broome was 40.5 degrees, and that resulted in a mass die-off of native vegetation spanning all the way to Shark Bay. Of course, this place has heard me talk before about the devastating marine heatwave that we experienced earlier this year, and I saw it with my own eyes when I was snorkelling up near Exmouth at Ningaloo and saw vast swathes of the coral on our World Heritage listed Ningaloo looking like a coral graveyard. I still remember getting out of the water with my federal colleague Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, and him bursting into tears because of how upsetting it was to see that decline in our natural environment. From Ashmore Reef to Rowley Shoals to Ningaloo and the Montebello Islands, it is the worst ever coral bleaching and death on record. In one of those places, Rowley Shoals, 90% of the coral is now dead. That was home to an incredible diversity of species, including globally threatened fish that were known to thrive at the Rowleys and species that are slow growing and late maturing. We just do not know what impact events like this are having.

Another impact we saw because of this year's marine heatwave was on Exmouth Gulf, which was hit really hard. We had the Shark Bay incident in 2011, and then this year half of the seagrass at Exmouth Gulf was wiped out. Scientists are still trying to figure out the impact this is having on marine life there. A lot of people would have seen the amazing Tim Winton documentary on Exmouth Gulf, with the sawfish and the manta rays. Dugongs live there also, but half of their seagrass was wiped out earlier this year in that record-breaking marine heat wave. There were 30,000 fish killed off the Pilbara coast, and that is just the number that was recorded. We do not know the full impact of that devastating marine heatwave, and that is why we need these kinds of in-depth, really thorough reports in the state of environment report.

Climate change is driving these events. They are becoming more frequent, they are becoming more intense, and our coral reefs do not have time to recover anymore. That is why it is so critical that we have the most up-to-date science on all those impacts, to really understand these increasingly frequent and severe phenomena and to bring it all together in a really definitive and cumulative way. We are also seeing the impact on threatened species here in the Perth metro area. Since 2008, there has been a 95% drop in the number of penguins at Penguin Island. In fact, just a few months ago, we found out that there are only 97 penguins left. That is, again, due to reduced feed availability and human activities, but most significantly, warming temperatures. We have to be better informed to try to understand what is left, if we are to have any hope at all of saving it.

It was really interesting to read the 2007 State of the Environment Report because this week I had the pleasure of attending the Fishing Futures Forum organised by Hon Jackie Jarvis, Minister for Fisheries. We heard some terrifying figures at that forum on Monday about our demersal fish stock here in Western Australia. Pink snapper and dhufish are at severe risk because their numbers are so low. That iconic Western Australian species, the dhufish, is now down to only 7%—that is the unfished biomass—left in the Perth metropolitan area. I looked back at what the 2007 report said, and it specifically referenced the fact that monitoring of the condition of WA's marine environment was extremely limited. That was something that all stakeholders who were there on Monday—from the commercial fishers to the rec fishers to the scientists and the NGOs—agreed on: the lack of data. Here we were, finding out that only 7% of dhufish were left, and we were all complaining about the fact that there is not any better monitoring. Back in 2007, the State of the Environment Report called for better monitoring, but we have not been doing it, and look where we are today. Look at the impacts that our environment is suffering. The 2007 report also pointed out the impacts of overfishing—something that was front of mind for everyone who attended that forum on Monday.

The picture I have painted is grim, and that is because when we look at the challenges that our WA environment faces now, 18 years after that first report, we see that the situation is grim. The fact is that we now have a growing climate emergency. It is really amazing how prescient that 2007 report was with regard to the mitigation of greenhouse gases. Way back then, the report talked about a renewable energy target, about establishing a legislative framework to achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and about reducing our emissions. That was recommended back in 2007 but, unfortunately, since then—18 years and four governments later—there is still no legislative framework to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. We all know that that is what is needed to protect this beautiful state of ours and all the precious places that we hold so dear and that we love.

If we had that kind of report, if work was done to paint a picture of where we were at, it could give us the science to know what we are going to do about it, what decisions we have to make, and where we have to put our funding. Hon Dr Steve Thomas acknowledged that we want to take the politics out of this debate, and I think that is what we have to think about when we look at this motion. This is about protecting the places that we love and about having the best information to do that. There are a lot of things that that we do not agree with the opposition on—I acknowledge that—but I appreciate the fact that it is supporting this motion today, because that is what it is about. It is about acknowledging that the most precious thing about Western Australia is these places that we love. It is your favourite bird, your favourite Western Australian animal, and that place that you like to visit. How are we going to know about how to best protect that in the years to come with these increasing pressures if we do not have this kind of in-depth, statewide environmental reporting to put it all together and see where we are at?

To conclude, it could not be clearer that this kind of report is so long overdue and so necessary. It is only through these kinds of in-depth reports that we will have some hope of finding solutions to protect all these places for the future. I commend my honourable colleague Hon Jess Beckerling for putting this motion together, and I thank Hon Amanda Dorn for her support and for her amendment; I am sorry that that did not get up. I also thank the opposition for its support for this very important motion. Thank you, President.

Hon Dr Steve Thomas (1:46 pm): I am delighted to make a contribution to the substantive motion before the house today. As I indicated earlier, the opposition will be supporting the motion before the house. Even though we do not always agree with our friends in the Greens (WA) on many of these issues, I think there is enough in this motion to agree with. I appreciate that it is written in a way that gives the opposition the capacity to support it.

This is potentially particularly dangerous for someone like me, in the far right–wing of the Liberal Party, but I have for many years been an example of an economic far right–wing member of the Liberal Party who believes in climate change. Members might think that is an oxymoron, but I think it is simply a question of science merging with economics. However, I will make a few points on this. I understand that the government is not going to support this motion before the house today, and I fully understand why. It might surprise members to learn that I have been around for a while now when the 2007 State of the Environment Report dropped, I was shadow Minister for the Environment, so I have had a fair bit of practice at this. Of course, we need to take the basic principles first, and that is that governments will always hate state of the environment reports and oppositions will always love them. That is just the sheer reality of things, so right now, in opposition, we are supporting the motion. I would like to think that we would also support it in government, but we would be doing other things, so let us see what happens in the fullness of time.

That is what happens. Perhaps having been such an efficient and effective shadow Minister for the Environment in 2007, I frightened off future governments from ever dropping another state of the environment report, because I have to say, I made enormous mileage out of it. It was enormously good fun. The Greens at that time were, I think, scarcely represented; I think Hon Paul Llewellyn was virtually the only Greens member of the upper house back in 2007. Let us just say that he was an interesting character from my patch of the South West, and perhaps leave the commentary about Paul to that. As an opposition member, I had enormous fun with that report. I understand, though, that it is a tool of the opposition and the crossbench and, particularly, a tool of the Greens. It is generally a weapon against the government, so I am not overly surprised. I could spend an hour on this, and I might have to seek an extension, but in my fairly short contribution members will hear me use the word "courage" a bit, because it takes enormous courage for a government to go down the path of a state of the environment report, particularly the version that was released in 2007 by that formidable former head of the Environmental Protection Authority, Dr Walter Cox; some members might remember him if they have been around for as long as I have. He was well respected and a formidable gentleman. The first thing I would say to the government is that it would take courage, but I do not think it should be frightened of that. I understand why courage is dangerous. I have watched all the Yes Minister episodes, and I have them on DVD if anybody wants to borrow them.

Hon Jackie Jarvis: And a DVD player?

Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Yes, and a DVD player. They can probably be downloaded now, Hon Jackie Jarvis.

The kiss of death is to call something courageous, and I do understand that. But I make this point: in the first instance, the State of the Environment Report 2007 was unfortunately as much qualitative as it was quantitative. It was the opinion of various contributors and generally overseen by the Environmental Protection Authority. In the first instance, I think government and opposition in particular should be able to debate whether they agree with those qualitative statements. There have been plenty of times in my history as shadow environment minister when I have disagreed with the EPA, and that takes courage.

I am a believer in the old-fashioned ministerial responsibility process. This is probably where I am going to diverge from the Greens. The EPA offers an opinion and, ultimately, government makes a decision, and that decision will, to some degree, rely on EPA advice, but it does not have to follow EPA direction. Government should be free to disagree, which I think is critical. It is hard for the Labor Party, which sometimes tries to be light green—one of those lime colours, let us say. When it tries to be light green, it is trying to have a foot in both camps. It is trying to say, "We're the left-wing environmentalists; don't listen to the darker greens on that side and don't listen to the other side, because the Liberals are environmental vandals." When it puts itself in that position, its capacity to disagree and use other categories and other decision-making tools is taken away, and that makes it frightened of a report that might criticise it. There are plenty of things wrong with the environment. It is a bit sad that my good friend the Leader of the House is not here because a few examples have been brought up and I was dying to throw arum lilies into the mix—it is something that we have debated for the last eight years! I am sure that the new Minister for the Environment has been down south and looked at the arum lilies. There are plenty of examples, but I am trying to take an overarching view of this; that is, there is an opportunity. If the government has courage and is prepared to disagree, and to disagree in public, there is a value to the process. But it requires courage. I know that courage is not always the way.

A few members here were in the chamber at the time so they might remember March 2019 when the EPA came out with a brand-new offsets policy. In 2019, two years into the McGowan government, the EPA went a little rogue in coming up with its own offsets policy, which in my view was a disaster for industry and economics in Western Australia.

Hon Sophie McNeill: And the environment.

Hon Dr Steve Thomas: It argued that it was pro-environment and anti-development. My argument is that both have to be encompassed. I have a copy of the press release that I put out at the time. I have to say that I looked a fair bit younger back then—it has not been a kind six or seven years! It says:

The Shadow Minister for the Environment Dr Steve Thomas says the recommendation of the Environmental Protection Authority that major projects be required to offset one hundred percent of the net greenhouse gas emissions was ideological rather than practical, and put at risk future development … and future jobs in Western Australia.

I stand by those comments I made at the time. Interestingly, I put that out on 7 March. By 14 March, the McGowan Labor government had overridden the EPA. It took courage at that particular point to disagree with the EPA. I make that point. The government should not be frightened of the messenger if it has the courage to disagree. There will be occasions when we as a Parliament, and as a government and certainly as an opposition and crossbench, should have the courage to disagree. The EPA is not a government within itself. It is not an autocracy. It does not tell the people of Western Australia what to do. It makes recommendations to government. Government should have the courage in all cases to say yes, no or go away and redo that in a different way. That is how democracy works. In opposing the motion before the house, the government is showing a lack of courage to take a forceful position on issues of the day. Even though the EPA says that it considers the triple bottom line and that it will put economics as an equal contributor, it does not, and I do not think it should. I do not think that is its job; that is not the job of the EPA. In some cases it gets consideration, and in some cases it does not. The EPA should look purely at the environmental processes. Some of the social processes in heritage have snuck in, and, to be honest, I would remove that from the EPA as well and have the EPA focused entirely on environmental outcomes, which, in some cases, is often in conflict with heritage, and probably Aboriginal heritage as well. There are separate bodies for that as part of the process. If it focused entirely on environmental outcomes and a report came back that said, "This is what we think", the government would have the capacity to say, "Thank you very much for that. We agree" or "We disagree" or "We agree and disagree, with certain changes and amendments." That is how the process works.

We should not be frightened of having the report done. There are a number of ways that the report could be done. I note that the motion before the house effectively says to develop an updated state of the environment report. It is not completely prescriptive, and I am sure that Hon Jess Beckerling in her motion was thinking about the same sort of book we got last time but with different pictures and an update et cetera. I do not think that is the only way to address this. For example, as an alternative, there might be an ongoing state of the environment report that is broken up into different sections, because it is a huge undertaking. When the Minister for the Environment gets up and talks about how many millions of dollars it would cost to deliver one of those things, that is true. This government has had $6 billion in additional revenue, $12 billion in total iron ore revenue and a $6 billion surplus, so I think it could afford it. Lucky Phil on the other side is rolling in cash, so he could trickle a few shekels over the edge for that. Even if that were the case and iron ore crashed and it got tight, there would be ways to do this on which a slightly different view might be taken. A rolling state of the environment report might come out in pieces, for example. Biosecurity might be done in one year and something else might be done the next year.

The second argument that the government will come up with—I could have waited until afterwards to rebut, but I might as well rebut in advance—is that these things are all being done within government departments anyway. The main argument that the government will have is that the EPA is doing all these things and is examining the environment, the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development takes a certain role in landcare and there are other things happening and these reports come out. I respond to that in advance by saying two things: Firstly, ultimately, it will not deliver the outcomes that have been talked about. It simply will not be enough. Secondly, those government departments are so busy doing all sorts of other things, and often wasting far too much time on things like approvals et cetera, that they do not have the capacity to deliver those outcomes.

I like that additional report. I have a full book copy at home, but I did not bring it with me. There are a couple of great bits in the 2007 report about its key report card that I want to mention. I have brought only the summary document with me. I will go through the summary report. The EPA said in 2007 that there is a lack of information and a lack of knowledge. I would say that there is absolutely a lack of information and a lack of knowledge on soils, plants and animals. That has not changed. When the government says that these things are being done by government departments, the reality is that they do not have the capacity to do the research. Fluffy animals are kind of cute and people like them, but the scientific research that underpins our environment is not sexy. It does not sell all that well. It is complicated. Some of the universities put in, and government departments put in as well, but it is not going to deliver the level of information required.

There is a lot of work to do. I do not accept the position that the government is about to take, which is that the government is doing many of these things anyway. In some cases, it is trying its best. In some cases, it is doing so wholly inadequately. In some cases, it is not doing it at all. I am happy to spend the next couple of years pointing out the government's failings on some of these things, like the arum lilies in the South West. I note that the Minister for Agriculture and Food has just returned.

Biosecurity is one of our biggest failures, and that will continue to be the case. I have watched this for 20 years, starting as the shadow environment minister in 2006, when the process was undertaken to identify invasive species, be they animal or plant. They come in and they go on priority one. They say, "Let's keep them outside. They're currently exotic." Then, "They are in, but we need to act." Then, "They are in, but we need to act in certain regions." Then, "They are in, but we have to have some token effort." Then, the final one, which was either an A5 or P5 level, was, "They are in now and are endemic." We just watched them trickle down through the forms, and governments of all ilk have this failure on our belts. That is absolutely the case. It is impossible to avoid some of those things, and I get and understand that.

But I am going to use "courage" again. When those things trickle down because you just cannot keep them out, because it is too late once they are in, acknowledge that, and say, "Yes, we acknowledge that." In the next state of the environment report, there might be a sub-report on biosecurity that says, "These things have trickled in. We are unable to throw them out. That is not going to happen. We are now going to try to work out how we live with it as best we can." It takes courage—and, of course, yes, the opposition gets to throw a whack at the government. The Minister for the Environment can come back and read this speech and say, "Well, Hon Dr Steve Thomas said we should have courage, so we are having courage." I will back him on that. For those things for which the government needs to show a bit of courage and say, "Yes, these things are impossible to deal with", then let us do that. I understand that it is very difficult. It is very easy for oppositions and minor parties to throw rocks in the media and the media loves a failure-of-government story. I absolutely get that. I would love to sit here and say that the opposition and the crossbench and the Greens (WA) will not grandstand on these issues if the government shows a bit of courage, but I suspect that is a promise I cannot make and it is a promise I am not foolish enough to give even though I am under parliamentary privilege!

What will be the case? It requires a bit more courage to go down this path and to be strong about it. Here is my commitment to the Minister for the Environment. Every time that I think that the Environmental Protection Authority gets it wrong or that other factors are more important, I will back a sensible decision, as I have done for the last 20 years. I have stood up for proposals that I think should be allowed to progress. I have stood up for industry when I think that industry is important. I have taken on the EPA on a number of occasions. It causes friction. Yes, it is easier to do it from opposition than government, but the government gets to call officers of the EPA to its offices. If I have to talk to them, I have to go to theirs. The government has a bit of power to talk about these things.

I am happy to back the government on a triple bottom line. I am happy to say that, at this point, the environmental outcomes in this state could be improved. With due regard to my very good friends the Greens over there, there will be occasions when we violently disagree on what those things look like. I think I have proven that I am happy to disagree with the Greens as much as I am happy to disagree with the Labor Party—let me say the Liberal Party on occasions as well! I think we should, particularly in the Legislative Council, be robust enough to have these tough and hard conversations and point out shortfalls, and for government to say, "Look, I understand what you're saying and I disagree", or "Look, we just don't have the budget for that." That is a little bit hard to argue over the last six years, but maybe the ore price collapses and suddenly the government has no money, and the EPA and environment generally are fairly well down on the investment list. I understand why.

Interestingly, every year there is a poll of the ranking of issues. When people are doing really well and they are not suffering, the environment is usually about fourth or fifth. When things turn difficult, it is about 15th—and they flip. I think the environment is very important, and I have suffered many times because I take an environmental bent in a conservative party. People flip under stress on those things.

But I think the wider public will appreciate if the government steps up and shows strength and courage and disagrees particularly with the bureaucracy. There are a few lessons I would probably take from Donald Trump—not a lot, but a few—one of which is to be prepared to stand up to the bureaucracy because people do not have a link to bureaucrats and the bureaucratic process; they do not have a link for that. Every time we think we cannot stand up to the bureaucracy and the bureaucrats and the public service—as Yes, Minister says, the opposition is just the government-in-waiting; the civil service is the opposition-in-residence—I think people will reach and grab such a stand, but it takes courage. It takes a strength of character and a commitment to the environment.

I think that the Minister for the Environment has a really strong commitment to the environment. I absolutely believe that. From the conversations and debates that we have had, I absolutely believe that. It is hard as the Minister for the Environment to get resources out of government. I fully understand that as well. It easy to get pushed down the rankings of people who want to deliver multibillion-dollar projects. But the government should not be afraid of this. It should have the courage to deliver this and it will take a very courageous government to step up and do it.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn (Minister for the Environment) (2:06 pm): I appreciate Hon Jess Beckerling bringing this motion to the house, notwithstanding my stated position on it, and I appreciate the time with which she has presented her arguments supporting it.

I want to be very clear. Hon Dr Steve Thomas across the chamber may be gracious enough to acknowledge that me being very clear about the government's position on this might itself be that courageous decision that he talks about, because I am not going to quibble about this.

Hon Dr Steve Thomas: It is a small first step.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I am not going to quibble about this. We have been very clear. I was clear at the estimates hearings with Hon Sophie McNeill that it was not the government's intention to do a state of the environment report, and it remains the government's intention not to do a state of the environment report. I hope today to go through those reasons, and I am absolutely certain that I will not get the agreement of this house—the vast majority of it—on those particular reasons, but I will be clear about that.

I want to say one thing: I do not want to talk about the Labor Party platform, and that is because the Labor Party platform is not government policy. It is very clear that it is not government policy. It has never been government policy. Therefore, if the Greens want to pull any items from the Labor Party platform, they can also pull items from the platform that they would absolutely oppose 100%. If they want to encourage us to follow the platform, that is fine. They are entitled to do that, and I respect their right to do that. But do not pick only the things that they like; pick all the things that are in the platform, and then we will see where we end up. The platform is an active and organic document that involves our lay party. It is not the position of the elected government, and it never has been the position of the elected government. It is not a revelation to say that.

In any event, we will engage with our lay party. I do not want to use weasel words around this. We are very clear that we will not be creating a state of the environment report. I think it is appropriate to say that.

I am happy to explain why the government does not support the motion, which is the creation of that state of the environment report. It also gives me the opportunity to put on the record how this government is providing real, tangible environmental data regarding the state of our environment. As I stated in estimates, as I said before, the government is not going to produce such a report.

I think it is important to understand what such a report has been, and is likely to be. A state of the environment report is not a simple undertaking; it is a large, complex and resource-intensive process that requires extensive coordination across agencies, industries and scientific disciplines. When was the last such report for Western Australia delivered in 2007 commenced?

Hon Dr Brad Pettitt: Was it 2002?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: It was 2003. It took four years to deliver that report. So it was not timely, and by the time it was delivered the state of the environment was already out of date because the environment, as identified by Hon Jess Beckerling, changes all the time. For example, if you conduct an inquiry about the state of the environment now, once that report happens, we could—hopefully we do not—have had another marine heat wave event but it would not be mentioned in that state of the environment report because it is a static document and not a living, breathing document. The issue is that it becomes static. As I say, the report took four years and a substantial commitment of public resources and staff capacity. Reinitiating that exercise today would defer considerable funds and expertise away from on-the-ground activities that protect and manage our environment.

I know there have been discussions about how wealthy this state is, and it is wealthy due in large part to the economic activity that happens here and also to the sound economic management of this government. So there is that element as well.

Hon Dr Steve Thomas interjected.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Members opposite can chortle full away all they like, but they cannot hold us responsible for all the disasters and then deny us any credit for the successes. Of course, those members are in opposition or on the crossbench, and that is the normal way that these things progress; that is, the government is always responsible for failings but never responsible for success. That is okay. We get it; we understand it. I am gracious enough to admit that if we were on Hon Dr Steve Thomas's side we would probably run the same arguments.

Hon Dan Caddy: Do not worry; it has been a while.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: It has been a while, correct.

So a state of environment report would divert things. Let us just say that money was no object. What would be an object is capacity—the people to undertake the work. It would require taking people from doing work over here to doing work over there, and that is a cost. We do not have an unlimited number of qualified people to do this kind of work. That is one of those issues. A report of this magnitude would take several years to complete, and by the time it was published, as I have already indicated, it would inevitably be out of date. The government has therefore taken the considered view that public resources are better directed to delivering real environmental outcomes, not duplicating work already undertaken at a national level.

That is what I want to mention, because I am not sure it is has been mentioned in any of the contributions so far. A body of work is done, which Western Australia contributes to. That is the Commonwealth government's state of the environment report. That report is required under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It requires the Commonwealth to produce a national state of the environment report every five years. The most recent one of these was AustraliaState of the Environment 2021, which was published in 2022. I understand that the 2026 report is due to be completed and published sometime in the not-too-distant future. The last time I checked, Western Australia was part of the rest of the continent, so we have been providing substantial data analysis and expertise to support the preparation of the national report. In doing so, we have ensured that the condition and trends of our state environment are fully represented in a comprehensive national publication. This collaboration avoids unnecessary duplication of effort and ensures that resources are used efficiently. It also enables the Commonwealth to undertake comparative assessments across all jurisdictions, providing a clear national picture of environmental conditions and performance. This approach reflects the principle that underpins this government's broader environmental reform agenda—a commitment to streamlining and reducing duplication whilst also focusing our efforts where they will deliver the greatest benefit for the environment and the community. It is also consistent with the Commonwealth work currently underway on reforms to the EPBC act. These reforms aim to simplify processes, improve regulatory outcomes and ensure that effort is not wasted by repeating the same work in multiple jurisdictions. As I said, to now ask the Environmental Protection Authority to dedicate resources to undertake a separate, standalone state of the environment report for Western Australians would directly contradict those objectives.

Hon Amanda Dorn: How is it nearly 20 years old?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I did not interject on Hon Amanda Dorn, so I ask that she please do not do so on me.

I turn to the legislative context. There is no comparable legislative context in Western Australia that requires the Western Australian Government to undertake such a report. The Environmental Protection Act 1986 provides the EPA with the flexibility to determine the most effective means of reporting on environmental matters. At present, the authority and the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation are deeply engaged in implementing the reforms arising from the Vogel–McFerran review. Redirecting those agencies to undertake a major reporting project of this nature would detract from their ability to complete that critical reform work and deliver the improvements in efficiency, transparency and environmental performance that the community rightly expects. The government's focus remains on ensuring that our environmental institutions are strong, modern and capable of delivering real results, not on producing another time-bound report that would add a little new information to what is already available. As Hon Dr Steve Thomas quite presciently predicted, I will talk about the real-time environmental reporting that we have.

Hon Dr Steve Thomas interjected.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I think Hon Dr Steve Thomas has probably been through and experienced a debate like this before.

While we will not commission a new state of the environment report, I emphasise that Western Australians have access to more environmental information today than at any other point in our history. Hon Sophie McNeill mentioned that in 2007 smart phones had only come just into existence. Recognising the change from that time to now, there have been changes in the way that we provide information to the community. It was not the same in the early and mid-2000s. We have invested in a suite of modern publicly accessible data systems that provide dynamic real-time and regularly updated information about the condition of our environment. I will not go comprehensively through all of what the government does, as I will focus on the areas I am responsible for, but I note that in the area of the Minister for Fisheries, Hon Jackie Jarvis, her department provides a 12-monthly report that relates, for want of a better term, to the state of the fishing environment, so regular reporting happens in a lot of parts of government. As I said, these systems are more transparent, contemporary and useful than a static report that represents only a snapshot in time.

Foremost amongst these initiatives is the establishment of the Biodiversity Information Office and the creation of Dandjoo, Western Australia's first whole-of-state biodiversity platform. Dandjoo allows users to discover and explore biodiversity information from government, industry and research providers across the state. It provides a single authoritative source of biodiversity data and connects directly to the Commonwealth's Biodiversity Data Repository, ensuring that Western Australian data contributes to the national environment evidence base. This platform represents a significant advance in the way environmental information is managed, shared and applied. It supports evidence-based decision-making and enables both the government and the public to monitor biodiversity trends in near real time. In addition, the government has delivered the Index of Biodiversity Surveys for Assessments and the Index of Marine Surveys for Assessments. These programs capture and consolidate the extensive terrestrial and marine biodiversity data collected as part of environmental assessments under the EP act. The programs are designed to provide information freely to the public, regulators and researchers. Together, the IBSA and the IMSA contain thousands of datasets, representing one of the most comprehensive environmental knowledge bases in Australia. These datasets are continually updated as new servers are undertaken, ensuring that the information remains current and relevant. Further, the WA government data portal and the water information reporting tool provide additional layers of public transparency. The water information reporting tool allows users to access data on groundwater and surface water quality and quantity across Western Australia. This ensures accountability and enables active community participation in the stewardship of our water resources.

The government has also funded a $3 million three-year statewide pilot called WA Vegetation Extent (WAVE) that aims to use artificial intelligence to track losses and gains. This program is currently in its second year and will inform the design of a future WAVE system so that it has an efficient single source of truth and publicly assessable tool to track changes in native vegetation. The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) has also been focused on developing intra-mapping products for the Swan coastal plain to add robust approvals decisions while WAVE is under development.

When information cannot be made publicly available due to its environmental sensitivity, for example, in relation to threatened species or cultural heritage sites, it may still be requested directly from the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. These initiatives collectively provide an open and integrated system of environmental reporting that is continuously updated, publicly accessible and far more informative than a single static document.

The data generated and maintained through these platforms are not produced for their own sake. They are used actively within government to guide decision-making, shape policy and inform management responses across all areas of environmental regulation and conservation. This government's approach has been evolving towards being fit for purpose, with reliable data collection moving beyond the static model of periodic reporting towards a living evidence-based system that drives continuous improvement in environmental outcomes and utility for government agencies.

The government draws upon the Australia state of the environment report, along with our own data sets to inform planning and management decisions. This approach aligns closely with the strategic priorities we are pursuing through initiatives such as the Western Australian Climate Policy, the Native vegetation policy for Western Australia, and the WA Environmental Offsets Policy.

Let me reiterate that the decision not to prepare a new state of the environment report reflects a deliberate focus to deliver practical, effective and scientifically informed action. The government remains firmly committed to protecting the state's unique environment—its lands, waters, biodiversity and marine ecosystems—through robust legislation, sound science and targeted investment. We are doing the practical work in improving monitoring systems, enhancing transparency, investing in biodiversity data infrastructure and collaborating with the Commonwealth to strengthen national environmental governance. This is how responsible environmental management should be done.

It is hypocrisy for the opposition to say to us that we should do something that I am absolutely certain it would not do were it in government. It did not do it when it had eight and a half years in government, and if it ever gets the opportunity to be in government again, I can be almost certain it will not have the courage to do such a report.

Hon Dr Steve Thomas interjected.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I am informed by this, not by Hon Dr Steve Thomas. He is a believer in climate change, but there is often a conga line of members opposite who do not believe in climate change.

Hon Tjorn Sibma: I'm in his conga line!

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: The conga line of two. This government accepts that the climate is changing and that action needs to be taken. That position that the member put forward supporting this motion is just an act of politics.

Several members interjected.

The Acting President: Order, members.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I am looking forward to the opposition's party conference when it has to incorporate that into its platform and then follows it, because it will dutifully do that! It is curious that the Greens (WA) is the greatest advocate for the Labor Party platform. Greens members are always welcome to join the Labor Party and influence us from the inside, but they have made that conscious decision not to.

Hon Sophie McNeill: I do not want to sell my soul.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Maybe, member, you might—

The Acting President: Order, members.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I think this motion ignores the reality that the Commonwealth already undertakes the work being asked of us. It also ignores the reality that much of the information and the data that would inform such a process is already made publicly and transparently available. There is not an information vacuum on the state of the Western Australian environment. In fact, the Greens were very clear in their contributions about all the issues they see facing the Western Australian environment. They did not need a state of the environment report to bring those concerns to the Western Australian Parliament.

As I said, I want to be very clear, and I am using no weasel words, that we will not be undertaking a state of the environment report. On that basis, we cannot support the motion before the house.

Hon Rod Caddies (2:24 pm): I would like to make a very short contribution to this motion that Hon Jess Beckerling has moved, and I thank her for moving it.

This motion calls on the WA Labor government to be honest and do something it promised to do. I do not think that is a big thing to ask.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I have made it clear to the member that that is not what happened.

Hon Rod Caddies: That is what I believe happened. It is not the first time we are calling for the government to do better. It is a pleasure to be part of this chamber, where the government no longer has full control and it actually has to be answerable to some people. We have some numbers here to hold them accountable for promises. WA Labor promised to fix ambulance ramping, but it has done the opposite. WA Labor promised that it would not remove regional representation.

Hon Ayor Makur Chuot: You are off topic.

Hon Rod Caddies: What was that, sorry?

Hon Ayor Makur Chuot: Get back to the topic.

Several members interjected.

The Acting President: Order, members.

Hon Rod Caddies: Anyway, it did the opposite to that. WA Labor promised that COVID vaccines were safe and effective; that they were needed and that half a billion dollars worth of RAT kits needed to be purchased. The opposite was true. This motion calls on the government to produce the state of environment report that Labor said it would do. The government can question whether it was a promise or whether it just said it would do it. If it said it would do it, I say that is pretty much a promise, but it has done the opposite of that. The government is ignoring its promises, as I guess suits it politically at this time, to produce that report. I guess having an independent agency produce a report that the government cannot control is probably not something that it is keen on or really wants to happen, especially since it already got into trouble for allegedly trying to influence the Environmental Protection Authority in 2023.

A state of the environment report would be a good thing for Western Australia. It would be good to know how many people this state could sustain from an environmental point of view. What would be the environmental impacts of mass immigration into WA? What are the environmental impacts of wind farms, solar farms and associated transmission lines and other things like that on our local ecosystems and environment? It would be good to know that. Is there enough spending on local environmental conservation activities, or is everything being spent on net zero—that 0.8%, was it? Maybe the report can address what can be done to adapt to climate change in case that 0.8% that WA contributes to reducing global emissions turns out to be meaningless. I hope we will get to contribute to the terms of reference of the report. By the sounds of it, I do not think the government is going to do the report, but if it did go ahead, it would be great to contribute to that.

One Nation believes in protecting the environment, not via globalist scams like net zero, but by looking after our local environment and helping to adapt to the changing environment. I think it was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that I heard being referenced before in relation to how we have all these things because of climate change. The IPCC has stated that it does not have any connection to the things that are happening.

One Nation opposes wind farms, such as the ones planned for Geographe Bay and Scott River, where the government plans to build a 250-metre tall wind turbine, which will impact the local environment, the community and the economy. People have been constantly contacting me about that and how they think it is going to destroy the environment down there, with the noise and different things.

One Nation opposes mass immigration because we understand this state cannot sustain an unlimited number of people from an environmental point of view. Maybe it would really be good if this report was done so that some of that could be backed up.

In summary, One Nation supports this motion, and we hope that the state of environment report will be done. It would help inform us on how we can look after our treasured local ecosystems and the face of the ever-changing conditions.

I commend this motion to the house and again thank Hon Jess Beckerling for moving it today.

Hon Dr Brad Pettitt (2:29 pm): In my contribution today, I want to focus on the parts of the state of the environment report that sit within my portfolio interests, which are largely in the planning and transport space. There is a whole section on human settlements. It is a really interesting read to go back in time to 2007 and look at the data that sits there. I appreciate the comments by Hon Dr Steve Thomas that governments might not like state of the environment reports because they actually shine a light on the issues that require things to be done differently. I could not imagine a starker example than human settlements.

For those who want to have a look, the whole of page 196 in the 2007 report shows a map of the sprawl that exists in Perth. The map is dated 2004. It was prepared 20 years ago. Fascinatingly, it stops at about Joondalup. For anyone who has caught the new train to Yanchep, that is about halfway. Over the last 20 years, we have managed to almost double the length of our open sprawl in our northern suburbs in the longest city in the world, despite every recommendation of the state of the environment and Network City reports at the time and others. I am going to read from page 200 of that report about the implications that were given to government back in 2007. It states:

If current patterns and rates of urban growth in Perth and parts of the South West continue, there will be serious consequences for the State's biodiversity. Pressures will increase on already stressed ecosystems, resulting in the ongoing loss or degradation of remaining native vegetation, threatened ecological communities and coastal environments on the Swan Coastal Plain. Under current development trends, households are becoming increasingly isolated, more car-dependent, and have fewer people living in each dwelling. This may lead to increased resource consumption (e.g. electricity, water, land, infrastructure materials), exacerbate motor vehicle dependence and increase the challenges of managing wastes.

That was written 18 years ago. I cannot help but think how little has changed. What has changed is that we have managed to extend Perth much further up and down the coast, noting that every time we put one of those dwellings up there, it costs us an estimated $75,000 to $90,000 per dwelling in extra infrastructure costs. I also note that it does all those things. As Hon Jess Beckerling said, in the process we are bulldozing through an ecological hotspot and species that exist nowhere else in the world get taken out.

As I was reading through this section of the report, I was thinking that it would actually take very little to update this. I was thinking about Hon Matthew Swinbourn talking about the huge resources it would take. I literally could update that on a weekend because nothing has changed. The recommendations would remain the same. The data is easily available to update it. It is important, because what it warned of in 2007 is exactly what consecutive governments have let happen over the last 25 years. It is actually a reminder of how we must fundamentally not only get on and do a report like this, but actually act on it as well.

That is planning. Transport is a very similar thing. In 2007, the report stated:

Motor vehicles dominate the State's transport system, both for travel and freight. Perth is one of the most car-dependent cities in the world … The city also has the highest road length per capita of any capital city in Australia, at around 10.7 m/capita …

It shows that extraordinarily, as we know, Perth is a very car-dependent city. Most people have to get around by car. The report has an interesting graph. The data is from 2003. It shows the percentage share of each transport mode in the Perth metropolitan area. You know what is fascinating about this? I asked for this exact data in 2023. It literally has not shifted. It is identical. Walking is still at 11%. Cycling is still at 2%. Public transport was at 5% in the 2003 data. When I asked in this place in June 2023, it was at 4.1%. We have actually gone backwards when it comes to public transport. Actually, cycling also dropped from 2% to 1.4%. The only thing that has gone up is car use, which sits at over 18% in terms of multiple car usage at the moment and sat at exactly 18% in 2003. We have actually gotten worse over those years. I think it is just extraordinary. We realised that we have gone backwards.

Again, the 2007 report is fantastic reading. It talks about setting targets. It states here:

… sets a target for reducing car-as-driver trips by 35% over the 30 years to 2029.

Well, we have not done that. It talked about freight targets going from 10%, which is what it was back then, to 30% by 2013. We are 20 years after that, but we are sitting at 20%. We are halfway there, but we are certainly not at the 30% that was talked about and have not reached the targets that Network City set around density and activating key activity centres connected by transport corridors.

There is a real need for this. It will be easily updated. I think it shows that we are in real danger here. We have made no progress over the last 20 years, and we cannot afford to make no progress again over the next 20. I could say more, but I have actually noticed that there are plenty of others who would like to get up. We will leave them time.

I just want to make one comment. There are a couple of interesting things missing from the 2007 report. There is no mention of urban canopy cover or trees. I thought that was interesting. I think this is where we desperately need a strategy and targets. The minister talked about real and tangible data. Well, we know that the new canopy cover data came out. It was not in any way particularly real or tangible because it was not about new trees. We know that we lost trees. It magically jumped from 16% to 22%. Is there anyone who would like to jump in and explain to me how the methodology got there? I would be very fascinated, because we cannot find out. We certainly need a new state of the environment report that does this.

We also need to acknowledge that over that time, climate change has been a big shift and a big change. We are going to need to respond to that. Hon Jess Beckerling reminded me of what happened only recently in 2023–24 when Bibra Lake almost completely dried. Then it became a ground for urban foxes to hunt sleeping turtles in the area. Over just two years, 436 dead adult turtles were recorded across Bibra Lake, Yangebup and Little Rush Lake. We actually need a response that deals with accelerating climate change and canopy cover that also just gets on, updates the data and gets some real action on some of those key planning and transport issues I talked about earlier.

Hon Dr Brian Walker (2:37 pm): I want to thank Hon Jess Beckerling for bringing this pretty good motion to the house. Although, I am sad to say this, I disagree. I will tell members why. The premise of the motion is actually having a report prepared. I do not know how many reports I have seen from patients suffering from terminal cancer. They have an appointment to attend with the specialist in three months time for another PET scan and to take their bloods. Another report is written to me, the doctor, and they will see the patient in three months time. What is happening with this cancer? Nothing. There is nothing we can do. We are monitoring this patient to death rather than doing the things that need to be done.

The report written from 2007 upon which no action has been taken is exactly the same as a specialist so-called "helping" a patient by doing nothing much and monitoring their decline into death in a very professional way. We cannot afford to do that. What my colleague Hon Dr Brad Pettitt just said is completely correct; we cannot afford to carry on doing this.

There is another area that I really wanted to get involved in. Lots of things have been done I have to say that governments of whichever hue have done what they could. I have to assume that all sides have good intentions of actually fixing the problem. I recall standing here in the chamber at the last iteration of the defanging of the Environmental Protection Act. I asked about the merits of the legislation they were planning, the deep and profound consultation and how wide the areas had been taken.

I asked: How wide was this concept? How far has this consultation been taken? I have not heard one member of the environmental protection groups say they had been consulted. It turns out that the government had indeed consulted widely—with the industrialists and only with the industrialists. That is in Hansard, and members can read the minister's reply. I asked the parliamentary secretary who has carriage of the bill to please explain why 70% of Western Australia's vegetation has gone missing. The question was quite difficult for him to answer. That is not surprising because the cause is really quite clear. It has been going on for almost 100 years. It is the neoliberal philosophical underpinnings of our current society that growth matters. My colleague Hon Dr Steve Thomas will disagree terribly with that because he is very much in the Friedman mind. I would love to sit at his feet and learn more about how this is going to help us.

Hon Dr Steve Thomas: I was hoping the government might, too.

Hon Dr Brian Walker: Fat chance! We can agree that no-one is going to listen to the other side. The thing with this is that since the 1930s, neoliberal philosophy has basically gone on from the point of view that we must have growth at all costs to the whole point that we must rape the environment for profit for the larger companies. What we are seeing right now is that the transnational corporations in Western Australia are removing from Western Australia and Australia the very resources that have made us a rich state, at minimal cost to themselves and maximum loss to ourselves, and that we are, in fact, basically being raped. The underlying philosophy is that they are going to take what they can. The example here are the gas resources, which are being taken out of our area and practically given away. What is the environmental consequence? It is the devil take the hindmost. I point out that we are one of the richest areas in the world, yet we still have poverty in which middle-class people are now descending into poverty. They are the working poor and are dependent on Foodbank to help them put food on the table for their children. This is just not tolerable, and our environment is suffering deeply as a result. We cannot continue to be so inefficient.

I said earlier that we have done some good things. I have to give the government credit that it has certainly done what it can to ensure that what it can do is being done. Having said that, the government has defanged the Environmental Protection Authority so that it can get more profit out of the transnational corporations. With that in mind, we will look at the Rockingham industrial zone, the Pilbara iron ore and Koombana Bay and the aim of preventing duplication and enabling cumulative impact management at a regional scale. I have to listen to the words I have just uttered and realise how little use that is to us as a society. I look at the renewable energy leadership with the proposed Woodside solar facility, which will demonstrate practical decarbonisation using brownfield sites, circular economy design and net zero pathways to 2050. What they are basically saying is, "Well, we'll think about it. We'll do something. Here's the good side." Members saw that Santos supported a science, technology, engineering and mathematics program for children: "Look how much we're doing for the children. We're good for education. We're good for the people of WA." Behind all that, we see the terrible damage it is causing to WA to profit the major transnationals, while we receive very little benefit. The government says, "They are creating jobs." We are going to have these jobs until they put our society into a pit of utter destruction. We are working ourselves into our own failed future. We have regional environmental offsets. We are going to damage the environment here and we are going to make up the money somewhere else. We cannot measure one with the other. The birds singing in the trees do not benefit from the additional $100 gained over there. We cannot do this—unless, of course, one is just a bean counter.

We are missing the target. Even looking at the targets we are missing here from the cumulative impacts of mining, housing and industrial growth remain under-addressed. That is the fancy way of saying we are not doing anything about it, or not enough. We are fragmenting ecosystems faster than they can recover. The import of this is that we might be doing nice things—cosmetic things, if you like—but the end result will be that we will not succeed. I will ask members right now about all the good things that the government has been doing that have been mentioned by my good friend Hon Matthew Swinbourn, and they have been doing good things. Can we see as the bottom line an enhancement in our environment in the end result? That is a serious question: Can we see, with all that has been done, whether any area of our environment is enhanced or improved, or are we looking at minimising the destruction currently happening? I think that is what we are really looking at here. The pay-off for the country is, of course, getting some finances back from that—some funds. We can maybe now afford to pay AUKUS $400 billion. At what price? It is not just us who will pay; it is our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Are they going to look back and say what a great job we did in the chamber in 2025? I do not think they will.

What must be done? What about that Vogel–McFerran review we were talking about in the last term of Parliament? What happened there? Has it been mentioned in this chamber since? We can invest in cumulative impact science. We can expand the EPA's cumulative and holistic impacts advisory committee to deliver quantifiable regional indicators. I very much appreciated what the Minister for the Environment said about rebuilding environmental data systems. That is fine, because we need to get a measure of how well we are actually doing, not simply monitoring to death how much we have slowed the destruction. We need to measure where can we enhance, how we are enhancing and what we are doing to enhance so that we can then refine our treatment of the environment. Environmental management is not the enemy of progress. It is a fundamental underpinning of our continued existence. People can talk about how climate change does not exist! But, look, every measurement we are taking now tells us it is happening. We can argue about the causes. Is it anthropogenic? Is it not? The bottom line is that it is happening. We can either close our eyes, cross our fingers and hope that we will make enough money to fly off to Mars in Elon Musk's Starship to start again, or we can do something about it.

Perhaps what we could do is treat this like the war it is. In wartime, we cannot just muck around anymore. For example, radar was developed because there were bombs coming from planes and people had to recognise when and where they were coming. They had the impetus of needing to do something right then, because otherwise they were going to die under bombs, so progress was made. Look at the space race we have now. A lot of that was occasioned by the fact that war was happening, or was going to happen. We need to find the tools, with the new technology, to allow us to survive or win that war. This need to look after our environment—the only one we have—is a war. We must treat it like a war. Businesses can profit from what we can do to enhance and regrow our environment. We cannot just stop the destruction. How can I put this? It is like when I have a patient with cancer, who has survived after all the chemotherapy and radiotherapy. They are a wasted shell of who they were, but the cancer has gone. Now what? Do I leave that person like that? No. Rehabilitation helps the muscles to grow and nutrition will get their gut working again to build this person up to be able to survive well after having survived a life-threatening disease. We have in front of us right now an environmental life-threatening disease and we need to find the tools to stop its progress and rehabilitate this world to be the beautiful world it used to be before the neoliberal philosophy decided to rape it for personal profit for a few very powerful, very wealthy individuals.

Let us harness the science. Let us harness traditional knowledge. Let us get involved with the Indigenous peoples, not just of Australia but of all peoples, because they know what their world can do if they look after it well. Let us develop the civic resolve to protect the living systems that sustain our economy and our spirit. We need to change the way we think. We are not educating our children to realise we can do something. I can do something. I can make an impact with every piece of rubbish I put back in the proper place, with every decision to not take something reuseable and destroy it and with every action like that that I take. If not just one person, but every single one of us in this world took that attitude would we have a better environment? I think we would.

It is not an act of doing; it is a mindset that we are not teaching ourselves, nor our children. We must do that. The task before us is urgent. It is life-and-death urgent. We will not have a chance to repeat this if things fail. Based on the measurements we are seeing in the reports, we are failing. I was distressed to hear the report about the lack of progress—truly distressed—because that simply underlines how much we need to do. Rather than documenting failure, let us get active and do something. Are we short of ideas? No, we are not. There are plenty of ideas out there, from people who have been looking at this for a long, long time. Members laugh at me for saying we should use hemp to regenerate soil, to help with microclimate change, to give us a source of fibre for clothing and maybe to make materials to send into space. That is laughed at, because: "Well, it's hemp. There's no uptake for that." It is part of rethinking how we look at our world and using nature to return this world into the paradise it should be.

The target is urgent, and if the community can act together, if we can lead the community to act together, I think we have every chance of making this happen.

Hon Neil Thomson (2:50 pm): I will limit my comments to allow right of reply by the mover of the motion. I thank the Greens for bringing this motion forward, and as part of the opposition, I support it. One of the things that has become apparent many times since I have been in this Parliament is that the government often makes the accusation that we do not follow the science; Hon Sue Ellery, in particular, used to love saying "Follow the science". One of the fundamental things about science is that it needs to provide data that can be interpreted in a way that can be monitored and compared. I like the format of the 2007 State of the Environment Report, because it actually summarises the data in a way that is easy to assess. We can see that the intent is to effectively create a traffic light system that can say whether we are improving or not. I think everybody in this place is seeking improvement.

I am reflecting on the report's overview, and it is interesting to see some of the things that were highlighted at that time. We know that it is an ongoing issue. It is a challenge and it has real-life consequences. There was mention earlier today of the database that was part of the old Shared Location Information Platform system across government, where all the detailed scientific data about different types of species is housed in a repository. The problem with that is that it is all very fine for the scientists in the room or people in universities to access that data, but it does not actually provide a policy overview about where things are trending. It is actually very hard for the average person in the community to look at that and say, "Well, something's changing", because they would have to know all the Latin names for different things. It is the bread and butter of the public service to produce that data. The minister also mentioned AI and said that there was some AI work going on. I was interested in that comment. I actually concur with Hon Dr Brad Pettitt, because I think the government could actually utilise AI to take this report and interrogate all the data. I am just giving some tips to the government! It could actually produce the report in exactly the same format with some qualitative assessments. It would be interesting to see. I was thinking it could be a weekend project for Hon Dr Brad Pettitt!

Hon Dr Brad Pettitt: We'll table it at the next sitting!

Hon Neil Thomson: That is right, we could table a report and just see what AI—that super intelligent being in some data server room in Iceland or wherever it is—can come up with, because I do not think assessment of all that data would take that long. I agree with Hon Dr Brad Pettitt that the government could probably do an assessment, particularly given that it has this excellent overview and the structure is already in place. That is my gratuitous idea today—for hardworking members of the government to utilise the technology to produce a state of the environment report.

I think the excuses presented by the government are not really valid. I think it really does not want a document that highlights the fact that things have become worse, particularly in some of my areas of interest, such as planning and lands. We know that the land situation is a challenge out there, whether in the rangelands or the Goldfields. I know there are huge issues with the mine rehabilitation areas. There is a whole range of issues in relation to the degradation of sites that have not been maintained, particularly in some of the public open spaces around our city. In relation to planning, Hon Dr Brad Pettitt mentioned the issue of greening our city. I was going to raise that issue because the government promised to present a greening strategy; I think that was a media announcement on the front steps of Parliament by Hon John Carey, who said he would have it out by the end of 2024. What has happened since then? We have not seen anything. Some documents have been produced and some new data has been provided, but the greening strategy is yet to be produced. The government keeps promising that it will be delivered by the end of 2025. Who knows? It might be by the end of 2026. It just keeps going: "Next year, next year." It is like tomorrow, and tomorrow never comes. That is pretty much this government when it comes to these things. The government's record around documentation of the state of the environment is poor.

I want to remind the people of Western Australia—those who are bothering to watch Parliament today—that we saw what this government did with directions 2031: Draft Spatial Framework for Perth and Peel. That was another great piece of work. It was a massive piece of work. Unlike my colleague Hon Dr Steve Thomas, who was in Parliament at that time, I was actually in Treasury in 2007, so I was a public servant hoping to be listened to by government. It was interesting at the time, because that was the genesis of that strategic assessment of Perth and Peel. I represented the then state government on a Council of Australian Governments subcommittee and there was a discussion about having a bilateral assessment of our banksia woodlands. That evolved into a strategic assessment of Perth and Peel, which was all part of our obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and making sure that we could actually work out, within a planning context, where and how development could occur in a way that would have the least impact on the endangered species that were subject to the EPBC act.

That was a massive body of work, and we saw it just after Christmas in, I think, 2022 or 2023. It was right between Christmas and New Year—that typical time for slipping something out there. The government just removed its agenda on that. Although it says it is using some of the work that was done, we do not have a clear strategic framework for our city in relation to growth, given the sum of the challenges in relation to land clearing, wetland protection and so forth. This government has a track record of not actually wanting that information out there in a transparent way. I think this is the least transparent government we have had. Maybe the former Labor government thought that the 2007 report was the reason it lost the election; I do not know. It did not want to have that report again, so that was an issue.

There are other matters and I have very limited time left. I want to leave time for the Greens to reply. We have seen the failure of this government's recent polyphagous shot-hole borer eradication program. I think that feeds into the whole greening strategy issue. We have not seen a replacement strategy for managing that going forward. There is no clear strategy that I can see in terms of the management of it. It seems like we just want to forget about that now. Those are some of the risks that Hon Dr Steve Thomas mentioned in relation to biosecurity. I think that is a big issue. There is a bit about the biosecurity issue in the report that was presented, but it is not really covered in a detailed policy.

The last comment I want to make is in relation to fishing. The demersal fishing issue has come as a bit of a surprise to the community, particularly in my region, because the most recent data has been quite shocking. There has been a lack of consistency in reporting and monitoring. We have not invested enough.

My final point is that we just need to invest more in monitoring our environment because that would be the result. The real-world impacts I mentioned will be less impactful if we can make those changes earlier so we can ensure our environment is there for everybody to enjoy and live in, in this beautiful state of Western Australia. Thank you.

Hon Jess Beckerling (2:59 pm) in reply: We have had a very interesting and constructive conversation this afternoon. I took some notes while different people were speaking, and I want to acknowledge the contributions that have been made.

Firstly, I thank Hon Amanda Dorn for bringing on the amendment calling for the minister to report back. I strongly supported that amendment. Asking for a progress report to be provided was the right call, but it was disappointing to hear from the minister that he currently has no intention of having anything to report.

Hon Sophie McNeill spoke so eloquently about Western Australians' love of the natural environment. She spoke about all the local groups and peak bodies, the Conservation Council of Western Australia and others, for whom this is a top priority. The honourable member also described the dramatic decline we have seen in the health of the marine environment, and the severe impact heatwaves, both marine and terrestrial, have on the environment and on people. She described what it is like for all of us, individuals and families, as we watch the climate crisis unfold. She mentioned the clear need to regularly do state of the environment reports; they provide for a scientific understanding and drive planning. Hon Sophie McNeill also gave us a really strong reminder that data and monitoring can help to avert disasters like the one we now see in fish populations.

We really want to thank Hon Dr Steve Thomas and commend him and the opposition for supporting this motion. I agree that we need to take politics out of these sorts of conversations, as I said in my initial contribution. Hearing the honourable member say that, wherever you are on the political spectrum, you can merge science with economics and land in a sensible place resonated with me. I hope that that is what we are all trying to do in these sorts of debates. The honourable member also spoke about how these sorts of reports can end up being used as a weapon against government, but I really think that there is no need for them to end up being considered a weapon if the government is taking leadership and communicating clearly with the public about the issues so we can see that it is implementing an action plan.

The idea of courage was mentioned. Yes, it does take courage because, unfortunately, we do not live in a society in which these sorts of conversations are always considered constructively. Governments do watch their backs and wonder what the political implications will be if they take these sorts of important and necessary steps. But isn't courage better than the alternative?

I also agree with the member that the Environmental Protection Authority simply offers opinions. Yes, it does. It offers recommendations, and that is why we then need governments to implement action plans that follow through and need multipartisan support to ensure that those action plans are implemented.

I also strongly agree with Hon Dr Steve Thomas that, of course, we can afford it. Let us remember what is largely filling our coffers in this state. That is having detrimental impacts on our environment, but we can manage those impacts. When we manage the impacts sustainably, know what we are doing and have a strong scientific understanding of what the impacts are or might be, we can set up economies that are more sustainable, last longer and look after the sustainability of our natural environment. As Hon Dr Steve Thomas said, there indeed is a lot of work to do. I heard the member conclude that we have scope to have tough conversations, show strength and courage, allow the science to be done, and set the agenda for how the government chooses to respond. I thank him for that.

I am very conscious of the time, and I am not going to get to everybody's contributions, but I will speak about Minister Swinbourn's contribution. It is really disappointing that the Minister for the Environment said that the government is not planning to follow through on the commitment made in its 2023 platform. After listening to the discussion today, I invite the minister and the government to reconsider that and to understand the profound level of community support for this work to be done. I disagree that it would divert attention away from the on-the-ground work. In fact, it would provide the necessary understanding and capacity to develop good strategy, and it would allow for good planning and prioritisation. This is about resourcing the science. It is about knowing what is going on, being in a position to develop the overall strategy, making good plans that follow on from that, bringing the community along and educating people about what is going on in the natural environment. This will allow all of us to work together to turn around the trajectory and look after the natural environment better than we do today.

I also want to mention Hon Dr Brian Walker. We do not want to monitor patients to death, and we do not want to monitor the natural environment to death.

Question put and passed.