Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change to some of the arguments that have been made inside this place and outside this place in relation to the measurement of soil carbon and whether that will be part of the Copenhagen discussions and Kyoto measures into the future. According to some, reafforestation could address some of the issues that the proposed amendments attempt to deal with. There is the capacity for the sequestration right to hold for a period of years. I have heard queries as to whether the carbon that is being stored will, in a simplistic sense, be available for the market at certain times as it grows. Similar issues are being explored regarding soil carbon depth, soil type, drought et cetera. So I would like the parliamentary secretary to comment on the veracity of the science that is involved in the sequestration right as it relates to forestry.

I think the member for Mackellar raised some very interesting points a moment go, and the member for Cowper and other members spoke about cost to agriculture—and I have seen many of the documents as well. As I said, I am opposed to this legislation, but I am not opposed to doing something about the problem. I am not opposed to an emissions trading scheme that is properly structured, but one that has a target level of only five per cent, I think, would create a whole economic mechanism for no real gain.

My electorate of New England is in the Murray-Darling Basin and these amendments affect the basin because reafforestation potentially has not only positive aspects involving carbon storage but negative aspects in the form of basin run-off. For those who are loosely described as climate sceptics, I make this point: if the Murray-Darling, as some climate scientists are saying, were to suffer a reduction of up to 30 per cent of run-off through the changes to the climate, this message being peddled by the National Party particularly that, if we take action, agriculture will bear a burden is nonsense. What if we do nothing and the scientists are proved right in 40 or 50 years? That is when the penalty will be paid by the farm sector. I would rather be doing something now than not doing anything at all and having people look back and say, ‘Why didn’t they act?’ If we ever need an example of that, we need only look at the Murray-Darling and the legislation that we have dealt with in this place in recent years. We recognise that what we did was wrong and now we are trying to fix it.

So I stress to members that when we are debating this subject we are not debating who is in government and who may be in government next year or the year after; we are really debating things that will not have a significant impact on us immediately but will potentially affect those who follow us. As I said, I would rather be on the side of action than on the side of inaction. If the steps we take amount to overkill, that will only be a positive for the globe.

I do not question the government’s motives, but I do not think that legislation with this headline banner and a five per cent number will have any meaningful impact on achieving those long-term goals. As I said earlier, the five per cent could be achieved by not going anywhere near a market mechanism. It could be achieved partly through reafforestation as well as through renewable energy et cetera. I oppose the amendments and urge all members to consider some of the broader long-term issues. (Time expired)

See this speech in context