Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Earlier today I was very pleased to be able lend my remarks in support of the legislation which goes to establish the carbon farming initiative, a piece of legislation which is a significant endeavour undertaken by the government. It reflects the commitments which we made at the last election to give farmers, agriculturalists and landholders an opportunity to access carbon markets. It is something which has been very well received by people from the sector. It is something which has certainly been the subject of quite extensive consultation both in House and Senate committees. It is unfortunate that the opposition is now seeking to delay the legislation.

It is rather peculiar that we have a situation where we on this side of the House are giving an opportunity to farmers, to landholders and to those who participate in the forestry industry, while at the same time the opposition is taking steps to delay the carbon farming initiative. It is putting up amendments which are intended to sideline the carbon farming initiative. We have done our part to support the land sector through the initiatives in the bill and we really wonder why representatives from the other side come into this place professing to support agriculturalists and then proceed to oppose very sensible legislation. Even the remarks by the member for Flinders in March of this year undermine his amendments now because he has said:

This is something that should be embraced on all sides. And as we speak, the Government is preparing its carbon farming initiative.

He went on to say:

We support that approach because it's about using soil carbons, it's about capturing carbon in trees … and doing real things to reduce emissions.

Yes, it is or it would be if the opposition would get out of the way and enable us to proceed with the legislation as we intended to do.

The carbon farming initiative will give Australian farmers and forest growers an opportunity to address the extremely high emission levels within the sector and for the agricultural sector to take a very significant role in Australia's efforts against the effects of climate change. But, as I said, the opposition wants to sideline it. We know that biosequestering carbon could enable our landscape to be regenerated. It has the potential to improve soil hydrology. It has the potential ultimately to improve agricultural outputs but we know that the opposition wants to delay it through its amendment process.

The bill would recognise that there are significant opportunities for carbon abatement through reducing or avoiding emissions, for example, through capture and destruction of methane emissions, or alternatively removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in soil or trees, or by farming in a way that increases soil carbon levels. Through the bill the government is trying to provide a long-term framework for rewarding abatement undertaken by farmers and landholders. In turn this will help provide the kind of investment certainty which the agricultural sector needs in order for it to be a significant part of the solution to climate change. We know that farmers and landholders are looking for certainty around that framework, and that is what this bill offers. As I have mentioned, consultation on the initiative has been very extensive and has carried on over a number of years. Through the process of consultation on exposure drafts, for instance, the department received over 270 submissions. We also know that the department conducted workshops around Australia in order to consult even more widely on the initiative. The bills were then referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee and to the House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts, which received 70 submissions to its inquiry, including from farmers, forestry groups and other interested landholders.

So there has been broad consultation and broad support for the introduction of legislation and consultation about the detail of the initiative. Far from the concerns raised by the member for Flinders about detail, there has been an extensive analysis of exposure drafts of the legislation. There have been extensive opportunities for consultation. Indeed, I might refer members of the House to the comments in the submission of the National Farmers Federation, which was one of the parties that made a submission to the House inquiry on the carbon farming initiative. The submission says:

The legislation has also addressed NFF concerns around potential perverse outcomes in relation to food production, water, local communities, employment and biodiversity, as well as reducing some of the uncertainty and administration costs surrounding crediting periods, reporting timeframes and offsets compliance.

Importantly, it goes on to say:

The Government deserves credit for listening to the farm sector and modifying its proposal to ensure that genuine abatement opportunities under the CFI are not unnecessarily overlooked.

The content of key regulations has been released for public consultation. The government has consulted widely with stakeholders in relation to the design of the scheme. We have comments coming from the sector that would seem very much to support that view. The regulations will also be the subject of parliamentary scrutiny once they have been finalised.

So we have the detail, we have the opportunity for consultation and it really seems that the only people who are opposed to this measure being implemented are those opposite. We know, for instance, that each project approved under the carbon farming initiative must be undertaken in accordance with approved methodologies and comply with various other scheme eligibility requirements. There is a great deal of detail currently in the legislation. In addition, we know that the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee is an independent expert committee that has been established to assess proposed methodologies and make recommendations to the minister on their approval. So we have an opportunity for oversight, we have assurances in the legislation in relation to carbon credit units and the trading of those carbon credit units, we have requirements for compliance with laws and we have enforcement measures in the legislation.

Ultimately, we have a fairly comp­rehensive reform package, which the government has put forward in response to its election commitments to the land sector. Those who are opposed to the measures are those who profess to represent members of the land sector. It is a very curious situation. Ultimately this legislation is about ensuring that farmers and other landholders have access to valuable carbon markets. There has been broad consultation. There will be ongoing consultation with the land sector about the initiative. We have a very significant and a very progressive reform which will greatly assist us to tackle climate change impacts. It is part of our broader reforms, which will include carbon pricing. Despite all of these things, we have an opposition that is paralysed by division and incapable of engaging with the types of complex reforms that are needed to move Australia towards a low-polluting future. (Time expired)

See this speech in context