Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 21), after item 30, insert:

30A After subsection 22XM(1)

Insert:

(1A) Despite paragraph (1)(a), an Australia carbon credit unit is not a prescribed carbon unit if the Australian carbon credit unit is issued (whether before, on or after the commencement of this subsection) in relation to the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in living biomass, dead organic matter or soils on land that:

(a) was included in an eligible offsets project that was covered by the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) (Human-Induced Regeneration of a Permanent Even-Aged Native Forest1.1) Methodology Determination 2013 on 1 March 2023; and

(b) does not meet the following requirements:

(i) the land sustained forest in the past, which has since been lost as a result of clearing or another event;

(ii) regeneration of forest on the land was prevented by clearing or grazing pressure for at least 10 years before an application under section 22 of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 was made in relation to the project;

(iii) the cessation of clearing or reduction of grazing pressure is necessary for forest to regenerate on the land;

(iv) the land did not have any mature trees or shrubs on it at the time the project commenced.

(1B) For the purposes of paragraph (1A)(b), a reference to forest is a reference to an area of land covering at least 0.2 of a hectare that contains trees that are 2 metres or more in height and provide crown cover of at least 20% of the land, when defined at 0.2 of a hectare scale.

(2) Schedule 1, page 8 (before line 22), before item 31, insert:

30B Before subsection 22XM(2)

Insert:

(1C) Despite paragraph (1)(a), an Australia carbon credit unit is not a prescribed carbon unit if the Australian carbon credit unit is issued (whether before, on or after the commencement of this subsection) in relation to an eligible offsets project involving the destruction of methane using an electricity generator:

(a) that was covered by the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming InitiativeElectricity Generation from Landfill Gas) Methodology Determination 2021, or the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming InitiativeLandfill Gas) Methodology Determination 2015, on 1 March 2023; and

(b) whose baseline abatement proportion is:

(i) for projects that were transitioned from the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme or Greenhouse Friendly schemesless than 50%; and

(ii) for all other projectsless than 40%.

(1D) For the purposes of paragraph (1C)(b), a reference to the baseline abatement proportion is a reference to the proportion of the methane combusted that would have been combusted without the project and that is deducted when calculating the net abatement amount for the project in accordance with the applicable method.

(3) Schedule 1, page 27 (after line 29), after item 61, insert:

61A After section 76B

Insert:

76C Review of operation of safeguard mechanism

(1) The Climate Change Authority must conduct a review of the operation of:

(a) the safeguard provisions; and

(b) legislative instruments under those provisions.

Note: Safeguard provisions is defined in section 7.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider the following:

(a) whether the safeguard mechanism is on target to achieve the 28% emissions reduction sought by 2030;

(b) the initial impacts of resetting and declining baselines, including the costs and availability of domestic offsets;

(c) the appropriate treatment of international units;

(d) the suitability of arrangements for emissions intensive, trade-exposed activities;

(e) whether the cost containment measure is sufficient;

(f) the treatment of flexibility mechanisms (such as banking and borrowing and multi-year monitoring) beyond 2030.

Public consultation

(3) A review under subsection (1) must make provision for public consultation.

Report

(4) The Climate Change Authority must:

(a) give the Minister a report of the review; and

(b) as soon as practicable after giving the report to the Minister, publish the report on the Climate Change Authority's website.

(5) The Minister must cause copies of a report under subsection (4) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the review is completed.

Timing

(6) The review must be completed during the 2025 calendar year.

(7) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6), the review is completed when the report of the review is given to the Minister under subsection (4).

Recommendations

(8) The report of the review may set out recommendations to the Commonwealth Government.

(9) In formulating a recommendation that the Commonwealth Government should take particular action, the Climate Change Authority must analyse the costs and benefits of that action.

(10) Subsection (9) does not prevent the Climate Change Authority from taking other matters into account in formulating a recommendation.

(11) If the report of the review sets out one or more recommendations to the Commonwealth Government, the report must set out the Climate Change Authority's reasons for those recommendations.

Government response to recommendations

(12) If the report of the review sets out one or more recommendations to the Commonwealth Government:

(a) as soon as practicable after receiving the report, the Minister must cause to be prepared a statement setting out the Commonwealth Government's response to each of the recommendations; and

(b) within 6 months after receiving the report, the Minister must cause copies of the statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament.

(13) The Commonwealth Government's response to the recommendations may have regard to the views of the following:

(a) the Climate Change Authority;

(b) the Regulator;

(c) such other persons as the Minister considers relevant.

All three amendments are about trust, integrity and transparency. The minister used these words in his press conference today, but, I have to be blunt, this iteration of the legislation is not good enough. I accept there will be amendments in the other place, but, once again, this House is being asked to take that on trust. This is neither respectful nor effective. A pat on the head and a 'don't worry about it' is not good enough for either this crossbench or our communities.

The first two of my three amendments have to do with ensuring carbon credits that do not represent additional emissions abatement are not available for use by safeguard facilities. As the minister knows, there is deep-seated concern in the community, including in my electorate of Goldstein, that this legislation will not do the job the government says it's set up to achieve, that these 200-plus big polluters which emit 28 per cent of our total carbon emissions will actually reduce their emissions rather than try to account their way to zero, and that it will be too easy for them to access carbon credits rather than change their ways.

The minister himself commissioned the Chubb review, which made recommendations in relation to human induced regeneration and landfill gas. On landfill gas, Chubb acknowledged that the current baselines afforded to industry are too generous. But the minister believes there is sufficient goodwill in the sector to ensure that the alternative approach proposed by the government will act as sufficient incentive to encourage businesses to get their act together. I presume, and would like a public assurance from the minister in this place, that, if the changes aren't working, new measures will be introduced to make sure they do.

The same goes for human induced regeneration. As the IPCC's recently released Synthesis report clearly shows, we need deep, rapid and sustained reductions in emissions. The human induced regeneration method already has criteria to ensure that the emissions reductions for which ACCUs are issued truly are additional. However, these criteria are not currently being enforced by the Clean Energy Regulator, so projects are being issued with ACCUs in circumstances that are contrary to the law.

The second of my amendments deals with landfill gas. Seventy per cent of ACCUs for landfill gas projects are issued to just 20 sites. These projects are old, large sites using the landfill gas captured to generate electricity, also known as generation based projects. At present, regulation around baselines for the landfill gas method is inadequate. The state of the electricity market means baselines should be highest for the largest projects that still run profitable operations, even without the incentive of ACCUs. They're receiving free money for doing what they would do anyway. I propose that carbon credits issued to large generation based projects be excluded from the legislation except where the baselines are no less than 50 per cent. For smaller projects the baseline minimum would be 40 per cent. We cannot afford for low-integrity offsets to be purchased by Australia's largest polluters. The stakes here are simply too high.

The third of my amendments is intended to ensure the safeguard mechanism is fit for purpose and that changes necessary to do so are made sooner rather than later. The government has said a review will take place in 2026-27. I am proposing to bring forward the time line for review to calendar year 2025. This will bring us closer to making sure we reach our 2030 emissions reduction target. The government will say the Climate Change Authority will be able to provide progress reports on the state of the safeguard mechanism in its annual health checks. I hope that the minister is right and that he will commit to taking remedial action should the authority find that the safeguard mechanism is not working.

As I said at the start, this is about trust, integrity and transparency. I look forward to any assurances the minister is prepared to offer right here, right now. Community trust in leadership is thin, time is short and we have no wriggle room. I commend the amendments to the House.

See this speech in context