Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts, I present the committee's report entitled Advisory report on bills referred 24 March 2011, together with the minutes of proceedings.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—The advisory report of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts into bills referred on 24 March 2011 considers three bills relating to the proposed establishment of a carbon farming initiative; namely, the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011; the Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011; and the Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011. The Selection Committee referred these bills to the committee on 24 March 2011. The bills were also referred by the Senate to its Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on 25 March 2011. The two committees have therefore conducted parallel inquiries into these bills.

Before I turn to the content of the bills I draw the attention of the House to the fact that concurrent referral of identical bills to committees of both houses is a rare occurrence. However, under the new parliamentary arrangements in the 43rd parliament, and particularly the expanded role of the Selection Committee, it is possible that this may occur more frequently. The committee is of the view that, for such reviews to be fully effective, they should avoid perceptions of duplication among inquiry participants and other stakeholders. On this basis, the committee deliberately sought not to duplicate the Senate committee's inquiry but to broaden and extend the range of evidence obtained by the two committees. For this reason, the committee has focused its report on a number of specific issues raised in written submissions and during its public hearing.

The committee heard broad support expressed by inquiry participants for the intent of the bills. The bills were generally welcomed as a means to engage the land sector in greenhouse gas abatement activities and described in terms of the opportunities that would be created. The committee did however note six key areas of concern: additionality, permanence, native title, methodologies, natural resource management plans and perverse outcomes. I will briefly comment on each of these.

The committee found that there was a high degree of uncertainty surrounding the definition of 'additionality' and those projects that would be included on the so-called 'positive' and 'negative' lists. For many, the bill's requirements surrounding permanence were considered excessive and a disincentive to participation. Permanence will apply to sequestration projects, where the requirement is that sequestration must be maintained on a net basis for 100 years. On balance, the committee supported the permanence requirements and the risk of reversal buffer as they are key elements to maintaining the integrity of the scheme and ensuring abatement is genuine. The committee notes that landholders have the freedom to terminate their project at any time by relinquishing credits they have received.

The committee heard a number of issues relating to the bill's treatment of native title and particularly non-exclusive native title. The committee noted that the government is continuing to consult with relevant stakeholders to refine the native title elements of the scheme.

The bills are designed to achieve abatement in a manner that is consistent with protection of the natural environment, and one of the mechanisms to achieve this is a requirement that project proponents consider regional natural resource management plans. The committee received mixed evidence as to the quality and overall value of these plans and considers that more work is required in this area.

The need for adequate funding to support research and development was a recurrent theme. Specifically, the committee takes the view that support for research and development is essential for methodology development. The committee considered that the government must be rigorous in monitoring impacts of the scheme to avoid perverse outcomes, such as competition with agricultural land or adverse effects on water availability. The committee recognises many concerns centre on how the legislation will be implemented. The committee has urged the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency to make its proposed regulations publicly available as soon as possible.The committee took particular interest in comments surrounding carbon literacy and has urged the department to promote this in both ongoing consultation and implementation of the scheme. Many participants cited the lack of carbon price as a significant impediment to participation in the scheme. However, when questioned, inquiry participants took the view that it was better to proceed with the scheme now than to wait for a price. The committee also took the view, as did a number of participants, that the first review of the scheme, scheduled for 2014, will be an opportunity to review and refine it. The committee has therefore recommended that each of the three bills be passed, and my colleagues on the committee look forward to hearing the views of the members of this House on the proposed legislation when it is debated.

I take the opportunity to thank my colleagues on the committee and also the secretariat for the work that they undertook in order to assist the committee with its findings on this matter. As you would be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, as a member of that committee, there was a huge amount of work undertaken in order to try to bring this matter back to the House as quickly as possible. I thank all members who participated. I commend the report to the House.

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to speak on the advisory report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts on bills referred on 24 March 2011. As the committee chair has noted, this report considers three bills relating to the proposed establishment of a carbon farming initiative, namely: the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011, the Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 and the Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011.

This legislation has multiple objectives. Firstly, it seeks to help Australia to meet its objectives under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Secondly, it intends to create incentives for people to undertake land sector abatement projects. Thirdly, it seeks to achieve carbon abatement in a manner that is consistent with protection of the natural environment. The committee heard about the opportunities that the proposed scheme will create for engagement in land sector-based greenhouse gas abatement projects. That said, as the chair has outlined, there were a number of issues raised with the committee and I will specifically focus on some of them.

In the report the committee has recognised the need for ongoing consultation with a number of stakeholders. The committee heard evidence about the bill's treatment of native title, for example, and the issues that this has raised for non-exclusive native title holders. The committee is also aware of the concerns of the WA government about the relationship between native title holders and other stakeholders under the bill. In this regard, I note that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has stated at paragraph 4.51 of the explanatory memorandum of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill:

Given the practical and legal complexity of the interaction of the scheme with native title, the Government intends to undertake further consultation with a broad range of stakeholders and complete detailed legal analysis before reflecting a considered approach in amendments to the bill.

The committee has supported ongoing consultation on this issue. Generally comments about consultation have been positive so the committee is optimistic that a satisfactory solution can be achieved. The committee also emphasised that consultation should be ongoing with key stakeholders who have identified disincentives to participation in the scheme. The committee also recognises the need for improved carbon literacy among landholders and potential participants in the scheme.

The committee found that the uncertainty surrounding matters that are to be addressed in regulations, such as the positive and negative lists, was a significant issue. The committee concluded that the government should make the proposed regulations for the scheme publicly available as soon as possible. For many people it will be this detail that will determine the level of support and participation.

The committee received a range of evidence about possible perverse outcomes. Environmental groups emphasised that carbon credits issued under the scheme must represent verifiable, genuine additional abatement. Others commented upon the potential impacts on water availability and biodiversity. Several participants also told us that the scheme could lead to competition for agricultural land and land use change, leading to community, economic and social impacts. The need for adequate funding to support research and development, especially in the development of methodologies, was raised by many. The committee considers that support for the research and development that is essential to methodology development must be forthcoming.

In conclusion, while recognising that the government is continuing to undertake consultation and refine operation of the scheme, the committee took the view that the principle of the bills should be supported. On behalf of the opposition members of the committee, we believe that key issues need to be resolved through the Senate process with appropriate amendments including but not limited to: permanence, additionality, protection of Western Australian sovereignty of land use, transparency of the regulations and protection of prime agricultural land. I commend the report to the House.