Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this bill, the Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 and the Australian National Registry of Emi­ssions Units Bill 2011.

Debate resumed on the motion:

That this bill be now read a second time.

to which the following amendment was moved:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

“the House decline to give the bill a second reading until the terms of the regulations giving effect to the provisions of the bill are laid before the House”.

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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)

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 and the amendment moved by the member for Flinders. The climate change conference, three weeks ago now, reaffirmed the problems and challenges facing the world. Mercifully, at least for now, we have an open admission that only a worldwide effort can actually make a difference to our CO2 emissions and the actions Australia takes in isolation in fact make very little difference. That does not mean what we do is not important or that we should not try. We must be seen to be part of the world community in taking action in this area.

The coalition's position is that we should take the least-harm option to meet the minimum cuts of five per cent by 2020, goals both the government and the opposition agree on in this debate. Some say that the coalition's plan will not deliver the necessary cuts—the five per cent by 2020—but of course an equal question remains: will the government's tax deliver the five per cent by 2020? There are industry reports circulating at the moment that the coal-fired power industry would need a price of around $60 a tonne for carbon to be able to switch off coal.

Australia is often identified as a villain, as the world's highest or second highest emitter of carbon on a per capita basis. Like many things in many debates, there are things that are definitely true, there are half truths and then there are things that are absolute misrepresentations. I put this one in the category of half truths. While it can be shown to be true on paper, in fact 18 per cent of Australian emissions are embedded in our exports—those emissions are consumed in third countries, making their balance sheet look good and our balance sheet look bad. If you remove that 18 per cent we in fact come in at around number 12 on the list of highest emitters in the world—about mid-range for a modern industrialised nation.

For good policy outcomes we must accept reality. In the latest year I have figures for, 2008-09, China installed 50 gigawatts of coal fired electricity capacity, which is roughly 35 times as much as the total South Australian output of electricity. We must also recognise that two of our greatest competitors, Canada and the US, have abandoned plans for trading schemes and it is important that we understand our place in the world. A scheme which makes a sacrificial lamb of Australia will achieve a worse result for the world's environment. That is why we support the policy of direct action, just as President Obama does. It enables Australia to grab the low-hanging fruit. My father was a great gardener and he had a wonderful orchard. We never started picking fruit from the top of the tree; we always went for the low-hanging fruit. I think it is very sound policy because, in fact, the fruit at the top could be eaten by the birds by the time we got through the fruit at the bottom.

As I said, if we embark on a policy of direct action, as we approach the point of 2020 we can re-assess where we are—is the rest of the world serious?—and we can adapt to suit. But, if we follow the path of tax and we have carbon leakage, then, of course, the nation is seriously disadvantaged. In particular the regional electorate which I represent will be seriously disadvantaged. The government promotes certainty and they plan to ramp up the tax. The question is: what will happen if the rest of the world fails to deliver? Any government will be forced to change the rules and that will not give investment certainty.

In turning to the bill, Australia covers 7.6 million square kilometres and is the sixth largest nation by land mass in the world. Australian farmers manage 60 per cent of the continent and the land is recognised as an enormous potential carbon sink. If we are to utilise its potential, it stands to reason that we must find a way to involve the land managers, that is, the farmers. This legislation is about establishing a framework aimed at encouraging positive and long-term land management practices and it is a step in the right direction. Repeated farming practice largely gives a stable outcome. That means the rain falls on the ground, the sunshine is applied and the plants grow. They soak up carbon, lock that carbon up for a certain period of time—normally not long—and livestock may eat it or we may reap the crops, and then we release the carbon when the food is consumed. So, it is a cycle. To increase carbon storage in that cycle we have to change practice.

The change in farming practice in the last 30 years across Australia has been enormous. Many of the things which store carbon in the soil are already commonplace practice on farms. Not only is it the direct storage of carbon in the soil, it is the way the land is managed which can have a big effect. For instance cultivation is a big culprit when it comes to soil erosion with wind and water. Soil erosion leads to salinity, salinity leads to loss of production and the ability to store carbon long term. If you kill off the trees and the crops in an area then no carbon will be stored. It has an impact on the world environment in a similar manner, which I will come to in a moment.

The experience differs from farm to farm and having set rules for any particular farm can mean that you get varied effects. Australia is a huge place and conditions vary greatly across it. In some places there is high rainfall of metres per year. In the part of Australia that I represent it is down to less than 100 millimetres a year. It is tropical in the north to an almost frigid climate in southern Tasmania. There are deep black self-mulching soils, rocky mountain grazing and sandy flats in Western Australia. The reason for pointing out these different agricultural backgrounds is to show that picking technologies is dangerous. Whilst many people see trees as being the ultimate answer in locking up carbon, in the area I farm, trees can be quite an impediment to farming. There is the idea that you have shelter belts but, in fact, when you live in a low rainfall environment, trees will stretch their roots for maybe five times their height into the paddock because they have to be shallow rooted trees to live in those environments. That means that, rather than covering up a small area of ground, you actually lead to erosion pits around the trees and loss of production. It is important that any policy should not just stimulate a knee-jerk reaction in forestry which, in fact, could have a detrimental overall effect.

I have a serious concern that parts of this policy will lead to people buying up land in the most productive parts of Australia and locking it up under trees for a 100-year time frame. In the end that is counterproductive to world food production. While we are told that the CO2 challenge is the greatest moral challenge of our lifetime, feeding a world of nine billion people will also be a great moral challenge for this planet. Taking prime land out of agricultural production will lead to much greater logging and clearing of rainforests in Third World countries. It is important that we keep our agriculture production at the large end, the most productive end, and that we get the most out of the available soil in the world without having to clear more areas.

Estimates of deforestation around the world contributing to CO2 emissions range from between seven per cent and 25 per cent a year. That is a big range and it shows you how difficult carbon accounting can be. That brings me to a recurring theme in the treatment of agriculture and in how we support agriculture. I said to a friend almost 30 years ago that I thought agriculture was a sunrise industry. He recently spoke to me and said, 'I didn't know what you meant then, but I think I'm starting to get it now.' He is starting to understand what a challenge it will be for the world to feed itself. I have often raised the issue of agricultural research in the House. It will be very important, if we are to utilise this legislation, that governments invest in the research which will deliver the tools to farmers so they can adequately measure and manage the carbon cycle within their soils. At the moment the technology is, at best, in its infancy. Farmers will know how to access the program if we put the framework in place. They will work out how to access the money and how to access the policy but you have got to give them the tools to do so. In fact, our agriculture departments have been run down around Australia by various state governments with a lack of investment such that the horsepower to do the job is being challenged at the moment.

I am concerned this bill has no allocation for funding to develop the science. It attempts a quick fix. It sounds good but, like most pieces of government legislation, we get the announcement before we get the meat on the bones. We were just told by the member for La Trobe that there was plenty of detail in this legislation. In fact, there are 300 pages in the bill and 160 pages of explanatory notes, but there is no clear understanding of actually how this is going to work. There is plenty of detail but nothing which helps farmers to understand what the compliance will be in detail and what it will mean for them on their properties to go out and work with this legislation.

While it is moving in the right direction, and that is why the opposition supports it, there needs to be more work going into it at this stage so it can be adequately accessed by farmers. Recent suggestions that a carbon price may have to be as high as $40 or even $100 a tonne would certainly excite farmers when it came to producing carbon credits. However, the implications of such a tax might well mean there are no farmers left to get excited. Much of what the government wants to do appears to involve a blank cheque, which is why the member for Flinders has moved his amendment. This legislation follows the government's track record of an announce and defend mentality which has the government under siege to some extent. Through the last 3½ years we have had many examples of a big policy announcement and no detail 'as it will be worked out later'. Of course, the devil is always in the detail. So I look forward to seeing how the government is going to try to implement this policy and we look forward to working with the government to implement the policy. As I said in my opening remarks, 60 per cent of the land mass is controlled by Australian farmers and if we want to find a way to sequester carbon into soil obviously we must involve the land managers. So in that case we need carrots—and sometimes we need sticks but this is certainly about carrots. But it needs to be tightened up a fair bit before I can see many of my neighbours actually saying: 'Gee whiz, this is a good idea. I'm going to get on with it.'

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 as it involves an issue that is of central importance to the advancement of our society, our economy and our nation. As a member of parliament representing a regional electorate, I understand that this issue has been thoroughly debated in the Australian community, including my electorate. I appreciate that this issue has been also thoroughly debated as a matter of urgency in our vibrant and healthy democracy, and I welcome the debate. However, I believe that it should not be a debate that is dominated by the fear mongering and falsehood propagated daily by those opposite and those who continue to deny the pressing reality of climate change.

Before the carbon debate things were different on that side of the House—but how things have changed. Indeed, it is supposed to be those opposite who would advocate market solutions to economic issues. However, we have seen that those opposite have abandoned their previous position and continue to try to strike new poses daily. Now they are trying to convince Australians that their carbon scheme, which would take $720 out of the pockets of Australian households, is, in some bizarre way, good for us. Meanwhile this government has long argued for and proposed a market solution to address the issue of pricing carbon emissions. We have been consistent in articulating the need to price carbon, and a market solution is absolutely needed because long-term incentives are central to ensuring that the low-carbon potential of our economy is realised.

This bill before the House for debate today relates to the issue of carbon emissions in the agricultural industry and the provision of a market based mechanism to provide incentives to reduce carbon emissions. Currently the agricultural sector of the Australian economy accounts for 23 per cent of Australia's emissions. Any legislative response to carbon emissions must therefore have specific programs in place for the agricultural sector. This is because our agricultural sector does operate under economic pressures different from those in other sectors of the economy, and our legislative response here must be appropriate to this sector. This bill is very well detailed—as the member who spoke before me, the member for Grey, has recognised—and recognises that the farming sector is vital in this debate. The bill recognises the great potential for agricultural landowners to undertake greenhouse gas abatement projects. The abatement activities include those that assist in reducing or avoiding emissions including though the capture and destruction of methane emissions from landfill or livestock manure. Additionally, abatement activities can include those that remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it in soil or trees; for example, by growing a forest or farming in a way that increases soil carbon.

These proposals do not represent a fringe proposal that has no regard for the importance of the agricultural sector. Indeed, it has long been recognised by professionals in a variety of occupations that our agricultural practices need to properly develop in a sustainable manner. The people who argue for this include the farmers who recognise that unsustainable usage of land impacts on its future productivity. Indeed, the abatement of greenhouse gas emissions is such a manner by which our land can be utilised in a much more sustainable way. It is not a fringe proposal to provide appropriate incentives to farmers to engage them in undertaking projects that ensure their practices are far more greenhouse friendly. If we as a parliament are going to address the issue of Australia's carbon emissions then we need to provide this vital and appropriate market based scheme for our agricultural sector.

I have a deep appreciation for the role of the agricultural sector in the Australian economy and our society. The Central Coast, including my electorate of Robertson, has a rich agricultural history and still retains a significant agricultural sector. The most significant remaining agricultural area in my electorate is known as the Mangrove Mountain plateau. It is very well known for its orchards and also for the poultry industry. Indeed, the Mangrove Mountain poultry industry gained national attention, sadly in adverse circumstances, in 1999 during an outbreak of newcastle disease. The way that Central Coast farmers managed that crisis demonstrated the resilience of the people in the Central Coast. We have seen the Mangrove Mountain farming community absolutely revive after that devastating shock.

Throughout my period of campaigning before the election and now, as the member, I have often spoken to residents of the Mangrove Mountain plateau region on the Central Coast and they have conveyed to me the very real challenges that they face in their occupation. They also convey to me their deep love of the land, their deep love for their families and their hope for the future of our nation as we tackle this next challenge. I therefore speak on this bill with some knowledge from representing my area, which has this significant interest in agricultural practices.

Just last week I attended a meeting of the farmers at Mangrove Mountain. I was hosted there by two fine gentlemen, Tim Kemp, the President of the Central Coast Farmers branch of the New South Wales Farmers Association, and Michael Champion, who is the secretary of that same illustrious community and industry representative group. They have a wonderful fair each year, where the farmers gather to show off their wares. They share a few great activities, including the wild pig run, which is a great hit on the day. The cultural activities of the fair are also widely acknowledged—a great battle of the bands and also an eisteddfod, which I was very pleased to see a little part of last year.

On my visit last week I was welcomed warmly by Alicia Kostalas, who I hope might come down very shortly and visit us here in the parliament. Alicia participated in a competition amongst her young fellow Mangrove Mountain residents to become the Mangrove Mountain Districts Young Ambassador. She gave me a sample of the delicious produce that comes from the mountain. I received eggs, oranges, a custard apple, delicious mandarines, spinach, lettuce and even some persimmons—just a taste of the mountain. We also had a taste of the conversation about this vital issue, about how carbon needs to be priced and the important challenges that face us as a nation at this time. I certainly understood, as I left that meeting, that this is a community that is passionate about doing the right thing, about actively looking after the land that gives life to their dreams and to their businesses.

This bill provides just such a system, where projects that are granted Australian carbon credits are well managed and deserving of a financial incentive. The credits will be issued only to projects which represent an additional abatement, not to practices and activities that are widely used currently by farmers and landholders. This is to ensure that the bill's intention—to provide an incentive for individual farmers and landowners to demonstrate initiative in developing abatement programs and more efficient practices—comes into being.

Our agricultural sector can benefit greatly from the provision of these financial incentives for greenhouse gas abatement. This bill provides a defined process to ensure that abatement projects have a genuinely positive environmental impact. This defined process will ensure that the scheme does have a positive environmental impact and is not undermined by instances of rorting.

Under this process there needs to be a project manager who will become a recognised offsets entity. Secondly, there needs to be an approved methodology for the type of abatement project, and the project must be undertaken in accordance with the methodology advised and comply with other scheme eligibility requirements. Additionally, before an Australian carbon credit unit is awarded, the project proponent reports to an administrator. This system ensures that there is oversight and consistency in how carbon credit units are awarded.

This legislation demonstrates that the Australian Labor Party can rightfully claim to be the party that champions individual initiative in the interests of a shared, communal and, indeed, a planetary benefit. Let us be clear about this. It is the individual farmers who make a decision to undertake an abatement project. It is the individual farmers who receive the carbon credit. But it is society as a whole that benefits from this initiative. We benefit from reducing carbon emissions in our agricultural sector and we all benefit from an agricultural sector which is much more environmentally friendly.

I do not come to this chamber as an expert on agricultural matters; however, it is clear that the manner in which we utilise land must be sustainable. It has often been observed by legal theorists that our old attitude to land ownership is wholly unsuitable to this nation. The principle I am referring to is that from John Locke; namely, that our role as humans is to improve the land in a manner which primarily considers the productivity of the land and the maximum human benefit that can be derived from that land.

These principles were developed in European countries and were applied in Australia upon settlement. I am not here to speak tonight about any wrongs that have occurred in the past, but it has been long evident that exploitative attitudes to land ownership have had a very detrimental impact on the environment. These old principles have resulted in some farmers attempting to maximise the number of heads of cattle on a particular property because, at the time, this was considered a productive way of utilising land. However, the problems of overuse of agricultural land by earlier generations are well known to modern farmers.

In recent decades the importance of sustainability and the sustainable use of land has been much more widely realised and become the practice of those who excel in this industry. It is in recent decades that we have come to appreciate the genius of the Aboriginal concept that we are custodians of the land and that we exploit her at our peril. That is what the entire debate about pricing carbon, and our actions across a range of sectors, is about. It is about honouring the nature of the land in which we live and taking responsibility for handling the challenges of our time so that we give a better future to those who follow us.

We must ensure the future viability of this land in addition to ensuring that our agricultural sector, which is vital to our national economy, continues to grow and strengthen. As Australians we can certainly meet this challenge as we have met many before. This legislation addresses one critical aspect of this challenge in a very strategic, sensible and evidence based way. It recognises that, in order to have a sustainable agricultural sector, we must provide the appropriate incentives for farmers and landowners to change the way we are using our land. We need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions; we need to be more innovative and incentivised in finding better ways to look after our earth. Abatement projects may include more efficient and sustainable use of land. There maybe many great ideas out there that have not yet even been uncovered but, as we apply our attention and we incentivise people to think about their farming practices, I am sure the innovation that is naturally a part of Australia's way of responding to the great challenges of this continent will surface and shine. The initiatives of individuals, farmers and landowners will lead the way and for these reasons, and because this legislation allows for that, I speak in favour of the bills and commend them to the House.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011. The objects clause of the bill states:

(1) This section sets out the objects of the Act.

  Climate Change Convention and Kyoto Protocol

(2) The first object of this Act is to implement a certain obligations that Australia has under

  (a) the Climate Change Convention; and

  (b) the Kyoto Protocol.

  Incentives

(3) The second object of this Act is to create incentives for people to carry on certain offsets projects.

  Carbon abatement

(4) The third object of this Act is to increase Carbon abatement in a manner that:

  (a) is consistent with the protection of Australia's natural environment; and

  (b) improves resilience to the effects of climate change.

When read in its entirety, I do not really have a problem with that. It is a well-thought-out overview of what the act intends to do and it is not that far removed from the intentions of our own direct action plan for sequestration. However, if we go to the simplified outline of the bill, we see:

The following is a simplified outline of this Act:

  (a) the project must be carried out in Australia;

  (b) the project must be covered by a methodology determination made under this Act.

This is where the wheels start to fall off the bill. This should be a relatively straightforward bill. I agree with supporting our farmers to generate revenue from sequestration and capturing carbon but I am not completely convinced that this bill is the right mechanism. I will try to go through that during my speech.

In my electorate of Wright farming practices have come a long way. I believe our farmers, particularly in the Scenic Rim and the Lockyer Valley, have been guilty of not marketing the progress and the advancement in carbon capture in our industry in recent years. Take, for example, the practice of zero tilling. The advancements in carbon capture in that single practice alone have stood the industry in good stead. But we are very poor at selling the positive attributes of our industry. The farms in my electorate are predominantly high- to medium-intensity farms, and they produce all the leafy vegetables—broccoli, cabbage, beetroot—and other vegetables such as onions. They are all great carbon abatement plants that are not included under this bill.

These businesses are struggling to meet the already escalating input costs in an environment where big business, mostly the oligopolies, are squeezing the processors and then the processors are squeezing the producers. At the end of the day, all that squeeze is coming out of the wallets of the mums and dads and the pensioners and families not only in the electorate of Wright but around Australia. For example, with the expectation of a carbon tax Heinz Australia, who owns Golden Circle, an iconic Queensland company, told my farmers they would be sourcing their beetroot offshore as of next year and that my growers would need to make other arrangements. There will be job losses although this government has repeatedly said that this carbon tax will actually create jobs. When we highlight the examples we are accused of scaremongering. The Prime Minister is on the record stating that she will be assisting Australian households, but why will she if the polluters are going to pay? I hope she intends to assist the 160 Golden Circle employees who soon will not have a job in Queensland, the 146 who will not have a job in Victoria and the 38 who will not have a job in New South Wales. Will her household compensation package top up their unemployment benefits to what they were earning when they were gainfully employed at Golden Circle? Maybe she would like to direct them to this wonderful world of green jobs that she often speaks about. The truth is that she will not top those people up and she cannot direct them to any green jobs because there are none. My people need to put food on the table and feed their kids next week. I challenge anyone from the other side of this House to direct me to the 138 green jobs which I can steer these people into, notwithstanding the flow-on effects that will have on my community.

I resent the fact that we continue to be told that we are scaremongering. Will the Prime Minister assist my farmers and the many people they used to employ to harvest the beetroots by directing them to the clean jobs that we are told about? I think not. As for my farmers who operate high- and medium-intensity farms, please do not tell me that the contents of this bill are the answer and that the government wants them to plant trees. These are high-intensity production farms. It is simply not feasible for these guys to plough their fields, plant a row of blue gums and think they are going to be able to pay the leases on their tractors and machinery in 12 months. It is just ludicrous.

When you go out to some of our more broader catchment areas that do not have those intense farming practices we have certain grasses that I believe abate carbon but which are not included under this bill. If you are going to use scientific research as a basis for moving this debate forward you lose the right to pick and choose the bits of research that suit you. When you look at the scientific advice I encourage you to take it as a whole picture. I would encourage grasses, particularly legumes and certain other varieties, to be included in this legislation.

I have concerns when I see explanatory memoranda of more than three pages for any bill. However, the explanatory memorandum to this bill is 360 pages. Mr Deputy Speaker, my intention when I read the brief to you was that I thought any like-minded person reading that would not pick up the intentions or objectives of this bill. It is obscured in the detail, and it is the detail that I have trouble getting my head around, as do a lot of my colleagues.

We hear often from the government that businesses tell them that they want certainty and that businesses want a carbon tax. I suggest that those businesses that are telling the government they want a carbon tax are the very businesses that look to prosper and profit from a carbon tax. Those are the very businesses that will have the capacity to pass it on because no-one in their right mind who is responsible to shareholders would stand up to a government and say, 'Please give me an extra expense that I have no capacity to pass on.' Hundreds of millions of dollars in commissions will be paid on the trading of these permits and these will go to those very businesses: the bankers, the traders and the commission takers. Those businesses are telling the government that they want a carbon tax because they are going to profit from it. Do you know what they are going to do with their profits? They are going to rush down to Sydney and buy those beautiful big mansions around Sydney Harbour—the very mansions that we are told by this government are going to be two metres underwater as a result of climate change if we do not introduce a carbon tax. It beggars belief how this will help us move forward in a logical way.

I was at the Logan Chamber of Commerce business awards the other day. There were 300 people who attended. There were 120 businesses nominated and over 3,000 people from the area voted for those businesses—coffee houses, hairdressers, real estate agents, hotels and the other normal businesses that you would have in a community. Not one of them came up to me and said: 'Scotty, I have a great idea. To try to stimulate the retail sector we need you to go back to Canberra and get us a new tax straight away because we think that is what is going to kick things along.' No-one said that to me.

Large businesses and the polluters will pass the costs on, but my small businesses and their suppliers will be the ones who are going to cop it. Do you know what? They are going to pass those costs on to mums and dads, pensioners and the people who are already struggling. This government made an announcement of $500 for pensioners the other day. According to my estimates, that is going to put a carbon permit price in at around $4.50 because if it comes in at anything more than $4.50 that $500 will disappear in a heartbeat. I look forward to having that debate if and when it ever comes. I stand by the coalition's perspective that we will rescind a carbon tax if in government. The silent majority are slowly awakening to this tax and the web of deception being spun by this government.

I want to look 12 months into the future on a hypothetical, but in order to do that we need to look 12 months into the past to see this government's performance in this debate. I recall 12 months ago that we had a Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, who was committed to a carbon tax but who was assassinated as the polls spiralled downwards. The new Prime Minister was chosen on the pretence that there would still be a carbon tax, but just before the election she made the announcement, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'. She then had the audacity to come into this House and say that they had backflipped and that they did not have a position on this. Our position has been clear all the way through this process.

Who really stands to benefit from the introduction of a carbon tax, which the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 relies upon? As I said, it will be the brokers and the trading houses. The true irony is that they will profit from it at the expense of our mums and dads. This debate is unable to progress in a logical, concise and informed manner without a thorough understanding of the regulations that speak to this bill. The bill is also dependent on a carbon tax debate. A number of concerns have been raised by parts of the farming community and by the peak bodies within the agricultural sector. Price is what underlies the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011.

Talking about fearmongering, I will make the sweeping assumption that the majority of the allegations of fearmongering directed at us stem from the uncertainty created by the government in the marketplace by not linking a price to their basic policy. I am under no illusion that the government does not already have a price in its head. I suggest it will probably be in line with the ETS that was going to come in at a $10 cap and then let market forces take it out over the following couple of years. A cost of $11 billion in the first year brings in a cap of around $10. If that is the intention, just say that. The government is adopting the boiling frog approach at the moment. Stick the frog in the water, slowly let the costs get up around it and the frog slowly dies.

This is going to come down to an issue of trust. I remind the House that the Prime Minister said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' There were also comments along the line of, 'Business tell us that they want a trading system.' Businesses in my electorate are not saying that. 'A carbon trading system will create jobs.' I have people who are going to be looking for jobs and those opposite cannot direct me to where those green jobs are. 'Businesses want certainty.' If they want certainty, tell them what the carbon price is. 'No-one will be worse off under a carbon tax system.' Who can believe that one when no-one believes any of the other statements?

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011. This legislation forms part of this government's strategy to tackle climate change. It is a comprehensive strategy, not a back-of-an-envelope shopping list of tactics as proposed by those opposite—from memory, that includes turning off the lights, saving some water using buckets. Their shopping list of tactics is going to cost the Australian taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars.

I would like to make a few points clear right from the start. First up, climate change is real. Human activity is contributing significantly to climate change. Climate change represents a significant risk to our economy, our environment and our way of life. We must act now if we are to avert this risk. These points are a matter of scientific fact not political belief. It is strange to me that I must make these points clear, but it would seem that there are some in this parliament who are still debating whether these things are true. I find it particularly strange because I was with some of the colleagues opposite a few months ago at the Antarctic Division in Hobart as part of the work I am doing on the Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories. We met with people from the Tasmanian university as well as a number of people from the division, and we were shown samples of ice cores that they have been doing a lot of research on. The ice cores date back hundreds of thousands of years. There was a high presence of CO2 in those ice cores. Over the last, say, 200 years carbon dioxide emissions rapidly increased as a result of the industrial era around the world. To me, that was living proof of the fact the presence of CO2 has increased over time and that is directly linked to the increase in the temperature of the world today of between one and two degrees.

It is bizarre that I have to make these points clear and I have to underscore what the science is showing us in Tasmania, when around the world, particularly in Europe, they see this in a clear way. The science is well understood and well understood across the political spectrum. In the UK alone, successive governments from both sides of politics have taken action. They have plans to halve emissions by 2025, using a 1990 figure as the baseline. They have invested millions if not billions of pounds in clean industries, energy production and a green workforce. The UK's Deputy Prime Minister said:

... investing in a greener future is an ambition that combines an ethical duty and an economic opportunity.

It is an economic opportunity. It therefore astounds me that some here, instead of showing leadership, are stuck in denial. I am proud to be part of a government that is tackling climate change and taking it seriously, doing all it can to tackle this significant challenge. I welcome the legislation we are discussing tonight which is part of an important solution to this very large challenge for future generations. I want to ensure, as does this government, that Australia is prosperous in the future and that we position Australia so it can compete in the future and provide prosperity that will benefit all Australians. The only way we can do that is by turning into a clean energy economy.

I was fortunate enough a few weeks ago to be invited to visit a school in my electorate, Marist College, to talk to year 8 students about climate change and what the government is doing on this issue. I spoke to the engaged, bright and insightful students for about an hour. In that time, they asked me close to 20 questions about climate change, its effects, what the government is doing and why some seem so reluctant to act. While talking to them, it really hit home to me what my responsibilities are to them as the member for Canberra. It is a common saying that it is the responsibility of the current generation to make the world just a little bit better for the next. Looking at those year 8 students, I was struck by how true that saying is, that as their member of parliament I have a duty to make the world that little bit better for them and their children.

It would perhaps be easier to play to populist rhetoric and make the easy choices, to outline a policy that lacks substance and hope that no-one notices by the time the election comes around. However, I cannot, in good conscience, ignore this opportunity to do some good and make a real difference to the future of this country, particularly its prosperity, and I believe that this bill will do real good.

Australia is the highest per capita emitter of carbon pollution in the developed world and is one of the 20 largest polluters in total. Although we are on target to meet our obligations under the Kyoto protocol, without additional action we are projected to reach pollution levels 24 per cent above the year 2000 level by 2020 and 44 per cent above that level by 2030. With this in mind, I must act today in the interests of the people in my electorate to ensure their prosperity 20 years from now. So I am acting for today's children—for those Marist College boys—and for their children's children.

This legislation fulfils the commitment made by the government to give farmers, forest growers and landholders access to carbon markets. The Carbon Farming Initiative provides a framework that is grounded in the science and provides clear economic value to actions that store or reduce our contribution to carbon pollution. While Australia has among the highest agricultural emissions of any developed country, we also have significant opportunities to utilise our landscape to increase carbon storage. We have a lot of land. This legislation represents an opportunity for regional Australia and provides the certainty needed to ensure that the sector receives the investment it needs to be part of the solution to climate change. The Carbon Farming Initiative will enable crediting of land sector greenhouse gas abatement irrespective of whether it is recognised towards our targets under the Kyoto protocol. These abatement activities can be achieved by the reduction or avoidance of emissions or by the removal of carbon from the atmosphere and its storage in soil or in trees through the growing of forests or by farming in a way that increases the amount of carbon trapped in soil.

Under this legislation these offset activities will be undertaken as offset projects. The offsets generated through these projects can then be translated into carbon credits, purchased and used by organisations to reduce their net carbon output either voluntarily or as part of a regulatory requirement. There will be a number of steps involved in establishing an offset project under this scheme: the project manager needs to be a recognised offsets entity; there needs to be an approved methodology for the type of project being undertaken; and the project must be undertaken according to the methodology and comply with any other eligibility requirements under the scheme. The project will report on their carbon credits issued and entered in the Australian National Registry of Emission Units. Projects can be transferred or terminated, and this scheme contains within it compliance and enforcement measures.

A number of groups have endorsed this scheme. Most importantly, the National Farmers Federation welcomed this scheme and said:

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.

Greening Australia said they 'strongly support the government's initiative to introduce the Carbon Farming Initiative and broadly support the carbon abatement scheme'. They went on to say, 'Carbon biosequestration under the CFI offers significant opportunities for biodiversity and multiple environmental service benefits.' These are just two endorsements of this scheme among many. I am also delighted to hear that as of 25 May the first methodology on this project was released for consultation. This methodology would allow Indigenous land managers to combine traditional local knowledge and modern science to earn carbon credits through better land management.

I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about the tenacity, resilience and resourcefulness of Australia's farmers. They know, perhaps more than any other group in the country, what the effects of climate change will be. They know exactly the impact of longer and harsher droughts and more severe weather events like floods. They are great stewards of this country and that is why they embraced land care. That is why they rose to the challenge of salinity and began to reform their practices to look after land that had been in their families for generations. That is why, many years ago, I was joined by representatives of the National Farmers Federation at forums on climate change when I was in Foreign Affairs and Trade in the very, very early days of discussions on climate change. It was probably 10 or 15 years ago, or even longer. The National Farmers Federation were there right from the start, long before it became part of the main public debates in this place. They were there in those very, very early days because they knew then it was important.

Our farmers are great innovators. They are renowned throughout the world for their ability to adapt to their circumstances and their environment. Some of the great innovations in agriculture have been either made or refined in this country. Great innovations like no-till farming have been perfected here to ensure better use of groundwater. This is why I have great belief in their ability to utilise this scheme not only to maximise income for themselves but to maximise the environmental outcomes from this project. I believe farmers want access to carbon markets worth hundreds of millions of dollars each year to regional and rural Australia.

I would just like to reflect that recently my colleagues from the ACT and Senator Kate Lundy organised for Labor Party members a series of climate change forums to provide members with a great deal more information on the science of climate change and what the government is doing in response at both the ACT and the federal levels. Our first seminar was attended by Professor Will Steffen, who provided an incredibly comprehensive overview of climate science. It showed in stark detail the dramatic rise in CO2 emissions, particularly since the industrial era, from around the 1800s. One of the graphs was extraordinary. It was crystal clear that there has been a massive increase in CO2 in the environment and that it is linked to the warming of the environment.

When we went to the question and answer section of that discussion, Professor Steffen made quite a telling comment that really made me sit up and notice. He said that one of the very strong messages that he got from the debate that is happening throughout the world on climate change and how to respond to the challenges was from the Chinese, who are looking, as we know, at introducing a range of clean energy solutions. They are already implementing them and they are looking at them for the future. He intimated in those discussions that, unless Australia got on board with clean energy now and got on board with positioning ourselves to deal with the modern world and the markets of the modern world, we would be stranded by having this legacy of old-fashioned industries as the base of our prosperity and the base of our economy. It was a very strong key message I took out of those discussions with Will Steffen and it is something that has stayed with me for some time—the thought of Australia being stranded if we do not adopt this clean energy technology, if we do not move to adapt to the needs of the market and the world in the future. It frightens me that, if we do not act now, we are going to impact on the prosperity and the legacy that we leave for those year 8 Marist boys, their children, my nieces and nephews, my godchildren and the children of Canberra. It was a very strong key message I took away from that briefing.

There were also briefings from the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and from the ACT Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development. We are aware of what we are doing at the federal level—we are debating it now—but the ACT government is also undertaking a range of activities. It has a very comprehensive strategy and plan to reduce Canberra's carbon emissions. We have quite a large carbon footprint in this town. As a planned city, Canberra has among the highest per capita users of the car, so we have quite a high carbon footprint for a city with a very low industrial base. That is a very great concern to the people of Canberra and the government of the ACT.

This legislation is just one step towards tackling climate change, but it is an important step. I commend this legislation and I call on those opposite to support it and to end their farce on this debate. I call on them to join with the government in taking real and sustained action—indeed, direct action, but not just turning off the lights or saving water—on climate change.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was really interested to hear the member for Canberra's very eloquent speech on the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 and related bills. I was particularly interested in her comments about having listened to schoolchildren in her electorate and her very eloquent words about farmers of this nation. She and all other members of this parliament should listen to schoolchildren because they are our future. Indeed, they are the leaders of tomorrow and they often have very important messages for us. I am sorry that the member for Canberra is not going to stay and listen, because I also speak to a lot of schoolchildren in my electorate and they tell me that one of the most important things for their parents and their futures is that they are able to continue to grow the food to feed the nation and to grow the fibre to help clothe the world. It is a fact that every Griffith farmer feeds 150 Australians and 450 foreigners each and every day. That is how much food they grow in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area—and there is the Coleambally Irrigation Area as well. That is the food basket of this nation and farmers need to be able to continue to grow that food and fibre to feed and clothe not only our nation but also neighbouring nations.

The member for Canberra spoke about farmers and she spoke about how farmers are the great stewards of this country, about how important land care was to them and about how farmers are so great at adapting to the circumstances of their environment. Sometimes they have to adapt to changes in their environment brought about by floods and droughts—as Dorothea Mackellar wrote about in her famous poem, My Country. It is certainly true that this country is a very diverse nation. It is a most hostile nation at those times when Mother Nature throws her worst at us. But we keep adapting, we keep changing and we keep growing the food to feed the nation.

Farmers, as the member for Canberra pointed out, do a great job. But farmers also need arable land and fertile land to continue to do the great job that they have done for more than 200 years. They cannot have their vast tracts of arable, good soil taken up by pine forests and other trees, which you cannot eat and which you cannot export. While certainly carbon farming has lots of merit, we need to tread very warily into some of the initiatives that are being proposed by this government. Just because this bill has the word 'farming' in the title does not necessarily mean that farmers and our nation are going to benefit.

This legislation is incomplete and it is misleading. The carbon tax and the emissions trading scheme proposed by this government may lead to distortions. Just prior to the last election on August 21, the Prime Minister said that there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads—which leads me to wonder whether she is, in fact, leading the government. Is some other force leading the government? Perhaps Senator Bob Brown and his dangerous Greens are. That word 'dangerous' is one the Treasurer so often says just before he uses the words 'climate change'. He talks about 'dangerous climate change'. I think the Treasurer is being hysterical and trying to convince the Australian public that a carbon tax is necessary. I would like to see the Prime Minister call an election to see if the public at large actually does think that a carbon tax is necessary to stop this 'dangerous climate change'.

The coalition, in particular the Nationals, are active supporters of reasonable carbon farming initiatives and the opportunities which can be given to agriculture. But this bill is not filling all the gaps and it is threatening an entire industry, which will lead to the loss of opportunities. Carbon farming was a key ingredient of the coalition's direct action plan and it still is. The potential for carbon farming was highlighted in the last election, as was a direct path to fund real action to make sure that the initiatives put in place by the coalition deliver broader results.

I am the son of a generational dryland farmer and I have a very close affinity with the soil, the land and the climate. So I come to this debate with knowledge of the land and the science of the soil and with a love of the industry which, as I said, has kept our nation well-clothed, well-fed and employed. Farmers have been saying for as long as anyone can remember that we need to protect our environment—we need to protect the land from which we draw our income and from which we derive our food and our jobs. Farmers, as the member for Canberra pointed out, are very adaptable, but they need to have certainty. This government is providing anything but certainty at the moment to farmers—or any other Australian, for that matter. One thing is for sure: farmers will talk about the Labor government in terms of that uncertainty and will ask, 'Is this government providing for regional and rural Australia as it so often purports to do?'

Because of the hung parliament situation, this government has required the vote of two key Independents to keep the minority government in power. Because of that, it says that it has a true and real focus on regional Australia. But so often its policies are showing quite the opposite. Farmers, along with many other Australians, strongly oppose Labor's carbon tax. The farmers say quite bluntly that they cannot see how a carbon tax or a trading scheme can change the temperature. Indeed, Tim Flannery, that respected scientist and global warming activist, said only recently:

"If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years."

If taxes were to decrease the sea levels and the temperature, quite frankly, under this Labor government, we would all be living in the next ice age. A tax is not going to reduce the global temperature. Even Mr Flannery admits that.

As I said before, the Prime Minister promised just prior to the last election that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led. That breach of trust has led to people really questioning a lot of what this government are all about. The government have not told us what price carbon is going to be. They have not told us a lot of things. Take the independent youth allowance, for instance. We are still waiting to find out exactly what is going to happen with independent youth allowance. We are still waiting to find out exactly what is going to happen with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. I was on the committee—as you were, Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore—which went around the four states and all the regions conducting meetings to engage with people as to what the Murray-Darling Basin required to secure its future, to secure that triple bottom-line approach that was missing. We have come up with a good plan which is at present being ignored by the government, which continues to buy water haphazardly and continues to provide irrigation farmers and family farmers with that great uncertainty that I also speak about for carbon-farming initiatives and the dreaded carbon tax.

I do acknowledge that the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government recently said in the media that coal will play an important part in our nation's energy. But when you come to this place you find out that coal is almost a dirty word. We hear from this government about 'dirty' coal fired power stations. We hear from Senator Bob Brown that coalminers caused the Queensland floods which wreaked so much devastation earlier this year. I have not heard too many, if any, people from the government actually say that those claims were fanciful and ridiculous when we all know that they were. We know the role that coalminers have played in developing this great nation and the role that they have played in ensuring this nation's prosperity and providing the energy needs of this nation. But, unfortunately, their hard work, their efforts and their futures are being put at risk again by this Labor government.

We have been told farmers will be exempt from Labor's carbon tax. However, they will still have to pay higher prices for fuel, transport, fertilisers, chemicals, manufacturing and machinery, as well as for the processing of their products. Whilst carbon farming will potentially deliver a new income source for farmers and deliver broader environmental objectives, it has to be implemented correctly and logistically. This government, which at present has not produced anything that is correct or logistical, wants to sign up farmers for a hundred years, which is about three or four generations. Farmers will be locked into a scheme which a century from now could and most likely will be outdated and other varieties and techniques have been implemented. You have only to look at the past hundred years to see how much change in the industry there has been not just in farming but in every facet of life and every other industry that we have in this great nation.

This Labor-Greens government want us to vote on a carbon-farming scheme despite there being no in-depth detail. I say again, that lack of detail from this government, which seems to say that everything needs to be put off to the future—'We'll talk about it later; we'll put it to a review; we'll put it to a committee'—means that nothing ever really comes of anything until it is too late. These bills are dependent on regulations which are yet to be presented and will be done at Labor's pleasure and the whim of the Greens.

This Carbon Farming Initiative could be win-win if it is done properly. It could meet the expectations of those who want to address concerns about the man-made influences on weather patterns and it could help farmers to improve productivity, profitability and our environment—but, again, only if it is done properly. These bills are fundamentally flawed and cannot be supported at this time. They are quite lengthy bills, but most of the fundamental detail will be revealed only in the regulations.

How can this Labor government expect support for legislation which does not provide adequate detail and which will lead to perverse outcomes for farmers? Under the coalition's plan, farmers will be entitled to tender for additions in soil carbon. Significantly improving soil carbon also helps soil quality, farm productivity and water efficiency and should be a national goal, regardless of the CO2 abatement benefits.

Three different properties in my electorate of Riverina have taken it upon themselves to implement carbon farming and to trial its benefits under a scheme put forward by CO2 Australia. Colin and Jan Lucas from Avondale in Coolamon, Wayne Hamblin and his son Jake from Big Tree in Matong, and Murray and Julieanne Neilsen from Pinevale in Matong have had trees planted on their farms by this company, CO2 Australia. The trees have been placed to enable wind breaks to stop the wind from taking the top soil and to keep moisture in the ground as well as to encourage native bird life. It has led to increased production and a great ambience for these farms. But they have done it only along the corridors and the fence lines. They have not taken up their whole farmland with great tracts of pine trees. A minimal overall percentage of their farmland has been used for this initiative. It is sensible planning, has added value to the property and income to the farmer, and has importantly reduced CO2 emissions to the environment. Since coming to government, this Rudd-Gillard-Green alliance has done very little for agricultural industry because they do not care for the agricultural industry. It seems they would like to see Australia become the carbon tip of the world.

We cannot trust this government to get it right. We have seen that in so many different aspects. They have made so many mistakes in just 3½ short years. In fact, in just 2½ years they have racked up a bigger net bill than Bob Hawke and Paul Keating could run up in 14 years. So why should we, why should farmers, trust them now? It is so typical of this government, which worries more about political spin, media spin and the 24-hour media cycle than it does about good policy, particularly for farmers and for regional communities.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am surprised, to say the least, by the tack that the opposition is taking. I am particularly surprised that the member for Riverina, who represents a farming area in this parliament, stands up here and opposes legislation that will deliver some return to farmers. I find it absolutely inexplicable, given that the National Farmers Federation supports this legislation and submitted to the inquiry by the Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts—that I am a member of and was part of the hearing that took place—that:

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. The Government deserves credit for listening to the farm sector …

I suggest to the member for Riverina that he listen to the farm sector and talk to some of the farmers that he represents in this place. Listen to them and learn what they think about this rather than linking into the opposition's spin, the opposition's position of oppose, oppose, oppose. That is all this opposition does—opposes for the sake of opposing.

The Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 fulfils the government's commitment to develop legislation:

… to give farmers, forest growers and landholders access to domestic voluntary and international carbon markets. This will begin to unlock the abatement opportunities in the land sector which currently make up 23 percent of Australia's emissions.

This legislation's first objective is to help Australia meet its international obligations. Its second objective is to create incentives for people to undertake land sector abatement projects and to achieve carbon abatement in a manner that is consistent with protection of Australia's natural environment and improve resilience to the impact of climate change. The Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011establishes a national register, which is a very important aspect of the legislation that we are debating, and it registers two primary purposes: as Australia's national register for Kyoto units and as a register for carbon credits.

As I indicated at the commencement of my contribution to this debate, I am a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts. This legislation was referred to the House committee to consider the legislation, and the House committee did exactly that. We had a day's hearing where we received a number of submissions and evidence from a number of different parties. There was one question I asked every witness who appeared before the committee. That one question was: 'Do you support this legislation?' Every person that appeared before the committee said, 'We support this legislation. There are some things that we would like to see done a little bit differently, but we see it as a really good starting point.'

I was so surprised when I learnt that the opposition was opposing the legislation. Maybe I should not have been because oppose is what they do—oppose, oppose, oppose and say no, no, no. But when members of the opposition are working on House committees they are happy to work with members of the government to try and put together a report that is actually constructive. I have to say that a number of the members of the opposition did not turn up for consideration of the legislation, but the member for Moore did. When the member for Moore turned up he was, as always, very constructive and he supported the recommendations of the House committee. At a very late stage of the inquiry we received a letter from the Western Australian government with some concerns, but we noted those concerns in the report. It is important to highlight some of the issues.

Before I move on from the report, I must say that this is a unanimous report. Every member of the opposition had an opportunity to vote against the report, but this report is a unanimous report. I repeat for the benefit of the House: a unanimous report. That unanimous report made three recommendations. Recommendation 1:

The Committee recommends that the House of Representatives pass the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011.

Recommendation 2:

The Committee recommends that the House of Representatives pass the Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011.

Recommendation 3:

The Committee recommends that the House of Representatives pass the Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011.

Those were unanimous recommendations. So you can understand why I was so surprised when I heard that the opposition were opposing this very important piece of legislation that delivers to farmers, to people that many in this parliament claim to represent. I would say that they do not represent the farmers. They represent their own self-interest, and their own self-interest is validated by opposing absolutely everything.

The scheme is outlined very succinctly both in the legislation and in the report that was brought down. The scheme, as I mentioned, will begin to unlock abatement opportunities in the land sector, which currently produces 23 per cent of Australia's emissions. Australia has amongst the highest agricultural emissions of developed countries, but there are significant opportunities to increase carbon storage in our landscape. The scheme will provide significant opportunities in regional and rural Australia—opportunities that I would have hoped members representing the National Party in particular would seek to embrace. It is about setting up a long-term framework rewarding land sector abatement. I feel this is very important legislation. The national register will also be an important part of this legislation.

When the committee held its inquiry, we decided we would concentrate not on every aspect of the legislation but on methodology, additionality, permanence and the risk of reversal buffer, native title, national resource management plans and perverse outcomes. They are the areas that were highlighted in a number of submissions that the committee received. At the start of my contribution I mentioned that there had been a number of submissions received by the committee, but there was also a Senate inquiry that received an inordinate number of submissions. As well as that there was extensive—I repeat: extensive—public consultation where interested parties had the opportunity to make submissions in relation to this legislation. The consultation period was from October 2010 to February 2011. The one issue that was of vital importance to the government was that everyone would have the opportunity to have input into this important legislation. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would say to you and to the House that that opportunity was taken by many people.

Methodology, as I mentioned, was one of the first issues that the House committee looked at. We found the methodologies to be an integral component of this scheme, and the support of research and development was also found to be an essential element. That was raised by a number of witnesses who appeared before the committee. The committee supported the view that there is a need for ongoing research and development. We strongly encouraged the department to examine that issue further, because ongoing research and development will see the industry that comes out of the legislation before us expand. The initial take-up rate is expected to be quite small and as it becomes more established it will need that research and development to look at new areas where carbon farming can be introduced.

The purpose of the additionality test is to ensure that credits only occur for abatement that would not have occurred before. So they have to be new activities. That is what additionality is about—making sure that credits are for new initiatives. Once again, I feel that that is an important component of the legislation and one that all members should support. The 100-year-permancy requirement is accompanied by a risk of reversal buffer. The 100-year-permanency requirement was raised on a number of occasions before the committee, but it was generally felt that it was about the right period of time. While some submissions felt that a lesser period would be better, the overwhelming majority supported the 100-year period. The committee noted those concerns, but we believed that it was important for there to be that 100-year period.

I will put on the record once again that this is great legislation. It was supported by every witness who appeared before the committee. It was a unanimous report. I ask the opposition to stop opposing for the sake of opposing and to support the people they are supposed to represent in this parliament, not their own self-interest.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise tonight to speak to the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011. This bill seeks to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by contributing to the bipartisan five per cent reduction on 2002 emissions by 2020. It seeks to create incentives for farmers and landholders to undertake voluntary land sector abatement projects around the country through the Carbon Farming Initiative, which is a voluntary scheme. The bill seeks also to achieve carbon abatement and improved soil resilience in particular farming that would have additional environmental benefits such as reducing salinity and erosion. Regenerating landscapes and improving water quality may also be achieved.

The Carbon Farming Initiative would offer farmers the chance to sell carbon offsets—largely by growing trees. However, no guarantee has been given that the offset could be sold into the initial fixed price trading scheme. The CFI aims to give farmers, forest growers and landholders access to domestic and international carbon markets, providing an investment incentive for environmental conservation and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. By undertaking emission abatement activities that reduce or store carbon pollution, landowners can generate carbon credits, known as Australian carbon credit units, that can be sold domestically or internationally, either voluntarily or to meet regulatory requirements. Dr Brian Keating, the Director of the CSIRO's Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, says that while it is good to encourage landowners to take action carbon farming will not play a major role in cutting emissions. Dr Keating told an inquiry held by the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications into the CFI:

While forest carbon and soil carbon sinks are opportunities worth pursuing, current research would suggest the abatement likely to be achieved in the short term, at least, is likely to be modest.

Agriculture accounts for 23 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, but the sector will be exempted from Labor's carbon tax and emissions trading scheme. While we on this side strongly support the principle of carbon sequestration, our experience with this government is that everything must be very carefully considered. Quite often it introduces a program without proper oversight, and we know the disastrous results that can come of that. On this bill we are asking for oversight and we are looking very carefully at what this government is proposing.

The member for Shortland spoke earlier about our opposing everything and saying no, no, no. We support the principle of the bill, and I commend any action at all that improves the quality of air, soil and our waterways. That is not an issue. What we do not support are the outcomes this government does not achieve when it has been given a blank cheque. Time and time again, it just has not achieved positive outcomes. For this reason, we seek to see a greater discussion on the substantive bill and on the regulations, which we are yet to see. There is nothing wrong with wanting to see the regulations regarding this bill.

The CFI will cover carbon sequestration projects including reforestation, revegetation and projects that increase the secure storage of carbon in soils. On-farm projects that reduce emissions through better on-farm management can also qualify, as will some projects designed to avoid emissions from land clearing or deforestation. The Carbon Farming Initiative is open to wide participation; however, the registration of a project will not be simple. Some of these abatement activities, such as reforestation, are recognised under the Kyoto protocol, with the result that the Carbon Farming Initiative credits generated from them will be able to be exchanged for Kyoto protocol units, such as the emissions reduction units and assigned amount units held by the federal government, and traded on the international compliance market.

Others of these abatement activities are not recognised under the Kyoto protocol, although some of them, such as the avoided deforestation and soil carbon sequestration, may subsequently be recognised under any international successor to the Kyoto protocol. The Carbon Farming Initiative credits generated from these activities will be tradeable only on voluntary markets, most likely at a discount to the compliance units. Because the abatement represented by these voluntary units does not count towards Australia's international greenhouse gas reduction commitments, the federal government is assuming the risk of any difference in the achievement of the domestic and international targets that may result from such abatement. The Australian Plantation Products and Paper Industry Council told the inquiry into carbon farming that timber growers would be unlikely to join the Carbon Farming Initiative as currently proposed. The lobby group's chief executive, Richard Stanton, said:

It is our considered view that the Carbon Farming Initiative, as detailed in the legislation, is unlikely to attract the interest of commercial plantation growers …

Growers would not take the economic risk associated with establishing a project in the absence of a 'meaningful' carbon price market, he said.

We support the principles of carbon farming but there are many, many flaws in this legislation. The government has not explicitly said the use of CFI offsets will be included in any future carbon price. 'But the expectation is that it will,' says Martijn Wilder, head of Baker & McKenzie's global environmental markets practice, who helped advise the government on the draft laws. Big polluters will buy the offsets to meet mandatory emissions cuts, thus giving them another way to manage their carbon risks and drive investment in projects that cut greenhouse gas emissions. But, until that happens, the initiative will only serve a small voluntary market for offsets and limited international demand for offsets from forestry projects. While there is likely to be some demand from the voluntary market, I do not think we are going to see the huge volumes of CFI offsets until we see carbon-pricing legislation that confirms that they can be acquitted against mandatory carbon liabilities. There are many, many people out there who share that view, including Deutsche Bank's carbon analyst Tim Jordan.

This legislation needs a lot more detail. That is why we in the opposition will be supporting that amendments be made to this legislation. Biosequestration through better land management can be a significant way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, in encouraging these activities we must also remember that land use changes to forestry and pasture cannot be reversed without significant carbon costs should we decide that more land is needed for food production. I have been very pleased to speak to this legislation tonight, but we need to see more detail. I will be supporting whatever amendments are moved by our shadow minister.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 and related bills and in support of an environmentally sustainable Australia that takes action to reduce the harmful effects of climate change and preserve our natural heritage. I also rise to welcome the fulfilment of an election commitment, not simply to introduce a carbon farming scheme but to take action to halt climate change and mitigate its impacts.

The agricultural sector accounts for over a quarter of the nation's annual greenhouse gas emissions, and these bills will create the world's first legislated mechanism through which to generate carbon credits from agricultural land. This is supported by an investment of $42.6 million into the research and development of abatement options for the agricultural sector.

When elected in 2007, we began a constructive debate about climate change. Our first act as a new government was to ratify the Kyoto protocol, limiting our greenhouse gas emissions to eight percent above 1990 levels. We subsequently introduced renewable energy targets and invested in clean energy initiatives. Now we have committed to putting a price on carbon and ultimately introducing an emissions trading scheme in order to reduce our emissions and advance our transition to a low-carbon economy.

The Carbon Farming Initiative is a voluntary scheme that creates incentives to protect the natural environment and adopt sustainable farming practices that reduce carbon pollution. It allows farmers, forest growers and landholders to obtain tradeable carbon credits by reducing or avoiding emissions or removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in soil or trees. These carbon credits are then able to be exported or sold to companies that want to offset their emissions or sell carbon neutral products. In the absence of a price on carbon, the market will determine the price of the credits, but, as an example, international credits have sold for up to $20 per tonne over the past two years. Through revegetation, improved land management, tree planting and carbon storage in agricultural soils, for example, the agricultural sector can provide greater protection of our natural environment while working to mitigate carbon pollution. They can also, of course, provide greater protection for the sustainability of their industry.

Preliminary modelling by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences indicates that carbon farming could lead to a reduction of tens of millions of tonnes of pollution every year by 2020. In addition, production costs would decrease in response to improved efficiency and carbon income, and productivity would increase.

In order to ensure that offset projects achieve genuine and permanent carbon abatement, the scheme provides for an independent expert committee, the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee, that is responsible for the assessment of carbon reduction methodologies, including the monitoring of abatement activities. Trees, for example, must remain in the ground for 100 years and carbon must be stored in soil for a similar period. Such a strong and transparent accountability mechanism will ensure that the Carbon Farming Initiative translates into real action to make a difference and mitigate climate change. The Climate Institute, however, has stated:

… carbon farming’s long-term benefit for Australia, and possibly its long term viability, depends on a commitment to a national limit and price tag on pollution …

Last month a coalition of more than 20 businesses, led by General Electric and including BP, AGL and Linfox, issued a joint statement supporting the introduction of a carbon tax. A price on carbon, they said:

… is critical to providing business certainty and unlocking the jobs and investment that will accompany the transition to a prosperous, cleaner and internationally-competitive economy.

There is not only a clear need, but also clear demand, for a price on carbon. We do this because we accept the consensus of the scientific community that human-caused climate change is occurring. The Climate Commission's report, The Critical Decade, handed down last month reiterated this, noting that there is unequivocal support for this view among practising climate scientists. Climate Commissioner Will Steffen has gone so far as to comment that there has been no debate in the scientific community for decades—just agreement. The science is conclusive, the science is agreed. Professor Ross Garnaut in his Climate Review wrote:

Prudent risk management would suggest that it is worth the sacrifice of a significant amount of current income to avoid a small chance of a catastrophic outcome.

I agree. Even the Productivity Commission, in its ground-breaking report released last week, makes crystal clear that there is no better way to reduce our emissions than to put a price on carbon.

It's a simple proposition. We insure our home; we insure our car; why don't we insure our environment and our economy? We have the highest per capita carbon emissions in the world, and our agricultural emissions are amongst the highest of all developed countries. But we also have significant opportunities to increase our use of the natural environment and increase carbon storage. Those who say we should not act before the rest of the world ignore that, as Ross Gittins has written, Australia is not 'leading the way and making sacrifices while others hang back' but is 'dragging the chain'. Taxes on pollution have been introduced, to varying degrees, in Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, India, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Ireland and Costa Rica. And I see that China has started its move towards a cleaner carbon approach to its economy.

While the challenges of climate change require urgent action, solutions must be cautious and balance the needs of the environment, Australian society, Australian industry and the economy. Some unions have raised legitimate concerns about the impact of a price on carbon on Australian workers and on energy-intensive industries. The secretary of the Australian Workers Union, in particular, has raised concerns about the impact of climate change mitigation strategies on jobs in my electorate. But the lessons of Newcastle's recent experience tell us much about the long-term positive impact a price on carbon can have on regional economies like Newcastle's. When BHP steelworks closed in 1999, we saw job losses that hit many families hard. But governments worked closely with unions and employers to manage the impact of job losses and drive economic diversification and restructuring. We developed new partnerships between business, unions and arbitrators that saw industrial strife turned into effective productivity based bargaining. We strengthened collaboration within the engineering and manufacturing sectors and set up our own training organisations to build the skill base we needed for a smarter economy.

This level of cooperation paid real dividends in the decade that followed. We are becoming a leading centre of knowledge and innovation, welcoming investments in clean energy such as the CSIRO's Australian Solar Institute, and we will see the launch of the biggest solar thermal tower in the world in my electorate this week. Then there are the National Clean Energy Innovation Centre, the $100 million Smart Grid, Smart City program and the Newcastle Institute for Energy and Resources. With increased investment in renewable technologies in the Hunter region, Newcastle is well located to profit from these gains because as a government we are working to ensure that the challenges of climate change are also opportunities for job creation, industry redevelopment and sustainable growth. As the government we are also working with carbon exposed industry, and of course in my electorate I have steel, cement, aluminium and coal. We are working with them to sustain their competitiveness and their economic productivity. So I reiterate the importance of genuine consultation and collaboration between unions, industry and government to gain the best outcome from these reforms. It is in the interests of all Australians to work with the government in this way.

It is inevitable that Australia will have no choice but to introduce a price on carbon pollution. Most members opposite I think know that. The member for Wentworth certainly knows that. This is why when the coalition were last in power in 2007 they actually committed to introduce a price on carbon. Even the British Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government has announced that it is taking action on climate change, intending to cut emissions by 50 per cent below 1990 levels in the 2023-27 period. So, given its inevitability, I particularly would like to ensure that it is a Labor government that puts a price on carbon. It is a federal Labor government that will do it in a way that protects jobs and maximises advantages to regional economies like mine. It is a Labor government that will ensure that pensioners and low-income earners are protected from flow-on price impacts from a price on carbon. A Labor government is committed to retaining a sense of equity that would see disadvantage dealt with.

We can see, unfortunately, that on the other side the Leader of the Opposition is not interested in solutions; he is very much interested in scare-mongering. We have heard a lot of apocalyptic talk lately, including from Mr Abbott, and I note from some rather deranged preachers in the United States warning of the end of times. The Leader of the Opposition has warned that jobs in regional economies like mine would be decimated by a carbon price. And I note that Reverend Harold Camping claimed that on 21 May this year the world would end when true believers would be whisked to Heaven by God. Well, both of these claims have equal credibility. Fortunately, though, the Australian community is an informed, intelligent, committed and concerned community. They can see through Mr Abbott's campaign of fear, lies and deceit. Mr Abbott and the coalition are becoming increasingly isolated by the shrill, radical nature of their campaign.

Driving essential reform in this nation has never been easy, but the path to success lies in explaining carefully and rationally the case for reform. And in this debate on a carbon price, the tide has begun to turn. Just today, a group of seven prominent Australians—Professor David de Krester, Ian Kiernan, Dr Fiona Stanley, Dr Pat McGorry, Peter Cundall, Sir Gus Nossal and Dame Elisabeth Murdoch—added their names to the case for a price on carbon, writing in the Australian newspaper today:

A price on carbon is fundamental to substantially reducing emissions and driving the development and growth of a low-carbon economy.

And just last week, a group of eminent economists added their public weight to the case for a carbon price. Saul Eslake, director of the Grattan Institute, Besa Deda, chief economist at St George, Paul Brennan from Citigroup, and Bill Evans, chief economist from Westpac, released a statement on 3 June from which I shall quote:

We are all of the view that the introduction of an emissions trading scheme is a necessary and desirable structural reform of the Australian economy, designed to change relative prices in a way that provides an effective incentive to consumers and producers to shift over time to more low carbon energy efficient patterns of consumption and production.

Countless other Australians have also stood up to be counted in favour of a carbon price. Over 45,000 Australians recently signed the 'We Say Yes' to a price on carbon pollution petition, including: the Australian Conservation Foundation; the Australian Council of Social Services; the Australian Council of Trade Unions; Bishop Patrick P Power, Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn; Dr Richard Charlesworth AM, Australian Hockey coach; Dr Rosemary Stanton; John Quiggin, University of Queensland; Indigenous leader Professor Patrick Dodson; Tim Winton, a famous author; former Liberal leader John Hewson; and former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. Even the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, we now know has been an advocate in the past of a carbon tax, when the political circumstances suited him. So it is high time the opposition abandoned their hypocritical negativity and recognised the national interest and got on board with the task of putting a price on carbon.

The land sector abatement measures contained in these three bills are an important measure designed to empower landowners to reduce carbon pollution and develop a sustainable Australia. On this side of the House we recognise the need to address climate change, and we will work to put a price on carbon in order to reduce our CO2 emissions and protect our natural environment. I do know that the community of Australia will rise to this challenge and will be proud of the outcomes and will be pleased that we have eventually triumphed over this issue and can all be committed to making a difference to our country. I know that farmers have for very many decades understood the importance of managing farmland and agricultural land in a sustainable way. So, although this is voluntary legislation, I know it will be embraced by good farmers and committed Australian citizens, who provide so much to our economy and to this nation, so that they too are part of what I think is a very exciting adventure for the future.

It would be irresponsible of us as a government to do anything other than that which we are doing. I commend these bills to the House.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before this House is whether this package of bills, the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 and cognate bills, should be supported or not. This legislative scheme can be summarised as a good concept but with bad execution. Unfortunately, that is a problem all too frequently with the measures this government is proposing and putting forward for consideration by this House.

We have a government that has a dismal track record of actually delivering outcomes. The home insulation scheme, with some good intentions, but terribly executed, resulted in four deaths, over 150 house fires, a lot of shoddy workmanship, a lot of money wasted and absolute chaos being created in the insulation industry. We had the Building the Education Revolution program, where a series of scandalously expensive buildings were put up around the country, often costing twice as much, or more, per square metre than the going market rate, and quite often not meeting the genuine needs and requirements of schools. The program went over its original budget due to an unfortunate misunderstanding between the department of the then Deputy Prime Minister and the department of finance. Or indeed, there was the Digital Education Revolution, which we have just learnt has now—

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the bill and the need for the speaker to remain relevant to the bill.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All honourable members must observe the standing orders. I call the member for Bradfield.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the question of relevance and the capacity of the government to execute a program encompassed in this bill, nothing could be more relevant than the track record of this government in executing programs. We have a package of measures before the House this evening and the question the House is called upon to determine is: do we have confidence that the policy measures set out in this legislation are likely to be delivered?

Let us remind ourselves what this package of measures aims to do. The intention is that it be a policy mechanism by which this nation is able to reach its bipartisan emissions target, which is that by the year 2020 there will be a five per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to the level of the year 2000. The particular policy mechanism set out in this bill is to create incentives for farmers and land holders to undertake voluntary projects to achieve carbon abatement in the land sector. The bill creates a new form of private property, the Australian carbon credit unit, and there is a series of other quite complex arrangements in this legislation.

I put three propositions to you and the House this evening. Fundamentally, on this side of the House we are very supportive of measures designed to drive a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions or an abatement of carbon in the agricultural sector. Indeed, that is a key element of the coalition's direct action plan on climate change. The second proposition I want to put to the House is that key aspects of this legislative and policy scheme depend upon details that are to be set out in the regulations, and the regulations have not yet been provided in their totality. That is why we have moved an amendment that would decline to give this bill a second reading at this stage. The third point is that insofar as the legislative scheme is fully revealed in the bill there are serious questions about the rigidity of some of the requirements to comply with this scheme in order to be eligible for the treatment under it.

Let me turn firstly to the question of principle. As a matter of principle, is it a good idea to seek to capture carbon emissions in soils, trees and other biological matter? Are we in the coalition supportive of so-called biosequestration? Of course we are supportive of it. We think it is an important policy tool. Indeed, it is a key element of the coalition's direct action policy on climate change. To that extent, we certainly welcome the implicit endorsement, in the bringing forward of the legislation, of the coalition's direct action plan. We welcome the endorsement of the fundamental principle that biosequestration is an important policy tool open to the Australian government and the Australian nation in seeking to reduce our volume of carbon emissions.

We note with considerable interest the fact that this year the CSIRO released a report entitled Greenhouse gas mitigation: sources and sinks in agriculture and forestry. The author of this report was the head of the CSIRO Sustainable Agricultural Flagship, Dr Michael Battaglia. In his report, Dr Battaglia pointed to the great potential for biosequestration in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the report stated as follows:

We can potentially increase these stores in our rural lands and perhaps store or mitigate enough greenhouse gases to off set up to 20 per cent or more of Australia’s emissions during the next 40 years.

There is agreement on the concept that biosequestration is a good idea and that establishing a mechanism to 'incent' the owners of land to engage in such activities is a good idea. Unfortunately, that is where the consensus ends.

I now turn to the second principal argument that I want to put to the chamber this evening, which is that critical details inherent in this policy scheme have not been made clear in the materials provided to the House, particularly in the wording of the bill itself. This piece of legislation has been put forward before the key details have been sorted out. And it is with some regret that I must note that this is again an all too familiar pattern from the government—we have a concept but, sadly, the details have not yet been filled in. The climate change assembly was announced during the 2010 election campaign before all of the details for it had been worked out. Cash for clunkers was also a little light on detail at the time it was announced and before it suffered an ignominious policy death—much like the climate change assembly. Of course, I could mention other policy areas such as the East Timor regional processing centre or, indeed, the Malaysian five-for-one people swap. Again these are areas in which the Gillard government, the Labor government, announces a concept but then it turns out that the hard work of the detailed policy thinking has not been done and the government is simply unable to implement a detailed and workable scheme.

This is a matter of acute relevance to the question which is before the House this evening, because what we are being asked to do by this government is to take it on trust that it will sort out the details. We are being asked not to worry about matters of specifics. We should not worry, for example, about precisely what activities will qualify as abatement under this legislation because that detail will be sorted out. 'Don't you worry about that' is what we are being told. I am mindful of the aphorism: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. And I am also relieved that I managed to get that out accurately, unlike the notorious occasion when the former President of the United States, George Bush, did not. But the core principle is the relevant one here. When we have a government that has a record of coming forward with schemes that are light on detail and when this government has proven itself unable to execute those schemes in an efficient, well-managed manner, it is completely appropriate for this House, for the people's house, for the House of Representatives, to say, 'No. We will not pass this legislation unless you give us the detail of how this is going to work and in a form that we are able to make an assessment of.' We do not have that detail right now, and on this side of the House we are not prepared to take this government on trust.

Let us examine some of the specifics in this bill for which we do not have the detail. The very core of this policy scheme is that certain activities will be eligible for a credit and certain activities will be eligible as abatement; however, we do not actually know what they are. We do not know what those activities are going to be, because that is going to depend upon the regulations. There will be a so-called positive list of activities which qualify, which meet this requirement of so-called additionality, but at this stage we simply do not know what those activities are. Yet this government is asking us in this House to provide a blank cheque. This government is asking us to wave this legislation through when we do not have sufficient detail to make an assessment. These are not peripheral matters. This is the very heart of this legislative scheme, and that is why we have on this side of the House moved an amendment to decline the second reading of the bill until such time as the regulations are provided and we are able to see and assess the detail.

Of course, it would be theoretically possible to wave this through, but to do so would simply not be prudent. It would not be good management. Also, it is not something that we on this side of the House are prepared to countenance, because we have seen on all too many occasions good intentions on the part of this government turn into a deeply unsatisfactory, poorly administered reality. We are saying here: let us pause; let us wait until we can see the detail, and then we can make an assessment of whether in fact this is a legislative scheme that lives up to the high ideals articulated for it and whether it is a legislative scheme that we are able to support.

In the time that remains to me, let me turn to the third area that I would like to highlight. Insofar as the details have been provided, some of the requirements that are proposed appear to be unnecessarily rigid and inadequately responsive to feedback from potential market participants, including, for example, plantation forestry and plantation organisations—

Debate interrupted.