Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

These amendments fall into a number of groups. The amendments to clauses 27, 29 to 38, and 215 are technical. They remove the requirement for the administrator to notify land titles registries about emissions reduction projects. That is because notifying about emissions reductions projects is unnecessary; it is only sequestration projects that need to be brought to the attention of future buyers. That is because permanence provisions only apply to carbon storage projects, for example revegetation or soil carbon.

There are further amendments at the end of division 9 and clause 5 which deal with consent rights for determined native title. This is an amendment which gives holders of determined native title the right to consent to sequestration projects. It will give native title holders the opportunity to negotiate for a share of the benefits of carbon farming initiative projects. The government is still consulting on what other interests should have the right to consent to projects. There is scope to include further interests in regulations.

There is an amendment to clause 112, which is a transparency provision; it provides for a clearer timetable for the publication of the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee's reasons for endorsement of, or refusal to endorse, a proposal.

Finally, there is an amendment to clause 56, dealing with excluded offsets projects and risk level. Under clause 56 the minister can exclude certain kinds of carbon farming initiative projects if they carry risks of adverse impacts on such things as the availability of water, conservation of biodiversity, employment and the local community. There are two amendments made to clause 56. The first amendment requires the minister to consider whether there is a 'material', rather than 'significant', risk that that kind of project will have a 'material', rather than 'significant', adverse impact. The change represents a cautious approach to identifying risks which is appropriate because the carbon farming initiative will create new economic opportunities which could affect other land users.

The second amendment to clause 56 clarifies that the minister will consider impacts on land access for agricultural production in addition to considerations already listed, including impacts on employment, local communities and water. It is an amendment which gives effect to one of the recommendations made by the National Farmers Federation, which of course supports this legislation. This was a suggestion that the National Farmers Federation made in its submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee during the inquiry conducted by that committee into the Carbon Farming Initiative. It was an amendment acting on that suggestion of the National Farmers Federation which the government was happy to take up.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 and the Senate amendments. We made our position very clear in both houses that we support the general thrust of the bill. It comes from work we have done over a period of years. It was initially rejected by the government in terms of abatement incentives. We are pleased that that has been put in the form of legislation. But, ultimately, given our experience with the Home Insulation Program, the Green Loans Program, the warnings we gave in relation to the cash-for-clunkers program and many other elements, we are not willing to take programs on face value if they appear to be inadequate and unfinished. The Senate has improved the legislation, and we will accept the amendments as were agreed upon in the Senate through cooperative action between the different parties. We will, however, maintain our position of the House and the Senate that the bill, whilst desirable in its intent and whilst desirable in its general construction, remains inadequate, with the failure to complete many of the processes with respect to the regulations—in particular the failure to assume what we regard as a reasonable definition of permanence which will not be destructive, damaging and a hindrance to the fair and proper functioning of this bill and of the general carbon farming area. Having said that, our position remains this: we support the intention, we support the goals, we support the amendments; we do not, however, believe that the bill is ready, given the history with other such programs. It is suffering from inadequacies and incompleteness, and we believe that it is therefore not yet ready for passage. Nevertheless, if elected we will seek to improve this bill along the lines which we have outlined in both houses. The amendments, however, which are the specific subject of this debate at this moment are ones with which we concurred in the Senate.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government rejects the suggestion that this legislation is in any respect unready. This is legislation which has been the subject of exhaustive consultation. It has been the subject of detailed consideration by the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications during its inquiry. It has been the subject of detailed consultation on the draft regulations, which were published back on 1 June and in respect of which there have been some 59 submissions, which the government of course has considered and will continue to consider. It is hard to understand what is said to be support for this legislation, which is supported by very many groups around the country and in particular by the National Farmers Federation, and the position that has been taken by the coalition in continuing to oppose the legislation. This legislation was given some 16 hours of debate in the Senate. The suggestion that this legislation has had anything other than the fullest possible consideration—indeed, it is long past time for this parliament to now bring it into effect by passing it on its return from the Senate—is without foundation.

Question agreed to.