Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

That was a complete duck on the question that Senator Milne put to the minister through you, Chair. The question remains: if it is to be dealt with somewhere, where has this matter been dealt with? Will the minister bring forward to the committee the government enactment of law or regulation which requires that, if taxpayers are going to forgo millions of dollars which could otherwise go to addressing global warming or assisting public education and public health—we are dealing with a massive amount of money here—the trees planted here, for which wealthy corporations taking over farmlands are going to get millions of dollars in tax deductions, have to stay in the ground accreting carbon?

This bill has schedule 3 labelled, ‘Capital expenditure for the establishment of trees in carbon sink forests.’ Carbon sink forests appear throughout the schedule, as you will see—even conditions for deducting for establishing trees in carbon sink forests. But then you find there are no conditions for ensuring that the carbon sink keeps the carbon. Senator Milne’s motion, amongst other things, requires that the trees are there for at least 100 years, which one would have thought was a minimum requirement if we are looking at keeping the carbon out of the atmosphere. But, no, this legislation will allow people to get massive tax deductions up-front and, 15 years after they have planted the trees, to cut them all down again and get the deductions again for planting another lot. They can be burnt and put into the atmosphere.

It is irresponsible legislation and I know that the vested interests have been hard at work overnight on the government and opposition to ensure that this legislation goes through, because it is not a carbon sink mechanism; it is a tax avoidance scheme we have in front of us. It is extremely concerning because when the government gets into green wash like this—that is, using up-front a motivation to create carbon sinks which is not genuine to say the least, to afford vested interests who are behind this legislation massive tax deductions—it is engaging in deceit and a studied deceit at that.

Senator Milne asked where in this legislation it stipulates that you have to keep the trees in the ground for a certain period of time, any period of time. It is missing. The minister’s answer is not acceptable. He gets up and says, ‘Yes, we have provision here for carbon sink forests in this tax legislation,’ but it is about taxes; it is not about carbon sinks at all. You have to go somewhere else if you want to find out about carbon sinks. Well, why label it carbon sinks? This is simply a rort. This is a rort whereby investors are going to get massive tax deductions at the expense of the Australian economy to plant trees, which will not provide the purpose for which they are meant. They are not going to be carbon sink forests. In fact, if you are looking at this from an investment point of view, it would be crazy to keep your trees there when every 15 years you can get the tax deduction again. You would be crazy to keep them for a hundred years. Who would do that?

The other argument that comes down the line is: ‘We don’t have carbon trading yet and so who is going to invest in this scheme when they don’t know what the value of the growing trees is going to be?’ Well, it is like all other market enterprises. If you want to get this tax deduction for a carbon sink—and that is the aim of the legislation—you keep your trees in the ground for 100 years. The problem comes when it turns out, against all expectations, that forests are excluded from carbon trading down the line. The government has not created the provision for carbon trading; it is bringing this legislation in first. It has put the cart before the horse.

My advice to investors, if Senator Milne’s amendment gets up, is to wait until you see what the government’s legislation is going to be—and it is an urgent piece of legislation which we should be seeing first. This is all back to front. It is a rort. It is going to transfer millions of dollars, otherwise collected for the public good, into the pockets of investors at the big end of town who are in this for a tax deduction. They are not in this for a carbon-sink provision. There is no requirement in this legislation for that. As Senator Milne says, this is managed investment schemes on steroids. That is what this is. When rural Australians get to see this they will see their land, including land for food production, taken over because this rort allows tax deductions for corporations at the big end of town who want to get out of their responsibility for offsetting their greenhouse gas production. Senator Milne’s amendment at least stipulates that you have to keep these trees in the ground for 100 years—that is, that you are going to be dinkum if you are getting this tax deduction. The opposition should be supporting it and the government should be supporting it. And, if you don’t support it, you are not dinkum about this legislation either—you are simply providing a facility for big investors to rip off the tax system.