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

Senator Milne gave an outline of this amendment before the break. It is an important amendment because it would change the schedule to ensure that what purports to be a carbon sink program, but which is not, would move in some direction towards becoming a legitimate carbon sink. Amongst other things, Senator Milne’s amendment requires that the trees that are put into the ground for the purpose of sequestrating carbon have to be there for at least 100 years—that is the intention. As the schedule in the bill stands, there is no time requirement at all. It is an astonishing piece of legislation, which purports to provide for a carbon sink, but which does nothing of the sort.

Under the current managed investment schemes, if an investor wanted to invest in a future woodchip or sawmilling product by putting in a plantation, they are going to grow them for at least 15 to 30 years—80 years, as far as sawlogs are concerned. That is more of an assurance than we have in this bill, which is supposed to help save the planet from carbon going into the atmosphere. It is totally untoward that the government has said that they want this legislation through and will tell us what their guidelines are going to be in assessing legitimate carbon sinks somewhere down the line. We get carbon sink legislation and then we get an explanation from the minister.

I would ask the minister to tell the committee what the definition of a carbon sink is under this legislation, and why not the 100-year rule that Senator Milne wants to bring in? What is it that the government finds in this amendment that is going to, in any way, do other than help the government to achieve its stated purpose?