Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I too support the disallowance motion and I support the sentiments of the previous speakers. This is a monumental act of folly. This will have the effect of taking away prime agricultural land. It will put further pressure on the Murray-Darling Basin, because there is no requirement for these schemes to be contingent on a hydrological study before going forward. In the discussions I have had about this, the CSIRO’s rule of thumb, it seems, is that you have to be very careful about which rainfall regions you put these forests in, because they can actually do serious damage by taking groundwater out of the system. More importantly, there is also the issue of interception. We have seen what Professor Mike Young from the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists has said about this. The Wentworth group have been quite outspoken about the importance of dealing with the whole issue of interception. What could be a bigger source of interception than giving the go-ahead to carbon sinks with accelerated tax benefits?

Senator Joyce is right. This is a turbocharged MIS in terms of its tax benefits, and we know what MISs have done to rural communities. We know what they have done to overallocation in the Murray-Darling Basin. I know what they have done to irrigators in the Riverland; they just cannot compete with the MISs. The price of water has been forced up. It has accelerated the whole issue of overallocation and this carbon-sink legislation will just make it so much worse. So it beggars belief. It is an act of folly that will harm rural communities, I believe, irreparably and irreversibly. It is an act of folly because it will affect our food security and it is an act of folly because it will impact on our water resources in this country.

I note that the government is requiring guidelines with respect to the whole issue of how it will impact on water, but they are only guidelines; they are not mandatory and they are not requirements. In the absence of a mandatory requirement and of having some very clear guidelines the consequences will be catastrophic.

There are no protections for current food producers under this legislation. There is nothing to stop these schemes from taking over prime agricultural land in order to plant these carbon sinks. There are no guarantees that these forests will not be chopped down in the future after these schemes have taken advantage of the tax breaks. Why would the government pay good money to buy something that can be so easily taken away? Effectively, that is what the government is asking the taxpayers of Australia to do. We will be subsidising the making of water resources more precarious in this country, we will be subsidising the making of rural communities less viable and we will be subsiding our food security being made much less secure. I do not understand why there is nothing that specifically stops the clearing of native vegetation in order to plant carbon-sink forests. Where is the sense in that?

It is for these reasons that I support this disallowance motion. It is for these reasons that I believe that this scheme is a monumental act of folly that will haunt those who support it. This will come back. There is no question that the consequences of this scheme will be to cause wholesale damage to the environment and to rural communities in this country and to put the Murray-Darling Basin under even more stress. I do not understand this: we are in the midst of debating the water bill, which is supposed to be about having a new authority and about ensuring the water security of the basin, and this flies in the face of that. It flies in the face of fundamental good policy and common sense. Unfortunately, I believe we will be revisiting this in the not too distant future, but I fear that the damage done to rural communities and to the environment will be irreversible.