Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

That is precisely what I am saying—that currently that is the case. That is why Australia has opted for the position we have. But I understand that Australia, in the current negotiating process, is trying to change the accounting rules to have natural disturbance excluded from the way that emissions are accounted for in the future. If natural disturbance were excluded then the accounting rules would be changed, if that is what was agreed, and then Australia would opt in. That would mean that bushfires in Australia would not be counted in Australia’s inventory, which means we would automatically get a substantial reduction in our emissions from not actually doing anything. The question I am asking is this: if you want to exclude natural disturbance, as in bushfires, and since most bushfires are deliberately lit, are you pushing in the negotiations to have bushfires taken out and how are you going to account for the different emissions—the emissions from a fire that is deliberately lit, which is not a natural disturbance, and a fire caused by a lightning strike, which is a natural disturbance?