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

The amendments standing in my name deal with the issue of additionality—in other words, what is considered to be a positive factor to be eligible for a carbon farming initiative. The amendments say that if it has a beneficial impact on the availability of water or land and resource access for agricultural production—food security and water security—it ought to be considered. I understand the arguments that the government has put up in relation to this, but can the government give an explanation in the context of division 6 of the legislation? Page 60 of the bill at clause 41, the additionality test, refers to common practice—which the minister has referred to—but does the minister concede that, in its current form, clause 41, the additionality test, does not give any positive inducement or any positive support for a carbon farming initiative that actually has a beneficial effect on the availability of water or land and resource access for agricultural production?

It makes reference to common practice but, all things being equal in terms of common practice, it seems that having an initiative that is positive and beneficial in terms of water and food security will not be treated any differently from a project that does not. So, whilst I understand the government's reasons for not supporting my amendments, what scope is there for the beneficial aspects of water and food security in an initiative to be considered in a way that would expedite or assist it in getting the status of a carbon farming initiative?