Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, I am not going to provide that support. These amendments would water down protection for native forests. They would allow projects that involve clearing of native forests, so the government does not support them. Interestingly enough, some of the comments go to what I would describe as 'business as usual' for the commercial forestry sector. This is not for that, and that is clear. You may be better off looking at the carbon price for commercial forestry on Sunday. Business as usual is not to be rewarded under this system. This system is for a couple of things, but ultimately it is about ensuring that we do have permanence. To make the area available, you have to have the additionality. Business as usual for commercial forestry practice does not meet that requirement. That is not to say that commercial forestry practices in Australia are not at world's best practice. They do not look to continue sustainability. For all of that, they should be congratulated. But, in this area of the carbon farming initiative, it is not about rewarding business-as-usual practices; it is about ensuring that we do look at what the CFI is about. The difficulty with the opposition amendments is that I am not sure they would achieve your purpose in any event. Notwithstanding that, I have made it plain that the government does not support the coalition amendments for all the matters that I just raised.

The process that we have outlined in the carbon farming initiative is about enabling the crediting of land sector greenhouse gas abatement. We have illustrated the schema, which are the steps involved in operating an offset project, through the positive list. They are the types of projects that we are recognising and pursuing. The commercial forestry practices would not fall within those.