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

From the government's perspec­tive, we think we have achieved that, if you look at the activities on the negative list, projects that were mandatory as at 24 March 2011. Activities that are specifically mandated by government regulations are not additional. Projects that were required by law as at 24 March 2011, when the CFI bill was introduced to parliament, are on the negative list to remove the incentive to repeal regulations in order to circumvent this part—the establishment of vegetation on land subject to clearing of native forest or draining of a wetland within three years of application, as an ineligible offset project; planting a known weed species; the establishment of a forest as part of a forestry management investment scheme—and you look at how you get there.

We will deal with that. Before an activity is listed on the negative list, risks are assessed in accordance with the AS/NZS ISO31000:2009 Risk Management—Principles and Guidelines, so it is—

Senator Xenophon interjecting—

There are enough zeros there. The risk management principles and guidelines are used. They are the standard that is appropriate. The minister will recommend that types of projects be added to the list following consultation with stakeholders. Regional communities, region­al NRM organisations and state, territory and local governments can submit information about likely risks for assessment under that standard. So there is a process before an activity is listed—save the activities on the negative list, as you can clearly now see. The process of how they get on the negative list ensures that there are appropriate risk management principles and guidelines which are used. They are the standards that are accepted in Australia. Then the minister would recommend that types of projects be added to the list following the consultation that you described, and it is a wide-ranging consultation. Of course, it does not preclude regional communities, regional NRM organ­isa­tions, local governments and the like. They can submit information about likely risks for assessment under that standard. In dealing with this area, we have tried to ensure that there is both a proper standard in place and a proper consultation in place and, of course, information about likely risks for assessment under the standard is input into that process as well.