Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Hansard source

You took it as a bounce? A bounce in his seat? I was expecting and hoping for a response to Senator Macdonald's genuine concerns about an industry in his home state and an industry that is important to all Australians. The importance of that industry is being demonstrated—we have seen the impact flow through to inflation. That industry has gone through tough times following some natural disasters.

Whilst Senator Feeney bounces in his seat, Senator Ludwig did at least provide some comments before he had to leave the chamber, but I was very disturbed by those comments. He claimed that the opposition does not want to give farmers the opportunity to sequester carbon in their soils and to enjoy some benefits from that. That is just a blatant misleading of the chamber. The opposition, as I have outlined before, has for a long time—far longer than this government—championed the concept that we can achieve significant carbon abatement in this country through enhancement of our soil carbon stocks; that we can make good inroads in reducing our share of global emissions by capturing carbon in our soils, by increasing the carbon content in our soils; and that, in doing so, we can enjoy a number of benefits such as those that Senator Ludwig has outlined. Those benefits include reduced risk of salinity, increased retention of water and increased soil capacity. Out of all that, we can enjoy the benefits of our soils being able to produce more and our farmers being able to produce more. We can actually boost Australia's overall productive capacity. So to come into this place and suggest, as the minister did, that we do not support the idea of farmers sequestering carbon is far from the truth.

The coalition has long supported the concept—has recognised the need and the opportunity—of putting greater carbon content into our soils. What we do not want to see, though—because it is what we have seen all too often from this government—is a bad scheme, a flawed scheme, a scheme that potentially has unintended consequences. That is what we do not want to see. That is what we on this side want to stop. That is why we have been diligent and determined in our approach to tackling all of the issues that we have seen with this legislation. That is why, as my colleague Senator Colbeck pointed out earlier, we were crystal clear from day one that we believed this bill deserved to be considered alongside all of the proposed regulations needed to make this bill work; that the Senate inquiry that looked at this should have been able to look at it in its entirety, with those regulations; and that it was important to make sure that, when the Senate committee engaged stakeholders who have an interest in this issue, those stakeholders were able to give us fully informed feedback about it.

But, no, the government resisted that. The government could not manage to get its act together and could not manage to present all of this information in one hit. Instead of the Senate inquiry looking at this legislation with all of the government's proposals before it, it only had some of the proposals. It was not until yesterday afternoon that this chamber was finally presented with a copy of the draft regulations. Long after the Senate committee has finished its deliberations on this bill, long after the House of Representatives has passed this bill and well into the debate on this bill, the government finally comes along and drops these regulations on the table. According to it, the final version of these regulations was pumped out at 11.43 am yesterday.

These regulations are particularly important to the clause of the bill that we have been debating this morning—to proposed section 56 pertaining to excluded offset projects. That proposed section creates the so-called negative list in an attempt to ensure that there are no perverse outcomes or adverse consequences from the operation of the scheme. It attempts to ensure that, in striving to give farmers and others the opportunity to sequester carbon, we do not have adverse impacts in several areas, those areas being the proposed criteria for exclusion.

Four criteria were previously identified. Four is, I know, a number that is important to you at present, Senator Feeney. There are four criteria identified—water, biodiversity, employment and local community. The Senate is agreeing to add a fifth criterion—I do not think there are five spots on the Labor Party's Victorian Senate ticket, Senator Feeney, but, if they wanted a fifth, maybe you would be in the running. We want to add a fifth criterion of land access for agricultural production. The Senate has agreed to do that, but regrettably the minister stood in this place and brushed aside the significance of this. He has described it as little more than a clarification. We do not think preserving land access for agricultural production is a clarification. We think it is important. We think it is sound policy and we think it is vital that we preserve that in this country. That is why we think these regulations need to reflect the letter, the spirit and the intent of the amendment being proposed. I indicated before that I accept we were not going to get any greater clarification from Senator Ludwig. He had made his attitude clear on this. He did not think this was a meaningful amendment. I am not particularly hopeful that we are about to get any great response or contribution from the bouncing Senator Feeney in this regard.

What I do hope is that, when we pass this amendment shortly, the minister for climate change takes it seriously, and the government as a whole take it seriously. When they engage with stakeholders in analysing the regulations I hope they accept that this is a key principle, which is worth pursuing and worth us being genuine in our approach to. That is what I hope and that is what I urge the government to do. I hope that the government, in finalising this so-called negative list of projects that will not be permitted or accredited under the scheme, actually take into account the issues of land access for agricultural production and are mindful of ensuring that our best farming land remains available for farming purposes.

Farmers can grab hold of whatever opportunity they can to increase the carbon content of their soils, because that is a good thing, but we do not want any other negative outcomes that would see any of those farming lands taken out of agricultural production. That is what we think is at the core of this amendment. That is what we think is so vital in terms of the government honouring the letter, spirit and intent of this amendment. That is why we are so disappointed on initial analysis with the regulations, which have been drafted seemingly with no consideration of this amendment despite the fact that the government has known for a couple of months at least that it was going to accept and adopt this amendment.

If Senator Ludwig and Senator Feeney will not do it, I urge Mr Combet and those who will ultimately be responsible for the finalisation of the regulations that will be brought to this place to ensure that, when those regulations come here, we do not have to have this debate again; to ensure that you actually get it right, that you heed the concerns of the stakeholders and that, when we put the new subclause (e) into clause 56, it is a component that is considered with equal weighting to the other four components and that it is considered alongside them all. That is what we think would happen in a well-managed scheme, in a good scheme, rather than the type of shambolic approach that the government takes to the implementation of its environmental programs, which we have seen time and time again. I can but ask that Senator Feeney and the officials make sure that we honour this amendment fully. It is not as Senator Ludwig described it 'simply an add-on, simply a clarification' but something meaningful and gives meaningful security of land access for agricultural production into the future.