John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5489 be agreed to.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

During the break, I consulted with the Clerk of the Senate, and the information I was given is that this bill will be regulated by disallowable instrument, and if that disallowable instrument is carried then the bill will be gutted—similar to what happened with the Australia Card. So I just want to put on notice that anyone who wants to take advantage of this tax break does so at their own peril, because my advice is that it would only require one side, either the government or the opposition, to support a disallowance motion and the bill would not be workable—very similar to what happened with the Australia Card. I want to put on record that anyone who goes out and takes advantage of this today, tomorrow or the next day might be buying a big fat lemon, and it may not be operable.

The Greens are opposed to this, the National Party are opposed to it and some people in the Liberal Party are opposed to it. It is going through a Senate inquiry and if that Senate inquiry divulges what I think it will divulge then I think both the government and the opposition will abandon this. I just want to warn people that, if they invest money in the next couple of days or the next couple of weeks, they do it at their own peril.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have some information on a number of questions. One of those was, again, a question which I actually answered yesterday, but I stress it again for Senator Boswell, and Senator Joyce, who is an intelligent man and particularly understands these issues: land is not deductible under this provision. Land is treated as a CGT asset under the existing tax law and nothing in this bill alters this treatment. The explanatory memorandum for the carbon sink measures says at paragraph 3.39:

Expenditure on assets separate from the trees is not considered to be establishment expenditure.

Land is a separate asset to the trees themselves. I do not know how much clearer the legislation, the EM and that explanation can be. I know it is an important issue and I know it is one that is particularly exercising the minds of National Party senators, but it could not be clearer.

I will address a number of other matters that have been raised. The legislation, which allows a deduction for the establishment expenditure for carbon sink forests, is modelled on the provisions for deduction of costs associated with establishing horticultural plants. Under these provisions, there is no requirement for the taxpayer to leave the plant in the ground—whether it be a grapevine or an orange tree, for instance. The tax law simply recognises that a legitimate expense has been incurred in the course of business and allows a deduction.

It is worth noting, though, that there are additional requirements for claiming a deduction under the carbon sink forest provisions. These include that the primary and principal purpose for establishing the trees is carbon sequestration. The purpose cannot include felling the trees. The expenditure cannot be incurred under a managed investment scheme. The trees must be consistent with the Kyoto protocol requirements for a recognised forest. In addition, the taxpayer must give the tax commissioner a notice which confirms that they have met the aforementioned requirements and must comply with environmental and resource management guidelines. Issues expected to be covered in the notice given to the tax commissioner include the latitude and longitude of the forest, the species of the trees planted, the estimated number of trees planted per hectare and the rationale for the probability of meeting the relevant requirements. Those are all the tests and criteria. You will be seeking more information on these things; I hope that gives you most, if not all, of the information you are seeking, Senator Milne. I am happy to try and get further information for you. Hopefully, that addresses what I know has been a major concern of the National Party members.

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

Thank you to the government for coming back with some information. I now have an answer to what I was asking—that is, is there any requirement for the trees to be left in the ground and can they be cut down? The minister has just said there is no requirement for the trees to be in the ground, so it is precisely as I said: under this tax law there is no requirement for trees to stay in the ground. The only guarantee that the senator has just made to me is that the Minister for Climate Change and Water will have to issue guidelines which will classify eligibility, and the guidelines are a disallowable instrument, as Senator Boswell has just indicated.

But the point I am making is that I want to know from the minister whether the Greenhouse Friendly forest sink abatement projects regulations are going to be the regulations that the climate change minister agrees to, in which case they will be completely useless. I am told to wait and see what the climate minister delivers in terms of guidelines, and rest assured I will—and rest assured it is a disallowable instrument, and when it comes before this chamber, if it is not good enough, we will deal with that. But it does not alter the fact that even if you can achieve some of the things we want to achieve—that the trees are in the ground, that the trees are mixed species and that there is a hydrological assessment—it does not alter the impact on agricultural communities, which is the point that we have been trying to make here time and time again.

So I would like an answer from the minister now. I asked another question in relation to where you got your cost estimates. The minister is going to tell me in a minute, but perhaps he could also tell me whether the Greenhouse Friendly forest sink abatement projects guidelines are the ones that are being referred to, before we actually put the amendments.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will follow up with some further information for Senator Milne. For the total area planted in number of hectares in 2007 the calculation is 3,000 hectares; in 2008 it is 15,500 hectares; in 2009 it is 18,000 hectares; in 2010 it is 21,500 hectares; and in 2011 it is 23,500 hectares. On the secondary question, I am told that the ones you refer to are a voluntary mechanism. I will get more information, because I am not sure that that completely answers your question. It may not answer the point that you believe you are making and that you have made on a number of occasions. We are happy to give you all the information that we have but, no matter how many times we go around the chamber, I do not know that we are going to solve the point that you are advancing, which is that whatever we have is not good enough. We will give you all the information we have, but if in your judgement that is not sufficient I do not know that another hour or two of discussion will actually change your view. We believe the process that we are undertaking through the emissions trading scheme, a green paper, will address a number of the concerns you are raising, but we are happy to give you any information we have that is available, Senator Milne.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to ask one question. Have you conducted a socioeconomic study into the effects of the deductions relating to carbon sinks?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that we have not conducted a formal study in the way that you are indicating. I do not think any information we have would be classified in the way that you have asked.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the answer, Minister, on how many hectares are estimated in this scheme. Could you explain to me the model that you used to come up with those estimations, given that we do not know the value of the market and we do not know what price the market is going to put on the carbon trade? Could you explain to me, if you meet those recommendations, how much carbon will be offset by those hectares and what the value of it would be?

This is flying by the seat of your pants. No-one really knows. There is no regulation and no market in Queensland. Minister, can we have some explanation of what we are doing to Australia’s taxpayers and of the pressure on agricultural land, because this is—I will not use the terminology I would normally use, Mr Deputy President—baloney. I would like to know what modelling was used to come up with those estimations and what presumption they were based on. In some states there is not even an established market, and if we met those 80,000 hectares, or whatever it is, what minuscule part of the market would that offset? I just cannot believe that we have come up with this law, and I would like to put the investors on notice that I am going to do everything I can to make this a fair dinkum sink operation where you will lock land up if you participate. No-one can explain to me the contractual arrangements between the freehold, the leasehold and the emitter and the legal obligations in that. We do not even know what the market is going to establish as the value, and of course the higher the value the higher the grade of land that will be used because, as I said before, no-one in their right mind is going to grow a crop if they can sit on their backside and collect the dividend out of this.

There are millions of hectares in northern Australia that would be suitable climatically and geographically for carbon offsets, but they will go to cleared land and prime farming land under this ridiculous proposition that has gone through the parliament. Minister, could you explain to me the modelling behind that and the amount of carbon that will be offset, and what percentage of the offset that will be required in Australia, given that there is no market in Queensland?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not have the exact amount of carbon that this will offset, but it is expected to offset carbon emissions. The modelling is exactly the same modelling as that used to gain the support of your party room, when it passed your party room and when you first introduced this bill. But most importantly, I think there is an informal understanding that we are proceeding to a Senate committee on these matters. Those are matters which you will be able to explore in depth in the committee process, Senator Heffernan. That information, I am sure you would understand, is not readily available. I am sure if you put some of your questions on notice for that committee, you will get some answers to them. I appreciate that you are genuinely interested in information, but those questions go to such a level of detail that I think the Senate committee that I suspect will gain the support of the chamber will be the perfect vehicle for you to gain that information.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased the government is cooperating and that we are all fair dinkum that what comes out of this committee will be looked at and used to fashion what is a proper carbon market and a carbon sink in a responsible way. Would there be a need to grandfather people who are going into the market? We all admit there is a grave unknown in all this and I do not know how we have come to get ourselves in this position, but there are people in the investment vehicle market now who are promoting this, even before we know what the requirements around it are. Do we put people on notice, do we grandfather it? God knows what we do.

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

I want to follow up on that. I still would like to know how you came up with a figure of 80,500 hectares or thereabouts to be in the ground by 2011. What is the basis for suddenly magicking up that figure for being what you expect to be taken up and there being a $24 million tag attached to it? I would like some detail as to how that came about. Secondly, I would like some clarity around the disallowable instrument. From what I can see, as I have said before many times, the climate minister must by legislative instrument make guidelines about the environmental and resource management in relation to carbon sink forest. These guidelines will be a disallowable instrument. The establishment of the trees must satisfy these guidelines in order for the relevant expenses to be claimed as a tax deduction. Can you clarify for me, Minister, that this will not come into effect until these guidelines or this instrument come through the Senate, in which case they can be disallowed? In that case, nobody can go out and start this process until those guidelines come through here in order to be ratified. I need to understand that, because that will tie up one big rort with this. There will be no loophole between times. Since it says here clearly that the establishment of these trees must satisfy these guidelines in order for the relevant expenses to be claimed as a tax deduction, until we have the guidelines one would assume you could not qualify. I want to have clarity that this will not come into effect until that disallowable instrument comes before the Senate. Secondly, I would like more detail about how you magicked up 18,500 hectares by 2011.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will see if we can gather some more of that information, particularly on those calculations, for you, Senator Milne. In terms of whether it comes into effect, I am advised that it cannot come into effect until the instrument is tabled. However, from previous parliamentary experience, an item is tabled, in effect, until it is disallowed. That is the way the instrument works. I notice I disallowed an accounting standard some months after it was introduced and a company went to produce its accounting report using the standard. It was then subsequently disallowed, a court case ensued and the court ruled that the instrument had life until it was disallowed. So from the moment it is tabled to when it is disallowed, it is actually a live instrument. There are a number of court cases, and I am very familiar with one in particular on an accounting standards.

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

Can the minister then indicate whether the climate change minister has finalised the guidelines and, if so, when she intends to table them? We need to have a very clear idea about this because, like Senator Boswell, I want it on the record here that no-one need go investing in this and think that they have got it sewn up, because there will be a revolt around rural Australia in relation to this. So I would like some indication as to when we are going to see these environmental guidelines, which I have indicated we are buying as a pig in a poke if you allow this to continue.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have more information on those figures. They are based on existing carbon sink forest plantations and an assumed take-up rate on existing policies settings, noting that at the moment there is only a limited market for carbon offsets. As you know this bill has already passed. This is not the actual substance of this particular bill, so that is why Senator Wong is not here. This is a tax bill dealing with matters to do with political donations. If I am able to gather any information from Senator Wong in the meantime, I will. But it is not actually her bill and, while you have moved an amendment on all of these issues and we are trying to happy to try and gain that information as fast as we can, I am aware that cabinet is meeting and I will do my best to get as much information for you as I can. But there are no officials here from Senator Wong’s department. Sorry, there is one. We will attempt to gain that information for you.

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

I have to say that I am pretty appalled. To say it is a tax bill and therefore it is not reasonable to expect the climate minister or whomever to be here is a nonsense. The fact that this whole tax measure is dependent upon the climate minister’s guidelines for a carbon sink forest means we ought to have had the guidelines before we actually debated the tax bill so we knew what a carbon sink forest was designed to do. We needed to know that before we could make a judgement as to whether it was worthy of a tax deduction. I do not think there will be any basis on which I would consider it would be worthy of one; nevertheless we should have seen those guidelines.

Minister, it is not really good enough to say, ‘You’ll get to see them at a later time,’ because they are in direct relationship to this bill, and since it was the government who switched this schedule around into other bills you knew this was coming. You knew the guidelines were dependent on this bill taking effect. At the very least the climate minister should have known this. To me this is further evidence that the government are in chaos on climate policy. They do not have a consistent climate policy across all departments; otherwise they would have a very clear idea. The whole review that is going on at the moment into taxation is to look at consistency across government—and we do not have any consistency across government. To say now that ‘we projected the figures based on the current voluntary carbon market’ is just a joke. It is really a joke that you have come in here and said that, because the circumstances have changed. We are going into an emissions trading scheme. We do not know at this point whether Professor Garnaut is going to recommend agriculture and forestry going into the emissions trading scheme—and if they are not going in we want to know when they will go in. So with the whole market framework in terms of carbon, we have gone from a voluntary carbon market to something much more substantial. In my view, we are going to have the classic case of your allocating the money for 80,500 hectares when, in fact, you are going to end up with millions of hectares.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A huge amount.

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

Yes, but they are going to end up with millions. This is not even a fraction of what is likely to occur once the instruments change under emissions trading or under a more robust carbon market. So the voluntary market to date is no indication of what the market is going to be in the future. Also I would like to know where these 80,500 hectares of land that you expect these trees to go on is, because, as I have said, it is likely to be prime land. There are no specifications as to where or when and, as you say, Minister, we will have to wait for the environmental guidelines.

I really want to say to the government that this is really ill considered. It was the former government’s legislation. The former government had no climate credentials and no decent climate policy. Why would you think that they would come up with anything half-decent? Why on earth didn’t you look at their legislation before you adopted it and brought it in here when it is so ill considered? As I have said so many times, you would have been far better off—and you would have got the full support of the chamber for this—if you had come in here and repealed the managed investment schemes, instead of leaving the MIS for forestry and adding another one with this carbon sink legislation—because that is what it is. But my amendment stands. I believe it is a sound amendment. It specifies what a carbon sink is and then I will give the chamber the opportunity to knock out this schedule from this bill. That is what my amendment seeks to do. Everyone has the opportunity to do that. My amendment is in the Notice Paper and has been moved.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have one of the last questions that I will ask. I acknowledge that there has not been a formal socioeconomic study done on this. If there had been, I presume it would be before the chamber at the moment and we would be discussing it. Be that as it may, in any study—or in whatever you have done in the office—have there been any discussions about how much prime agricultural land would be tied up once we ended up with 80,500 hectares of these schemes going? What would be the effects on food inflation when that issue comes to light? Was there any consideration of any limitations on the use of prime agricultural land, especially that associated with food production for our nation, as it is at the moment?

What do you consider will be the greatest mechanism for getting carbon credits? What species of trees would be involved? There has been some talk around that you would be using such trees as mallees—or would you be more likely to go to heavy eucalypts, which would get you a far greater carbon credit, so far more bang for your buck? So you would be looking for an area that has the ability to sustain such timber, which means you would be looking at prime agricultural land. Was any study done on the relationship effects of this scheme seeing as it is, in form, extremely similar to the managed investment schemes that we currently have? Was there any consideration of the acceptance or otherwise of MIS in rural communities as they are at the moment? Was there any study into the market implications of managed investment schemes or schemes like these when you have differentiation between different forms of taxation treatment that are only noted so much by offence?

Is the capacity of an individual farmer to access a scheme like this the same as it would be for a large corporation? Who are the most likely users of this scheme? Are they to be predominantly companies, such as coal companies, which are currently experiencing record profits? If that is the case, why do we need to give them any further advantages? What is the way by which the minister intends to deal with this issue if, during the course of the committee inquiry, it is shown clearly that there will be problems with this bill when, as I imagine, you have people running out there trying to take advantage of it? What information has the minister given to these people so that they know they could be in a position where they have made an economic expenditure into this form of scheme and it has been knocked out later on? In those discussions what feedback have you had? Seeing that there was not a formal socioeconomic study, whose predominant views did you take? Where did they come from and what parts of the industry were they involved in?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank goodness he only wanted to ask one question! Senator Joyce, as I am sure you are aware, the comprehensiveness of those questions could not possibly be addressed in this chamber this afternoon.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Joyce interjecting—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps, when this bill was passing through your party room originally, you should have actually been awake at the time and asked these questions of your own government, who actually drafted, created and endorsed this, which was passed by your party room. But the point is that with the general agreement of everybody in the chamber, it seems, there will be a Senate committee to investigate thoroughly all of those matters. In fact, if you are quick I am sure Senator Ronaldson will take shorthand for you and actually write all of those issues into the terms of reference of the committee, Senator Joyce.

The depth and scale of those questions go well beyond the capacity for the officers in the chamber to deal with. These are matters that should have been raised last week when this bill was actually debated. They should have been considered in an inquiry that took place prior to the legislation appearing in the chamber. But that is spilt milk, if you like. To address those questions, there seems to be a general agreement that we have an inquiry.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With goodwill?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Genuinely with goodwill. I have got no problem with seeking that information for you. As I said, if we can get that written into the terms of reference—

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Joyce interjecting—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is all on the public record, so the officers who will be appearing before the committee will be well aware of the information that you are seeking, and I am sure that you will be robustly pursuing them—as will Senator Milne, Senator Brown, Senator Boswell, Senator Heffernan and Senator Fielding. I do not think that there is any chance that this committee inquiry is going to be a squib, given the extent of Senator Milne’s questions, Senator Heffernan’s and your own. It is in the transcript; it is in the Hansard. Those officers who come to the committee will be well prepared and able to assist you in your discussions and deliberations on that.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am grateful to Senator Boswell for getting the information about the disallowable instrument but, as I see it, it is not going to have the full information required to assure us that these forests are going to indeed be a carbon sink. There will be environmental guidelines for planting the trees, but there are not going to be, on the face of it, time demands for growing those trees—as there are in Senator Milne’s amendment, which says they have to aim to be there at least 100 years. I want to foreshadow to the Minister for Climate Change and Water and the Treasurer that, if those matters are not dealt with, we will move to disallow this instrument. As Senator Boswell said, that is a serious matter. Be warned, anybody who wants to take this particular scheme up before this Senate has had its inquiry, dealt with it and seen the instrument that the minister is bringing forward. Might I also put a request through you, Minister, here and now, if there is an inquiry established in a moment, that the government furnish the details of the proposed disallowable instrument so that the inquiry can take that into account in its deliberations?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand there is a legal requirement for the instrument to be tabled reasonably soon. There is a time line. I am sure it will be publicly available by the time the committee have their discussion. So I think the answer is yes.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5489 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5511:

(1)    Page 23 (after line 21), at the end of the bill, add:

Schedule 8—Conditions for the establishment of carbon sink forests

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997

1  Paragraph 40-1010(2)(c)

After “1990”, insert “or at any time since”.

Question negatived.

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

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5513:

(1)    Clause 2, page 1 (line 7) to page 2 (line 6), omit the clause, substitute:

2  Commencement

        (1)    Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms.

Note: This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally passed by both Houses of the Parliament and assented to. It will not be expanded to deal with provisions inserted in this Act after assent.

        (2)    Column 3 of the table contains additional information that is not part of this Act. Information in this column may be added to or edited in any published version of this Act.

(2)    Page 23 (after line 21), at the end of the bill, add:

Schedule 9—Provisions relating to capital expenditure for the establishment of trees in carbon sink forests

1  Application of Schedule 8 of the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Act 2008

The Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 has effect as if Schedule 8 of the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Act 2008 had not been enacted.

The purpose of these amendments is to add a schedule which effectively repeals the schedule that was in the bill that went through last week. So this is the clause that would kill the schedule that went through last week, and I am asking that the two be dealt with together.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Milne’s) be agreed to.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make it clear that Family First had amendments which we were going to move which were similar to those which the Greens have just moved. We had exactly the same amendments, amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5514, so we will not be proceeding with them.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to indicate that I will not be moving my amendment on sheet 5516—the reason being that, now that we have an inquiry, I hope that a far more substantive guide to the guidelines is able to be delivered. I would also like to note on the record that I was absent from the previous vote.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will also not be moving our final amendment listed on the running sheet.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that there is—wait, I am ahead of myself, aren’t I?

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, you are ahead of yourself, Senator Bob Brown.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a Green; I can’t help it!

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot comment on that from the chair. I will leave that up to other senators!

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

I just want some clarity here. Senator Joyce withdrew or did not move his amendment on the basis that an inquiry was in place, but there has been no motion.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have to go out of committee before that motion can be moved, and I think that is the basis on which Senator Joyce is not proceeding to move his motion.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to take this opportunity to read into the Hansard the advice that I have received, because I think people should be warned if they do go ahead with this carbon sink proposal. My advice is:

A very strong argument can be made that the scheme can only operate when the climate change minister makes legislative instruments relating to environmental and the actual resource management. The important aspect of this is that either House acting alone may disallow an instrument. The reasoning behind my advice is section 40/105 provides for deduction if you comply with section 40/1010. Section 40/1010 provides that expenditure is covered if you meet conditions. One of the conditions is that you must meet the requirements of guidelines. If these guidelines in subsection 40/1010(3) which are disallowable ...

So I think it is absolutely important that that be part of the debate, because people may feel inclined to go ahead with this. I am not a solicitor—I am a paintbrush salesman—but my belief from reading that is that you cannot go ahead until the guidelines are put down.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of note here: the main thing is that we would not like businesses or individuals of Australia to be investing in these carbon sinks knowing there is a potential for a disallowance motion to be applied. I just want to make sure that somehow that is communicated.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.