Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to this debate very much on the basis of being a farmer living in the central west in New South Wales. There are some real concerns with the legislation that the government is putting forward before us here today: the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011, the Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 and the Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011. There certainly was a process of Senate inquiry, and it became very clear through that process that there was a significant lack of detail that was put forward not only for us to consider through the inquiry but for the broader community out there, particularly those in agricultural areas who stand to be the most affected.

On this side of the chamber, we are very supportive of carbon farming. There is no doubt that all that we can do to improve our soils should be done. As a farmer, I probably know as well as all the other farmers out there that, if you do not look after the land, the land will not look after you; it is as simple as that. So obviously anything we can do to improve our farming practices and ensure that we have sustainability of land into the future is something that farmers are very concerned with and certainly have a very strong approach to doing.

However, the lack of detail in this bill makes it impossible to support—apart from a whole range of other areas. Even if you agreed completely with the intent of every­thing the government is putting forward here, the lack of detail would preclude anyone from being able to support this bill. It is in a whole range of areas, and I will just run through some of those this evening.

The first and most glaringly obvious is the fact that the Carbon Farming Initiative is going to work entirely differently under a carbon tax or an ETS from how it is going to work under a voluntary market. There were a lot of submissions and certainly a lot of concern out in the community that the government should wait until there is certainty around whether or not there is going to be a carbon tax—as the government says, leading to an emissions trading scheme—before it actually moves to introduce this legislation. I note that the New South Wales Farmers Association were particularly strong in their view about this and, indeed, said in one of their media releases, dated 25 May—quoting Mr Brand, their CEO:

"Until we know the details of how those proposed schemes would work, debate on the Carbon Farming Initiative should be deferred,"

I think he was quite right. I think that, to understand properly how this piece of legislation is going to work, we do need to know whether or not there is going to be a carbon tax or an ETS in place or whether it will be operating under a voluntary market. It is an incredibly complex piece of legis­lation that is missing an enormous amount of detail.

One of the very worrying concerns is the fact that much of the detail is going to be in the regulations that accompany this legislation. We are not going to see those regulations until we have been asked to determine our position and to vote on this piece of legislation. I do not think that is good enough for this chamber, I do not think it is good enough for the parliament and I do not think it is good enough for the Australian people, because in essence what the govern­ment is doing is saying, 'Just trust us, because we'll get it right later on in the regs.' That is certainly not good enough for the coalition and certainly not good enough for me, because the government is asking us to fly blind and just blindly agree that this piece of legislation will work as it says it will, by and large, without any supporting factual evidence through those regulations. So we should not be considering this legislation until the government has before us the regulations that are going to accompany it. One of the issues is the 'common practice' definition. There are a lot of terms in this piece of legislation that are quite compli­cated but, by and large, the common practice definition with regard to abatement through soil sequestration is that if it is something that is not common practice then it is going to be included. Quite frankly, there was not much more detail than that. I think that before people out there make up their minds on this piece of legislation and, indeed, before those of us here in the Senate actually have to vote on it, we should all have in front of us what that common practice definition is going to be. If I can take you to the Hansard of the inquiry by Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee into this bill, I said to the department officials on 20 April:

… I note that you said at the outset there are no methodologies yet for the soil carbon sequestration. What are you currently defining as common practice within the soil carbon sequestration field that will be excluded?

Ms Thompson, who answered, said:

That is a very good question. I think that is one of the things we will need to look quite hard at when we are preparing the positive list for soil.

That was on 20 April, a matter of only weeks ago. The common practice definition is pivotal to how this piece of legislation is going to deliver what it is intending to do, yet we had the department telling us just a few weeks ago that they were going to need to 'look quite hard' at it. That is just simply not good enough.

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

They were being polite to you!

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure they were being polite, Senator Conroy; all those department officials are always very polite. They simply did not have an answer.

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

They were just humouring you!

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I think it would be quite useful for you to actually listen to this because you are going to have to vote on it as well. I will bet pounds to peanuts this is not a piece of legislation that you are across, so perhaps for your own peace of mind you might want to pay a little attention to some of the discussion. Then you might have a rather more informed view.

We have no advice from the department. We have no idea from the department what that common practice definition is going to be. So how can people determine whether or not they support this piece of legislation when they simply do not know how it is going to work? We simply do not know. This government is being at best presumptuous, at worst arrogant, asking the Senate to vote on this legislation without the necessary detail.

I also note that, during that committee inquiry process, the department put forward their current determination around the methodologies. Methodologies are, quite simply, what farmers are going to be able to do to sequester carbon in the soil that will be counted, that they will be able to get a credit for. What Ms Thompson put forward on that day was:

The government is working with stakeholders to develop methodologies for soil carbon, reduction in livestock emissions and applications in the rangelands.

This was on 20 April, only a few weeks ago. So, as we have discussed, we have no idea what the common practice definition is going to be and we have no idea of the methodologies, of what farmers are actually going to be able to do that will be counted. As I said, that was as little as just a few weeks ago. And we certainly do not have it in front of us in the chamber today to be able to determine the efficacy of the legislation: to determine whether or not this is actually going to work and whether or not people out in the regional areas are actually going to be able to gain a benefit from this.

When officials were again asked about the common practice definition, the department put forward the view that it might be region by region. When asked if a farming practice is going to be common practice if it is something that is common across the country, if it is going to be something that is determined on a state basis or if it is going to be something determined in another way, the department said that it might be on a region-by-region basis. From that we took it that if it was not really well used in one region then it might count; if it was used primarily and overwhelmingly in another region then obviously it would not count. But we had no information given to us on what the definition of the regions would be and how that would work, or of what the cut-off figure would be for what is common practice. Is it 10 farmers out of 100, or 10 farmers out of a thousand, or one farmer out of a thousand? We simply do not know. And the fact that we do not know is the reason we cannot support this bill. We simply cannot support it because we do not know what is contained within the bill, because we have not seen the regulations.

In relation to the positive and negative lists, the positives are the things that the government is going to include and the negatives are things that, in essence, are not good for those communities so they will be excluded from being able to be counted. Again, we have very little by way of information on how these lists are going to look. We simply do not have the info­rmation. The positive list is going to be of the abatement activities or types of projects that are determined by the minister not to be common practice. The negative list is going to be of those excluded projects which have significant adverse impacts, and the govern­ment has said they will include adverse impacts on prime agricultural land, water availability and biodiversity. That sounds fine, but when you actually get to the legislation—

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

And they say I can talk under wet cement!

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can, but not without your laptop, I notice, Minister—you need prompting. For the benefit of the chamber, section 56 in the legislation, 'Excluded offsets projects', says:

(1) For the purposes of this Act, an offsets project is an excluded offsets project if it is a project of a kind specified in the regulations—

which I again point out we have not seen—

(2) In deciding whether to recommend to the Governor-General that regulations should be made for the purposes of subsection (1) specifying a particular kind of project, the Minister must have regard to whether there is a significant risk that that kind of project will have a significant adverse impact on one or more of the following:

(a) availability of water;

(b) conservation of biodiversity;

(c) employment;

(d) the local community;

in, or in the vicinity of, the project area, or any of the project areas, for that kind of project.

All this legislation says is that the 'Minister must have regard to whether there is a significant risk'. That is it. That is the sum total of the security blanket the government is giving us to determine whether or not there will be an adverse impact on any of our regional communities. Now that is not good enough. This detail may well be contained in the regulations, but who would know? Who would know how this particular section of the bill is going to work when all we have is the 'Minister must have regard to whether there is a significant risk'?

What does that mean? Will he think one day: I think this is going to be a problem? Does he have an advisory group? Are there going to be people within the community to advise him on this? Is he just going to make a ministerial direction about how all of this is going to work under his own interpretation of what 'significant risk' is going to be? It is simply not good enough and, if the way this government has dealt with the draft Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the 'community consultation' that was taken there and their understanding of 'community impact' is anything to go by, then I have absolutely no confidence that this government can deliver any kind of surety to our regional communities that there will not be an adverse impact as a result of this legislation. I simply do not have that confidence.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can't trust them.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection, thank you very much, Senator Williams: you can't trust them; you simply cannot trust them. Under that Murray-Darling Basin Plan we saw this government say that removing one-third of the irrigation out of our basin communities would result in the loss of 800 jobs. If the government can get it so wrong through lack of consultation and lack of understanding of impact on regional communities, I have absolutely no confidence that they are going to get it right when it comes to the impact of the Carbon Farming Initiative bill.

One of my significant concerns about this is the potential change in land use and the potential skewing of land use as a result of this piece of legislation. What I mean by that is the skewing of prime agricultural land for tree planting instead of food production. I do not think that there is going to be a more serious issue for this nation over the coming decades than food security. It is one of those issues that is sort of under the radar at the moment; people are fairly used to walking into supermarkets and food being on the shelves and they really do not think about it very much.

But I have to say, Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin, they should. People across this country should indeed be thinking about food security. In the future it will mean our ability to feed ourselves, and not only our ability to feed ourselves but our obligation to do our bit to feed those on the rest of the planet. By 2050 there is a predicted global population of nine billion people and we are going to have to feed those people. At the moment the population is only around 6½ billion. We need to be absolutely sure in this country that we make the right decisions now to ensure our agricultural productive capacity into the future, and it is absolutely vital that we do that. If we theoretically look down the track and we do not have the control over the productive land that we need to ensure that we can feed, as I say, not only ourselves but those around the world, then we are going to become a nation of importers. That comes with two very significant issues. One is that there is no quality assurance to the level that we have here and two is that there is no security of supply. The only reason we have security of supply is because we have a domestic production capacity that underpins it. When we lose that—if we lose that—then heaven help us. I do not want to be in the situation where this nation has to be reliant on importing food over the decades to come. This is why we have to be so very certain that this piece of legislation is not going to skew land use in such a way that is going to have an adverse impact on that ability to have our prime agricultural land producing food.

I go back to section 56. The only thing between that scenario—and I admit that it is a hypothetical scenario, but it is still a scenario that needs to be considered—and this piece of legislation is this line:

...that the Minister must have regard to whether there is a significant risk.

That is not good enough. That is not nearly good enough for this chamber, for this parliament, for the people of Australia. We need to have certainty around how that will work. We need guarantees that prime agricultural land is not going to be bought up by companies looking to offset their emissions, who do not perhaps particularly care about the productive capacity of the land or even the financial benefit from that land. These are all scenarios that need to be considered. If this legislation does allow that outcome, then that is going to be a very significant risk for this country. We have to ensure that our farmers across this country have every opportunity not only to maintain their current productive capacity but also to grow it. There are going to be enormous responsibilities in ensuring that we can feed ourselves and those around the rest of the planet.

But there is also a huge opportunity over the coming decades for our farmers to be able to increase their productive capacity, to grow more and to do even better. Our farmers are some of the most technologically advanced, savvy and innovative in the world. There is no doubt about that. As a nation, we should be very proud of the contribution our farmers make to this country, very proud indeed. Indeed, they are not recognised nearly enough for the work that they do and the contribution they make.

So Madam Acting Deputy President, certainly on balance I think anybody that has been able to take the time to look closely at this piece of legislation will realise that the detail is simply not there to the level required for this chamber to be able to support this bill. It is simply not there. I would say that while it is a complex bill, it does not take much determination and much investigation to realise that a lot more needs to be put in front of this chamber by this parliament before we can possibly agree to consider supporting it. I would suggest that it is flawed enough that without many amend­ments we would not even get close to considering it—and I note that the coalition will be moving some amendments—but certainly from the coalition perspective, the lack of detail in this piece of legislation simply makes it impossible to support as it stands.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to make a brief contribution to this debate on the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 and allied bills as well. It is somewhat awing me to follow such an erudite and forensic look at the legislation as was done by my colleague. I agree, to the extent of my limited understanding, with my colleague Senator Nash's very detailed look at the bill in pointing out the flaws in it. Basically, the problem for the coalition is this: we support carbon farming in principle, and have done so for a long time, but the detail is not there. There is simply not sufficient detail in this bill that would give the coalition the confidence to support it.

The Australian Labor Party again is saying, 'Trust us and everything will be all right.' Unfortunately, the people of Australia have trusted the Australian Labor Party too often and they have learnt through sad experience that you cannot trust the Australian Labor Party government with money. It is incompetent. It has no understanding. It does not realise that spending the taxpayers' money is, or should be, like spending your own money. When people in private enterprise, families and households spend money they look carefully at it, because they know if they waste it they will have to do without in the future. But the Australian Labor Party is renowned for spending other people's money without any care in the world for good spending or worthwhile spending. We have only to look at the record of this Gillard-Rudd govern­ment to understand how it simply cannot be trusted with money.

Do I have to mention the Home Insulation Program—the pink batts? The Australian Labor Party spent literally billions of dollars installing these batts because it seemed like a good idea at the time—it would get them a few votes. They came in with a brush to put in all these batts. They wanted them in yesterday, spent billions of dollars on the program and then spent almost as much of the taxpayers' money to dismantle it, to take these pink batts out again. Was it the Australian Labor Party, was it the ministers or was it the union hacks in this government who are used to spending other people's money who had to pay for the misapprop­riation of taxpayers' money? No, it was the poor old taxpayer who had to pay.

If the ministers in this government had to pay for their own failures, perhaps they would be a bit more careful with the money. You can be assured that as long as the Australian Labor Party is in government it is not going to be concerned about spending other people's money. Do I need to mention the Green Loans program or the school halls program? They spent billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on school halls in schools that are now being shut down. If it were my money going into it, I would have made sure that the schools had a long future. We heard the other day that in Tasmania half-a-dozen schools will be closed down after the Labor Party spent billions of dollars of taxpayers' money constructing new facilities in them. The schools are in the process of being shut down. The list goes on—look wherever you like.

You know that the Australian Labor Party simply cannot be trusted when it comes to spending money. They say, hand on heart, 'Look, we appreciate this bill does not have all of the detail in it, but we're going to introduce some regulations.' For those listening to this debate, regulations are laws that are written as subsidiary legislation. They are not actually brought before the parliament. They are done by ministers and public servants. They put the detail into the broad act that the government is asking us to support here in this chamber today.

If you have a look at the report into this bill by the Senate Environment and Com­munications Legislation Committee and look particularly at the dissenting report tabled by Senator Colbeck on behalf of the coalition, you will see that the detail is not there. The government says: 'Don't worry about that. Trust us, we'll make sure it's okay. Hand on heart, hand on Bible'—perhaps not the Bible, as I am not sure that the Prime Minister believes in the Bible—'trust us, we will make sure the regulations do what we have promised they will do.' How could anyone in Australia possibly trust the word of our Prime Minister? Our Prime Minister says, 'Trust me, I will make sure the regulations do what they are supposed to do.' But this is from a Prime Minister who, a few days before the last federal election, when the Labor Party was looking at defeat in the face, got up on the soapbox and said to the Australian people, 'Trust me, there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' That was three or four days before the election. The day before the election, the same Prime Minister got up, looked the Australian public in the eye through the means of a television camera and said, 'You can trust me, there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' What do we know today, a few short months later? We have the same Prime Minister, with all the hoopla of an American circus, saying, 'Tune in on Sunday and I'm going to tell you about the carbon tax I'm going to impose on you, the carbon tax that I promised you all just before the last election would not be introduced by a government I lead.' So you can understand when, in relation to this bill, the same Prime Minister says, 'Yes, we know the bill is a bit deficient on detail but, trust us, we'll put the detail in with these regulations'—which will not come anywhere near the parliament into the future. This Prime Minister wants us to trust her to write these regulations in a way that will comply with what she has promised. Who in Australia would believe this Prime Minister when she makes those sorts of promises? I hear silence from the other side. I ask the question again: who in Australia would believe this Prime Minister when she promises anything? Is there anyone in this chamber who would believe the Prime Minister?

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, there is a yes! I think I heard one yes, out of a chamber of 76 senators. I hear one voice saying she would trust the Prime Minister. I ask that same voice: did you trust the Prime Minister when she said the day before the last election, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'? I am sure you did believe the Prime Minister when she said that. I can tell you that tens of thousands of Australians voted for Ms Gillard as Prime Minister because they accepted her at her word; they accepted it when, hand on heart, she said, 'There shall be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' They voted for her because they trusted her. They thought that surely a Prime Minister could not tell lies like that; surely a Prime Minister could not be so barefaced as to look the Australian public in the eye through the lens of a TV camera and make a promise that she had no intention of keeping.

But that was only a few short months ago and here we are today with all the hoopla in the world. By the way, whose money is paying to advertise this hoopla? Is the Australian Labor Party's money paying for the advertisements and the build-up to the big announcement on Sunday of the carbon tax that the Prime Minister promised us she would not be introducing? Is the money of the Australian Labor Party paying for this outrageous political advertising campaign? Of course not. Who is paying? The taxpayers of Australia. It is being paid for by people who might be listening to this debate as they drive home from a hard day's work. They are working hard to feed their families, to get ahead, to put a little bit aside for a rainy day and to pay their taxes. Do those people expect that their taxes, which they have been earning today as they have slaved at work, will be used for political advertising by the Australian Labor Party for a tax that they promised they would not introduce? I say to people who might be listening to this debate as they drive home from work: can you ever trust anything that this Prime Minister ever says again?

Yet here we are with this Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill, with none of the detail in it, and we have the Prime Minister saying: 'We've told you what we really want this bill to be. We're a bit deficient on the details but, trust me, the regulations we'll put in place will cover everything you want covered.' Senator Conroy is the senior Australian Labor Party person in the chamber at the moment. Senator Conroy, why should we trust your Prime Minister when she says, 'Don't worry, the regulations will give all the detail that you want'? We did believe her once. We did believe her when she said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.'

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

She did not promise to vote for Peter Reith and then rat and vote for Alan Stockdale!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, you are obviously still tied up in Victorian union politics with the Transport Workers Union, of which you are a leading light. Actually, let me come back to that—due to Senator Conroy's interjection, I will digress. Senator Conroy is a leading light in the Transport Workers Union. I understand from his good colleague Senator Sterle, also from the Transport Workers Union—

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

A good man. A very good man.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A very good man! He said, 'I won't be dictated to by the loopy Greens'—with whom his party is in coalition to hold the government of this nation at the present time—

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

You are in coalition with the Queensland Nationals.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are in coalition with the 'loopy Greens'. Some of your colleagues have the guts, the intestinal fortitude, to actually tell the world that the Greens—the people with whom you are in coalition in government; the people you relied upon to make sure you hold your very favoured position as a minister in this government, Senator Conroy—are loopy. Senator Sterle actually said something stronger than that, which I will not repeat. He also is from the Transport Workers Union.

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

A very good man.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is a very good man when it comes to these issues, Senator Conroy. It is a pity you and your cabinet colleagues did not take some notice of him. We heard yesterday, from the drip-feed of good ideas—the issues coming out that might in some way try to divert the anger of the Australian public against the public tax—'Hang on, ordinary motorists as you drive home, we are not going to put a tax on your petrol.' But we did not hear this about the transport industry, as Senator Sterle pointed out. I am surprised, Senator Conroy, that you, with your Transport Workers Union background, have not come out fighting for the long-distance transport industry.

Some of us live in rural and regional Australia. I live some two or three thousand kilometres away from Canberra. When our petrol is taken up to the regional areas by tanker it costs money for transport. If those big tankers are going to be subject to the carbon tax, then it is going to add to our cost of living. I understand—there have been reliable estimates—that our cost of living will go up by something of a minimum of $1,000 every year. In fact, we read in the papers just last week that the saleroom price of the Holden Commodore or the Ford Falcon is going to go up $1,000 because of Ms Gillard's carbon tax—that is, the carbon tax she promised, one day before the last election, that she would never introduce in any government she led.

How can we possibly believe the Prime Minister when she says: 'Vote for the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011. I know it hasn't got detail, but trust me, I'm going to put in that detail.' The polls are showing that 60 per cent of Australians—I venture to say that that is a minimum, a very small figure—are prepared to say they do not believe the Prime Minister. Very few Australians will ever believe the Prime Minister when she says anything. I know half the Labor Party do not believe the Prime Minister! You might remember that a couple of days before she knifed former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in the back she was saying—what was it?—'I've got more chance of playing full forward' for that funny sport which I do not understand. She said, 'I've got more chance of playing full forward for the Bulldogs'—was that it?—than becoming Prime Minister of Australia.'

This person, our Prime Minister, has form. She promised Kevin Rudd, two days before she 'assassinated'—his word, not mine—him, 'I could fly to the moon before I would become Prime Minister.' Two days later, what happened? There was the midnight meeting around there, the acrimony, a done-over vote the next day and, lo and behold, there she was. She promised she would not be Prime Minister, but she stabbed poor old Kevin, the member for Griffith, right in the back and assassinated him as Prime Minister of our country.

So, as I said, she has got form. 'Kevin, I'm not going to take over your job as Prime Minister.' But immediately she said that, there she was. To the Australian people she says, 'I promise there will be no carbon tax by a government I lead,' but this Sunday we will all be waiting with bated breath to see just what this new tax from the Australian Labor Party is going to cost each and every one of us.

I fear for rural and regional Australia. I fear for those people who, like me, Senator Nash and Senator Adams, live remote from the capital cities and the areas of production and distribution of goods. It is going to cost us a lot more. Perhaps most importantly, I fear for the jobs of workers where I come from in Central North Queensland. I would have hoped that the Australian Labor Party, with their claims that they look after the working person, would have done something to help those people whose jobs, futures, family homes and kids' education depend on their having a job.

But with this carbon tax—and add on to that the mining tax that we are yet to experience—these people are in for a really uncertain future. That distresses me. I am very concerned for their future. I am very concerned for the future of our nation because this government continues to tax and tax and, more importantly, simply cannot be trusted to keep its word.

It is for this reason that I and the rest of the coalition, while agreeing with the principle of this bill, cannot support the bill while so many parts of it and so much detail remain unwritten.

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

I would like to comment on Senator Macdonald talking about those who are driving home from work and listening to this debate on the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011, Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill and Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011. Well, I think that would be all of six or seven people, Senator Macdonald!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not right—

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

That is not right?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and if they knew you were about to speak there would be literally tens of thousands!

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

Senator Macdonald, flattery will get you nowhere. The carbon-farming initiative has, according to the explanatory memorandum to the bill, been designed to be 'complementary' to a carbon pricing mechanism. The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'complementary' as 'mutually complementing or completing each other's deficiencies'. So, without knowing how the carbon-farming initiative will operate alongside the government's proposed reduction plan, which we do not yet know the full details of, it is difficult to fully understand how this bill and the government's plan on carbon will 'complement or complete each other's deficiencies' or, on the other hand, to understand its benefits.

I have concerns that we are debating this bill without knowing the full details of the government's carbon pricing plans, and I note that the government is making a major announcement on this Sunday. I welcome that. I would like to indicate at this time that I will be moving an amendment during the committee stage that there be a review of this act within 12 months of any legislation regarding the introduction of a carbon price being tabled in parliament. I think that is a very important accountability mechanism. This will enable the parliament to appropriately assess the carbon-farming initiative in terms of how it will interact with—how it will complement—a carbon reduction plan.

Having said that, I do believe that the intent of these bills and the establishment of a carbon-farming initiative is right. I do not think members of the coalition disagree with that general principle. Agriculture makes up about 20 per cent of carbon emissions. It is seen by some as part of the problem but, unambiguously, I see agriculture as a big part of a solution to reducing CO2. It is clear from the committee inquiry report into this package of bills that industry is broadly supportive of a carbon-farming initiative. But it is all about the implementation, and that is what concerns me. I note the broad support of the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Landfill Owners Association, traditional land owners and local and state governments, but their support does not come without some significant concerns. Concerns have been raised about the take-up rate of the carbon-farming initiative, the potential cost burden on industry, issues of permanence and the treatment of native title holders.

Page 28 of the Senate committee's report, the majority report by the government, says that the New South Wales Farmers Associa­tion 'was concerned by the application' of tests in this. They have very real concerns as to how this will actually work. The report says:

The association argued the methods by which a farmer increased or conserved carbon were less important than the fact the farmer had done so.

I think that makes sense.

I also note that there are very serious concerns about native title. The report states, 'The Kimberley Land Council … was more forthright in their criticism.' The Kimberley Land Council submission said:

The treatment of non-exclusive native title is discriminatory and fails to accord proper importance to the interests carried by native title.

While the bill gives certainty to exclusive native title rights, and treats them in a way that is fair and appropriate, there is a concern by the NNTC that the 'failure to provide a clear pathway for non-exclusive native title holders into participation in offset projects' is a 'major weakness'. I think that is the case, and we need to be very wary of that. If we want to give Indigenous communities the right to participate fully in this, then we need to deal with that particular issue, raised by a number of Indigenous groups, with particularly strident criticism from the Kimberley Land Council.

It is crucial that these issues are resolved and that the fine details, the minutia, of this scheme, which will determine its success, are clear and established in the legislation and not left to be determined so broadly by regulation. We need that basic framework so that we know how this will work. For example, AUSVEG, a peak industry body, said during the Senate committee inquiry into these bills that they are very concerned about the uncertainty about the 'positive list' described in the legislation. I quote AUSVEG's submission:

The test is still defined “as not been widely adopted”. What, how and who determines the definition of “widely adopted” ?

As this requires a Ministerial decision, after receiving advice from the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee, it will ultimately be open to political considerations.

This is an area that is unlikely to remain clear in any short time-frame …

That is a very serious concern for a peak industry group, the vegetable growers of Australia. The positive and negative lists provided in the legislation will be determined in regulation, and I do not think that is adequate. There are projects that we can say right now should not be approved and should be included in the legislative framework of the scheme so that it is clear what can and cannot be included.

For starters, any project that will have an adverse impact on the availability of water should be an excluded offsets project. It is that simple. Ensuring Australia's water availability is vital, and to say that it may or may not be on the negative list, that it is something that the minister will consider, is quite outrageous. I will be moving an amendment to this effect, stating that any project that has an adverse impact on the availability of water should be an excluded offsets project and, similarly, that projects that will have a beneficial impact on the availability of water should be on the positive list.

I acknowledge the opposition's amend­ment with regard to including land and resource access for agricultural production as a matter of consideration in the development of the negative list, but I think it is clearer than that. Any project that will have an adverse impact on Australia's food security and food production must be on the negative list, and those which will have a beneficial impact must be on the positive list. Let's be unambiguous about that.

Furthermore, and I know I am not alone in my concerns about managed investment schemes, where a forest was established as a managed investment scheme, I believe it should also be on the excluded offsets list. I know that the government will be likely to respond to these amendments by saying they do not want to be too prescriptive, but I think that water and food security are matters that do not need to be left open for consideration.

Furthermore, I note the use of the word 'significant' in this section of the bill and I do not believe that the threshold, if you like, should be applied. What does 'significant' mean? What does it mean in percentage terms? Does it mean 40, 50, 60 or 70 per cent? The word 'significant' is, I think, quite problematic in terms of the application of this act and in terms of how the bill will operate. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.