Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Committee is considering the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 and two related bills. In relation to the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 the question is that Senator Xenophon's amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 7118 be agreed to.

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

Just prior to going to that I present the government's response to the report of the Senate Environment and Communication Legislation Committee inquiry into the provisions of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 and related bills and seek leave to have the documents incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows:

Government Response to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry on the:

Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 [Provisions]

Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 [Provisions]

Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011 [Provisions]

The Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee presented its final report on 27 May 2011. The Committee’s report made nine recommendations. The Government’s response to each of these recommendations is set out below.

Recommendation 1

2.36 The committee recommends the government consider options to ensure there are no perverse incentives to cease existing abatement projects, and encourage first movers to undertake further abatement or sequestration activities under the Carbon Farming Initiative.

Response: The Government agrees with this recommendation. The Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) has been designed to address these issues.

An activity will be considered additional under the CFI if it is not common practice in an industry or under specific regional or environmental conditions. This common practice test will ensure that early movers who have already adopted more sustainable practices are eligible to participate in the scheme. Credits will be able to be earned from activities that reduce or store carbon from 1 July 2010.

The CFI will also recognise projects that were set up under some other abatement schemes – such as Greenhouse Friendly and the ACT and NSW governments’ Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme – and provide an incentive for these projects to continue. To be eligible for CFI credits, these projects will still need to be conducted under an approved CFI methodology and meet other scheme requirements including additionality.

The CFI legislation contains several provisions to ensure projects do not have adverse impacts on the environment or communities.

The CFI excludes high-risk activities through a “negative list”, which will be in regulations. Activities that pose a significant risk for the availability of water, the conservation of biodiversity, employment or local communities will be included on the negative list. These activities will not be eligible to receive carbon credits under the CFI.

The Government has released for consultation an indicative list of activities that would be excluded from the scheme. For example, the list includes establishing an identified weed species as a reforestation project. The Government will continue to consult local communities, industry and other stakeholders on the negative list, including when methodologies are proposed for new activities.

All CFI projects will have to comply with any applicable water, planning and environment requirements, and obtain all necessary government approvals, before they are eligible to receive credits under the scheme.

In addition, project proponents will need to take account of regional natural resource management (NRM) plans. As part of its Clean Energy Future plan, the Government will provide $44 million over five years to improve existing regional NRM planning for climate change. Regional plans will provide guidance to landholders on the type and location of carbon projects that will provide social and environmental benefits, and avoid adverse impacts.

The Biodiversity Fund will provide additional incentives for CFI projects that establish, restore or protect biodiverse carbon stores. The ongoing Biodiversity Fund is part of the Government’s plan for a clean Energy Future and will provide close to $1 billion in support for biodiversity over its first six years.

Recommendation 2

2.37 The committee recommends the government consider what more can be done to fast track development of methodologies, and to develop and test the workability of carbon offsets projects in key agricultural industries.

Response: The Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Government has already invested more than $46 million in research and development through the Climate Change Research Program on ways of reducing pollution and helping Australian farmers adapt to a changing climate. The Climate Change Research Program is addressing the need for research into reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the unavoidable impacts of climate change. The outcomes from the program will be available by mid 2012 and will assist government and industry to develop new carbon estimation methodologies.

As part of the plan for a Clean Energy Future the Government’s Carbon Farming Futures - filling the research gap program will provide a further $201 million over six years. This program will focus on research into new ways of storing carbon and reducing pollution in the land sector. $20 million will be available to convert research into practical carbon estimation methodologies for use under the CFI.

In addition, the Government will provide a total of $99 million in direct support for landholders to take action on the ground, including testing new ways to increase soil carbon and reduce pollution. This will include a refundable tax offset to encourage the uptake of conservation tillage farming techniques and participation in soil carbon sequestration research. Like all conservation tillage practices, no-till works to improve the organic matter in the soil by retaining crop stubble. It aims to reduce soil disturbance, minimise damage to soil structure, increase nutrient availability and reduce water loss by increasing soil water holding capacity.

Recommendation 3

2.49 The committee recommends the government continue to monitor scientific research relevant to the issue of permanence and adjust permanence obligations in the CFI to reflect international consensus on this matter.

Response: The Government agrees with this recommendation.

Carbon dioxide cycles between the atmos­phere, oceans and land biosphere. Its removal from the atmosphere involves a range of processes with different time scales. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that around 50 percent of the increase in CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30 percent will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20 percent may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.

In this context, 100 years has become the internationally accepted timeframe for ensuring that sequestration is equivalent to (and can be used to offset) emissions. Under the CFI, sequestration projects can be terminated without having to pay back carbon credits after 100 years.

The Government will monitor international developments on this issue and adjust permanence obligations in the CFI to reflect international scientific and policy consensus on this matter.

It should also be noted that the CFI permanence obligations allow significant flexibility. Landholders would be able to cancel their sequestration project at any time by relinquishing the number of credits issued for the project.

Recommendation 4

3.31 The committee recommends that in developing the negative list the government takes care to preserve abatement incentives, for example by tightly defining excluded projects to reflect local environmental conditions or circumstances.

Response: The Government agrees with this recommendation.

To maintain abatement incentives wherever possible, the negative list will be tightly defined to identify the specific circumstances where particular activities have significant risks of adverse impacts.

To ensure that activities on the negative list are appropriately defined, the Government will consult with stakeholders before adding to or amending the negative list. The negative list will be included in regulations and subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.

The CFI Bill also provides for reviews of the operation of the CFI, with the first review to be completed by 31 December 2014. This will present a further opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the negative list in ensuring that the CFI does not provide incentives for activities that could have adverse social or environmental impacts.

Recommendation 5

3.46 The committee recommends the government consider options for improving the capacity of natural resource management plans to take account of climate change mitigations options and adaptation needs, and to maximise the broader environmental and social benefits of the Carbon Farming Initiative.

Response: The Government agrees with this recommendation.

Regional NRM organisations are well placed to help plan for climate change and to maximise the social and environmental benefits of carbon farming projects. Through Government initiatives such as Caring for our Country, regional NRM organisations have had nearly a decade of experience in providing information, training and support to land managers and environmental, Indigenous, and community groups on sustainable land management.

As part of its Clean Energy Future plan, the Government will provide $44 million over five years through the Regional NRM Planning for Climate Change Fund. NRM organisations will develop plans to guide where carbon farming projects should be located in the landscape. These can be used by landholders to identify and develop carbon farming projects that provide maximum social and environmental co-benefits. The fund will also support research and analysis to develop scenarios on regional climate change impacts which can be used for NRM and land use planning.

Recommendation 6

3.47 The committee recommends the government consider further changes to regional natural resource management plans to improve their governance and consistency, such as by requiring each plan to:

Response: The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government’s $44 million Regional Natural Resource Management (NRM) Planning for Climate Change Fund will enable the production of NRM plans in each region to a highly professional, nationally consistent standard, to guide where CFI projects, such as tree plantings and avoided deforestation, should be located in the landscape to avoid unintended negative impacts and maximise the carbon co-benefits for biodiversity, water and agricultural production.

The 56 regional NRM organisations that develop these plans are currently a mix of statutory authorities, public companies limited by guarantee and incorporated associations. The nationally consistent standards for the plans will be designed to ensure regional NRM organisations provide the required information and detail in the plans to guide CFI projects.

The Government will establish a new statutory body, the Land Sector Carbon and Biodiversity Advisory Board, which will report to the Government and annually to the Parliament about implementation of the land sector measures, including the Regional NRM Planning for Climate Change Fund, announced as part of the Government’s plan for a Clean Energy Future.

Recommendation 7

4.15 The committee recommends the government address obstacles to indigenous participation in the CFI, including resolving outstanding uncertainties in relation to participation by holders of non-exclusive native title.

Response: The Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Government is committed to helping Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders benefit from carbon farming.

As part of the Clean Energy Future plan, the Government has committed $22 million over its first five years to an Indigenous Carbon Farming Fund that will assist Indigenous communities to benefit from the CFI. Funding will be provided for specialists to work with Indigenous communities on carbon farming projects. Funding for research and reporting tools for CFI methodologies will also create further opportunities for Indigenous Australians.

Under the CFI, Indigenous landholders will be able to earn carbon credits for activities including improved savanna fire, livestock, feral animal, fertiliser, soil or forest management, reforestation and vegetation regrowth.

The Government has made the development of a methodology for savanna fire management a priority. This is an activity which is likely to have high indigenous participation and social co-benefits for Indigenous communities.

The legislation makes it easy for holders of exclusive possession native title to undertake abatement projects and to receive carbon credits. The legislation also provides for holders of determined native title to consent to sequestration projects undertaken by other interest holders on their land. This will enable Indigenous land holders to negotiate a share of the benefits from carbon farming projects.

The Government is consulting stakeholders about the circumstances in which native title claimants will need to give their consent to projects conducted on land where there are native title interests. Complex legal issues are involved, and any outcome will be consistent with the Native Title Act and Racial Discrimination Act.

Recommendation 8

4.24 The committee recommends the government make clear that Kyoto-compliant credits will be linked to any future carbon price mechanism.

Response: The Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Government has agreed to link Kyoto-compliant credits with the carbon price mechanism. This will increase incentives for landholders to reduce or store pollution.

Kyoto-compliant activities include reforestation, savanna fire management and reductions in pollution from livestock and fertiliser.

During the initial fixed price period, liable parties under the carbon price will be able to meet five per cent of their obligations using carbon credits generated under the CFI. In the flexible price period, there will be no limit on the use of credits generated under the CFI.

The CFI non-Kyoto Carbon Fund will provide incentives for other activities that are not part of accounting for Australia’s Kyoto Protocol target, such as revegetation and soil carbon projects. This fund will be worth $250 million over the first six years of the program.

Australia will continue working to develop new international rules that recognise a wider range of action on the land to reduce carbon pollution.

Recommendation 9

4.26 The committee recommends that, subject to the recommendations contained elsewhere in this report, the Senate pass 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.

Response: The Government supports this recommendation.

The CFI package of bills will pave the way for farmers, forest growers and landholders to generate saleable carbon credits for domestic and international carbon markets. This will begin to unlock the abatement opportunities in the land and waste sectors which currently make up 22 percent of Australia’s emissions.

Thank you. Also prior to going to the specific amendments, can I continue from where I think Senator Feeney may have left off. Senator Nash, as I understand it, was asking about the types of projects that would be eligible and the availability of the regulations. We have today published the exposure draft regulations that set out the sorts of projects that can and cannot be included in the government's Carbon Farming Initiative and provides protection for the farming sector and the environment.

The government released in key details for regulation a public discussion paper before the coalition made these claims, but we have now released a draft of the key regulations which take feedback from over 50 submissions into account.

The government's Carbon Farming Initiative has, as I think you have heard me reiterate a number of times, been carefully designed to avoid any adverse impacts on food security and the environment, including water, while working to unlock important greenhouse gas abatement opportunities across regional Australia. It is about providing opportunities in these areas through the Carbon Farming Initiative. The draft regulations set out and include a negative list of excluded activities under the Carbon Farming Initiative. The negative list identifies activities that are ineligible in certain circumstances because they risk adverse impact on biodiversity, water, communities or employment. To give you an example: the managed investment scheme for forestry. The Carbon Farming Initiative additionality test requires projects to go beyond what is required by law. These draft regulations also set out a positive list of activities that go beyond common practice in the land and waste sectors. This will ensure that only projects that are genuinely additional to common practice are credited under the Carbon Farming Initiative.

In contrast, the coalition appear—and perhaps we will have clarity on this—to want a scheme in which politics rather than science and evidence dictates activities that will be eligible. Such an approach would have no credibility in carbon markets or with the community. Instead, it would simply reinforce the suggestion that their subsidies for polluters policy is in essence just a big pork-barrel for the National Party. The Liberals on the other side should stop playing politics and support the government's efforts to reward farmers who are taking action on climate change. I understand that the Liberals opposite may not get the support of their coalition partners, the National Party, but, quite frankly, the Liberals should pursue sensible policy.

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

Firstly, Minister, when were the regulations tabled? I think that I am correct in thinking that it was this morning, but if we could have the time when the regulations were made publicly available, that would be good. I apologise, as I was a little distracted, but I ask the minister to elaborate on his comment about pork-barrelling for the National Party.

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

The regulations were released today. They are available on the website. I have them here if you want a copy. In fact, we should provide a copy and we will make one available and an attendant will bring it to you.

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

I ask the minister to address the second part of the question.

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

I thought that it was plain, so I will leave the statement as said.

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

I was not, Minister—that is why I am asking. I apologised for being distracted. I am rather interested in what you were talking about: the specific pork-barrelling for the National Party.

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

It encompasses your direct action policy. Quite frankly, it is nothing more than a pork-barrel. You know that; the Senate now knows that; I am certainly convinced of it.

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

I am not entirely sure who is giving the minister his information, but I see no correlation at all between a pork-barrel and a direct action policy. Perhaps the minister might have liked to have looked into it a little bit further. To be fair to the chamber, rather than just leaving that general comment as it stands, it is incumbent upon the minister to explain exactly what he means.

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

Turning to where we are at in the program—and I am sure that we are all keen to pursue the amendments that are set out for this bill—we are up to items 3 and 4, Senator Xenophon's amendments to clause 56, excluding offset projects, which includes the offset reporting period, excluded offset projects. The position that the government has adopted is that we oppose these amendments. They would shorten the maxi­mum reporting period. A five-year maximum reporting period provides flexibility—for example, it avoids reporting costs at the beginning or end of a project when forest growth rates are slow. The scheme integrity is maintained because credits are issued only after abatement has been achieved. They are the reasons we are not supporting these amendments. However, we accept that in principle Senator Xenophon is endeavouring to improve the bill. But in this instead these amendments would shorten the maximum reporting period.

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

I note for the record that the minister did not answer my question about his comment about pork-barrelling for the National Party more fulsomely. Perhaps before he makes a comment he should research it rather more thoroughly so that he can inform the chamber of what he is talking about. I also note for the record the fact that we have only just received the regulations that go with this piece of legislation. That is far from acceptable, given that it is precisely those regulations that we need to ask the questions about in this particular process. We have not had time to go through them in any detail whatsoever. As such, I indicate to the chamber that this may well be a rather laborious process while we try to understand what the minister has indeed put in front of us in terms of the regulations that relate to this legislation.

Senator Xenophon's amendment 4 refers to 4 part i, the availability of water, or part ii, land and resource access for agricultural production. The amendment states that the minister should determine that, if there is an adverse impact that relates to either of those two, the project is deemed to be an excluded offsets project. Could the minister inform the chamber as to whether there is anything in these regulations that mirrors that requirement in the amendment from Senator Xenophon?

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

This amendment would allow environmentally or socially beneficial projects to bypass the additionality test. That is, in essence, the reason that it is unsound. The positive list is designed to ensure credits are only issued for emission reductions or increases in carbon stores beyond what commonly occurs already. The CFI includes a co-benefits index which recognises projects that have associated biodiversity and community benefits, but ultimately the market will determine what projects come forward, and those with important co-benefits will naturally stack up better than those without. With the way that Senator Xenophon's amendment is structured, it would simply bypass what we describe as the additionality test, and therefore it remains not supported.

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

Perhaps I was not quite clear enough in my question. I was specifically talking about the excluded offsets projects, specifically talking about the negative list. The way that Senator Xenophon's amendment is worded simply means that the minister must determine that, if there is an adverse impact on the avail­ability of water or on land and resource access for agricultural production then the project is automatically deemed to be an excluded offsets project. It is thereby saying that, if there is an adverse impact on water or on land and resource access for agricultural products production, it should automatically be an excluded offsets project. That seems to me to be quite straightforward and quite sensible. Perhaps I was not clear enough in my phrasing of the question, but is there anything in the regulations that have just been placed before us that would automatically deem to be an excluded offsets project an activity that is going to have an adverse impact on the availability of water or an adverse impact on land and resource access for agricultural production?

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

The short answer is yes. The government is committed to preventing adverse impacts on water availability. Through the negative list, the government will exclude plantation projects in high-rainfall areas unless they hold adequate high-security water entitlements, they are in an area that has a water management plan that has been accredited by the National Water Commission, they are environmental plantings or they address dryland salinity. This regulation will no longer be required once the National Water Initiative commitments are fully implemented across Australia, though. So the short answer is yes.

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

Madam Chair, it is good to be back. I think it has been five weeks since we have debated this amendment that I have moved, and I just want to recap for my colleagues—

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it good that I'm back or good that we are all back?

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

Madam Chair, it is good that you are back; it is good that we are all back.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Sorry to interrupt you, Senator Xenophon!

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

It's all good!

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

It's all good, despite the disapproving look of Senator Bernardi. But he's smiling now!

These amendments relate to the negative list. Amendment (4) states that projects which, based on advice by the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee, have an adverse impact on the availability of water or on agricultural production should be on the excluded offsets project list. As I said in my second reading contribution, ensuring Australia's water availability is vital and I do not believe that it should be left up to regulations.

This amendment also states that, where a forest was established as a managed invest­ment scheme, it too should be on the excluded offsets list. I note that, since we last debated this matter, the government has tabled the draft Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Regulations. In terms of types of excluded offsets projects, I note that, in division 12, clause 61, reference is made to forestry managed investment schemes, so they are covered. That of course is welcome, and I congratulate the government for going down that path. Obviously it was something that was within consideration. But this amend­ment goes further. It states that, if it is determined by the minister, on the advice of the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee, to have an adverse impact on the availability of water or on land and resource access for agricultural production, the project is deemed to be an excluded offsets project.

What is at stake here is simply this—that a Carbon Farming Initiative project should be an excluded offsets project if it is going to damage the availability of water or if it is going to damage land and resource access for agricultural production. It is that straight­forward. It does not go against the integrity of what the government is trying to achieve, but it does give a safeguard in terms of food production and water availability. We know from the very contentious debate about coal seam gas on prime farming land—a different issue altogether—the importance of preserving the integrity of our water supply in this country. That is why it is important that this amendment strengthens those safeguards for both water and prime agricultural production.

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

I do not want to lengthen the debate on this, but the challenge is that the amendment would mean—and I think this is probably the objective you are trying to achieve—that this would in truth be unworkable. The minister in this instance, when making a decision, would have to exclude individual projects. Our schema is trying to achieve this in a broader sense. The process that you have entertained would add significantly regulatory complexity to the CFI and really undermine the participation within it, by requiring the minister to examine and make decisions to exclude individual projects. It would also create investment uncertainty for individual landholders, who would then have to be stacked up waiting to find out whether or not they would be excluded or included in that process. We have already committed to parliament to make regulations that would put forestry managed investment schemes on the negative list of projects that are excluded from the scheme. So in that way we think we have achieved the same purpose, rather than trying to do it in—if you will forgive my turn of phrase—a piecemeal way.

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

I too do not wish to prolong the debate, but this is a very important issue in terms of water security and food security. Can I perhaps turn it around this way. The government says that this is a piecemeal approach; I think that this is a guaranteed approach. It is not piecemeal; it is a comprehensive approach to deal with this issue. But I will truncate the debate so that we can get to the core of the issue. The government says that it will not support this amendment, which disappoints me, but what I am concerned about is this: how does the government say it will set criteria in assessing whether a project is an excluded offsets project? How will it set benchmarks? How will it appropriately assess whether a project will have an adverse impact on water or an adverse impact on food production? If, for instance, there is a risk that it could affect the supply of water in a particular area—for interception, for instance, which is a real issue in our river system, and esteemed water economists and scientists such as Professor Mike Young, from the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, have talked about the issue of interception on many occasions—how will that be assessed? How will it be assessed whether a project reduces the production of a particular type of food grain in a particular area? How does the govern­ment take these matters into account? The government is saying, 'We agree with you that these are important matters, but this is not the way to do it.' How does the government say it will address these very important and fundamental issues?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to 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.

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

I rise to make a few remarks about this. The Greens were very concerned to make sure that we had a negative list in relation to this piece of legislation so that there was some clarity in the community, and I am very pleased that the managed investment schemes went on to that negative list right at the start. The Greens wanted to make sure that we had the benefits of various projects for creating carbon credits and also biodiversity outcomes under the Biodiversity Fund of the climate bills whilst at the same time trying to deal with the perverse outcomes that potentially could be there.

Members of the Senate will recall that I spoke very strongly against the 100 per cent tax deduction for carbon sink forests because they led to a distortion in land prices and so on in rural and regional Australia, after our experience of the managed investment schemes. So we wanted to make sure, in the course of this legislation and looking at the Biodiversity Fund under the climate bills, that we maximised local participation and maximised benefits whilst taking into account the perverse outcomes that might occur. We also wanted to minimise political interference in the decisions and try to make them systemic and policy based.

We have a scenario now where the NRM groups will be funded to assist them to be brought up to a certain level of proficiency. The NRM plans will be put up in the same sort of context. Projects that are brought forward will be compared with NRM plans, so local communities will be involved through NRM groups and through local government in looking at projects that are being proposed. They will be looked at in terms of the negative list and they will not be disallowable instruments of the parliament. I particularly do not want them to be disallowable instruments of the parliament because I want to make sure that we get to policy based outcomes that are not engaged with individual ministerial interference or parliamentary interference with disallowable instruments in this particular case.

I think we have a pretty good balance here with a recognition that we can enhance carbon in the landscape and that we can create opportunities for people in rural and regional Australia to create projects which are good for carbon, good for biodiversity and good for communities, but there is the capacity for any perverse outcomes which start to become apparent in a systemic way to go onto the negative list and add to the negative list over time. From the Greens' perspective I think we have achieved that through the negotiations that have gone on, through the amendments and through the complementarity of the carbon package as it has been announced. I am satisfied that, providing we get the NRM groups up to the standard needed and get the NRM plans, the collaboration of this will lead to good outcomes.

I note that it has been the Greens and the government who have recognised the value of the negative list by saying, upfront, to rural and regional Australia that these particular things will not be considered, including managed investment schemes. We want to make sure that what we are rewarding is additionality, not just existing good practice, but additional carbon in the landscape. We also need to get some academic rigour into this because, ultimately, when we go to international trading it is going to be critical that Australian projects stand up and withstand scrutiny. You are not going to have a good reputation as a player in a global market unless the product you are selling is rigorous—that is, it is additional and permanent. I am satisfied that we are achieving that. By passing this amendment you would be playing governments into individual project decisions and parliaments into disallowing individual project decisions, as well as disempowering the very people you want to empower, the NRM groups and the NRM plans, which are based on proper, natural resource management. That is where we are coming from.

I note with interest that it is the coalition which wanted to abolish the negative list. This is extraordinary. They have been out in rural and regional Australia telling people about all the bad things that might happen and not admitting that it is the coalition that want to get rid of the negative list. It is the coalition that do not want to see managed investment schemes put on a negative list. No, they are happy for it to be 'all stations go', and that is completely unsatisfactory. The Greens will not stand for perverse outcomes in rural and regional Australia on land and water use. We want to maximise the capacity for agricultural production while enhancing carbon in the landscape, enhan­cing restoration of carbon in the landscape and enhancing and maintaining biodiversity in rural and regional Australia. I think we are on track to achieve that with the way that the legislation is designed and also in comple­mentarity with the carbon bills.

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

I acknowledge the work that Senator Milne and the Greens have done on the issue of managed investment schemes. I know that the Nationals have also been long-time campaigners on the impact of managed investment schemes. I agree with Senator Milne that we need to maximise the benefits of soil carbon and carbon-farming initiatives and minimise perverse outcomes. The intent of this amendment is to do that by ensuring that we do not have the perverse outcomes that we saw with managed investment schemes. I agree with Senator Milne that it is very welcome that a forestry managed investment scheme is included in the context of the regulations being proposed.

I just want to clarify what the minister has previously said. I think Senator Milne touched on the issue of NRMs and NRM boards having input into this. What are the benchmarks for determining whether a project will be in the excluded offsets list, the negative list, if it is deemed that there will be an adverse impact on water or on the production of food? I still do not quite understand what the criteria will be. I do genuinely appreciate the minister's previous answer in relation to this. I thought he gave a good overview but in terms of the nitty-gritty, the specifics, how would it actually apply and work and how would it be done?

The second issue alludes to Senator Milne's comments about the perverse out­comes that we saw of managed investment schemes, which she has been a long-time campaigner on. If there are perverse out­comes—as I fear there may be in this section's current form—will there be ongoing monitoring and some transparency and accountability to ensure that we do not see those adverse or perverse outcomes that Senator Milne has referred to in a slightly different context? I think it is still relevant in respect of how we deal with this particular amendment.

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

I table the draft regula­tions to tidy up the record so that they form part of the debate. In answering the last question, firstly, there is obviously a review in 2014. Secondly, the NRMs will play a crucial role, as will the department, stake­holders, local councils and many other groups who are interested in this and who will continue to monitor. As we speak, a group of NRMs has been receiving training. I had an opportunity to visit one group in Brisbane who have been trained about how to approach and do this work. It is not only leaving it to NRMs to continue but is also about the government supporting the NRM groups and adding to their skill sets so that they can participate, explain and monitor the process.

To the earlier issue you talked about, the nitty-gritty, it is in the document with a number of zeros. It is the risk management principles and guidelines. It is AS/NZS ISO31000:2009 Risk Management—Princi­ples and Guidelines that is used for risk management. It contains the principles and guidelines that you would use in a risk management system. I am not sure about the availability of that document, but I am sure it could be accessed through the Parliamentary Library, or we are happy to make it available to you. I do not want to table it, because I suspect it is copyrighted. It is an Australian standard but, in any event, we can make it available.

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

These are the risk management guidelines?

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

Yes. That is the Australia/New Zealand ISO31000:2009 standard, which you described as the nitty-gritty of how they would then risk manage. As I described it earlier, the risks are assessed in accordance with that particular document. That would be the document that you would use to risk manage. In other words, it is the principles and guidelines.

In addition there are regional NRM plans. As part of the Clean Energy Future plan the government will provide $44 million over five years through the Regional Natural Resource Management Planning for Climate Change Fund. The NRM organisations will develop plans in each region to guide where carbon farming projects should be located in the landscape. These can be used by landholders to identify and develop activities to reduce carbon pollution. The fund will also support research and analysis to develop scenarios on regional climate change impacts, which can be used for NRM and land-use planning, because the government recognises that NRM plans are a vehicle for local communities to have a say about the types and locations of abatement projects in their region. It is a requirement of the CFI legislation that CFI proponents take account of regional NRM plans in the development of their projects and report any inconsis­tencies, so it also contains a feedback loop within it.

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

Can I have some clarification. I think we followed all of that. The risk management guidelines will determine whether there is an adverse impact on water or on the land's productive capacity, for want of a better term. I just want to get a clear understanding that that is the process. I also understand that the minister just undertook to provide those risk management guidelines. Could we have a time frame on how quickly we can get those?

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

We will certainly get them as soon as is practicable. It will not be in the next hour; I can assure you of that. We will see how we go. You can also make your own inquiries for it, but we will endeavour to get it as quickly as possible. As I said, before an activity is listed on the negative list, risks are assessed in accordance with that ISO code, which is called Risk Management—Principles and Guidelines. In the second step the minister will recommend that types of projects be added to the list following consultation with stakeholders, regional communities and regional NRM organisa­tions. State and territory local governments can also submit information about likely risks for assessment under that standard. I described earlier how the process would work under that fund. I will not go through it again in the interests of time, but I described how that fund would then support NRMs in that process as well and assist landholders. The whole concept is about assisting landholders in carbon abatement through the CFI framework.

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

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that. I would say though that the adverse impacts on water and the adverse impacts on agricultural land are probably the key issues in this whole piece of legislation. I understand, as you say, that the risk manage­ment guidelines will be provided to us, but as colleagues would understand it is going to be very difficult for us to have a measure of the appropriateness of this whole process unless we can actually see those risk management guidelines, given that the legislation itself only says the minister must have regard to whether there is a significant risk. Perhaps, Minister, you can expedite the provision of those guidelines. I understand there are process issues around that. If it is not within the next hour, perhaps we will ask you again how long it might be until we see those guidelines. I cannot see the committee stage concluding until we are able to actually see that particular document.

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

I am sure you would not filibuster. Can I draw your attention to the fact that this is about the bill and the amendments to the bill that we are working through. This has drawn your interest because you have raised the regulations. We have answered your questions in relation to how the minister would look at the risks and drawn to your attention source documents that would be utilised for that. Ostensibly it is about a scheme. The scheme is solid and the scheme is about providing carbon farming initiatives to those areas. Using the positive and negative list in an appropriate way is about how we manage those risks. We will do what we can, but I am asking you not to hold your breath.

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

Thank you, Minister. I very rarely hold my breath with this government. I point out to the minister that it is directly relevant to this amendment. The government have indicated they are not going to support the amendment. In part that is due to the fact that there is a process: the risk management guidelines will be used to determine whether or not there should be an excluded offsets project. I would say that it is directly relevant, even to this particular amendment, as it is part of the government's determina­tion of why they are not supporting this particular amendment from Senator Xenophon.

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

As Senator Xenophon said, it is good to be back. My recollection of exactly where we were in this debate on this particular amendment is perhaps a tad hazy, I have to confess. I am not sure whether I made a contribution to this amendment previously and indicated that the opposition is inclined to support the amendment. As Senator Nash has been highlighting, we do have particular concerns about ensuring the integrity of this scheme in relation to its interaction with water resources and the availability and protection of key agricultural land and how it may or may not impact on those issues. We think that it is important that they are fully thrashed out.

I am attempting to digest the draft regulations that the minister has laid on the table. I see that they were finished at 11.43 this morning, so they are a new edition according to the printout on the bottom of them. I suspect the coalition will have some questions. I am pleased the draft regulations have been produced. We have been calling and arguing that, for the sake of complete­ness, given that so much of this bill hinges on the operation of the regulations, they all should have been presented in tandem in a final version so we could have a fully informed debate in this place. Having the draft regulations at least takes us a step closer to that. It does not give us the final version, but as quickly as we can we will seek comment from stakeholders and other interested parties to help inform us on how these regulations might work. I suspect we will have some questions about some of the decisions that have been made in the regulations as well as we go through this.

In relation to the amendment of Senator Xenophon, firstly, on a very minor matter, assuming my printout and copy of the amendment is the one that is in play, I suspect that there is a typo in (a) of the proposed clause 1A which currently reads

… was established as, or as part, of a managed investments scheme.

Is that meant to be 'as part of' or 'is part of', Senator Xenophon? It may be 'as part of'. Now that I have read it out loud it makes more sense than when I read it before.

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

It is 'as part of'.

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

'As part of' does work so that is okay. I accept that. Minister Ludwig, one of your main or primary arguments against this has been that it creates project-by-project type assessment criteria. I am wondering if in relation to the operation of the bill, you could give us a little clarity as to how or when the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee will assess individual projects. Will they purely be projects that are brought to its attention by the administrator or projects that require changes to the methodology? The metho­dology changes are outlined in some detail in the bill. But individual projects may in their individual nature impact on matters of biodiversity or water availability, regardless of the generic nature of how you might attempt to define them. Specific projects, especially in the biodiversity concept, are locality specific in what impact they may or may not have on biodiversity. At what point would you imagine that the administrator or someone would bring a project to the attention of the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee who may then provide some advice to the minister if there was a concern about biodiversity, or would it purely be assessment exclusively against these regulations that have been laid on the table?

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

The minister has stated in relation to this that there are some risk management guidelines used by Australia and New Zealand for these matters that the government says would deal with the issues that are the subject of this amendment which the government says will deal with them adequately. I cannot test that. I cannot compare what is contained in those guide­lines with what is contained in this amend­ment. I wonder whether the government would have this amendment deferred until those risk management guidelines have been obtained. If the government is not so inclined to do so, it leaves me with no choice but to go to a vote, but I would have thought that may be relevant for the debate in relation to this particular subclause. It is an invitation to the government; whether the government accepts it is another matter. I am concerned that the risk management guidelines are not readily available. I note the government is being quite open that it will make them available at relatively short notice. I appreciate that, but I just wonder whether it would be prudent for this amendment to be dealt with after those risk management guidelines are provided.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I am going to call the minister, but I remind Senator Xenophon that would be a matter for the Senate chamber to determine.

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

That is exactly what I was going to say.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I am just giving Senator Xenophon some guidance. Bearing in mind the response the minister might give you, you are still able to move that those two amendments be deferred to a later hour.

It is a matter for the Senate and I am not going to correct the chair; I completely support the chair's position in this. The documents are available through the infostore at saiglobal.com in their store index if you want them. I indicated earlier that I do not know the status of those documents. If we do provide them they would be one copy that is made available at some point for people to use but they would be returnable. I suspect there is a price attached to them as well if you want to buy and keep one.

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

Is this not so much user pays as legislator pays? It is quite extraordinary that something that is relevant to the considera­tion of an amendment is something that we have to pay for in order to properly consider the context of the amendment given what the government has said. I just find that extraordinary. Madam Temporary Chair, I have taken your objective guidance in relation to this given what I foreshadowed, so I move:

That consideration of amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 7118 be deferred to a later hour.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (5R) and (6R) on sheet 7122 revised:

Clause 56, page 81 (line 25), omit "significant", substitute "material".

Clause 56, page 81 (line 26), omit "significant", substitute "material".

These amendments relate to the regulations to be determined as to projects that should be on the negative list based on their impact on the availability of water, conservation of biodiversity, employment and the local community. However, under the current drafting the application of the significance test is at a very high threshold. These amend­ments remove this test from the bill and say that the minister must have regard to whether there is a material risk, so whether that kind of project will have a material adverse impact. I am grateful for the discus­sions that I have had with the government and my colleagues on both sides of the chamber in relation to these amendments.

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

I indicate the govern­ment supports these amendments and it is committed to avoiding adverse impacts. These amendments would require that the minister consider whether there is a material, rather than a significant, risk and that a kind of project will have a material, rather than a significant, adverse impact on the availability of water, the conservation of biodiversity, employment and the local community. The government takes these issues associated with the negative list very seriously and has, in addition— which I think we have been discussing this morning—put out details of excluded project types for consultation. But, clearly, the importance of this is to get it right and we agree that these amendments will go some way to achieving that.

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

I think this is not the first time that I have engaged with Senator Xenophon in a discussion or in a debate or in an amending about the significance of the word 'significant'. I do appreciate the manner in which Senator Xenophon has approached this issue. His original amendments were simply to remove the word 'significant', and the opposition was not favourably disposed to that. However, the substitution of the word 'material' does, I think, provide for an adequate test that where there is something that is of adequate import it should be considered a risk but it does not have to pass a size and scope test as to just how great that risk may be to qualify as being a significant risk or a significant adverse impact. The opposition is pleased to hear that the govern­ment is also supporting Senator Xenophon on these amendments. We offer our support and hope that at least this is an appropriate strengthening of the process for the making of these regulations and for the creation of the negative list and that it will provide all the appropriate protection of water availability issues and biodiversity issues and the other factors that are included in proposed section 56(2) of the bill.

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

The Greens had some concerns about the word 'significant' because it depends on the perspective of the person speaking as to what the meaning of 'significant' is. I am pleased that Senator Xenophon has made that change to 'material'. We will agree with that. That does not preclude, of course, the discussion about what is a material impact. Nevertheless, I think it is a bit clearer and I support it.

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

Having indicated our support here—and, of course, perhaps we will return to these when we return to Senator Xenophon's deferred amendments—I want to try to start working through some of the earlier issues in the draft regulations that the government has tabled. I am wondering if the minister would be so kind as to advise the chamber on what basis the figure of 600 millimetres of long-term average annual rainfall, which is specified in the regulations, was set and what evidence or parties were consulted in relation to that as a minimum benchmark, why that benchmark applies, what advice was taken as to whether that is an appropriate benchmark across all regional areas of Australia and whether there may be some merit in different benchmarks for different geographic localities.

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

Very briefly, Madam Temporary Chair, I indicate my appreciation for the support of the government, the coalition and the Australian Greens for these amendments. It shows you that with a bit of goodwill some­times you can actually improve legis­lation in a way that I think has bipartisan support. It is one of the rare pleasures in this place when that happens.

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

I would just say that if the minister would rather get some evidence and come back to that issue when we deal with Senator Xenophon's other amendments that would be fine. I am just noting that, given we are in the section of amendments that deals with the excluded offsets projects and the minister has tabled this information, the 600-millimetre threshold is one of the early questions and I would appreciate some feedback from him on how that has been set. He can deal with that now while we are dealing with these amendments or deal with that when we return to dealing with Senator Xenophon's other set of amendments and considering the other issues there. That is up to him. I do not want to spoil the group love of unanimous endorsement of Senator Xenophon's amendments at present, but I think this is the appropriate zone in which to consider some of the issues related to these regulations. As I said, the 600-millimetre threshold is an early question that stands out as to why it has been set and who was involved in its setting.

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

We will do it shortly. I do not want to lose the ability to pass one amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Third time is lucky. I now put the question that amendments (5R) and (6R) on sheet 7122 revised, moved by Senator Xenophon, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

Amendment (7) on sheet 7118 is consequential to the earlier amendments being dealt with and that I sought to defer. For the same reason I seek to defer this amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Xenophon, you have not actually moved the amendment.

I had better move it and then seek to defer it. You cannot defer something that you have not actually moved.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: You can just leave it. You can just jump to the next one, if you like.

It can be done at a later time, I take it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Correct.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Minister, we will get you to move your next amendment.

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

Are we moving through the same running sheet: clauses 27, 29 to 38, land registration officials?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: No. We have sheet revised 4. On the amendment sheet, it should have 'revised 4' at the top of the first page.

Where are you up to?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: We are now at clause 56, amendment (1) on sheet BR247.

I am with you now, Chair. Maybe it is easier if I move it at this point in time, because the government supports a similar amendment, which is listed below it on the sheet. The government's version in this instance is clear and avoids the ambiguity about the meaning of 'resources'. The difficulty is that, in deferring 56, I am now trying to address something that is no longer there in part; but, nonetheless, we will march on.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Let me get this clear: you are moving that amendment, which would make the opposition's amendment irrelevant if it succeeds.

This amendment seeks to ensure that when making the negative list, the minister considers whether there is—it will now read—'material risk of adverse impacts on land access for agricultural production'. This amendment will give effect to one of the recom­mendations made by the National Farmers Federation in its submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications during its inquiry into the Carbon Farming Initiative. The bill already provides that the minister is required to consider whether there is a material risk, if that is the kind of project which will have a material adverse impact on the availability of water, the conservation of biodiversity, employment and the local community in or in the vicinity of the project areas for that kind of project.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Minister, could you formally move the amendment.

I thought I had formally moved it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: We just want to ensure, for Hansard, that you formally move amendment (1) on sheet BR247.

I formally move amendment (1) on sheet BR247:

Clause 56, page 81 (after line 31), after paragraph (2)(d), insert:

  (e)   land access for agricultural production;

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am delighted that the minister eventually got to move this amendment, amendment (1) on sheet BR247. This is an important amendment, and it is an amendment that the opposition welcomes. We are in fact delighted that the government, albeit somewhat belatedly, did at least come to the party in presenting this amendment, thereby—indeed, as you hinted, Madam Chair—negating the opposition amendment that is listed to be debated next. We think this is a very important and valid approach. We think it is vital to make sure that these issues of land access for agricultural production are treated as being just as important as the other projects, areas of projects or kinds of projects listed in the existing and proposed section 56.

Let us just remind ourselves that this is the section that creates the kinds of projects that appear on the negative list—the draft regulations that the minister laid on the table this morning. These are the kinds of projects which, following the amendments of Senator Xenophon's that we endorsed, could have a material risk or a material adverse impact on one or more of the following. We already have the availability of water, the conserva­tion of biodiversity, employment and the local community listed as factors in this regard. We think it is important that land access for agricultural production equally be included, given the importance of food security issues in Australia and the import­ance of reflecting the concerns of many in the farming community. There is a real concern about the potential of this bill, along with a range of other factors at present, to have an adverse impact on farmers' ongoing access to farmlands.

The opposition had of course proposed inserting part (e) of this amendment with the words 'land and resource access for agricultural production'. The government has presented a slightly different version, 'land access for agricultural production', instead. That is fine. That is welcome. We certainly would not proceed with our amendment should this amendment succeed—and, given that the opposition supports this amendment, we certainly expect that it will succeed. I note that the government has circulated an explanatory memorandum to explain what this means. The explanatory memorandum highlights that it would require the minister to also consider whether there is a signifi­cant, now material, risk that a particular kind of project would have a materially adverse impact on land access for agricultural production:

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

The opposition pursued this issue by presenting our amendments at the earlier stage of debate on this legislation because we agreed with the concerns the National Farmers Federation had and with the recom­mendation they had put that it was important to have an amendment of this type included in this legislation. Also, the government circulated this amendment prior to the recess we have just had, and that of course means that the government has known for some considerable period of time that it was intending to insert part (e) into proposed section 56(2) and that land access for agricultural production would become a factor for consideration.

Minister, given the strong support around the chamber for this inclusion and given the fact that the government has intended to include it for close to a month and a half, I have a question for you that I would appreciate your feedback on: how is this new section reflected in the draft regulations that you have circulated and what work has been done to ensure that this new section, which you have intended for some time to include, is reflected in these draft regulations?

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

I also am very interested in this clause and the question which my colleague Senator Birmingham, who is in charge of this bill in this chamber, has asked. I am delighted, actually, to take part again in this debate on a day which is the very first anniversary of that famous statement by the current Leader of the Labor Party, Julia Gillard, when she promised all Australians that there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads. Not only did she promise that; the federal Treasurer, Mr Swan, confirmed that the Labor Party in govern­ment would not introduce a carbon tax. In fact, he rubbished the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, who had predicted, I think on no fewer than 10 occasions, that the Labor Party would intro­duce a carbon tax if they won the election. Mr Swan said Mr Abbott was being hysterical even to suggest that, but where are we one year later? We are in the throes of a debate surrounding the new carbon tax which the Labor Party intends introducing.

Madam Temporary Chair, you may recall that the Leader of the Labor Party, Julia Gillard, promised that she would not take any action on a carbon tax until she had a consensus in the parliament. There was a consensus on the carbon tax. A year ago today there was a consensus between the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Labor Party and most of the Independents, and that consensus was: there will be no carbon tax under the next government, whoever it might be. Yet here we are, just 12 months on from that very famous, very obvious and very clear promise by the Leader of the Labor Party, Julia Gillard, to the Australian public that if they voted for her and her party, and for the senators sitting opposite—and about 50 per cent did, with the Greens pref­erences—there would be no carbon tax. That is why Australians voted for either the Liberal-National Party or the Labor Party. They knew, because of a solemn promise by the Leader of the Labor Party, that there would be no carbon tax under the govern­ment she led. Here we are, exactly 12 months later, debating a bill that is putting into place some of the legislation surround­ing the carbon tax that Julia Gillard promised would not be introduced.

How can anyone in Australia believe anything the current Leader of the Labor Party, Julia Gillard, might say about any policy issue? She cannot be believed on the carbon tax and she could not be believed on border protection and boat people. Heaven knows how many different changes of policy we have had since the election about 12 months ago. Nobody in Australia can possibly take Julia Gillard's word for any­thing. Today is the 12-month anniversary of Julia Gillard, and of all my Senate colleagues sitting opposite me here, promising the Australian people there would be no carbon tax under this government—and where are we today? I know many of my colleagues in the Labor Party sitting opposite are devastated by the fact that they are required by Labor Party rules to support this policy, which was born of a lie by the Labor Party leader 12 months ago today.

Progress reported.