Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I will be as quick as possible but I just want to make three points on the amendments. It is worth noting that I think I am one of only two members in this amendment debate to talk to the amendments. This is one of the more interesting and potentially one of the more fascinating aspects of the CPRS, if delivered right. It fits in with the support so far that I have given to the legislation although, in its current form, it is far from perfect. In many ways it is imperfect. If this amendment is a sign that the government is recognising that, that it is the start of a process rather than the end of a process, that we are going to see more value adding over time to the legislation generally, then that is a process I certainly welcome.

The issue of reafforestation rights on the back of carbon sequestration rights is, as I say, one of the more interesting and potentially more significant aspects of the legislation. Regardless of your position on global warming or climate change generally, there are some uniquely Australian issues that we need to deal with as a country. Whether they be soil erosion issues, salinity issues, riparian zone issues or biodiversity issues, we are now seeing for the first time, finally and with a little bit of hallelujah about it, public policy recognise that the tree has many roles with regard to delivering on public policy. We traditionally in this country see it as the role of the tree to be cut down and made into beautiful timber products—and, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are sitting in a very fine example of that role of a tree. But in the current climate, and heading into the future, that role will have to diversify. We will have credits and offset roles for the tree. As I say, if it is done right, we can now address watertable and salinity issues, soil erosion issues and biodiversity issues. We can address those things if we are clever about how we deal with the public policy question of the role of the tree.

It is for that reason I say that this legislation is missing some things. It does not answer the question that has been made very public in the last week with regard to managed investment schemes. The collapse of Great Southern is one example, and there is the growing concern by many that monoculture plantations are not an environmental outcome; they are an environmental detriment. If this is going to lead to greater examples of monoculture plantations in some sort of investment process, as we have seen through the collapses of the last week in managed investment schemes, then it is not a win for the economy and it is not a win for the environment.

The second point I want to make concerns the question of biodiversity. That is the missing link in what I am seeing in this legislation and in the CPRS generally. There are people who have the science clear in their heads and who are having a really engaged debate about whether you can have a market based response to questions like reafforestation that include biodiversity as an added outcome as well. I am disappointed that that is not part of what I am seeing—I might have missed it, but I do not see any reference to that really difficult but really important question of how you place a value on biodiversity outcomes. For Australia there can be a really valuable gain if we can write into the public policy agenda for the future those biodiversity outcomes such as offsets for reafforestation, carbon sequestration and a CPRS response to climate change.

The third point I would like to make is with regard to the international agreements. This 1991 line is an artificial line and we need to sort that out at Copenhagen and get international agreement. The trees in the ground prior to 1991 have value and we are doing good work for our region. Australian companies like Macquarie Bank are investing in REDD projects. I can think of one in Cambodia. That is the future for developing nations. There has to be an economic value placed on the tree in the ground. We need to support that if we are serious about this overall issue. (Time expired)

See this speech in context