Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is always good to follow the member for Forrest. What she was saying in relation to the contribution of Australian farmers to the global food bowl was interesting. It is a very important issue and it is always worth putting on record the outstanding work and innovation that our farmers bring to their craft. However, it would also have been good if the member for Forrest had spent some time at the climate change commission summit the other day, because, while she may be quite good at telling us some of the facts and figures about the farming sector, she is clearly, like her party, lost and in the wilderness in relation to climate change. That is one of the reasons that I am so supportive of these bills and the legislation before the House today, and I will spend a little time talking about why and how important it is.

The Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 fulfils the Australian government's commitment to develop legislation to give farmers, forest growers and landholders access to domestic, voluntary and international carbon markets. This will begin to unlock the abatement opportunities in the land sector, which currently make up 23 per cent of Australia's emissions. The first objective is to help Australia meet its international obligations under the United Nations conventions on climate change and the Kyoto protocol to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. We know that those on the other side have all sorts of difficulties with the Kyoto protocol and continue now to struggle on a daily basis with their position on climate change.

The second objective is to create incentives for people to undertake land sector abatement projects. The ability to generate saleable carbon credits provides an investment incentive, thereby helping to channel carbon finance into the land sector abatement. A further objective is to achieve carbon abatement in a manner consistent with protection of Australia's natural environment and to improve resilience to the impacts of climate change. This recognises the important contribution that this scheme can make towards environmental objects such as improving water quality, reducing salinity and erosion, protecting and promoting biodiversity, regenerating landscapes and improving the productivity of agricultural soils.

The Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011 establishes a national registry. The registry serves two primary purposes: to be Australia's first national registry for Kyoto units, which is required under the Kyoto protocol, and to act as a registry for Australian carbon credit units under the Carbon Farming Initiative. Accordingly, this bill is necessary to support carbon farming initiatives and to allow people to trade credits. The third bill is the Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill, which has a range of amendments to legislation, and I will not spend much time talking about that.

There are timing sensitivities with these bills. We have previously committed to having legislation passed by 1 July 2011 to provide certainty to farmers, forest growers and landholders, who have previously invested in abatement projects or are looking to invest in the near future. In particular, there are a number of projects which were previously supported by the Greenhouse Friendly program, which concluded on 30 June 2010. These included forest sequestration projects and landfill waste projects. The failure to pass the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme significantly impacted the investment in these types of projects. There is already a domestic voluntary market for carbon neutral products and services with which these credits will sell into—for example, when Qantas offers to offset flight emissions. At the moment, there are no domestic credits for Australian companies to buy until this bill is passed. The bill allows for a backdating of credits to 1 July 2010 to accommodate projects previously in the Greenhouse Friendly program, where these projects meet the new standards and have properly measured the abatement.

The legislation will establish an important funding stream for regional and rural Australia. The legislation is a voluntary mechanism. No-one has to be part of the scheme if they choose not to be. If they do take part, they can gain credit for their action to reduce or store carbon pollution. The size of the voluntary market will initially be quite small, but significant revenue would be available if internationally compliant credits are used in the carbon price mechanism. This matter, of course, is being discussed in the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee.

Tony Abbott's so-called direct action policy relies excessively on storing carbon in soils and does nothing to move the economy to a clean energy future. Other countries are already taking action on climate change and the economic competitiveness of some of Australia's companies could be disadvantaged if we do not take action at home.

The Gillard government is committed to introducing a price on carbon. It is the right thing to do for jobs, for our economy and for the environment. A carbon price is the cheapest and the fairest way to cut pollution and drive investment in a clean energy future. Just this week, the Climate Commission report made clear that the next 10 years requires critical policy decisions by putting a price on carbon if we are to stabilise carbon pollution and avoid dangerous levels of global warming in the future.

It is worth talking about my electorate because it is one of those electorates that is being dramatically affected by climate change. At north Entrance, we have massive erosion of the beach. Backyards of houses have been washed away and continue to be washed away. The local council has a program to continually dredge sand and put it back in place. But the effects of climate change with more frequent storm surges and changing sea levels have meant that that community is in some danger and continues to be in some danger.

In the north of my electorate at Cabbage Tree Bay at Norah Head, houses are falling into the ocean. The council is having to buy back those houses because we have not acted in relation to climate change. It is too late for those areas already in terms of what is happening there, but it is not too late to act to save the planet. And we need to be doing that, and that was made absolutely clear just the other day with the Climate Commission's report.

We have an opposition who are putting their heads in the sand on climate change issues. If they put their heads in the sand in my electorate, they will get washed away. Quite frankly, they are going to get washed away in the debate on climate change because there is an overwhelming view out there that we need to act to make sure that the environment is protected. Even those opposite do not actually believe the position that their leader is putting. There are many on the other side who know that climate change is real, that climate change is induced and made worse by man and that we need to act and we need to act now. That is one of the reasons that I am so supportive of these bills and the legislation before the House today, and I will spend a little time talking about why and how important it is.

The Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 fulfils the Australian government's commitment to develop legislation to give farmers, forest growers and landholders access to domestic, voluntary and international carbon markets. This will begin to unlock the abatement opportunities in the land sector, which currently make up 23 per cent of Australia's emissions. The first objective is to help Australia meet its international obligations under the United Nations conventions on climate change and the Kyoto protocol to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. We know that those on the other side have all sorts of difficulties with the Kyoto protocol and continue now to struggle on a daily basis with their position on climate change.

The second objective is to create incentives for people to undertake land sector abatement projects. The ability to generate saleable carbon credits provides an investment incentive, thereby helping to channel carbon finance into the land sector abatement. A further objective is to achieve carbon abatement in a manner consistent with protection of Australia's natural environment and to improve resilience to the impacts of climate change. This recognises the important contribution that this scheme can make towards environmental objects such as improving water quality, reducing salinity and erosion, protecting and promoting biodiversity, regenerating landscapes and improving the productivity of agricultural soils.

The Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011 establishes a national registry. The registry serves two primary purposes: to be Australia's first national registry for Kyoto units, which is required under the Kyoto protocol, and to act as a registry for Australian carbon credit units under the Carbon Farming Initiative. Accordingly, this bill is necessary to support carbon farming initiatives and to allow people to trade credits. The third bill is the Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill, which has a range of amendments to legislation, and I will not spend much time talking about that.

There are timing sensitivities with these bills. We have previously committed to having legislation passed by 1 July 2011 to provide certainty to farmers, forest growers and landholders, who have previously invested in abatement projects or are looking to invest in the near future. In particular, there are a number of projects which were previously supported by the Greenhouse Friendly program, which concluded on 30 June 2010. These included forest sequestration projects and landfill waste projects. The failure to pass the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme significantly impacted the investment in these types of projects. There is already a domestic voluntary market for carbon neutral products and services with which these credits will sell into—for example, when Qantas offers to offset flight emissions. At the moment, there are no domestic credits for Australian companies to buy until this bill is passed. The bill allows for a backdating of credits to 1 July 2010 to accommodate projects previously in the Greenhouse Friendly program, where these projects meet the new standards and have properly measured the abatement.

The legislation will establish an important funding stream for regional and rural Australia. The legislation is a voluntary mechanism. No-one has to be part of the scheme if they choose not to be. If they do take part, they can gain credit for their action to reduce or store carbon pollution. The size of the voluntary market will initially be quite small, but significant revenue would be available if internationally compliant credits are used in the carbon price mechanism. This matter, of course, is being discussed in the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee.

Tony Abbott's so-called direct action policy relies excessively on storing carbon in soils and does nothing to move the economy to a clean energy future. Other countries are already taking action on climate change and the economic competitiveness of some of Australia's companies could be disadvantaged if we do not take action at home.

The Gillard government is committed to introducing a price on carbon. It is the right thing to do for jobs, for our economy and for the environment. A carbon price is the cheapest and the fairest way to cut pollution and drive investment in a clean energy future. Just this week, the Climate Commission report made clear that the next 10 years requires critical policy decisions by putting a price on carbon if we are to stabilise carbon pollution and avoid dangerous levels of global warming in the future.

It is worth talking about my electorate because it is one of those electorates that is being dramatically affected by climate change. At north Entrance, we have massive erosion of the beach. Backyards of houses have been washed away and continue to be washed away. The local council has a program to continually dredge sand and put it back in place. But the effects of climate change with more frequent storm surges and changing sea levels have meant that that community is in some danger and continues to be in some danger.

In the north of my electorate at Cabbage Tree Bay at Norah Head, houses are falling into the ocean. The council is having to buy back those houses because we have not acted in relation to climate change. It is too late for those areas already in terms of what is happening there, but it is not too late to act to save the planet. And we need to be doing that, and that was made absolutely clear just the other day with the Climate Commission's report.

We have an opposition who are putting their heads in the sand on climate change issues. If they put their heads in the sand in my electorate, they will get washed away. Quite frankly, they are going to get washed away in the debate on climate change because there is an overwhelming view out there that we need to act to make sure that the environment is protected. Even those opposite do not actually believe the position that their leader is putting. There are many on the other side who know that climate change is real, that climate change is induced and made worse by man and that we need to act and we need to act now. Also, incentives for carbon farming are earned through abatement of greenhouse gases by capturing and destroying of methane emissions from landfill or livestock manure. I find that one pretty interesting because, as we know, animals eat and then excrete, and there is not much we can do to stop them doing that, not much at all. So we remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in soil or trees by growing a forest. I have many farmers in my electorate and I want to assure and advise those farmers that a carbon fanning scheme will not have adverse effects on their practices.

The coalition cannot vote in parliament on this legislation because the Labor government wants us to vote without seeing the detail and we will not do that, The coalition is awaiting a Senate report. We await with interest views on the following matters: one, prime agricultural land protection; two, protection for Western Australia from effective expropriation of crown land usage rights by the bill; three, completion of the key regulations; four, inclusion of soil carbon from the outset; five, the risk of rorting, as in Europe, without adequate protections, as reported on the front page of the Australian, 19 May 2011; six, construction of an acceptable set of rules around the permanence; seven, construction of an acceptable set of rules around additionality; and, eight, other amendments to be identified by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report on the bills to report on Friday, 27 May 2011.

We need simple answers to questions such as: what happens if forest on your farm is destroyed by bush fire? Are you penalised? Do you have to pay those credits back? That is a worry for many farmers—that if they get a credit somehow they might have to pay it back in years to come when their forest is destroyed by fire. In fact, those credits might be costing a lot more by then. So that is a concern.

I spoke in this place on 29 October 2009 about the ETS in Europe and their ETS statistics at the time. They were dismal—the results spoke for themselves and now we see rorting also. This is why it is so important that the government provides the detail and why the coalition supports the principle but has serious concerns about the legislation. We are not prepared to give a blank cheque.

This legislation does not contain the opportunities for carbon farming as outlined in our direct action plan. Under the direct action plan the coalition will reduce carbon dioxide emissions through biosequestration in general and, in particular, the replenishment of our soil carbons. Farmers will be entitled to tender for additions in soil carbon.

The Gillard government's approach to the carbon farming offsets bill will be completely skewed by a carbon tax and ETS, leading to the wholesale conversion of prime farming land from agriculture to trees. We simply do not know what we are dealing with here. It is an unknown quantity. For that reason, the opposition will be moving an amendment in the House, declining to give the bill a second reading until the regulations giving effect to the provisions of the bill are laid before the House. The coalition will reserve its position on other matters until the Senate inquiry report is handed down on Friday 27 May 2011. That is not very long to wait. Why can the government not wait until we get some of those answers?

Further amendments will be considered following the Senate inquiry report. Ultimate support for this bill in the Senate will depend upon a satisfactory resolution on the range of amendments to be presented. Without the regulations and the amendments we would not consider the legislation to be anywhere near ready.

Based on the facts we have—which are not a lot—it would be careless for the coalition to let this legislation continue in its current form. As a member of parliament, I have to look out for my constituents. Many are farmers who will be affected by this legislation. I hope it is a positive effect but we simply do not know. The consultation process for the exposure draft of the legislation was only in capital cities, which are not always easy for farmers to access—there are no farmers in the city. I refuse to give Labor and the Greens the opportunity to decide the future of farmers in my electorate and all over Australia.

At Senate estimates, officials confirmed there is not yet a definition of 'common practice' for farming. There needs to be an education program to teach farmers the implications of signing up for such a scheme. Major Studies by ABARE and CSIRO which would provide invaluable information on the carbon farming initiative will not be released till after the carbon farming initiative is voted on. Why wait? We should have that information now. This is so typical of this government. It is back to front logic, putting the cart before the horse; it just does not make sense.

The coalition supports biosequestration—capturing carbon emissions in soils, trees and other biological matter. It is a key part of the coalition's direct action climate policy. A report issued this year by the CSIRO, 'Greenhouse gas mitigation: sources and sinks in agriculture and forestry', by the head of the Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, Michael Battaglia, pointed to the great potential for biosequestration in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The report found that 'we can potentially increase these stores in our rural lands and perhaps store or mitigate enough greenhouse gases to offset up to 20 per cent or more of Australia's emissions during the next 40 years.' The carbon farming initiative legislation risks dire consequences for the farming sector and will have major implications for our nation's food security.

A major concern we have is that while tree planting can be good—and it has a place under our direct action plan—there must be appropriate controls to ensure large tracts of good food-producing land are not lost to trees. Labor's plan will cause the wholesale transfer of food production land to trees in Australia's best farming areas, trees which cannot be harvested in any form. A leaked CSIRO report featured in the Sydney Morning Herald claims a carbon price of $36 dollars a tonne would likely see the whole lower Murray-Darling Basin converted to trees, starting at a carbon price as low as $11 a tonne. This is much worse than commercial forestry as there will be no employment required after the trees are planted and the flow-on impacts of job losses in the community will be large.

The Murray-Darling Basin produces 39 per cent of Australia's agricultural production. It also contains 65 per cent of the irrigated land and 40 per cent of the farms. Even if you only halve that, you reduce Australia's food production by 20 per cent. Does the government want to see Australia turn into a country that imports all its food? That is what will happen if Labor threatens our food security with this legislation. Australia is a big country and there is plenty of scope to plant trees in marginal country where farming is less viable and where there are environmental co-benefits in relation to salinity, erosion, woody weeds, biodiversity, bird life and so on. I question Labor's consultation process if they believe it is a good idea to plant trees on Australia's prime food production land. This is just another example of why the coalition needs to see more detail. We will not and cannot support initiatives that damage food security and cause job losses.

A concern for farmers is the duration of abatements in this legislation. The 100-year life of credits gives rise to problems when carbon stores are prematurely disturbed by no-fault or natural events but proponents are required to re-establish or regenerate carbon stores, or relinquish carbon credits. Over a 100-year life cycle, it is highly probable that carbon stores will be affected by an event, such as a bushfire, which releases the carbon store, leaving the proponent liable. It is ridiculous to lock farmers in for 100 years; so much can change in that time. Farmers should be concerned about this government and its legislation. Labor is certainly out of touch.

Labor and the Greens are in conflict over the starting price of their carbon tax. The Greens have called for a carbon price in excess of $40 a tonne. The government commissioned report from Deloitte has found that an emissions tax of $40 per tonne would be needed to encourage a national transition from coal-fired electricity to gas. Not that long ago, on 18 May, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young from the Greens said the carbon tax may need to reach $100 a tonne to make renewable energy competitive.

Our direct action climate change policy will reduce emissions in a way that is economically responsible and it will not cost Australian jobs. The coalition's direct action plan will reduce emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 through creating a fund to buy back greenhouse emissions, more tree planting, better soils and smarter technology. We want the detail and, if the government has nothing to hide, why would they deny the House the ability to examine the regulations so that we in opposition can make up our minds fully informed?

See this speech in context