Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Under the government's safeguard mechanism, big polluters will seek to offset emissions by purchasing ACCUs from farmland. But farmers say this could lock up productive land and it relies on the availability of credits they need to insert their own emissions for carbon neutrality and avoid hefty tariffs on international markets. How will the safeguard mechanism work if it can't rely on offsets from agriculture?

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for her question and recognise her leadership on matters of climate in the regions and climate in agriculture. The honourable member asked a number of very important questions—firstly, in relation to the safeguard mechanism.

There has been a debate across the public sphere in recent days and weeks about the use of offsets. Where the government has proposed such an ambitious scheme to see a 4.9 per cent reduction in emissions each and every year, it is appropriate that we provide flexibility to businesses as to how to do that, and offsets are a very important part of that. Offsets are the net in net zero which all parties are effectively committed to or meant to be committed to, and agricultural offsets play a very important role as well.

The safeguard mechanism is an important degree of flexibility for big industrial emitters. Of course, there will be a debate in this parliament when the bill comes forward for a vote, and there will be one in the other house, and when I issue the appropriate regulations. I have interacted with some members of the crossbench and I am happy to have further interactions with them about the issues.

In relation to the offsetting proposal and the concept that the honourable member refers to, I am aware of that proposal and that concept. The National Farmers Federation is interested in it and Farmers for Climate Action are interested in it, and it is a concept that has been consulted on by Climate Active. It is one of the options available to farmers potentially going forward.

I would remind the honourable member and the House of the existence of the government's farmer carbon offset scheme—the $20 million in funding over four years—to provide farmers and agriculturalists with all the information and best detailed advice that they could possibly assess to give them the informed choices they can make to ensure they are maximising their involvement in the way that they choose to. I am aware of the honourable member's concerns about some misinformation that is common in agricultural areas about some of the benefits of carbon credits as opposed to some of the risks. Farmers should be able to make those choices themselves but in a fully informed way. I am more than happy to engage further with the honourable member about any sensible suggestions she may choose to make in this area.