Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share 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.