|
representatives vote 2011-06-16#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-06-20 12:48:07
|
Title
Bills — Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011; Second Reading- Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 - Second Reading - Keep original motion unchanged
Description
<p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>Before my remarks to the House last night were abruptly terminated by the procedural requirements of this place, I was coming to the third of the three principal points I want to make, which was that in so far as the necessary details for this legislative scheme have been provided, one of the requirements made clear in the legislation appears to be unnecessarily rigid and impractical and therefore not likely to contribute to the success of the scheme and its fitness to farmers and other private sector interests in being incented to behave in the way the scheme is intended to incent for them to behave. I refer to the requirement that sequestration must be permanent to be eligible under the scheme. The bar for permanence has been set very high. The requirement is that the sequestration must be effective for 100 years.</p><p>It seems rather unclear as to the basis on which this 100-year requirement has been set and it appears to be a matter of considerable contention as to whether that figure has any particular scientific basis or whether it has been based upon a bureaucratic stroke of the pen. Quite a number of interested parties have appeared before both the Senate and the House inquiries into this matter, including Carbon Farmers of Australia and the Australian Plantation Products and Paper Industry Council, who have identified concerns with this particular provision.</p><p>In conclusion, we say on this side of the House that this particular measure is good in concept but, sadly, is poor in execution. Until we see the details, we are not in a position to support it.</p> <p class="speaker">Daryl Melham</p><p>I rise to speak in support of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011. I will restrict my comments to the interaction of the bill with native title. It is a complex issue, as acknowledged on page 44 of the explanatory memorandum, where it says at paragraph 4.51:</p><p class="italic">Given the practical and legal complexity of the interaction of the scheme with native title, the Government intends to undertake further consultation with a broad range of stakeholders and complete detailed legal analysis before reflecting a considered approach in amendments to the bill.</p><p>It is good that the government is doing that because, from what I have read so far, I am concerned about the restrictive nature of the interaction of native title with this bill. On page 39 of the explanatory memorandum, paragraph 4.18 it says:</p><p class="italic">To be eligible to apply for a project, native title holders must hold the legal right to carry out the project and, in the case of sequestration projects, the carbon sequestration right.</p><p>They then go on to say at 4.19:</p><p class="italic">It is not clear whether native title could include a right to carbon sequestration. This is because native title rights are sourced from traditional laws and customs, which may not include the recently identified right to benefit from carbon stored in the land. As a result, native title holders may need to seek a court determination (or a consent determination) to confirm their carbon sequestration right before they could participate in the scheme. This is likely to be difficult, costly and time consuming and any court decision would be unlikely to have universal application to other native title holders. Demonstrating the legal right to carry out a project may present a similar hurdle.</p><p>It then goes on to say at paragraph 4.20:</p><p class="italic">To address this barrier, the bill will take the registered native title body corporate to be the project proponent where the project area is determined exclusive possession native title land, as long as:</p><ul></ul><ul></ul><p>What we then do is restrict it to exclusive possession. With the greatest of respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Wik case is a classic case where you do not need exclusive possession to be found to be a native title holder. What I am worried about here—and it is something that has been raised by people before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts that has considered this matter—under non-exclusive possession is that you cannot rule out their ability to participate in this bill before us. I think there is a concession there, but they are in effect saying that we still have to work on it.</p><p>Recently we had a number of agreed native title determinations in the Northern Territory and Western Australia for vast areas of land. In the Northern Territory there was 16,500 square kilometres. In terms of the settlement of Australia and the titles, as you go west, particularly in Western Australia, there are many leaseholds with reservations for Indigenous people. The threshold should be that, if you are a native title holder and a determination on native title has been made, you are able to participate in the scheme, all things being equal.</p><p>We have had a number of lectures recently by the former Prime Minister Paul Keating. He gave the Lowitja O'Donoghue oration for the Don Dunstan Foundation at the University of Adelaide on 31 May 2011 about reversing the burden of proof. Indeed, back on 9 July 2008 Justice French also talked about how difficult it is to prove a continued connection. He talked about some modest proposals for the lifting of the burden of native title.</p><p>I congratulate the government because they have not been conclusive in what they have determined in this bill to date. They have left open the question of consultation. I am saying that we should be a little more generous. It is right that non-exclusive holders could go to court and have a determination on this matter, but why should they be put through the expense? In my view, if you are native title holder, there should be a presumption that you are able to participate in this scheme. If there is any hint that says, 'If it is non-exclusive possession you are going to lock us out,' we will have another situation where Indigenous people have to go to the High Court for a determination.</p><p>This is a scheme that we should be encouraging people to participate in. We talk about bridging the gap. We should be saying that, if you are a native title holder in exclusive or non-exclusive possession, you should have an opportunity to participate in this scheme. I accept that in a number of instances non-exclusive title holders might not fall into the category of being able to participate in this scheme, for whatever reason, but I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency made a speech also on 8 June 2011 where he said:</p><p class="italic">While the interaction of the Carbon Farming Initiative with the Native Title Act is complex, the Government has developed a creative solution to allow holders of exclusive possession of native title easy and direct access to the scheme.</p><p class="italic">The Government is continuing to engage with Indigenous stakeholders and others about appropriate consent rights to project on land that is subject to non-exclusive native title. Consent rights will allow the native title holders to negotiate a share of the benefits of sequestration projects on their land.</p><p>That is exactly the point I am trying to make—there is engagement taking place. I urge and encourage the government to go the extra yards on non-exclusive native title to encourage participation by Indigenous people. This was the subject of an advisory report on the bills by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts, with Mr Zappia as the chair and Dr Mal Washer as the deputy chair. Anna Burke, Jill Hall, Nola Marino, Wyatt Roy and Kelvin Thomson were also on that committee. On native title, they said at paragraph 2.82:</p><p class="italic">The Committee does have concerns about the treatment of non-exclusive native title in the bill, but understands that continued consultations and discussions with Indigenous groups are planned by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency—</p><p> <i>(Quorum formed)</i> It is not an accident that the person who took the quorum call was the member for Paterson, who is well known as Paterson's curse. I do not think it is an accident that I was actually talking about reducing Indigenous disadvantage, which his leader rabbits on about but at every opportunity they never come to the table. We are talking about carbon farming, native title, exclusive and non-exclusive possession and the opportunity to bring Aboriginal people into a project that might advance them. So what do we get? We get a quorum call by the member for Paterson. It is not for me to comment on him; it speaks for itself. He can take as many quorum calls as he wants for the next 2½ years because he is over the other side. That is what we have had for the last six or seven months. We have had a bitter and twisted opposition who do not accept the fact that they got done over in the last election, we formed a government with assistance from the Greens and Independent members of this House and we are going to get on with business. You can call as many quorums as you want, but it exposes you for the small-minded person that you are.</p> <p class="speaker">Sid Sidebottom</p><p>No, not me.</p> <p class="speaker">Daryl Melham</p><p>Not you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I would never say that about you.</p> <p class="speaker">Sid Sidebottom</p><p>Thank you.</p> <p class="speaker">Daryl Melham</p><p>In relation to carbon farming, the government have left it open to talk to Indigenous groups about non-exclusive possession. I am welcoming that. I have said, and I repeat, my position is that we should be generous. We have had two speeches, one from the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, and one from the current Chief Justice of the High Court, Chief Justice French, who is a former President of the National Native Title Tribunal. In effect they are saying that we should revisit the way we do business in relation to native title. In relation to this matter we do not have to revisit it. What we can do, because it is an evolving thing, is be more generous. We have done that by opening negotiations. That is where I am coming from.</p><p>The other question in relation to the matter before the House that Indigenous people are worried about is the question of additionality. In the submission to the House of Representatives committee from Centrefarm dated 15 April, they say on additionality:</p><p class="italic">The adoption of the 'addition' provision in the CFI as it currently stands will significantly impair the rights of Aboriginal people to participate in carbon markets. There are a range of carbon projects that could be or currently are being undertaken on Aboriginal land that may well fall into the 'business as usual' category.</p><p class="italic">For example, Indigenous Protected Areas: if an agreement with the Australian government exists that Aboriginal land will be managed for conservational purposes, and then funding is provided to develop and implement a management plan for these; any cool season fire management carbon abatement initiatives could be considered 'business as usual' and be disqualified.</p><p>My suggestion to overcome that is that the additionality provisions should not apply to Indigenous people. We can justify that on the basis that what we are trying to do is advance Indigenous people's position in Australia today. We talk about closing the gap and this is a method whereby we can make an exception in relation to additionality if it makes it harder for Aboriginal people to participate. It should be welcomed by those opposite because it actually falls within the racial discrimination convention of positive treatment. It falls within that area that allows us to do this. So I commend that proposal to the government as a way of overcoming the problem. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-06-16.25.1 motion] "That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Hunt's [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-05-25.35.1 amendment]) stand part of the question." In other words, the majority wanted wanted the original motion to remain unchanged.
- The original motion was "That this bill be now read a second time." Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Greg_Hunt&mpc=Flinders&house=representatives Greg Hunt] introduced the following amendment to this:
- ''That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:''
- ''“the House decline to give the bill a [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html second reading] until the terms of the regulations giving effect to the provisions of the bill are laid before the House”.''
- Because the majority voted in favour of this motion to keep the original motion unchanged, Mr Hunt's amendment won't be proceeding.
- ''Background to the bill''
- The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 bill] was introduced as part of a package of three related bills to establish a voluntary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset carbon offset] scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.[1] Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest] explains that the Initiative will be "a voluntary scheme that aims to provide incentives for the agricultural and forestry sectors to minimise [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions carbon emissions] or maximise [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration carbon sequestration] by altering their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry forestry] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture agricultural] practices".
- The bill's stated objectives are:
- * to implement certain commitments Australia has under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] (UNFCCC) and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol Kyoto Protocol] to it
- * to create incentives for carbon-abatement projects
- * to increase carbon abatement while still protecting Australia’s natural environment and enhancing resilience to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change climate change] impacts.[2]
- ''References''
- * [1] The other two related bills were the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4535 Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011] and the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4534 Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011].
- * [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest].
|