Download Fragment

Wednesday, 6 July 2011
Page: 4144

Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Minister Assisting the Attorney-General on Queensland Floods Recovery) (12:30): I say at the outset—and this would come as no surprise to Senator Xenophon—we do not support his amend­ment.

Senator Xenophon: No, nothing surprises me.

Senator LUDWIG: I did not think it would any longer. The difficulty with this amendment is that it would allow environmentally or socially beneficial projects to bypass the additionality test. The additionality test ensures that the carbon credits represent an extra tonne of carbon abatement and they can be used to offset emissions from an industrial sector. It underpins the credibility and value of carbon credits. Under the CFI, project proponents are required to consider natural resource management plans. Regional NRM plans provide a vehicle for communities to provide guidance on the type and location of carbon farming projects that will deliver maximum social and environmental benefits. Ultimately the market will determine what projects come forward. Those which have important co-benefits will naturally stack up better than those without.

The amendment seeks to assess if a project has a beneficial impact on the availability of water or land and resource access for agricultural production and if so the project is deemed to pass the additionality test. It simply sidelines the additionality test with those broad terms of the 'availability of water' and 'land and resource access for agricultural production'. It does not go to the actual substance of this legislation—that is, carbon abatement and stacking up projects to see which does it better. Ultimately it is the market, and not the legislation, that is designed to determine the projects that will stack up, rather than your legislation bypassing the additionality test.