Download Fragment

Monday, 22 August 2011
Page: 4965

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) (11:17): The government does not support the amendments moved by Senator Xenophon. Members of the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee have expertise with offset projects. The functions of the DOIC are described in proposed part 26, paragraph 255, 'Functions of the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee':

The Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee has the following functions:

   (a) the functions that are conferred on it by this Act and the regulations;

   (b) to advise the Minister about matters that:

      (i) relate to offsets projects; and

      (ii) are referred to the Committee by the Minister;

That is the role and function of the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee. Senator Xenophon's amendments effectively confer on the committee the function of monitoring scientific research relevant to the issue of permanence. Nothing prevents, on my reading of the bill, the minister referring these matters to the committee. But their work is primarily about offset projects. They are there to look at the methodologies and then give independent assessments of those.

Permanence is about the length of time that carbon dioxide remains in the atmos­phere and its radiative forcing effect. Separate from the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee, the government will continue to keep the permanence issue under review in light of developments in the Intergovern­mental Panel on Climate Change. I know that you have an interest in the issue of permanence, but we should not use the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee as the vehicle to maintain that interest. It is inappropriate to use it in that way. That is why we do not support the amendments.

Permanence has been set at 100 years. We have set it at 100 years because carbon dioxide cycles between the atmosphere, oceans and land biosphere and its removal from the atmosphere involves a range of processes with different timescales. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that around 50 per cent of the increase in CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years. A further 30 per cent will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20 per cent may take longer. In this context, 100 years has become the internationally accepted time frame for ensuring that sequestration is equivalent to, and can be used to offset, emissions. Under the CFI, sequestration projects can be terminated after 100 years without having to pay back carbon credits because it is then considered that permanence has been achieved.

Even without these amendments, the government will continue to monitor international developments on the issue and adjust permanence obligations in the CFI to reflect international scientific and policy consensus. It is not for the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee to give advice to the minister about the best evidence in relation to permanence. Government will continue to monitor this issue and to look at international developments, but it is not a function that you should confer on the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee.

Just as an aside, it should also be noted that the CFI permit obligations allow significant flexibility. Landholders would be able to cancel their sequestration projects at any time by relinquishing the number of credits issued for the project. That will of course mean that projects will have a much higher value if they represent a permanent abatement. The integrity of the scheme is maintained by having permanence because there is no genuine abatement if carbon stores are subsequently released back into the atmosphere. You need permanence. All of those who want to make an effort in reducing our carbon, all of those who want to make an effort in ensuring that there can be carbon sequestration and all of those who want to make an effort to move towards a clean energy future require permanence. Landholders will be able of course to terminate sequestration projects at any time provided they hand back the same number of credits. If they do want to terminate, the flexibility is there.