Dissenting Report
Senator Christine Milne, Australian Greens,
Senator Barnaby Joyce, Senator Fiona Nash, and
Senator the Hon Ronald Boswell, The Nationals
Senator the Hon Bill Heffernan, Liberal Party of Australia
The Senate Standing
Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport works hard to achieve
consensus reports. It is a serious step for such a high level of dissent.
The report representing the
views of the Government Senators does not reflect the evidence provided to the
Committee at several hearings. It is clear that the intention of this
legislation was to give the same tax deduction for planting trees for carbon as
has been given for planting them for harvest under MIS arrangements. The
environmental guidelines are just that, guidelines. They are flexible and not
prescriptive or mandatory. They are clearly an afterthought. No social and
economic analysis was done to anticipate the impacts on rural and regional Australia.
By the conclusion of the
hearings it was confirmed that:
- There is no requirement that a
carbon sink forest for which a tax deduction has been granted has to be
registered on the title of a property.
- There is nothing in the
legislation or the Guidelines that prevents prime agricultural land being
planted as carbon sinks thus displacing food crops and destroying rural
communities as the Managed Investment Schemes have done. The best land with the
best rainfall will grow trees fastest and therefore bulk up the carbon fastest
and so maximise profits. The Government's arguments, that the low price of
carbon will prevent the best land from being planted, does not stack up. Why is
it that MIS schemes have encroached on cropping land if the price argument is
valid? Many witnesses told of the adverse impact of the MIS schemes in rural Queensland.
- The government and ABARE have not
taken into account the fact that there will be a forward market in carbon
permits and there will be a strong incentive for companies to buy early and
cheaply to shield themselves from later rises in the carbon price. This will
drive land acquisition.
- Furthermore, if ABARE is wrong
about a low price of carbon and it rises rapidly then not only will prime land
be turned over to carbon sinks but existing MIS scheme forests will not be
harvested but kept instead to grow on to maximize carbon credits. This perverse
outcome will drive the logging industry further into native forests because
emissions from these forests are currently ignored. The loss of biodiversity
and carbon stores will be a disaster.
- The claim that there will be
benefits including large increases in rural employment and direct investment in
services is unjustified and not borne out by the evidence from MIS schemes. The
National Association of Forest Industries made the same claims then but the evidence
is to the contrary with many areas losing services such as schools and bus runs
and employment.
- There is nothing to prevent the
conversion of native vegetation to plantations, nothing to require mixed
species plantings or the forest to be in the ground for any length of time. An
area of land covered in native vegetation that is not a Kyoto forest,
savannah or Brigalow for example, can be cleared unless state legislation
prohibits it.
- Given the lack of consistent land
clearance legislation across the nation and the uneven compliance and
enforcement regimes, this legislation will provide a perverse incentive to
clear native vegetation resulting in a loss of biodiversity and the release of
the carbon contained therein. The Biodiversity Unit in the Department of the
Environment was not consulted in the development of the Guidelines.
- There is nothing to prevent a
plantation company from benefiting from a tax deduction to establish a carbon
sink forest and then if the fibre price is higher than the carbon price,
cutting it down. Who will recoup the deduction for the tax payer 15 years down
the track?
- There is no requirement that
hydrological studies including interception, be completed before a planting
occurs. Compliance with the National Water Initiative means that water plans
need to be in place by 2011. All the National Water Initiative does is to
commit states and territories to having in place by no later than 2011
arrangements to ensure that such water interception activities are considered
in the planning process. Considering a matter in a planning process is not the
same as a mandatory outcome. By 2011 many hectares of carbon sink forests will
be in the ground with no guarantee of sustainability in the catchment. The
majority report claim that this initiative 'will contribute to sustainable land
management' is an unsubstantiated claim.
- Who in the Federal Dept of Climate
Change will check to make certain that carbon sink forests 'meet natural
resource guidelines and not interfere with existing patterns of water use'?
Compliance will be deemed to occur if a State or Territory has no such
guidelines because compliance with the legislation only requires adherence to
what a state or territory has in place and if they have none then compliance
will have been achieved. At no stage did the Government outline how the Federal
Department will assess the applications as to their compliance with state or
territory guidelines.
- In dissenting to this report I do
not believe that there was any evidence presented to prove that the legislation
represents 'a valuable policy addition that will promote greenhouse gas
reductions'. The government has made no claims about the volume of CO2
sequestered or hectares to be planted. Furthermore, there is no proposal or
ability for anyone protecting or rehabilitating a standing forest or protecting
natural vegetation to benefit from tax deductions or any other financial
incentives.
- The
claim for 'the benefits of relying on existing state and territory
regulatory structures for the management of the impacts of carbon sink
forests on the environment' was unsubstantiated. Tasmania
is a case in point where there are no land clearance or water plans that
have any rigour and there is certainly no compliance or enforcement of
guidelines to protect the environment.
Recommendations
- The Guidelines should be
mandatory regulations.
- There should be
incorporated into the regulations conditions which must be met before the
tax deductions would apply, namely;
- The carbon sink forests must be registered on the property
title.
- No native vegetation can be cleared for or converted to carbon
sink forests.
- Carbon sink forests should be biodiverse and cannot be
harvested or cleared, and
- No carbon sink forest can be established in the absence of a
hydrological analysis including ground water and interception, of the proposed
area to be planted.
- To avoid the destruction
of rural communities and the displacement of food crops, prime
agricultural land must be excluded from carbon sink plantings.
Senator Christine Milne Senator
Barnaby Joyce
Senator for Tasmania Senator
for Queensland
Senator Fiona Nash Senator
the Hon Ronald Boswell
Senator for New South Wales Senator
for Queensland
Senator the Hon Bill Heffernan
Senator for New South Wales
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page