Division Description Changes — Bills — Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011, Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011; in Committee — 22nd Aug 2011

All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
senate vote 2011-08-22#1 Edited by Henare Degan on 2014-10-10 15:41:05	Title Description The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1) introduced by Independent Senator [Nick Xenophon](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nick_Xenophon&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means that they were unsuccessful. ~~The amendment would have added to the list of excluded offsets projects under the bill to include projects that were:~~ ~~- "established as, or as part of, a [managed investment scheme](http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Managed+investment+schemes?openDocument); or"~~ - "determined ... to have an adverse impact on: (i) the availability of water; or (ii) land and resource access for agricultural production".(Read the entirety of the proposed amendments [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1). ) The dispute surrounding these amendments is that they would require assessment on an individual basis, as opposed to the broader approach favoured by the Labor Government.(See the debate on these amendments [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-22.2.2), after 10:22 am. ) ~~_Background to the bills_~~ The [Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22) was introduced with two other bills to establish a voluntary [carbon offset](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset) scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.(The three related bills are the [Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22), the [Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4535) and the [Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4534). ) Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. The Initiative will be "a voluntary scheme that aims to provide incentives for the agricultural and forestry sectors to minimise [carbon emissions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions) or maximise [carbon sequestration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration) by altering their [forestry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry) and [agricultural](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture) practices".(Read more in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005). ) The objectives of this scheme are: - to implement certain commitments Australia has under the [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change) (UNFCCC) and the [Kyoto Protocol](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol) to it ~~- to create incentives for carbon-abatement projects~~ This division relates to the Policy _[For carbon farming](/policies/33)_. The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1) introduced by Independent Senator [Nick Xenophon](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nick_Xenophon&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means that they were unsuccessful. The amendment would have added to the list of excluded offsets projects under the bill to include projects that were: - "established as, or as part of, a [managed investment scheme](http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Managed+investment+schemes?openDocument); or" - "determined ... to have an adverse impact on: (i) the availability of water; or (ii) land and resource access for agricultural production".(Read the entirety of the proposed amendments [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1). ) The dispute surrounding these amendments is that they would require assessment on an individual basis, as opposed to the broader approach favoured by the Labor Government.(See the debate on these amendments [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-22.2.2), after 10:22 am. ) _Background to the bills_ The [Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22) was introduced with two other bills to establish a voluntary [carbon offset](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset) scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.(The three related bills are the [Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22), the [Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4535) and the [Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4534). ) Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. The Initiative will be "a voluntary scheme that aims to provide incentives for the agricultural and forestry sectors to minimise [carbon emissions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions) or maximise [carbon sequestration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration) by altering their [forestry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry) and [agricultural](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture) practices".(Read more in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005). ) The objectives of this scheme are: - to implement certain commitments Australia has under the [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change) (UNFCCC) and the [Kyoto Protocol](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 [climate change](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change) impacts.(Read more in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005).)
senate vote 2011-08-22#1 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:20:29	Title Description The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1 amendments] introduced by Independent Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nick_Xenophon&mpc=Senate&house=senate Nick Xenophon], which means that they were unsuccessful. ~~The amendment would have added to the list of excluded offsets projects under the bill to include projects that were:~~ * "established as, or as part of, a [http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Managed+investment+schemes?openDocument managed investment scheme]; or" * "determined ... to have an adverse impact on: (i) the availability of water; or (ii) land and resource access for agricultural production".(Read the entirety of the proposed amendments [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1 here]. ) The dispute surrounding these amendments is that they would require assessment on an individual basis, as opposed to the broader approach favoured by the Labor Government.(See the debate on these amendments [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-22.2.2 here], after 10:22 am. ) ~~''Background to the bills''~~ The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011] was introduced with two other bills to establish a voluntary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset carbon offset] scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.(The three related bills are the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011], 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]. ) Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. 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".(Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest]. ) The objectives of this scheme 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.(Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest].) The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1) introduced by Independent Senator [Nick Xenophon](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nick_Xenophon&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means that they were unsuccessful. The amendment would have added to the list of excluded offsets projects under the bill to include projects that were: - "established as, or as part of, a [managed investment scheme](http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Managed+investment+schemes?openDocument); or" - "determined ... to have an adverse impact on: (i) the availability of water; or (ii) land and resource access for agricultural production".(Read the entirety of the proposed amendments [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1). ) The dispute surrounding these amendments is that they would require assessment on an individual basis, as opposed to the broader approach favoured by the Labor Government.(See the debate on these amendments [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-22.2.2), after 10:22 am. ) _Background to the bills_ The [Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22) was introduced with two other bills to establish a voluntary [carbon offset](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset) scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.(The three related bills are the [Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22), the [Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4535) and the [Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4534). ) Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. The Initiative will be "a voluntary scheme that aims to provide incentives for the agricultural and forestry sectors to minimise [carbon emissions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions) or maximise [carbon sequestration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration) by altering their [forestry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry) and [agricultural](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture) practices".(Read more in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005). ) The objectives of this scheme are: - to implement certain commitments Australia has under the [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change) (UNFCCC) and the [Kyoto Protocol](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 [climate change](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change) impacts.(Read more in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005).)
senate vote 2011-08-22#1 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:41	Title Description The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1 amendments] introduced by Independent Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nick_Xenophon&mpc=Senate&house=senate Nick Xenophon], which means that they were unsuccessful. The amendment would have added to the list of excluded offsets projects under the bill to include projects that were: * "established as, or as part of, a [http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Managed+investment+schemes?openDocument managed investment scheme]; or" * "determined ... to have an adverse impact on: (i) the availability of water; or (ii) land and resource access for agricultural production".[1] * "determined ... to have an adverse impact on: (i) the availability of water; or (ii) land and resource access for agricultural production".(Read the entirety of the proposed amendments [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1 here]. ) ~~The dispute surrounding these amendments is that they would require assessment on an individual basis, as opposed to the broader approach favoured by the Labor Government.[2]~~ The dispute surrounding these amendments is that they would require assessment on an individual basis, as opposed to the broader approach favoured by the Labor Government.(See the debate on these amendments [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-22.2.2 here], after 10:22 am. ) ''Background to the bills'' The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011] was introduced with two other bills to establish a voluntary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset carbon offset] scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.[3] Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. 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".[4] The objectives of this scheme are: The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011] was introduced with two other bills to establish a voluntary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset carbon offset] scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.(The three related bills are the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011], 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]. ) Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. 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".(Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest]. ) The objectives of this scheme 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.[5] * 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.(Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest].) ~~''References''~~ * [1] Read the entirety of the proposed amendments [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1 here]. * [2] See the debate on these amendments [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-22.2.2 here], after 10:22 am. * [3] The three related bills are the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011], 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]. * [4] Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest]. * [5] Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest].
senate vote 2011-08-22#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-07-18 10:09:21	Title ~~Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 - In Committee - Excluded offsets projects~~ Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 — In Committee — Excluded offsets projects Description The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1 amendments] introduced by Independent Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nick_Xenophon&mpc=Senate&house=senate Nick Xenophon], which means that they were unsuccessful. The amendment would have added to the list of excluded offsets projects under the bill to include projects that were: * "established as, or as part of, a managed investment scheme; or" * "established as, or as part of, a [http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Managed+investment+schemes?openDocument managed investment scheme]; or" * "determined ... to have an adverse impact on: (i) the availability of water; or (ii) land and resource access for agricultural production".[1] The dispute surrounding these amendments is that they would require assessment on an individual basis, as opposed to the broader approach favoured by the Labor Government.[2] ''Background to the bills'' The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011] was introduced with two other bills to establish a voluntary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset carbon offset] scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.[3] Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. 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".[4] The objectives of this scheme 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.[5] ''References'' * [1] Read the entirety of the proposed amendments [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1 here]. * [2] See the debate on these amendments [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-22.2.2 here], after 10:22 am. * [3] The three related bills are the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011], 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]. * [4] Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest]. * [5] Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest]. * [5] Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest].
senate vote 2011-08-22#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-07-18 10:07:34	Title Bills — Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011, Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011; In Committee Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 - In Committee - Excluded offsets projects Description The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1 amendments] introduced by Independent Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nick_Xenophon&mpc=Senate&house=senate Nick Xenophon], which means that they were unsuccessful. ~~<p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p>~~ ~~<p>We can now return to the postponed divisions. The question is that Senator Xenophon's amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 7118 be agreed to.</p>~~ ~~<p>The committee divided [12:35]</p>~~ ~~<p>(The Chairman-Senator Parry)</p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~ ~~<p>Question negatived.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p>~~ <p>I move my amendment (7) on sheet 7118:</p> ~~<p><i>(7) Clause 56, page 81 (line 28), omit paragraph (2)(a).</i></p>~~ ~~<p>The committee divided [12:39]</p>~~ ~~<p>(The Chairman-Senator Parry)</p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~ <p>Question negatived.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p>~~ <p>The question is that Senator Xenophon's amendments (11R), (11A) and (11B) on sheet 7124 be agreed to.</p> ~~<p>The committee divided. [12:43]</p>~~ ~~<p>(The Chairman-Senator Parry)</p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~ <p>Question negatived.</p> <p>There is one further division that has been postponed. The question now is that amendment (12) on sheet 7118 moved by Senator Xenophon be agreed to.</p> <p>The committee divided [12:48]</p> ~~<p>(The Chairman-Senator Parry)</p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~ ~~<p>Question negatived.</p>~~ ~~<p>The question now is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.</p>~~ ~~<p>The committee divided. [12.52]</p>~~ ~~<p>(The Chairman-Senator Parry)</p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~ ~~<p>Question agreed to.</p>~~ ~~<p>Bills, as amended, agreed to.</p>~~ <p>Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 and Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011 reported with amendments; Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 reported without amendments. Report adopted.</p> The amendment would have added to the list of excluded offsets projects under the bill to include projects that were: * "established as, or as part of, a managed investment scheme; or" * "determined ... to have an adverse impact on: (i) the availability of water; or (ii) land and resource access for agricultural production".[1] The dispute surrounding these amendments is that they would require assessment on an individual basis, as opposed to the broader approach favoured by the Labor Government.[2] ''Background to the bills'' The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011] was introduced with two other bills to establish a voluntary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset carbon offset] scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.[3] Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. 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".[4] The objectives of this scheme 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.[5] ''References'' * [1] Read the entirety of the proposed amendments [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1 here]. * [2] See the debate on these amendments [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-22.2.2 here], after 10:22 am. * [3] The three related bills are the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011], 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]. * [4] Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest]. * [5] Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest].
senate vote 2011-08-22#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-01-24 11:47:38	Title ~~Bills — Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011, Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011; in Committee~~ Bills — Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011, Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011; In Committee Description ~~<p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p>~~ <p>The committee is considering the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011, as amended, and amendments (4) and (1) to (3) on sheet 7129 revised moved by Senator Xenophon, also on behalf of Senator Birmingham. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p>~~ <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p> <p>We can now return to the postponed divisions. The question is that Senator Xenophon's amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 7118 be agreed to.</p> <p>The committee divided [12:35]</p> <p>(The Chairman-Senator Parry)</p> <p></p> <p></p> <p>Question negatived.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p> <p>I move my amendment (7) on sheet 7118:</p> <p><i>(7) Clause 56, page 81 (line 28), omit paragraph (2)(a).</i></p> <p>The committee divided [12:39]</p> <p>(The Chairman-Senator Parry)</p> <p></p> <p></p> <p>Question negatived.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p> <p>The question is that Senator Xenophon's amendments (11R), (11A) and (11B) on sheet 7124 be agreed to.</p> <p>The committee divided. [12:43]</p> <p>(The Chairman-Senator Parry)</p> <p></p> <p></p> <p>Question negatived.</p> <p>There is one further division that has been postponed. The question now is that amendment (12) on sheet 7118 moved by Senator Xenophon be agreed to.</p> <p>The committee divided [12:48]</p> <p>(The Chairman-Senator Parry)</p> <p></p> <p></p> <p>Question negatived.</p> <p>The question now is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.</p> <p>The committee divided. [12.52]</p> <p>(The Chairman-Senator Parry)</p> <p></p> <p></p> <p>Question agreed to.</p> <p>Bills, as amended, agreed to.</p> <p>Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 and Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011 reported with amendments; Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 reported without amendments. Report adopted.</p> <p>I would like to hear from the government in relation to this but my understanding is that there have been extensive discussions between the government and the key stakeholders. There was a concern that early adopters for landfill management would be penalised. I am very grateful for the work of Senator Milne in bringing the parties together to reach a sensible compromise so that there will be certainty for early adopters. I have not had an opportunity to speak to my colleague Senator Birmingham, with whom I moved this amendment. If the government could indicate, firstly, that progress has been made and, secondly, that it is satisfactory to the two key stakeholders, LMS and EDL, that could be quite satisfactory. In the meantime, I am obligated to discuss this with my colleague Senator Birmingham.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>~~ <p>We are picking up from the debate on Friday in relation to this amendment for the landfill gas sector. I have done one better than to speak with Senator Xenophon. I have had the fortune this morning of speaking with Evelyn Ek from his office, who from time to time provides great guidance to many of us in this place on serious issues. Let us remind ourselves that this is an amendment which Senator Xenophon and the coalition have pursued to ensure the landfill gas sector is protected from any perverse or adverse outcomes under this legislation. It is a big issue. We are talking about more than 4,500 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent gases that were recovered or destroyed in 2009 from waste in landfills. Many of those projects could be at risk or at threat of discontinuance should we get this legislation wrong or should the government get the implementation of this legislation wrong. We want to make sure that that outcome is avoided.</p> <p>I join with Senator Xenophon in thanking Senator Milne for her initial support of the issues raised and ensuring that industry was able to engage in some discussions with the government. It is equally my understanding, having spoken to some of the industry players as well as Ms Ek, that the industry has had further discussions with government, that there is an agreed pathway forward for how the methodology and the time line will be developed and the base lines that will be considered as part of that process.</p> <p>We want as many guarantees and as much information on the record as the minister is able to provide as to what the guarantees provided to industry are. I posed some questions to the minister on Thursday about how he thought he could achieve the timing that Senator Milne had alluded to and that he had alluded to in the debate on Thursday. If he could for the benefit of the chamber and the record provide us with the detail of the time line for discussions with industry and finalisation of the methodology, the approach that is going to be applied to the base line in this regard and the government's understanding of what this will mean for the existing projects, that would certainly assist us in hopefully proceeding with this debate, dealing with this amendment and, most importantly, providing certainty for early adopters and early movers who have invested significantly and done so much to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas that comes off landfill gas facilities.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p>~~ <p>People have been very busy working on this issue over the ensuing period since we last met on Thursday. I think that all within the chamber see this as an important matter that does need to be resolved.</p> <p>From the government's perspective, we have released a revised draft methodology to the landfill technical working group that includes standardised baselines for GGAS and greenhouse-friendly landfill projects. Landfill companies have indicated that they support the proposed approach. That is what I indicated on Thursday—that is, going back and working through the draft methodologies and then going to the independent assessor, which, to all intents and purposes, we now refer to as DOIC, for those who are interested in acronyms. The government will continue to work with the industry to implement the methodology following its assessment by the DOIC.</p> <p>Let us be clear that what we now have is a draft methodology for the capture and combustion of methane in landfill gas, and the companies have indicated they support the proposed approach, which is to take the draft methodology, move it into assessment by the DOIC and, then, following that assessment, the independent assessor will make the decision in relation to it to establish those issues, including the baseline. So it effectively means that the integrity of the system is maintained and the legislation continues to provide a framework that has integrity that continues to deliver for all areas, including this one, which we have now proposed a way forward with.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>~~ <p>I thank the minister for the information and his response. Certainly, the landfill gas sector have said to me, and I am sure they have said it to Senator Xenophon as well, that they are eager to ensure that the integrity and equity of the system is maintained, as well. But they also want to make sure that there is as much certainty for them as possible.</p> <p>I pose two areas of questioning, first in relation to the draft methodology that is being finalised and will be presented to the DOIC. Is there an understanding of how that will approach the baseline figures and, if so, how is it going to approach those? Are you able to inform the chamber of that? If you are not able to inform the chamber perhaps you could tell us why you are unable to do so. Secondly—this is a matter I raised on Thursday—in regard to timing I understand that there is an expectation that the finalisation of the independent assessment should all be done within the space of about a month. I think you, Minister, alluded to that on Thursday. Is that your understanding? Perhaps to educate me, if not anybody else, could you inform the Senate how it is possible that that timeline is going to be met in such a short period of time. Is the DOIC already operational, notwithstanding the fact that it appears to have its rules and mandate laid out within this legislation? Is there a process already underway to ensure that those timelines to provide certainty can in fact be met?</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p>~~ <p>Dealing with the timeline, we do expect it to be dealt with in the one month. Why? Because the government has established an interim process—that is, the DOIC—that is in place. One of the issues you raised last Thursday was that you imagined—hypothetically—that it would take a lot longer. What I did not have an opportunity to tell you at the time was that there is in fact a DOIC in place. So, all of the work that you, hypothetically, envisaged had to be done is done. There is an interim DOIC in place and the draft methodology has been prepared and is ready for the interim DOIC to assess in a very short space of time. So all of that work is in train and can be done in a matter of a very short space of time—less than a month, I am advised, and probably sooner, depending of course on people's work commitments. But it is expected within that period and that is why we were confident in making that original assessment.</p> <p>The draft methodology includes a standardised baseline of 30 per cent of projects transitioning from GGAS and zero for projects transitioning from greenhouse-friendly. In addition to that the draft methodology contains the baselines for both GGAS and for greenhouse-friendly projects as well. This means it is now likely to go to the interim DOIC within the month. Therefore, depending on how long the interim DOIC takes, we do not expect it to take particularly long. We are confident that the landfill sector can have confidence in the process.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>~~ <p>I appreciate the minister's explanation and response to those two questions. I have one just one subsequent question that flows from the minister outlining the establishment of the interim DOIC and the manner in which the interim DOIC will work. When this legislation is enacted and the permanent DOIC is established, as against the interim DOIC, will that permanent body equally have to review all of the determinations of methodologies that the interim body has ticked off? If so, what guarantees are there for industries which think they have certainty once it has been ticked off by an interim body that the permanent body may not undo that? Is it expected that the memberships of the two will be consistent, or what guarantees are there? Obviously the minister is turning to a page of the bill which may well address that very question. Could the minister make sure for the benefit of completeness on the record and certainty for this industry sector, given the government's commitments, that this is dealt with as quickly as possibly—certainly in less than a month, which is important to the industry—so that the industry does not see serious negative financial consequences? What certainty or guarantee is there for them as this issue progresses beyond the interim stage and into the permanent stage?</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p>~~ <p>Yes, you have correctly identified the bill in my hand. At 131, 'Transitional—pre-commencement application for endorsement of proposal' the bill contemplated that there would be an interim DOIC in place and how we would then deal with transitional arrangements. Effectively that section means that a person applies to the interim offsets integrity committee for the endorsement of a proposal or a methodology determination and the committee either endorses the proposal or refuses to endorse the proposal—avoid doubt. Then 132 deals with pre-commencement endorsement of proposal and indicates how each is to be effectively dealt with. Then, as you are aware, the methodologies are disallowable instruments. So once they are set in train, the short answer is that they are flipped over into the new DOIC as methodologies that will be picked up—that is the easiest way to explain it. That allows all of that work to commence prior to the establishment of the permanent DOIC and to be utilised and continue in operation.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>~~ <p>Minister, thank you for humouring me and ensuring that all of that detail is clearly on the record. I want to indicate that, following discussions with Senator Xenophon, it is our intention to withdraw this amendment. Having spoken to the industry sectors involved and having got the information on the record from the minister this morning, we are of the belief that the government is intending to do the right thing by this industry. I want to make it clear once again that the last thing we want to see is a perverse outcome where projects that were early movers in the abatement of greenhouse gas emissions are somehow penalised, where projects that were early movers are facing a situation of financial disadvantage or where projects that were early movers in fact close down and we have the perverse situation that a bill designed to encourage further abatement and new abatement activities has the consequence of causing early abatement activities to cease to operate.</p> <p>The industry is taking the government at their word that this process will avoid that outcome and will provide appropriate certainty for the sector. I hope that is the case. We are placing that trust in the government rather than the chamber seeking to exercise its will. We are placing that trust in the process of this legislation. We hope that that trust is not ultimately proven to be misplaced. Once again, we emphasise that this was an issue highlighted by the Senate inquiry. It is a shame that it has taken until this last moment of the legislative debate to solidify a pathway forward on it to ensure that there is some level of certainty for the sector. Hopefully, this is the end of the uncertainty and that they are able to proceed within the month knowing exactly where they stand. Hopefully, that will ensure that the projects, especially the many regional projects in the landfill gas sector, are able to continue and to be supported by this scheme, just as they were previously under a greenhouse-friendly arrangement or the New South Wales government's GGAS scheme.</p> <p>I again place on the record my thanks to Senator Xenophon for his work with the coalition on this matter, to industry for making sure that we all had this matter brought to our attention and to the Greens and the government for trying to come up with an appropriate resolution. We hope that this resolution sticks and works for the benefit of industry. We will certainly be watching very closely from here.</p> ~~<p>I seek leave to withdraw the amendments.</p>~~ ~~<p>Leave granted.</p>~~ ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

Change

Division

senate vote 2011-08-22#1

Edited by Henare Degan

on 2014-10-10 15:41:05

Title

Description

The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1) introduced by Independent Senator [Nick Xenophon](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nick_Xenophon&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means that they were unsuccessful.
~~The amendment would have added to the list of excluded offsets projects under the bill to include projects that were:~~
~~- "established as, or as part of, a [managed investment scheme](http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Managed+investment+schemes?openDocument); or"~~
- "determined ... to have an adverse impact on: (i) the availability of water; or (ii) land and resource access for agricultural production".(Read the entirety of the proposed amendments [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1).
)
The dispute surrounding these amendments is that they would require assessment on an individual basis, as opposed to the broader approach favoured by the Labor Government.(See the debate on these amendments [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-22.2.2), after 10:22 am. )
~~_Background to the bills_~~
The [Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22) was introduced with two other bills to establish a voluntary [carbon offset](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset) scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.(The three related bills are the [Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22), the [Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4535) and the [Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4534). ) Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. The Initiative will be "a voluntary scheme that aims to provide incentives for the agricultural and forestry sectors to minimise [carbon emissions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions) or maximise [carbon sequestration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration) by altering their [forestry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry) and [agricultural](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture) practices".(Read more in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005). ) The objectives of this scheme are:
- to implement certain commitments Australia has under the [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change) (UNFCCC) and the [Kyoto Protocol](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol) to it
~~- to create incentives for carbon-abatement projects~~
This division relates to the Policy _[For carbon farming](/policies/33)_.
The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1) introduced by Independent Senator [Nick Xenophon](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nick_Xenophon&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means that they were unsuccessful.
The amendment would have added to the list of excluded offsets projects under the bill to include projects that were:
- "established as, or as part of, a [managed investment scheme](http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Managed+investment+schemes?openDocument); or"
- "determined ... to have an adverse impact on: (i) the availability of water; or (ii) land and resource access for agricultural production".(Read the entirety of the proposed amendments [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1).
)
The dispute surrounding these amendments is that they would require assessment on an individual basis, as opposed to the broader approach favoured by the Labor Government.(See the debate on these amendments [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-22.2.2), after 10:22 am. )
_Background to the bills_
The [Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22) was introduced with two other bills to establish a voluntary [carbon offset](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset) scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.(The three related bills are the [Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22), the [Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4535) and the [Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4534). ) Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. The Initiative will be "a voluntary scheme that aims to provide incentives for the agricultural and forestry sectors to minimise [carbon emissions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions) or maximise [carbon sequestration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration) by altering their [forestry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry) and [agricultural](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture) practices".(Read more in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005). ) The objectives of this scheme are:
- to implement certain commitments Australia has under the [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change) (UNFCCC) and the [Kyoto Protocol](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 [climate change](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change) impacts.(Read more in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005).)

senate vote 2011-08-22#1

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:20:29

Title

Description

The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1 amendments] introduced by Independent Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nick_Xenophon&mpc=Senate&house=senate Nick Xenophon], which means that they were unsuccessful.
~~The amendment would have added to the list of excluded offsets projects under the bill to include projects that were:~~
* "established as, or as part of, a [http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Managed+investment+schemes?openDocument managed investment scheme]; or"
* "determined ... to have an adverse impact on: (i) the availability of water; or (ii) land and resource access for agricultural production".(Read the entirety of the proposed amendments [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1 here]. )
The dispute surrounding these amendments is that they would require assessment on an individual basis, as opposed to the broader approach favoured by the Labor Government.(See the debate on these amendments [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-22.2.2 here], after 10:22 am. )
~~''Background to the bills''~~
The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011] was introduced with two other bills to establish a voluntary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset carbon offset] scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.(The three related bills are the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011], 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]. ) Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. 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".(Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest]. ) The objectives of this scheme 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.(Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest].)
The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1) introduced by Independent Senator [Nick Xenophon](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nick_Xenophon&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means that they were unsuccessful.
The amendment would have added to the list of excluded offsets projects under the bill to include projects that were:
- "established as, or as part of, a [managed investment scheme](http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Managed+investment+schemes?openDocument); or"
- "determined ... to have an adverse impact on: (i) the availability of water; or (ii) land and resource access for agricultural production".(Read the entirety of the proposed amendments [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1).
)
The dispute surrounding these amendments is that they would require assessment on an individual basis, as opposed to the broader approach favoured by the Labor Government.(See the debate on these amendments [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-22.2.2), after 10:22 am. )
_Background to the bills_
The [Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22) was introduced with two other bills to establish a voluntary [carbon offset](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset) scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.(The three related bills are the [Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22), the [Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4535) and the [Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4534). ) Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. The Initiative will be "a voluntary scheme that aims to provide incentives for the agricultural and forestry sectors to minimise [carbon emissions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions) or maximise [carbon sequestration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration) by altering their [forestry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry) and [agricultural](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture) practices".(Read more in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005). ) The objectives of this scheme are:
- to implement certain commitments Australia has under the [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change) (UNFCCC) and the [Kyoto Protocol](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 [climate change](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change) impacts.(Read more in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005).)

senate vote 2011-08-22#1

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:41

Title

Description

The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1 amendments] introduced by Independent Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nick_Xenophon&mpc=Senate&house=senate Nick Xenophon], which means that they were unsuccessful.
The amendment would have added to the list of excluded offsets projects under the bill to include projects that were:
* "established as, or as part of, a [http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Managed+investment+schemes?openDocument managed investment scheme]; or"
* "determined ... to have an adverse impact on: (i) the availability of water; or (ii) land and resource access for agricultural production".[1]
* "determined ... to have an adverse impact on: (i) the availability of water; or (ii) land and resource access for agricultural production".(Read the entirety of the proposed amendments [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1 here]. )
~~The dispute surrounding these amendments is that they would require assessment on an individual basis, as opposed to the broader approach favoured by the Labor Government.[2]~~
The dispute surrounding these amendments is that they would require assessment on an individual basis, as opposed to the broader approach favoured by the Labor Government.(See the debate on these amendments [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-22.2.2 here], after 10:22 am. )
''Background to the bills''
The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011] was introduced with two other bills to establish a voluntary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset carbon offset] scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.[3] Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. 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".[4] The objectives of this scheme are:
The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011] was introduced with two other bills to establish a voluntary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset carbon offset] scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.(The three related bills are the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011], 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]. ) Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. 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".(Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest]. ) The objectives of this scheme 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.[5]
* 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.(Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest].)
~~''References''~~
* [1] Read the entirety of the proposed amendments [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1 here].
* [2] See the debate on these amendments [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-22.2.2 here], after 10:22 am.
* [3] The three related bills are the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011], 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].
* [4] Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest].
* [5] Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest].

senate vote 2011-08-22#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-07-18 10:09:21

Title

~~Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 - In Committee - Excluded offsets projects~~
Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 — In Committee — Excluded offsets projects

Description

The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1 amendments] introduced by Independent Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nick_Xenophon&mpc=Senate&house=senate Nick Xenophon], which means that they were unsuccessful.
The amendment would have added to the list of excluded offsets projects under the bill to include projects that were:
* "established as, or as part of, a managed investment scheme; or"
* "established as, or as part of, a [http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Managed+investment+schemes?openDocument managed investment scheme]; or"
* "determined ... to have an adverse impact on: (i) the availability of water; or (ii) land and resource access for agricultural production".[1]
The dispute surrounding these amendments is that they would require assessment on an individual basis, as opposed to the broader approach favoured by the Labor Government.[2]
''Background to the bills''
The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011] was introduced with two other bills to establish a voluntary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset carbon offset] scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.[3] Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. 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".[4] The objectives of this scheme 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.[5]
''References''
* [1] Read the entirety of the proposed amendments [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1 here].
* [2] See the debate on these amendments [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-22.2.2 here], after 10:22 am.
* [3] The three related bills are the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011], 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].
* [4] Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest].
* [5] Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest].
* [5] Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest].

senate vote 2011-08-22#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-07-18 10:07:34

Title

Bills — Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011, Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011; In Committee
Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 - In Committee - Excluded offsets projects

Description

The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1 amendments] introduced by Independent Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nick_Xenophon&mpc=Senate&house=senate Nick Xenophon], which means that they were unsuccessful.
~~Stephen Parry~~
~~We can now return to the postponed divisions. The question is that Senator Xenophon's amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 7118 be agreed to.~~
~~The committee divided [12:35]~~
~~(The Chairman-Senator Parry)~~
~~~~
~~~~
~~Question negatived.~~
~~Nick Xenophon~~
I move my amendment (7) on sheet 7118:
~~(7) Clause 56, page 81 (line 28), omit paragraph (2)(a).~~
~~The committee divided [12:39]~~
~~(The Chairman-Senator Parry)~~
~~~~
~~~~
Question negatived.
~~Stephen Parry~~
The question is that Senator Xenophon's amendments (11R), (11A) and (11B) on sheet 7124 be agreed to.
~~The committee divided. [12:43]~~
~~(The Chairman-Senator Parry)~~
~~~~
~~~~
Question negatived.
There is one further division that has been postponed. The question now is that amendment (12) on sheet 7118 moved by Senator Xenophon be agreed to.
The committee divided [12:48]
~~(The Chairman-Senator Parry)~~
~~~~
~~~~
~~Question negatived.~~
~~The question now is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.~~
~~The committee divided. [12.52]~~
~~(The Chairman-Senator Parry)~~
~~~~
~~~~
~~Question agreed to.~~
~~Bills, as amended, agreed to.~~
Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 and Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011 reported with amendments; Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 reported without amendments. Report adopted.
The amendment would have added to the list of excluded offsets projects under the bill to include projects that were:
* "established as, or as part of, a managed investment scheme; or"
* "determined ... to have an adverse impact on: (i) the availability of water; or (ii) land and resource access for agricultural production".[1]
The dispute surrounding these amendments is that they would require assessment on an individual basis, as opposed to the broader approach favoured by the Labor Government.[2]
''Background to the bills''
The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011] was introduced with two other bills to establish a voluntary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset carbon offset] scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.[3] Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. 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".[4] The objectives of this scheme 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.[5]
''References''
* [1] Read the entirety of the proposed amendments [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-22.12.1 here].
* [2] See the debate on these amendments [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-22.2.2 here], after 10:22 am.
* [3] The three related bills are the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011], 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].
* [4] Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest].
* [5] Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest].

senate vote 2011-08-22#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-01-24 11:47:38

Title

~~Bills — Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011, Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011; in Committee~~
Bills — Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011, Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011; In Committee

Description

~~Stephen Parry~~
The committee is considering the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011, as amended, and amendments (4) and (1) to (3) on sheet 7129 revised moved by Senator Xenophon, also on behalf of Senator Birmingham. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
~~Nick Xenophon~~
Stephen Parry
We can now return to the postponed divisions. The question is that Senator Xenophon's amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 7118 be agreed to.
The committee divided [12:35]
(The Chairman-Senator Parry)


Question negatived.
Nick Xenophon
I move my amendment (7) on sheet 7118:
(7) Clause 56, page 81 (line 28), omit paragraph (2)(a).
The committee divided [12:39]
(The Chairman-Senator Parry)


Question negatived.
Stephen Parry
The question is that Senator Xenophon's amendments (11R), (11A) and (11B) on sheet 7124 be agreed to.
The committee divided. [12:43]
(The Chairman-Senator Parry)


Question negatived.
There is one further division that has been postponed. The question now is that amendment (12) on sheet 7118 moved by Senator Xenophon be agreed to.
The committee divided [12:48]
(The Chairman-Senator Parry)


Question negatived.
The question now is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.
The committee divided. [12.52]
(The Chairman-Senator Parry)


Question agreed to.
Bills, as amended, agreed to.
Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 and Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011 reported with amendments; Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 reported without amendments. Report adopted.
I would like to hear from the government in relation to this but my understanding is that there have been extensive discussions between the government and the key stakeholders. There was a concern that early adopters for landfill management would be penalised. I am very grateful for the work of Senator Milne in bringing the parties together to reach a sensible compromise so that there will be certainty for early adopters. I have not had an opportunity to speak to my colleague Senator Birmingham, with whom I moved this amendment. If the government could indicate, firstly, that progress has been made and, secondly, that it is satisfactory to the two key stakeholders, LMS and EDL, that could be quite satisfactory. In the meantime, I am obligated to discuss this with my colleague Senator Birmingham.
~~Simon Birmingham~~
We are picking up from the debate on Friday in relation to this amendment for the landfill gas sector. I have done one better than to speak with Senator Xenophon. I have had the fortune this morning of speaking with Evelyn Ek from his office, who from time to time provides great guidance to many of us in this place on serious issues. Let us remind ourselves that this is an amendment which Senator Xenophon and the coalition have pursued to ensure the landfill gas sector is protected from any perverse or adverse outcomes under this legislation. It is a big issue. We are talking about more than 4,500 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent gases that were recovered or destroyed in 2009 from waste in landfills. Many of those projects could be at risk or at threat of discontinuance should we get this legislation wrong or should the government get the implementation of this legislation wrong. We want to make sure that that outcome is avoided.
I join with Senator Xenophon in thanking Senator Milne for her initial support of the issues raised and ensuring that industry was able to engage in some discussions with the government. It is equally my understanding, having spoken to some of the industry players as well as Ms Ek, that the industry has had further discussions with government, that there is an agreed pathway forward for how the methodology and the time line will be developed and the base lines that will be considered as part of that process.
We want as many guarantees and as much information on the record as the minister is able to provide as to what the guarantees provided to industry are. I posed some questions to the minister on Thursday about how he thought he could achieve the timing that Senator Milne had alluded to and that he had alluded to in the debate on Thursday. If he could for the benefit of the chamber and the record provide us with the detail of the time line for discussions with industry and finalisation of the methodology, the approach that is going to be applied to the base line in this regard and the government's understanding of what this will mean for the existing projects, that would certainly assist us in hopefully proceeding with this debate, dealing with this amendment and, most importantly, providing certainty for early adopters and early movers who have invested significantly and done so much to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas that comes off landfill gas facilities.
~~Joe Ludwig~~
People have been very busy working on this issue over the ensuing period since we last met on Thursday. I think that all within the chamber see this as an important matter that does need to be resolved.
From the government's perspective, we have released a revised draft methodology to the landfill technical working group that includes standardised baselines for GGAS and greenhouse-friendly landfill projects. Landfill companies have indicated that they support the proposed approach. That is what I indicated on Thursday—that is, going back and working through the draft methodologies and then going to the independent assessor, which, to all intents and purposes, we now refer to as DOIC, for those who are interested in acronyms. The government will continue to work with the industry to implement the methodology following its assessment by the DOIC.
Let us be clear that what we now have is a draft methodology for the capture and combustion of methane in landfill gas, and the companies have indicated they support the proposed approach, which is to take the draft methodology, move it into assessment by the DOIC and, then, following that assessment, the independent assessor will make the decision in relation to it to establish those issues, including the baseline. So it effectively means that the integrity of the system is maintained and the legislation continues to provide a framework that has integrity that continues to deliver for all areas, including this one, which we have now proposed a way forward with.
~~Simon Birmingham~~
I thank the minister for the information and his response. Certainly, the landfill gas sector have said to me, and I am sure they have said it to Senator Xenophon as well, that they are eager to ensure that the integrity and equity of the system is maintained, as well. But they also want to make sure that there is as much certainty for them as possible.
I pose two areas of questioning, first in relation to the draft methodology that is being finalised and will be presented to the DOIC. Is there an understanding of how that will approach the baseline figures and, if so, how is it going to approach those? Are you able to inform the chamber of that? If you are not able to inform the chamber perhaps you could tell us why you are unable to do so. Secondly—this is a matter I raised on Thursday—in regard to timing I understand that there is an expectation that the finalisation of the independent assessment should all be done within the space of about a month. I think you, Minister, alluded to that on Thursday. Is that your understanding? Perhaps to educate me, if not anybody else, could you inform the Senate how it is possible that that timeline is going to be met in such a short period of time. Is the DOIC already operational, notwithstanding the fact that it appears to have its rules and mandate laid out within this legislation? Is there a process already underway to ensure that those timelines to provide certainty can in fact be met?
~~Joe Ludwig~~
Dealing with the timeline, we do expect it to be dealt with in the one month. Why? Because the government has established an interim process—that is, the DOIC—that is in place. One of the issues you raised last Thursday was that you imagined—hypothetically—that it would take a lot longer. What I did not have an opportunity to tell you at the time was that there is in fact a DOIC in place. So, all of the work that you, hypothetically, envisaged had to be done is done. There is an interim DOIC in place and the draft methodology has been prepared and is ready for the interim DOIC to assess in a very short space of time. So all of that work is in train and can be done in a matter of a very short space of time—less than a month, I am advised, and probably sooner, depending of course on people's work commitments. But it is expected within that period and that is why we were confident in making that original assessment.
The draft methodology includes a standardised baseline of 30 per cent of projects transitioning from GGAS and zero for projects transitioning from greenhouse-friendly. In addition to that the draft methodology contains the baselines for both GGAS and for greenhouse-friendly projects as well. This means it is now likely to go to the interim DOIC within the month. Therefore, depending on how long the interim DOIC takes, we do not expect it to take particularly long. We are confident that the landfill sector can have confidence in the process.
~~Simon Birmingham~~
I appreciate the minister's explanation and response to those two questions. I have one just one subsequent question that flows from the minister outlining the establishment of the interim DOIC and the manner in which the interim DOIC will work. When this legislation is enacted and the permanent DOIC is established, as against the interim DOIC, will that permanent body equally have to review all of the determinations of methodologies that the interim body has ticked off? If so, what guarantees are there for industries which think they have certainty once it has been ticked off by an interim body that the permanent body may not undo that? Is it expected that the memberships of the two will be consistent, or what guarantees are there? Obviously the minister is turning to a page of the bill which may well address that very question. Could the minister make sure for the benefit of completeness on the record and certainty for this industry sector, given the government's commitments, that this is dealt with as quickly as possibly—certainly in less than a month, which is important to the industry—so that the industry does not see serious negative financial consequences? What certainty or guarantee is there for them as this issue progresses beyond the interim stage and into the permanent stage?
~~Joe Ludwig~~
Yes, you have correctly identified the bill in my hand. At 131, 'Transitional—pre-commencement application for endorsement of proposal' the bill contemplated that there would be an interim DOIC in place and how we would then deal with transitional arrangements. Effectively that section means that a person applies to the interim offsets integrity committee for the endorsement of a proposal or a methodology determination and the committee either endorses the proposal or refuses to endorse the proposal—avoid doubt. Then 132 deals with pre-commencement endorsement of proposal and indicates how each is to be effectively dealt with. Then, as you are aware, the methodologies are disallowable instruments. So once they are set in train, the short answer is that they are flipped over into the new DOIC as methodologies that will be picked up—that is the easiest way to explain it. That allows all of that work to commence prior to the establishment of the permanent DOIC and to be utilised and continue in operation.
~~Simon Birmingham~~
Minister, thank you for humouring me and ensuring that all of that detail is clearly on the record. I want to indicate that, following discussions with Senator Xenophon, it is our intention to withdraw this amendment. Having spoken to the industry sectors involved and having got the information on the record from the minister this morning, we are of the belief that the government is intending to do the right thing by this industry. I want to make it clear once again that the last thing we want to see is a perverse outcome where projects that were early movers in the abatement of greenhouse gas emissions are somehow penalised, where projects that were early movers are facing a situation of financial disadvantage or where projects that were early movers in fact close down and we have the perverse situation that a bill designed to encourage further abatement and new abatement activities has the consequence of causing early abatement activities to cease to operate.
The industry is taking the government at their word that this process will avoid that outcome and will provide appropriate certainty for the sector. I hope that is the case. We are placing that trust in the government rather than the chamber seeking to exercise its will. We are placing that trust in the process of this legislation. We hope that that trust is not ultimately proven to be misplaced. Once again, we emphasise that this was an issue highlighted by the Senate inquiry. It is a shame that it has taken until this last moment of the legislative debate to solidify a pathway forward on it to ensure that there is some level of certainty for the sector. Hopefully, this is the end of the uncertainty and that they are able to proceed within the month knowing exactly where they stand. Hopefully, that will ensure that the projects, especially the many regional projects in the landfill gas sector, are able to continue and to be supported by this scheme, just as they were previously under a greenhouse-friendly arrangement or the New South Wales government's GGAS scheme.
I again place on the record my thanks to Senator Xenophon for his work with the coalition on this matter, to industry for making sure that we all had this matter brought to our attention and to the Greens and the government for trying to come up with an appropriate resolution. We hope that this resolution sticks and works for the benefit of industry. We will certainly be watching very closely from here.
~~I seek leave to withdraw the amendments.~~
~~Leave granted.~~
~~Long debate text truncated.~~