As we say a sad farewell to Kerry Nettle and the Democrats (you can read Bob’s valedictory speech to the Dems here and we’ll post Kerry’s soon - here), we saw a fascinating signpost today to the interesting place that the new Senate will be when we come back from winter recess in late August.
Christine has been working on amendments to legislation establishing a massive tax rorts for plantation investors - another Managed Investment Scheme mess - in the guise of establishing ‘carbon sink forests’. You can read more about the whole messy saga in this release from today, and I will post the Hansard transcripts as soon as I can - I promise you they make for very interesting reading. It’s been one of the best debates the Senate has seen since I’ve arrived.
But in the mean time, check out the video below of the joint press conference we called today with Christine, Bob, Barnaby Joyce and Bill Heffernan. Ron Boswell was supposed to come, but didn’t make it.
Sad to say, when push came to shove, the Nationals and Heffo decided to quietly leave the room and abstain from the vote altogether instead of standing up with us to be counted. More on that in the morning, but enjoy the vid - sorry about the quality…
UPDATE - Transcripts
The Senate debate is so big it’s best to go straight to source. For the initial debate on Tuesday night, go to Tuesday’s Hansard here and see Christine’s speech starting at page 64 and then the full debate from page 75 to 89.
Wednesday’s Hansard is here, and the debate runs from page 40 to 51.
Thursday’s Hansard is here, and the debate - featuring Ron Boswell tremulously saying that he agrees with everything the greens have said, runs from page 43 to 49, page 59 to 61, and, finally, page 77 to 85.
Page numbers refer to the pdf doc page numbers, not the Hansard ones.
Christine Milne makes a very good point that forest plantations are not suitable for marginal land. We need to reduce emissions from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) from avoided deforestation and environmentally appropriate afforestation and reforestation, rather than monoculture tree plantations. Environmentally appropriate afforestation and reforestation would include a variety of locally indigenous species, and is sometimes known as biodiversity plantings.
The problem is that it is harder to estimate the amount of carbon that would be sequestered in biodiversity plantings than it is to estimate the amount of carbon sequestered in a monoculture tree plantations. Part of this problem is that there are not enough biodiversity plantings around in which the carbon sequestered has been measured. Its a bit of a chicken and egg problem. Uncertainties in measurement of LULUCF emissions may make it difficult to include in an emissions trading scheme. There is also the related issue of emissions from old growth logging not being included in Australia’s greenhouse accounts because apparently there is no ‘land use change’.
One solution would be to spend a portion of the money raised from auctioning permits in an emissions trading scheme on biodiversity plantings and avoided deforestation. Another solution would be to have a separate price-based market (i.e a carbon tax) on LULUCF emissions. Sequestering carbon would attract a negative tax. It would also be possible to have a price based market that reflects the other important externality, the impact of land use practices on habitat and biodiversity.
Interesting to see how at times the Cross party support on some issues shines through. It is rare indeed. I think we will see more of this as the Rudd government loses its way and cant control the “Elephants in the room” with its policy gaffs. Lets hope the Greens make a real difference now we have a few more Senators.