Senator BIRMINGHAM: (South Australia) (10:03): 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.

(10:09): 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.

(10:14): 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? 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.

(10:17): 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.

(10:34): In the earlier debate on this amendment before we postponed it, I indicated that the opposition is sympathetic to the issues that Senator Xenophon is attempting to address with this amendment and that we are inclined to support this amendment. That position has not changed in the days that have followed or as a result of the advice that the minister has given. I understand the point the minister is attempting to make in terms of the differentiation between kinds or types of projects and broad criteria and the potential of this amendment to capture and require analysis of specific projects. However, the types of projects that are likely to flow from this bill are of course going to have very specific effects and impacts in very different areas as they are applied right across the country, especially when it comes to water availability or agricultural production. We spent quite a period of time debating another amendment that had been championed by the opposition in relation to providing some security over land access for agricultural production. We think that in this regard it is important that we do not allow a system where loopholes in broader regulations can be exploited by specific projects. Whether they are exploited deliberately or otherwise, the potential is there for these specific projects to potentially have an adverse impact on water or agricultural production even under the type of regulations that the government is proposing under the existing section. Indeed, we have seen it in those draft regulations and in the earlier debates on the amendment about land access for agricultural production. I expressed quite strongly and passionately at that stage the concern that the government appeared to be treating land access for agricultural production as a side issue. The government appeared to not take into account the amendment that has now been made to insert new subclause 56(2)(e) to provide for consideration of land access for agricultural production. The government appeared to have no intention to revise the regulations relating to the negative list to reflect any guidelines in that regard.

I understand that there are challenges in preparing guidelines for that such as: what is your prime agricultural land and how do you go about defining it? These are issues the minister has to tackle in a number of different areas. But in this regard we think there is value in Senator Xenophon's amendments, which provide the potential for some case-by-case scrutiny and provide the potential for projects that may sneak through the types of project regulations to be addressed under a specific project-by-project regulatory approach.

To that end, we are supportive of these amendments. They may not be perfect. The challenge with any legislation is whether or not we can make it perfect. However, as is so often the case—and will probably be the case with this bill—I am sure that, whether this amendment passes or otherwise, the bill will be back before us in a year or two so we can tidy up things that have problems in the way they operate. If this clause were to have such problems then I am sure it will be addressed equally. It is possible that by not passing this clause, we will find in a couple of years that we are back, perhaps inserting something like this to provide greater discretion and greater powers to the minister to disallow certain projects or put them on the negative list.

I think it is important for the government to take this matter seriously. As I said, I understand the arguments the minister has made. But we think, as Senator Xenophon has outlined, that there is a continuing risk at the end of this process that if the bill passes in its current form we may see projects proceed that have an adverse impact on water availability, or we may see projects proceed that have an adverse impact on agricultural production. They may be one-off projects, but those one-offs add up to create a problem. It is that type of adverse impact and inadvertent consequence of a bill like this that we want to make sure is avoided. That is why we are inclined to support and will be supporting these amendments.

We urge the government, if these amendments fail, to once again take a good look at the regulations it is proposing, to once again take a good look at that draft and, particularly, to once again revise that draft with regard to the new clause, 56(2)(e), which was inserted the other day; it does at least provide for some consideration of any adverse impact in regard to land access for agricultural production. I urge the government to take a look at that again and be particularly mindful of what the stakeholders have to say during consultation on this. I am accepting the likely political reality that this amendment will fail, but I hope the government at least takes into consideration the principles that this amendment is seeking to pursue. If it will not do that, then I urge the government to make the regulations for the negative list as tough and as stringent as possible. That is what is absolutely important—to make sure that the credibility of this system and the credibility of the assurances the government has given to farmers and to all those stakeholders in the industry stack up and are seen through. With that, I again thank Senator Xenophon for proposing these amendments and once again indicate the opposition's intention to support them.

 (11:01): Thank you, Acting Temporary Chairman. I am not sure I have had the pleasure of noticing you in the chair before. It will be a great temptation to many people in this place to test the will of the chair, I suspect, whilst you are there. But I will not be one of those. I congratulate you on your ascendancy to this very significant office.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:  this will be more a pleasure than a test.

I am sure that it will at times be both and that you will exercise the office with the aplomb to which we are so accustomed. In regard to this amendment moved by Senator Xenophon to the reporting requirements within this bill, the opposition are not inclined to support this particular amendment. I think we probably share some of the concerns that the minister has just outlined. In regard to the eligible offset projects that we are talking about, a period of reporting for them of between 12 months and five years is probably an appropriate time line. Whilst five years has the potential to be a long period of time, equally, in regard to the establishment of and the progress of these sorts of projects, it is not necessarily an inordinate period of time. It is going to be a matter of balance. Different projects will have different time lines which it will be most appropriate for them to meet, but obviously where it is possible and sensible for projects to meet a five-year time line then that is probably wise. The well-established projects may need fairly minimal work to make their reports. It is going to be argued in either direction whether they should report more often or less often, but well-established projects probably need less oversight and checking once they are well established and their credentials have been acknowledged. So we think that shortening, in a sense, the mandatory reporting period to less than three years would not aid the efficient running and efficient management of this scheme and as a result we would join with the government in thinking that the five-year time line is appropriate to maintain.

If I am correct in what I think I heard the minister say, he indicated that the Climate Change Authority will be tasked with undertaking this review and that that was the intention of the government. The minister is nodding, so I take it that I did hear him correctly. I appreciate the minister telling us who the government intends to undertake this review; of course that is not stipulated in the bill. But of greater concern is that the Climate Change Authority does not at present exist. The structure of it is not at present known; exactly what its powers, remit, skills et cetera will be are not currently clear. The CSIRO, from a scientific standpoint, and the Productivity Commission, from a regulatory and economic standpoint, have proven track records. They have known skills and a clear ability in working together to undertake a review of a scheme such as this one. That will require a mix of scientific understanding and an appreciation of best practice and lowest cost regulation, which the Productivity Commission of course has.

(11:06): Obviously, we are in great agreement. Unlike other occasions when the minister has said we are in agreement on a principle or on a subject of debate, on this occasion I think we are also in agreement on the direction that the debate should actually take and the final vote that should be applied. The opposition thanks Senator Xenophon for moving this amendment. We concur with the arguments that he has put in regard to providing further transparency to the process and the assessment and recognition of offset entities and, in particular, to the work of the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee. We hope that this amendment will provide not just further transparency but also the further benefits of confidence, being that of those who participate in this scheme, and certainty as to the way that the DOIC works and undertakes its considerations. (12:02): The opposition does support Senator Xenophon's amendment. We think it is important that there be appropriate organisations tasked with undertaking this review. I have listened to the minister carefully, and he has said that Senator Xenophon's amendment does not provide for what the terms of reference are or how the review would be undertaken. Of course we need to understand that Senator Xenophon's amendment to mandate that the review be undertaken jointly by the CSIRO and the Productivity Commission does not stand in isolation; it is an amendment to the existing clause 306 of the bill. The government themselves are proposing that this review occur and that it be a review into the operation of the act and the regulations and other instruments made under the act. They have already set out to some extent the broad framework of what the review would be expected to do. They have set out that there will be public consultation, they have set out that there will be a report and they have, thankfully, set out that that report will be made public and tabled in the parliament. They have set out the time lines for the review, which is the subject of subsequent amendments, and of course they have set out that there will be further reviews. So they have set out almost everything in relation to this review process except who is to undertake it.

The minister was critical that the amendment does not specify how the two are to undertake it together. I would have thought that they are grown-up organisations and that, just as at present, it is open for the minister of the day to stipulate someone to undertake the review. Under the current framework of the bill, the minister of the day could ask Mickey Mouse to undertake the review and that would comply with the bill. He has indicated that it will be the as yet unestablished Climate Change Authority that will undertake the review. Were the Climate Change Authority to have been in operation for a period of time, or were it in fact to be in operation full stop, we might be comforted by that information. But I am not comforted by the information when I do not know fully how that authority is going to work. Its establishment is probably to be the subject of future debate by this place, unless it is to be established purely under the executive powers of government.

We know CSIRO and the Productivity Commission have independence; we know they have integrity; we know they have capability; we know they have experience; we know they have the skills; we know that we can have confidence in the work that they produce. They are the sensible bodies to look at something as complex as this scheme and to provide sound advice on how it will operate in the future and on how this parliament may wish to consider improving it in the future to get the type of outcomes to which we all aspire.

With all of that, the opposition is strongly supportive of Senator Xenophon's amendment here, and we would hope that the government might reconsider or, if not, that the Greens might see some benefit in these proven expert bodies being tasked to undertake this very important function and review.

(11:12): As Senator Xenophon has rightly highlighted, this issue was considered in some depth by the Senate committee inquiry into this legislation, an inquiry which you Mr Temporary Chairman Cameron chaired. So you would well recall the bipartisan recommendation that the government continue to monitor scientific research relevant to the issue of permanence and adjust permanence obligations in the CFI to reflect international consensus on this matter.

The bill does put in place a basic permanence obligation regarding the maintenance of carbon stores where credits have been issued. That is an important feature of the bill. There needs to be some certainty in this regard. However, as Senator Xenophon has highlighted, a number of submitters were critical of the 100-year permanence obligations and the impact that would have on the scheme. Senator Xenophon highlighted the evidence of one of the submitters to the inquiry. There were others. Ausveg in their submission made a very strong appeal on what the impact of this 100 year requirement may be. They indicated in the extract from their submission that appears in the Senate inquiry report:

… it would take a very brave farmer to agree to 100 year permanent arrangements in which they (and their children and grandchildren) will be held accountable for "natural disturbances such as drought that may cause carbon to be released from the soil".

Equally, placing all risk and costs as the growers' responsibility for "bushfire … drought, or actions by neighbours, or third-parties" belies the Government's own commitments to meeting its Kyoto obligations.

Given these serious challenges and immense uncertainty of carbon markets, it is quite unrealistic to expect vegetable and potato growers to sign 100 years commitments (with the threat of civil and criminal prosecution), undertake major investments, and change generational farming practices without any firm guarantees on the price they will be paid.

Those types of concerns are the concerns which are likely to manifest themselves and potentially make this legislation ineffectual in terms of its uptake. It is not just the farming or agricultural groups who have highlighted their concerns about this. It is not just the industry bodies; the committee also highlighted the evidence of the Climate Institute. The committee report stated that the Climate Institute agreed that the 100-year permanence provision was:

… likely to be perceived by many landholders as a substantial, even insurmountable barrier to participation in the scheme.

For these reasons, the opposition will be supporting Senator Xenophon's amendments, which put in place obligations on the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee to monitor scientific research relevant to the issue of permanence and to advise the minister about best evidence in relation to permanence. We think that is an appropriate course of action which will hopefully provide some continual evaluation of this issue.

Importantly, as he so often does, Senator Xenophon has provided a transparency provision in this regard as well, a provision which requires that advice provided to the minister by the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee on this matter of permanence must be published on the department's website so that it can be scrutinised, assessed and debated. I would expect there to be a feedback loop—that, once such scientific assessment and evaluation undertaken by the DOIC is published on the website, scientists and other experts will scrutinise the findings of the DOIC and provide further feedback to it, informing the DOIC's further deliberations on this issue. For these reasons, the opposition will be supporting Senator Xenophon's amendments and we hope that other parties within the chamber will do likewise.

(11:42): I want to address some of the contributions made so far to the debate on this amendment. I thank Senator Macdonald for a valuable contribution that has highlighted not just the importance of this amendment but some of the broader issues around the continual scrutiny and analysis of science in this debate. Senator Milne, in outlining hers and the Green's opposition to this amendment, was emphatic that we must keep the 100-year benchmark. Nothing about this amendment, in and of itself, seeks to step away from 100 years. Nothing suggests that 100 years, as the time line for permanence under the carbon farming scheme, will not be the ongoing figure. All it does is say that, if relevant international scientific research suggests that a different approach to permanence is warranted, that research should be brought to the attention of the minister and should be published on the department's website. It is a pretty straightforward amendment in that regard. It is not, in fact, an amendment—even were the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee to find that there is overwhelming scientific research that would warrant a change in the definition—that does not mandate that change. All it does is say that the DOIC must advise the minister of that finding and they must publish the evidence. That is where it starts and ends. Then we can have a debate about how the minister may respond to that change in evidence. So I think to portray this amendment as an amendment that in some way seeks to undermine the 100-year benchmark as it currently exists is not accurate. It is purely an amendment that seeks to ensure there is genuine ongoing analysis of the science.

Senator Milne said that permanence needs to be permanence, and the minister emphasised the international discussions that continue with regard to permanence. We have semantic debates about words in this place sometimes. Obviously, in this case we all accept that the word 'permanence' is being used with a definitional period and would, in any other debate, be a description of duration rather than permanence. When you say something is for 100 years, that is 100 years duration not 100 years of permanence, because in all the usual approaches permanence means permanent, not 50 years, 100 years or a trillion years. But I understand that this is a case of accepting international language in that regard.

What does disturb me, though, about the minister's contribution is that he emphasised it is not the role or function of the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee to undertake this work. That is right to a point, Minister, but it is a bit of a circular argument because the functions of the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee are laid out by clause 255 of the bill, and the amendment we are debating seeks to change and add to those functions. If we pass this amendment and it goes into law then indeed it will be the function of the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee to look at and monitor scientific research relevant to the issue of permanence. So the argument is: who should be responsible for looking at that? Who should be the responsible party to provide some advice to the government about up-to-date scientific information on permanence as it relates to the operation of the carbon farming scheme?

Whilst in the way the government envisioned this scheme operating it may not have been the DOIC's core role to look at this, the DOIC does appear to be the best fit as to who should most logically look at and provide ongoing advice to government about these matters of permanence. Rather than accepting a 'trust us' attitude—and we have had, as I have emphasised at other times in this debate, serious concerns time and time again when this government has said, 'Trust us; she'll be right, mate,' in its approach to things—the opposition believes, and is keen to support Senator Xenophon in this regard, that it makes a lot of sense to mandate some ongoing analysis of the science in regard to permanence and to ensure that somebody with particular responsibility for how the scheme will work has an ongoing brief to look at international developments with regard to permanence. That makes perfect sense.

We think the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee are the obvious parties to do so when it comes to this legislation. We do not want just to leave it up in the air—that is, the minister of the day will be advised by the department of the day about the matter. We do not want to leave it on a 'trust us' platform that, should those international standards evolve, change or be informed by better science, the minister will respond to that in an unprompted way. We want to make sure the prompting process is in place, and these amendments of Senator Xenophon provide very specifically for the prompt to be given that the scientific consensus or research has shifted and there is a better understanding of how permanence may be treated. This relatively simple amendment provides for a very clear process by which the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee will monitor the science around permanence and tell the minister what they have seen, what they know, what they understand it to be. They are the people, after all, who ultimately are looking at the methodologies for the operation of the scheme and any issues that come up in relation to programs that operate under this scheme. They are the people who are tasked and equipped to provide good oversight. With regard to the practical—where you bring the science together with the practical operation of the scheme—they are the people who are going to have to make those decisions and mould it together, so they are equally well placed to advise on this matter.

The minister rightly said that in the clause as it is written there is probably nothing to prevent the committee providing information to the minister if they think it relevant in relation to this issue of permanence and scientific research on it. I agree with the minister—there probably is nothing to prevent them doing that. Certainly subclause 255(d) provides for them to have a function:

to do anything incidental to or conducive to the performance of the above functions.

And those above functions themselves are relatively broad about providing advice to either the secretary or the minister in relation to offset projects. If in the course of providing advice about a project matters of permanence come up, it is obvious that it would not just be prohibited but probably be a responsibility of the committee to provide some advice to the minister in relation to those matters of permanence and the scientific advice that surrounds them. So the potential and the likelihood are already there that, at some points in time, the DOIC will be looking at matters of permanence. Given at some points in time they will be looking at those matters of permanence, we think it is quite appropriate that in fact all of the time in an ongoing manner they should have an obligation to ensure they are up to date with the science and across it and, where there are changes in that science, inform the minister of them and, where there are relevant changes in that science, having informed the minister of them inform other stakeholders and the public of them so that we get that feedback loop that I talked about previously that ensures we are continually apprised of developments in this regard.

I struggle with the government's arguments against this. I am not sure why the government is so emphatically against it. I understand the arguments that Senator Milne has made, but once again I think she is attempting to read more into these amendments than they will actually achieve. She is attempting to believe that these amendments will somehow undermine the standards that have been set from day one. There is nothing in these amendments that will undermine those standards. There is nothing in these amendments that will see anything change in the 100-year time line any time soon. There is nothing in these amendments that will provide increased powers or scope for the minister or the government of the day to arbitrarily change that. These amendments are about the provision of advice and the publication of that advice. That seems to us to be perfectly sensible and rational, and to be perfectly entitled to our support.

(12:02): The opposition does support Senator Xenophon's amendment. We think it is important that there be appropriate organisations tasked with undertaking this review. I have listened to the minister carefully, and he has said that Senator Xenophon's amendment does not provide for what the terms of reference are or how the review would be undertaken. Of course we need to understand that Senator Xenophon's amendment to mandate that the review be undertaken jointly by the CSIRO and the Productivity Commission does not stand in isolation; it is an amendment to the existing clause 306 of the bill. The government themselves are proposing that this review occur and that it be a review into the operation of the act and the regulations and other instruments made under the act. They have already set out to some extent the broad framework of what the review would be expected to do. They have set out that there will be public consultation, they have set out that there will be a report and they have, thankfully, set out that that report will be made public and tabled in the parliament. They have set out the time lines for the review, which is the subject of subsequent amendments, and of course they have set out that there will be further reviews. So they have set out almost everything in relation to this review process except who is to undertake it.

If I am correct in what I think I heard the minister say, he indicated that the Climate Change Authority will be tasked with undertaking this review and that that was the intention of the government. The minister is nodding, so I take it that I did hear him correctly. I appreciate the minister telling us who the government intends to undertake this review; of course that is not stipulated in the bill. But of greater concern is that the Climate Change Authority does not at present exist. The structure of it is not at present known; exactly what its powers, remit, skills et cetera will be are not currently clear. The CSIRO, from a scientific standpoint, and the Productivity Commission, from a regulatory and economic standpoint, have proven track records. They have known skills and a clear ability in working together to undertake a review of a scheme such as this one. That will require a mix of scientific understanding and an appreciation of best practice and lowest cost regulation, which the Productivity Commission of course has.

The minister was critical that the amendment does not specify how the two are to undertake it together. I would have thought that they are grown-up organisations and that, just as at present, it is open for the minister of the day to stipulate someone to undertake the review. Under the current framework of the bill, the minister of the day could ask Mickey Mouse to undertake the review and that would comply with the bill. He has indicated that it will be the as yet unestablished Climate Change Authority that will undertake the review. Were the Climate Change Authority to have been in operation for a period of time, or were it in fact to be in operation full stop, we might be comforted by that information. But I am not comforted by the information when I do not know fully how that authority is going to work. Its establishment is probably to be the subject of future debate by this place, unless it is to be established purely under the executive powers of government.

We know CSIRO and the Productivity Commission have independence; we know they have integrity; we know they have capability; we know they have experience; we know they have the skills; we know that we can have confidence in the work that they produce. They are the sensible bodies to look at something as complex as this scheme and to provide sound advice on how it will operate in the future and on how this parliament may wish to consider improving it in the future to get the type of outcomes to which we all aspire.

With all of that, the opposition is strongly supportive of Senator Xenophon's amendment here, and we would hope that the government might reconsider or, if not, that the Greens might see some benefit in these proven expert bodies being tasked to undertake this very important function and review.

Senator Xenophon interjecting—

Senator Xenophon says it is not satisfactory at all. This is an authority that is going to be brought into existence as part of the government's planned carbon tax package. It is on the record that the opposition will be opposing the carbon tax package, and in opposing the carbon tax package we will be opposing the establishment of this Climate Change Authority. Understandably we think it is unsatisfactory to agree to a proposal that a review will be undertaken of the operation of this bill, or act if it is passed, and of the operation of the carbon farming scheme by an authority that we will fight and hope to stop being established. That would of course leave meaningless the minister's promise that it will be the Climate Change Authority, because we hope that it will not be there. We hope it will not be there because it is part of some $400 million worth of administration that the government is proposing to create under the carbon tax regime. This is one of the great and amazing things about the government's carbon tax package. Such is the money-go-round that is the carbon tax package, it is going to establish a climate change authority and a raft of other regulatory bodies that just over the life of the forward estimates will churn through $400 million of taxpayers' money in administrative costs for the carbon tax. Anybody who pauses to think about that should be gobsmacked and horrified. This comes on top of the forward estimates costs for the continuing operation of the existing Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and so on. All up, we are talking about more than half a billion dollars in regulatory and administrative oversight for these schemes over the forward estimates—$400 million alone specifically identified within the carbon tax package that the government has released.

All Australians could find better ways to spend that sort of money. The opposition certainly believes that it could find better ways to spend that sort of taxpayer money. Taxpayers could find better ways to spend that sort of money rather than having to part with it in a tax in the first place. So it is anathema to us that we would be asked to agree that this review be undertaken by a new regulatory body, a new statutory authority, that is going to be part of, frankly, squandering some $400 million of taxpayers' money on a bigger bureaucracy. That is where the carbon tax is leading us to—this great giant new bureaucracy that churns money around. It takes in around $9 billion a year in new tax revenue for the government, spits some of it back out to households and to industry and churns up $400 million of it over the forward estimates in new public servants, new authorities, new regulators and new carbon cops out there on the beats—all of these bodies put in place just churning the money around as only this government is capable of doing.

Despite putting in place the new $9 billion a year tax, the government will still manage to lose money on it. They will still manage to run a deficit on it, as only they can do. Once they have churned all that money around through their giant new bureaucratic arrangements and they have spit it out to those they think most worthy, not only will they leave millions of Australian households worse off and thousands of Australian businesses of all sizes struggling and thousands of Australian jobs in jeopardy and send billions of dollars overseas for the purchase of carbon permits but also eventually they will increase the size of the deficit to fund all of this activity. That is the madness of the scheme they are proposing. It is the madness of the scheme that will be debated in this place during the second half of the year.

We think that it makes no sense at all to agree that the review of the Carbon Farming Initiative should be undertaken by a yet-to-be-established, yet-to-be-proven, yet-to-be-tasked, yet-to-be-staffed regulatory body—an authority which is yet to be given the time to establish their expertise and which is part of this carbon tax money-go-round and part of this great big new $400 million expenditure in bureaucracy by this government. It is particularly ridiculous to do so when the skills are already there in existing agencies to do the job properly. The skills are there in CSIRO to provide a rigorous and thorough examination of the scientific issues in the carbon farming legislation, the matters of permanence we have just debated, the impact on the water tables and water flows, the impact on biodiversity that we have debated already and the environmental and scientific impact. Quite clearly, CSIRO already has the skills and expertise to undertake the review we are talking about in best practice regulation, in lowest cost regulation, in ensuring that this scheme does not have perverse or adverse consequences to overall abatement targets and measures and in ensuring that, should the carbon tax have gotten through, it operates in a sensible way with the carbon tax regime. We think that obviously the policy skills and the independence of the Productivity Commission is equally the right place and has those skills already in place to be able to deliver on this.

Why on earth you would propose sending it off for review by an untested, unknown, unestablished authority is beyond me. This is a very sensible amendment of Senator Xenophon's. It will ensure that the most able people to provide the most independent of advice and review are the ones who do so and give advice back to the government. That is why we support this. It is very disappointing to hear not just that the government will not be supporting it but equally that the Greens will not be supporting it. I would have thought that they would want to see the type of rigour and robust approach that we know CSIRO and the Productivity Commission can achieve. I would have hoped that they would have seen the wisdom in this. Frankly, I believe that at one stage in another parliament they would have, but they now are in a situation where most of the detail on these things is probably worked out behind closed doors with the government. Most of the agreement on 'We'll let you have this amendment but we don't want to see any of the other amendments go through' is done behind closed doors with the government rather than, as perhaps they once did, going through and seeing sensible amendments for what they are and then supporting sensible amendments, particularly sensible amendments like this one that only go to improving the long-term integrity, credibility and operation of this carbon farming scheme. It is an amendment that should be supported and it is a disappointment to see that it does not appear to have the numbers in chamber to enjoy support.