House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Motions Carbon Management Strategy CARBON MANAGEMENT STRATEGY The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:53): I move: That this house calls on the state and federal governments to implement a fair and equitable carbon management strategy that will deliver real benefits for the community and the environment. It is not my intention to get into all of the technical details—partly because I am not qualified to do so—but I think it is important that this issue be considered not only at the federal level but at the state level as well. What we seem to be heading towards now is a carbon tax—some people would call it a levy—which is going to be the initial approach of the federal government to help tackle carbon emissions. That is to be followed by a cap-and-trade system based on the market. I think that was initially indicated to be in operation in the middle of next year, but I am not sure whether that deadline will be reached. Some people in the community deny there is a problem. I am not in that category. I look at scientists who have the necessary credentials, and I think one would be unwise to disregard their view that humans, in particular, are contributing a lot to carbon emissions and potentially causing problems down the track, including a rise in the sea level, affecting nations in the area of the Pacific in particular. I am not going to be prescriptive here, but I really want to raise awareness and focus attention on this issue. What we need to do is to look at this issue hopefully in a bipartisan way, because I do not believe you can have an approach to something like carbon that is supported on the one hand by a government and opposed by an opposition, or vice versa. We have to develop a bipartisan approach to this. If you look in the media you will find that there is a suggestion that everyone is going to be a winner and that there is going to be compensation. There will be some compensation under the so-called carbon tax, but you cannot have any sort of gain in terms of the environment or anything else without some pain, and not everyone is going to be compensated. What we have now are polluters wanting to be compensated and then there are people in their daily expenditure wanting to be compensated. You do not have to be Einstein to work out that not everyone can be compensated. We need to ensure that people who pollute are not simply allowed to continue polluting but are directed to change their ways. It would be a nonsense if you had a system where people pollute—it would be like saying, 'Look you can rob banks as long as you give us a share of the proceeds of your activities.' That would be a nonsense. You do not want to create a situation where there is a licence to pollute, where people continue to pollute and just throw some money in the collection box and continue on their merry way. I notice that in most of the discussions farms are exempt from some of these proposals in terms of carbon taxes or cap and trade. I think we have misread that situation in the sense that people focus on what cows do (I was going to say on the quiet) generating gases and so on. However, if you are going to look at agriculture you have to look at the total picture, not simply what might be seen as the negatives in terms of contributing to carbon emissions and so on, but also at the positives. I am not an expert but I am told that there is far more carbon held in the soil—and that means, obviously, on farms—than is within our trees. If you are going to have a system which, at any time, looks at bringing the farm sector into a carbon management model, you have to, in fairness apart from anything, make sure you look at both sides of the equation. On farms it is not just trees, it is the grass and soil, and they do sequester a lot of carbon. Yet, what we hear is a focus only on what is on the other side of the ledger—that farms and the animals on them and so on produce or contribute to problems with greenhouse gases and so on. As I say, it is not my intention to get into the detailed mechanics of this and there would not be enough time anyway. However, I am keen to see this issue considered here at the state level through the parliament. We do not have all the details yet from the federal scheme in terms of a carbon tax or the cap and trade. We are hearing some figures from Professor Garnaut and others about possible tax cut offsets. What I am suggesting is that we move to a situation which, hopefully, as I said, has bipartisan support, where we can look at dealing with this issue—which I believe is real; I do not support the climate change deniers. We have to deal with it, and it would be best if we could deal with it with total community support, rather than what we seem to have at the moment, which is a slanging match between the federal government and the opposition. I do not think that is appropriate. If we have a system put in place I think it would be very damaging if the opposition should get into government and they try to unwind that system. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. [Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]