ABC Bush Telegraph Interview with Cameron ... - Greg Hunt MP

THE HON GREG HUNT MP
Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage
TRANSCRIPT
INTERVIEW WITH CAMERON WILSON, ABC BUSH TELEGRAPH
WITH GREG HUNT AND MARK DREYFUS
CANBERRA ACT
E&OE….
29 OCTOBER 2012
Topics: Carbon Farming Initiative
Cameron Wilson: Both sides recognise the role of farmers in tackling global warming. First
by reducing emissions from farming and second, by sucking carbon out of the atmosphere
into soils and vegetation. The Federal Government set up the Carbon Farming Initiative a
year ago and while the Federal Coalition supports the idea of carbon farming, it differs when
it comes to the detail.
Joining me now to discuss this is Mark Dreyfus, Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change
and one of the architects of the Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative. Mark welcome to
Bush Tele again.
Mark Dreyfus: Good to be with you Cameron.
Cameron Wilson: And Greg Hunt is with as well. The Shadow Minister for Climate Action.
Greg welcome.
Greg Hunt: G’day.
Cameron Wilson: Mark let’s start with you. What’s been achieved since the introduction of
the Carbon Farming Initiative?
Mark Dreyfus: Well it is up and running. I went up to Young last week to a very big piggery
– 22,000 pigs – to launch the first carbon farming piggery in Australia. And the Beveridge’s
who run Blantyre Farm, they have moved from situation where were they were paying
$15,000 a month for their electricity bills, to one where they are actually earning $5,000 a
month putting power back into the grid, using methane from their effluent ponds to generate
electricity. And as part of the Carbon Farming Initiative they are going to be earning, on their
calculations, $175,000 a year from carbon credits.
That is the carbon price in action. That is the Carbon Farming Initiative in action. There are
three other methodologies, apart from the piggeries methodology, which have already been
approved. There are another 40 methodologies that are in the course of being approved,
including 12 that are out for public consultation right now. One of them is a dairy manure

methodology, which is pretty similar to the piggery manure methodology that the
Beveridge’s are using. So we are up and running.
Cameron Wilson: How many Australian farmers are trading in the credits like the
Beveridge’s?
Mark Dreyfus: At the moment they are the first because that is the one that we launched last
week. But as Andrew Spencer from Australian Pork, the trade organisation that came out to
the launch with me, said hundreds of Australian piggeries are now going to be looking at this
methodology. He expects very many of them to take up the methodology and be carbon
farming on their piggery using the approved methodology.
Cameron Wilson: It’s four months since the price on carbon was introduced. Would you
have been hoping more than one farming business was trading in credits by now?
Mark Dreyfus: No not at all. We are at the start of a very long transition here. We are at the
start of projects that are going to last for many decades. It is important that we get the
methodologies right. It is important that we have scientific integrity and rigour because
people who are buying Australian Carbon Farming Initiative credits want to know those
credits represent real reduction in carbon pollution. They want to know that they have
scientific integrity and I don’t think there is any problem about this. About taking the time to
get the methodologies right and taking some time to make sure projects that are approved are
going to be producing real reductions in carbon pollution.
Cameron Wilson: Greg Hunt how do you assess the progress so far under the Carbon
Farming Initiative?
Greg Hunt: Look I think it is a very important idea and is what we set out in the Direct
Action program. It’s what the government resisted and then ultimately adopted with the
Carbon Farming Initiative. So it has huge potential. Enormous potential for reduction of
emissions. Unfortunately it is proceeding at an incredibly slow pace. One project on farm in
all of Australia. So that’s it, one project. And the reason I think is very simple. There’s been
an incredibly slow process of approving methodologies and there are restrictions within the
program, which go completely contrary to the experience and desire of the farm community. I
was in Dubbo just last week. I understand Mark was there the day after me speaking with
farmers. And they said ‘this could be a very high potential program, but it is so slow and the
restrictions are so great and doesn’t live with our understanding of the way farms operate.’ So
bureaucracy is killing what potentially could be a very high potential low cost means of
emissions reduction.
Cameron Wilson: Doesn’t the slow progress, the relatively slow progress just highlight it’s a
cautious and responsible approach that is being undertaken at the moment and that the
integrity that is key to this, the integrity of the program, is being maintained?
Greg Hunt: Well I think when you see that you have got four out of forty-four
methodologies after all of the time that the Government has been talking about this that are
approved, that is not caution, that’s bureaucratic delay. When you have one project around
the country. One farm project, I don’t think that can be seen as a success. Now I hope this is
successful. I think it has huge potential. But the farmers themselves were saying to me,
whether it was the New South Wales Farmers Association, or individual farmers, they were
all saying the current rules, the current regime are so bureaucratic that they are very hesitant

to participate. So we want to streamline it. We think it can offer huge potential and that
would be good for the environment and it would be good for farmers.
Cameron Wilson: How would you streamline it without undermining its integrity?
Greg Hunt: Well I think there are two things we need to do. One is to make sure that we are
actively processing the methodologies, or for people who may not be engaged in the fine
detail of the Carbon Farming Initiative, the ways in which you can actually reduce emissions
and get credit for that. The second thing is we want to get on with the business of ensuring
that the farmers have an option. Now Mark and I disagree on this. Some may choose to go to
the 100 years, our view is that there ought to be a 25 year option for accreditation and that is
the overwhelming view of the farmers and farm groups with whom I have spoken with,
because they have said the current regime, which doesn’t have to be this way, completely
excludes a vast bulk of farmers from being able to participate. So we will work with them.
We can do this. It can be streamlined and at the end of the day if we are capturing carbon in
trees or in soil, if we are reducing methane from livestock processers, that is a real emissions
reduction and that is all that matters.
Cameron Wilson: Mark Dreyfus, Greg Hunt raises a couple of points there. Let’s deal with
the 100 year ruling in just a moment. But first of all, is it a fair point that the bureaucracy is
too slow and is putting farmers off? We have heard the same complaint from farmers on this
program.
Mark Dreyfus: When you are starting something new there will be a time to set
methodologies up. There will be a time to get procedures right, but one thing that is clear is
we have to have integrity in the reductions of carbon pollution. Without integrity the entire
scheme will fall to the ground because carbon credits under the Carbon Farming Initiative
will be quickly seen to be worthless. It is vital, particularly at the starting point, that you
maintain integrity, maintain scientific integrity. And that is what we have got. I make no
apology whatsoever in taking time to get the science right on each and every one of the
methodologies and properly reviewing the projects that are submitted for approval as carbon
credit providers.
Cameron Wilson: Greg Hunt also raised the 100 year rule there. Can you explain to us what
that is first of all?
Mark Dreyfus: What Greg is talking about there is of course only in relation to sequestration
methodologies, not simple reduction methodologies. It doesn’t have any bearing on the pig
manure methodology, which is about reducing emissions of dangerous methane from effluent
ponds. It won’t have any bearing on dairy methodology. It doesn’t have any bearing on the
capture of gas from landfills methodology, which has already been approved and the projects
that are already up and running there. There are four projects that are already approved and
operating under that landfill gas capture methodology, so we are not just talking about the
one piggery, we have got the other four landfill projects as well. But for sequestration
projects, the present international rules require 100 years. That’s what is regarded as
permanence and for good reason. It’s to make sure that reductions sequestration of carbon
that is achieved through those methodologies, like planting methodologies, is permanent
sequestration. That’s what people who buy carbon credits generated using those
methodologies are looking for. And quite simply they won’t buy credits that are produced
using this so called ‘25 year period.’ It is just a con job for Greg to be suggesting that would
fly internationally or that would even fly here in Australia. The market for credits is for

permanent sequestration, it is not for fake sequestration, which is what the 25 years would
amount to.
Cameron Wilson: So it is not negotiable from your point of view?
Mark Dreyfus: It is not up to me to negotiate. The international rules agreed under the Kyoto
Protocol require 100 years. That is what is regarded as permanence and it is simply foolish to
suggest – it is leading the farmers up the garden path in effect – it is foolish to suggest that
you should have a methodology that is based on a 25 year sequestration because the credits
won’t be worth anything. The reason they won’t be worth anything is that those that want to
buy carbon credits as offsets want to know that it represents real reductions.
Cameron Wilson: Greg Hunt who do you see as buying these so called 25 year carbon
credits?
Greg Hunt: Well look there are a series of options here. The first thing is that with respect to
Mark, he just went through a whole series of different methodologies, which don’t require a
century long commitment. And you don’t need a century long commitment. What you do
need is scientific integrity that reduces emissions, that allows farmers to participate. We are
involved in the process as a country of helping to define the international rules. Farm groups
are involved in that. This isn’t difficult stuff. This is about shaping our environment. And the
problem at the moment is we are getting 100 per cent of nothing. And 100 per cent of
nothing, is still nothing. So the government has set in place a system, which in this respect is
destined to fail. It is simply not going to reduce emissions, it is not equated to the real world
in which farmers live and therefore Australian farmers are being locked out on two fronts.
They are being locked out in terms of domestic participation and we have just had rules go
through the Parliament where an agreement with Europe, where they have been locked out of
any engagement with Europe. Not until 2015 not 2016 or 2017, but until 2018. So the farmers
have been given a dud deal on two fronts and been locked out twice now.
Mark Dreyfus: Well I have to interrupt there and say Cameron that Greg is simply
misleading there as he has done for so many months now in relation to all aspects of the
carbon price. The demand for carbon credits right here in Australia, from the large polluters
in Australia, who are paying the carbon price is more than 30 times greater than any expected
production of credits under the Carbon Farming Initiative. So we have got hugely greater
demand right here in Australia for the carbon credits, which are going to be produced. And it
is clear that what we have from this Opposition is talking down of Australia’s prospects,
misleading the public about the carbon price in all its respects. And the key thing is under a
Coalition Government there would be no carbon price and without a carbon price you don’t
have a carbon market and that’s the end of the Carbon Farming Initiative as well. That’s the
bottom line here.
Cameron Wilson: The Coalition has said that it is committed to the Carbon Farming
Initiative. I want to push on. I want to look at soil carbon as well. I think you have both made
your points around this issue. My guests on Bush Telegraph are Mark Dreyfus, Parliamentary
Secretary for Climate Change. Also Greg Hunt, the Shadow Minister for Climate Action.
Greg Hunt, back to you. How important is soil carbon or storing carbon in soil as a
centrepiece to the Coalition’s policy?

Greg Hunt: Well it is one of many different options. We think it has potentially the greatest
opportunity of any means of abatement, but it is one of many. Our approach is to have a
reverse auction so in the way that Australia set up probably the most effective water buyback
system in the world. In the same way that the government is now looking to reduce
consumption of water through infrastructure based on the lowest cost per mega litre of water,
through infrastructure investments. We use that precise approach of a buyback – a carbon
buyback – whether it is soil carbon, revegetation, reforestation, whether it is capture of waste
coal mine gas, waste landfill gas, energy efficiency, cleaning up not closing down power
stations, any one of a numerous range of abatement activities would be available to reduce
emissions. And we will do it on the lowest cost basis so as we get the maximum benefit for
Australia. We will simply hold a reverse auction. It is a very well established system. It is
exactly what the government does with water and endorses on water. It is the same
mechanism across two different types of resources and it is simple, it is a way forward and
soil carbon would have an important role in that.
Cameron Wilson: And where does the money come from to pay for this?
Greg Hunt: We are providing $300 million, $500 million and $750 million over the first
three years. It is exactly as the government buys back water. The difference is we will be
funded in our scheme and we are not trying to push this off until 2024.
Cameron Wilson: So the public pays for the carbon sequestration under your plan. Whereas
business pays under the Government’s plan.
Greg Hunt: Well the public does pay under the Government’s plan that they pay in the form
of electricity prices, gas prices, fertiliser prices, refrigeration prices and the farm community
is living the reality of the carbon tax at the moment. We saw a 15 per cent electricity rise for
the first quarter announced only last week. Two thirds of that were from the carbon tax. So
the public is paying, but they are paying in a way that is incredibly inefficient. Prices go up,
but emissions don’t go down.
Cameron Wilson: So finally Greg Hunt if I could ask you to score the current system out of
ten, what would you give it?
Greg Hunt: Four out of ten and the reason I would say that is the intention is right, the focus
is right, the methodology and timeframes are unjustifiable.
Cameron Wilson: Mark Dreyfus you have failed on Greg Hunt’s account, who would you
score the system so far?
Mark Dreyfus: I am scoring it very, very highly because that is Australian farmers are telling
me. They are really enthusiastic about this scheme and are looking forward to being able to
use the methodologies on their farms and Greg didn’t answer your question about soil carbon.
That’s the bottom line. The soil carbon according to the Liberal Party, is capable of
producing up to half of the emissions reductions, the pollution reductions…
Greg Hunt: …well absolutely and I am more confident now than I ever was…
Mark Dreyfus: …that is just feeding another myth to Australian farmers. It is a nonsense.
CSIRO has made it absolutely clear that soil carbon, at best, is capable of producing about
half to one per cent of the emissions reductions that we need. And for Greg Hunt to ignore

the science, ignore what the CSIRO is saying is simply to mislead again on this point. And
Direct Action itself is using taxpayers’ money, Cameron, to throw at a few large companies
in the hope that they will cut carbon pollution. There won’t be any money left over for the
Carbon Farming Initiative under the Liberal’s plan. And there won’t be any money, full stop,
for the Carbon Farming Initiative because they want to kill the carbon price. It is the carbon
price that is needed to provide funds for the Carbon Farming Initiative.
Cameron Wilson: Well I know we would need an entire program to debate the science
around soil carbon. So I note also Mark Dreyfus that you didn’t answer that question there
about the score out of ten. A question that Greg Hunt did answer.
Mark Dreyfus: I will give it a nine, Cameron. How is that? I am not claiming perfection but
I will give it a nine out of ten.
Greg Hunt: I will just finish off, Cameron, to say we can do this. We can do it without an
electricity tax and I think farmers know it and I think they just want to get on with the
business and be able to capture carbon in soils, revegetation, reforestation by reducing
emissions through land sector and livestock processes.
Cameron Wilson: We will have to leave it there. Thank you gentlemen very much for
joining us today. Greg Hunt, the Shadow Climate Action Minister and Mark Dreyfus, the
Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change.
ENDS