BOUSTEAD, Mrs Anna, Chief Executive Officer, Indigenous Carbon Industry Network HOWEY, Dr Kirsty, Executive Director, Environment Centre NT HUNTER, Mr Barry, Chief Executive Officer, North Australia Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance MUNKARA, Ms Suzanne, Policy Officer, Indigenous Carbon Industry Network OPIE, Ms Bronwyn, Director, Cairns and Far North Environment Centre PRITCHARD, Mr Martin, Executive Director, Environs Kimberley THOMPSON, Ms Suzanne, Director, Indigenous Carbon Industry Network VAUGHAN, Mr Alexander, Policy and Advocacy Coordinator, Arid Lands Environment Centre CHAIR: Welcome. I understand that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses giving evidence to committees has been provided to you. Dr Howey and Mrs Boustead, if either of you has an opening statement, I now invite you to give that statement. Dr Howey : Thanks so much. I have a very brief opening statement. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear today with my colleagues from conservation organisations across northern Australia. Northern Australia, as you are probably aware, is a global treasure for nature. We've got the largest intact savanna ecosystem remaining anywhere on earth, the highest concentration of free-flowing rivers on mainland Australia and one of the most intact coastlines in the world. These landscapes are managed of course by and large by First Nations people, as they have been for millennia. These landscapes are not barriers to prosperity, as is often presented in narratives about northern Australia, but they are the foundation of it. They support tourism, fisheries, local economies and community wellbeing. Yet these values are at risk. You will be aware that last year the National Climate Risk Assessment laid bare a fairly stark future for northern Australia, including that it may not be compatible with human life within two generations. In our view a central question for this inquiry is how public investment in northern Australia can assist industries that support our natural assets and ensure a future that is liveable for all of northern Australia. Our submission, which I refer to, highlights a recurring challenge in northern Australia development policy, which we've called optimism bias. Time and again we find that governments have been presented with grand promises of jobs, growth and economic transformation only to find that the benefits are overstated; the risks are understated; and taxpayers, communities, and ecosystems are left carrying the burden. I refer to the recent federal budget—analysis by the Biodiversity Council found that spending on nature protection in comparison to other industries remains a really tiny fraction of Commonwealth expenditure and is projected to decline. At the same time we do see significant funding commitments for projects that do harm nature and climate. I can name a litany of projects across northern Australia that have not stacked up—Project Sea Dragon, the Darwin ship lift, the stalled Middle Arm industrial hub—and these illustrate the risks of this kind of development. Despite significant public investment and ambitious economic claims, costs have often escalated, timeframes have slipped and promised benefits have often failed to materialise here. The lesson of course is not that governments should not invest in northern Australia—quite the contrary. It's that public investment must be guided by rigorous assessment, transparency and the public interest and led by and from the communities that are based here, not by decision-makers and companies based far away. We think that northern Australia is where some of Australia's greatest conservation opportunities exist. Strategic investment in Indigenous land and sea management, renewable energy, healthy rivers, protected areas, climate resilience and nature-positive industries can deliver enduring economic benefits here in this region while also safeguarding our globally significant environmental and cultural values. In sum and in closing, northern Australia's greatest competitive advantage is our extraordinary natural and cultural wealth that exists here. Protecting and investing in that wealth is not an economic constraint; it's the surest path to intergenerational prosperity as we confront the climate and biodiversity crises. Mrs Boustead : Thank you, honourable members of parliament, for the invitation to come along today. We wish to draw your attention to the work of the Indigenous carbon industry. The Indigenous Carbon Industry Network was formed by and is owned by 24 Indigenous land and sea organisations that own their own carbon projects, predominantly savanna fire management projects. Our full members include 24 Indigenous land and sea organisations as well as 13 other associate members, being Indigenous organisations that have an interest in carbon markets but do not yet own their own carbon project. ICIN has been engaging in policy development and supporting engagement with our members and other Indigenous organisations to inform policy reform on the Australian carbon credit unit scheme recently, and there is draft legislation that's just been out for public comment. We've informed that consultation process. We're also engaging in nature repair policy. We note that all of these opportunities have been determined by Indigenous peoples and are underpinned in particular by the ranger funding and funding for ranger groups. That ranger group funding is critical to a lot of these projects being able to come about and being led by Indigenous people from West Arnhem Land initially. The savanna fire management methods were actually created by the traditional owners from west Arnhem land in partnership with scientists in the Northern Territory and across northern Australia as well as other Indigenous organisations such as NAILSMA and then extending to the Kimberley. That method has been a really enabling opportunity for Indigenous people in northern Australia because it places a value on their work caring for country and in particular the emission savings from savanna fire management. That actually predated the existence of the carbon farming initiative act. Now that we have the ACCU scheme supported through federal legislation, there are other methods that are in development or do exist to support other types of carbon projects. However, there hasn't been a large take-up of Indigenous-led projects using those other methods. We believe there are a number of barriers to that, including that they weren't Indigenous led in the first place. There are a number of carbon projects and carbon methods that are in development, supported through ICIN, NAILSMA and the University of Queensland, which do seek to value the carbon benefit of caring for country, including through the removal of feral animals and feral cattle from wetlands. There are some really significant opportunities there. Our industry is generating revenue, we estimate, of $60 million per annum. However, that's likely to be underestimated. It employs hundreds of people in remote areas, particularly in very remote places where often employment opportunities are very limited. Our industry is abating around 1.2 million tonnes of carbon each year. We believe that these benefits are underpinned by values of self-determination and by the government investing in Indigenous organisations to manage country and to create their own carbon projects. This provides more opportunities for future generations and also investment in caring for country, which is resource intensive and, as typically categorised in these conversations, is not free. It's very expensive to manage country, particularly to manage country from hot fires. Ms PRICE: Thanks to everyone who's appeared before us today and everybody who's online. Dr Howey, given we've got the newly formed Coalition of Peaks conservation organisations, the key recommendations are not surprising. What I want us to do is to learn—in your opinion, and you can choose if you want someone online to contribute—who's doing it well? We know you have a lot of thoughts and concerns about the EPBC Act, but also we've got state jurisdictions and territory jurisdictions. Is anyone getting it right that we can learn from in terms of environmental protection and ecological sustainability? Dr Howey : I think that actually northern Australia is leading the way with conservation initiatives that are led by First Nations communities. Of course I'm sitting here with my colleagues from the Indigenous Carbon Industry Network. Mr Hunter's here from NAILSMA. The savanna burning method was pioneered here in northern Australia. We have Indigenous ranger programs here in northern Australia that are employing more people than almost anywhere else in the country and that are the envy of groups around Australia. I think there is incredible applied work happening here in northern Australia. I think that we are getting left behind in some key areas, and I will point to renewable energy as a particular example. I know that industry groups have presented to this inquiry, but at the moment here in the Northern Territory we're only sitting at about 10 to 12 per cent integration of renewables into the grid. What we would like to see is initiatives that are being undertaken elsewhere. I could point to Western Australia—the Collie large-scale battery that has ensured the transition of that particular local economy—and initiatives that are happening in the Hunter region and across Australia that we'd like to see replicated here. We'd like to see federal investment in large-scale battery storage, in training and development and in creating jobs here in the Northern Territory—not just in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs but also in remote communities. There's excellent work being done, but it's not generally being backed by federal investment. I think there are some wonderful examples of things that are being done really well here, but we'd like to see more federal investment to ensure that things are invested in, promoted and supported that will ensure community wellbeing and the flourishing of what we all love here in northern Australia and one of the reasons that I live here. But I could defer to some of my colleagues online. They may have something else they'd like to add. Ms PRICE: Dr Howey, is there any jurisdiction that's getting this environmental protection piece right? Does anyone have any views on that as well? Mr Pritchard : I can jump in. Just in response to whether anyone is getting it right, we think there are examples of the Western Australian government getting it right on some aspects of conservation. What we know is that since 2008 we've gone from zero marine parks in the Kimberley to about 70 per cent of the Kimberley coast in marine parks, which is a percentage that isn't high enough. The agreed percentage of sanctuary zones globally by scientists is 30 per cent of each marine park. We're not reaching that yet. We're on the way there. We've also got the Commonwealth that has put in marine parks in Commonwealth waters, and what we're seeking is an expansion of those to actually say that we are agreeing with the international standards on marine parks, as the current Commonwealth government has signed up to. There's a bit more to be done there. There are some very good national parks that have been put in place along the Martuwarra Fitzroy River in the Kimberley here. We are seeking more. Again, the international standard for national parks is 30 per cent of the globe; at least a minimum should be in national parks. The current figure for the Kimberley is nine per cent, so we're way below the internationally agreed standard. One thing I would say in terms of conservation is that we have an example, which is incredible, in northern Australia, and that is the Commonwealth and state funded Aboriginal ranger network. We think this is the most successful employment scheme ever instigated in northern Australia. There are young Aboriginal people who are banging on the door. There's a queue of Aboriginal people—young people who want to be rangers, and we were very pleased to see that the Commonwealth had significantly increased the funding for the rangers program. We would thoroughly commend that program, and it is an innovative program. It is a program that also allows some very significant skills-building and experience for young people in remote and regional areas—something that is seriously lacking across northern Australia. There are a couple of examples there that hopefully will provide a little bit of a picture for you. Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: I might start with the Northern Australia Conservation Alliance first. Reading through your submission, it's very clear that the through line is that there needs to be a paradigm shift in the way development and economic emerging industries are looked at in the Territory. You provide a couple of examples, a couple of case studies, that illustrate why there needs to be a paradigm shift. I'm just wondering if maybe you could just speak a little bit more to each of those case studies. The ones that I'm referring to are the ones on page 12 that talk about irrigated agriculture and the Lakeland irrigation area scheme, and then on the following page there's talk about Middle Arm and why these things illustrate the need for that paradigm shift. I'm wondering if you could just expand on that a little bit more. Dr Howey : I might give a bit of an overarching comment and then defer to my colleague in Queensland to respond to the Lakeland irrigation area scheme question. The essence of our submission is that this sort of push for northern development has been on rinse and repeat since the 1850s. There have been dreams of large-scale development failing to materialise, money being lost by investors and by governments and even responsibility for the Northern Territory being shunted around as a consequence of failed schemes. While we respect and embrace many emerging industries, they need to be approached with a degree of caution and a degree of consciousness about the history of failed development in northern Australia so that we don't see these mistakes being repeated time and time again. There does need to be a paradigm shift in the way we think about the future of this place, particularly as we look to confront the very terrifying reality that we face here in the north due to climate change. In that vein we have referred to a few specific development projects that we think are problematic and are subject to this kind of optimism bias that we see here. With respect, we do see politicians enthusiastically embracing new schemes, for good reason politically, that often end up being failures. I'll pass to my colleague Ms Opie, based in Cairns, to discuss the Lakeland irrigation area scheme a bit. Ms Opie : The Lakeland irrigation area scheme provides a really clear example of the risks of an extractive development in many parts of northern Australia and the need for that paradigm shift— CHAIR: Ms Opie, can I get you to just speak a bit louder and clearer? Your voice isn't coming through the broadcasting clearly enough, and it will be really important for us to record you appropriately rather than if your voice is fading in and out. If you're speaking through a microphone, could you come closer to it. Ms Opie : Thank you. The Lakeland irrigation area scheme is a perfect example [inaudible]. CHAIR: Sorry, Ms Opie, we thought you were really clear at first, but now it's gone a bit unclear. What we might do is take the question on notice, and then Ms Opie's contribution can be sent back to us. Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: I have a question for ICIN. At the end of your submission, recommendation 10 says that the government should ensure that any northern development agendas are informed by Indigenous economic development experts and include supporting healthy country, healthy people, strong culture, strong language and thriving Indigenous communities as outcomes. I'm interested in your organisation's view on to what extent that is actually happening right now and where things need to improve and change. Mrs Boustead : I can provide limited comment on that, but I'm mindful that the CEO of NAILSMA is online and probably will provide broader comment. Just in terms of the carbon industry perspective, we are operating in a market that's in its relatively early years. However, I think the membership of ICIN has demonstrated what is possible when healthy country, healthy people, a strong culture, a strong language and thriving communities are valued within economic development frameworks. We also consistently acknowledge that the Western economic development framework often does not do that very well, but Indigenous economic development frameworks do that very well. Obviously Indigenous people have survived here for tens of thousands of years off the back of that, and that's proof of that incredible knowledge, culture and sustainable development in practice. I think that, when we're in our sector, we're really talking across those two different economic development frameworks. Indigenous groups have found a way to seek an economic value for their work caring for country, and that should be enormously valued by Australia. One of our great frustrations is that across the world the work that our members do is enormously valued, but for reasons we don't quite understand we don't receive the same reception within Australia. I think it's really important for parliamentarians to grasp the incredible work of ICIN's membership and Indigenous groups across Australia. The work they're doing for their country is globally significant, and it should not be undervalued. It should be held in the utmost value, because it's often not fully valued in the Western economic markets. We're consistently trying to find ways in which to find those values, and one of them that's emerging is this nature repair market. But even then there are lots of barriers put up in terms of policy constraints. It is kind of a long road. But I might direct that question to Mr Hunter. Mr Hunter : Thanks, Mrs Boustead; and thanks for the opportunity to talk today. We know that over the next three years there's going to be $190 million going into the Indigenous ranger workforce. We also know that it's predominantly in northern Australia that we see a lot of that funding. There are rangers in South Australia that are funded by the Australian government indigenous land and sea ranger program, but the investment that I'm talking of is generalised across those areas. We know that predominantly the rangers are in the north, where they started. We also know more than $27 million will go into Indigenous protected areas over the next three years as well. That level of investment is great to see and I commend the government on those steps, but fundamentally that investment is paying for jobs. As Mrs Boustead just pointed out there, we also need to see investment in those things that will develop nature based economies. Nature repair is one of those. NAILSMA, along with an Indigenous alliance and the Aboriginal Carbon Foundation, as well as in partnership with ICIN, are looking at methods that can be developed that are culturally and Indigenous led that can then provide for methods that will potentially be taken onto the marketplace. The problem we're seeing at the moment is that there's no pricing mechanism. We've engaged with your counterpart at DCCEEW, the minister, and raised this. Minister Wilson raised on a number of occasions that there needs to be a pricing mechanism and there needs to be investment. We know, at the start of the carbon industry Mrs Boustead spoke about, there was the Emissions Reduction Fund that was set up, and that was to pay for the lowest cost abatement as a means of stimulating the market. There is no such thing at the moment for nature repair. We were also concerned about what the offsets component of the nature repair would mean economically, because there's a fund that will sit around that, and that fund will pay for the offsets and work in like-for-like ecosystems elsewhere. Those things are great pictures, but we know fundamentally we need to invest in the space. The methods are on their way. They're moving, but we need a pricing mechanism and we need to know that as the carbon industry develops over that time the investment and support from the government will be there. Lastly, I want to point out that the culturally based economy and the nature based economy, which are one and the same from NAILSMA's point of view, are a significant way forward. We've raised this with Minister McCarthy a number of times regarding the jobs program, which is a great initiative, and we wholeheartedly support that. Prime Minister Albanese's statement at Garma a couple of years ago on stimulating and building Indigenous economic independence and self-direction was a great initiative. But these are really policy positions at the moment, and they really need to move to a place where that investment can move on. I want to also just mention quickly that no Indigenous carbon project has received any sort of support through a loan, concessional loan or any financing in regard to commerciality from a bank. This week Indigenous Business Australia chair Darren Godwell came out and made a statement that he saw that IBA can support those as a means of being able to get finance into the sector. That's one of the problems. We don't have a mechanism where commercial lending institutions in Australia can go, 'Carbon is sustainable. Indigenous organisations we can invest in. Here's the financing, interest and a concessional loan that can support that.' I'm really encouraged by what the Indigenous Business Australia chair said. There's going to be a long way between that and the actual funds and opportunities. A new carbon project, for instance, or a new project that might emerge under the Nature Repair Act that requires startup capital cannot go anywhere at the moment. That is really an area where we'd like to see some thought process, some policy and red tape relaxed and considered and Indigenous communities able to get on and attract investment in that area. Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: Reflecting on some of the evidence certainly that we've heard today, it seems to me that there are a lot of things out there right now that are actually working, be it the Indigenous rangers program, First Nations people working in the blue economy and with AIMS and the carbon markets that you're talking about now. These are potentially areas that the government could be investing in that are actually sure bets, as opposed to some of those projects that are not. Ms Thompson : Just in light of that too, if we were to think about the objectives for northern Australia and really think about the value of Indigenous input right across, managing the biosecurity risk, which is our rangers and supporting that, the carbon markets and nature repair markets are very valuable when it comes to Indigenous participation. But I think it's also with the focus on the self-determination and the opportunity for our communities to realise their direction and their economic futures. I think the thing that we are missing, though, is a value to an Indigenous ranger: there is not a specific award, an industrial award rate and a career pathway for that, really shifting our people into this space. I think it's about how they have the opportunity to lead with research and development, and they also of course at ICIN recognise having this opportunity to lead in this space. But I think, when it comes to the inclusion of Indigenous voices and participation, we still have a little way to go and also around how we build the strength and the career pathways for Indigenous rangers so they can realise their opportunities, whether they are seeing themselves as able to monitor and establish a nature repair project or a carbon project, becoming carbon developers themselves or even looking at the auditing structure and the auditing system that carbon projects require. I think it's the research, development and investment, especially in the research and development around Indigenous leading, as well as considering a standard for award rates for Indigenous rangers so there's a clear career pathway that is incorporating a whole range of things that our Indigenous rangers are doing. Senator McDONALD: Further to that, on the Indigenous Carbon Industry Network, savanna burning is one of the very few carbon credit programs that are available to any land managers in Australia. Congratulations on being able to get a measurement and a methodology, because nobody else seems to be able to get one. Well done. I want to turn back to it. There was a statement made at the beginning about biodiversity protection and government spending. Having just spent two weeks at estimates through the Senate program, we did quite a bit of talking about where money was being spent and outcomes. I think there's been a real increase in species extinction or reduction. At the same time we're not seeing real inroads into programs like feral pig eradication, cane toads and other things that we know have a really significant impact on native species. One of my particular interests is that we don't work in silos and how we better work across portfolios. The environment department are spending money on trying to protect the Great Barrier Reef or native species, but they're not connecting the work of eradicating things like feral pigs, which is a really missed opportunity. I don't know if you've got any recommendations to make in that regard. It's a personal interest of mine because I just see how much damage they do, and we don't seem to be putting the priorities of native species protection with spending money on things like feral pigs. Whom should I direct that to? Has anybody got an interest? Dr Howey : I will answer that. It's a very good question. There are other organisations you'll be aware of, like the Invasive Species Council, which have been really strong at advocating—often in partnership with farming communities and with perhaps unlikely allies—for much greater expenditure and federal investment in weeds, fire and ferals—these problems that are intractable and growing across Australia. In northern Australia we're also experiencing ecosystem collapse. Actually it's invasive species that are causing a lot of the damage. We're not seeing that investment in the federal budget. Figures are bandied around about what we should be spending, and I'm not the person who's best qualified to answer that. But there absolutely is an imbalance, and we do need to see coordination across different portfolios in the federal government but also across civil society, industry groups and environment groups to really address this challenge. That's my high-level answer. I do have a colleague in central Australia, Mr Vaughan, who may have something that he'd like to add on that front. Mr Vaughan : Yes, that would be great. We have a big interest in biosecurity and environmental weeds. They're fundamental to thriving communities, nature and economies. As we've discussed today, these natural environments and cultural landscapes are at risk. In particular there are two green bulldozers in buffel grass and gamba grass, which are burning and transforming northern Australia's nature into fire-prone grasslands which are major risks for nature, culture, tourism and bush foods and are a major public safety risk. We've also seen recently that in the federal budget biosecurity funding and stewardship investment are proposed to rapidly decline in coming years, and some of the greatest invasive species risks, such as buffel grass, currently receive very scant and little funding. It s a similar story in terms of gamba grass. We're talking about iconic places of the north that are at risk of buffel grass invasion: Uluru, Kata Tjuta, the Kimberley, Pilbara, and Queensland channel country. For gamba grass it's Litchfield, Katherine and Cape York. It's a great question. Greater coordination, research prioritisation and providing critical on-ground support to the land managers and ranger groups that so often bear the responsibility, while not being the groups responsible for spreading these invasive species and weeds which pose such a catastrophic risk, and a biosecurity system that also prioritises environmental and cultural impacts as well as social impacts and impacts to infrastructure is a system that we strongly support—and a holistic assessment of those threats and risks. Thank you for the question. Senator McDONALD: It will be a rare occasion where I will say 'to be fair to the government' but to be fair to the government I think there is significant money being spent, but we're just not seeing a coordinated program with national parks, Defence land and the environment. I completely agree that the Invasive Species Council. Those programs have been completely underfunded, but the money that is being allocated to biosecurity or native species protection I don't think is being well spent. I think there is actually money being allocated, but it's been spent to not address the big problem or the big issue in the room. It's been spent on other things. Anyway, perhaps in our recommendation in our report we will draw on some of your submission on better coordination of money, because I don't think it's for lack of money; I think it's more a lack of a coordinated approach. Mrs Boustead : That's a great point. I just want to urge you all to understand the work that NAILSMA, ICIN and its members are leading in that space. We're working together to develop a carbon method that's also a nature repair method to support the repair of wetlands through ungulate management, which is hooved animal management. In the Northern Territory in particular, buffalo are a huge problem and cause enormous damage to wetlands. The economic impact of that is huge, but it also presents biosecurity problems. NAILSMA has been working on supporting the feral pig eradication program as well and has put out some great animations to highlight the work of rangers in reducing pig numbers and buffalo numbers. But we feel there needs to be an economic driver to really ensure those wetlands are repaired from the impacts of those feral animals, because the damage is widespread. The animals themselves are in very large numbers, and controlling them is actually quite intensive work. Particularly for pigs, it's quite difficult to get the numbers down sufficiently to reduce the impact enough. With buffalo, a lot of our members have had significant success with buffalo management, but they need to have a resource to do that. We're looking at using carbon and nature repair methods to support that, and NAILSMA is leading that work with the University of Queensland. That method is in development. It will be before the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee likely early next year. That work is really important, and none of this work would happen without the work of our members and coming together. What we do find is often we're getting better at coordinating ourselves but the departments are often not coordinated, and we're often receiving multiple questions from the same department on the same topic. We've been working with DCCEEW to support their coordination, and we actually had an intergovernmental meeting earlier today, so it's really great to see that improving. I just want to highlight that gamba grass is also a key threat to carbon projects, because if gamba grass is on a project area and not immediately eliminated it needs to be cut out of the project area itself, as it burns around eight to nine times hotter than native grasses. Can I just offer an example of some of the dichotomies around northern development. About 17 years ago I was working in the NT weeds branch. At that time the agricultural department of the NT government was planting gamba grass at the same time that the weeds branch was controlling it. That I think really epitomises the sorts of weird and unfortunate things we see when policies break down and policies become out of touch with the reality of what's happening on country. That's just as an example of that. But we are mindful of all those impacts. NAILSMA and many of our members, particularly Mimal, are actually putting in their own resources. They're investing money from the revenue from their carbon projects into that work and doing it themselves because they want the opportunity to lead it. Mr Hunter : Thanks, Mrs Boustead, for pointing that out. I'd also like to add that NAILSMA receives $2 million annually to protect country against invasive species, and those priorities are set by the ranger groups we work with. We currently work with 48 ranger groups across northern Australia, and those priorities in identifying the threats and then the work that we do run to $2 million a year. That funding will cease in April 2027. We've spoken with DAFF around the opportunities to continue that, and that discussion will be ongoing. But that's an example of where the impact is and the work, but there's no secured funding post early next year on how we continue with that. That's 48 different ranger groups, so the impact is pretty widespread in regard to addressing those issues. We know that, as soon as that funding ceases and that work ceases, it doesn't take long for those invasive species to move back in and have the same level of impact they did or even worse. Mr GOSLING: There are a number of questions I have. Feel free to take some of these on notice if it's easier and more timely to do so. We talked earlier today about the blue economy. I was interested in the comments around Project Sea Dragon being something that didn't go ahead. I saw today there's a scaled-down version or something. If you were to sum up where our aquaculture approach could improve and had some recommendations, that'd be valuable for the committee to understand. It was great to hear earlier about career pathways because they're vital if we're going to have a workforce out on country where we need it. I might just go to the nature economy piece. We had that independent Chubb review on the ACCUs, and there were a number of recommendations from that which the Australian government accepted. I am just wondering if there is anything, Ms Munkara or Mrs Boustead, that you want to add in terms of what you see as a really important thing for the federal government when it comes to the carbon credit units. Mrs Boustead : There is ACCU scheme legislation before parliament. The draft legislation was under review very recently. There are a number of really important improvements that ICIN supports, including greater recognition of Indigenous rights and interests in carbon. We have seen in the Indigenous carbon industry that the rights and interests in carbon are often the access point for people to enter the market and also be on a level playing field. It's a really unique industry in that, because it's in its early days, Indigenous people are not in a similar position as they would be, for example, in mining projects or other proponents. The carbon industry does recognise Indigenous people's right to free, prior and informed consent through eligible interest holder consent rights, which are typically tied to native title rights and will be extended to native title claimant rights. We urge parliamentarians to support this because it avoids future conflicts and also sets up these very long-term projects to be successful in partnership with Indigenous communities and other landholders. It's a really important opportunity to support that rather than pitting landholders against each other in future years. It's a very important development that will hopefully see more equal participation in the industry. On the requirement for upfront consent, surprisingly, there was a bit of a loophole in legislation earlier, which provided for conditional registration of a carbon project before free, prior and informed consent had been achieved with native title holders. There have now been put forward in the legislation three different options for gaining consent, including a two-step consent process. But all recognise the need for upfront consent as a principle—upfront free, prior and informed consent is of course a right that's recognised under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Australia is party to. We view that as a really significant and important development, and we congratulate the Australian government on getting this far with the legislation. It's been a very long road. It's been something we've been asking for eight years, so it's great to see it finally come to fruition. Mr GOSLING: I don't know if we've got time for prawns. Dr Howey : I'm happy to take the prawns on notice. CHAIR: If no one else has got any questions, Dr Howey, either you or Mrs Boustead or someone can answer this. Thank you for your submissions. It's always good to get good submissions. I hear from a lot of Aboriginal people when we travel around that they're becoming climate refugees in a lot of their communities. Dr Howey, I get that the federal government needs to show some leadership and policies around that, but where do the different groups work with the industry? I know that, with the carbon abatement project in west Arnhem land, one of the players in that was ConocoPhillips, which paid the West Arnhem rangers to offset with the fire management. I get sometimes you want the federal government to step up, and we should step up. But where do we put the industry in terms of whether it's fire management or whether it's looking after or eradicating buffel and gamba? We know the arguments that often get put by the industry that buffel is used as fodder for their cattle. But then, when there's an out-of-control burn, everyone jumps up and down and says, 'Why haven't you resourced the fire people properly?' Where do we draw the line in making sure industry meets its responsibility in all of this? I know it's a long bow, but when you're writing these submissions or you're having these conversations how do we get the industry? It's easy to get the governments to the table, and you can often shame the governments. We do a good job, but we also need to get industry players to the table as well. Has that been a problem? Mrs Boustead : I think there's a great deal of interest in the industry, particularly the fossil fuel industries and corporate players. Obviously that partnership with ConocoPhillips did help and assist in giving the resources for the initial savanna fire management method. It does show that, when true partnerships come together, they can be very successful and very positive. The safeguard mechanism is the biggest leverage point for the government in requiring industry to reduce its pollution. That in turn requires them to reduce their pollution where they can't reduce their pollution, and they can offset that through carbon credits. CHAIR: Do you reckon there should be higher penalties? When you have a look at them, sometimes the penalties are a lot. Mrs Boustead : At the moment it's a bit of an upside-down system, but it is functioning as effectively a carbon price would because we have an ACCU system alongside a safeguard mechanism scheme. I think where there needs to be greater policy alignment in the safeguard mechanism is in strengthening that and lowering that to capture more corporates so they're required to reduce their pollution. That will in turn support the expansion of the carbon industry. But also we know ACCUs cannot do all that work. ACCUs can only offset up to 10 per cent of that impact. The majority of that impact will have to come from direct reduction in pollution. There are also other partnerships happening throughout the sector where fossil fuel companies are working to establish their own carbon projects. I think we need to be mindful of where those carbon credits are going and also just make sure the ACCU scheme is functioning the way it was intended, which was the purpose of the review that ICIN also informed. The current legislative amendments go towards supporting that integrity and greater scrutiny of how the market is functioning. It is earlier days of the market, so we do see some things playing out the way they weren't always intended. But continuous legislative reform is needed to make sure it's working the way it was intended. Supporting and prioritising Indigenous-led method development is one way to do that and an important way, but also, at the other side of the scheme, lowering the safeguard mechanism and holding companies to account for their pollution is very important for the government given its role in regulating that. Dr Howey : I might also address that question. You've pointed to what I would call a fundamental paradox in this area of policy and mentioned climate refugees. There's a rather startling map in our submission that shows a zone of northern Australia that could be incompatible with human life within a couple of generations. We know that new fossil fuel projects are not compatible with 1.5 degrees of warming. That's a pronouncement that was made by the International Energy Agency in 2021. It's been backed up by the IPCC. The position of our alliance is that, while we understand the fossil fuel industry exists, we understand the 10 LNG export hubs are actually located across northern Australia. Those industries are here, and they should be required to offset and to mitigate or reduce their pollution et cetera. Our position is there shouldn't be new fossil fuel developments in this country. In relation to the safeguard mechanism, that is being reformed this year, as you'll be aware, and it's absolutely crucial that is reformed in a way that can ensure the public has faith in the integrity of the ACCU system and that this is the primary climate pollution regulatory scheme we have in Australia and it's not just a licence to pollute, which can happen once ACCUs lose their integrity and once rules are loosened so it is much easier to generate them than justify increased pollution, including from the fossil fuel industry but not limited to the fossil fuel industry. We'll certainly be engaging in that safeguard mechanism review, but some of the mechanisms that the government could look at are reducing that threshold of 100,000 tonnes that brings you into the scheme to a lower threshold and putting a cap on the amount of offsets that can actually be used in the safeguard mechanism. At the moment there are really no penalties. I shouldn't say there are no penalties. They're very limited in scope, and you should not be able to offset your way out of a new, hugely emitting fossil fuel project, for instance. It's caps on that, and there are a range of other measures as well. Those things will ensure we actually have genuine pollution reduction and emissions reduction, which will ensure the future of northern Australia really. It's tricky. I can see the dilemma we find ourselves in here in Australia and our reliance on this industry historically. But the reality is these projects are not compatible with a future here in northern Australia for all of us. Industry has a key part to play, and polluters must pay. That is a foundational principle of environmental law. We can do a lot to reform mechanisms so they're more just and fair and actually reduce pollution. CHAIR: Dr Howey, you could take this on notice, either you or Mrs Boustead. I think one of the key recommendations of the Pepper review, when we looked at fossil fuels and we looked at the gas industry in Beetaloo, was about offsets, and you talk about offsets again. Will you take on notice providing our committee with the deliberations as to, when we talk about offsets, what does that mean? I can tell you that I can give you one version of what I've been told about what offsets are, which is completely out of sync with what communities think and what rangers think. How do we bring Aboriginal people front and centre? If we talk about offsets in environmental management, it's an emerging industry. Water is probably one that people often don't look at as an emerging industry, but it is a resource that is used by everyone. I think we need to start looking at that. Would you take on notice providing some of that information to us? Dr Howey : There is also the emissions reduction hierarchy, which is how we refer to that issue. The first principle is avoiding pollution, the second is reducing pollution and the third is offsetting what you can't already avoid or reduce. CHAIR: I think we just need to break it down for people who are developing this sort of policy, and no doubt you have these conversations across the table with our public servants. It would be really good, whatever this process is, for that to be made clear to the government so we can add this when we submit the report. Dr Howey : I'm very happy to do that. CHAIR: I'll work with the secretariat, write some of this and then get that through to you so it doesn't sound as jumbled as what I've just attempted to do. But we'll get that sorted out. Mr Hunter : I'd like to add also that the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures in Europe is an international movement. We know that in Europe the uptake is around 50 per cent. At the moment it's around 16 per cent of the industry in Australia. It's because it's voluntary, and it's the industry declaring its impact upon nature and, with that, then looking at potential financial investment. The uptake in Australia has been very slow, and that would go some way towards addressing industry engagement in the nature sector. There's the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures as well, which does the same thing and looks at climate change. Those things I think really need to move past just being voluntary and be heavily promoted amongst the industry so there is that disclosure that comes out. CHAIR: I thank you all for your evidence today. On those last couple of questions, Dr Howey and Mrs Boustead, I'll work with the secretariat to send them through. I think Mr Gosling also had a couple of questions. Mr GOSLING: Yes, it was how we can do things better with the prawn piece, but also I want to know what the buffalo version of ACCUs is and how we monetise that effectively. CHAIR: We'll get that and make that clear to the members. That concludes today's hearings. I thank all the witnesses who have appeared. The committee has agreed that any responses to any questions should be provided within two weeks of witnesses receiving a copy of the Hansard transcript. Committee adjourned at 16:33