Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

What it would do, as you have correctly identified, is shorten the maximum reporting period. But a five-year maximum reporting period provides flexibility. For example, it avoids reporting costs at the beginning or end of a project when forest growth rates are slow. So what you would be doing is having three years creating churn. Five years provides that flexibility. The scheme integrity continues to be maintained because credits are only issued after abatement has been achieved, therefore the scheme continues with integrity. Five years is the appropriate period. It gives certainty, it gives flexibility within that period and it ensures that credits are only issued after abatement has been achieved. What it does not do, given what yours does, is create a greater churn in that period. In other words, what you do is you add to administrative cost.