Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

No, no. The member for Kennedy talks about the significance that carbon plays in soils and he says he only discovered that in the last three months. If we had had this debate 10 years ago, he might have discovered it earlier. The coalition’s denial and inaction placed their core constituency at absolute risk, because farmers feel the impact of climate change before anybody else—that is a fact.

The possible consequences of climate change for people in the electorate of Wakefield are pretty stark. If you are a poultry farmer between Dublin and Balaklava, you will face potential heat stress of your stock, increased maintenance for animal health and a reduced supply of feed. If you are a sheep farmer at Kapunda, you will face reduced pasture productivity, increased soil erosion and reduced carrying capacity. If you are a wheat farmer at Balaklava, you will face increased variability and changes to seasonality of rainfall. We have just heard other members talking about that. A decade of inaction and irresponsibility by the opposition, particularly around the emissions-trading system, has placed the Liberal Party’s own constituency at risk. You cannot get away from that fact. Agriculture is a critical area of the Australian economy and of Australian society. Australian farmers manage 60 per cent of the land mass—they are the stewards of the land. The farm-gate value of the sector is worth three per cent of our GDP. There are exports worth $30 billion, some of which come from my electorate—from wineries in Clare or from hay exporters in Balaklava.

Because the farming sector is of critical importance to the economy and to our society, we need real leadership. We have had that leadership from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and from this government. That leadership is demonstrated in our $130 million Australia’s Farming Future policy, which sets out the framework and resources to assist farmers to adapt to climate change and its effects on their businesses. That policy has three main parts. First of all, there is a $15 million allocation to fund a climate change productivity and research program, which will allocate funds to research bodies and coordinate climate change research.

The second part of the policy framework is the $60 million climate change adaptation partnerships program, which allows for on-farm demonstration pilots that contribute to reducing emissions. Such pilots could include things like carbon sequestration in soils. It will allow for targeted training for farmers and it will raise awareness in the sector. As we have just heard, awareness is a critical thing. What the member for Kennedy learnt three months ago and what I have learnt tonight thanks to his contribution to this debate is that soil is a critical part of climate change.

The third area of the policy is the $55 million Climate Change Adjustment Program, which provides training grants of up to $5,500 for both farmers and their partners and adjustment assistance of up to $150,000 to individuals who have made the difficult decision to leave farming. That is a difficult decision because they lose their job and often lose their home, which are two of the most distressing things that can happen to someone. The government has also signed Kyoto and, as I have said before, we are examining an emissions-trading system.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I know I have upset people with a little bit of partisanship but, as it is my first MPI debate, you could probably make some allowances. I think partisanship does serve the national interest in this case because, if we do not have some fire in this debate and some immediacy and responsibility, we will not get results.

See this speech in context