Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I love the refutation from the member for Mackellar, ‘Oh, you’re wrong.’ There is a great level of intellect going on there. The cogency of the argument really shows that we have got someone who understands and is on the cutting edge of climate change. We are so glad you are back on the frontbench. You have no idea how happy we are about that.

Of their 140 million tonnes, 85 million tonnes does not get counted under the international carbon accounting rules. They said they could get to a five per cent reduction by 2020 without a carbon pollution reduction scheme. At best, they have got two per cent of the way, but under the document they have released today they have no chance of making it even halfway.

It is not the only problem with the proposals that the opposition have released today. There is no money for agricultural R&D. There is no cap. There is no penalty for continuing with business as usual if you are a big polluter. There is an increased cost for families but not one dollar of assistance for families. There is no surprise as to why they have landed in this sort of territory. The Leader of the Opposition has said previously that he reckons climate change is crap and he has confirmed that again today with this policy. His climate change plan is nothing more than a climate con job. It took about three hours from the time they released it to work out they have not even made it halfway to the benchmark they themselves said they would set today.

No money for agricultural R&D is a big failing. Let us not forget that when we came to office we promised an extra $15 million for research and development into agriculture, fisheries and forestry. We then changed that $15 million to $46.2 million because of the importance of research and development in this area. Then, when we had the agreement across the chamber for the amendments, we added a further $50 million in agricultural R&D. Today, the opposition come back and turn that figure into zero—not one dollar for agricultural research and development.

The R&D part of it is so important because, if you get this right, you can actually get an alignment between a lower emissions path and improvements in productivity. You can do that. You start to look at emissions as another form of farm waste. Anything that is being produced on a farm that you are not getting a return from is therefore a form of farm waste. If you reduce that, you improve your productivity and you improve your profit. That is why we have been engaging in research into methods of better feed efficiency in livestock. That is why we have been looking at methods of lowering nitrous oxide emissions in the use of fertiliser. With fertiliser prices going up again, as they have started to do in only recent weeks, if you can lower your nitrous oxide emissions farmers can also benefit by having production methods where they have to buy less fertiliser. These are real productivity gains and they are made possible through cutting-edge research and development and with our having some of the best agricultural scientists in the world. The government says, ‘We promised $15 million, we turned that into $46.2 million and then we added a further $50 million in this area’. The opposition’s response: zero—not one dollar for agricultural R&D.

The next problem with the proposal that has come out today is that there is no cap. The coalition kept going on with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and talking about the trading of carbon permits, but at no point did they acknowledge that the starting point and first principle in any cap-and-trade scheme is not the trade. The first principle of cap-and-trade is the cap. That is the bit they forgot about because it is quite possible, under the proposal they have given us today, for emissions to go up. Under the proposals that have been put forward by the opposition today, there is nothing that prevents emissions from going up because there is no cap on carbon pollution. Of all the different ideas about how you deal with climate change, this is the first time I think we have seen a proposal that allows for more CO2 to be put into the atmosphere. That is what the opposition have given us. In terms of creative policy thinking, it gets a tick for the creative part, but that is about all.

It is madness to think that they would come back with a proposal that allows emissions to go up. But then they say, ‘If the big polluters go any further than business as usual, at that point there will be a penalty.’ Might I remind the House: do the opposition think the big polluters will just absorb that penalty or do they think it will be passed on to consumers? The moment it gets passed on to consumers, that will mean increased costs for families being offered by those opposite but not one dollar of assistance for those families.

They have managed to come up with a system where prices can go up but there is nothing to help working families—no assistance at all, unless they presume that no business will grow under their proposal. Maybe that is the presumption—it is consistent with how they approached the stimulus package. Maybe that is the way they want to work their economic theory. They have proposed a situation where the moment you go beyond business as usual there will be increased costs for families, unless the big polluters show an extraordinary level of goodwill and they just say: ‘Forget the executive salaries. Forget the share price. We’re just going to absorb the cost. We’re not going to pass it on to the consumers.’ Unless their level of fantasy has become that bizarre, the opposition have proposed a situation where there is no doubt that increased prices will get passed straight back to the consumer, straight back to households, without one dollar of assistance.

A lot has been said in the parliament today about dairy, because dairy uses a tremendous amount of electricity. Let us not forget what was in the agreement about food processing that the government put to the parliament last year. We promised a five-year, $150 million stream of assistance for the food processing sector to be established within the Climate Change Action Fund. Where were we giving priority for that stream of assistance? Dairy processing, meat processing and malt production facilities. In those three areas, we had a $150 million stream of assistance. Under the proposal from those opposite, for any dairy operation that is business as usual, from whatever baseline they choose, there will be no penalty. But their message to every dairy producer is: ‘Don’t you dare expand because the moment you expand your business there will be penalties. There will be no assistance for you in moving to a low-emissions pathway. When you pass those prices on to the consumer, there will be no household assistance for all those consumers at all.’

See this speech in context