Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Will the minister inform the House of research into the impact of climate change and policy responses on our agricultural industries, and whether there is any threat to action on climate change?

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

I thank the member for Oxley for the question. The ABARE modelling is now available on the costs of doing nothing on climate change and the costs of action. As members are well aware, there is no cost-free option in either direction. The modelling on what would happen to Australian agriculture if Australia were to do nothing on climate change was released more than a year ago. It contains export figures for commodities, which are alarming to say the least. If we were to do nothing, our wheat exports would take an 11 per cent hit by 2030 and a 15 per cent hit by 2050; our beef exports would take a 29 per cent hit by 2030 and a 33 per cent hit by 2050; our sheepmeat exports would take a 15 per cent hit by 2030 and a 21 per cent hit by 2050, our dairy exports would take a 19 per cent hit by 2030 and a 27 per cent hit by 2050; and, most alarming of all, our sugar exports would take a 63 per cent hit by 2030 and a 79 per cent hit by 2050.

That said, taking action would not be without costs either. The costs are real. They were referred to by ABARE the other day in Senate estimates, and I think it is important to advise the House of those figures now. By 2011 the costs at the point of processing, which include the impact of on-farm inputs and the inputs by the time you get to processors, would be $1.83 per head of cattle, 17c per head of sheep, 61c per tonne of grain and $4 per head for the average dairy. These costs are real. They are small compared to the costs of not acting. Nonetheless, there are significant costs in acting. That is why the government, through the Climate Change Research Program, is determined that scientific research in this space will find the areas where we can get alignment between improvements in productivity and a reduction in emissions. While each of these models presumes that there would not be any improvements in technology, the government, by more than tripling the money originally promised for the Climate Change Research Program, is determined to make sure that these issues can be aligned.

I was also asked about the threat to a response on climate change. The threat to the government being able to respond through the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme lies very clearly in the coalition’s behaviour in the Senate. When the Leader of the Opposition first took on that role, some people were reasonably confident that we would end up with a constructive approach and that we would not actually end up seeing a significant threat to action on climate change. That was until this week came around. If ever was there any evidence that the Leader of the Opposition had become a threat to action on climate change it was before a word was spoken when he appeared side-by-side with the Leader of the Nationals at a media conference. It is not unknown for a Leader of the Opposition to go searching for a power base when times are tough—to go to powerbrokers or to try to get a base of support—but the National Party? This is a group of people who not only disagree fundamentally with the views put forward by Leader of the Opposition on this issue but also cannot agree with each other.

The member for Wide Bay said on that very day that the Nationals wanted to take a constructive approach to these issues. Yet the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate had these words on a constructive approach: ‘The answer is no. There you go. No, no, no, no, no. Okay.’ That is the constructive approach of the National Party. One member of the National Party was reported on 6 August as saying he is prepared to out himself as a climate change sceptic to bring a voice of reason to the debate. Another member of the National Party, in a media release last Monday, described climate change as a massive threat.

The concern about the ‘massive threat’ as opposed to the ‘climate change sceptic’ is this: I was actually referring to the same member of the National Party. It is the same person, the shadow minister for agriculture, who is both the climate change sceptic and the person who believes climate change is a massive threat. The National Party will never want to act on climate change, and the Leader of the Opposition at the moment has caved in entirely to the sceptics. At least there is an opportunity now, though, to show some leadership. The opportunity for leadership is there, at least in terms of the local electorate, to stand up as requested at the end of question time and let us know whether or not you support school funding in your own electorate.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.