Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises:

(a) the Government's commitment to future-proofing Australian agriculture, including the Future Drought Fund, and its action on climate change, including its commitment under the Paris Agreement to achieve a 26 to 28 per cent reduction in Australia's emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 and to increase ambition over time under the Paris ambition mechanism; and

(b) the Opposition's commitment to the future of Australian agriculture and to action on climate change mitigation and adaptation;

(2) notes:

(a) that climate change represents a serious and present threat to the Australian agricultural sector's continued viability and international competitiveness;

(b) the calls from the National Farmers' Federation for a coordinated national framework to drive productivity and profitability while recognising environmental stewardship, and for a carbon neutrality plan for all agricultural commodities by 2025; and

(c) the calls from the Australian Farm Institute and Farmers for Climate Action for the development of a national strategy on climate change and agriculture based on a consultative, co-design process involving government, industry, scientific research bodies, Australian farmers, and rural and regional communities;

(3) affirms that in order to ensure the continued flourishing of Australian agriculture into the future, the design and implementation of a national strategy on agriculture and climate change should include:

(a) funding for comprehensive research on the direct and indirect risks climate change poses to Australian agri-food systems, including risks to primary production, biosecurity, food processing, food safety, farmer health, key infrastructure, equity, animal welfare, export markets and farm inputs;

(b) targets for adapting Australian farming to climate change in the short, medium and long term;

(c) financial and technical support for a just transition by supporting farmers and regional communities to adapt to future climate conditions including adoption of climate-resilient crops and regenerative farming and land use practices, investment in technology and infrastructure, and development of new rural industries;

(d) a long term plan to promote clean energy in rural and regional communities, including community and privately owned renewables projects that can provide sustainable, alternative income to land owners during drought;

(e) a mechanism to compensate farmers and land owners for ecosystem services they provide, including land-based carbon sequestration as a route to achieve net carbon neutrality of other sectors; and

(f) a plan to accelerate global emissions reductions by exporting Australian technology, research and expertise; and

(4) calls on the Government to develop a national strategy on climate change and agriculture that reflects these components.

Across the floor of this parliament, across the nation, I'm calling for us to find our common ground and determine our agricultural future. Today I'm calling on the government to take real action and secure the future of agriculture in this hotter and drier Australia.

As we stand here, Australia is in the grip of an immense and devastating drought. Last week, fruitgrowers in the lower Darling turned off their taps for the last time. They're leaving the land because it can no longer support their crops. Australia has always faced droughts, and this drought, like always, will pass—but others will follow. What we face now is something more profound than what we've seen before. What we face now is a world in which our patterns of rainfall, sun, frost and heat are shifting. What we face now is a breakdown in the climate which has sustained people in this place for millennia.

The government yesterday announced funding for dams in New South Wales. I applaud this investment, but water infrastructure is only one part of the answer for one part of the country. This is not enough to futureproof Australian agriculture in a changing climate. As a country, we've set ourselves a lofty goal of growing agriculture to a $100 billion industry by 2030. I wholeheartedly support that goal, but we won't achieve it without a plan to address our changing climate, a plan for agriculture that we all sign up to.

Last week, the CSIRO released projections showing that in this century my home state of Victoria could warm by almost five degrees. The great rivers of the Victorian Alps in my electorate of Indi, rivers which feed the Murray-Darling Basin, will shrink, with spring rains declining by 35 per cent. What will we grow in a country that looks like this? How many more Australian farmers will end up like those fruit growers in the lower Darling because their world changed and we failed them? The answer depends on what we do now. Doing nothing means agricultural production will decline 17 per cent in the next 30 years. According to ANU climate scientist Will Steffen, that will mean losses of more than $200 billion. Doing nothing is not an option. It's not an option for agriculture and it's not an option for rural communities or for the 93 per cent of us who are fed by the food produced by Australian farmers.

Instead, this motion calls for a plan to change course in six concrete ways. First, such a plan must include significant and focused funding for research on how farming can thrive into the future. We need an Apollo program for farming. Second, we need to set targets for adaptations that drive investment in new crop varieties, in new livestock and in farming systems. Third, we need to support regional communities to adapt to our future climate, and that includes a health policy that recognises the impact of climate in rural Australia. If, as the Climate Council warns, 70 per cent of temperate wine regions will be unsuitable for grape growing within 30 years, then we need a plan for the 16,000 people employed in the wine industry. Fourth, we need a plan to roll out clean energy in regional Australia. Instead of being a country that pays foreign companies to pump oil, we could be one that pays farmers to harvest the sun and the wind. Fifth, we need to pay farmers for the ecosystem services that they already provide. The Emissions Reduction Fund's last auction abated just 0.001 per cent of Australia's carbon emissions. We need simpler ways for farmers to earn money from carbon farming. And it's not just carbon: farmers who restore native vegetation and improve water quality do society a favour, and they should be rewarded for that. The NFF has called for a $1 billion ecosystem services fund, and that's a great place to start. Finally, we need a plan to accelerate global emissions reductions by exporting our technology and our expertise. If the rest of the world continues to emit unabated, it will spell the end of farming here. So, if we care about farming, we need to build a zero carbon future here and sell it to the world.

In the past, Australia has shown that we can focus our efforts on great threats and move quickly and smartly to capture great opportunities. We're all custodians of this land. It is our common ground. And that's what we need to do in order to protect it. So I commend this motion to the House, and I urge all my colleagues to do the same.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be agreed to. Is the motion seconded?

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm dressed up for dams, would you believe! We're here in the Federation Chamber, it's late evening and we are talking about critical water infrastructure. Quite simply put, as the previous speaker has said, if we want Australian agriculture to reach $100 billion in gross product value, then we need to almost double our existing agricultural production. Right now, it's around $60 billion, and obviously there'll be changes into the future, given the current state of the nation in terms of drought. If you think about that, if we want to almost double what we have now, that means we need twice as many activities. That means we need to ensure we have a reliable water supply.

I made a few notes earlier. As a former producer I thought about what it was that was important to me when I made decisions, and it was risk, reliability, confidence and wealth. I think they are the critical decisions that every businessperson, whether they are in agriculture or not, thinks about before they make an investment and before they determine how much risk they want to take with their money, their assets and the future of their family. Right now, we need to ensure that that risk is as low as possible, and to do that you need reliable water supplies for agriculture and towns. We know that we are in a crisis state in a number of areas right across the country. We can't do anything about that—that is the position we are in. But we can provide hope and confidence to those individuals, those communities, those states and our nation if we continue to build big infrastructure projects. Whether that is water storage or connective infrastructure or irrigation projects, it doesn't really matter, because all of those things add into that decision matrix—risk, reliability, confidence and wealth. In Queensland right now, our growers—my local community—are struggling with all four aspects. I note the Prime Minister's announcements on the weekend of $1 billion for water infrastructure in New South Wales. The New South Wales government is willing to fast-track—not shortcut—approval processes in that state to make sure this infrastructure actually gets built. We have allowed bureaucracy to become the reason for inaction, and that simply cannot continue.

In Queensland, my home state, we have a Labor government which is determined to build nothing. In fact, in recent weeks they have announced they will reduce the dam wall height of our youngest dam—it is just 10 years old or a little older—by five metres, reducing its storage capacity by 85,000 megalitres. To do that, they are letting out 110,000 megalitres of water in that storage down the river, and the political spin is that this is great news for drought-stricken farmers. As you know, Deputy Speaker Hogan, and I and others know, you quite simply can't take water at the time it runs past your gate and make efficient use of it. So this is complete spin. This week's spin is that there is a safety issue, but it is unstated and unsubstantiated. No-one will tell us what the issue is. Our community deserves an answer. This dam was built and opened in 2016 with great fanfare by former Premier Peter Beattie—300,000 megalitres of storage. It's a big capacity dam in our region. It provides over 90 per cent water reliability to the growers in my area. As a result of that infrastructure, they have invested in tree crops—macadamia and avocado; long-term, high-level, high production, high-value products—because they had a reliable water supply.

After these changes are made and if we end up with less water and less reliability, that will mean less wealth for our local community and fewer opportunities in the future. That dam had 100,000 megalitres of unallocated water. That is the future wealth of our community. I say again to the state Labor government in Queensland, if there is a safety issue with the Paradise Dam, tell us what it is. Be up-front. Our community accepts that there are challenges and that things change all the time. If you are in agriculture, you get it. One of the things you learn in agriculture is resilience. Tell us what the safety issue is. Be up-front, walk up to a camera, tell us what it is that needs to be addressed and how you are going to fix it and give us a commitment to return that storage capacity to that facility so we can continue to have confidence in our local community. Without it, I have had reports already of a fall in the value of our local agriculture land. That is unacceptable. Quite simply, the state is taking away our wealth. Right now, if you look at the Rookwood Weir, if you look at the announcements made in the western part of the state and if you look at what they are doing in Paradise, the taxpayer will be spending almost half a billion dollars to have less water storage than they do today. I think that is unacceptable, that is criminal and that is disgraceful—$500 million of taxpayers' money to give us less storage than we have right now.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in the strongest of support for the member for Indi's motion. Australian farmers are on the frontline of the war against climate change and primary producers are the most dependent of all Australians on the weather for their livelihoods. Droughts, floods and fires ravage our land, and more frequently than ever before. Repeated disasters and prolonged high temperatures are sapping the remaining environmental and agricultural resilience from our landscapes. If the current predictions come to pass, soon the entire length and breadth of the River Murray and the Murray-Darling Basin, the agricultural lifeline of four states and one territory, will be in the grips of a severe drought. Already most of the basin is the Bureau of Meteorology's severe deficiency category or worse. Yet the government has no coherent plan to address the medium- to long-term impacts of climate change on Australia's agriculture. While immediate drought relief is desperately needed, throwing buckets of money at short-term solutions with no view to medium- or long-term climate change mitigation or adaptation is an abandonment of Australian farmers to a blinkered ideology of climate change denialism.

The government should make no mistake: rural Australians are waking up to the hotter, dryer, harsher future that awaits them. I would say, in fact, that it doesn't just await them but is here now. If the government refuse to minimise Australia's contribution to climate change, they can at least minimise its impact by properly preparing our frontline farmers for the hotter, dryer, harsher future it will bring. In practical terms, this means the government must design and implement the national strategy on agriculture and climate change that the member for Indi has just argued for in persuasive detail. We do not need bandaids; we need a comprehensive plan of attack. I join the member for Indi in championing a better future for our farmers.

As a matter of urgency, the government needs to instruct the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to conduct a comprehensive review of the climate change risks in the Murray-Darling Basin to complement a national strategy on agriculture and climate change. It beggars belief that the impact of climate change has yet to be taken into account in the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and that the government's only plan to do so appears to be at the next required review, in 2026, which is still another seven years away. Another six-plus years of inaction cannot be defended. In my electorate of Mayo, our apple, pear and cherry growers are facing the new normal, which is severe hailstorms and hotter seasons with lower rainfall. Support for horticulture netting to protect our crops is an excellent example of a climate change mitigation measure, and it's desperately needed. I've spoken in this place repeatedly about the urgent needs of our growers. If we had netting, it would mean that we would use less water. There would be around 30 per cent less waste. We talk about growing to a $100 billion agricultural industry. Well, that is a real and very easy way that we can do it. And that netting needs to be right across the nation.

Something that needs to be part of any national agriculture and climate change strategy is a floor for recurrent funding support for community environmental organisations. These groups are dedicated to their local environment because they love the country they live on and want to see it thrive and prosper. In Mayo, the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth Recovery Project, known as CLLMM, is an excellent example of how modest funds can really mobilise our communities to great effect. Their work has achieved so much to safeguard the Lower Lakes and the Murray from further devastation. The lack of government commitment to even the most modest of recurrent floor funding switches off the life support for these organisations. When disaster comes around again, as it always does in Australia's landscape—and I have the most vulnerable part of the river; the mouth of the river flows through Mayo—the capacity to re-form these groups across the river is incredibly limited. We really need to make sure that we can provide longevity to these groups.

The new environmental program that the government has announced is a step in the right direction. I urge the government in the strongest of terms to continue with significant expansion and increased longevity of these programs. If we want our kids to continue to eat Australian food, we need to invest in and support agriculture and the environment that surrounds it.

Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issue of climate change is one this government is taking seriously. Climate change is a global issue that requires a global solution. The Australian government is intentional in playing its part to reduce emissions, but it will not endorse targets which risk our industries, including agriculture. We have a clear plan to achieve reductions, evidenced by the $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Package, which will assist a range of industries to meet emissions targets. At the centre of the Climate Solutions Package is the Climate Solutions Fund, which will build on the success of the Emissions Reduction Fund. It is a strategy that is delivering results. The government is on track to meet its commitment under the Paris Agreement of 26 to 28 per cent reductions by 2030.

The current crippling drought across eastern Australia has resulted in our farmers facing increased costs for feed for stock, watching crops fail or paying unsustainable prices for water. Farmers in these conditions are under increased financial and mental stress. That is why farmers need solutions to assist with these pressures. Investments need to be made in things such as energy storage and batteries, building insulation, pump upgrades and solar panels. Investments such as these can increase on-farm productivity by reducing energy consumption, which in turn helps our environment.

It is important that we help farmers to make changes to their business, and that is why our government is launching a $50 million grants program called the Energy Efficient Communities Program. These grants will help eligible farmers make changes to their business, improving environmental and productivity outcomes, as they invest in energy efficient practices and technologies. Dairy farmers in Mallee are struggling to remain viable through the combination of drought, high water prices, low milk prices and high electricity prices. These farmers will have access to a $10 million pool in a grant set aside for the dairy industry in the Energy Efficient Communities Program.

The Morrison-McCormack government is focused on practical help for families as they face rising costs of energy and for primary producers as they manage extreme weather events, exacerbated by ongoing drought conditions. We do this by taking action on climate change while growing our economy. The government has a clear goal for the agriculture industry to reach $100 billion by 2030. This goal supports the National Farmers Federation ambition. The government is committed to supporting farmers to get through this drought and thrive again.

In communities across Mallee and Australia, the government's drought strategy is seeing great success. As Minister Littleproud has said, this strategy has three components: in the here and now, in the community, and into the future. In the here and now for farmers, in direct support to farming families provided with the farm household allowance, concessional loans are available through the Regional Investment Corporation. The RIC includes options such as $200,000 for restocking and replanting, as well as the drought loans and farm investment loans. In the community, the Drought Communities Program provides funding directly to local councils to assist their communities through building and upgrading facilities. This work, through the use of local trades and suppliers, ensures that money is being spent in the community and through local businesses. Our government knows that, when farmers are struggling, the community is struggling.

The third step of our drought strategy is through the Future Drought Fund. We know in Australia that droughts are part of our history and will be with us in the future. We want to see investment in communities to recover from drought and prepare for future droughts. The Future Drought Fund will allow for $100 million to be drawn down from the $5 billion investment that has been made by the government to ensure future drought preparedness and resilience. This will mean sustainability for our farmers, farming communities and the natural resources on which our farmers depend.

Our government has a stairway approach to managing drought. Until this drought has broken, and as this drought goes on, we will step up our support for farming families and their communities.

Fiona Phillips (Gilmore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Indi for the opportunity to speak on this motion today. I'm sure it will surprise no-one that the relationship between agriculture and climate change is something I am very passionate about. Farmers on the New South Wales South Coast know a fair bit about the impacts of climate change on agriculture and farming. Farmers in my electorate have been suffering under this drought for years now. They are suffering from a drought that many have acknowledged is being worsened by climate change. They have been selling their cattle in the thousands just to survive. I can tell you that for a dairy farmer to sell their cattle is no small thing. It can take years to recover from such a drastic and heart-wrenching decision. But this is a choice that dairy farmers have had to make. I'm not sure that this government has truly been listening.

I have said it before, but I'm going to keep saying it until it sinks in for those opposite: our dairy industry is in crisis. But only recently Mr Morrison decided he would rub salt into the wound for South Coast farmers. The Prime Minister flew back into the country after his US tour—a tour where he refused to attend the UN Climate Action Summit even though he was in the right place at the right time. His absence from the summit wasn't unnoticed by the international community either, with, among others, the vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stating that Australia's absence was misaligned with a vision of Australia as a 'smart, innovative, forward-looking and lucky country'.

Mr Morrison flew back into the country to much fanfare. He was going to announce a new drought package. Farmers in my electorate felt a small flicker of hope. I felt it with them. Perhaps finally, the government had started listening and was going to provide some long-awaited relief. The announcement came—an extension to the Drought Communities Program of a further $100 million for drought affected farmers. While $100 million might not be as much as farmers had hoped for, at least it was something. But any hope local farmers in my electorate had was soon dashed. Eurobodalla Shire Council was not on the list of eligible council areas. Shoalhaven city council was not on the list of eligible council areas. Kiama council was not on the list of eligible council areas. This was a huge slap in the face for local farmers struggling to get by. In one sweep, the Morrison government effectively told South Coast farmers they are not suffering under the drought. He told South Coast farmers that they don't deserve help to deal with the real impacts of climate change on their livelihoods. He told South Coast farmers that he has, in fact, not been listening to their concerns. Well, I want to tell South Coast farmers I have been listening. I have heard you. I will not give up the fight.

I have seen firsthand what happens when farmers give up hope. In my first speech in this place, I spoke about my dad, a dairy farmer. I still remember visibly his distress when he thought he might have to sell the family farm. My family was lucky—that farm is still going. But I hear from so many today who are facing these same struggles, from farmers who are paid less for their milk than it costs to produce it, from farmers who have to make the choice about feeding their families or feeding their cattle. These are choices no-one should have to make.

What we need is a comprehensive and effective drought policy from this government. The coalition government has had six years to address the drought. It has had six years to help farmers struggling under the weight of Australia's worst drought on record. After creating every drought body you can think of—a drought coordinator, a drought envoy, a drought task force—still we have no drought policy from the government. The National Farmers Federation got so fed up waiting for the government to draft a long-term drought policy it decided to draft one instead. The Morrison government have refused to release the drought coordinator's report, claiming it to be cabinet-in-confidence. Why? What are they hiding? What don't they want our farmers to know? All we get from this government is words. They are all talk and no action. South Coast dairy farmers are sick and tired of words from this government. We want action. Summer is coming, Prime Minister. What about your drought policy?

Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the member for Indi for moving this very measured and reasonable motion. This can be a very emotive and shrill topic that at times is saturating the media space with blame and division. There is a danger that we will see activism take the place of action, so I welcome a calm and collaborative approach to the issue. Thank you also for recognising the Morrison government's commitment to future-proofing Australian agriculture, including the Future Drought Fund and the Morrison government's commitment to climate change. Dr Haines and I share some common views and we see eye to eye on a number of these issues. I'm sure that our discussions will continue into the future.

Climate change is real and the effect of climate change is one that I see every day affecting farmers across Australia. As the spouse of a fourth-generation Tasmanian farmer, I'm all too aware of what climate change means for those of us on the land. Climate change is a real and present threat to those in the agriculture sector. Beyond my own farming family, I frequently speak to farmers across my electorate who care about these issues. Farmers care about conservation and the environment—indeed, their very survival depends on how they care for their land.

While there are always additional measures that I believe could be pursued, I would like to take the time to discuss what the government currently is doing in this space, as I do think much of positive action and strategies that are being implemented by the Morrison government are often overlooked. As mentioned by the member for Mallee, the Morrison government is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, in line with our Paris target. That is a credible, fair, responsible and, importantly, achievable response to global climate change, while also representing one of the most ambitious reductions in per capita emissions and emissions per unit. Our $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Package details how we will achieve the final 328 million tonnes of abatement needed to meet our 2030 Paris target, down to the last tonne. This includes the $2 billion Climate Solutions Fund, which will build on the success of the Emissions Reduction Fund and which has contracted 193 million tonnes in emissions reductions. That is the largest amount of emissions reductions in Australia's history.

Under this fund, farmers will be supported to revegetate degraded land and drought-proof farms. This issue has been discussed with me time and time again in my discussions with local farmers. During a recent visit to Bass, my colleague and Minister for the Environment, Sussan Ley, joined me in hosting a roundtable with representatives from our state's peak farming body, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association. During this meeting, and in subsequent meetings with the TFGA, there were significant discussions about further ideas that the association have for future actions. I endorse their proactive approach and will look to have further constructive conversations about how to effectively build on their ideas with my colleagues. This will help us to address the issues facing farmers.

In the same way, I commend the Farmers for Climate Action organisation for their advocacy in the area of agriculture and climate change. I look forward to meeting with them again soon to discuss their call to create a national strategy on climate change and agriculture that is based on a consultative, co-design process involving government, industry, science research bodies, Australian farmers and regional and rural communities.

I believe that it is by working collaboratively that we will make the greatest headway. One area where the government is making significant and lasting change is through the delivery of critical water infrastructure projects. There is vital investment in building our nation's dams, including over $25 million in funding towards the construction of the Camden Rivulet Dam in my electorate of Bass as part of the Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme.

I was very pleased to welcome the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack, in his capacity as Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development just a few weeks ago to inspect the progress on the Scottsdale dam. The dam is already half full and, when completed in February next year, will hold 9,300 megalitres of water. It will benefit more than 80 irrigators across more than 100 properties. It is critical investment such as this, along with a collaborative approach, that will address climate change and help to futureproof our nation's agriculture.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Indi for raising such an important matter. The people of Warringah and I stand in solidarity with those in the bush and regional Australia who are doing it tough, experiencing record drought and the threat of bushfires this coming season. In recent weeks, I've had the privilege of talking to farmers from across Australia, who are deeply concerned about their land and their futures. What these farmers are calling for is a comprehensive plan to address climate change mitigation, adaptation and resilience in the agricultural sector. This plan must sit within a broader national climate strategy across all sectors.

According to the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, agriculture is the sector that is most exposed to change in climate in Australia. Domestic agriculture accounts for 93 per cent of Australia's food supply, $30 billion in exports and the jobs and livelihoods of workers employed in Australia's 85,000 farm businesses. These statistics hide the human side. Many of these families are generational farmers—I have dairy farmers in my own family—with deep connection to the land. These are small tight-knit communities who all know each other, have shared weddings, triumphs and crop failures together. They are amazingly resilient, but they are watching the land change before their very eyes. Many have already been uprooted. We simply cannot afford, as a nation, to sit on our hands.

Unless we equip the agricultural sector with the tools and goals to adapt to climate change, and unless we as a country, united, make urgent attempts to mitigate the risk, we risk losses in agricultural production, job losses and loss of export revenue, farm profits declining, food insecurity, increases in food prices and impacts on rural health. Increasing climate volatility and variability are already devastating parts of Australia. Indeed, the drought devastating the eastern seaboard can be seen as a prelude of things to come. To quote the Treasurer on his recent visit to the bush, it must be seen to be believed. If we accept the science, that we need to decarbonise and act, then this is only going to get worse. This is not a problem that is going away. If the very science that we accept on the need to change is telling us we need to do more than we are currently doing, then that is the collaboration we need to find in this place. So we must act.

Farmers for Climate Action are calling for all Australian governments to commit to a long-term bipartisan national strategy on climate change and agriculture to 2050. The goals of such a strategy must be to minimise the risk to agriculture, food security and rural communities from climate change; help agriculture to realise opportunities to build value, make efficiency gains and diversify as the world shifts to low-carbon technologies; strengthen agricultural research, development and extension, which I note the drought fund bill goes some way to doing; build a clean energy sector with the benefits shared with the rural communities that host new renewable developments; realise the long-term potential of working landscapes to capture and store carbon; and identify the gaps in the current policies and programs, both federal and state, and fill them.

Many of these steps have already been taken by individual farmers. We have farmers like Charlie Prell, who I've had the pleasure to meet, who has 28 wind turbines on his land and is now benefiting from a diversified income stream. We also have Nic Charlian who has adopted land management practices that increase carbon sequestration and biodiversity and, as a result, while properties surrounding them are affected by drought, they have managed to remain productive.

But we must broaden these practices to the whole sector, and that can only come through a national commitment. We need more than just individual action. So I thank the member for Indi for her motion, and I hope in this parliament we can find bipartisan solutions to climate change for our farmers and for our national prosperity. It is time for all MPs to stand up and be counted. To all government MPs: please, push for a conscience vote on this motion. Make sure you support it because words will not be enough.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Indi for presenting this opportunity for the parliament to discuss drought, agriculture and climate change. Many of us in this parliament do represent electorates affected at one time or another by drought, bushfires and floods. There would be few in this place who would say the events of recent years have not been the worst in living memory. History and science tell us that it is the worst not only in living memory but perhaps in recorded history.

While farmers are by their nature a resilient and optimistic breed, the science, the data, the mapping and the research all point to hotter and drier times ahead, more extreme weather events and more unpredictability. While we may think of recent summers as the hottest in 100 years, we should start thinking of them as the coolest for the next 100. 'The rains will come again' is a refrain I often hear from farmers in the midst of drought, but when was the last good season of downpour, the last winter of heavy snow, the last weeks of springtime showers? What evidence can we point to that can tell us with any certainty that the rains will indeed come again in anything like the measure that they used to and that they need to?

Climate change should not now be and should never have been a tool for political pointscoring. That climate change has been fashioned into a weapon between the political Left and Right is to be deeply regretted. Science and facts know no ideology. All of us in this chamber and the parliaments, the congresses and the assemblies of the world must take collective global action, irrespective of our political colours, because climate change is undeniably the single most important area of public policy that confronts humanity today. We share one planet and one atmosphere. We are linked by the same oceans and skies. What we do in Australia affects our neighbours and, likewise, what they do affects us. We have a shared responsibility that transcends national borders.

Climate change action may not be the most electorally appealing subject nor an area of policy that will garner the most media attention or, frankly, the most votes. But historically defence, national security and immigration are also areas that have generally flown under the electoral radar while remaining of critical policy importance. Elections are generally won and lost on economic arguments, but voters still expect us to deal maturely with other critical issues that don't get the same air time. You can be a coalminer and still want climate change action. We all drive cars and fly in aeroplanes. The challenge is to recognise that emissions are created and we must work to reduce them where we can.

This parliament stands united in seeking to grow Australia's agricultural output. We're currently inquiring into the opportunities and impediments to growing Australian agriculture to $100 billion by 2030. Climate change is one of those impediments. Agriculture is the most exposed sector in the country to climate change: I stood up in this parliament in the last sitting to draw attention to the Farmers For Climate Action report that calls for a national strategy on climate change, a transition to clean energy generation and the adoption of wider carbon capture and storage mechanisms. I am pleased that the member for Indi and the new Parliamentary Friends of Climate Change Action have taken up that call. Likewise, I support the National Farmers Federation's call for a coherent national drought policy and a $1 billion ecoservices fund for farmers. They do incredibly important work and should be paid for it. The government could do much worse than take up the suggestion to implement these policy initiatives, which are drawn from people who have on-the-ground experience in our regions and who know firsthand the impacts of drought and climate change on agriculture.

Australia has a great history of innovation, and we need to draw on that legacy now like never before. From restoring canopy to encourage rainfall to capturing carbon to improve our soil and from tackling desertification and salinity to implementing modern livestock management, aquaculture and clean energy generation, there is much we can and must do to diversify, enhance and promote Australian agriculture in the 21st century, and climate change action must be a part of it.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk about this motion. One of the most important things to keeping agriculture sustainable is for our farmers to receive prices for their goods that allow them to make a profit. As you will appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, living in an area with huge beef producers, sugar and all sorts of horticulture, the price farmers get is sometimes a result of the supply and demand curve. But in this country, paradoxically, because of the concentration of power in the hands of retailers, we often have the situation where it is not sustainable because there isn't a normal market operating. Instead of the regular supply and demand situation, retailers dictate the price and the processors or the raw producer have to fit the volumes and the price. It is unsustainable in so many areas. How ironic it is that the inaugural ACCC chairman, Allan Fels, the champion of free markets and competition policy, is now calling for a levy on fresh milk. That is very welcome, but how ironic it is. I assume that he's reached the conclusion that a lot of us on this side and some of those on the other side have reached, that the market is definitely not delivering for the dairy industry.

Dairy farmers are the canary in the coalmine for many people out in the general community, but there are many primary producers, whether in horticulture or fruit and veg and in all sorts of processed goods, who have to meet price targets. Some of them even have to pay for the retailers' advertising. They get a price but then they get told that they have to have rebates and they have to pay for advertising and they have to pay for shelf space. All this is under the radar and not seen unless you're in the industry.

Dairy farmers have a very perishable product, like sugar, and they are price-takers, not price-makers. There is a huge bargaining imbalance between dairy farmers and their most common negotiator body, the processors, but there are some that deal directly with the retailers. Dollar-a-litre milk was the epitome. It was ruinous to many processors as much as it was to dairy farmers because there was a huge knock-on effect. The value of processors' brand milks that they'd built up over generations was destroyed, was cut away with the switch in the milk volumes that they had to put into the no-brand milks. So they would get their premium brand price, but the volume switched. It was the old switcheroo, so then retailers could say, 'Okay, we're giving processor X or processor Y their premium price, but next year we're only buying 30 per cent of the volume that they sell us at that premium price and you'll pay a different price.' So, standard terms in these contracts are due to change.

The long-awaited mandatory dairy code of conduct will address a lot of these egregious imbalances, but, as I see it, the problem starts at the top end in many instances. The prices negotiated between the major retailers with the processors are then passed on with unfavourable terms to the producer of the milk, the dairy farmer. All the risk is weighted at the bottom, onto the producer; they take the risk but they don't get the reward. Contract reform measures in the mandatory dairy code of conduct need to come in as a matter of urgency. The exposure draft is coming down the barrel of the legislative process. It's only a regulation. It can't come soon enough. Paradoxically, it is also hurting retailers, because many consumers use milk as a staple, as a benchmark for what other things cost, so they think everything's cheap.

Milk is a very nutritious product. The whole processing industry relies on fresh milk, but the rate of departure from the dairy-producing workforce is scary, and it's accelerating. We will all lose if this continues: the processors won't have enough fresh milk to process, the supermarkets won't have enough fresh product, and we will be losing industry as well as farmers and relying on imports.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.