Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

Clearly, climate change poses serious challenges for all sectors of the Australian economy but particularly those sectors dependent on natural resources, such as agriculture and forestry. In the context of this motion, we need to spend some time exploring the issue of climate change and agriculture—specifically, the science of climate change and the potential issues affecting agriculture. I want to talk about Labor’s positive policy on climate change, the leadership of farm sector representatives on the issue of climate change and the Howard government’s negative approach to the issue of climate change, especially its failure to engage with the rural community on this important public policy area.

The agriculture sector is Australia’s largest source of methane and nitrous oxide emissions. The methane emissions come from livestock and nitrogen comes from agricultural soils in the form of nitrous oxide. There are emissions from the burning of savannas and smaller contributions from manure management, rice cultivation and the field-burning of agricultural residues. The Australian Greenhouse Office estimates that methane emissions from livestock represent a loss of up to 15 per cent of potential energy that could otherwise be used for animal production. Similarly, the loss of nitrous oxide from soils represents a loss of valuable nitrogen that could otherwise be used for plant production. Reductions in agricultural emissions may lead to productivity benefits for agricultural industries and provide a win-win for agricultural production and environmental sustainability. The agricultural sector is vulnerable to the potential impacts of climate change. These impacts include: reduced rainfall; changes in temperature and atmospheric CO concentrations; increased frequency of extreme weather events, such as flooding and drought; altered distribution and survival of pests and weeds; and increased risk of heat stress for intensively housed animals.

Climate change is a serious issue for rural Australia and Labor want to engage with farmers in finding solutions. We are committed to a comprehensive approach, however, not just to farmers but to dealing with climate change. We are not only considering the threats but also developing policy to capitalise on the opportunities presented by climate change. Innovation and investment must be at the heart of Australia’s response to climate change. Certainly Labor are not, as the government is, in denial over climate change. We believe the core science is beyond dispute, and that is that the planet is heating up, the icecaps are melting, sea levels are rising—and they are predicted to rise further—oceans are warming and corals are bleaching.

The farming community is concerned that climate change will produce changes in weather patterns and the distribution and intensity of rainfall. Farm leaders and rural businesses around Australia recognise that climate change poses risks and opportunities which cannot be ignored. Last night, in a speech to the Australian Industry Group, Labor leader Kevin Rudd made it clear where Labor stands on the issue of climate change. We need a plan to secure the future health of our planet. Specifically, we need a plan to protect the Australian economy and jobs, particularly in tourism and agriculture. Labor will forge a new national consensus on climate change. We will start by ratifying the Kyoto protocol, by cutting Australia’s greenhouse pollution by 60 per cent by the middle of this century, by setting up a national emissions trading regime, by substantially increasing our renewable energy target and by ensuring that Australia’s disaster mitigation plan reflects the impact of climate change. We will also convene a national climate change summit so that the best science and the best ideas can be put on the table.

I will ensure that the concerns of the agriculture sector are reflected in Labor’s solutions for climate change. In this regard, I have met with the National Farmers Federation to invite them to participate in Labor’s national climate change summit. The economic and environmental costs of Australia not acting on climate change are huge and continue to increase under this government. Because climate change is also linked to declining rainfall and worsening drought, Labor understand that policies that tackle climate change are required to ensure that water is widely available in the future. Labor have outlined our approach to securing future supplies of water to regional Australia. Our plan is a truly national one.

At a federal level, Labor has consistently called for a national approach including: Commonwealth leadership on water; the appointment of a minister for water; the creation of a single Commonwealth water authority; the commitment of more funds for water management and efficiency programs right across Australia; the development of water trading and economic instruments to drive reform; and that the existing $2 billion Australian water fund be used on practical projects. The Prime Minister’s response in January was consistent with many of these objectives and has therefore received federal Labor’s support. Labor welcomed the government’s adoption of proposals for a minister for water, the creation of a single Commonwealth water authority and the commitment of more funds for water management and efficiency programs in rural Australia.

Labor will implement responsible long-term measures to address climate change, ensure our water integrity, protect our environment and secure Australian jobs in the agriculture industry now and in the future. We will do so in close consultation and partnership with the Australian farming community. Labor are listening to the concerns of rural Australia and our farm sector leaders. Labor want to engage with the agriculture, fishing and forestry industries and their respective leaders. Labor have an open door to the concerns of rural Australians.

In recent weeks I have heard the views of many peak farm organisations, and I want to commend them for their leadership on the issue of climate change. Specifically, I commend the National Farmers Federation, the New South Wales Farmers Association and AgForce Queensland for their open-minded approach to climate change. I would like to highlight some of the concerns of farm organisations in relation to climate change. The President of the National Farmers Federation, David Crombie, believes:

THE threat of global climate change is potentially the biggest issue Australian agriculture has ever faced with reports of increasing seasonal variability and more extreme weather events ...

The National Farmers Federation recognises that the dependence of the farming sector on weather conditions is paramount, but rather than throwing their hands up in despair I commend the National Farmers Federation for advocating direct and deliberate national engagement with the farming sector on this issue. Like Labor, the National Farmers Federation wants to deal with the reality of climate change and to work cooperatively with the scientific community and policy makers to identify solutions—and, of course, they would be an important part of any inquiry as proposed by the movers of this motion.

Labor agrees with the National Farmers Federation that we need a plan which actively engages the farm sector in developing solutions to the changing climate. I understand that the National Farmers Federation wants to be engaged in this debate, particularly on the issues of emissions trading, adaptation, mitigation, research and development, education and awareness. Critically, the National Farmers Federation has identified the need for an increased research effort to enable all primary industries to better plan and adapt to the changing climate. In contrast, the Howard government’s research effort on the impact of climate change on the Australian agricultural industry has frankly been pathetic. I will come to that in more detail in a moment.

I want to focus on the Prime Minister’s task group on emissions. It is of great concern to Labor that the Prime Minister refused to include farming interests on his national task group on emissions trading. Labor simply cannot understand why the Howard government would not want to talk with farmers about climate change. Back in December the National Farmers Federation called upon the Howard government to realise the significant contribution agriculture can make in meeting the challenge of climate change. As Mr Crombie said, this is not simply an issue for the mining, energy and transport sectors, as the government approach has been. Mr Crombie’s concerns appear to have fallen on deaf ears, frankly. I agree with Mr Crombie when he says:

“It is extremely shortsighted for the—

Prime Minister—

... to overlook agriculture, and a host of others, as part of this important taskforce.

“We fear the taskforce may be compromised before it begins, which raises questions about how seriously the Government is taking the threat of climate change.”

These are damning words from Australia’s peak farming organisation about this government. It is even more damning when you consider that the coalition government claims to be the ‘natural party’ of rural and regional Australia. Where was the minister for agriculture when the National Farmers Federation was calling on the Prime Minister to include them on his task force? I want to know what effort the minister made to engage the farming sector on climate change.

The National Farmers Federation is not the only peak farming group that is showing leadership on this issue. AgForce, the peak industry body representing the Queensland broadacre farming sector, has also been critical of the Howard government for failing to engage with them on climate change. AgForce President Peter Kenny recently said:

It is extremely disappointing that nowhere in this debate has the role of farmers been recognised.

I want to assure Queensland farmers that Labor will not leave farmers out of this debate. In particular, I look forward to meeting with AgForce and participating in its conference ‘Agriculture: a changing climate’ in Goondiwindi in July this year. At the same time I want to acknowledge the concerns of the New South Wales Farmers Association. I am aware that they are keen to get involved in the debate about climate change.

We all know that the Howard government does not have any credibility on this issue and, since climate change has recently emerged as a leading issue in the polls, none of us should be surprised if the government suddenly produces a mickey mouse plan on emissions trading. I note that Paul Kelly reports in the Australian today that Mr Howard will announce an emissions trading scheme some time in the middle of this year. If Mr Kelly’s source is correct, then it is very worrying indeed that this plan will have been developed without consultation with the Australian farming community. We should remember this: the failure of the Prime Minister to engage the farming sector on climate change discussions seriously undermines the credibility of any future emissions trading scheme he dreams up.

Again, I want to reassure the National Farmers Federation and other peak farming groups that Labor are aware of their interest in climate change, and we will be listening to their concerns. Excluding farming groups from discussions on emissions is indicative of the Prime Minister’s failure to understand, and growing contempt for, the concerns of farming families. Frankly, on this issue the Prime Minister simply does not get it, nor does the National Party. In recent times the Howard government has become increasingly arrogant in its dealings with farming groups in rural Australia. Climate change is not the only issue on which the Howard government and the National Party have failed to adequately engage with the farming community.

Just three weeks ago we learned that the government was changing the rules on agricultural managed investment schemes. As a result, thousands of rural families have been impacted. On last night’s The 7.30 Report, we saw reports of devastated mums and dads who have already lost their jobs. A couple of weeks before the MIS announcement, Australians woke up to the news that the Prime Minister had a new so-called national plan for water. Labor have supported the broad principles of the plan but we note that there was no consultation or engagement with the farming sector on the plan, either before or since the announcement. There has been one meeting with Mr Turnbull, but I note that the National Farmers Federation came away from that meeting completely dissatisfied with the responses and remain concerned about that plan.

Of course, on top of all that, we are aware of the reports of the government’s charade consultation on the wheat marketing single desk. There is a story in all of this for us, and that is the emerging pattern of the Howard government’s arrogance and contempt for the concerns of rural and regional Australia. The government thinks that it knows best for rural Australia and is simply taking rural votes for granted.

What is the government’s record on climate change? A few weeks ago there was much fanfare around the release of the issues paper from the Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading. I have it here. It is nine pages long. Apparently it has taken this government 11 years to prepare this to address climate change—and we have a nine-page report. This should come as no surprise to the farming sector. How many mentions of agriculture does the emissions task group report include? None. This report makes no mention of agriculture, with all of the implications of climate change to agriculture and the contribution agriculture can make to amelioration.

I have seen the debates on climate change in this chamber over recent weeks. I note that members opposite are quick to claim credibility on climate change by referring to the establishment of the Australian Greenhouse Office. Let’s take a closer look at the record of the Australian Greenhouse Office, specifically in relation to the issue of impacts and opportunities arising from climate change for the agriculture sector. In October 2004, the Australian Greenhouse Office released its Strategic Research and Development Investment Plan. The strategic plan aims to facilitate research to address the challenge of responding to the impacts of climate change on agriculture. That is commendable. But what has it achieved to date? According to the Australian Greenhouse Office website, the Howard government has provided a paltry $5.8 million in funding for agriculture related research since 2004. This averages out at a little over $1.5 million per year or $220,000 per project.

In addition to these projects, the Australian Greenhouse Office has published or part-funded a limited number of publications on the impact and opportunity of climate change on agriculture. The most recent was back in 2003—that is the most recent publication by the Australian Greenhouse Office on that issue.

The only other initiative on this topic was the release of a report late last year by the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council. That report was the national agricultural and climate change action plan 2006-2009. The plan recognises that agriculture can play an important role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing carbon sinks. It is positive to see the government is at least making an attempt to recognise the threat that climate change presents in relation to agriculture. The action plan identified four strategies to address climate change in the agricultural sector, and these are broadly supported by Labor. One must say, of course, that this is a council which involves all of the states, so they would have to take some of the credit for it, wouldn’t they? It is also positive that the government has worked together with states and territories in that regard—one wonders who the driver was. The government should develop this action plan further to examine the potential role which agriculture can play in reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas burden.

The motion which has been moved proposes that the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport examine the issue of climate change in agriculture. I think I have demonstrated a deficiency in the performance of this government in this area, which may explain why the government does not want an inquiry and why these issues would be inconvenient if illuminated by a Senate committee, even though the committee might be under the control and chairmanship of the Liberal Party. Frankly, I am sure that the farming community would welcome such an inquiry. I am absolutely certain that they would relish the opportunity to place on the public record their views as to the importance of climate change for their industry and the contribution that it could make. And what would be wrong with that? Why should this chamber not encourage the establishment of an inquiry which would welcome the views of the farming community on this critically important subject? The community have been excluded from the Prime Minister’s task group on this issue. Are they now going to be excluded from the opportunity to present their case to the Senate because the government would find it inconvenient? I suspect so, but we will wait to see what contribution is made in relation to this matter.

It is time that the government included the lead sectors of agricultural industry in their consideration of climate change. It is certainly time that they gave them more of a voice than they have been allowed to date. It is time that senators in this chamber engaged with those communities about their interests. And this committee has previously had a very positive role in such matters. This committee—or its predecessors, because it has been slightly changed; two committees merged into one—has a history of a very cooperative approach to issues such as this, in most cases arriving at unanimous reports, where perhaps the spirit of compromise, cooperation and finding a solution on the basis of the evidence was the driving factor rather than the politics of the issue. Unfortunately, if we are denied that opportunity, the opposition will come to the view that the government does not want that committee to be a cooperative committee but rather a rubber stamp for this government.

Debate interrupted.

Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.