Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition (Social and Community Affairs)) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to speak in support of the proposed reference to Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. I congratulate Senators Siewert and Milne for proposing the reference, because it is really important. Senator Bartlett stole my thoughts on what the real agenda is. Since the government took control of the Senate, it really is all about just suiting their own whims and damping down any constructive political debate on issues that they do not find very palatable.

It is of great concern to me that someone like Senator McGauran comes into the chamber and makes extraordinary statements and accusations. I noticed that he said he would like to meet a farmer, and I am sure there are plenty of farmers who would actually like to meet him too. Having abandoned the National Party for the Liberal Party in Victoria, his office is in the Melbourne CBD and the farmers probably do not even know where to find him. Besides that, he made some pretty insulting comments about not just the issues raised by Senator Milne but also the substantive issues around the effects of climate change on the agricultural sector and rural and regional communities. I would like to reflect on those for a moment.

His first statement condemned Senator Milne for linking the issue of climate change to mental health, and yet that goes against the grain. Anyone who has been outside of this place and has travelled around drought declared areas of the country would have heard incredible stories about the levels of depression and suicide, the distressed children that are the concern of people in those communities, the lost opportunities for rural workers, the lack of opportunity to work and have a regular income in those kinds of communities, and the impacts that is having on the services and the agencies that are providing services to people in those communities. So, even before we go to the issue of what the impact of climate change might be on the agricultural sector and take a minute look at what the impacts might be on regional communities, the first thing we should be looking at is the mental health impacts. I found his comments quite insulting in that regard.

Important issues are encapsulated in this reference. The reference acknowledges the recommendations of the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change to build national resilience to the impacts of climate change. The Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change are an august body. They represent key leaders of industry and the industries of the future. They are concerned about the economic underpinning of industry in Australia and they understand that they have a responsibility to contribute to climate change solutions. They have genuine concerns. The National Farmers Federation made quite significant statements about their responsibility as farmers and acknowledged that climate change may be the greatest threat confronting Australian farmers and their productive capacity.

Then we have the statement by 16 faith groups calling on the Australian government to take urgent action on climate change. This is one way the government can take some urgent action on climate change—that is, allow a reference to a Senate committee. Rather than suggest that the reference is only a base political move to embarrass the government, the government should reflect on what references to Senate committee inquiries used to be about, which was to enable people to articulate their positions clearly, to provide evidence, to advise the Senate and the government, and—a very important point that Senator Bartlett just made—to debunk some of the myths and nonsense out there about the impact of climate change.

Yet the government are not prepared to support a reference to the Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, which in the past has been really a very cooperative committee. The inquiry into Australia’s future oil supply, the reference Senator Milne referred to, raised very important issues which were supported by both sides of the chamber. Last year we had the rural water supply reference, which was a very constructive inquiry and informed the government and all the opposition parties about where and how quickly things are changing in relation to water. So it is very frustrating to argue for a very reasonable inquiry reference when we know the government do not want to do it because they are in the business of silencing dissenting voices wherever they are. The government are in denial. The only way they can deal with silencing those voices is to hear only from the people they want to hear from and allow only those voices that agree with and endorse their position to be heard.

There are a lot of people out there who disagree. Some of them are in the Australian Greenhouse Office of the government’s own Department of the Environment and Water Resources, which says that the impacts of climate change on agriculture are a key concern to Australia because of the sector’s importance to the economy.

There are important positive effects, too, that may come out of climate change, which is something that has not even been raised in the debate. It is a left-field argument, but there are positive impacts as well that have to be dealt with in agriculture. I am talking about water use efficiency or increased growth—although the potential offsets for those are very concerning.

The potential impacts are starting to be recognised as going across the entire agricultural sector: cropping, horticulture, viticulture, grazing, livestock, fisheries—the list goes on. Some of the impacts we are starting to hear more about—and we would like to hear more through the constructive process of a Senate inquiry—relate to reduced water availability for crops. These include reduced cropping yields, changes to world grain trading—a very significant issue—and the increased risks of parasites, pests and pathogens to our agricultural base, which is the issue that Senator Milne raised.

I am also thinking about the issues of change in frost frequency and severity, which might cause lower yields and reduce fruit quality in horticulture, or the damage from extreme events such as hail, winds and heavy rain—and we saw such damage just this week here in Canberra. Then there are the issues of increased risks of pests and diseases in horticulture and also the impact that warmer conditions may have on very practical things like the chilling requirements for some fruit cultivars. There are many aspects of climate change that need to be considered in agricultural production.

Let’s think about the wine industry and what is going on there. Higher ripening temperatures may reduce optimum harvesting times, and that has real implications for that burgeoning industry in Australia. There are potential changes to wine quality based on temperature, and warmer conditions may actually allow new varieties to be grown in some areas. We have the issue of trying to introduce water savings and reduce water supply for irrigation crops. These are all very important issues for the agricultural sector and they are issues that farmers and producers are seeking advice and information on. We should be able to access that advice and information too.

Let’s think about grazing and livestock. I do not know where you live, Mr Acting Deputy President Chapman, but if you lived on my farm you would see that there is not a scrap of grass or an inch of topsoil left. When you think that it was a thriving superfine wool property and see what it has been reduced to, you realise that this is a very important issue. We have higher temperatures that are reducing milk yields. We have decreases in forage quality. We have reduced livestock capacity all across the country. We have heat stress in Northern Australia impacting on productivity and animal welfare. We have the whole issue of salinity. It is hidden by the drought at the moment, but as soon as the rains come back it will again be a huge issue.

I cannot overstate the importance of all of us understanding the impact of climate change on the agricultural sector. I will give you just one example in New South Wales. In the Hunter Valley, the dairy industry is worth about $90 million a year in turnover. There has been a study into projected increases in temperature leading to heat stress and resulting in reduced milk production. It was undertaken by the CSIRO, which conducted atmospheric research centred on the town of Muswellbrook. Milk loss resulting in loss of income is predicted to increase from 3.3 per cent of production in 2000 to double that, six per cent, by 2070. In that industry alone—just one industry—shade and shelter for milk cows will become a necessity, creating a significant financial burden for farmers. It is something they will have to factor into their farm business plans.

Thinking about the impact on rural communities, climate change presents a huge threat to the survival of rural based businesses and communities. Unless we take some action now, our future and our children’s futures are at stake. There is anecdotal evidence everywhere that the current climate variability, which we see in the gripping drought, has resulted in a downturn in productivity and is impacting very significantly on smaller rural communities, which are the service centres for surrounding rural districts. Businesses are distressed because farmers and farming families no longer have money for discretionary spending—everyone from the local hairdresser to the local butcher is being impacted. Farm machinery dealers are parking their machinery on the streets and have no business. The urgent repairs and maintenance of farm equipment is now not happening. Vehicle sales are being impacted and a new car is now no longer a viable option.

Lifestylers are actually propping up some small towns because they do not rely on farm income. Think about Cooma, where the reduction in snowfall has created a huge downturn in the tourism related industry. Occupancy rates for tourist venues have dropped dramatically. That is just one example. Less snow means less water in the dams and less water to allocate to farming. The impact on people of all that has resulted in depression, suicide, family breakdown and the mental health issues that we have talked about. When I went to the drought summit in Parkes a few years ago, I was overwhelmed by the extent to which mental health issues were what everyone wanted to talk about. This is no longer a hidden issue.

Let’s think about the wheat industry in Australia. It is a massive industry and makes a massive contribution to our national economy. Professor Peter Grace from the Queensland University of Technology said that a study of five major wheat-growing areas predicted that changes to weather patterns could cause a drop in production of up to 24 per cent. Soaring temperatures and declining rainfall caused by climate change could wipe $1 billion a year off Australia’s wheat industry within 30 years. This is a very significant issue for us all to consider. He also suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are predicted to increase significantly in Australia over the next 30 to 50 years, causing temperatures to rise by up to three degrees and rainfall to drop by around 20 per cent or more. This is very significant for us all. Of the five grain growing areas, those most affected by global warming would be the South Australian regions of the southern Mallee, with a 24 per cent drop in production, and the northern Eyre Peninsula, with a 19 per cent drop. The Riverina district in New South Wales has already recorded a 12 per cent reduction, central eastern Western Australia has had a 10 per cent drop and the Darling Downs in Queensland a five per cent decline. We have already seen that we have a lot of work to do on drought resistant crops, which already exist in other parts of the world but which we now need to think about introducing into Australia.

These are the kinds of issues that we would be able to tease out and address in a reference to a constructive committee inquiry, but it looks like it is not going to happen. While the government might decide that there is not a link between climate change and agriculture and there is no need for an inquiry, there are many organisations, including those I mentioned like the National Farmers Federation and the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change, that are not going to wait for the government to act. David McRae, a research scientist with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries, is now conducting seminars on how to handle climate change which are being sponsored by Leading Sheep, an Australian Wool Innovation project in partnership with the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries in Queensland and supported by AgForce.

We have a very frustrating situation in this place where people do not want to talk about the issues and where they do not want to hear counterarguments. But at least, as Senator O’Brien told us all yesterday, Labor are prepared to listen on this issue. We take climate change very seriously and we do want to engage with farmers to find solutions. We have indicated very clearly where we stand on the issue of climate change. If elected, Labor will start by ratifying the Kyoto protocol, by cutting Australia’s greenhouse pollution by 60 per cent by the middle of the 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. Of course, the Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, has already announced that he intends to convene a national climate change summit so that the best science and the best ideas can be put on the table. The National Farmers Federation and others will be invited to participate in that.

Before I conclude, I want to go back to the points made by Senator Siewert yesterday about the national water plan, because Senator McGauran made some outrageous comments about the national water plan. It struck me that Senator McGauran has not read it. It was quite clear that he had not read it. He said, ‘It’s not quite stitched up yet.’ That is for sure. We know, as Senator Siewert told us yesterday, it is not referenced. If you look at the plan, you will find it is an outrageous piece of propaganda with very little substance. It is not costed. We heard all about that during the estimates process and from information that has been dribbling out over the last few weeks. There are no targets in terms of water savings and management. The government have back-pedalled this week about how they are going to deal with overallocations, and there are no figures at all to indicate just how they are going to deliver on the water savings.

A very sensible argument was presented by Senator Siewert yesterday about how we have to think systemically about natural resource management issues, including water. There is no sense that we are getting any systemic thinking or whole-of-government thinking on the issue of climate change. We have one organisation, one minister or one senator saying one thing and someone else saying something counterproductive and contradictory and nobody can make sense of why the government is in such denial about climate change. I commend the reference to the Senate.