Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I refer to the answer provided by the Minister for Climate Change and Water when I asked her, firstly, whether she was aware of and concerned about the impact on agriculture of a delayed decision or no decision on introducing farmers into the emissions trading scheme and, secondly, whether or not this would have a disastrous impact. The point she made was that she did not understand and was not sure of the answer to either. I am not sure whether she is concerned about the impact on farmers arising from the confusion relating to the failure to make a decision on whether agriculture will be introduced or not, but the minister should be aware that farmers are always undertaking business plans into the future and are appearing before their bankers and other financiers in relation to that.

Senator Cameron and his colleagues, particularly Senator Conroy, probably do not know about business plans, because we have gone forward with National Broadband Network, a $43 billion project, without there being any business plans at all. Farmers, of course, have to submit a business plan. As they submit them to their bankers, the first thing the bankers say to them is, ‘Do you know what’s going to be happening beyond 2013, 2014 or 2015 with regard to this shocking emissions trading scheme impacting on agriculture?’ Of course, they are going to have to say, ‘No, we don’t.’

The minister also did not seem to be clear on whether farmers in other countries are going to be excluded. She ought to be aware of this, because I cannot find another country that is intending to include farmers and agriculture in its ETS. Even New Zealand have now changed their position to take account of what will happen in Australia. We know the Americans have decided that agriculture will not be included in their ETS. We know the Europeans have made that decision. In China, where there are 180 million cattle and large numbers of sheep producing the methane that the other side is so concerned about, there will never be an emissions trading scheme including agriculture. India will be exactly the same, as will be Indonesia to the north of us—country after country. The other point that needs to be taken into account—because all of these countries are our competitors, along with the South American countries and South Africa—is that their governments actually pick up the cost of quarantine inspection. So not only do we have an unfair playing field; we have a field of opposition, because those countries are protecting their agricultural exporters.

What will the impact be on our agricultural production? If it is introduced, it will be horrific. My first point relates to dairying. We think the impact on dairying across Australia will such that it will shrink the industry to the extent that it will become, to all intents and purposes, uneconomical. The beef industry is a very, very significant and growing industry in this country, particularly with our exports of live cattle to the Indonesian and other markets, where these are having a significant positive impact on improving nutrition for the people in those countries by providing protein foodstuffs. The beef industry has already told all sides of parliament what impact this ETS would have: it would decimate the beef industry. We then looked at other forms of agriculture, including cropping. Australia is a very significant wheat, other cereal and protein producer, so the ETS would have a massive effect.

It was a shame that the minister, in responding to my question, made the comment that she could not see any reference in the Frontier Economics model, as proposed by the coalition last week, that there would be any benefit. What a shame that she did not—because what she would have read about, had she or her advisers considered what was in that report, was the positives that agriculture in this country may be able to address and contribute to this debate. If she had understood the Frontier Economics modelling she would have seen, for example, that agriculture can make a significant contribution to abating levels of carbon and carbon dioxide. Not only can it contribute to it, but agriculture can earn revenue from it—particular, for example, carbon sequestration into the soil, further tree planting to overcome the shocking salinity problems we have, and biofuels. Salinity is a problem that needs to be addressed in this chamber.

Question agreed to.