Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Senators might not be aware, but this was referenced in Senator McDonald's contribution tonight. The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee just produced a big, thick report into the definitions of meat and animal products. It looked at this issue repeatedly—repeatedly. It came up across a number of experts, and the evidence, as I passed on to Senator Roberts today, was that the commercial application of this technology, if it is successful, is decades away. We know there are some products that are grown in vitro, but their commerciality is decades away. So I'm not exactly sure what we would be examining.

I'm a little bit scarred from this Senate inquiry because, contrary to what Senator McDonald said tonight, it was a not-so-thinly-veiled attack on the plant protein industry, which I believe suffered damage because of this Senate inquiry. It was pointed out to us in evidence—and I am glad Senator McDonald has accepted it, because I didn't hear her acknowledge this in previous contributions around this inquiry—that there is plenty of growth potential for the plant based food industry and alternative meats and the traditional industry. Both, according to CSIRO, ABARES and a number of experts, have massive growth trajectories. It is not an and/or thing. They both have big growth trajectories.

Plant based foods, be they any kind of alternative protein, are a massive opportunity for markets. When I go back and have a look at this inquiry and the submissions, they were evenly matched. AUSVEG, a massive industry body, gave the Senate evidence that they were happy to see some changes to some labelling standards but didn't appreciate the not-so-thinly-veiled attack on their industry and the growth potential. That's what this is, as we listen to Senator Roberts's contribution here tonight. This is just another way to raise the issue. I don't know if Senator Roberts might be up for election next time around and wants to get some Senate action out in country areas and wants to call in some farmers to give evidence. I can tell those farmers now that this inquiry is a road to nowhere. There is no evidence before us to examine. If there were, there are other good ways that we as senators all understand to get that information, starting with the estimates process, questions on notice and using FOIs and OPDs. Senator Roberts is having a go at FSANZ for its lack of transparency. He can start putting in some FOIs and OPDs and building that information base and then he can come back to the Greens if he wants our support, if he believes there is something substantial to see here.

We've got a number of inquiries before the rural and regional affairs committee. I believe that this inquiry that we just did well and truly dealt with the issue. If we want to help farmers across the board, be they vegetable farmers growing chickpeas for vegetable burgers or farmers growing peas for alternative proteins in products like Beyond Meat burgers, which are obviously very popular and very successful, then the most important thing we can do for all of them right now is take meaningful climate action. There is no bigger threat to the farming community in this country than climate change. The costs have been estimated by CSIRO at $29,200 per annum per farm in this country lost from climate impacts.

We know the whole agricultural supply chain gets impacted by extreme weather events. We've seen copious evidence in recent years around the impacts floods have had on supply chains and farmers' livelihoods. Sadly, we've seen evidence over decades now about the impacts that extreme droughts are having on farming communities right around the country, including on the mental health of farming families. There are all sorts of biosecurity issues that our committee is also dealing with that are directly related to our changing climate.

If we actually want to do something substantive for farmers, why don't we look at fracking in prime agricultural farmland? I think it might have been Senator Canavan that famously said a few years ago that the Nats don't represent farmers anymore; they represent mining communities. Well, farming communities need to be represented in here on issues like fracking. Non-traditional gas is a major threat to the water in these areas, as it is to agricultural land and to access to agricultural land. As we're talking in the Senate today, there are hundreds of farmers out protesting in New South Wales, trying to stop companies like Santos and Origin from fracking their land with thousands of wells, poisoning land and water. Why aren't we discussing that? Why aren't we standing up for farming communities in this country? Why aren't we taking meaningful climate action?

We saw the IPCC synthesis report last night, the sixth and final report. We're not going to get another report for a decade, not until 2030. It was dire. It warned that we need to act now. Time is up. We need to act now. It said that action means cutting emissions in a deep, meaningful and significant way, bringing forward the rapid transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy and other energy sources, and fast-tracking the development of renewable energy projects. It also said no more fossil fuel projects, including leaving in the ground any existing fossil fuels that have already been discovered. It couldn't have been more clear. That is what the science tells us, but Senator Roberts doesn't listen to the science. He honestly doesn't give a fig about science, and he never has. He can laugh all he likes. The joke's on you, Senator Roberts—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President. These are the world's most eminent climate scientists, who have been working on this for decades. For decades, they've been plugging away, looking at the data—