Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, and also on behalf of Senator Milne, move:

(1)

That the Senate notes:

(a)

the recommendation of the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change to ‘Build national resilience to the impacts of climate change’;

(b)

the announcement of support for the Roundtable’s recommendation by the National Farmers Federation (NFF) on 6 December 2006, stating that the ‘NFF believes that climate change may be the greatest threat confronting Australian farmers and their productive capacity’; and

(c)

the call by representatives of 16 faiths on 5 December 2006 for the Australian Government to take urgent action on climate change.

(2)

That the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2007:

(a)

the need for a national strategy to help Australian agricultural industries to mitigate and adapt to climate change;

(b)

consideration of the risks and opportunities presented by reduced rainfall, increased temperatures, higher evaporation and increased climactic variability for Australian agriculture;

(c)

assessment of the state of existing knowledge, the relevance of current strategies, and the adequacy of existing research and development programs to the need to address impacts of climate change on the security of Australian food production and the viability of rural communities; and

(d)

the effectiveness of the National Plan for Water Security in meeting the challenges of protecting the health of our rivers, floodplains, wetlands and other dependent environments, ensuring secure water supplies for our towns and cities, and maintaining the viability of our agricultural sector.

This is an extremely important issue—so important that I acknowledge that I made an attempt to refer a similar item to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport last year. Since that time a number of other things have occurred, which has made the urgency and the requirement for this issue to be reviewed even more significant, I believe. We have had the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, commonly known as the IPCC, report again about the severity of the impacts of climate change. My colleague Senator Milne will go into more detail of those issues later. We have also had the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change make a statement on building national resilience to the impacts of climate change. We had what I think is a very significant statement from the National Farmers Federation on 6 December last year, which said:

NFF believes that climate change may be the greatest threat confronting Australian farmers and their productive capacity.

I repeat—they have said that it is:

... the greatest threat confronting Australian farmers and their productive capacity.

There was also the call by 16 faiths around Australia for the Australian government to take urgent action on climate change. That is why Senator Milne and I are seeking to refer the issues around climate change and the impacts of climate change on Australian agricultural industries and their ability to adapt to the rural, regional affairs and transport committee.

At the beginning of February I amended my motion to include:

(d)

the effectiveness of the National Plan for Water Security in meeting the challenges of protecting the health of our rivers, floodplains, wetlands and other dependent environments, ensuring secure water supplies for our towns and cities, and maintaining the viability of our agricultural sector.

I will go into some of the issues relating to water very shortly, but I would like to remind the Senate about some of the limited work that is going on in Australia into investigating and dealing with the impacts of climate change on our agricultural sector. I remind the Senate that Australian agriculture is one of the most adaptive in the world and Australian agriculture has managed to adapt to a very hostile climate. But scientists and researchers are acknowledging that agriculture is now at the stage where it cannot progressively adapt to the impacts of climate change. Unfortunately, at a political level that recognition is not coming rapidly enough. We are getting to a point where we cannot adapt anymore. We need significant investment in research into adaptive techniques so that Australian agriculture can adapt. I also remind the Senate of ABARE’s latest predictions for summer crops, which are, unfortunately, extremely depressing—they were cut yet again just a couple of weeks ago. The Queensland Farmers Federation just last year said:

Adaptation to climate change is the biggest challenge facing Australian agriculture in the next 20 or 30 years ...

In other words, they are also supporting comments by the National Farmers Federation. They also said:

Like all changes, a changing climate brings both risks and opportunities. Those who better understand the nature and implications of the change can adapt more effectively to avoid the risks and seize the opportunities.

They went on to say:

Agriculture is arguably the most seriously affected sector of the State economy—

they were talking about Queensland in this instance—

in terms of climate change effects. Yet there has been little investment by the State in identifying the impacts of climate change for farmers, or in preparing farmers for adaptation or mitigation strategies.

I will yet again highlight the comments that have been made by Dr Bryson Bates, the director of the CSIRO climate change program, on research into climate change. He said:

If you are talking about adaptation in the decades ahead, again this is where we run into this problem, if I can be blunt, where researchers in this country—and I am not just talking about CSIRO—are continually nickelled and dimed, chasing $50,000 contracts to look at the impact of climate change on the water supply in one catchment, for instance, when the real problem is exactly the sort of problem you have described. It is the issue of the sustainability of our rural communities and the rural environment. We are not getting to that and we are not getting to that for a very good reason.

He was speaking in the context of a question that I had asked about how much money was being invested in research into the impact of climate change. Both Senator Milne and I have in the past reminded this chamber that Australia’s senior economics research bureau is not addressing the issue of climate change. I remind the Senate that the Farmers Federation have said they believe that climate change may be the greatest threat confronting Australian farmers and their productive capacity. Yet at estimates two weeks ago, when I yet again asked ABARE what they were doing to address climate change—a continuing theme on which both Senator Milne and I have been chasing ABARE—they said:

… there is a need for better understanding of the science and the biophysical impacts at a regional level within Australia. We are currently working with CSIRO, the Bureau of Resource Sciences and others to begin to grapple with that issue.

They are only just starting to deal with it. They continued:

Understanding how the changes are going to occur, how best for the farm sector and others to adapt to it, is critical to the long-run future of the farm economy, so we have begun that work.

They have just begun that work! It is the year 2007 and they have just begun to look at the impact of climate change on agriculture. As you would probably understand, I then commented that I did not think that was appropriate. They replied:

We are beginning that work.

Then I asked whether they had a time line for producing some results. The new head of ABARE, Mr Glyde, told me:

We are putting a paper out about that, just toe in the water type stuff, at our Outlook conference, in terms of what some of the things might be. But if you are talking about the time line for coming up with really detailed impacts, it is a very long time. It is a long project to be able to do all that. We are still in the process of working that through with our colleagues.

So they are still beginning to work out what they are going to be doing about climate change and its impact on agricultural systems. This government should support this review, if for no other reason than to see what Australia’s supposedly senior resource economists are doing about climate change. There is a need for a review just to do that, let alone anything else that Senator Milne and I have included in the terms of reference for this report.

Senator Milne will shortly be addressing in more detail some of the impacts of climate change, but I would like to go to the water plan and the amendment that I made to these terms of reference. I think there is an urgent need to review the national water plan—if it is going to be producing results—in particular, how it is going to be helping our agricultural sector deal with the interaction between water and climate change. As I pointed out just a little while ago, we learnt at estimates that this water plan obviously occurred sometime after November and most of the work was done in January—in other words, it was very rushed.

At estimates we asked for the calculations on the savings, the costings and the targets, but there were none. A number of us repeatedly asked the water agencies about the basis on which the water plan costings were done. But we got nothing. The only reference we were given was the plan itself. I have read the plan—in fact, a number of times—and the information provided in it is not referenced. When I asked for references, I was told to go to the plan. Where are the references on how much the water efficiency provisions are going to contribute—that is, 1,200 gigalitres, half of which goes back to farmers and the other half of which goes back to Australia? When I asked for the rationale behind those costings and the figures on water savings, they could not give them to us. They tell us they consulted experts, but they could not give us the written references, other than what is in the plan. I could have written something in a plan and then, when someone asked me to justify it, I could have said, ‘The reference is in what I have just written.’ I could have plucked any figures out of the air, written it down and then said, ‘Refer to them.’

Also, there are no targets. The only information that is there is the information in the plan that says, ‘We’ll get 1,500 gigalitres from overallocation and then we’ll get 1,200 gigalitres from the efficiency measures we’re putting in place.’ But there are no actual targets. So the only target we are going with now—the only target that is written down on paper—is the 500 gigalitres from the Living Murray target, which everybody knows was the lowest common denominator. The experts said, ‘You actually need 3,500 gigalitres to have a good chance of recovery for the Murray.’ There was also an interim figure of 1,500 gigalitres, but that gave only a chance of recovery. For a good chance of recovery, we need 3,500 gigalitres. But there are no targets. When I asked about the target, I was told, ‘We’re putting lots of water back into the river, through the water efficiency program and through the overallocation program.’ But, of course, there is nothing written down that anybody can follow to see what those figures actually are. In other words, ‘We could’ve potentially plucked figures out of the air because we don’t need a target and that’s what we’re going to deliver.’ But we still need a target.

We come to the issue of overallocation and what comes first. Are we actually going to be investing in water efficiency or the overallocation program? Of course, you do not want to be in the situation where you may have been delivering funding through the water efficiency program but then have to turn around and buy out that lease anyway. I raised that issue in estimates, and I was assured by the department, when I asked how they were going to integrate the two plans, that it would be silly if you paid Peter and robbed Paul. I was assured at the time that both of these approaches would be carefully considered. They would ‘make sure that it is integrated in an effective way’. Yet yesterday in the other place, the House of Representatives, when Mr Vaile was asked a dorothy dixer about the plan, he made it obvious what the Nats think about the plan:

... overallocation will be addressed firstly through efficiency savings in the system. That is why we have indicated ... $6 billion ... Secondly, as a last resort we are prepared to purchase water rights in the marketplace from willing sellers.

In other words, he was continuing the line that the minister for agriculture has been taking all along: they are not prepared to properly invest in fixing up our river system because they do not want to upset the cockies.

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

The cockies?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That may be a Western Australian term. Sorry, that means ‘farmers’ for those non-Western Australians here. It is: ‘We don’t want to upset the farmers. We don’t want to upset the electors in our electorates in those regions.’

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

So their constituents?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, their constituents. It is: ‘We don’t want to upset them so we’ll do it as a last resort.’ So we are going back to Mr McGauran’s approach where we buy out as a last resort; we only buy that little bit of water we can get from water savings.

We come to the impact of the water holdings of the large corporate buyers who have been very strongly in the market buying up megalitres of water. I am told of one corporate entity that has at least 50,000 megalitres. Another one, I am told, potentially has 60,000 megalitres. Obviously, these allocations and entitlements were bought up for managed investment schemes and, since the ground has changed, they are now holding significant amounts of water. Are they going to be expecting the government to bail them out with the $3 billion or are they going to try to transfer that water use from less-secure water holdings to high-security water holdings, again distorting the water market? Because they have been such major players in the water market, they have actually significantly increased the cost of water, making it even harder for government to buy out, to deal with the overallocation, and for this plan to be effective. There is clearly a need to review how that is going to occur and how they are going to make the allocation decisions.

We come to the issue of how the whole plan is going to work in the first place when you consider that the Commonwealth government is taking control of water-making decisions from the states. But you cannot separate water management from natural resource management. Anybody doing NRM 101 knows that. In NRM 101, one of the first things that I did at uni was to look at catchment management and water management. If you are going to do water allocations and water management, you have to be getting involved in natural resource management. So does that mean the Commonwealth are going to start making decisions on locations of plantations, land use management plans, farm dams and clearing? There is the dreaded word ‘clearing’. Clearing has an absolutely immediate impact on water run-off, groundwater and salinity, not to mention biodiversity loss. Then you get to the tricky issues of illegal drainage. Are they going to turn a blind eye like the states have been doing? For example, in New South Wales you get environmental flows made to Ramsar-listed wetlands and the water does not even make it to the wetlands because people are so busy draining that water off, yet no action is taken. I hope the Commonwealth is going to start dealing seriously with those issues, but that is yet to be outlined. How is natural resource management going to be coordinated with water management decisions? That is not clear, and I do not think the Commonwealth has come to terms with the level of decision making that is going to be involved. It is likely, I understand, that the Commonwealth will be getting laws referred to them, but then they will be delegating to the states to make decisions. I think that is making decision making even more complex.

We come back to the issue of the CSIRO doing their assessment of catchments in order to start setting more realistic caps and deciding on overallocation. They have been given an extremely short time frame in which to make this decision. As we all know, the decision to involve the CSIRO in doing this work was made after the water summit—or the Melbourne Cup water summit, as it is commonly known—and they have been given until the end of this year to do it. It is an extremely complex area. I would suggest that the only work that they could get done in that time would be collation of the data, because that in itself is a very significant process. So how are the decisions going to be made—and by whom—on the actual data that is provided as to what is sustainable and what is not? What is a sustainable yield? How are those decisions going to be made? How will that translate into decisions made about the caps and then the caps together? What is a sustainable flow? What is an environmental flow for the Murray? That information is not clear. Of course, it will significantly impact on the outcomes and the success of the national water plan.

These issues are highly significant ones. Not one of them has been subjected to any review or scrutiny. I put to you that these issues are vital and that they need to be reviewed, particularly in the context of climate change, and that, because there is so little work being done on the impacts of climate change on our agriculture and on the interaction between our water resources and climate change, the Senate should undertake this type of review. It should look at the effectiveness of the current work being done. It should look at the effectiveness of the national water plan to deliver outcomes. Because of its rushed nature, these issues have not been adequately considered. There has not been time to adequately consider them. It was also reported during estimates that appropriate experts have not been consulted. So when will they be consulted? It is better being done up front now, while the plan is still in development—which is obviously what is happening—than in a couple of years when we have to restructure things because they got it wrong. It is time to it do now.

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