Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the motion by the Australian Greens to refer a matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport for inquiry. Essentially, the motion is about the need for a national strategy to help Australian agricultural industries to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The reason we need this is that, at the moment, we have no national strategy to deal with rural Australia and to help people in rural Australia to mitigate and adapt to climate change. That is not to say there is not a lot of really good work going on in places like the Bureau of Rural Sciences, in conjunction with the Bureau of Meteorology—there is—and in the universities there is a lot of work going on as well. But we do not have a systematic way of addressing the issue.

If ever there was an example of that it is the mentality that the government continues to trot out—that is, that we will deal with the impacts of climate change through a relief effort on an ad hoc, circumstance-by-circumstance basis. For example, there is flood relief, drought relief and fire relief. Of course there has to be assistance for people in rural communities, but you have to recognise that climate change is going to mean that extreme weather events will occur more often and will be more intense. We are going to have deeper-biting droughts, we are going to have more flash-flooding and we are going to have extreme bushfires, including megafires, as was evidenced by the cooperative research centre presentation in Parliament House this week.

It is no use putting on the Akubra hat and rushing out to those communities with a relief cheque every time this happens, when you can anticipate that it is going to happen. We should be having a strategy to build resilience and to reduce vulnerability in rural communities to these events. A classic example globally is the Red Cross. The Red Cross is an internationally recognised disaster relief organisation. Until recent years we could not have anticipated natural disasters, so it focused all its attention on disaster relief. The Red Cross now recognises that climate change means we know the disasters are going to happen—we can anticipate the disasters happening—so it is shifting a lot of its effort to building resilience so that, when the natural disasters occur, less relief is required and communities are less vulnerable. An example of that is that, instead of coming in to give relief after a tsunami, the Red Cross is now working with the World Conservation Union to replace and replant mangroves along vulnerable coastlines because the tsunami showed that areas where the mangroves were intact were far less impacted on by the surging sea than other places which had been developed and lost all their coastal vegetation.

This is the model I am suggesting in the Australian context. We need to recognise that climate change is real and urgent. We are going to have hotter temperatures, higher levels of evaporation and changed rainfall patterns and it is going to affect the way we live on the land. We have to move to a low-carbon economy. I will repeat that: Australia has to move to a low-carbon economy. We have to look at it this way: how do we generate our energy? We can no longer afford to depend on coal and oil. How do we move ourselves and our goods around? We have come to depend on oil for moving ourselves and our goods. How do we use our land? We have to rethink how we use our land in the face of these changed climatic conditions. We have to think about what we grow and how we grow it, because our fertilisers are largely petroleum based, and we have to look at what we grow and where we grow it. We have to look at tillage methods. We have to look at how we use water. We have to deal with and consider the role of native vegetation, not only in providing biodiversity but also in acting as carbon sinks. It is the same for our forests. We have to anticipate changed patterns for invasive species in rural Australia so that we can then build resilience in ecosystems and farming communities.

If we accept that we have to do these things, it is not good enough to simply have a disaster relief strategy, which is what we currently have in Australia—this pattern of rushing out and doing the disaster relief cheque. In my view we have to go the other way around now and ask, ‘How do we build resilience, how do we reduce vulnerability in rural Australia’—well, all Australia, but this reference relates particularly to rural Australia—‘and how do we do that for those communities?’ Clearly, we have to look at the three zones that we have: the pastoral zone, the wheat-sheep zone and then the wetter, if you like, horticultural zone on the coast. We need to overlay the climate maps and we need to identify where the transition zones are going to be—where it is no longer possible to go on the way we have been. Unless we do that now, we are not going to be in a position to help people make a transition so that they can stay on the land. They are going to be left in a situation where they are driven off the land, and that is what we do not want to happen. So, in order—

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You do so!

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I really object to Senator McGauran’s interjection that in some way we want to drive people off the land. I was brought up on the land. I have a real commitment to rural affairs and interests and that is why—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I see you’ve got another rat in Victoria, Senator McGauran!

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am involved in the work of this committee. And—

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Excuse me, Senator Milne. Firstly, Senator McGauran, you know it is disorderly to interject and I think Senator Milne was taking up your interjection. Senator Conroy, if you could remain quiet we will get on with the debate.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, it is because of the commitment I have to rural and regional Australia that I would like to see this reference go to the committee. Last year I moved a reference on oil depletion in Australia and Australia’s future oil supplies because of this issue; I am desperately concerned about it. I think it was an incredibly constructive inquiry. We had, I think, 190-odd submissions from around Australia and we met with a lot of people in rural and regional Australia who were looking at the opportunities that biofuels might be able to provide. That is an example of one way in which we need to look at what we do on the land. How can we change what we do on the land so that people can stay there? They may have to change their source of income from what they currently do to something else.

In that regard, a particular case I would like to highlight is what is going on in Western Australia with mallee. They are planting out mallee. It is great for biodiversity. It is great for salinity. It can be harvested. And, when it is coppiced, because the roots are still left in the ground you can use the biomass to generate energy and get oil from it. Once we get lignocellulose research, hopefully the breakthroughs from that will mean we can use it for biodiesel as well. It is a way of improving the land and sequestering the carbon as well as changing to a different source of income. What I am seeking to say is that we can work on this committee in a very constructive way, to go out and talk to people in rural and regional Australia about the changes that need to be made.

I would like to give a couple of other examples. I will start with the fishing industry. Tasmania has a distinctive coastline that provides a stunning backdrop for our commercial and recreational fishing industries. But the warming ocean waters and changes in local currents are now impacting on the profitability of fisheries. Now the east Australian current is coming further and further down Tasmania’s east coast, bringing with it the invasive sea urchin, which is attacking our kelp forests—the nurseries for the abalone and rock lobster fisheries. That in itself is the beginning of a serious impact.

But add on to that what is happening with Tasmanian Atlantic salmon: it is currently operating at the upper end of its temperature limit, particularly in sheltered estuaries where water temperatures are getting higher than in the open ocean. It is going to get to the point where the Atlantic salmon fishery has to change to breeding a species that is more tolerant of warmer temperatures; take its cages into deeper water, which is going to incur considerably greater costs; or bring them onshore, which again will be a considerable cost. That is an example of the need to talk about adaptation, with the fishery industries asking, ‘How are we going to deal with this and how are we going to adapt to it?’

It is exactly the same with stone fruit in Tasmania, as well as the apple and pear industry. At the moment apples provide a living for 120 families. The apple harvest is valued at over $70 million and Tasmania is responsible for over 65 per cent of Australia’s apple exports. The cherry industry is growing at an extraordinary rate. Valued at $5 million in the year 2000, it is projected to be worth more than $25 million by 2010. However, we are now finding that this industry is particularly susceptible to drought, pests and heavy rainfall events. Many fruit trees require cold winters and frosts, but the average higher temperatures in winter brought about by global warming may well lower yields and reduce the quality of our export fruit. In fact, last October we had severe frosts which cut by half Tasmania’s $120 million fruit industry yields—apples and cherries and other stone fruit. That is just an example. Of course, here in Canberra we have just had a classic example of an unseasonal, extraordinary weather event. Such events have a huge impact not only on urban life but also, as we are discussing in this reference motion, on rural life.

Renewable energy’s potential to provide jobs and income in rural and regional Australia is considerable. Concentrated solar thermal energy is a classic case. Solar Heat and Power could roll out a 300-megawatt power station at Moree at the moment. It would need six square kilometres of land on which to do that. The rural industry there is suffering because of drought. It is no longer sustainable for those farmers to continue doing what they have been doing, but there is an opportunity for that community to shift from what they currently do to getting more involved in a use of the land that helps to provide renewable energy, which they can sell, or maybe lease part of the land on some of their large stations. Of course, most vulnerable to climate change—well, all areas are vulnerable—are the marginal areas in the pastoral zone where they have large areas of land but not a high-value return per hectare. This is where concentrated solar thermal power is an option. In fact, the CRC for Coal in Sustainable Development has said 35 square kilometres of concentrated thermal energy could provide all of the baseload power that Australia needs.

What I am arguing is: if we want to get real about climate change, if we want to get real about oil depletion, if we want to address the fact that rural Australia is suffering because of climate change, we have to accept that reality. We need to stop the awful annual situation where they are offered drought relief and there is a fight in communities in order to qualify for that drought relief. We are constantly going to have to change the parameters for drought relief. Saying that a drought is a one in 100 years event or one in 50 years or whatever is no longer applicable in terms of dealing with disasters because of climate change. What has gone before is not a measure of what we can anticipate may happen in the future.

At the moment the system for relief is very unfair because, whilst at the time of the event there is a lot of publicity around politicians turning up with cheques, afterwards rural communities are left devastated with long lag times before they get the relief and in many cases they do not qualify for it because of technicalities about the parameters for the relief.

I am suggesting an entirely different strategy. We can anticipate these disasters fairly accurately and we can anticipate fairly accurately where they are going to occur even in terms of weeds. The weeds CRC, which the government is no longer going to fund—and I think that is appalling—has done valuable work. We know, for example, that there are plants which are currently sleeper weeds. With climate change and changed conditions for growth, they may well become invasive. We should start planning and looking at all of the agricultural zones and identifying where the invasive species are likely to start moving from being sleepers to being invasive. We should identify the places where current invasive weeds are likely to expand their habitat and plan what we do about that. How are we going to help communities shift from the current kinds of agriculture they pursue to different agricultural opportunities or rural opportunities? For some it might be changing crops. In fact if we sign Kyoto—and even without Kyoto, as the farmers and landcare organisations have demonstrated today—we have an opportunity to change tillage methods and get credits for better maintenance of soil carbon and for maintaining forests, restoration forestry and improved retention of native vegetation. All of those things are demonstrated to be advantages in carbon sinks, and protecting forests instead of clear-felling forests is a major way you can address deforestation.

The point of this whole reference is to say that we believe this Senate is well placed, especially as we can give the example of the oil inquiry, to show how you can get a cooperative approach across parties, recognising that we have a national challenge on our hands with climate change. We have real distress in rural Australia at the moment. The rate of suicide in rural Australia is completely unacceptable, and it is hidden. The issue of mental health problems in rural Australia is also a major problem. Often men in farming communities find it really hard to cope with what is going on and the lack of predictability in their circumstances, and in many cases the women in those communities are now bearing the stress load of trying to manage the books as well as trying to keep families on track with a reasonable degree of mental health in view of the circumstances they are facing.

As a Senate, we can get involved in a cross-party apolitical approach to looking at what can be done about building resilience in the economies of rural Australia in farming communities. By working together we can give hope and lift the spirits in those communities, with politicians of all persuasions prepared to come and listen and think about how we coordinate the research from the institutions that are doing the work, the experience of people on the land and the realities of what climate is going to do. We can think about opportunities to shift to new income streams from renewable energy, from sequestering carbon, from different crops and different varieties of crops, with a reasonable lead time in developing export markets if necessary for those, and we can think about how we get over to less dependence on chemical based fertilisers, to a greater shift into organic agriculture, for example, which has been demonstrated to be very cost-effective in the context of climate change and building resilience in ecosystems and biodiversity.

I think this is an extremely sensible and proactive way to demonstrate that the Australian parliament can get beyond party politics in dealing with the challenge of climate change and oil depletion. We have shown that we can do it on oil depletion with our consensus report that we brought down. I think we can now do it with rural Australia. I think there would be an enormous relief in the Bureau of Rural Sciences, in the CSIRO, in the universities and rural communities and with farmers federations around the country in seeing that we want to bring it all together to start the process of planning for the future in rural Australia and getting beyond the mentality of bandaid measures addressing the problem after it has occurred. Currently, the lack of capacity to make the transition is what drives people off the land. You will drive them off the land if you give them no option but to become dependent on what they will regard as an arrangement whereby they have to put their hand out every time they are dealt an appalling hand by the realities of climate. So let us get on the front foot. Let us take a leap into some national leadership here on climate change. I would urge the government to support this reference and I cannot see any legitimate argument not to do so. At the moment we are not seeing the kind of leadership we need for rural and regional Australia.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For anyone who missed it, that was a Greens speaker on this proposed reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. She was linking climate change to rural mental health. That is the extreme to which she took this particular issue. She is the one that wants to shut down the coal industry within three years. She gets up in here and piously says that she is the friend of the farmer. Anyone who listened to that debate knows it was completely laced with dictatorial directions to the farmers about how to grow things and what to grow—you ought to change; you ought to move on. I jotted down all the little cliches—control, reduce, move on, tell them how. This is the Greens standing up pretending they are the friends of the farmers when in fact they want to shut down the coal industry. Don’t you think they also want to reduce and shut down the farming industry? No-one could possibly take the former speaker seriously. As piously as she attempted to put her case, the government rejects outright the Greens motion to refer this matter to a Senate committee.

One particular reason for that is that the government is in charge of the business of the Senate in order to implement its mandate and to get on with its business. The public quite understand this. There is the time and place for debate in this chamber—question time, matters of public interest, matters of public importance, the adjournment debate, taking note of answers and so on. There is plenty of time for debate in this chamber and time for views to be expressed. The public understand that sooner or later the government has to get on with the business of the Senate. There are many avenues to express your opinion.

I have noticed the clear tactic, particularly of the Greens in cahoots with the opposition since they lost the majority in the Senate in the last election, of putting up these references to committees, almost on a daily basis. If we took all the references, whatever the committee was it could not cope with them. The Greens put these references up so they can find another avenue to obstruct, frustrate and filibuster in the Senate. And this is another perfect example. We spent hours on it yesterday and we are going to spend hours on it today—yet another pious reference to a Senate committee. And, by the way, I happen to be on that committee—the Senate rural and regional affairs and transport committee. At our early morning meeting yesterday we dealt with three draft committee reports in relation to legislation and we have now opened up the reference to Traveston Crossing dam in Queensland. We can barely take any more work, and you know that when you put up these references. Do you really think—

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

Senator Stephens interjecting—

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

Senator Siewert interjecting—

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate so far has been conducted in almost relative peace and calm with very few interjections. I would like to get through to 11.30 in the same vein.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe he could speak through the chair.

The Acting Deputy President:

I take your point, Senator Conroy. Senator McGauran, continue your remarks.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I make the point that governments have the responsibility to manage the chamber and its Senate inquiries. There is only so much time and so many resources. I think the government has been more than fair. That is one reason it rejects this particular reference.

Then the Greens get up here one after another and speak about no national plan for climate change. That has to be tackled head on. Conveniently, the previous speaker left out the government’s most recent national plan with regard to climate change, and that is our national water policy. This is a heaven-sent policy for the rural sector—for the government to take control of the Murray. The decades of confusion since Federation and the arguments between the states have reached a critical point—this we all agree on—due to the severe drought. Something had to be done and the federal government has taken the lead. Every state bar Victoria, my own state, has fallen into line, but negotiations are going on and I am pretty sure, if not convinced, that Victoria will also fall into line behind this national water policy, conveniently left out by the previous speaker.

There is a national policy in place, to the tune of $10 billion, which will benefit the irrigators along the Murray with infrastructure on the farm and off the farm, compensation and environmental flows. They ought to read it. I am not going to spend too much of my time on it in this debate—I have a full 20 minutes—as every other speaker has. It proves the point that it is simply a delaying tactic. Why would the previous speaker leave out the government’s national water policy and not acknowledge it as it is? It is not all stitched up yet; we understand that. This is a major handing over of powers by the states. I would say it is the biggest. I think it outranks industrial relations as far as the handing over of powers to a central government is concerned. But once it was announced every state quickly understood the national interest behind it. That is something the Greens do not understand at all. And they come in here and pretend they are the farmers’ friend. There would not be a farmer alive—I would like to meet a farmer in Victoria at least—who would approach me and say, ‘I am a Greens voter and I support the Greens.’ If he did I would certainly set him straight—it is not in his interests at all to support the Greens. This is the party that wants to shut down the coal industry and tell the farmers exactly what to plant, where to plant it and probably to turn half his property into an environmental sanctuary to allow the chickens to run free. That is another reason we do not support it.

What was also conveniently left out by the previous speaker was the fact that the government has not forgotten the regional and rural sector and issues of climate change. In fact we more than understand; it is at the forefront of our thinking, a priority. We receive 60 per cent of our export wealth from the rural sector. We have put in place not only the national water policy but also the National Agricultural and Climate Change Action Plan, in August 2006. Do some research over there! The government already has them in place. Do you think this government—

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator McGauran, you will address your remarks through the chair. You have been doing that up to now; I would like you to continue to do so.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, you would be interested to know that this plan was launched on 17 August by the current minister. The plan will help farmers deal with the effect of climate change on farm production systems and the heightened risks of pests, weeds and disease. This is not a lofty plan on climate change; this gets right down to the grassroots—the pests, weeds and disease. It is micromanaging the problems that will come forward with climate change.

I will read from the minister’s statement. The four strategic focus areas identified in the action plan are:

• adaptation strategies to build resilience into agricultural systems—

and exploit new opportunities arising from climate impacts—

• mitigation strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions;
• research and development to enhance the agricultural sector’s capacity to respond to climate change—

through access to improved climate information tools for decision making—

• and awareness and communication—

through raising awareness and understanding of possible climate change impacts among agricultural producers.

A number of elements in the action plan are already being progressed. For example, a vulnerability assessment of agricultural industries and regions, with funding of over $400,000, has been provided by the Natural Heritage Trust, promoting collaboration and coordination of climate change research and development across the portfolio’s research and development corporations, improving climate information tools for the use of farmers and promoting the inclusion of climate change into suitable agricultural planning and farm management systems.

Last year, the government put down a plan for the rural and regional sector. I think it is pretty clear that this government has its strength in the rural and regional areas, and not just politically—although that is the case; we hold more rural seats. We know our economic strength comes from the rural and regional areas. We know the strength of the coal industry, which is a regional industry. We know that our export strength comes from the rural and regional areas. We know the devastation of drought. We know that this drought is one of the worst, if not the worst, we have ever had and we have extended our drought EC—exceptional circumstances—funding to farmers and to small businesses within rural and regional areas.

The Greens come in here and piously seek to be the friend of the farmers and piously say that the government is ignoring the issue, but it is far from it. We could get into a whole climate change debate. We could start talking about the government securing Australia’s energy policy, which we brought down before the 2004 election, in which over $2 billion has been allocated to low-emission technology, particularly in the coal industry. We could start talking about how the other side seeks to shut down the coal industry. We could start talking about the nuclear industry. If we want to start talking about climate change, every point has to be discussed and not conveniently ignored by the Greens, who put up this motion. For that reason, we will not be drawn into this exercise. Just watch—tomorrow there will be another reference to another committee so they get their turn to debate it. And so it goes on. We will not be drawn into this. Our main focus is to get on with the business of the day and, for that reason, we reject this motion.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to put the Democrats position with regard to this proposed reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee on the record. It used to be the case in this chamber in days gone by, before the government got control of it, that constructive proposals to look at important public policy issues were broadly given support across the board because it was recognised that it was part of the Senate’s role to not just have a look for ourselves at important public policy issues but, more importantly, enable input from the community, from people with expertise in the field and from people who were potentially going to be affected by those issues. This proposal clearly recognises that, as representatives of farmers have said, climate change poses a huge threat to the future of Australian agriculture.

It is all very well for Senator McGauran to come in here and talk about the government being friends of the farmers. It is a lovely label. I am not sure if it is the Nationals or the Liberal Party that are friends of the farmers; it depends which one of them you are talking to. Senator McGauran could give us a unique perspective on that, having experienced the inside of both of them. But the simple fact is that it is not about nice labels and rhetoric; it is about action. This government has spent the vast majority of its 11 years in power denying the need for substantial action in the area of climate change. There are nice-sounding programs here and there, and the Democrats have been involved in pressuring to get some of them established from time to time, but the actual implementation in most cases is far short of what has been needed.

In addition, there have often been piecemeal, short-term driven responses. There has been no comprehensive overview of these sorts of things and no focus on what needs to be done. There has certainly been no adequate, open and transparent consultation with the diversity of ideas out there. As Senator Siewert said in initially speaking to this motion, a protective screen is put across anytime anyone mentions anything about a policy area that might affect farmers, as though somehow it constitutes an attack on farmers, an attempt to try to destroy this, that and the other. We just get ideological, rhetorical diatribes.

Frankly, this does not help the farmers, apart from anything else. It creates this impression that they are a protected species and that nobody is allowed to raise anything at all without risk of being ferociously attacked for being somehow anti farmer. It is sort of a new form of political correctness we have under the Howard government. Mr Howard made a great song and dance about presenting himself as being against political correctness and people being unable to say what they think, and yet there is a whole range of areas now where, if people dare say what they think, they get slandered from one side of the country to the other. They are un-Australian, unpatriotic, anti farmer, anti mining, anti this—all of which, usually, is either exaggerated or fabricated.

The same goes with this debate here. This is a Senate committee reference; it is not a piece of legislation that will generate an immediate outcome. It is an attempt to try to examine issues. The government can interpret and interpose its own political rhetoric about agendas, but I think most people, including people involved in the agricultural industries themselves, recognise that there are serious issues that need a lot more action. And they need to be grappled with by people across the parliament. Senator McGauran says: ‘The government is doing all this, so don’t you worry about that. Leave it to us. We’ve got it in hand, just butt out.’ That is the attitude we get from this government on every issue: ‘We’re the government; we’re here to govern. We’re fixing it. Butt out. Leave us alone. Shut up. We’re not interested. We’re not listening. Go away.’ That is their attitude towards the Senate, the parliament and large portions of the Australian community: ‘We’re in charge. We know what’s best. Leave us alone. We’re going to do it.’

Clearly, on climate change—and not just on climate change but certainly on that area—the government has failed. To expect anybody to suddenly believe that they are across all of this, on top of it, committed to it and making substantial and urgent change is ludicrous. This is not something we can faff around on for another 10 years while they figure out which constituency they do not want to offend and how they can best pork-barrel them if they need to do something that might affect them. This is urgent. It was urgent 10 years ago, and the lack of action we have had over that 10 years constitutes culpable negligence. It is simply too late to be faffing around any longer.

That is why these sorts of inquiries are important. It is another example—the list is now getting longer and longer—of constructive, valuable proposals for Senate inquiries just being contemptuously brushed aside by the government. They were quite happy to sit in their own little back room and dream up an inquiry to try to score some political points on the Traveston dam in south-east Queensland and not consult anybody else about it. They just came in here and said that they were moving it and that their terms of reference were best. They could not even be bothered figuring out a reporting date. They just bulldozed it through. But when it comes to anyone else putting up ideas they are just dismissed. They just say: ‘We know what’s best. Leave us to it.’ But they are happy to set up an inquiry into the Traveston dam, which, broadly speaking, is a matter being driven by state government in any case.

Of course I supported that inquiry, and I must say I will participate in it enthusiastically, but it is a perfect example of why Senate inquiries are valuable. I think the National Party senators have made their own case for that. It does not matter that the dam is an initiative of the Queensland government. It goes to a range of issues of broader public importance and significance. It goes to issues of our national water policy; national environment laws; threatened species; transparency, accuracy and honesty in public debate; and giving the public a say—all of which are ample reasons to support the proposal put forward by Senator Siewert.

The other point that has to be made in this debate when the impacts of climate change on agricultural industries are being looked at is that agricultural industries are not just potential victims of climate change; they are also significant contributors to emissions in the first place. That is just a simple fact. Again, under the new era of Howard government political correctness and suppression of freedom of speech, anybody that puts out that basic fact is asking to be slandered as somehow being anti farmer, as attacking farmers or trying to destroy rural industries. Actually, what we are doing by putting it out there is trying to protect rural industries from the damage of climate change if they do not do something about it.

We are all hearing about the coal debate and coal exports. Frankly, I think it is a bit of a distraction. As I have said on the record, the notion of trying to close down coal exports from Australia is not practical and not necessary. The proposals put forward by the vast majority of environment groups, let alone anybody else, still see a role for coal down the track—a reduced role, but a role. Similarly, anybody that points out the extent of emissions from the agricultural sector is not saying we have to close it down. That is the sort of knee-jerk response we have had from the government anytime anyone suggests any sort of action. We just get: ‘You can’t do that. You’re trying to close it down.’ We are not trying to close it down; we are trying to make it evolve, for a cleaner future and a future where the industries will not be subjected to such harsh and dramatic impacts, as could well happen if emissions are allowed to continue to rise at anything like the rate that they are—or even if they are allowed to continue to rise at all. The chances of dramatic impacts are quite severe.

A United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation report came out a couple of months ago. It had the finding that, globally, from livestock alone—so not the whole agricultural sector—the amount of greenhouse emissions is greater than from all the transport sector put together: cars, trucks, shipping and aviation. All of those put together still have lower greenhouse emissions than just livestock globally. Given Australia’s heavy reliance on livestock, I think it is reasonable to assume that the same thing would translate to Australia. Putting that factor out on the table does not mean we therefore have to close down the beef and dairy industries, but it does mean we need to be aware of that and take that into account in how we, on a scientific basis, effectively reduce emissions. And you cannot do it in a ‘business as usual’ way. It will mean changes in behaviour. It will mean shifting from some agricultural pursuits to other agricultural pursuits.

To say that we are simply not allowed to raise those issues because that is attacking the industry or being anti farmer is not only ludicrous and a deliberate suppression of speech and facts but also an approach that is not doing the farmers themselves any good. Even getting those basic things out into public debate would be served by this inquiry because, frankly, I think most Australians are not aware of them. I remember an article that was published in my hometown paper, the Courier-Mailit might have been the Sunday Mail version—a month or so ago where a columnist made the simple point that, from the point of view of either water consumption or greenhouse emissions, if people wanted to make a big impact then they could stop eating beef. The response and outrage that that drew from some readers was immediate.

To just refuse to allow those sorts of facts to be put out there is, as I said, not doing the agricultural sector, let alone any of us, a service in trying to ensure a fact and science based approach to how we reduce emissions. Certainly, the Democrats approach has not been to look for magic bullets or to target one particular industry or activity and make them the bad guy or the whipping boy for everybody and suggest that that is going to solve everything. It is an issue that is going to need across-the-board responses, across all endeavours of society. It is an issue that will require action and has impacts on all of us. In different ways, we will all have to change what we do.

In the same way that we should not single out any particular sector or industry for attacks, we also should not have any sector or industry exempt from examination just because of political sensitivities or political correctness. That is a key aspect of the government’s reasons that they have put forward as to why they will not support this inquiry, apart from their usual approach these days, which is that they do not support any inquiry except their own. That is basically the state of affairs that we have arrived at. It is another reminder of why the Senate contest at the next election will be just as crucial as the contest for who ends up in government. Whoever ends up in government, people want a Senate that is actually going to operate independently and enable proper scrutiny, not just of the government of the day but of issues of importance of the day. Their only hope is to return the Senate to a state where it is not controlled by one party or group so that we can make it function again in a democratic way that actually enables input from the people who are affected, rather than just saying: ‘The government’s in; they can do what they want for the next few years. We all just have to sit on the side and hope they do it right.’

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

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.

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

I thank senators for their contributions to this very important debate. I admit I have been disappointed with the government representatives’ input into the debate. It appears from Senator McGauran’s input today that he did not listen to the first part of the debate yesterday—and I will come back to that in a minute. But it also appears that the government does not want to support this because there is only so much time and there are only so many resources to deal with things—implying there were not enough resources for the committee to examine this.

I wonder about the government’s priorities. Do they take on board what the National Farmers Federation says? I repeat what I said yesterday: the NFF believes that climate change may be the greatest threat confronting Australian farmers and their productive capacity. But apparently there are not enough resources to deal with this and for the committee to make it a priority. I hope the National Farmers Federation is listening to this or hears about it and gives some advice to the government about that.

It is also interesting that Senator McGauran referred to the government’s National Agriculture and Climate Change Action Plan, which came out in August last year. I have read that, and I will come back to that in a minute too. But it is interesting to note that the National Farmers Federation made their comments about climate change being the greatest threat after the national action plan came out—suggesting, I think, that they believe further work needs to be done.

If Senator McGauran had been listening to the debate yesterday he would have heard me comment extensively on the national water plan and also point out that my colleague Senator Milne was going to refer more to climate change and leave comments on the water plan to me. And just in case he is listening now, and to reiterate what Senator Stephens just said, I commented extensively on the fact that the plan does not have any costings. There was no consultation with key stakeholders. There are no targets: we have no idea of what the actual targets are.

As is becoming quite obvious, the coalition is in disarray, with the Liberals saying one thing about the plan and overallocation and National Party representatives saying another. That became clear once again in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, when Mr Vaile made some very strong comments about the way the plan was going to run and to the effect that buying back leases was a last resort. Buying back leases has been the last resort for years and years. It has not worked. One of the reasons why the various rescue plans for the Murray have not worked is that the government has not wanted to take the hard and tough decisions that need to be made, and face up to its constituents and say: ‘Time’s up, guys. We need to do this properly or we’re never going to rescue the Murray and it is just going to continue to die.’

One of the things this inquiry would do is enable members of the community, the stakeholders, to give their comments on the national plan. They have never been given the opportunity to give their views on what they think the Murray’s future should look like. What should the targets be? I believe that people want a healthy, functioning ecosystem for the Murray. That is what I want, and that is what I believe Australians want. And I think that they need to be included and to have an opportunity to have their voices heard on what they think the Murray should look like. That is not articulated in the national plan.

I have read the national plan, and there are no referenced justifications for the costs and for the suggested savings to be made from water efficiency methods. The National Farmers Federation have also commented on that. They want to see the references for the claimed efficiency gains because they do not think they are there either. Other farming organisations have said the same thing. And, as I said, it is not clear how the plan is going to work because you are getting different opinions on when water allocations are going to be brought out and for how much.

Senator McGauran put quite a bit of reliance on the National Agriculture and Climate Change Action Plan, implying that it was the be-all and end-all of the government’s approach. Well, if it is, that is very sad. And it highlights even more the need for this inquiry.

So we have a plan here. But the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, our leading agricultural resource economists, have only just begun to look at the impact of climate change on our farmers. And, as I highlighted yesterday, they cannot even set a time line for when they are going to deliver that work. It is just going to be a very long time into the future. So much for the national action plan on climate change and agriculture! Our leading resource economists still cannot give us a time and still have not engaged with this issue seriously. They obviously are not included in the plan.

The plan touches on the issues of adaptation and resilience. It takes the approach that we can gradually get agriculture addressing these issues by slow adaptation. The government have done that in the past; they can continue to do it. Unfortunately, the science does not show that that is what is happening. That is what they have been doing but the science is starting to show they cannot make those jumps. So, while adaptation is very important—there is no doubting that—we also need to look to the future and at new agriculturally sustainable industries. We are particularly looking at and talking about the issues around perennials and adapting new industries—getting on the front foot to adopt new industries, to assist farmers to grow new crops to address climate change. Those are essential issues.

To strike a positive note: I was very pleased to see that the Future Farm Industries Cooperative Research Centre was funded at the end of last year. I think that was a tremendously positive step. However, that cannot be relied upon to be the sole contributor to developing new industries in Australia. Unfortunately, at the same time, as has been discussed in this place, the government took funding away from the weeds cooperative research centre, which is going to be incredibly important in terms of the interaction between invasive species and climate change.

One of the areas that we have not touched on previously, but which needs to be dealt with, in terms of agriculture, is the Natural Heritage Trust. This trust, as everybody knows, spends billions of dollars on natural resource management and on assisting the repair of our nation’s lands.

How are our natural resource management regional groups dealing with climate change? I know many of these groups; I have had contact with a wide range of them and I think they do an excellent job. But they do not have the capacity to model the interaction of climate change with natural resources, to interpret that modelling and then to work out how to deal with it when they are formulating their regional plans and spending NHT dollars.

In Western Australia, my home state, I am deeply concerned—and I know others are too—about the interaction of salinity and climate change. At the moment, we could very well be planting trees to address salinity in the landscape that will subsequently have a negative impact in relation to climate change. We also may be planting them in the wrong places, particularly when in an agricultural landscape we are planting biodiversity plantings and refugia for species. If you look at the modelling for climate change, you see that species are going to have to start moving. We may well be planting in the wrong places. None of these issues are being sufficiently factored into the work and the research that is being done. The research is very limited. I remind the chamber again of CSIRO’s comments about research on climate change being ‘nickelled and dimed’.

Perhaps the government’s approach is really along the lines of the Prime Minister’s approach when he was making comments on the impact of a six-degree rise in temperature. His comments were to the effect of: ‘Well, it’ll make people a little less comfortable.’ I am sorry, a six-degree rise in temperature will destroy agriculture as it is practised today in many places. It will mean it will no longer be able to be practised in those places. We just heard Senator Stephens outline the impact of minor temperature changes. Large temperature changes into the future will have a very significant impact on agriculture. We need to start planning for that now. We need to start working out transition strategies to help farmers move to other crops, maybe to move to other areas and maybe to move to a mixture of some form of agricultural practice and stewardship—because our lands in Australia are always going to need some form of management.

Finally I would like to address the comments that Senator McGauran made about the Greens wanting to move people off the land. That is so far from the truth it is ridiculous and a pathetic comment to make. He obviously has not listened to one little bit of the debate other than to try to pick up issues on which to score points. Perhaps he should have actually listened to the debate and then addressed the real issues rather than writing his speech before listening to the debate and the comments that we were making. We do not want to make people leave the land. But, if this issue is not properly dealt with, that is what the effect of the government’s policies will be, because people will no longer be able to farm in the areas that they are farming in now. They will be forced off the land because they will be driven broke. They will continually have to make minor changes, and the profitability of their land will be driven down and down. So we need to get on top of this issue.

I was hoping that we could address this with a bipartisan approach because it has got to cross political boundaries. This is such a significant issue that it has to cross political boundaries. I really do not think that Senator McGauran contributed to the debate very well by trying to politicise it when we were deliberately trying not to do that in seeking to refer this issue to a committee. We heard a number of speakers yesterday and today refer to the fact that the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport works well. A number of the inquiries I have been involved with in that committee have produced bipartisan reports. Our oil inquiry report and our water report were cross-party, unanimous reports that I think contributed very sensible recommendations on those issues. I believe that the committee could do the same thing on this issue. It needs to be looked at. Not enough is being done. We do not understand fully the extent of the impacts of climate change on our agricultural systems. They are going to be massive, and work is needed now. I commend this reference motion to the chamber.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Siewert’s and Senator Milne’s) be agreed to.