Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I table the explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Bill seeks to amend the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 by providing assistance to Australian dairy and livestock farmers and food processors. The Bill also seeks to protect Australian farming families against costs being passed backwards from food processors that would lead to substantial farm gate income losses. The Bill seeks to protect the future viability of farming in Australia by providing assistance to Australian trade-exposed food processors, including dairying and abattoirs.

The Bill requires regulation to determine that food processing activities, to the extent they are trade exposed, be given a 90 per cent exemption from liabilities associated with the Renewable Energy Target (RET). It seeks the same protection for farmers as that given to industries such as cement, newsprint, glass and those sorts of industries.

Processed agricultural products are among the most trade exposed in the world and any additional cost imposed on Australian production cannot be passed on to customers. These costs will inevitably be passed back to farmers.

I refer to the case of the Murray Goulburn Dairy Co-operative. The Murray Goulbourn Dairy Co-operative is a high energy user and trade exposed. The RET squeezes their profit margins to the extent they will have a lot of trouble competing in export markets. They cannot sustain the cost increases and will be forced to pass the costs back to dairy farmers or actually go out of business.

Murray Goulburn Dairy Co-Operative told the Senate Standing Committee on Economics that liabilities under the CPRS would result in income losses to its 2,500 farming members of between $5,000 and $10,000 and that the RET would impose an additional $1 million in 2010, rising to over $2 million by 2020. I have been told by regional Queensland abattoirs that the RET costs will start at $315,000 in 2010 and rise by $850,000 by 2020. Like dairy, these additional costs cannot be absorbed and will be passed back to the graziers.

The Australian Dairy Industry Council’s submission to the economics committee inquiry states:

Although dairy processing is highly trade exposed in most products – the main activities do not meet the cut-offs for EITE classification …

I believe this is a flaw in the CPRS system which will see less competitive food processing and farming in Australia and lead to carbon leakage. Our major competitors in the world dairy market will provide support for dairy processors and exclude farm emissions or will not have an ETS at all.

In speaking to my bill, I refer to the comments of the shadow minister for climate change, environment and water, the Hon. Greg Hunt, relating to the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009. He said that if the government was willing to consider the opposition’s amendments then the legislation would pass.

The government did in fact undertake to agree to a number of those amendments but it did not agree to those dealing with food processing. The Coalition supported the bill, which was passed, but feels very strongly about the need to protect farmers from adverse consequences of the renewable energy target—hence my private senator’s bill, which I hope the government will permit a second reading and vote.

The case to give food processing activities the same exemption from the RET as aluminium and other industries—that is, 90 per cent—is compelling. If the same treatment is not given to food-processing activities to the extent that they are trade exposed then the Australian dairy industry, livestock farmers and food processors in particular, and farming families in general, will unfairly suffer. If food-processing costs incurred because of the RET were passed back to farmers, this would lead to substantial farm gate income losses. All of this will impact on industry viability, such as food cannery firms, our food security and rural jobs.

In not accepting the amendments at the time of the passage of the original bill, we believe, the government erred. Hence, I am presenting them in a private member’s bill, enforcing the argument that there is a need for farmers to have the same degree of protection that other industries are going to be given by the government.  I commend the bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I welcome Senator Boswell’s legislation coming into the Senate. There is at least another bill to come today, and there were some yesterday. But I put this to the Senate: how on earth are these private members’ bills going to have any effect at all if, as today, we see what little private members time there is given over to government business? I put it to the Senate, Mr President, that there needs to be a very serious look—not just by the Procedure Committee but by the Senate itself—at facilitating private members’ legislation being dealt with by the Senate and the Senate not simply being given over to government business. The opposition has made a major mistake in facilitating that process this afternoon and I think it needs to think again. If Senator Boswell’s legislation is important, and I am sure it is, it should be dealt with, but there is no hope for it if the opposition keeps giving what little time we have for dealing with important pieces of legislation like this across to the government for government business.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I do not agree with Senator Brown’s views totally. The government and the opposition, ever since the Senate was established, have worked cooperatively where necessary. We do not give away time willingly and easily; we discuss that quite seriously with the government. The government are always on notice that, if they do not manage the time that is allocated, we will not give them that time. In fact, we have berated the government for mismanagement in not allowing enough time for consideration during sitting weeks earlier in the year. So I do not agree with Senator Brown’s comments. And can I add, Mr President, without denigrating this debate: if we did not sometimes waste time on frivolous divisions where the outcome is known, we could gain four to eight minutes per division. At least the government is sensible about dividing in this place.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—There are a couple of points to be raised here, and one of them is that the government set the schedule this year with the fewest sitting weeks we have had for some time, which is hard to explain. The second critical point is that the amount of time and taxpayers’ money the Greens waste in this chamber is outrageous to say the least. They stand up and say more time should be spent on private members’ business—I agree with that, but they waste time and taxpayers’ money in this chamber, and it should not be allowed to occur the way it does.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—This indicates that there is scope for reform in relation to private members’ business and in the way that private members’ bills are treated. In my time as a member of the Legislative Council in South Australia, there was a process for private members’ bills to be brought to a vote, time was set aside on a regular basis, and that system seemed to work quite well. The sky did not seem to fall in for the government’s legislative agenda in the South Australian parliament under either Liberal or Labor governments, and I would like to think that we could move forward with some substantive reforms in that way.

Debate adjourned.