Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wakefield and acknowledge his strong engagement with the farmers in his area and with making sure that they have a strong future ahead. Yesterday I was able to announce the next stage of research funding out of Australia’s Farming Future, which is to make sure that farmers in the livestock industries are able to have tools at their disposal to be part of the effort in reducing emissions, particularly from the mouths of cattle, sheep and goats. There has been very little research done in this area, but it is actually the third biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto protocol within Australia. This money and these projects will go toward exploring dietary supplements and alternative feeds to reduce methane production from livestock and looking at chemical or biological controls and also at genetic approaches such as selective breeding. This is all to make sure that, as Australia makes its effort to reduce emissions, farmers are able to have a very strong future.

I regret to inform the House that there are other approaches which provide much less of a future for Australia’s farmers. I discovered this a couple of nights ago while watching The 7.30 Report. I have to say the Leader of the Opposition on The 7.30 Report made absolutely compelling television. The commercial networks at the same time were showing Animal Rescue, Wipeout Australia and The Biggest Loser. I had to check which channel I was on. The Leader of the Opposition said:

… I did nothing more than rely on the work of Dr Phil Polglase from the CSIRO, who in his published work, which is cited in my paper, which I’m sure you’ve read—

he said ‘which I’m sure you have read’; he really said that—

shows that you can abate 146 million tonnes of CO2 a year, with nine million hectares of planting …

Nine million hectares of planting is an extraordinary amount of planting. There is no doubt that, as part of the effort to deal with climate change, more trees have to be planted. The modelling that was done for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was quite squarely focused on tree planting in marginal agricultural areas. So we went to the report to see what the Leader of the Opposition was relying on, because there are a number of different projections of how many trees you could plant. He chose the highest figure—9.1 million hectares. There is a map on page 80 of the report of where those plantings would take place—and we have enlarged it and shaded it to make it clear.

All the way up and down the Queensland coast there are people who are cane growers, who are deeply concerned about whether or not sugar mills are going to lose their capacity because so much prime agricultural land is being lost to tree production. Yet, under the Leader of the Opposition’s plan, from Cairns to Townsville to Mackay to Rockhampton to Gladstone to Bundaberg—all the way down that Queensland sugar coast—there are dots for where he is planning to take prime agricultural land. I know there is none in Gladstone; it is between the dots when driving from place to place. All the way down there are dots on the map that have been chosen by the Leader of the Opposition to say where the prime agricultural land will be transferred to forestry. But it is not just there but the New England area. He has chosen agricultural land around Tamworth and agricultural land around Glen Innes and said, ‘The future for farmers is that we will take out that prime agricultural land and we will plant trees there.’ Even Nambour is on the list of areas.

In Tasmania, the agricultural land between Launceston and Hobart is marked on the map as an area of prime agricultural land to be changed over for tree planting. Over in Western Australia, in the wheat belt, there are dots on some of our most productive land in the country. The Leader of the Opposition plans to make those places of prime agricultural land where forestry will take over from agriculture. At least the Independent members of this parliament can go back to their seats and say that they support a strong future for the farmers in their electorates. At least the member for Wakefield and other members on this side of the House representing country seats can go back and tell their farmers what they support.

See this speech in context