John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Food Security, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the report Farming the future: the role of government in assisting Australian farmers to adapt to the impacts of climate change and the issue in general. I think farmers are more aware what is happening with the climate than most of the scientists are, actually. They actually have to deal with it instead of just talk about it. I would like to start by congratulating the committee on tackling what is, for many people, not a sexy issue. Yet I strongly believe that food and water security will be—in fact is—the defining issue of the 21st century. On Monday, the member for Lyons, in handing down this report, said that the journey in front of us will take a ‘sustained effort on the part of government, industry and community over a period of decades.’ I wish to outline just how crucial the final two groups mentioned by the member for Lyons are when tackling this issue.

Before I get into the debate I would like to pose a couple of questions to the House: where do you think our food will come from in the future, and what is Australia’s greatest competitive advantage over its trading competitors? Those things certainly have been brought out by the debate on the importation of meat from BSE affected countries. The greatest threat to our agriculture in the next 50 years is not climate change but the policies put in place by governments to combat what they talk about as climate change variability. The Labor government’s emissions trading scheme legislation was, is and will be a debacle and it should be voted down once again. It is nothing but a tax on production that will drive businesses and jobs offshore. All it will achieve is a new export: carbon emissions. Electorates such as my electorate of Calare, which are exporting wealth-generating electricity, will bear the brunt of the cost of the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme, which is nothing more than a new tax on production with another name.

I was recently in Brazil and America and, with regard to the current global downturn, I was interested to note that Brazil, like Australia, has been relatively—and I stress the word relatively—unaffected. Why? For the same reason that the Midwest states of America are less affected than the east and west coasts of America: they are agricultural and mining states, just as we are base minerals producing countries—in other words, those involved in actually doing things rather than money shuffling, trading and services. They are the countries and the parts of countries that are dealing with this the best.

The effect of the legislation will be felt much more brutally in regional Australia than in the capital cities—in other words, in those parts of the country that are protecting Australia at the moment. The productive sectors are what the CPRS is going to hit the most. I do not believe excluding agriculture from having to purchase carbon credits is a huge win. In or out, agriculture will be almost the most affected industry in the country. The latest ABARE report on the cost of the Rudd government’s CPRS states:

Even if the agriculture sector is not a covered sector under the CPRS, agricultural producers will face increased input costs associated with the use of electricity, fuels and freight and may face lower farm-gate prices for their goods from downstream processors—

who will directly get all those carbon onsets—

These will have implications for the economic value of farm production.

The increase in the price of electricity is estimated to be almost seven per cent in 2011 and 24 per cent in 2015. Not long ago, that was the next decade; now it is this one. It is only five years away. That is without states whacking another 20 per cent on the price of electricity, as New South Wales did the other day.

Whether it is the current drought or future climatic change, the result is a dry weather cycle. What we need is government investment into research on practical, productive measures which will allow our farmers to increase productivity. A drought is exactly the same as the real or imagined effect of climate change—you have to produce more with less—and it needs investment in new plant varieties which are disease resistant and can tolerate dry conditions. Yet all we have had from this Labor government in its first three years in government is massive customer research and development. I was amused to hear the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, when he was asked recently what one of his notable achievements was, say ‘increases in R&D’. I was totally staggered. I am somebody who actually knows what happened to the R&D budget and what the department of agriculture has lost—yet he talks about increases. I would love to know where they are. Our farmers are already being forced to produce more with less, particularly with less water and less arable land—land because urbanisation unfortunately takes a lot of the best land closest to the best towns in the best country.

At a time when the world population is set to double within the next 30 years and the ravages of global warming or drought are meant to hit us there is a very real possibility of Australia becoming a net importer of food. The biggest issue arising out of global warming will be food security, how we increase food production and, indeed, where our food will come from. The Rudd government thinks so little about where our food will come from that agriculture and agricultural manufacturers and processors are the only sectors not receiving free permits—they do not have a $500 million clean coal fund or a $6 billion clean car fund.

Despite what the Prime Minister might believe, you cannot eat coal and if we are going to feed the nation then agriculture has to be put at the forefront of this debate. The Rudd government has no idea what its emissions tax will cost the mums and dads. It never engaged in an honest debate about the real cost of a carbon tax, but I think the Australian population have engaged in that debate and have made a judgment on it. Our comparative advantage in Australia has always been our relatively cheap energy and water costs, but both of these will be artificially increased under this great big new tax.

You do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that just about every bit of food and fibre grown in Australia involves some form of processing, manufacturing and transport before it is eaten or worn. Yet none of our manufacturers will be eligible for free permits under the ETS. The food manufacturing sector is the last major manufacturing sector left in Australia, employing over 300,000 people, mainly in regional Australia. It is vital to our nation’s food security, and the coalition is extremely concerned about its viability. For example, we are extremely concerned that there will be only one frozen vegetable processing plant left in the country after McCains close their Tasmanian plant to move to New Zealand. That is a major concern and it has to be addressed.

The Australian National Greenhouse accounts and the National inventory by economic sector, released in June, paint an interesting story. Agriculture, fisheries and forestry have been doing all of the heavy lifting in reducing the nation’s greenhouse gases. Emissions from agriculture, fishing and forestry have declined by well over 30 per cent since 1990. The agricultural sector has led the nation in reducing emissions, yet it is the food and fibre industries which will bear the brunt of Kevin Rudd’s proposed ETS. If global warming, because of carbon pollution, is a doomsday scenario—and many, including the government, are warning us that it is—then it needs an emergency response. I hope that the committee has highlighted the excellent work that farmers are already doing to combat climate variability.

One thing that simply cannot happen if we are serious about the long-term sustainability of the land and the industry is a cut in funds for research and development. As with any other industry, staying up to date with the latest technological and industrial improvements allows our Australian producers to keep ahead of the pack when it comes to the global agricultural market. Funding is absolutely essential. Cutbacks will harm the industry and there are no two ways about it. I urge the member for Lyons to speak to his colleagues, as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry continues to hang an axe above these funds. Emerging countries are threatening Australia’s foothold in some of our major export markets. The dumping of cheap produce on the Australian economy hurts our producers. We cannot afford to compete with China, Indonesia or Brazil on labour costs.

As the driest continent on the planet we are already in a difficult situation. We need funding in research and development to ensure that Australia continues to lead the way as one of the cleanest, greenest producers in the world. We are known for that. The parliament should also be aware that people on the land are aware of the challenges they face and are, in most circumstances, taking action. To survive the worst drought in my lifetime, farmers have had to change their managing practices just to survive—not to make Kevin feel better but because economic and personal need make them do it. The story that the stereotype cocky is resistant to change and do not adapt with the stock they run because they are stubborn is simply not true. Anyone like that does not survive.

The industry as a whole is willing to do what it can to improve its profit-making ability and improve the product being provided. When it all boils down, no other industry stands to lose more in the event of climate change coming to fruition—as per the doomsday scenario or as predicted by those who sensibly understand that climate change does happen. That is a fact that farmers and producers are all too aware of. One thing, however, sets this industry apart: the great connection producers have with the land that they work. No other industry has such a reliance on land as the agricultural industry. That connection means that seldom do people know more about what has happened to the soil and feed than the person working the land themselves.

There is a great variation in the soil quality and crop and stock potential in my electorate of Calare, not to mention across the whole of Australia. That is why a one-size-fits-all solution is the most ridiculous option you could ever come up with. The standing committee were clearly aware of this when they canvassed producers from across the country; however, the point should be made very clear.

The second group mentioned by the member for Lyons on Monday was communities. We need strong regional communities for a strong agricultural industry. It should be made very clear that a strong community involves strong health facilities, water security and educational opportunities. All three of these factors are currently under threat, particularly in New South Wales, by a city-centric focus in government. Regional Australia cannot be administered in these three areas in the same way as Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane or even somewhere like Newcastle.

There is great concern in my electorate of Calare about the shortage of regional health facilities, and the Prime Minister’s new health plan has done little to ease that worry. In fact, as a result of comments made by the New South Wales Premier, small communities are very worried that their local hospital will be closing because of Labor’s health plan. There is also concern about educational prospects, and the Deputy Prime Minister’s latest backflip on youth allowance has done little to ease them.

These are all issues which affect a farmer’s ability to know, to use and to educate his family to ensure the continuance that has always been there. Infrastructure has been poorly managed by the Labor Party at the state level, and without good railroad and port infrastructure farmers will not be able to shift their product. This government has to realise that strong facilities will help create a strong community, and a strong community will mean a strong agricultural sector.

See this speech in context