Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

For those who are listening to parliament, it is always important to look at what the coalition actually do on climate change issues relating to the farming and regional areas of our country, not what they say they do. We have heard, in this debate on the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 and related bills, the member for Barker and the member for Forrest talk about their farming backgrounds, the assistance they provided and their concerns for the farming sector. But, when given the opportunity to actually vote on legislation that would in the future provide, according to the parliamentary secretary's second reading speech, hundreds of millions of dollars for the farming sector, they say they are opposed to it. They claim they are standing up for the regions, but we know they are opposing our regional infrastructure funding. We know that they will be opposing the $4.3 billion we have rolled out in this budget. They oppose this and they oppose so much when it comes to the farming regions, yet they say they are standing up for farmers. There is a grave inconsistency between what the coalition say and what they actually do.

We have heard the member for Barker and the member for Forrest say that they have not been consulted. There has been extensive consultation on this matter. I heard some discussion about the issue of the additionality test, but changes on these matters have been made as a result of the consultation process. The National Farmers Federation supports what we are doing here. The last time I looked, the National Farmers Federation was not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. They actually support what we are doing here, yet those opposite will not listen to them.

They will not listen to them on the issue of climate change either. We accept the science of climate change here; those opposite really do not. Anyone who comes to question time hears the comments made by those opposite—over in that corner where all the Nats hang out. You can hear what they have to say and you can hear the comments they make—they do not accept the science. On this side, we want to price carbon. We want to make a difference to the environment, improve the situation for farmers, improve the situation for our regional areas and give farmers the opportunity for a new industry, an industry that could help them whether they be wheat farmers, tree planters, beef farmers or involved in the dairy sector.

I have the honour of representing many farming communities in the electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland. We are providing a chance for a new industry for hard-pressed regions, regions such as those in my area of South-East Queensland affected by the flood—the Somerset and the rural parts of Ipswich. And those opposite are opposing it. They are trying to delay this. I do not understand it. I truly do not get why the coalition is opposing this. They know there has been extensive consultation. In fact the members opposite have talked about the extensive consultation.

It is inaction on climate change. Whenever the opportunity arises, such as with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme that they voted against many times in the House and Senate, they want to take a giant step backwards on climate change action—every single time. It is a disgrace. We want to assist farmers, households and low-income earners because we know our economy needs to transition to a cleaner energy economy. We know we have to do it. We know we are not jumping ahead of the world; we know we are going with the world on this.

We are taking steps to improve our economy. This is a great national reform. We need to take steps. So on this side of the House we say we are going to tax the polluters and we are going to help the community, low-income earners, farmers and small business. Those on the other side want to tax those people and help the big polluters. I just do not get where the coalition parties are coming from these days and I do not think their natural constituency, which they think is the farming sector, will go with them on this issue. I do not think the farming sector will support them on this issue; they will be opposed to them.

This is important legislation. It is not as though we have come up with this idea recently. I recall it being an election commitment. I can recall sending out press releases on this. I can recall speaking on River 94.9 radio about carbon farming. I remember discussing this with local journalists and farmers in my area. I remember having this discussion all through the campaign—it is not something new that we have come up with. It is not something that the opposition has not heard about before.

This is going to afford abatement opportunities in the agricultural sector that will give it a new industry. It is a very good thing for agricultural areas. We will see the need for those farmers to have a good look at the kind of work they are undertaking. Farmers are used to difficult conditions. They are used to markets and know what markets are like because they deal with them, whether it is beetroot, carrots, lettuce or cauliflower.

We are going to address salinity, reduce erosion—tree planting will help—and make sure that we improve soil health and productivity. We will do that by increasing carbon storage in those soils. We will help to protect biodiversity and degraded landscapes by revegetation. We will see farmers undertake that sort of work. We will fulfil our election commitment to help farmers, forest growers and landholders to access the carbon markets. The member for Dobell very accurately outlined what we are proposing to do.

This is an important initiative because we believe climate change is real. So many on that side of the House deny the science. We believe that acting on climate change is the right thing to do for our economy. We are not going to play politics on this issue. It is a very serious issue. The coalition members tonight are playing politics—and why wouldn't they? They believe they have a chance. They think that if they can narrow the political agenda to a couple of issues—not talk about the economy or the things that affect people—they can scoot into the Lodge. That is what they want. You hear it in every speech in this place from those opposite. It is not about the national interest; it is about their short-term interest. It is not about creating jobs, taxing polluters, transitioning the economy or assisting people. It is about their short-term interest. That is what they are all about.

I will talk to the second reading amendment that the member for Flinders moved. We know that farmers and landholders want access to carbon markets. Contrary to the coalition's record, they are holding back those markets as well as farmers, income and opportunity. With this amendment, the member for Flinders has basically told farmers in my region and in the region of the member for Maranoa —I see him sitting over there—that the coalition would rather play politics than support the farming sector. That is what they have said today.

The farmers and landholders in Blair want me and all the people in this House to end the politics on this issue. They want to make sure that we have a framework—and we set out the framework back in February this year—and that the legislation is in place. I mention to the House the National Farmers Federation and what they submitted to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts inquiry on this issue. They said about this legislation:

The legislation has also addressed the NFF concerns around potential perverse outcomes in relation to food production, water, local communities, employment and biodiversity, as well as reducing some of the uncertainty and administration costs surrounding crediting periods, reporting timeframes and offsets compliance.

…   …   …

The government deserves credit for listening to the farm sector and modifying its proposal to ensure that genuine abatement opportunities under the CFI are not unnecessarily overlooked.

That looks like we have railroaded the whole thing through, doesn't it? It really looks like we have not consulted with the farming sector at all! Those opposite should go back to the farmers they claim they represent and have a word with them about what this is all about.

The carbon farming initiative is based on the science of climate change. On this side of the House, we believe it is true. My estimate is that most people on the other side of the House do not really believe the science. You see their response with the member for Tangney going beetroot in the face every time climate change is mentioned. We hear the Nats and the Libs in the corner at the back—the LNP members from Queensland—casting doubt on it. We know the member for Wentworth really believes in the science of climate change and, in his heart of hearts, I believe the member for Flinders believes that climate change is real and that human beings contribute to the environment in an adverse way. But many people over there do not—and you can hear what they say.

The carbon farming initiative is important and the department is going to release over the next few weeks a number of details of methodology which will show in practical terms how particular landholders can put projects together. As I said, we have consulted extensively. On the regulations, we have established a positive and negative list and we will be providing details of these lists very shortly. The regulations dealing with the technical matters are required to be based on independent advice from the Domestic Offset Integrity Committee. It is essential to the credibility and value of the offset credits which are created by this carbon farming initiative. A scheme where the activities are added and credits are based on politics, which is what those opposite want, has no credibility at all.

The coalition really should stop playing politics with this. We are trying to reward farmers with an income source and those opposite are opposed to it. Labor are doing a lot of stuff with respect to protecting the environment in my electorate and elsewhere. We are committed to a more sustainable environment by investing in our Caring for our Country programs on the ground. I have seen many of them in my electorate. We are committed to managing water resources in the Murray-Darling in a way that supports healthy rivers, strong communities and sustainable food production. We have delivered generational water reforms in the Murray-Darling Basin and we are giving communities confidence to plan for the future, whereas those opposite have delayed, delayed and delayed on the Murray-Darling Basin.

One of the first acts of this Labor government—of which I was very proud—in 2007, when I was elected, was to ratify the Kyoto protocol. We expanded the renewable energy target to ensure that, by 2020, 20 per cent of our electricity comes from renewable energy sources. We have supported green jobs, and I have seen that locally in my electorate around Ipswich and in the rural areas. We have modernised the economy by implementing many clean energy initiatives. We have helped local schools to tackle climate change by installing solar panels on roofs and water tanks. I have seen those across Ipswich and also in the Somerset region. These things are important.

By setting a price on carbon and also implementing the Carbon Farming Initiative we are taking action on climate change. We think it will drive innovation and investment. Hard-pressed regional and rural areas know how important markets are, how important farming production is, how important a dollar is and how hard it is to earn. So this will give them jobs for the future and whole industries in areas like the Lockyer Valley and the Brisbane Valley. I look forward to seeing those.

As I said, we are ensuring the big polluters are the ones who bear the burden and we are ensuring that the farming sector is looked after in this way. Only Labor governments would help rural and regional Australia and only Labor governments would help the farming sector, because those opposite claim they do but they deliver almost nothing.

As a result of those Building the Education Revolution initiatives in their electorates, which helped those really hard-pressed rural communities—places such as Esk and Fernvale in the electorate of Blair—those multipurpose halls provided evacuation centres in the recent flood. Yet those opposite voted against that initiative. Those opposite should hang their heads in shame. Every chance they get, they vote against regional and rural Australia. Every chance they get, they oppose climate change initiatives. Every chance they get, they do not support the farming sector. They will say it, they do so here but, when it comes to the crunch, they don't.

Labor are introducing emission standards on coal-fired power stations to ensure future electricity generation is cleaner and greener. We are delivering a strong signal to investors to build a low-pollution economy for the future. The Carbon Farming Initiative will provide economic opportunities for farmers, forest growers, landholders and will help the environment by reducing carbon pollution. This is something that we are doing—something those opposite are opposing. Once again, the coalition show that they have no determination and no commitment to regional and rural areas. Once again, they betray them by the speeches they make in here and by the votes that they will cast later on tonight on carbon farming. This is another great Labor initiative, helping the farming sector, opposed by the National Party, which preen, pose and parade in this place as supporters of the farmers. When they get a chance to vote, they will vote against them. They will vote against the legislation tonight. I want every farmer in the electorates of Blair, Maranoa, Flynn and Kennedy, and all those farmers in Queensland, to listen to these debates, to listen to what the coalition are saying and, when you cast your vote next time, think about who supports regional and rural Queensland and who supports farmers. I want to make it crystal clear to them: the federal Labor government does that, as we always have.

See this speech in context