Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Government has signed Australia up to the Global Methane Pledge despite promising the Australian public that it would not sign the pledge during the 2022 election;

(b) this is a broken election promise;

(c) the Global Methane Pledge includes a target to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent on 2020 levels by 2030;

(d) 48 per cent of Australia's annual methane emissions come from the agricultural sector, where no affordable, practical and large-scale way exists to reduce it other than culling herd sizes;

(e) in the previous Government, the Coalition invested over $18 million to monitor and reduce fugitive methane emissions in the energy and resources sector, and help farmers reduce emissions from livestock; and

(f) this pledge, in effect, creates a cap on the size of Australia's livestock industry;

(2) further notes that:

(a) international research shows the target cannot be realised without taking behavioural and technical measures in the livestock agriculture sector, and recommends people change their diets resulting in lower meat and dairy consumption, leading to a capping or reduction of the national livestock herd;

(b) this will increase the price of a steak at your favourite restaurant or butcher, or a white coffee at your favourite cafe, at a time when small businesses are already struggling with mounting cost-of-doing-business pressures; and

(c) this pledge equally calls to reduce methane emissions from the gas sector—a critical fuel source that complements the increasing share of renewables in our electricity grid—which adds pressure to production and generation and is an invitation for the type of chaos we are seeing in Europe at the moment; and

(3) calls on the Government to:

(a) install financial protections for Australia's agricultural sector which will be impacted by the Global Methane Pledge;

(b) provide assurances to Australia's agricultural sector that there will be no new taxes and regulation to deliver the Government's methane emissions reduction target; and

(c) provide assurances the national livestock herd will not be capped or reduced as a consequence of the Government's methane emissions reduction target.

The government has signed this country up for the Global Methane Pledge and, in doing so, has inadvertently put a cap on our cattle industry—an unintended consequence of an ill-thought-through action. We've sacrificed the growth of our agricultural sector, the prosperity of regional economies and basic market freedoms so that the government can receive a pat on the back, from countries whose situations simply cannot compare to ours, at COP27. That's because here, in our country, around half of our methane emissions come from the agricultural sector. My electorate of Groom, with around 200,000 head of cattle on feedlots, is a significant contributor. We don't have the same, easy-to-find efficiencies, like fixing leaky gas pipes, that exist in other nations who have made this pledge.

What we do have is plentiful grazing land, generational expertise in the beef industry and significant technological research centres that make us a hotbed for innovation, efficiency and productivity gains in this vital industry. We are very proud of what we do and we want to keep doing it.

And, despite what some people might tell you, no affordable, practical and large-scale way exists to reduce methane emissions in agriculture, other than reducing the herd size. That includes the potential benefits of seaweed, which the government seems to be hanging this entire pledge on. There is currently no credible demonstration that this technology can be used to satisfy that 30 per cent reduction pledge. This is not speculation or uninformed commentary; this is the view from those with a stake in the game, on feedlots and in laboratories on the ground in my electorate. Much work has been done in the beef industry to improve time on feed, which has a direct impact on methane emissions. We know what we're doing, we know what needs to be done and we're doing it.

We also know the threat that this pledge presents to the red meat industry, because, unlike carbon, there is no way to offset methane. It cannot be sequestered. So, in the Australian context, when you hear the government talk about reducing methane emissions, they're talking about capping or reducing that industry. Under this methane pledge, Australia's national herd can't grow any bigger, because each new beast added is simply more methane. The biggest impacts of this will be visited on small, aspirational graziers who just want to build their businesses. Decisions which should be theirs, on herd size and breed, will now fall under big government regulation. This is terrible news for an industry that is still trying to grow back after it was hit hard during the last drought. We are still in the process of re-growing our herd, and this pledge makes it impossible to do that.

Let's turn for a moment to the government's assurances that this won't be the case—that this pledge is just 'aspirational' and won't lead to de-stocking or a new tax. How can we believe the government when this pledge itself was comprehensively ruled out by the Prime Minister on multiple occasions prior to the election? Just over a year ago, on 28 October 2021, Mr Albanese he told a journalist that it was premature for Australia to sign up to any such commitment because our cattle industry and its use of grazing is 'different from the way that agriculture and farming practices happen in other parts of the world'. Two weeks after that, on 12 November, when asked again if Labor would sign Australia up to the COP26 pledges to reduce methane emissions and phase out the use of coal, the Prime Minister said: 'We wouldn't sign up to that.' We now know that that isn't the case. The government has gone back on their commitment, and yet they seek Australia's trust.

At a time of workforce shortages, inflation and rising interest rates, Labor's response is more red tape, more bureaucracy and more government intervention in this very crucial and, occasionally, very fragile industry. It's taking control from an industry that has already committed to reducing emissions in a sensible and sustainable way without sacrificing productivity and handing it over to those without a stake in the game. Ultimately, it will be families at the supermarket who pay the price when the cost of meat and dairy rises. In this cost-of-living crisis, the government should be focusing on boosting our economy and not reducing it.

See this speech in context