Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Stephen Bates (Brisbane, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to thank the member for Groom for bringing this motion forward today. It is important to have the opportunity to speak about the effect of the Albanese Labor government's efforts to address climate change, including through our signing of the Global Methane Pledge—a move that has been welcomed by the likes of the National Farmers Federation, Meat & Livestock Australia and Farmers for Climate Action.

I am concerned that parts of this motion seem to be grounded firmly in the type of alarmism that we have consistently seen from those opposite when it comes to talking about action on climate change. It's worth noting that it's a special 10-year anniversary this year for the member for New England. It's the 10-year anniversary of his cracker of a claim that carbon pricing would lead to a Sunday roast costing $100 and a single cow or lamb costing as much as a house. What an anniversary! When in opposition, we called on the then government to take the issue of methane seriously. We had the same member going on about some nonsense about shooting cows. These claims, from now and from then, are as ludicrous as each other.

After the election, I had really hoped that those opposite, coming out of nine years in government—nine years of drift and denial—might have changed. I thought they might have taken a look at themselves and their failure to take real action on climate and decide they need to change tack. I thought they might realise that the Australian people want them to start working in the country's best interests. Unfortunately, I've been brought back down to earth pretty quickly. We saw it on the climate change bill. The government, the Independents, the Greens and others in this parliament came together to deliver, for the first time in years, a real plan on climate change. But who was on the outside? Who decided they didn't want to work across the parliament on this? That was the opposition. They couldn't get their act together in nine years, and they've decided they don't plan to try doing so now that they're on the opposition benches.

I should credit them though; there is one idea in this space that they do seem strangely obsessed with at the moment, which is, of course, nuclear power. Again, how interesting that in nine years in office it wasn't something they progressed but, now that they're in opposition, it's apparently the great white hope! That is despite it being the least cost-effective option and despite them not being able to tell the Australian people where they plan to locate this new nuclear power they are so keen on.

So our government is happy to leave the opposition to this irrelevancy. In the meantime, we're getting on with the job and we're getting Australia back on track. Our government has started a new chapter. We are listening to the Australian people, who have made it clear they want a government that takes climate change seriously. Our government does, and we're matching our words with action. We are moving forward in our switch to cleaner, cheaper, renewable energy. We are treating climate change as an emergency, because it is one. There are many parts to this, and that includes the Global Methane Pledge, which, as the minister responsible has previously outlined, is an important way for countries across the world to work together on reducing methane emissions. Since coming into government, we've worked with industry and farmer groups to progress signing this pledge. We've shown that you can take a route where you work with industry to get a better future for all of us. And I do want to thank all those groups across the country who sat down with government and constructively engaged in consultation and engagement to get what is a really positive outcome for our country.

Those opposite don't work in this way. They work on division. They work on fear. They're stuck in some idea of the past.

But the fact is: Australia's farmers have been at the forefront of action on climate change, and they deserve recognition for that fact. There are some important projects that will come in this space. Some examples of those are: $4 million to trial low-emissions livestock feed technologies; $8 million to the Australian Sustainable Seaweed Alliance to support the commercialisation of seaweed as a low-emissions feed supplement—I know there is a lot of interest in this project, and I hear from a lot of corners about how important that is; and almost $5 million in grants to support the development of cost-effective technologies to deliver low-emission feed supplements to grazing livestock.

The opposition has just been left behind. These projects are going forward. Everyone else is moving forward. And yet those opposite don't seem to have any interest in doing the same.

In contrast, our government will keep getting on with the job. We are working hard to take action on climate change and we are working together with communities, together with industry and together with Australia's agriculture and farming industry to do so. We're governing for all Australians, for a better future for all of us. We are working to address the very real challenges that this country faces and we are taking the Australian people with us as we do it.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm delighted to be seconding this motion moved by the member for Groom. Context counts. Right now, Australia is experiencing inflation that's almost out of control. The cost of living is biting hard in every household, but this government is not taking any action on it. Despite promising a $275 reduction in household power bills, power bills are skyrocketing. The budget forecast an increase of over 50 per cent in electricity next financial year. The government is taking no action on that. We have businesses screaming out, the Australian Workers Union is talking about 800,000 manufacturing jobs being at risk, we have businesses that might close their doors in this country because of skyrocketing energy prices and the budget suggests that there will be price increases of over 40 per cent in gas in the next financial year. The government is not acting on that. The budget shows that the economic modelling that underpins the entire energy policy suite of the government is flawed, yet the government is taking no action on that.

But there is something that the government is acting on. The government has decided that, in the midst of an energy crisis with all this pressure bearing down on Australian households and industries, now is the time to sign a global methane pledge. This is an opportunity to get on the world stage, to beat their chest and say that we are joining with other nations on a global pledge. The problem isn't just with the substance of what the government has agreed to but the fact that it is yet another broken promise. In opposition the now Prime Minister was very happy to stand alongside the coalition and refuse to sign the global pledge, agreeing with the coalition government that this pledge should not be signed. That was the government's position when in opposition, but now in their first six months in office they have added this broken promise to a long list of broken promises. This is nothing less than doing one thing in government that is very different from what you said in opposition. Those opposite know that, but they're very relaxed about it because there are just so many broken promises from this new government.

When it comes to the substance—this is the far more important point—we hear a lot of motherhood statements from those opposite, and I'm sure the government speakers to come will make them. It is speech after speech of motherhood statements. But what they cannot tell the Australian people, let alone those in the energy, resources and agriculture sectors, is how much this pledged commitment will cost and who will pay for it. That is typical of what we see from the government when it comes to climate and energy policy. They will agree to high-level targets without having done any homework whatsoever on how those targets will be achieved, how much it will cost to achieve them and who will pay for them. I welcome those on the government benches who will be speaking to outline the cost to Australia and how it is going to be paid for.

We already know that the government has an absolute disregard for the gas industry at a time when, despite a warning from the ACCC and a lot of other authoritative agencies that we need more gas, there is pressure on us having more gas poured into the system. We know that signing this methane pledge will only put more pressure on gas developers and generators, but the real heartburn for the Australian economy is to the agricultural sector, and to livestock in particular. No-one in government and no-one in industry can explain how this target will be achieved with the technology that exists today. It can't be done, yet they're happy to sign a pledge that somehow Australia will develop on it.

Industry is doing a great job, by the way, and the coalition backed them; that's why we put $18 million into ensuring that we were working with industry. But we are going to have no technology that can deliver on this methane reduction pledge. Do you know what that means? Those opposite, those in government, are wanting this to be delivered by changes in behaviour. They want people to eat less meat. They want the farmers to have fewer cattle in their herd. They should not be signing this pledge. They should not have broken their promise. But that's what the Labor government does. (Time expired)

Fiona Phillips (Gilmore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hazard a guess that there wouldn't be too many MPs opposite that would have a painting of a Friesian cow in their parliamentary office like I do, but, growing up on a dairy farm and being surrounded by literally thousands of Friesian dairy cows all my life, you could say I very much have a fondness for cows, dairy farmers and the community that supports them. In fact, I saw hundreds of dairy calves just yesterday when I dropped off my working Kelpie dog, Jip, to start his shift with my son.

After over half a century surrounded by dairy cattle, I've seen dairy farming change a lot. Dairy farmers have had to adapt to survive. But I have a saying: the smart farmers are adapting. Many have adapted to larger herds, some of gone to smaller herds and diversified into producing for gourmet cheeses. There is a thirst from the community for good local milk and milk products. People want to know where their milk comes from, how it is produced and that it's made in the most sustainable way, and the community want to support their local farmers. As I said, the smart farmers know this and have already been adapting.

They've also been adapting to reducing emissions, whether it's more solar, biofuels from manure, recycling effluent water and irrigating on their farm, and planting more trees. They've adapted to becoming more resilient to drought, bushfires, floods, storms, even a tornado and the next natural disaster that hits. Why? Because it's the right thing to do. It's the right thing for reducing emissions. It's the right thing for supporting the environment that has supported our farmers for generations. It makes good business sense for the ongoing viability of the farm.

So does it surprise me that Australia has joined with 122 other nations, including the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Germany, to reduce global methane emissions across all sectors by at least 30 per cent below 2020 levels by 2030? Not at all. In fact, it's a worldwide pledge, which does not mean that each country must meet the 30 per cent reduction; it's about global efforts to reducing emissions from methane. It is nonbinding, and individual countries are not assigned targets. In signing the pledge it will not include binding legislated methane targets and will not require reduced agricultural production or livestock numbers.

Farmer Tim says he doesn't want a methane tax. Well, Farmer Tim, I agree with you. We can have a pledge and meet our targets without a tax. In fact, we can use projects like the fab cow poo farm that Farmer Tim is a part of. Fabulous. Who needs a tax? Farmer Tim is all over it, even without all those red socialist jackets that Farmer Daniel doesn't like.

You see, I really do love our dairy farmers—the good bits, the odd bits and everything in between. The simple truth is the Australian livestock industry is already pushing ahead with a strong emissions reduction agenda, including the use of feed supplements, investment into sustainable agricultural practices, improved livestock and manure management practices, and breeding lower emissions animals. Who'd have thought? Even the National Farmers Federation have said:

Signing the pledge signals Australia's voluntary commitment to participation in global action on methane emissions.

For agriculture it will reinforce our demonstrated commitment to sustainability and ongoing access to key markets as an export orientated sector.

And a joint statement announced by the Australian Livestock Exporters Council, the Australian Lot Feeders Association, the Australian Meat Industry Council, the Cattle Council of Australia, the Goat Industry Council of Australia, Sheep Producers Australia and the Red Meat Advisory Council says:

Today's announcement shows the government has listened to our concerns and recognises the Australian red meat and livestock industry is proactively addressing emissions and is well advanced in achieving its CN30 target. Industry's net emissions have reduced by almost 60% since 2005, representing by far the greatest reduction by any sector of Australia's economy.

With the right policy settings and ongoing research investment, our industry can be at the forefront of the climate solution.

Since coming to government, the minister has worked with industry and farmer groups to progress signing this pledge. Our farmers have been at the forefront of action on climate change, and I want to thank them for that. We will continue to reduce methane in the agricultural sector through technology innovation incentives and partnerships with farmers. I have always supported local farmers and I always will.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour.