Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

RAMSEY (—) (): I have to say that this agreement by the government to reduce methane output by 30 per cent—and I point out at this stage that 30 per cent of Australia's methane emissions come from agriculture—just came from nowhere. We had no idea they were going to do it before the election, and they have no idea how we're going to get there, how much it's going to cost or who's going to pay for it. It goes with a list that I've compiled of a number of other things we didn't know about before the election, like giving New Zealanders the vote, or bringing back the foreign fighters—we didn't know about that—or withdrawing recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, or bringing back pattern bargaining—we didn't hear about that before the election—or the expansion of the area of workforce shortage for foreign-trained doctors to get them into the suburbs of our major cities, rather than preserving them for country areas, or the locking up of 30 per cent of Australia in parks and reserves, up from 20 per cent. We didn't hear any of this stuff before the election. And then, of course, on top of that, now we get the 30 per cent reduction in cow belches and—flatulence, let me say.

It's worth noting—I've done a few numbers on this—as we are pushing towards areas of dealing with climate change, that 200 nations at COP26 agreed to beef up their plans for CO2 reduction this year. Thus far, only 12 per cent have done so. When you hear the phrase 'all the world is doing it', all the world is about 12 per cent of the world's population. There are about a billion people in the world who live in countries that are taking climate change and CO2 reduction seriously. The other six billion are going the other way. Otherwise we wouldn't have record prices and record production for coal and gas. That's a clear indication that all the world is not doing it. Around 12 per cent of the world are engaged seriously with reducing CO2, including Australia. Before the change of government, I might say, we did have a 23 per cent reduction on 2005 levels and would have achieved around 33 per cent.

There are some positives in this story. I know the government is hanging its hat on Asparagopsis taxiformis, the red seaweed. There is a lot of interest in my electorate, and there are companies there that are looking to produce it at the moment. There's been a feedlot that has done some trial work on this very recently, HP Rural. We will see their produce on supermarket shelves around this week or next week in South Australia. It's worth noting—

An honourable member: Algae?

It's a seaweed. Anyway, a cow needs around 50 grams of this a day. That's not much, but there are 28 million cattle in Australia. If you extrapolate that out, that's about half a million tonnes a year. We know this seaweed is capable of reducing methane emissions. What we don't know is whether it can be produced at scale or whether it can be produced at a price. What we also know is that it's quite easy to administer this or give it to cattle in a feedlot situation, but at any given time only 4.6 per cent of Australia's cattle are in a feedlot; the other 95.4 per cent are actually out grazing on rangeland. There is no known way that I'm aware of for delivering that feed supplement at this stage. I know the CSIRO are looking at trying to add it to water, but you've got to remember that it's a solid. Whether or not it's going to sit in water and actually disseminate itself amongst cattle is a real question.

The reason I bring this up is that people get so enthusiastic so far in front of the case. There's nothing wrong with being enthusiastic, but in this case the government has actually made a decision which ties in Australia. What if Asparagopsis doesn't work? Where are we left then? Are we left where New Zealand are, talking about a tax on prime production? When I talk about this optimism, it was only a few years ago that the whole of Australia was going to be running on hot rocks. I don't know the last time you turned on your power point powered by hot rocks. (Time expired)

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was quite a journey, and it's late on a Monday night, but goodness me the member for Grey just gave us a snapshot as to exactly why a big chunk of his colleagues are no longer sitting in this place. His colleagues on that side of the House, like the members for Wentworth, Goldstein and Higgins, faced electorates that were sick of the ridiculous hyperbole that we just heard from the member for Grey. He's not interested in actual reasoned discussion about why we need to do our bit as part of the international efforts to tackle climate change; he's just interested in a long, rambling contribution that didn't address the issue.

President Biden had this initiative to try and reduce the amount of methane that the international community is emitting. We know methane is a really powerful greenhouse gas, and we know that we need to reduce it. The 30 by 30 methane pledge is one that signals to the rest of the world that Australia is back. Australia takes its responsibilities on emission reduction seriously. We are here to work with our international counterparts in order to do what's required and in order to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the global efforts to tackle climate change.

The member opposite did mention a few of the different initiatives as to how we do that. Obviously there are a range of methane emissions throughout our economy. A lot of emissions seep out during production in fossil fuel industries but there is also the agricultural sector, which plays a relatively significant part in methane production in Australia. In the budget we are investing $8 million in the Sustainable Seaweed Alliance to help commercialise livestock feed with asparagopsis seaweed, which has the potential to reduce methane production by more than 95 per cent. It's a really sensible initiative, and we will wait and see the outcomes of that.

Along with the our efforts to try and bring down the amount of emissions of our heavy emitters, we have said exactly what we are going to do and to bring industry along with us. We know how important it is to bring our regional communities along, and I am proud that the Hunter Valley has a Labor member. Those communities must have strong representatives fighting for them, like my friend the member for Paterson sitting here, and indeed, you, Deputy Speaker Claydon, representing the good burgers of Newcastle.

We are looking for new technology to invest in to bring our agricultural sector with us. We know how important our agriculture sector is in Australia, unlike those opposite, who are really not offering forward-thinking solutions about how we can work with industry to tackle climate change as part of the international community's efforts to tackle climate change. The only thing those opposite have is hyperbole, fear campaigns and the sort of rubbish we just heard from the previous speaker, and not just the previous speaker, but the Leader of the Nationals, the member for New England before the last election as well. His contribution to this debate wasn't reasoned. The National Farmers' Federation said farmers are leading the charge on climate change and have earned a seat at the table. The strong assurances and partnership provided by the government means the pledge will not negatively impact farmers or the agricultural sector. That was what the National Farmers' Federation said was reasonable. It was serious. They are clearly taking the potential anxieties of the sector seriously. Let's just contrast that with the member for New England, who said, 'Grab a rifle, go out and start shooting your cattle.' That was the contribution from the member for New England.

I will ignore the interjections from the member for Kennedy. We are working with industry and with the agricultural sector. We will work with the big polluters but we will also work with the international community to make sure Australia is doing its bit. It's what our responsibility is. Instead of the doom and gloom we heard from those opposite, instead of the climate denial, the decade of climate denial is over. Australia is back. We are a responsible international citizen and we will do our bit to tackle it, including the 30 x 30 methane pledge.

Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have read Minister Bowen's media release of 23 October, where he claims the Global Methane Pledge is a voluntary commitment that promotes an aspirational target of reducing global methane emissions across all sectors by at least 30 per cent below 2020 levels by 2030. That all sounds fairly benign. If you listen to the previous speaker's contribution, certainly it all sounds very benign and very friendly. We will continue to decide how we manage and regulate methane-intensive sectors such as energy waste disposal in agriculture, principally livestock, but also crops such as rice.

The devil is always in the detail and, even in the minister's own media release, there is significant cause for concern, where the aspiration clearly aims for reductions of at least 30 per cent and it makes mention that it is across all sectors by 2030. So even the minister concedes that his pledge is not just about the capture of waste methane in energy and waste sectors but that the government will ruthlessly target all sectors in a ham-fisted search for errant methane molecules. Top of the minister's all-sector hit list will be agriculture. Agriculture was our first industry and, while it accounts for 48 per cent of Australia's human-related methane emissions, it is worth noting that it is worth $70 billion to our national economy.

Looking a little closer, if it becomes apparent that Labor's principle target within the agricultural sector is the livestock industry, which alone contributes over $1.6 billion to our economy. Along with Labor's prime target, mining supports thousands of communities.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has now expired.

Federation Chamber adjourned at [19:30]