Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Nationals are supportive of the amendments to exclude agricultural emissions. Given our very significant involvement with the farming community, it is obvious we would be doing so. I have had it put to me that excluding agriculture is simply a no-brainer. I do not think anybody would say that agriculture should not be excluded.

It needs to be pointed out, though, that agriculture was never included. We need to be mindful of that fact. From the many appearances of the department before Senate committees, we are very well aware that it is almost impossible to measure emissions from animals. So, while we welcome the exclusion of agricultural emissions, it is very important to place on record that they were never included in the first place, and it is quite likely that the government was never going to include them anyway.

I also take the opportunity to point out that, while agricultural emissions are excluded, there are significant costs embedded within the emissions trading scheme that will still fall right into the laps of farmers, including fuel, transport, electricity, chemicals and fertilisers—and the list goes on and on. As we all know, our farmers are the ones doing it toughest. They are the ones that are out there day after day, working from dawn till dusk, to feed this nation, and now they are faced with an emissions trading scheme that is going to significantly increase their costs. The Nationals, and, I know, my coalition colleagues, feel that our farmers and our agricultural community deserve to be supported. It is also important to recognise that food processing is still in the ETS and all the costs from that sector will still be passed down to farmers.

There has been an indication from the government about the offsets that they indicate will offset a number of those input costs. To date, we have not been able to get any kind of indication from the government—the minister has actually said there has been no modelling—of how much on average a farm would receive to offset the ongoing input costs they are going to have. It is important to keep in mind that some of those offsets do require an audit process and a reporting process, so they will need auditors. The minister has indicated to the chamber that those positions are not in place yet—indeed, they do not know how many there are going to be. We are talking about 137,000 farms across this country that may well want to go down the track of an offset in the future.

I know the minister will stand up and say, ‘But you’re going to oppose this anyway,’ but it is very important to place on record—for people out there listening to and watching the chamber—the impacts this legislation will have on the farming community. Again, the minister will ask why I am bothering to speak when I am going to oppose it, but the Australian people have the right to have their concerns voiced. They are certainly making those concerns apparent—they are coming through loud and clear—to all of us here in this parliament, and they have been doing so for some time now. It has been a grassroots uprising, the like of which I do not think I have ever seen before, of people saying no to this ETS.

This amendment to exclude agricultural emissions is obviously a no-brainer. We would suggest that it was never going to be included in the first place, but the most important thing to place on record at this point in time is those costs that I mentioned that will still fall in the laps of our farmers. While we are agreeing to the amendment, we need to put on record absolutely clearly that the Nationals recognise the very severe impact that the introduction of this ETS is going to have upon our farmers.