Mr President, my question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong. Given that it will result in massive increases in the price of food, will the minister advise the Senate why the government refuses to completely rule out the inclusion of agriculture in its flawed and rushed emissions trading scheme?

Just one minute, Senator Back. On both sides, I need order so I can hear Senator Back’s questions.

The question I was asking was: why does the government refuse to completely rule out the inclusion of agriculture in its flawed and rushed emissions trading scheme?

I seem to recall having said in this place on a number of occasions that agriculture is not in the bill that was voted down by those opposite. It was not included, and what we have made clear is that we would not include it until 2015 and that a decision would be made in 2013, prior to which we will continue to work with the National Farmers Federation and other peak agriculture representatives to deal with some of the issues that are presented when you consider how to deal with agriculture. So the government has not made a decision to include it. That is why it is not in the bill. It is in 2015.

I just remind those opposite of what Woolworths have said today:

Modelling undertaken last year on the previously proposed scheme did show that food like all goods would incur a slight price rise. This price impact would be higher if agriculture were included but agriculture is omitted under the current plan. Woolworths submitted this information to the government in 2008 in order to assist with compensation planning for low-income households.

The government has been consulting. The government has been working closely with industry and the government is determined to take action on climate change—something those opposite have never had the courage to do.

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the concerns of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers about the capacity of the world to feed itself, and given the fact that no other country is considering the inclusion of agriculture in emissions trading, can the minister explain why the government continues to threaten not only Australian farming but also Australian agribusiness by refusing to exclude completely agriculture from an emissions trading scheme?

I do not know if I can provide any more assistance to the senator.

The Speaker:

Senator Wong, resume your seat. When there is silence, we will proceed.

What I was going to say was: agriculture is excluded on the bill that the opposition opposed. I am sitting here trying to work out how it is that those opposite are actually going to find a policy in the next three months because, as I understood Mr Turnbull’s position—

that is what you were going to do. I remind you again also of what the Garnaut review says will occur if climate change proceeds unabated: in excess of a 90 per cent reduction in irrigated agriculture in Australia’s food bowl, the Murray-Darling Basin. That is what faces our farmers and our food producers. So you can tell people what you wish, but—

Senator Wong, resume your seat. On both sides, when there is silence, Senator Wong will proceed.

As I was saying, the Garnaut review and other scientific reports have shown a very substantial impact—as I said, in excess of a 90 per cent reduction—by the end of the century if we do not abate, if we do not mitigate, climate change. (Time expired)

Mr President, I have a second supplementary question. Does the minister not understand that the confusion created over 2013-15 is creating an even worse situation? I therefore ask: why is the government intent on mugging Australian farmers with an ETS when farmers in no other country are subjected to this doubt and this particular scheme?

There was very little factually correct in that assertion. I am not sure what I am supposed to respond to. What I will say on that issue is this: if there is confusion and uncertainty on climate change policy in this country, it is as a result of those opposite, the alternative government, who went to the election with a commitment for an emissions trading scheme and who have walked away from it because there are too many people in your party room who do not believe climate change is real. If there is uncertainty on this policy issue, it is the alternative government’s failure to come up with a responsible policy.