The climate is changing, and humans are responsible for some of it

 

 The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and many other scientists across the globe, have demonstrated that the earth’s climate is changing. In their 2013 report they found surface warming increase of 0.85 °C from 1880 to 2012, ocean warming by 0.11°C per decade from 1971 to 2010 and global average sea level risen at the rate of 1.7 mm/year between 1901 and 2010. The panel attributed these changes to the earth’s nature weather cycle in addition to atmospheric concentrations of human induced greenhouse gases of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide increasing by 40 per cent since 1750.

 

The consequences of climate change vary depending on location. Rising sea levels, changing precipitation patterns and more frequent extreme weather events like heat waves will occur across the globe as temperatures increase. Some countries like Russia may benefit while others like Bangladesh will be severely impacted. Generally, countries closest to the equator will be most negatively impacted and less developed or low-income countries will have the lowest adaptive capacity.

 

The Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison Coalition Governments have been acting on climate change

 

 In December 2015, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Paris Agreement was signed by 196 countries, including Australia under the Abbott Coalition Government, to combat climate change. The agreement aims to keep global warming below 2°C from pre-industrial levels through nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to emission reductions. An NDC is a country’s statement on what emissions reduction target it is setting, how it intends to achieve it, what adaptation measures it will be pursuing and from 2020, report progress. The agreement also aims to significantly strengthen national adaptation efforts by enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change.

 

Under the agreement Australia, which is responsible for 1.45 per cent of total global emissions, set itself a target of reducing 26-28 per cent CO2-e below 2005 levels by 2030. This is comparable with most countries with similar or higher polluting profiles. The United States of America (12.1% of total emissions), Japan (2.82%), Canada (1.96%), Indonesia (1.49%) and Mexico (1.27%) are all in the 25-30 per cent reduction range. Brazil (5.7%) and South Korea (1.28%) are higher at 37 per cent and the EU (8.97%) is the highest at 40 per cent. The key concerns are China (23.75%) who are allowed to increase pollution to 2030, India (5.73%) who have an emissions intensity target translating to a significantly lower target than other G-20 countries, and other smaller countries who are not signatures to the agreement.

 

The Australian Government has been delivering various emission reduction initiatives to achieve its international targets. Under its flagship $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund, a policy implemented by Tony Abbott as Prime Minister, has delivered over 700 emission reduction projects. These have reduced over 190 million tonnes of CO2-e from the Australian economy. As a result, the government’s review of its climate change policies found Australia to be on track to meet its Paris Agreement target and its second Kyoto Protocol target (another emissions reduction agreement), which requires emissions to be reduced by 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. This follows Australia exceeding its first Kyoto Protocol target to limit emissions to 108 per cent of 1990 levels over the period 2008–2012 by 128 million tonnes of Mt CO2-e.

 

The re-elected Morrison Coalition Government will continue with its current policy of meeting the 26-28 per cent it set in 2015. It will do this largely through a $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Package, which it announced on 25 February 2019. The package includes a $2 billion Climate Solutions Fund (an extension of its original Emissions Reduction Fund), investment in energy efficiency adoption and building the Snowy 2.0 Hydro Electricity Project.

 

The ALP wanted stronger action on climate change through a higher emissions reduction target

 

 A Shorten Labor Government would have committed Australia to an emissions reduction target of 45 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero pollution by 2050. This would of positioned the country as having one of the highest targets in world. It was intending to do this by focusing primarily on transitioning to renewable energy sources quicker than the government. It set a 50 per cent renewable energy adoption target by 2030 to be achieved through initiatives such as a $2,000 rebate for solar batteries for 100,000 households and doubling the original investment in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation by $10 billion.

 

A higher emissions reduction target costs the Australian economy

 

 BAE Economics modelled the economic impacts of Australia’s two emission reduction targets. They estimate:

 

 

 

The advantage for agriculture is it was to be excluded from the 45 per cent target. This significantly reduces the impact on the sector compared to other sectors. However, agriculture would experience indirect costs passed on by those directly impacted. BAE Economics estimate that for the livestock sector, which includes dairy, a decline between 0.7 to 2.6 in output will occur depending on the scenario.

The impact of Australia’s emission reduction target depends on responses by other countries

 The difference between the two targets of the major parties is 19 per cent. This translates to 0.27 per cent of total global emissions (based on Australia’s current 1.45 per cent contribution). Assuming all countries remain the same by way of emissions, the impact of this on the climate is negligible. If other countries were to increase their emissions, then Australia would be in deficit both in terms of environmental and economic impact.

Australia’s politicians are ignoring the benefits and issues with the Paris Agreement

While global aggregate emission levels resulting from NDCs are expected to be higher over the reporting period, their implementation will lead to sizeably lower aggregate global emission levels than in pre-NDC trajectories. Unfortunately, estimated aggregate annual global emission levels resulting from implementation of NDCs do not fall within the scope of least-cost 2°C scenarios by 2025 and 2030 (a key target in the agreement). However, by lowering emissions below pre-NDC trajectories, the NDCs contribute to lowering the expected temperature levels until 2100 and beyond.

Despite these achievements there are significant concerns surrounding the consistency, fairness and compliance with the Paris Agreement. Each country is required to submit its NDC every five years from 2015 to 2030. Based on the 2015 reporting:

• Only 174 countries have submitted their NDCs. Of these submissions 161 were submitted on time. This leaves 22 countries without an NDC.

• There is significant variation in each country’s emission reduction targets – type and number.

• Reporting processes not only vary but are inadequate in terms of specificity, coverage and transparency/comparability.

 

Australia needs to advocate for improvement to the Paris Agreement and adoption of a standardised emissions reduction target for all countries

Climate change is a global problem requiring a global solution that is fair and equitable. This translates to all countries participating and adhering to a standardised policy framework. There should be one emission target type applied across all countries with calculation based on a ratio of total emissions (total Mt CO2-e) and wealth (nominal GDP). It should not be up to one country like Australia to run down its economy to achieve an aspirational target while others do nothing or worse, continue to increase emissions in the pursuit of economic prosperity. Adopting a standardised approach ensures the policy response is not only effective (at achieving the 2°C cap) but proportionate to who is causing the problem and their capacity to pay.

 

The stakes are high for all sides, with both major parties holding a slew of seats on narrow margins.

 

In Victoria, several seats are in play. In the state's south-west, Corangamite, which includes dairy regions around the rural centre Colac, is held by Liberal Sarah Henderson on just over 3 per cent.

 

In the north, Independent Cathy McGowan's retirement as the Member for Indi has thrown that seat back into play. Irrigators along the Murray River will no doubt vote for who they believe has a better vision for the Basin Plan.

 

In Central Queensland, the rural seats of Capricornia and Flynn, sitting just on either side of 1pc, offer another opportunity for farmers to play a role in how the election plays out.

 

This will be a tough-fought campaign from all sides. But I expect it will be toughest in the regions, where farmers and rural communities have the power to determine who will form the next federal government.

 

The Australian Dairy Industry Council has worked with farmers and dairy processors to identify a list of priorities and actions across trade, sustainability and resource management that the next federal government should deliver.

 

Integral to securing a more sustainable dairy industry is an ambitious trade agenda. We are asking that the next government ensures high quality, comprehensive outcomes for dairy in free trade deals with India, the Gulf Cooperation Council, Taiwan and Pacific Alliance, and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.

 

The federal government must continue to invest in climate change mitigation research, and extension programs, as well as provide funding for drought preparedness programs.

 

We are also advocating for tax relief to businesses installing or upgrading to more energy efficient or renewable energy systems.

 

Everything we are trying to achieve is to contribute to a profitable dairy industry.

 

Yes, the industry faces continued market volatility, drought, rising input costs such as fodder, electricity and water, and subdued farmgate prices. But despite these, the outlook for dairy is positive. There is growing demand for high-value dairy products from a rising Asian middle class domestically and abroad.

 

Advances in genetics, digital and other technologies can significantly improve farm productivity, supply chain efficiency and traceability and enhance consumer purchasing power across the globe.

 

What we need is a political environment that recognises and understands the importance of the dairy industry to the national economy.

 

Dairy is still Australia's third largest agricultural industry, but we are presented with an opportunity to grow the sector's value.

 

The National Farmers' Federation (NFF) wants to grow agriculture to become a $100 billion by 2030. Dairy must be a part of this ambitious target.

 

A courageous government will seize this opportunity and work with industry to address these challenges and opportunities.

 

Your vote counts on May 18. Vote for the person or party you think will give our industry a fair go to achieve its full potential.

 

For irrigators in northern Victoria, where the average price for water was recorded in February at $499 per megalitre, this is nothing short of a catastrophe. That’s a $79/ML increase since the month before and 420 per cent higher than it was a year ago.

 

The current situation is untenable and must be addressed before we lose more farmers.

 

On a broader scale, I was in Canberra in March for the start of third round negotiations between Australia and the European Union over a new free trade agreement.

 

The EU is continuing to drive a hard bargain by pushing for the inclusion of geographical indications (GIs) in the agreement, banning Australian dairy manufacturers from using product names which have a connection with EU countries, such as Parmesan and Fetta.

 

If the federal government caves to this demand, the dairy industry faces losing 22,000 tonnes of cheese varieties with an annual value of production worth more than $180 million and export sales averaging more than $55 million.

 

Even more worryingly, if Brussels succeeds in forcing us to extend GIs to capture packaging that evokes EU regions, a further 45,000 tonnes of local cheese production will be affected, averaging $300 million in domestic and export sales per year.

 

This is truly alarming for our industry, which is still the third largest agricultural industry in Australia.

 

And if we are serious about growing the Australian dairy industry, we must also work constructively to solve the industry’s skilled labour shortage.

 

After scrapping the sub-class 457 visa last year and replacing it with a Temporary Skills Shortage (TSS) visa, which blocked a pathway to permanent residency for skilled migrants looking for work on dairy farms, the federal government has now brought us a step closer to securing a permanent skilled workforce.

 

Under changes to the Australian Skilled Occupation List, high-level dairy farm managers who have responsibility for overseeing farming operations are eligible for TSS visa entry to Australia for up to four years with the possibility of renewal and permanent residency via the 187 visa.

 

The pathway to permanent residency is vital to ensuring Australian dairy farmers can attract skilled overseas workers who will avoid Australia if they can obtain permanent residency in other countries.

 

This outcome is good news for farm owners. The experience of regional communities around Australia is that migrant farmers not only fill labour shortages, but they also bring with them new technological insights gained overseas to apply to Australian farming and revitalise local communities.

 

The industry has also achieved a victory in breaking the back of the despicable discount milk marketing ploy that has dogged us for eight long years.

 

Woolworths, Coles, ALDI and Costco have all raised the price of their cheap milk by 10 cents, with the increase going back to farmers. IGA is slowly following.

 

There is no denying that this is a great outcome, but while some producers have gained substantially from this initiative, most farmers won’t receive much benefit.

 

It at least sets the stage for a larger conversation around the value of the entire dairy cabinet, but it is vital that all dairy farmers receive a fairer return for their hard work.

 

But while we speak about the industry, we must remember that it begins each day with people on more than 5500 individual farms sending milk off to be processed.

 

Every dairy farm relies on the commitment, enthusiasm, and hard work of these people for success.

 

However, I know from my own experience that dairy farming can be tough, and sometimes you have to reach deep for the commitment to get to the day’s end.

 

The nights can then be long, wondering what the next day will bring.

 

But I also know from experience that it is important to never think you are alone when there is uncertainty.

 

I count myself fortunate that I reached out, shared problems and talked issues through. I encourage anyone who finds themselves in a tough spot to do the same.

 

Even more important is for each of us to open the conversation with someone who might be in that position.