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.

 

Senator NASH—Yes, galling. I will take that interjection from Senator Barnett.

 

I find it quite extraordinary that Australia has to be the one leading the way for those countries that are yet to do anything about putting in place an emissions trading scheme. I am a little intrigued, colleagues, about how this is actually going to take place. Is the Prime Minister going to pop over to the US with perhaps a very good box of cherries from my hometown of Young and knock on the door and say, ‘Mr President, I have got everything through the chamber. I have got all the legislation through. So are you right to sign up now? It is all good to go.’ Or perhaps, looking from the other perspective, the President might say to his wife, ‘Gosh, I have just seen that that legislation has gone through the Senate in Australia. It’s about time I went down to my little place over here and had a bit of a hurry-up of the legislation.’ It is extraordinary in the extreme to think—

 

Senator Ian Macdonald—Arrogant.

 

Senator NASH—Thank you. I will take that interjection. It is arrogant in the extreme to think that Australia has to act first of those who have not already committed to a scheme before anybody else will. I just find that absolutely extraordinary.

 

Perhaps the minister might in a moment enlighten us as to the actual, practical steps that the Prime Minister is going to undertake to convince world leaders, particularly of our major trading partners, to not just commit to but—what was the word?—‘pledge’ action. People out there in our communities are smarter than that, and they want the rest of the world signed up before we do anything. They are not happy with the pledge. They do not want some words on some bit of paper and our government saying, ‘That is fine. They are going to do something.’ They want to see something concrete. They want to see legislation in those other countries before we sign up because they know the devastating impact it will have on this country if we are doing it alone. So perhaps the minister could advise the chamber on exactly why it is that passing the legislation through the chamber this week will make those other countries, especially our major trading partners, around the world put something through their legislative processes.