Press conference with Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Murray Watt in Toowoomba, Qld

MURRAY WATT: Well, thanks very much, everyone, for coming along and joining us here today in beautiful Toowoomba on the Darling Downs, one of Australia’s great agricultural food bowls. And as a Queenslander, of course, I don’t think there’s anywhere better we could be talking about the future of sustainable agriculture in our country.

I’m very pleased to be joined here at the inaugural Australian Sustainable Agriculture Summit held by the Australian Government, joined by Minister for Climate Change and Energy, my good friend Chris Bowen. And we also have a number of industry representatives with us here as well – Richard Heath, the interim CEO of the Zero Net Emissions Cooperative Research Centre for agriculture, recently launched; Su McClusky, who plays a really important role for Australian agriculture on the world stage, advocating for what we’re doing in the sustainable agriculture space, but is a farmer herself; and also Mark Wootton, a farmer from Victoria who is almost there with zero emissions farming on his own property, and they’re happy to have a talk to you as well.

You can see behind us some physical examples of how Australian agriculture is becoming more sustainable. The John Deere tractor behind us doesn’t just get out there in farms and do what tractors traditionally do; it’s actually been designed in a way to reduce the amount of fertiliser that farmers need to use so that they can become more sustainable in their production and cut their costs.

We know that the increase in prices of fertiliser has imposed an extra cost burden on farmers, so if they can be reducing the use of their fertiliser by becoming more efficient in targeting it, that will help them reduce their costs, increase their profits as well as improve the environment.

We’ve also got what’s known in the trade as a lick block, and for those of you not from the agriculture sector, that’s basically a feed item for cattle – when they’re roaming across open ranges, grass-fed cattle here in Australia, but, importantly, it contains feed supplements based on asparagopsis, a form of seaweed, which is all about reducing the emissions that come from those cattle.

So, as you can see, there are practical examples right now of how the Australian agriculture is moving towards a more sustainable future, reducing its emissions, becoming more efficient in its water, energy and fertiliser usage and setting itself up for a more productive, profitable future.

But the thing that’s changed in the last couple of years is that we now have a government in Canberra that is willing to partner with the Australian agriculture sector, show leadership, and provide support to assist with this move towards more sustainable agriculture. And it’s vital that we do that. Farmers are on the front line of climate change. We see natural disasters coming from climate change increasingly impacting rural and regional parts of our country where, of course, most of our farming occurs. It’s having an impact on the profits of farmers right now, so we need to get moving from that perspective.

But also, our international markets and domestic consumers are expecting and demanding more sustainably produced food, and that’s another reason why we want to work with the sector to get there. And I guess that’s a really important message that’s coming through today in the Sustainable Agriculture Summit, is that the Albanese Government doesn’t expect farmers and the agriculture industry to make this change on its own. We’re going to be standing with them every step of the way, partnering with the sector to make sure that we can create a more sustainable, productive, and profitable future.

And that’s why I was really pleased to see some really key announcements in last week’s Federal Budget that will help get us there. You may have seen the Prime Minister’s announcement a week or so ago in Rockhampton that we would be investing a record $519 million in drought preparedness through the Future Drought Fund. But we’ve gone further today by announcing over $63 million in funding as a down payment towards further steps towards sustainable agriculture.

Now, we’re in the middle of developing – and Chris is leading the project – an agriculture and land sector plan around how we can map out a more sustainable, lower emission future for our sector. But this $63.8 million that we’ve put forward is another big step towards getting to that future. And that funding will address some of the issues that farmers and others have been raising with us through the development of this plan to do things like invest more in research and development. We know that more needs to be done in the research and development space to work out the types of technologies that we can use to produce a more low-emission agriculture future.

That funding will also build the capacity of farmers. What we hear from farmers is that they’re happy to make some changes, they’re up for change, but they want to know what they need to do, how they can find the information, how they can measure their impact and see that investment in R&D. And that’s what this package does.

And finally, that funding package will also go a long way to address the concerns of farmers, the whole ag industry – bankers, lenders, insurers – around how can we properly measure the impact on carbon of the adjustments that farmers make on farm. It’s one thing to go and do things on farm, but what you want to be able to do is show what improvement that’s made, measure your carbon reduction, be able to take it to the bank, be able to take it an insurer, be able to take it to a purchaser of your product and demonstrate the action that you’ve taken.

So, these are important steps. They’re not the last steps; we’ll be doing a lot more on this, and there’ll be some great ideas that come out of today. But this is another big investment from the Albanese Government in making sure that our agriculture sector remains profitable, productive, and sustainable well into the future.

I’ll hand to Chris Bowen to take you through in a broader context and we’re happy to have some of the speakers speak to you if you’re interested from an industry perspective, and if there’s any issues of the day, we’re happy to deal with those as well. Thanks.

CHRIS BOWEN: Thanks very much, Murray. It’s great to be here in Toowoomba with Murray and with the agricultural sector consulting about the Albanese Government’s agriculture and land sector plan. Agricultural emissions are important – it’s 18 per cent of our national emissions, and because we getting emissions down in electricity, in industry and in transport, those emissions absent action will grow to 25 per cent, a quarter of the country’s emissions. So, we do need to deal with agricultural emissions, but we need to deal with agricultural emissions for another reason: because around the world consumers will demand carbon-free products. And they’ll be prepared to pay more for them and increasingly they'll demand them. So, we want to make sure that Australian agriculture is competitive in that global environment.

So today Murray and I announced three principles that would underpin our agriculture and land sector plan: firstly, that the plan will be developed with the sector, not imposed on the sector. We see this as a very genuine partnership. There’ll be no top-down targets. This is part of the consultation process, which shows how seriously Murray and I are taking the consultation. It comes after we’ve opened submissions on the agriculture and land sector plan.

Secondly, that our policies will enhance food security, not diminish it. Climate change will diminish food security, but our policies will enhance food security. We want to work with the sector to ensure that Australia’s food security improved by this process.

And, thirdly, that agriculture won’t be seen as simply the sink, as the offset for the rest of the economy. No other sector of the economy will get a free pass and say agriculture will do the heavy lifting. Agriculture will play a role, it will play a complementary role, but it won’t be the dumping ground for other sectors’ emissions.

So, these are important principles. This is a very important day. I want to thank and congratulate Murray for convening today. I want to thank so many agricultural leaders for coming from all around Australia to be here with us today. These are important and real consultations, and they’ll play an important and real role as we develop the land and agricultural sector plan.

So what we’re going to do is I think Mark might say a few words and then I might come after questions on agriculture and land issues, then Murray and I will be happy to take questions on other matters of the day, and I’ll have a few other issues of the day to comment on as well.

MARK WOOTTON: Thanks Chris. Yes. So, I welcome the announcements that have come forward from a producer perspective. I think it’s really important that producers have the knowledge which gives them the power to undertake the changes that we have to do on farm level. And some of these things, particularly some of the work on the tools and giving us the ability to understand the different things we can do on farm and the impact on our actual footprint on farm will be really valuable.

JOURNALIST: You mentioned about the $63 million that’s going to be going into research, but how will any funding go to farmers? I mean, they’re already struggling. How are they going to afford to do any upgrades for sustainability?

MURRAY WATT: Yeah, so that breakdown isn’t quite right. So, what we announced today is $63.8 million in a funding package. Around 4 million of that will go towards research and development at this point in time. And that is primarily being directed to the Zero Net Emissions CRC for agriculture that Richard is the interim CEO of. So that’s the investment for R&D. The bulk of the funding in today’s package actually will go towards farmers – on-farm activity to help lift their knowledge, lift their capacity around what they can do on farm to make those adjustments that will help them create lower emissions food.

So, one of the things that we’ve been hearing a lot from farmers, as I said earlier, is that they’re keen to make changes, they understand we need to make changes. They don’t necessarily always know what they need to do, and they don’t really know who they can trust to provide that information. And so that money will go towards trusted organisations that are already in the field, that farmers already work with, who can provide that information about changes they could be making on-farm.

Now, as I say, some of these changes don’t have to cost more money; in fact, they can save money. If farmers are shown the way to reduce their fertiliser usage, for example, that will save them money, and it will save emissions. So, we have reached a point in agriculture where making these changes don’t necessarily have to cost money; in fact, they can actually save money and make farmers more profitable.

JOURNALIST: You’ve mentioned industry consultation will be a big part of this. There’s been some other issues recently where the industry doesn’t feel like there’s been enough. How will you go about addressing that and improving it this time round?

MURRAY WATT: Yeah, well, I mean, all you’ve got to do is look at that room. And I know you’ve all been in there today. There’s close to 150 people from all across the agriculture sector, as far away as Perth, southern Victoria, all sorts of places they’ve come here. And we had to turn away the same number of people who wanted to be part of this conversation. So, what I see is an industry that is actually really keen to partner with the government on this and a whole range of other issues.

JOURNALIST: Just on that, Minister, Cattle Australia is in that room, not on the program, not in the press conference. Why is that?

MURRAY WATT: Well, you can’t have a press conference with 150 people in it.

JOURNALIST: But they are the legislated peak body for the cattle industry – the biggest agriculture industry.

MURRAY WATT: Sure. And Su’s a cattle farmer. There’s many other cattle farmers who are here –

JOURNALIST: But they’re legislated to represent the cattle industry.

MURRAY WATT: I understand that. What you’ll find in that room is that every peak body in the country is here today. We can’t have 25 people in a press conference. What we’ve got is a couple of representative farmers who are doing this work already. But I meet with Cattle Australia on a regular basis, and I’ve already praised them for the work that they’re doing.

JOURNALIST: Just another question on that: one of the sort of clear messages to this ag and net zero plan is a call for the government to adopt or to recognise methane as a gas on its own and the short-lived nature of methane and research that suggests that the industry is likely to no longer be contributing to additional global warming in a couple of years. I’m just wondering where the government stands on that.

CHRIS BOWEN: In relation to the measurement of methane and how methane is treated in our national greenhouse emissions, we comply with the UNFCCC rules and will continue to. So methane is obviously a key matter for agriculture and it will be a key matter in our agriculture and land sector plan, how we work together to reduce methane emissions. Lots of great technology, lots of great science. Then there’s a measurement, the UNFCCC sets the rules. I’ll be having more to say in response to the Climate Change Authority’s advice to me on methane management in coming weeks – methane measurement in coming weeks. But whatever I announce at that point will comply with UNFCCC rules.

JOURNALIST: But the government can, like, submit additional information to the IPCC.

CHRIS BOWEN: And we comply with UNFCCC and the IPCC.

JOURNALIST: It’s been said that, you know, you’re working well with farmers, that farmers trust you. But the majority of farmers are speaking out saying they don’t; they don’t trust what happened with Boorowa, they don’t trust what’s happening with biosecurity, red fire ants. I mean, should farmers trust the government?

MURRAY WATT: Well, obviously I’ll leave every farmer to make their own decision. But, again, what I’d point out is that we’ve got over 150 people there from the agriculture sector, including many farmers – cattle farmers, sheep farmers, grain farmers, rice farmers – all sorts of farmers in there in the room working very productively, very cooperatively with the government.

On biosecurity, there is no Australian government that has done more on biosecurity than the Albanese Government. When we came to office we inherited an absolute biosecurity mess that was left behind by the Coalition. David Littleproud as the then Agriculture Minister had set the biosecurity Budget to fall by 25 per cent in the year after they lost the election, even though we had biosecurity risks growing each and every day.

You know who fixed that? The Albanese Government. A Labor Government fixed that. We tipped in over a billion dollars extra funding last year from taxpayers and importers to fix that hole in the by you security Budget, and that’s why we have a world-class biosecurity system to protect the livelihoods of our farmers. And that’s the way it should be.

JOURNALIST: Just on that biosecurity, the crossbench has made it pretty clear in the Senate that they’re not going to support that, the levy that farmers will pay is a big sticking point there. Will you still be going ahead as normal with that to put it to the Senate, or are you going back to do more consultation?

MURRAY WATT: Well, we’re considering our position on that. Obviously that decision was only made by the crossbench last week. I’d just make the point that the principle underlying that decision was that just as we’re asking taxpayers to pay a lot more for biosecurity than they’ve ever paid before, just as we’re making importers and risk creators pay their fair share in a way that no other government has ever done before, we did think it was fair to ask farmers to make a very small contribution towards protecting their livelihoods from biosecurity incursions. Now, farmers already pay, I know, levies to deal with situations when we have biosecurity outbreaks and deal with the response. We thought it was a reasonable thing to ask farmers to pay a very small levy towards protecting their livelihoods.

And to put it in context, it was about one-tenth of a cent per kilogram for a tomato farmer or a banana farmer. Pretty small contribution when you think about what’s on the line. But I understand what the crossbench has said, and we’ll consider our position going forward.

JOURNALIST: You mentioned trusted organisations working with farmers to dole out that $63.8 million of funding. Which organisations have been earmarked to receive that funding and work with farmers?

MURRAY WATT: Yeah, so all of those details will now need to be worked out now that we’ve actually locked away that funding. But in the past, the sorts of organisations that we’ve funded to deliver these types of services have been some of the natural resource management groups and the land care groups around the country. I’m not saying they’ll necessarily get the funding. We’ve got to work through that now. But those types of groups have demonstrated a really strong record on environmental issues to do with farms and built incredibly great and trusted relationships with farmers going forward.

JOURNALIST: How much does agriculture contribute to Australia’s emissions? What is the number?

CHRIS BOWEN: It’s 18 per cent of our emissions. And, as I said, that grows as a proportion. It doesn’t mean emissions absolutely going up. Because we’ve got successful policies to reduce emissions in our largest emitting sector – electricity – through our renewable energy rollout, industry through the safeguard reforms, transport through our New Vehicle Efficiency Standards, they’re all coming down. So agriculture will go up as a proportion absent policy action. That’s why we’re coming together as a sector to deal with it.

JOURNALIST: So just going back to the biosecurity issue, so is the government still not open to looking at the freight trade alliance suggestion, or even container levy? I know it was sort of knocked back during the inquiry and further conversation?

MURRAY WATT: So, we’re, of course, considering all options that are being put forward to us, including the freight trade alliance. To deal with the container levy, now, I’ve seen some agriculture groups call for a container levy which would be paid by importers. I’ve seen the National Party call for a container levy. Now, let’s not forget it was the National Party who proposed a container levy when they were actually in government and then walked away from it and scrapped it. But now they want everyone to believe that they’re going to bring it back in again. They had the chance to do it when they were in government. They walked away from it, and they can’t be believed, especially because they cut the biosecurity Budget for this country.

Now, we’re having a good look at the container levy which would be paid by importers into the country. But one of the issues we’ve got to deal with is that the World Trade Organisation has very clear rules around taxes and levies that can be placed on imports. And the last thing that I want to do as an agriculture minister in a country that exports 70 per cent of our production is do something which could cause us problems from the trading system.

The other point about a container levy is that – and I’ve said this repeatedly – is that we have raised the same amount of money that would be raised by a container levy through increasing fees and charges on importers for biosecurity services. Whenever a big importer wants to import something into the country, our department’s biosecurity officials have to do clearances of that material. We charge people for those services. It’s supposed to be done on a cost-recovery basis where they pay the cost of delivering those services. Under the National Party they weren’t paying the full cost of those services. Taxpayers were subsidising importers for bringing their materials and provide biosecurity clearances. We fixed that. So now importers are paying the full cost of the services, which is how it should be. We’re raising the same amount of money that we would from a container levy. So, we’re actually achieving it in a different way without some of those risks around a World Trade Organisation ruling.

JOURNALIST: Just on your counter about how you think farmers should pay that little bit more for their fair share of what they benefit from Australia’s biosecurity, the counter to that is that then gets passed on to consumers who benefit from the products that they produce. What do you think of that counter?

MURRAY WATT: Well, again, I would make the point that under our proposal we would have seen taxpayers pay roughly 43 per cent of the cost of biosecurity operations, importers pay roughly 48 per cent of the cost with farmers being asked to pay about six per cent. So, again, I think a pretty small amount when you think about the $80 billion impact that it would have on our livestock industry if we had foot and mouth disease, for example.

And in terms of any impact on consumer prices, I hardly doubt that a tenth of a cent per kilogram of bananas is going to impose a major cost of living burden on consumers or on farmers. But, as I say, we’ve listened to what the crossbench have said and we’ll consider our position from here.

CHRIS BOWEN: Two issues I just want to deal with. Firstly, today is the result – the release of the final default market offer for energy prices in Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and the Victorian default market offer. This pretty closely reflects the draft released a couple of months ago. This is encouraging news, the fact that we are seeing reductions in energy prices in some of our markets. It does not mean that the job is done. It does not mean that this is magic cost of living relief, but it does mean it’s a step forward. Reductions in real terms for energy prices of up to 12 per cent for small business consumers; around ten per cent for some residential consumers, less for others. But nevertheless, this shows that our plans to introduce more renewables into the system, which is the cheapest form of energy, together with our rebates and our coal caps and gas caps have had a real impact. There’s much more work to do, hence our $300 energy bill relief in the Budget which complements here in Queensland the $1,000 of energy bill relief. So that’s real relief for Queensland consumers in particular. Today is a good step forward.

The second matter I want to deal with is, of course, yesterday we saw the release of GenCost, the independent analysis of the cost of varying forms of energy developed at arm’s length from government, with no input from government, from ministers or departments. Developed by the CSIRO and AEMO. It shows yet again – yet again – that renewables is the cheapest form of energy, nuclear is by far the most expensive form of energy. And yet we’ve seen the Liberal Party and National Party in denial about GenCost.

Outrageously, my counterpart, my Shadow Minister, called on the CSIRO to release more detail. This is a man who hasn’t released any detail of his own policies. 660 days ago Peter Dutton said nuclear would be part of the Opposition’s energy policy. 660 days later not one detail. This is showing contempt for the Australian people. He said he’d release his plans pre-Budget. Ten weeks ago – no, actually 11 weeks ago he said he’d release them in a couple of weeks’ time. This is a mess when it comes to Opposition policy. The time for talk is over. Where will the nuclear reactors be? What will the cost be? Where’s your policy, Mr Dutton.

JOURNALIST: Just on nuclear, Minister, are you concerned that this policy could prove to be popular in regional communities?

CHRIS BOWEN: I highly doubt it. Mr Littleproud says he’s polled communities where the nuclear reactors go. That’s nice. Where are they? That means he knows where they’re going to be. If Mr Littleproud can poll communities where he’s intending to put nuclear power plants, that means he knows where they’re going to be. If he’s so proud of his policy, he would have released it by now.

JOURNALIST: He has said that they will all be in Liberal and National seats. Do you think voters will punish him or reward him for –

CHRIS BOWEN: I’m not sure he has said that, but that’s been some briefing out to selected journalists. Again, you could put all this to bed. You could put it to rest by announcing where they’re going to be. And then we’ll go around and we’ll have a debate. We might even have a debate in some of the towns where the nuclear reactors are proposed. But, you know, this is a really serious thing. You’re proposing a risky energy policy for Australia. You’ve got to be upfront about it. They keep saying they’re going to be upfront. Well, they said they’d be upfront 11 weeks ago. They said they’d release it in a couple of weeks’ time. A couple is not 11. And we saw this rhetoric again in his Budget reply with no policy, no details.

Now, what’s the cost, Mr Dutton? CSIRO says it’s the most expensive form of energy. He says he knows more about it than the CSIRO. He says he knows more about nuclear science than the scientists. Well, tell us what your costings are and then we’ll put them up to the light and see if they survive contact with reality. I really doubt they will. I’m ready for this debate. I’m not the one shying away from a debate about nuclear energy – it’s the opposition running away from it. Bring it on. Bring it on. Where’s your policy?

JOURNALIST: What do you think of New South Wales Government keeping the Eraring station open till 2027.

CHRIS BOWEN: My position is that the Eraring power station should be open not a day longer than it should be and closed not a day earlier than it should. I think the New South Wales Government has done a good job in negotiating that. They have announced support for the equivalent of two units out of the four at Eraring to stay open for two years longer. That ensures that New South Wales will have reliable energy supply through this transition. We saw the statement of electricity opportunities earlier this week.

With government policy implemented it deals with all the reliability shortfalls – that’s very clear –so when we roll out our Capacity Investment Scheme. But ensuring that you have that energy in the system as we make that transition is, I think, appropriate. You’re going to see coal-fired power station closures announced. You’re going to see sometimes closures brought forward, sometimes delayed. This is not a delay. Some people expected all four units to be delayed by five years. That hasn’t happened. Two units by two years I think strikes a reasonable balance.

JOURNALIST: Are you concerned it’s an admission that your renewables rollout isn’t happening as quickly as you’d like it to?

CHRIS BOWEN: We’d all like renewables to be rolled out as quickly as possible. At least sensible people in the energy debate do. Inevitably when you’re managing a big transition you’re going to encounter, you know, things which sometimes lead to delays. We actually are on target for 82 per cent renewables by 2030 - we are. Our Capacity Investment Scheme will underpin that. That’s an encouraging thing.

Of course, planning, connection approvals are important. It is appropriate – absolutely appropriate – to ensure energy reliability as we do that. The New South Wales government and the Commonwealth government are working closely together to do that, as is evidenced by the fact that New South Wales gets a specific allocation out of our Capacity Investment Scheme which will open very, very shortly and I expect will be highly oversubscribed.

JOURNALIST: So do you expect based on what you’ve just said that other coal-fired power stations in other states might also be –

CHRIS BOWEN: As I said, you’ll sometimes get announcements being brought forward and other announcements delayed. That’s inevitably part of the transition.a

JOURNALIST: What do you think of Queensland’s plan to enshrine the coal royalty tax hikes in legislation?

CHRIS BOWEN: Entirely a matter for Queensland. Of course, I support all the State Governments in the efforts they undertake. But, you know, that’s entirely a matter for the Queensland Government.

JOURNALIST: Just on the market offer, just with those power price reductions, when will Australians see the fall $275 that was promised prior to they election?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, that was the impact of – the modelled impact of our policies in 2025, and we continue to implement those policies.

JOURNALIST: Just on, obviously, fire ants are quite an issue here at the moment. [Indistinct] as well. Some of the advocates have said they’re still waiting from your department on a response to the Senate inquiry and what recommendations you’ll accept and implement. Where are you at with that?

MURRAY WATT: Sure, so the Senate did undertake an inquiry around the Fire Ant Eradication Program which, from memory, delivered its report a few weeks ago. Obviously as a government we’re now considering that report and we’ll be providing our response. It’s not unusual for that – responses to take a little bit of time. You’ve got to consider the recommendations and determine whether they’re the right way to go based on expert advice. So we’ll be tabling that report.

But obviously as the Agriculture Minister I’m concerned to see any new outbreak of fire ants. The Queensland Government is obviously leading the response to that, and overall I think they’ve done a really good job. If you compare the spread of fire ants in Australia to what we’ve seen overseas, while we are seeing these new detections pop up, the spread is far lower than what we’ve seen in places like the US, in China as well. And if we hadn’t taken the action we’ve taken with extra funding, we would have seen those outbreaks happening a lot further afield than what they are.

So we actually – again, this is another example where the National Party did a terrible job when it came to biosecurity. When we came to office the funding from the federal government for fire ant eradication was on track to fall by about 75 per cent. We’ve restored that. Last year we tipped in a lot more funding. We brought forward existing funding and then tipped in a couple of hundred dollars more – a couple of hundred million dollars more funding than was already left there by there former government to really get on top of this. So we’re supporting this program as much as we possibly can.

CHRIS BOWEN: Sounds like a wrap.