Cattleman Mark Baker was never a fan of Labor’s emissions trading scheme, even when agriculture was permanently excluded in the deal struck with Malcolm Turnbull.
So the 52-year-old, who farms 570ha at Gunnedah in northeast NSW, was happy with Tony Abbott’s move yesterday to block the ETS. Mr Baker said Labor’s concession to permanently exclude agricultural emissions was “encouraging”, but he believed an ETS in any form would spell disaster for the bush.
“Abbott is quite right, it’s simply a tax on production. A lot of farmers out here agree with him,” Mr Baker said. “It’s a two-edged sword. I think most farmers feel we are custodians of the land but on the other hand we also need to make a profit.”
Mr Baker said any government policy needed to include changes “farmers could act on” rather than a tax, “which would slow production and might not even help the environment”.
“How am I supposed to tell my cows to stop farting? My farm is always going to emit greenhouse gases.”
National Farmers Federation president David Crombie was pleased Labor had agreed to honour the deal negotiated with Mr Turnbull on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, but also believed the ETS was “fundamentally flawed”. “The CPRS outcome is still in the hands of the politicians. They will make the decision; however, we will be making sure the commitment to the agriculture industry is upheld,” he said.
Mr Crombie, who operates several family properties, breeding cattle and farming in southern Queensland, said the ETS had the potential to “cripple the agriculture industry beyond repair”.
Just two Liberal senators broke ranks with a clear mandate among Coalition MPs to delay an ETS and voted with Labor on an emissions trading scheme
Deputy Senate leader Eric Abetz declared: “The CPRS is dead. And no amount of CPR can revive it”
Family First Senator Steve Fielding said the ETS would make the GST look minor.
“Mums and dads, pensioners, everyone is going to get slugged,” he said.
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon said he could not support the bill because of the design of the scheme.