Posts

Betraying the Food Bowl

,

The government’s modelling suggests we need 107 million tonnes of carbon sequestration by 2050. By my math, that would mean around 5 million hectares of productive farmland will be swallowed up by trees and woody weeds. When I asked them exactly how many hectares would be lost, the department admitted they don’t have a figure. They are implementing a plan that will devastate our agriculture sector.

Despite the UN Paris Agreement (Article 2(1)(b)) explicitly stating that climate action should not threaten food production, this department hasn’t even sought legal advice on whether their plan breaches that requirement. They are relying on Treasury “scenarios” that claim food production will magically increase by 32%, even while they lock up the land used to grow it.

I asked if they had assessed the combined impact of reforestation and carbon plantings, renewable energy projects (solar/wind) and massive clear felled transmission corridors. The answer was a flat no. They are ignoring the “slow-motion train wreck” of transmission lines and renewables destroying our food bowls because they say it’s “another department’s problem.”

While officials talk about “diversification of enterprise mix” and “market clearing,” I know the truth on the ground. Locking up land leads to explosions in noxious weeds and feral animals, increased management costs for neighbouring properties and the destruction of regional communities and jobs.

My Conclusion: This reckless “plan” is nothing but bureaucratic speak and strategy without a shred of solid data to back it up. They are gambling with Australia’s food security to satisfy an insane, unachievable net-zero agenda.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. The net zero Agriculture and Land Sector Plan commits to 107 million tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration by 2050. Based on sequestration rates of one to 21 tonnes per hectare, that means at least five million hectares of farmland could be converted to trees and woody weeds. How can you justify this when it risks reducing food production and creating food insecurity for Australians?

Mr Lowe: The Ag and Land Sector Plan doesn’t commit to 107 million tonnes of sequestration. The way I’d characterise that is that that was part of the Treasury modelling which described a particular pathway to achieving net zero, which factored in an amount of sequestration that would be needed in the particular scenario. What the Ag and Land Sector Plan does is identify a range of different options for landholders and farmers to reduce emissions and commit to a number of particular actions in which to achieve that. The first of those is understanding on-farm emissions as a foundational action. The second is around research and innovation, technology being an important factor in supporting farmers to reduce emissions, as it has been. Research and development have been foundational actions to support farmers throughout the course of agriculture in Australia. The third is on-ground action. We know that supporting farmers with the capability and skills that they need to manage their enterprise and reduce emissions is really important. The fourth is around maximising the potential of the land sector.

In relation to that, from our perspective, we think there are significant opportunities for producers to take up diversification of their enterprise mix in relation to land sequestration opportunities. Earlier in this committee, we were talking about soil carbon projects, and soil carbon projects are being explored by a number of participants in the livestock sector. Revegetation, where they’re garnering ACCUs as well. I might leave it there, but we can go into further detail if you’d like.

Senator ROBERTS: So the net zero agriculture and land sector plan does not commit to 107 million tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration by 2050.

Mr Lowe: No, it doesn’t.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any sequestration?

Mr Lowe: It acknowledges that sequestration will be an important factor in achieving net zero, and it acknowledges that sequestration is also an important opportunity for producers in terms of diversification of their enterprise mix and diversification of income sources.

Senator ROBERTS: How much of the land under this plan is currently producing food?

Mr Lowe: It’s in the order of 50 to 55 per cent of Australia’s landmass where agricultural production of some form is undertaken. I’ll defer to colleagues as to whether I got that number right.

Dr Greenville: Yes, 55 per cent of Australia’s landmass is currently undertaking agricultural activities.

Senator ROBERTS: What will be the impact of the plan on food production?

Dr Greenville: I think the Treasury projection and the ag and land plan modelling that they conducted—and it’s just a scenario—has agricultural production continuing to increase out to 2050.

Senator ROBERTS: How much of the land is affected, though?

Dr Greenville: They did not provide estimates of the land base—

Senator ROBERTS: Does that bother either of you?

Dr Greenville: Sorry, Senator, maybe as you saw, we’ve mentioned and had a discussion with keen interest with Senator Canavan and Senator McKenzie around this topic. We at ABARES are undertaking some work to explore the implications for the land use.

Senator ROBERTS: Based on the question before you, you’re undertaking that work?

Dr Greenville: Yes. We let the committee know, and there were some interesting questions on notice when we provided some detail around that. I’m happy to talk.

Mr Lowe: To clarify, that work has been ongoing. It was acknowledged in the Treasury modelling that I referred to earlier that ABARES has been undertaking that work.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you just accept Treasury modelling?

Mr Lowe: We provide inputs into Treasury modelling.

Senator ROBERTS: But you haven’t published modelling yourself on the impact on food output. You’re relying on Treasury saying it will increase.

Mr Lowe: As my colleague, Dr Greenville, said, we’re undertaking work in relation to that.

Senator ROBERTS: Based on questions that were put to you today.

Mr Lowe: No, based on work that was already ongoing.

Senator ROBERTS: Even article 2(1)(b) of the UN Paris Agreement requires climate action to avoid threatening food production. Is there any land being locked up under your plan?

Mr Lowe: The ag and land sector plan also acknowledges—and a key tenet of it is—that achieving emissions reduction shouldn’t come at the cost of food security. We would say that the ag and land sector plan is consistent with that acknowledgement that you read out.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you sought legal advice that your plan doesn’t breach the Paris Agreement?

Mr Lowe: The Net Zero Plan and the six sector plans are government plans to be consistent with the Paris Agreement.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you sought legal advice?

Mr Lowe: We have not, as a department.

Senator ROBERTS: How do you know it’s consistent?

Mr Lowe: I think that question may be best directed to DCCEEW, but I’m not aware of legal advice.

Senator ROBERTS: Aren’t you responsible for the plan?

Mr Lowe: We’re responsible for the ag and land sector plan, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: And the impact on the ag sector?

Mr Lowe: Yes. We have not sought legal advice in relation to the ag and land sector plan, and its consistency with the Paris Agreement, to answer your specific question.

Senator ROBERTS: I read that you spent $2.2 million developing the plan, yet you cannot provide a figure, as I understand it, for hectares to be reforested.

Mr Lowe: We don’t have a figure currently; that’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: How is that acceptable?

Mr Lowe: It’s work in progress.

Senator ROBERTS: How is that a plan?

Mr Lowe: There are a number of elements of the plan, as I mentioned, for foundational actions. Maximising the sequestration potential of the land is one of those.

Senator ROBERTS: I get the carbon dioxide sequestration. I don’t believe in all this crap, because there’s no data to back it up. I believe carbon dioxide sequestration will increase food production, but not if it locks up land—because then you’ve got noxious weeds and feral animals proliferating and going onto neighbouring properties, which increases the cost of managing neighbouring properties. Are you aware of these things?

Mr Lowe: I’d say, consistent with my earlier comments, that there are significant opportunities in carbon sequestration for producers. I’m aware of a number of examples of producers who have put into place plantation forestry on their enterprise and added that to their enterprise mix—so they’ve increased the number of trees on their property. It’s supported an increase in carrying capacity of stocking rates and diversified their income stream by enabling them to undertake forest activities. There’s an example of a New England wool producer, Michael Taylor; he’s got native and pine forest on his enterprise. He’s got a sawmill on his enterprise as well, where he cuts down, saws and processes the timber on his enterprise to sell. One of the benefits he ascribes to that is having an income during leaner years; where he’s got lower stocking rates, he can sell the timber and continue to employ people on his farm.

Senator ROBERTS: Would you like to visit some properties in south-western Queensland that have been locked up, where neighbouring properties are being destroyed?

Mr Lowe: Always open to visiting farmers and properties.

Senator ROBERTS: Will you commit to publishing a hectare estimate before implementing any measures; yes or no?

Mr Lowe: We’re already implementing measures.

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know how much land will be locked up?

Mr Lowe: As I’ve said, that work is ongoing but we are already implementing measures in relation to the ag and land sector plan.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re implementing the plan before the plan is finalised?

Mr Lowe: The plan is finalised.

Senator ROBERTS: But the hectares aren’t.

Mr Lowe: That work is still ongoing.

Senator ROBERTS: CSIRO’s land use trade-offs model shows carbon plantings compete directly with agriculture for land. How will this impact Australia’s food bowls and rural jobs?

Mr Lowe: I’d say it’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all approach as to how carbon sequestration plays out in the landscape. There will be lots of different ways that land managers and producers decide to take up carbon sequestration opportunities. So I probably wouldn’t characterise things in the way that you have. What I would say is that we think there are opportunities for producers. I also think that, certainly, the types of lands that might be more favourably disposed to carbon sequestration—and ABARES can talk about this in more detail if you like—are the types of lands that are less productive. We would envisage is that we would often see multiple-use land, so land where there’s revegetation happening but also still able to support primary production.

Senator ROBERTS: I know the answer to this question. Have you assessed the combined impact of reforestation, renewable energy projects and transmission corridors on farmland availability?

Mr Lowe: In terms of hectare impact, for example?

Senator ROBERTS: The loss of productive farmland.

Mr Lowe: The answer is no. The work that we have ongoing is particularly in relation to carbon sequestration in the landscape.

Senator ROBERTS: You are not going to consider the renewable energy projects taking up farmland for transmission lines. They’re massive, and the farmers are pretty damn upset about them. People in regional communities, not just farmers, are upset.

Mr Lowe: That is a matter that’s the purview of DCCEEW in terms of renewable energy and transmission. We are interested in understanding the land impact of that and have been working with DCCEEW to understand that better.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand you’re developing a national food security strategy.

Mr Lowe: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: How can that strategy be credible if you don’t know how much farmland will be lost to carbon dioxide sequestration, solar and wind generation or transmission lines?

Mr Lowe: I think the development of the strategy will be taking in multiple perspectives in relation to Australia’s future food security. We received over 400 submissions when we put out a discussion paper recently on Australia’s future food security. I haven’t read those submissions in detail. I imagine some of them might have raised those sorts of issues, so it is something that will be a matter of consideration. Equally of consideration—in fact, something that I understand came through really strongly in the submissions—will be the climate impact on our primary production enterprises and the importance of resilient farming systems as well.

Senator ROBERTS: In your planning and strategising what comes first—data or strategy?

Mr Lowe: We’d like to think that there’s a combination of both, where we can.

Senator ROBERTS: I thought data was the first step to understanding what you’re going to strategise about.

Mr Lowe: Another input is consultation, and we take that really seriously. In the development of the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan, we focused very heavily on consulting and consulting with our state and territory counterparts. We had an issues paper out on the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan. We received a large number of submissions in relation to that. We held a sustainability summit that was auspiced by Minister Bowen and Minister Watt on the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan, and we held a number of roundtables as well with industry stakeholders on the plan.

Senator ROBERTS: Will you integrate land-use change modelling into the food security strategy and publish the findings?

Mr Lowe: We have land-use change modelling on foot. We will publish the findings, and we’re very happy to use it as an input into the food security strategy as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Has DAFF modelled the impact of the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan on agricultural gross domestic product?

Mr Lowe: I’m just trying to think about that.

Dr Greenville: That was part of the modelling that Treasury undertook, and it’s an area where you have quoted that 107 million tonnes from. They have projections as part of that, like the 107 million tonnes, about agricultural production as well as agricultural emissions intensities and so forth. There’s detail in that.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you checked the assumptions on which it’s based or the actual figures?

Dr Greenville: We provided some information to give them the baseline on which they looked at the plan, and they’re quite detailed with what they’ve done in terms of the plan, the assumptions they’ve made and the like, and that’s all been published as part of that result.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you scrutinised it?

Dr Greenville: Obviously, we’ve taken a look. We take a keen interest, which is why—

Senator ROBERTS: ‘Taking a look’ is a bit different from scrutinising.

Dr Greenville: Which is why we’re undertaking our own modelling with the land sector. They pointed out that there was considerable uncertainty in land base sequestration potential and the trade-offs between sequestration and agricultural value. We’ve invested in improving information around regional impacts and trade-offs.

Senator ROBERTS: Treasury assumes agricultural production will rise by about 32 per cent by 2050, but we don’t know how much land is going to be sequestered. How much land is going to be destroyed? How is it possible to get food production increased by 32 per cent if we don’t know the land that will be cut off?

Dr Greenville: Under a market-based approach, sequestration will occur where opportunity costs to agriculture are low. That is not inconsistent with agricultural production continuing to grow while carbon sequestration is added as another land-use activity.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve raised markets, so that raises carbon dioxide price. What carbon dioxide price is assumed to drive reforestation at the scale required, and will farmers be forced to choose between growing food and earning carbon dioxide credits?

Dr Greenville: That would be an outcome of modelling we haven’t finalised yet, so I don’t want to speculate.

Senator ROBERTS: The plan references alternative proteins. Is DAFF actively promoting lab grown meat as a substitute for real meat?

Mr Lowe: Not actively.

Senator ROBERTS: What assessment has been made of the economic and cultural impact of replacing traditional meat with lab grown alternatives?

Mr Lowe: We haven’t done detailed work on that.

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, this terrifies me. There doesn’t seem to be any data driving the plan. That’s just a statement.

CHAIR: I’ll take that as a statement. Do you have further questions?

Senator ROBERTS: No, thank you.

/1 Comment/by

Ending Live Sheep Exports Will Have Far-Reaching Consequences! 🐑

,

The Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 aims to end live sheep exports from Australia by May 2028. This bill, despite offering $107 million in compensation for rural and regional communities, fails to adequately address the economic impact on the sheep export industry and local communities.

The bill is seen as a pretext for further restrictions, potentially extending to live cattle exports, under the guise of animal welfare. This will harm Aboriginal communities reliant on cattle farming and exacerbate economic hardships in rural areas.

The bill’s flawed consultation process and ideologically driven policies overlook the real impacts on people and communities. It will cause significant losses for farmers, disrupt food supply chains, and benefit city-based animal welfare activists while ignoring the human cost.

Transcript

Keep the sheep! Keep humans! We need to stop this live export ban. There are no grounds for it. We’ve seen a truncated, sham inquiry. The Labor Party has not gone out and listened. They’re just pushing the Greens ideology to get the Greens voters’ preferences in inner-city electorates. What about the effect on the human environment: the devastation to local communities and to people overseas who need food and good animal protein? 

The Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 amends the Export Control Act 2020 to prohibit the export of live sheep by sea from Australia on 1 May 2028. The bill also includes money to paper over the cracks—the devastation that this measure will cause to rural and regional communities—for a limited period. That money is going to be made available only under severe limits. One would have thought that providing that money anyway, to assist in an orderly transition in a suitable timeframe, would have made more sense. Then, again, sense has no place in the feelings driven policy development from the Albanese Labor government—political, not economic—regardless of the impact on humans. 

As it stands, the $107 million fund is little compensation for an industry that generates $120 million a year directly and hundreds of millions more in flow-on effects to rural communities. Of the money, $60 million will be used to lay the groundwork for the next round of the government’s plan, which is to eliminate live cattle exports. Specifically, the mechanism is the specious animal welfare argument, including welfare of animals in transport. Sheep and cattle welfare during transport will be used as an excuse to limit the movement of animals. 

Who benefits substantially from that trade? It’s not the Aboriginal communities in remote areas of Australia who currently support themselves raising cattle and then need to transport their cattle a long distance to get them to market. This transport welfare measure will remove the opportunity for Aboriginal communities to support themselves, in turn making those communities reliant—dependent—on government handouts. Aboriginal communities are heavily represented in red meat production. In areas of Western Australia, they will be devastated by the loss of this trade. The industry is attracting homeless from the cities, coming bush in search of work and accommodation. 

What a high price everyday Australians in rural areas are paying for the dirty deal from the Labor government for preferences from animal welfare groups and the Greens. Labor can’t, and doesn’t, deny this dirty deal. The announcement of Labor’s policy on live animal exports came not from Labor but from one of the animal welfare groups. This bill lets city activists pat themselves on the back while ignoring the animal and human suffering caused by this ill-informed and poorly consulted bill resulting from a sham, partial inquiry that didn’t consult everyone. 

While the government talks about the bill being a product of consultation, the process was one of working backward from the desired outcome: how can we be seen to get this outcome? The correct process, according to the Office of Impact Analysis, is to conduct ‘meaningful consultation that considers the views of affected stakeholders’. That’s not what happened. As I said, it was a sham inquiry in the lower house. The National Farmers Federation submitted to the committee that they had to fight each step of the way for producers to have a fair hearing with the independent panel. The National Farmers Federation saw the industry’s advice to the panel go unheeded in the final report. What was the point? 

Then we saw the minister go even further, rejecting key elements of the panel’s advice and adopting even more radical ideas than the panel itself had recommended. Welcome to government under the Labor Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese MP! Ideology and dodgy preference deals with ill-informed fanatics is how the Labor Party rolls. To hell with the human devastation! Look good; don’t do good. The entire consultation and parliamentary process is a mockery of due process. It’s an indictment of those in this chamber who go along with this sham for reasons that escape me. The Greens of course want to cause more hardship among the red meat industry with their amendment from Senator Faruqi—if successful, bringing this bill forward to 2026. I’ll bet that’s the deal done between the Greens and the Labor Party: to bring it forward to 2026 and set immediate limits to export. 

Sheep have a five-month gestation and need to grow for seven months before export. This means that sheep that are under gestation now will not be able to be exported under the Greens amendment unless markets can be found at the last minute. The parent animals were bred specifically for the export trade, and these will be bound for the abattoir. Meat contracts are let out years ahead because of the breeding cycle. So, selling these animals is not likely. In fact, the cull has already started, with prices as low as 50c a kilogram, through the saleyards in Western Australia, and many lots are unsold, causing farmers to leave unsold animals at the saleyards for euthanasia. Perhaps city senators like Senator Faruqi and Senator Tyrrell, who is in support, can come over to Western Australia and help with the cull, look these farmers in the eye, look these sheep in the eye. 

The idea that this bill and the Greens amendment is predicated on humane treatment of animals is Orwellian doublespeak. It will have the reverse effect. Rural communities are being hollowed out as a result of the policies of the Labor-Greens government. The endgame is to move protein consumption to lab-grown meat owned by Prime Minister Albanese’s friends Bill Gates and BlackRock’s Larry Fink, whom the Prime Minister has met with during this parliamentary term. Farmers have no place in the Labor-Greens vision of a dystopian world of fake meats and fake food. This bill denies the truth that live sheep exports suffer a loss of life at exactly the same levels as animals in the field, if not better. The object of this bill is not the welfare of animals; it’s an ideological objection to a diet that includes red meat—ideology over humanity. And what of the land currently under grazing? Well, I’m sure the climate carpetbaggers are already out in the bush measuring up for solar panels. Beautiful countryside will be covered in silicon cancer, and somehow this is environmentally friendly? The Labor-Greens government is not fit to govern. 

I want to pass on some personal thoughts from Senator Pauline Hanson, who was in Western Australia recently to listen, and the farmers spontaneously invited her to speak off the back of a truck. As Pauline does and as I do, she did so. The farmers mentioned the independent study that was done—no deaths on ships. Of course, other senators have mentioned the MV Awassi Express, on which was perpetrated the cash-for-cruelty scam: hundreds of thousands of dollars apparently paid to a foreign stockman from a developing nation to treat animals cruelly, to kill an industry—and that’s what Labor did, fell for it, killing an industry, the damage to farmers, communities and nation already done: 100,000 sheep especially bred for the live export overseas market, not suitable for the local market, as I’ve said. The market for live sheep is already down because overseas buyers are looking elsewhere. They know what’s coming from this government. They’ve seen the socialists operating, and they’re seeking other suppliers. It hurts farmers across the whole of Australia, because, for example, Tasmanian sheep farmers are sending sheep to WA to make up shipments. 

Remember the Gillard Labor government’s cattle export ban? It belted the whole of Australia’s beef grazing industry—the whole country. It had effects everywhere, because of the flow-on. Farmers told Senator Hanson in Western Australia recently, ‘We’ll have to shoot the animals we especially bred.’ She told me about the look in their eyes—shattered for the waste of the animals they cared for. Communities over there are worried about farmers’ mental health. If the government has any humanity, it won’t force the farmers to shoot their own animals; the government can kill the sheep. 

Here’s a question for government. The European Union is the world’s biggest exporter of sheep, not Australia. What free trade agreements has Australia signed with the European Union? Has this Albanese Labor government done an agreement with the European Union? We’ve all seen so-called free trade. It’s not fair trade at all. It hurts our country. We’ve seen that from both sides of the uniparty, Labor and the Liberal-Nationals. As I’ve said, the real reason for shutting down this export industry is to get Greens’ votes and preferences in inner-city eastern electorates. 

I want to talk briefly about why I’m very pro human, and I’ve spoken about it many times. I need to counter 80 years of anti-human propaganda, especially that of the last 60 years since the Club of Rome got into bed together with the United Nations and then the World Economic Forum, all to control people, to control property and to transfer wealth. There are three or four main assumptions that this anti-human campaign propagates. Firstly, they say humans don’t care. We’ll talk about that in a minute. They say we’re greedy, rapacious, uncaring and irresponsible—we just don’t care. 

Secondly, they say humans are destroying our planet when, in fact, the reverse is true. They say civilisation is the environment’s enemy. They say civilisation and the environment are mutually exclusive. I’ll address that in a minute. They say civilisation and the environment are incompatible, so we need to cease development—because that’s what they want: they want to stop human development. Senior leaders of the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, including the late Maurice Strong, have said that. They want to deindustrialise Western civilisation. They say our duty is to protect our planet. They say nothing about humans. They imply that humans need to be sacrificed for that. 

Here’s the reality to counter 80 years of bull. These are observations. Everyone in this chamber right now and everyone watching on TV is here because someone cared. When a foal is born to a mare, it pops out of the mare, struggles for about 20 minutes and then starts cantering and put its head down and starts grazing with the herd. When every one of us, as humans, was born, we were completely helpless. The fact that anyone is in this room or watching means they are alive and that they were cared for. We are completely helpless for a number of years. Whether our parents were good or bad or whatever, the fact that you exist means that humans care. Humans care, and they’re based on care. The most caring humans got to propagate. 

Here’s the second thing. Visit any country in the world and you’ll see that developed continents have a lower impact on the environment than the undeveloped continents. For example, a person in a remote, undeveloped area of Africa will defecate in the creek because he or she is too busy scrounging for their child’s next meal. Yet what we do is mine black rock called coal and red rock called iron ire, and we make steel, build dams, build water pipelines and get sanitation and water to our communities. Developed nations have less impact on the natural environment. That means human civilisation and the natural environment are mutually dependent. We all know that our civilisation won’t have a future if we don’t protect the environment. It’s also clear that the environment has no future if we don’t develop and civilise. That is clear, yet we’re told the opposite. 

Our duty is to enable humans to flourish. Right throughout history, every generation has taken care of the younger generation and tried to make a better world for its younger generation. When we develop our country and civilise, we actually protect the environment. Our goal is not to protect the environment. Our goal is to protect humans and to civilise—for humans to flourish and civilise. That’s why I’m very proud about speaking about our species. 

I also want to say that we need to have an aim to restore our country and our planet for humans to abound, thrive and flourish. The goal is for humans to thrive. Farming is essential for civilisation. Farming needs to be protected. Thomas Jefferson said, ‘For cities to exist, we need farms; for farms to exist, we don’t need cities.’ As I mentioned briefly, the objective here is cultured lab meat. That’s one of the globalist aims of the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. Humans need real meat, animal fat. Who knew that the Greens were helping to sell cancerous cultured meat grown in slop in a bioreactor? People just want to be left alone to get on with their lives and to get the government the hell out of our lives. Humans deserve food here and overseas— (Time expired) 

/1 Comment/by