❓ Hon Bruce Donaldson asks if the Minister has been lobbied to introduce a flatulence tax on livestock, similar to a proposal in New Zealand. The Minister confirms no lobbying has occurred but anticipates it will become an issue and the government is exploring mitigation strategies.
AnsweredQoN 1038Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Is the minister being lobbied to support the introduction of a flatulence tax on livestock in Western Australia, as has been proposed in New Zealand by placing a levy of 15c per head on cattle and 8c per head on sheep, because livestock are alleged to release substantial amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? It is proposed that any revenue raised would go to help fund environmental programs in New Zealand. Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
As Hon Bruce Donaldson so often does, he has raised one of the most crucial questions in today’s question time. His observations about what has occurred in New Zealand are of course accurate. It is a fact that within agriculture, methane produced by ruminant four-stomach animals in their digestive process is quite high. I understand that the methane released is largely through belching, lest anybody’s sensibilities be offended by this matter. One of the factors of reducing greenhouse emissions in Australia has been the result of the reduction in sheep numbers for well-known and tragic reasons. The question asked directly is whether I or the Government have been lobbied or approached in any way on the question of a flatulence tax. The answer is no. Australia’s progression towards dealing with greenhouse issues is not as advanced as New Zealand’s. If the question were cast along the line of whether I expect it to be an issue in agriculture in Australia, my answer would be most certainly yes, I do expect it to be an issue. The Western Australian Government set up the greenhouse task force to address the matter. Hon Barry House: It smells of self-interest. Hon KIM CHANCE: I thank the member. The Government is already looking at the issue to see what can be done proactively by way of feed supplement, for example, to mitigate the emission of methane from four-stomach animals. Methane is one of the most destructive of the greenhouse gases and is a very serious issue. It is a far more serious issue for New Zealand than for Australia, because animal production forms such a large part of New Zealand’s economy. Nevertheless, it is a major challenge for agriculture and would probably sit alongside the emissions of greenhouse gases from the application of artificial nitrogen as the two most serious challenges. I believe that there is some possibility it can be dealt with. We are hopeful that we will be able to fund research projects to start working on the issue. It is already known that intensively housed animals that are intensively fed have much lower methane emissions than do rangeland and traditional grazing animals. That in itself is a bit of a problem for us because those are the very animals that we cannot get to. We will certainly be looking at issues such as what can be added to stock licks or other things which naturally attract ruminants to perhaps mitigate these emissions. We will be working on that in the future. The short answer is no, but I believe in the longer term it will change.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : As Hon Bruce Donaldson so often does, he has raised one of the most crucial questions in today’s question time. His observations about what has occurred in New Zealand are of course accurate. It is a fact that within agriculture, methane produced by ruminant four-stomach animals in their digestive process is quite high. I understand that the methane released is largely through belching, lest anybody’s sensibilities be offended by this matter. One of the factors of reducing greenhouse emissions in Australia has been the result of the reduction in sheep numbers for well-known and tragic reasons. The question asked directly is whether I or the Government have been lobbied or approached in any way on the question of a flatulence tax. The answer is no. Australia’s progression towards dealing with greenhouse issues is not as advanced as New Zealand’s. If the question were cast along the line of whether I expect it to be an issue in agriculture in Australia, my answer would be most certainly yes, I do expect it to be an issue. The Western Australian Government set up the greenhouse task force to address the matter. Hon Barry House: It smells of self-interest. Hon KIM CHANCE: I thank the member. The Government is already looking at the issue to see what can be done proactively by way of feed supplement, for example, to mitigate the emission of methane from four-stomach animals. Methane is one of the most destructive of the greenhouse gases and is a very serious issue. It is a far more serious issue for New Zealand than for Australia, because animal production forms such a large part of New Zealand’s economy. Nevertheless, it is a major challenge for agriculture and would probably sit alongside the emissions of greenhouse gases from the application of artificial nitrogen as the two most serious challenges. I believe that there is some possibility it can be dealt with. We are hopeful that we will be able to fund research projects to start working on the issue. It is already known that intensively housed animals that are intensively fed have much lower methane emissions than do rangeland and traditional grazing animals. That in itself is a bit of a problem for us because those are the very animals that we cannot get to. We will certainly be looking at issues such as what can be added to stock licks or other things which naturally attract ruminants to perhaps mitigate these emissions. We will be working on that in the future. The short answer is no, but I believe in the longer term it will change.
As Hon Bruce Donaldson so often does, he has raised one of the most crucial questions in today’s question time. His observations about what has occurred in New Zealand are of course accurate. It is a fact that within agriculture, methane produced by ruminant four-stomach animals in their digestive process is quite high. I understand that the methane released is largely through belching, lest anybody’s sensibilities be offended by this matter. One of the factors of reducing greenhouse emissions in Australia has been the result of the reduction in sheep numbers for well-known and tragic reasons. The question asked directly is whether I or the Government have been lobbied or approached in any way on the question of a flatulence tax. The answer is no. Australia’s progression towards dealing with greenhouse issues is not as advanced as New Zealand’s. If the question were cast along the line of whether I expect it to be an issue in agriculture in Australia, my answer would be most certainly yes, I do expect it to be an issue. The Western Australian Government set up the greenhouse task force to address the matter. Hon Barry House: It smells of self-interest. Hon KIM CHANCE: I thank the member. The Government is already looking at the issue to see what can be done proactively by way of feed supplement, for example, to mitigate the emission of methane from four-stomach animals. Methane is one of the most destructive of the greenhouse gases and is a very serious issue. It is a far more serious issue for New Zealand than for Australia, because animal production forms such a large part of New Zealand’s economy. Nevertheless, it is a major challenge for agriculture and would probably sit alongside the emissions of greenhouse gases from the application of artificial nitrogen as the two most serious challenges. I believe that there is some possibility it can be dealt with. We are hopeful that we will be able to fund research projects to start working on the issue. It is already known that intensively housed animals that are intensively fed have much lower methane emissions than do rangeland and traditional grazing animals. That in itself is a bit of a problem for us because those are the very animals that we cannot get to. We will certainly be looking at issues such as what can be added to stock licks or other things which naturally attract ruminants to perhaps mitigate these emissions. We will be working on that in the future. The short answer is no, but I believe in the longer term it will change.
Hon Barry House: It smells of self-interest. Hon KIM CHANCE: I thank the member. The Government is already looking at the issue to see what can be done proactively by way of feed supplement, for example, to mitigate the emission of methane from four-stomach animals. Methane is one of the most destructive of the greenhouse gases and is a very serious issue. It is a far more serious issue for New Zealand than for Australia, because animal production forms such a large part of New Zealand’s economy. Nevertheless, it is a major challenge for agriculture and would probably sit alongside the emissions of greenhouse gases from the application of artificial nitrogen as the two most serious challenges. I believe that there is some possibility it can be dealt with. We are hopeful that we will be able to fund research projects to start working on the issue. It is already known that intensively housed animals that are intensively fed have much lower methane emissions than do rangeland and traditional grazing animals. That in itself is a bit of a problem for us because those are the very animals that we cannot get to. We will certainly be looking at issues such as what can be added to stock licks or other things which naturally attract ruminants to perhaps mitigate these emissions. We will be working on that in the future. The short answer is no, but I believe in the longer term it will change.
Hon KIM CHANCE: I thank the member. The Government is already looking at the issue to see what can be done proactively by way of feed supplement, for example, to mitigate the emission of methane from four-stomach animals. Methane is one of the most destructive of the greenhouse gases and is a very serious issue. It is a far more serious issue for New Zealand than for Australia, because animal production forms such a large part of New Zealand’s economy. Nevertheless, it is a major challenge for agriculture and would probably sit alongside the emissions of greenhouse gases from the application of artificial nitrogen as the two most serious challenges. I believe that there is some possibility it can be dealt with. We are hopeful that we will be able to fund research projects to start working on the issue. It is already known that intensively housed animals that are intensively fed have much lower methane emissions than do rangeland and traditional grazing animals. That in itself is a bit of a problem for us because those are the very animals that we cannot get to. We will certainly be looking at issues such as what can be added to stock licks or other things which naturally attract ruminants to perhaps mitigate these emissions. We will be working on that in the future. The short answer is no, but I believe in the longer term it will change.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : As Hon Bruce Donaldson so often does, he has raised one of the most crucial questions in today’s question time. His observations about what has occurred in New Zealand are of course accurate. It is a fact that within agriculture, methane produced by ruminant four-stomach animals in their digestive process is quite high. I understand that the methane released is largely through belching, lest anybody’s sensibilities be offended by this matter. One of the factors of reducing greenhouse emissions in Australia has been the result of the reduction in sheep numbers for well-known and tragic reasons. The question asked directly is whether I or the Government have been lobbied or approached in any way on the question of a flatulence tax. The answer is no. Australia’s progression towards dealing with greenhouse issues is not as advanced as New Zealand’s. If the question were cast along the line of whether I expect it to be an issue in agriculture in Australia, my answer would be most certainly yes, I do expect it to be an issue. The Western Australian Government set up the greenhouse task force to address the matter. Hon Barry House: It smells of self-interest. Hon KIM CHANCE: I thank the member. The Government is already looking at the issue to see what can be done proactively by way of feed supplement, for example, to mitigate the emission of methane from four-stomach animals. Methane is one of the most destructive of the greenhouse gases and is a very serious issue. It is a far more serious issue for New Zealand than for Australia, because animal production forms such a large part of New Zealand’s economy. Nevertheless, it is a major challenge for agriculture and would probably sit alongside the emissions of greenhouse gases from the application of artificial nitrogen as the two most serious challenges. I believe that there is some possibility it can be dealt with. We are hopeful that we will be able to fund research projects to start working on the issue. It is already known that intensively housed animals that are intensively fed have much lower methane emissions than do rangeland and traditional grazing animals. That in itself is a bit of a problem for us because those are the very animals that we cannot get to. We will certainly be looking at issues such as what can be added to stock licks or other things which naturally attract ruminants to perhaps mitigate these emissions. We will be working on that in the future. The short answer is no, but I believe in the longer term it will change.
As Hon Bruce Donaldson so often does, he has raised one of the most crucial questions in today’s question time. His observations about what has occurred in New Zealand are of course accurate. It is a fact that within agriculture, methane produced by ruminant four-stomach animals in their digestive process is quite high. I understand that the methane released is largely through belching, lest anybody’s sensibilities be offended by this matter. One of the factors of reducing greenhouse emissions in Australia has been the result of the reduction in sheep numbers for well-known and tragic reasons. The question asked directly is whether I or the Government have been lobbied or approached in any way on the question of a flatulence tax. The answer is no. Australia’s progression towards dealing with greenhouse issues is not as advanced as New Zealand’s. If the question were cast along the line of whether I expect it to be an issue in agriculture in Australia, my answer would be most certainly yes, I do expect it to be an issue. The Western Australian Government set up the greenhouse task force to address the matter. Hon Barry House: It smells of self-interest. Hon KIM CHANCE: I thank the member. The Government is already looking at the issue to see what can be done proactively by way of feed supplement, for example, to mitigate the emission of methane from four-stomach animals. Methane is one of the most destructive of the greenhouse gases and is a very serious issue. It is a far more serious issue for New Zealand than for Australia, because animal production forms such a large part of New Zealand’s economy. Nevertheless, it is a major challenge for agriculture and would probably sit alongside the emissions of greenhouse gases from the application of artificial nitrogen as the two most serious challenges. I believe that there is some possibility it can be dealt with. We are hopeful that we will be able to fund research projects to start working on the issue. It is already known that intensively housed animals that are intensively fed have much lower methane emissions than do rangeland and traditional grazing animals. That in itself is a bit of a problem for us because those are the very animals that we cannot get to. We will certainly be looking at issues such as what can be added to stock licks or other things which naturally attract ruminants to perhaps mitigate these emissions. We will be working on that in the future. The short answer is no, but I believe in the longer term it will change.
Hon Barry House: It smells of self-interest. Hon KIM CHANCE: I thank the member. The Government is already looking at the issue to see what can be done proactively by way of feed supplement, for example, to mitigate the emission of methane from four-stomach animals. Methane is one of the most destructive of the greenhouse gases and is a very serious issue. It is a far more serious issue for New Zealand than for Australia, because animal production forms such a large part of New Zealand’s economy. Nevertheless, it is a major challenge for agriculture and would probably sit alongside the emissions of greenhouse gases from the application of artificial nitrogen as the two most serious challenges. I believe that there is some possibility it can be dealt with. We are hopeful that we will be able to fund research projects to start working on the issue. It is already known that intensively housed animals that are intensively fed have much lower methane emissions than do rangeland and traditional grazing animals. That in itself is a bit of a problem for us because those are the very animals that we cannot get to. We will certainly be looking at issues such as what can be added to stock licks or other things which naturally attract ruminants to perhaps mitigate these emissions. We will be working on that in the future. The short answer is no, but I believe in the longer term it will change.
Hon KIM CHANCE: I thank the member. The Government is already looking at the issue to see what can be done proactively by way of feed supplement, for example, to mitigate the emission of methane from four-stomach animals. Methane is one of the most destructive of the greenhouse gases and is a very serious issue. It is a far more serious issue for New Zealand than for Australia, because animal production forms such a large part of New Zealand’s economy. Nevertheless, it is a major challenge for agriculture and would probably sit alongside the emissions of greenhouse gases from the application of artificial nitrogen as the two most serious challenges. I believe that there is some possibility it can be dealt with. We are hopeful that we will be able to fund research projects to start working on the issue. It is already known that intensively housed animals that are intensively fed have much lower methane emissions than do rangeland and traditional grazing animals. That in itself is a bit of a problem for us because those are the very animals that we cannot get to. We will certainly be looking at issues such as what can be added to stock licks or other things which naturally attract ruminants to perhaps mitigate these emissions. We will be working on that in the future. The short answer is no, but I believe in the longer term it will change.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.