Do not waste your money on wheat research Mr Burke, because you removed our single seller export marketing arrangement and production will fall dramatically as a consequence.

Yes, like we can have a recession without unemployment.

To do this we need capital for investment. To get that we should be paid the true value of our produce, not the 75% that we have been getting ever since the NFF embarked on it's unilateral pursuit of a free market 25 years ago.

The Minister said: "that research is essential to addressing the productivity equation as we walk down the emission reduction path." Perhaps he should research whether the emission reduction path is sensible and necessary. Some science can be found at www.climatesceptics.com.au

Until GM crops have a true advantage over their counterparts and are considered safe beyond all doubt, then yes, farmers will consider this as part of the crop and unless scientists can come to an agreement on what causes 'climate change' then the government should be supporting the farmer with his current practises instead of leaving him out in the cold.

Yes minister. Tony Burke is straddling the barbwire fence on soil carbon, farm productivity, food health and GM. GM is the opposite of food health as the digestive system treats GM food as a toxin. However, this is politics. We should at least be thankful that he acknowledges the link between soil carbon and productivity and this is a step forward from about 6 months ago.

If any political party was serious about climate change and making sure landholders were involved they would immediately get forestry started. Let’s look at some facts. The data viewer the government requires the industry to use to prove the 1990 rule does not work and the government refuses to release the information to fix it. The model the government requires us to use is faulty and they cannot/will not fix it or offer any other solution. The government allows one group to get over 900 tonnes of CO2e per hectare whilst the government model predicts 150 tonnes CO2e/ha. To get the tax cuts you have to be accredited to a government scheme but they closed the scheme only to reopen it last week, the catch is it costs a fortune to be accredited and they will close the scheme before you can claim any credits.

The government cannot tell us how we should treat soil carbon in a forest system and why the model shows a decline in soil carbon. The government will not allow for natural regeneration to be included but the Queensland government wants to protect some of it, this will be a benefit to the federal government but the farmer gets nothing. The government will not allow avoided deforestation credits to be applied as they claim there is no clearing in Australia HUH. The government is spending millions on expanding the NCAS to overseas whilst the staff of the DCC cannot fill simple requests for information in Australia. The government plans to allow unlimited imports of credits from overseas which will affect the price of Australian credits from forestry, the only people this affects is the landholders.

The government continues to support through complicity the proliferation of forestry schemes that offer offsets that do not exist from soil carbon and newly planted forests that will take years to offset the carbon that has already been sold to unwitting buyers. The government spends 200 million on CCS that may or may not work. Why not spend 300 million on planting forests that we know will work, use current organisations like Landcare and GA to do the work and see 300 million go into rural communities (with good farm planning). The entire Western Land division is locked out of trading because the Western Land Division refuses to answer correspondence or allow carbon trading on their lands, even though this is the very land that has been identified as the most important to revegetate.

The Government spends millions of dollars on government agencies to assist them in becoming carbon traders where they control the regulation and the revegetation funds and then claim the carbon for themselves possibly to sell it back to landholders at a later date. These subsidies are not available for private businesses.

The only regulator is the DCC which which runs the Greenhouse Friendly scheme, which has no dispute resolution function and is administered by a private organisation that also trades carbon, so a market player is the administrator.

I challenge politicians on all sides to come out and do what is right by the country, by the landholder and by the planet. The answers arte obvious, they are simple and they are risk free. Forestry is a no regrets policy. The government is OK to send millions to failed giants like timbercor to see them collapse (mind you the bosses will keep their money) but will not help a landholder. In these times of financial downturn, drought and hard times you would think that getting some of the city money into the country would be a good thing, but I guess the pollies want to kick it around and score a few more news grabs for a while, at the landholders' expense. Typical.

Ben Keogh Managing Director Australian Carbon Traders.

Tony Bourke still beleives in the tooth fairy. He, like KRudd, does not listen to anyone except their high paid experts and anyone with a big cheque book. This has nothing to do with saving the planet and everything to do with making people rich at others expense. Otherwise they would not be blindly charging down this path. Face it, these people will retire on huge pensions and fringe benefits, not to mention a job for the boys from those who will make a squillion from ETS rubbish.