Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

That is a pertinent comment from the member for Kennedy. It means that the bush will rule Australia. Politically, it could have a much greater say than it is having under the current auspices of the party that purports to represent seven million Australians. We will not go there at the moment.

President Bush made the comment the other day, from memory, suggesting that, by 2025, the American people would have to wean themselves off their overreliance on imported oil, particularly from the Middle East but not only from the Middle East, and that they would be driving towards 75 per cent self-sufficiency, looking at other energy sources. Ethanol, biodiesel et cetera were some of those energy sources that were mentioned.

The Americans have woken up to our future. The Brazilians have woken up to our future. They are using other sources to develop fuel—the sugar industry. There is no need to wipe out the sugar industry and those communities. The same industry, the same efficient farmers, could be used to generate ethanol and other forms of fuel. Our farming community could be revolutionised rather than dumped as it has been in recent years by all forms of government. I am not just blaming this government. There has been an assumption out there that over time the farming community in Australia will disintegrate and we will get our food from somewhere else. We may get our food from somewhere else, but we may not get our energy.

This government has to recognise that the current policy is not sufficient to guarantee those energy needs in the future. It is almost errant in its legislative arrangements when it says that 0.83 of one per cent of our petrol and diesel needs is to be provided over a 10-year period, from 2001 through to 2010. That is the renewable energy target that this government has put in place. It is less than one per cent of our fuel needs.

The Americans are looking—over a longer period of time, I admit—at 75 per cent over the next 19 or 20 years. Where are we? The Brazilians are increasing their ethanol production at the rate of one Australian sugar industry a year. We are looking at ways and means of subsidising our sugar farms out of existence, and there will be consequences and social implications on those communities. There are enormous opportunities for our future, and Australia should examine what it can do for itself, rather than have this overreliance on these endless free trade negotiations.

You only have to look at what is happening with the Australian Wheat Board. Look at the tragedy of what is occurring there. I am a supporter of the single desk, and I will support Mark Vaile on the maintenance of the single desk arrangements for the export of grain. We should look at the tragedy of what is happening there and ask ourselves: does this need to happen? Australia produces surplus grain. That is a fact. Because our economy is based on 20 per cent of our agricultural production being used at home and 80 per cent offshore, we have to find alternative ways of disposing of that grain. That is a fact. We have to deal on a corrupt world market. That has always been a fact. The Wheat Board has been dealing on a corrupt world market. It is complicated to the extent that it has also been dealing on that market when our government has been signatory to a United Nations sanctions arrangement. That is a fact, so there is a certain complication there. But the underlying problem is that the Wheat Board has had to deal in a marketplace which is in fact corrupt—and the Americans are as corrupt as anybody else in that marketplace—and everybody knows those facts.

How do you get around that? Obviously, you keep being corrupt and deal in a corrupt market and try to get the best deal, albeit the most corrupt, within the market so you can sell the product for the Australian farmer. Or do you look at alternatives for that use—alternative markets, if they are not available because you are not corrupt enough to access them? That is a problem. What else could you do? I wonder whether you could look at alternative uses for that grain. What could you do with that grain? What are other countries doing with that grain, instead of exporting it on the food market? Some of them are converting it into energy.

On average, we export about 16 million tonnes of wheat a year. That is a significant problem and it needs significant marketing. Ten per cent ethanol in our fuel—in theory, at least, because it would not all come from wheat—would take half of that. Fifty per cent of our exports of grain that we have to sell on this corrupt market and then buy on another corrupt market—both of which are controlled offshore—could be used to produce energy for 10 per cent usage in our fuels. Then you get into the biodiesel arguments, issues et cetera and a whole range of other energy arrangements, including wind and water. If we went to 20 per cent, there would be no need to take this grain offshore. There would be no need to ruin the sugar industry.

These are government policy decisions that can be made at home about our future, about how we are going to fund the lifestyles of all Australians, particularly regional Australians. We seem so preoccupied with having to produce something, take it out into the world market, take what they give us and then say ‘thank you’. Australia should be looking further than that, in my view. Country Australia can lead the charge on those issues. We have some very pathetic people who argue in the Senate, as they do, that 0.83 of one per cent as a renewable energy target over 10 years is acceptable and in their words ‘will generate an industry’.  They are dreaming. I think that the castle is one of the great Australian dreams. If they believe that 0.83 of one per cent is a renewable energy target that they should be proud of, they are absolutely dreaming.

One other issue is taxation. It is very important to our future. Sustainability of water resources is very important to our future. What is happening with the Namoi ground water issue at the moment? The member for Goldstein will be well aware of this. To their credit, the Commonwealth government, the state government and the water users of that ground water area that has been overallocated are moving to a sustainable arrangement. An adjustment fund was put in place. It was funded three ways: Commonwealth, $50 million; the state, $50 million; and the industry, $50 million. It is a very worthy project with laudable future objectives of sustainability and compensating those who are impacted by the change in the short term.

The Commonwealth government and the Prime Minister have written to me recently and have said that the Commonwealth will be taxing the state contribution, the Commonwealth contribution and any contribution made by the growers that can be assessed in relation to that issue. It will be assessed as income. Compensation to bring an environmental oversight from the past into a sustainable future is going to be taxed. I think that is a disgraceful thing that this government has done. (Time expired)

See this speech in context