Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I would like the attention of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to be drawn to some of the deficiencies in the drought administration as it now operates. The area south of Hughenden, the southern half of North Queensland’s mid-west, was in very serious drought. A large number of stations were in that situation, but a survey only took into account a number of stations in the Hughenden shire area—Flinders, if you like—that in fact had not bad rainfall. The area that was very badly short of rain was not surveyed at all. So we would ask the minister to look again at the anomalies that led to that arising and also to have a look and see if we can help those people south of Hughenden that are in this situation.

The second part of the Appropriation (Drought and Equine Influenza Assistance) Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and the Appropriation (Drought and Equine Influenza Assistance) Bill (No. 2) 2007-2008 are about the issue of equine flu. The contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Wide Bay, was a most extraordinary contribution. One has to really wonder about a party that would put a person like that up front. We are talking about quarantine. Let us go through it. He allowed the grapes in from California in the same month that one-tenth of the entire grape production in California was wrecked by Pierce’s disease. There was damage done to the Australian industry by these imports, even without the disease. When he was confronted at the central council meeting of the National Party—by no less a person than Jeff Seeney, until recently the Leader of the Opposition in the Queensland parliament—his reply was that it only affected Queensland. We did not have to worry about the grapes coming in from California, because it only affected Queensland—that was his answer! If anyone doubts me, they can ask Mr Seeney. That is what was said. Mr Seeney was very, very angry indeed. Let us move on.

On the issue of pork, the outcome before the High Court was that the pork farmer lost the pork case. The reason they lost was that the High Court said there were actually no guidelines by which a decision could be made. They could not say it was a bad decision, because there were no rule in there by which to make a decision. There could have been no more scathing indictment of the quarantine services of this country than that passed by the High Court in the pork case. Let us move on.

Black sigatoka came in and cost us nearly $100 million in the banana industry. Every single quarantine official said that it had come in from the Torres Strait. I was the minister for the Torres Strait for nearly a decade, so I speak with very great authority. It is very simple—very, very simple—as I have told the quarantine service again and again: there are only two ways that anything can get in from the Torres Strait to Australia. There are private aeroplanes, but that is negligible. The main way is the Jardine ferry. Everything has to go across on the Jardine ferry. Unless you want to go through four feet of water, you have to go on the Jardine ferry. So all you have to do is pay the ferryman to check that no bananas or vegetable matter are coming in from the Torres Strait, and have checks at the Horn Island airport. That is all you have to do to stop anything coming in from those areas.

Spiraling whitefly, which would be absolutely devastating to the Australian beef industry; bluetongue disease; and most certainly foot-and-mouth disease are all endemic in the Indonesian archipelago, and yet there is nothing to stop them from coming into Australia; there has been no effort made to pay the ferryman at Jardine, and there has been no effort to pay anyone at the Horn Island airport. So we got the black sigatoka and it cost us $100 million. Let us move on.

The former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry actually raised the issue of citrus canker. After having read the Australian newspaper, the last thing that I would ever raise if I were that member—the Leader of the National Party, as he is now—would be the issue of citrus canker. There were very serious issues raised about this. It is some reflection upon this House that the former minister has never been asked to front his responsibilities and the fact that citrus canker came in at Emerald, where people had—as the media reported—brought product in from overseas with the agreement of the quarantine service, which the former minister was responsible for.

Whether the former minister knew of the special permit that was given for them to bring matter in that obviously had citrus canker in it is something that I think the current government should have a look at. There were some generous donations involved, according to the newspaper. I will say no more. But I would not have raised it if I were the Leader of the National Party—it would have been the last thing I would ever have raised. But he has never been noted for intelligence—no, I withdraw that remark unequivocally.

Beef is arguably the fourth biggest product in this nation—most certainly the biggest agricultural industry is the beef industry. None less than Senator Heffernan expressed his absolute disgust that the quarantine service, for which the former minister was responsible, allowed beef to come in from Brazil, a foot-and-mouth diseased country—and from a part of that country that was provisionally declared at the time the beef came in—and it ended up on the Wagga Wagga dump, where pigs regularly eat.

This man has got away with the most incredibly irresponsible behaviour. It is no use for you to say it was some officer in the department that was to blame. If you are the minister, you are to blame. I was the minister for the best part of a decade and, if something went wrong, I knew it was my fault. I never resiled from my responsibilities. On two occasions I handed in my resignation to the then Premier, because I thought things had gone wrong and I knew that it was my duty to take full responsibility for it. No responsibility has been taken by this ex-minister in his entire history in this place—not once. Yet he should take responsibility for losing four seats in the last election for his party—the Liberal Party in one case—Page, Flynn, Dawson and the Liberal seat of Leichhardt.

For those of you not familiar with the sugar industry, there was a burning issue. It was the issue of ethanol. This former minister is on record again and again in this place making negative statements about ethanol. So who is to take responsibility for the loss of those seats? I will tell you who is to take responsibility for the loss of those seats: the minister. It was his responsibility as agriculture minister to introduce the use of ethanol in Australia—like every other responsible country in the world is doing. Canada, Brazil and the United States have done it and even countries that cannot grow grain or sugar cane are doing it, such as Europe and Japan. But no-one takes responsibility. In fact, he got promoted. Do you think you can go forward with a person that has provided you with that sort of leadership?

Let me move back to AQIS for a moment—to the subject of white spot in prawns. Imported prawns were allowed into this country from countries that had white spot. So we had an outbreak of white spot which devastatingly damaged the prawn-farming industries of Australia. Is there anything that has not been wrecked here by the irresponsibility of the people responsible for AQIS in this place?

The papaya fruit fly cost us $75 million. It came in from the Torres Strait. Where was the paying of the ferryman to inspect product coming down from the Torres Strait? Where was the paying of the people at Horn Island? These were the simplest of actions that needed to be taken—and it was $75 million of taxpayers’ money gone. Now some people have been bankrupted and are living in sheds—and I do not hesitate to name the founders of the coffee industry in Australia, the Jaques family, people who were reduced to penury by the irresponsibility of this minister and his administration. But they have fought back yet again successfully.

Let me move on. The ex-minister spoke about the diversion of the northern floodwaters. I thought that was a beauty. He spent a lot of his speech saying it was raining in one part of the state and there was drought in another. This came as a great revelation to all of us! Having come up with this marvellous breakthrough in understanding the geography of Queensland, he then said we should harvest the floodwaters of North Queensland and divert them south. In fact, his Premier, Peter Beattie, proposed that and yet his party attacked Premier Beattie when he proposed it! And in all my years in this place I have never heard him open his mouth on this. Who was responsible? Who was the minister that should have been damming those floodwaters and making use of the great resources that God has given us? Who was it that should have been helping people who did not have much water—such as those in Central Queensland, for example? I am not saying it should go to southern Queensland, but most certainly to Central Queensland. Who should have been doing that? The person who should have been doing it was the minister for agriculture. After 12 years in government, he stands up here and says that—even after his own party has attacked Mr Beattie for making the proposal.

Mal Brough, who is no longer in this place, advocated the same thing on numerous occasions, but he was given no support by the minister for agriculture. The current Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson, whose electorate is very suitably named the Bradfield electorate—after the great man who proposed the diversion of some of these massive waters of North Queensland into Central Queensland—advocated it. He got no support from the current leader of the National Party—not a word of support in 10 years. Senator Heffernan, a great advocate for the development of water resources in our nation, has had no support from this particular person. In the mandatory code of conduct, where we desperately needed assistance to fight off the two great oligopolies that have 82 per cent of the retail fruit and vegetable industry in Australia, this person actually ensured as the minister that it would not go there. Peter McGauran quite clearly was fighting tenaciously on behalf of the farmers. Did he receive any support from this minister? No, of course he didn’t. If this minister had backed him in cabinet then we would not have the ridiculous mandatory code of conduct that we have today. Minister Dutton, who did an excellent job—he has been one of the finest and most successful ministers in this place—went out very courageously fighting the battle of the managed investment schemes that desperately needed to be assailed for the good of the farmers of Australia. Did he get any support? No, he didn’t. He fought the battle courageously by himself and half-won the battle for us, and God bless him. But God will not bless those people who did not support Dutton. They did not support him publicly and they did not support him privately. So all the more power to him!

The former minister mentioned woody weeds. I happen to represent an electorate that is suffering from what has been described as the greatest environmental holocaust in Australian history—the acacia prickly tree, which has now gobbled up six million hectares—almost an area the size of Tasmania—in 30 years. All native flora and fauna have been destroyed by it. Who was the minister responsible for dealing with this issue and for doing something about the destruction of all this magnificent area, an area which is described on the old map of Queensland as being the richest natural grasslands in Australia? That pasture was utterly destroyed by the prickly acacia tree. Whose job was it to protect those grasslands and our native flora and fauna? It was this ex-minister—and he comes in here and has the hide to start pointing the finger at the Labor Party for doing nothing about woody weeds! They have been here for 10 minutes! It absolutely amazes me that a party that is trying to fight back into existence would put this man up front.

But I have not finished there. He then attacked them for taking funds away and said, ‘We had put in huge amounts of funds.’ I will tell you the funds that he put into agriculture. He gave us a buyout so that he could win back the votes of the fishermen. He gave us a buyout after closing down about 2,000 fishermen in Australia. He took their livelihoods away and gave them some ridiculously small figure to compensate them for the loss of what had been a great business for some 2,000 Australian fishermen. Unfortunately for us, 700 of them were in North Queensland.

He gave us compensation of $150,000. The tobacco farmers, who were earning on average $200,000 a year, were completely destroyed. There were 2,000 tobacco farmers in Australia and now there is none. They were completely destroyed and got $150,000 in return. He said, ‘We gave them this money.’ Yes, he did, but he took away their right to make a living and he gave them a pittance in return to try and buy his way through the election because of his misdemeanours. A lot of those people, sadly, still vote for that party. They still have loyalty. They still believe in the National Party, even after what has been done to them.

The egg industry got compensation, but only after they took 2,000 egg farmers out of the industry. There were over 2,000 in the egg industry, now there are fewer than 300. The sugar industry signed a deregulation agreement with the ALP. I am told it came out of Canberra. Whether it came out of Canberra or out of Brisbane, who cares, the net result was the deregulation of the sugar industry and the removal of tariffs. The ALP removed half. But this man who purports to represent farmers took the other 50 per cent of the tariffs away. Of course, our incomes on the Australian market then dropped by 50 per cent. In the supermarkets, Mr Woolworths and Mr Coles did not drop the price to the consumers, nor did they drop the price to the consumer for dairy products. I sat with five members of my old party and their faces went white when they saw this ex-minister’s press release where it said, ‘We will give $150,000 to every farmer, but only if every state deregulates.’ He held a gun to their heads. It was politically stupid, of course, because I think the Labor governments would probably have done it anyway. He forced them to do it which meant of course that the targets were pinned onto the National Party. I said to one senator there that day: ‘You’re a great free trader. You should be very happy about this event.’ He said, ‘Yes, but I did not want us to be blamed for it.’ Well, blamed they were.

If I speak with some passion and rage, it is because I represented nearly 300 dairy farmers; I now represent fewer than eight. Every single one of those people who exited the industry represent heartbreak and bankruptcy. Those people got up at 5.30 in the morning and were still milking cows at seven o’clock at night. They employed nobody; they did everything themselves. Those people were shattered. A lot of them are still showing loyalty to this party. Those poor people. What great deception has been worked upon them. This ex-minister forced the issue with his statement, and five of them who were there that day went white in the face.

I should say this: Ian Causley fought like a tiger against that dairy deregulation. Larry Anthony could not go public, unfortunately for him. He was diametrically opposed to that deregulation. I was diametrically opposed. It was Julian McGauran who raised it. For those people who represent the National Party in this place, reflect upon the fact that, within four years, Causley had resigned—and there was no way they could hold the seat once he had resigned—Julian had joined the Liberal Party, I had become an Independent and poor old Larry, one of the best men in this place, had lost his seat in parliament. He was loyal to the government, he had cabinet solidarity and he had a sense of decency, but it cost him his seat in parliament. This place lost a great member of parliament. So four were lost, and whose responsibility was it? It was the bloke who has just been made Leader of the Nationals. He pontificated in this place earlier today and told us all about woody weeds, how much money he had given to close down all these industries and how we should divert the northern floodwaters.

In speaking to this legislation today, and speaking with some considerable passion, it is my sad and sorry lot in this place to represent dairy farmers. Every four days in Australia, a dairy farmer commits suicide. But if I speak with passion and try and hurt some of the people who have hurt us so dreadfully then I am entitled to, just as the good Lord whacked into those moneychangers in the temple. There are not anywhere near as many sugar farmers as there are dairy farmers. We are closing four mills every three years. We only have 24 mills left. Brazil is opening 25 new mills every year, because they have ethanol and we do not. We pay $1.40 for our petrol and the Brazilians pay 74c. Whose fault is that? Who was the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and who was the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in this place back then? In the trials at Nuremberg, the prosecutor listened to all the terrible people called Nazis. Each of them blamed public opinion, Hitler or the army. They all had somebody to blame. Why did 30 million people die in the Second World War, six million poor Jews in the concentration camps? The reason for that obviously was the penguins in Antarctica. Why is it that a dairy farmer commits suicide every four days in Australia and a sugar farmer commits suicide every two months in Australia? Someone is responsible for that. Unfortunately and sadly for me, I know the sugarcane farmers personally. This place must take responsibility. (Time expired)

See this speech in context