Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in this debate and I congratulate the member for New England for bringing it forward—not in a typical use of the MPI to attack someone in this chamber but to bring on a thoughtful and important debate on the future of agriculture in this country. As a colleague, I can confirm he is a longstanding thinker on agriculture and the future of agriculture. His involvement in the document of the committee chaired by the member for Lyons, which I am sure has been talked about this afternoon, is just another example of that commitment to the longer term issues in and around agriculture in Australia’s future. I congratulate him.

I also acknowledge the comments from the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. I was not going to mention the topic of wheat, but he has thrown it out there, so I will raise it before he leaves. His comments flowed on from a conversation about market access and a long list—and a very good list, I am sure—of examples of improved market access. I would hope I speak on behalf of all farmers and all Australians when I say that, when we talk about trade generally and when we talk about the pragmatism of trade, we should not forget the principles and the values of what it is to be an Australian—especially when we try to get access to markets with regimes that are more than questionable in international affairs.

I was surprised one morning over summer—I think it was about six weeks ago—when I awoke to read in the newspaper that at the shareholder class action around AWB there had been the startling admission of a very late acknowledgement by the company involved that they were aware of the moneys going to the regime in question. I would hope that at some point in the future the minister considers the implications of that comment—and, yes, it was under a former government, but it is the same bureaucracy—and where that comment of six weeks ago stands in relation to the Cole inquiry, market access and the importance of trade for the future of agriculture in Australia.

I agree wholeheartedly that we are a trading nation. As to the figure of 60 per cent, I talk about two of every three cows going overseas when I go to a saleyard and someone tries to have the discussion of the moment with me about why we have to import beef. We die as an agriculture industry and we die as a nation financially if we do not acknowledge the importance and value of a vibrant industry in this country for the export of food products. The give and take of trade means that we have to import as well. I would hope that is understood in 99 homes out of 100, as part of who we are as a trading nation in the area of agriculture.

The report of the committee’s inquiry, which was chaired by the member for Lyons and had involvement by the member for New England, is an excellent one. I urge all members in this place to have a look at it and I urge all members of my local farming community to have a look at it. We in this place have been through a pretty meaty debate on global issues around climate change, and its implications for agriculture were front and centre of much of that debate. Issues debated were whether or not to offset, whether or not to provide exemptions and the implications of particular pieces of legislation on the agriculture industry. I make that point because after all the debate of the last six months the foreword by the member for Lyons—and I told him this last night—in this document is the best after-sales service on the topic of climate change I have yet come across. It is personal, it is localised, it is 2½ pages long, it is simple to read and it is food for thought for everyone in government and everyone who gives a damn about the topic of climate change. I congratulate the member for Lyons for that.

I also like the report because it does not even matter whether or not there ends up being a price on carbon. It does not even matter if the topic of climate change flies or not. There are good, practical thoughts and suggestions for the agriculture sector in this document, and it is certainly worthy of further debate on all of the various topics covered, in this place and in the community. I have done my best to sell the document; I hope everyone buys because it is well put together. A lot of people’s time was involved and hopefully it will be a valued contribution for those who are genuinely looking at the topic in this country.

I also want to make mention of the issue of the clash of the moment, which was again on the front page of one of the national dailies today—that is, the growing importance and value of the coal sector to the New South Wales budget and the growing clash of policy between the desire to export coal—again, regardless of climate change—and the importance of farming land and food products, both domestically and to contribute to exports generally. I know that the member for New England has been up to his eyeballs in this topic, in a positive way, and I endorse and support the work he has been doing and those who recognise the importance of protecting the food bowl areas of this country.

In the member for New England’s case, that is largely shaped around the Liverpool Plains in an area that has just been included in the Lyne electorate. We have a similar clash in regard to the Gloucester Basin, and I am sure there are many other locations around Australia where there is this sensitive, complex and difficult clash between the want for the minerals under the ground and the desire to keep food security and keep the farming industry in play in this country. I would hope that it is on the agenda of the minister and the executive to start to put some boundaries around food security and the importance of agricultural land in this country. Yes, by all means this country has the natural resources to participate in a mining boom, but we cannot give up the agriculture sector as a consequence. That would be long-term stupidity for all of us. So I endorse the ongoing campaign that is taking place on that front.

Finally, in the short time I have left, on the mid North Coast of New South Wales it is a pretty exciting time in the agriculture sector. We have been front and centre of the traditional industries of commercial fishing, timber, beef and dairy. All of them have been under the pump with regard to change: deregulation, sustainable practices and therefore changing practices. All of them have taken a hit over the last 15 to 20 years, but all are surviving. In many cases, those industries that have managed to ride out the last 15 to 20 years are stronger and are very well placed to continue to contribute to the supply of product in this country. As well, I am seeing some really fascinating and interesting new products on the Comboyne, which used to be all dairy. We are seeing avocados, blueberries and a whole range of new products coming into the mid North Coast. Markets like cut flowers are alive and kicking. Organics have hit the mid North Coast in a big way. I think these are a reflection, but an exciting reflection, of change and of the future markets, both in this country and overseas, that are available and therefore of the security of agriculture in this country. With a bit of support from government, we will be looking good. (Time expired)

See this speech in context