Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I could mention Mark Hoskinson, I could mention Anthony Quinn and I could mention so many more but I do want to get onto the important aspects of this debate. These people bemoan the woeful record that Labor has on agriculture and they bemoan the fact that so much money is not being spent on vital components of the farming industry to bring it back to where it was, even to the days of the Howard government when so much more emphasis was placed on that vital sector.

The debate on the International Fund for Agricultural Development Amendment Bill 2012 is an important debate to be having in the first sitting week of 2013. The bill will allow Australia to countenance the agreement establishing the International Fund for Agricultural Development under Australian law. The International Fund for Agricultural Development is a specially tasked agency of the United Nations—it was established in 1977 to fund agricultural development projects in developing countries. Australia was a member of IFAD at its inception. In 2004 the then Howard Liberal-Anderson Nationals government announced its intention to pull out of the fund. There were several compelling reasons for doing this. The coalition government at the time cited:

Withdrawing from a UN sponsored organisation, as the member for Wannon pointed out earlier today, is not a decision taken lightly and it is not an easy process.

In November 2009, the then Labor Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, agreed to undertake an assessment of IFAD's operations to gauge Australia's future involvement. Released in April 2011, the review of Australia's engagement with IFAD stated:

In 2004 these were clearly valid and important enough reasons for Australia to take the significant (and protracted) step of withdrawing from a UN organisation.

While the review is understanding of Australia's re-engagement with the fund, it noted, significantly, that challenges remain in human resources and financial management. It further stated:

If Australia were to rejoin IFAD as a contributing member, the Australian Government … need to ensure it provides the financial and human resources required to support the level of engagement it seeks.

Australia is the only Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country and one of only two G20 countries which is not a member of IFAD. Twelve months ago, the government announced Australia's intention to rejoin IFAD. In the 2012-13 budget the Australian government committed $126.4 million over four years to enable Australia to rejoin IFAD. Funding for this measure will be offset from the provision for expanded aid funding held in the contingency reserve.

In June 2012, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommended that binding treaty action be taken to enable Australia to rejoin the International Fund for Agricultural Development. No dissenting report was recorded. In September 2012, the bill was considered by shadow cabinet, which agreed to the recommendation that it be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade for more detailed consideration. Chiefly, the committee was asked to determine whether the International Fund for Agricultural Development had fully addressed the concerns raised by the former Howard-Anderson government which prompted Australia to withdraw from the organisation in 2004, and consider the additional financial and human resources required by AusAID to support Australia's participation in IFAD.

While modification of the organisation has been made since Australia's withdrawal, it is apparent from evidence presented to the committee that the concerns of the former Howard-Anderson government have not yet been fully addressed. In a dissenting report, coalition committee members recommended that the bill be held over, delayed, until such time as the issues the Howard-Anderson government put forward are fully addressed and the impact of the restructure started by the organisation's new management is known and properly assessed. Unless this is done we cannot and will not support this bill. Labor's lack of due diligence on this and on so many issues has been a millstone around the neck of national progress, particularly in the area of agriculture.

As we just heard from the shadow agriculture minister, he is extremely disappointed that his portfolio has been plundered—his word—while there has been so much wasteful spending by Labor. He is right to point out that the agriculture budget has been pared back by the Gillard government, which has overseen a net debt of more than $150 billion. That is a $220 billion turnaround from the $70 billion left in the bank by the Howard government. It is shameful that spending on agriculture has been reduced from $3.8 billion in 2007 to a paltry $1.7 billion this financial year. Looking more closely at agriculture funding, you find that, of the $1.7 billion, more than $700 million is funded directly by industry through levies or cost recovery; there is around $250 million matching research and development contributions by government under legislation; and, remarkably, there is just $134 million in the current budget year for programs to support agriculture. For an industry which made this nation great and largely made this country what it is today, that is appallingly woeful.

More priority and Commonwealth money are required to ensure these industries remain not just viable but booming. Into the future, food availability and food security will be the greatest challenge of our times, irrespective of what anyone's beliefs are on the climate debate. The global population, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, is set to explode and with it the demand for food. In the next 50 years, according to a landmark 2009 speech made by the head of Australia's national science agency, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Megan Clark, people will consume more food than we have in all of human history.

Virtually all future population growth will be in developing countries, and the poorest of these countries will see the greatest percentage increase. As defined by the United Nations, the 48 countries most affected have especially low incomes, high economic vulnerability and poor economic development indicators such as low life expectancy at birth, very low per capita income and low levels of education. It is in Australia's interests, as the member for Grey quite correctly pointed out, to help them meet the challenges that they are facing, certainly in food availability and food security, and making sure that our taxpayers' money is well spent—every single dollar of it. Certainly, the millions of dollars that are going to be expended if we rejoin IFAD—the $126 million over the next four years—has to be well spent.

Notably, since coming to government, Labor has cut $32.8 million from the agriculture department's already strained operating resources and $33.4 million from cooperative research centres so that fewer CRCs are funded each year. As most of the CRCs are agriculturally based, this means less funding for agriculture. Labor has also cut $63 million from agriculture research within the CSIRO and closed CSIRO agriculture research sites in Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia. Labor scrapped Land and Water Australia, and also planned to cut R&D funding and had a productivity report to support that. However, the coalition's ongoing commitment to increase agriculture R&D shamed the government out of it.

Meanwhile, billions of dollars have been brought forward to fund more water buybacks. For every $5 spent on water buybacks, only $1 went back into water-saving infrastructure, guaranteeing many communities will go from a climatic drought straight into a Labor-made drought. Very little money has been spent on water infrastructure either in system or on farm. Labor's suspension of live exports to even Indonesian abattoirs practising good animal welfare standards put at risk a $1 billion industry and set back animal welfare, weakened industry confidence and threatened jobs. It had that much of a flow-on effect that it even threatened jobs in the Riverina. It also sent a clear signal around the world that Australia, under Labor, is a sovereign risk and cannot be trusted, according to many.

Now, Labor has elevated one of those most vocal in the anti-live-animal export debate, the member for Wills, to the position of Parliamentary Secretary for Trade. The irony of that has not been lost on Australian farmers, particularly Australian beef producers.

Furthermore, while Australian industries are struggling with the high Australian dollar, this government continues to make it more difficult with its insidious carbon tax, with more costs shifting to industry and increasing costs from effective regulation—I should say 'excessive regulation'; there is not too much effective regulation under the Labor government. Labor has cut the 40 per cent rebate for export certification, making exports unviable for many visiting exporters and prohibitive for new or emerging industries. The government has underresourced Biosecurity Australia, with myrtle rust endemic and the Asian honey bee not eradicated—two clear examples which are having and will continue to have a profound negative impact on Australian industries and our biodiversity. Now the government is moving to remove mandated levels of inspections, not for efficiency but so it can shift costs onto industry. We have already seen 97 staff move from airport biosecurity funded by the Commonwealth to cargo quarantine funded by industry.

Then we have the new legislation for the chemical regulator. This new legislation has ignored stakeholder concerns and will hugely increase regulation, increase the cost of chemical registration by one-third, or around $8 million, and add another layer of red tape—red tape and green tape which we are bogged down by and mired under and which we do not need. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has a mere $134 million in government funding for programs to support the development of this great nation's agricultural industries. As the member for Calare, the shadow minister for agriculture and food security, the member for Grey and, I am sure, the member for Cowper would agree—and, behind me, I am sure the members for Kennedy and New England would also agree—our farmers are the best in the world. They use world's best practice. They are producing more and more with less and less. They use less land and less water and yet they continue to be resilient. They need our help. They need this government's protection and they need to be preserved and protected at all costs.

How much does this government spend on foreign aid? It is $4.8 billion. That is a lot of money. All of our electorate offices get asked: why are we spending so much on foreign aid? But foreign aid is important, as the coalition readily agrees. We do need to help these developing countries with food security to get them to a state where they can beat poverty and hunger. Only last Thursday, I attended in Wagga a mayoral afternoon tea with Wagga Wagga's mayor, Councillor Rod Kendall, to acknowledge the Charles Sturt University AusAID scholars. In all, six students are taking advantage of Commonwealth scholarships as people who will make a difference to their own countries from experiences gained here. I acknowledge the role that Labor is playing in that by funding that very important program. CSU staff members tell me they are learning plenty from these students in return. At this afternoon tea, I met Sarah Jamal; CSU Head of Campus Adrian Lindner, who was glowing in his praise for it; Nimal Mohamed; CSU learning skills adviser in English language Robert Lewis; and Bui Ngoc Nguyen from Vietnam, who is studying sustainable agriculture. Sarah and Nimal are from the Maldives and are studying rehabilitation science. It is an important program that the Commonwealth is funding to assist these students to go back to their own countries and help people there.

However, this bill needs to be rejected. It is not supported by the coalition and I certainly do not support it as the member for Riverina.

See this speech in context