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

It is always a privilege to follow the member for Kennedy and, if I could, before getting into the substance of the legislation, which I will be supporting, I would just like to make some comments in terms of some of the things that the member for Kennedy said.

He and I would probably disagree on the need for foreign aid and the need for some funding to go towards some of the poorer countries in the world. I think there are greater objectives to be achieved by having a more peaceful world. Obviously, when people are hungry or see others with a lot while they have very little, it leads to a whole range of political conflicts. People in various countries can construe the politics of the day—whether it be through religion, tribal backgrounds or sheer envy—to drive a whole range of political agendas. So I think there is a broader area in the world that we really need to participate in. We have some amazing technologies in agriculture that can make a very constructive contribution.

The member for Kennedy made some very important points about the country representation in this building and about how many people feel disenfranchised by the political process because they happen to live in the country. There are different numbers about, but there are probably less than 100,000 real farmers left in Australia. There are a number out there who actually participate in agriculture or own some sort of land but derive income from other areas. A lot of the people that the member for Kennedy is talking about are those real farmers that face a somewhat artificial domestic cost structure and believe that they are facing an artificial international environment in the markets they face. There is a degree of truth in that.

He also spoke about the issues of political representation and talked about how he left the National Party. I will always remember that before I had even met the member for Kennedy I heard him on the airwaves berating the National Party. I was in the state parliament at that particular time, so I came down to see him and we had a meeting. I will never forget—I hope that you are listening, Bob—the meeting we had in his office, where he ordered two steaks and two Cokes. The irrigation that he gave the steaks with salt was something to behold: the steak became white, and then he irrigated it again. Some years later I think he had a four-way bypass! It was an extraordinary first meeting, and I have loved the man ever since. We disagree on things, but one thing that I have never disagreed with Bob Katter on is that he, probably out of all of us, has the most passionate regard for the people that he represents. Occasionally, that runs in a different direction to many of us who live in the building, but I think that all of us have regard for that part of the member for Kennedy's representations. I think it is very obvious in his seat that the people appreciate that as well.

One thing that I think the broader political climate probably needs to pick up on is that country people have tended to think that, because they only make up 30 per cent of the population, they have to operate under the dictates of the majority parties, which are made up of the other 70 per cent from the cities. But when you look back through political history—and in the context of this particular parliament, where some people see it as odd that country members have some degree of say because there is the balance-of-power situation—there has not been a parliament since Federation where a country member of parliament has not held the balance of power. People say, 'Why haven't they done more?' The answer to that is the democratic processes of the major political parties, which are dominated by the city interests. You can see the focus on Western Sydney now in terms of the outcome of the next election—not western New South Wales but Western Sydney. There has not been a parliament since Federation where a country member of parliament has not held the balance of power.

They have been subsumed into those major parties. And, as Mr Katter said, the Liberal-National Party is a branch of the Liberal Party now. So there is this submerging of the country vote, with the National Party in particular, but the country Labor members have also merged into the city based majority parties. And the democratic process takes its course. Issues would be raised, and the member for Kennedy no doubt did raise issues in his particular caucus. And there is the weight of numbers, dominated by city interests and a view to Western Sydney, Western Melbourne and Western Brisbane for the next election. They would vote that down, so the democratic process takes its place.

I think country people fall into that trap. And I hope one of the legacies of this particular parliament—and I think this is where the member for Kennedy is coming from as well—is that they become more strategic in the way they vote; 30 per cent is not a majority and never will be, and neither is the seven per cent or something like that that the Greens get, but you can see the impact that they have had, as have the Democrats in the past, in influencing policy, not necessarily in favour of country people.

But there are opportunities there, and strategies there, for country people to express themselves in a much more strategic fashion than they have in the past. The member for Kennedy and I probably do not totally agree on the vehicle for achieving that, but the objective is one of better representations by country members for country people, rather than being consumed by the promise of a white car by a city based majority party, irrespective of whether that is Labor or Liberal.

I am in support of this legislation and have been campaigning for quite some years in relation to IFAD—since 2004, when the changes were made. There are a few people I would like to address in relation to that. A colleague of mine, who I actually went through university with—Andrew Macpherson—and his wife, Judi, have been very involved in providing international aid and Australian agricultural technology in various parts of the world but particularly in Africa. I congratulate Andy and his wife for the work they have done, not only in terms of food production but also in the education of African children. And some issues in relation to overseas children, which I have attempted to address, have been raised from time to time.

I mention those two people because they represent a large body of people out there: Australians who were educated in Australia, have grown up in a dry land environment and have enormous technological advantages over most of the rest of the world in delivering those services to dry land environments. The Europeans have not lived in that world and the Americans have not lived in that world, but Australians have. And the development of some of the farming, cropping and grazing technologies are things that we can be very proud of in Australia. And there have been enormous successes in parts of Africa. I was involved some years back with the Botswana government in the extension of no-till farming into those areas, where the soils can hold quite massive amounts of subsoil moisture. The increase in yield obtained from those technologies is quite something to behold.

So, if we are going to help people who are hungry or who will be hungry into the future, we have to assist in providing the technology. Otherwise, the results could come upon us. We have a relatively small population, with a large population next door. Say Indonesia becomes a hungry nation in 50 years time and is unable to feed itself adequately. We all know what hunger does to the human psyche.

I would just like to give an example of the magnitude of the issue. We are all hearing that the world is going to need to be fed, that the population is increasing at a rapid rate et cetera. I am a farmer, and my family are farmers and very proud of it. Some people would suggest that Australia has this great role to play in feeding the rest of the world.

Australia is a very dry environment. We all know that. Australia is not blessed with the best soils. That is why I and others keep talking about where the best soils are and how we should implement risk-aversion policies around some of the extractive activities associated with those soils, because where they are is generally where the water is. We have to make sure that we preserve those as much as possible. But, if you look at our place in the world, there is a misconception out there, even within the farming community from time to time. We have a role in world trade in the grain markets even though we grow relatively little grain compared to the big players. The little bit that we grow—the 20 or 30 million tonnes—can be significant in terms of the global balance from time to time.

If you look at other countries that have similar soils to our better soils, one example is the Sudan. I recognise that there are a whole range of issues there, with south and north Sudan and tribal and political strife. There are thousands of years of background there. The cow is a precious resource there. But, if you look at the boreal dynamics of the Sudan, for instance, they have six times the area of land that we have. They have good soil. They have six times the area of arable land that we have in total, and it is all good soil. Even though it is relatively dry in terms of rainfall, with the technologies that are available now there is plenty of moisture there to generate enormous food production. That one area of land could produce six times what we produce. If you asked most people in the street, they would probably say, 'They need help because they are starving from time to time.' Technology can improve that situation. IFAD has in the past been able to do that—2004 was a hiccup. We are back on deck now.

The beauty of IFAD, particularly in dry environments, although they also do a lot of work in other environments, is that they deliver expertise that has been proven here. The member for Kennedy hinted at this as well. It is a little bit political. Our population—and there is probably a total of one electorate of real farmers left in this country—has very little regard for what farmers do. That is one of the reasons that many people are looking at other parts of the world where there is concern around food production and those activities. A lot of other countries know what starvation is like. The Europeans know—they have developed quite insane policies in some senses, but they have developed those policies because of their history of food shortage. We are not and will never be in a circumstance in which we run out of food. That is one of the reasons why our farmers are taken for granted. We need the rest of the world more than the rest of the world needs us.

We overproduce in Australia and so about 70 or 80 per cent of what we produce has to be exported to some other country. That means we face the vagaries of the marketplace, and a large part of that market does not have the wealth to meet our cost structures. There are a whole range of issues there—including, obviously, the value of the dollar—and then there is the mining sector. The impact that has is quite significant as well.

I support the legislation. In conclusion, I want to thank Brooke Silvers, who did a lot of work on this as an intern working for me only a few months back last year. The parliamentary secretary spent some time with her as well. I thank her for the work that she did. I also thank Bob Carr—the Minister for Foreign Affairs has played a valuable role. But I particularly thank Andy and Judi Macpherson for bringing this to my attention many years ago and for the contribution they have made to IFAD and agriculture globally.

See this speech in context