Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Labor are opposing the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 and in doing so we will be calling it what it is: a cut to agriculture R&D spending. This bill is taking a knife to R&D investment in agriculture and it is part of a much broader and much more serious set of cuts to research and development in Australia. But the focus today, and what I want to spend my time talking about, is agriculture: rural people, rural employment and the productivity of our rural industries. We know that the government, in speaking to this bill, are going to talk big on rural Australia, because that is what these guys are good at. We heard it from the member for Page, the member for Lyons, the member for Parkes, the member for Eden-Monaro—

Mr Pasin interjecting—

and, no doubt, soon enough we will hear it from the member for Barker. In fact, the member for Parkes talked about 'being in tune with the needs of country people'. Then, later, when this goes to a vote, he is going to cast a vote that will see a reduction in funding for R&D for agriculture. It is all talk and no action. They say all the right things at election time, but, when it comes time to make a vote, to make a decision, to cast a priority in favour of agriculture and rural people, that is not what these guys are going to do.

Labor is opposed to this bill not just because of the rank hypocrisy of it being put forward by the government but because Labor has always seen and always valued R&D for our agriculture sector. Labor created the research and development corporations model in 1989. Since that time, this model of investment has become the envy of the world; it has been copied right around the world. One of the distinctive features of the model that Labor put forward in 1989 was the principle of co-funding. We created the corporations and then we asked the people in industry who led those corporations what their priorities were. So it was not the old-school model of government knowing best and government knowing everything and telling agriculture what they needed to be spending their money on. We asked farmers and people who were advocating for their interests to tell us what was important, and then we matched them dollar for dollar. It has been an enormously successful program, and that is illustrated by the vast reach of these research development corporations. They have grown year on year, from the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd to Forest and Wood Products Australia Ltd; from Meat and Livestock Australia to Australian Wool Innovation Ltd; and there are many, many more.

What has the result been of that very clever policy design of R&D in agriculture? We know that, over the last 25 years, agriculture productivity has roughly doubled. This is one of the least supported industries by Australian government compared to other industries right around the world; it is one of the most efficient and least supported. We know, when we think about economic reform, that the agriculture and farming community have really done the heavy lifting. We have seen that in their returns in productivity. The research and development funding that has helped drive productivity has been an important part of the puzzle here. It is partly through investment, through research and development, that this has occurred.

Let us put the bill that we are discussing today into context. As quite a separate means of supporting and coordinating the activities of Australia's primary producers, the Australian government takes out membership of a range of international organisations. It does this because it is very much in Australia's interest to be part of international organisations that operate in the same sphere as our local producers. I make the point that, when we look overseas, when we look at our trading partners and when we look at our competitors, they are often countries where government has a much greater role in decisions that affect those different types of agricultural industries. A few examples of organisations of which the Australian government is a member: the International Sugar Organisation, the International Grains Council—and there are around six memberships in the international fishing area. You can imagine that that particular industry requires quite a deal of coordination.

What this bill seeks to do and the reason why it essentially, in effect, is a cut to R&D funding, is it forces the cost of membership for these organisations onto the research and development corporations. It basically says to industry: 'We just don't want to provide this for you anymore. If you want to pay those memberships then you can cut your own R&D funding, and that is how you will pay to be members of these international organisations.' It seems pretty cut and dried to me that that is exactly what is happening here.

It is a very disappointing direction to be moving in, for many reasons, but one that I want to go into a little bit is to do with the broader context of research and development in Australia. Some of the contributions that I have heard from those opposite have talked in lavish terms about an extra $100 million in R&D spending. It is, frankly, laughable, because what the government is doing is giving with one hand and then taking away a lot more with the other. Roughly speaking, when we talk about R&D, we get about $10 back for every $1 that is invested, as long as it is invested wisely. The National Farmers' Federation uses an $11 figure when talking about agricultural R&D. But when we look at other parts of the research and development space in Australia, we can see that there have been massive cuts to the area of rural research such as the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.

I want to start by talking about the CSIRO, because that is where the really big cut is biting from this last budget. We saw $147 million cut from the CSIRO and 500 jobs gone. These are incredibly savage cuts for an organisation that has served Australia so proudly in conducting basic research and more specific research over a long period of time. This is the organisation that invented polymer bank notes, advanced radio astronomy and wi-fi. Where would be without wi-fi today? That was $147 million. Then we have got the $80 million in cuts to cooperative research centres and the $11 million in reduced annual appropriation funding to the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. You can see why Australians right around the rural parts of the country are growing a little weary of these promises and the excitement with which Nationals and Liberals on the other side of the House talk about them. When we put them into context we can see that it is the Liberals doing what the Liberals do, and that is cutting these important programs that have supported us for a long time. It is particularly worrying that we are seeing this trend towards cutting back on R&D funding because the truth is that, in Australia at the moment, we do not spend enough money on research and development. Looking at our economy as a whole, when we take the last year of spending under this coalition government, we see that as a percentage of total GDP this government has spent less on research and development than in any other year on record. The records go back to 1978-1979, so we are looking quite a way back here. It goes to show the tremendous lack of vision of the people on the other side of the House that right at this time—this incredibly difficult time for our economy, as we are making the transition away from the mining investment boom—it is R&D that goes to the chopping block. It is just absolutely astounding.

I mentioned that our spending over this last year was the lowest on record. We are well below the OECD average. For a country like Australia, where all we have are the minds of the people of this nation and their inventiveness, it is no wonder that so many of our scientists and researchers are trying to make their way overseas—because the support just is not there.

The situation under this government is getting worse and worse. It is pretty much in concert with the overall approach to research and development that we see this savage cut that is part of the legislation before us. We see, again, this consistent theme of promising one thing, $100 million in additional R&D, and doing another—cutting hundreds of millions of dollars through a range of different cuts. We heard before the election that agriculture was going to be one of the big pillars of our economy but what we see instead is a lack of support on the other side leading to that pillar crumbling.

This is what we expect from the Liberals; but when you come into the chamber and talk about these issues—about rural people—what you do expect to see, at the very least, is the Nationals standing up for their communities and fighting for the rights of these people working in rural Australia, trying to make our agricultural sector more productive and continue the good work it is doing. It was a delight to be in the chamber when the member for Indi got up and made her contribution to this debate, because I do not think I have seen a country MP who is not on this Labor side of the House argue with such vigour and such passion for the things that are important to her community. I say to rural people: if you feel you are not getting good service out of your National MPs there are other independents out there, like the member for Indi, and I would urge you to look towards them, because she is giving very good representation to her constituents.

The Nationals, unfortunately, have gone missing on this important point of rural R&D. I say again, with much disappointment, that this is a recurring theme we have seen in this parliament in other areas of policy. We know, for example, things like university deregulation are going to hit rural and regional parts of the country much harder than they will hit our cities. We know that young people living in rural and regional Australia already face much more significant barriers to get to university. We know that once they get a job, if they decide to go back to their community—which I would assume that those on the other side of the House would be urging them to do—they will earn less than they probably would have if they had stayed in the city, where there are many more commercial opportunities. Yet what we see is those on the other side of the House paving a path for our universities to open up degrees that will cost $80,000 or $100,000. I know from the many friends I have in rural Australia—not people that I represent but people that I know—this will put in place insurmountable barriers to study. So where were the Nationals when this was being decided?

Drought funding is another terrific example of what a total failure these members of parliament have been in representing rural and regional Australia. Fourteen million dollars was allocated to drought funding in the previous financial year. Most of it went back into consolidated revenue and we have seen, on numerous occasions now, that the minister cannot even explain coherently how the funding was administered to people who needed that drought relief.

We see it in health. We heard 'no cuts to health' and I am sure rural Liberal and National MPs right around the country were going around their electorates excitedly telling people there would be no changes to health funding. But at the very first opportunity in the National and Liberal party rooms we had a $7 co-payment—a $7 tax on the sickest people in the country. We have had changes that mean people living in rural parts of the country will need to pay somewhere up to $1,000 or $2,000 for certain types of tests. We know that they will get some of that money refunded back; I absolutely acknowledge that. But you and I both know that there are many people in rural and regional Australia who are not going to be able to find a couple of thousand dollars to be able to take a test.

I had the great pleasure of talking to a doctor who serves a community in rural Victoria about this very issue. When I asked about what he thought would happen he just laughed and said, 'Well, of course, Clare, these people are just not going to take the test.' We came into the parliament and asked the minister: 'Have you factored in the additional costs of more people not having their cancer picked up early?' But of course they have not, because evidence and modelling are not of much interest to those ideologues who are making these big decisions, unfortunately, for the nation at the moment.

I will finish by coming back to this point about research. The most important thing we can do for agricultural communities is help them plan and build for the future. As I mentioned before, the NFF tells us that for every dollar we spend on agricultural R&D, we are going to get $11 back. It is a pretty good investment—it is a lot better than the stock market, especially when you look at recent years. But sometimes you come in here and you get the feeling that the Nationals and the Liberals who represent these communities have different vision of what it is to be a farmer in these modern times. It is science. It is innovation. It is productivity improvements, and these farmers are looking for support with those things. That is exactly why we like to advocate for spending on rural and regional R&D and spending on agriculture.

Modern farming needs scientists. It needs researchers. It needs inventiveness and creativity. We see that in farms right around the country and that is why Labor has put forward these models, which have been very innovative, to support research and development in agriculture. That is why we are opposing this savage cut to R&D today.

See this speech in context