Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Hansard source

As the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources indicated in the second reading speech, the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016 makes legislative changes to the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 which will allow the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to provide levy- and charge-payer information to rural research and development corporations for the purpose of developing levy-payer registers.

I begin my contribution by indicating that the opposition will be supporting this bill. It appears consistent with the findings of a number of parliamentary inquiries into the R&D levy system. But I will be raising, throughout of my contribution, some concerns we have about the lack of information and transparency. I think there are a number of questions left unanswered by the minister's second reading speech, the explanatory memorandum and other information we have been provided in the course of internal discussions on this legislation.

Because of the complex nature, in a sense, of the minister's contribution—and that is not a criticism; ministers in this place need to make straight-bat, direct second reading speeches—for those listening to this debate who do not understand those complexities because, arguably, they do not follow the agriculture and R&D levy system, I feel it is my duty to at least attempt to put what this bill seeks to do in plain English.

In this country, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, and as most people know, we have a world-class research and development system, a co-funded system which allows money raised from producers, growers and the like to be partly matched by government funding, further leveraging the money raised by levy payers, and then invested in the research and development system. It is a bit of a complex web, but, in the first instance, that money typically goes to agents and then, eventually, on to the department of agriculture as the holder of the money. It then makes its way to the research and development corporations. In this country we have five RDCs that are what we describe as a statutory bodies and I think nine that are best described as industry-owned bodies.

Up until the passage of this legislation, if it passes both houses of parliament, information about exactly who is paying what through the agents and to the agriculture department are not known to the people who spend the money—the research and develop corporations. This further exacerbates concern amongst many growers, producers and the like—fishers, foresters and the rest—over where their money is being spent. Obviously a number of producers, growers, pay more than one levy. Mixed farming operations will be paying a number of levies and even although those levies might be invested very wisely, because of the time lag and other reasons the producers often do not see the benefits of the levies. That is exacerbated when there is no real link between the RDC and the levy payer—in other words, the RDC does not have sufficient information about who and where the levy payer is.

Effectively, this bill will for the first time—although two commodity sectors, dairy and wool, have been able to do this for some time—allow all RDCs access to information about levy payers. It will allow them to access their name and address, their contact details and their Australian business number. At first glance that appears to be a good idea and the opposition is absolutely supportive of that concept. What concerns us, as I said, is that there are a few unanswered questions about how that information might be shared, and in particular, for example, how it might be shared by the peak industry bodies or councils. In this equation we have levy payers—producers, growers et cetera—we have agents collecting money, we have the department and we have the research bodies. For those who are not familiar with research bodies, I cite organisations like the Grains Research and Development Corporation or Meat and Livestock Australia. There are many more but I will not go through them all. They are the research bodies and in some cases the marketing bodies, and then of course there are the peak organisations—the Dairy Farmers' and Cattle Councils of the world; groups that often take membership fees and seek to represent and act as a voice for the industry.

I have questions about access to information by those peak industry bodies. The explanatory memorandum and the minister's second reading speech are quite vague about the protection of this information. I do acknowledge that the department secretary will be the arbiter in determining where this information is shared, if I understand it correctly, but I do note that the explanatory memorandum says that the release of data can be 'only permitted for specific uses which directly relate to improving consultation, voting systems and the operations of an RDC.' Even the use of the word 'and' I find confusing, uncertain and unclear in terms of definitions. These are very broad, sweeping statements. I am not suggesting they are not sufficient to give integrity to the new system that we require, but I am suggesting it is appropriate for questions to be asked about those issues.

I also note, thanks to the explanatory memorandum, that there is an opt-out clause and that any levy payer who does not want their name, contact details or ABN provided can opt out of the system but I cannot see any reference to how a farmer goes about opting out of the system—is it a simple phone call or do they have to go online to fill out a form or do they make three phone calls or do they have to write an essay? I do not know but it sounds to me as though there is the potential for there to be a red tape burden on a farmer, but I am concerned even more that a farmer is unlikely to know that he or she has the opportunity to opt out of the system. We would like to have these questions and others tested by the relevant Senate legislation committee to ensure that this legislation is robust and that our normal expectations about privacy are guaranteed, notwithstanding some of the guarantees made in the explanatory memorandum and I think potentially in the minister's second reading speech. We want some answers, and particularly we would like to get the secretary's views about the circumstances in which he would, for example, allow the MLA to share information with the Cattle Council. What would his interpretation be of the words in the explanatory memorandum around the criteria for the release of information? What would be his definition, for example, of directly relating to consultation, voting systems and the operations of an RDC? I think these are legitimate questions.

The opposition has no interest in holding up the bill, although the Senate seems to be doing a fair job of holding up bills itself. I notice we had a filibuster on the bill just before this debate because the government does not have enough ideas or policies to keep the House of Representatives going for the evening. The Senate is somewhat of a different proposition and it is likely to cause the government more problems than the opposition might in terms of delay, through the referral of the bill to a Senate committee.

We need to be sure that all the intentions of these changes are as stated and that there will not be an opportunity for levy payments to be misused, deliberately or otherwise, especially by peak industry bodies or councils, which might see an opportunity in using the information to promote their own views about the industry or to canvas other people's views or to run a political campaign. This information would be very powerful in the hands of a peak body, as it is something that has not been available to them before. It could dramatically change the dynamic of any particular sector and it might allow a peak body to advocate increases in levy charges directly to levy payers. These are legitimate questions and we will be seeking to have them answered in the Senate. I am sure that the secretary of the department will be able to help us out in that regard.

There are many facets to the research and development efforts in agriculture. As I said, it is a world-class system, but it is a system that can always be improved. I have previously talked about one RDC, the Grains Research and Development Corporation, using money beyond its statutory remit—money collected for certain purposes but used for other purposes. I have said before that Grains Research and Development Corporation is sponsoring conferences and paying for Alan Jones to go out on roadshows to talk to growers and the like. I cannot for the life of me see how that falls into the responsibilities of the Grains Research and Development Corporation.

The GRDC is a statutory corporation, an arm of the government, which collects and spends about $170 million of farmers 'income in any given year. We in this place, including the minister, should be making sure that that money is appropriately spent and well spent. As a statutory corporation, the GRDC has no marketing role—not without specific authority to do so and not without raising a specific marketing levy. The minister's silence on this issue has been deafening. I have called upon him on a number of occasions to haul the chair of the GRDC in to ask questions about the way levy money is being spent, but the minister has simply refused to do so. Of course, he might have chosen to do so privately, but he has not shared that information with me or the broader community. What the broader community and levy payers are entitled to know is not necessarily whether the minister has had that conversation, but whether the minister has secured some answers and outcomes. They are also entitled to know whether the minister is prepared to make some pronouncements, which might put the minds of levy payers at rest. Levy payers might then be assured that the substantial money they pay for research and development is being spent for those purposes. If you were to knock on the door of any grower around the country and ask them whether they believed an Alan Jones panel discussion in Toowoomba or anywhere else was value for money I am very confident that they would say. 'No.' I do note that on at least two of those panel discussions with Alan Jones conservative politicians have taken to the stage. I have asked Minister Joyce for a guarantee that he himself would not be taking the stage at future GRDC Alan Jones roadshows. He has not been prepared to give me an answer or a guarantee, although I do note that he has not appeared yet and so I suspect that, having belled the cat, he is not so unwise as to turn up to one of those events.

I also note that the crowds have not been particularly strong at these Alan Jones roadshows and again that underpins my concern that hard-earned grower money is being frittered away on sponsorships, roadshows commercials, et cetera, which in no way assist much-needed R&D efforts. R&D is too important to be treated in this way and money for R&D is too hard to get to be wasted on roadshows and the like. We know in Australian agriculture productivity has been flat lined for some time now, and our R&D, innovation and extension efforts will be critical in turning that around.

The government said before the election that it was going to spend some $100 million in addition to the current spend on R&D—$100 million over four years. We welcomed that pronouncement, but what the government did not tell us at the time was that it also proposed to cut money from one RDC, the rural industries RDC—it never explained why this but no other one—and further substantial cuts to the CSIRO and a number of CRCs. Indeed, the cuts imposed elsewhere on agriculture are greater than the $100 million additional being spent on other RDCs. In round 1 some $26.7 million was spent, while not one cent has been spent in round 2, which has been out there for some time. I will make a prediction that some of the money in round 2 will be announced prior to the election, whenever that might be—sometime in the not too distant future, I suspect. The equation is a simple one: more than $100 million has been taken out of R&D areas affecting agriculture and, of the $100 million put back in on the other side of the equation, only $26.7 million will be allocated over four years. It is no longer $100 million over four years; it is $26.7 million over four years. It will not be spent before the election, no matter when they announce it. That is a substantial loss to the industries. Given those cutbacks, the minister needs to ensure that the reduced money is being spent effectively.

There is more to this, of course, because we know that the minister is still determined, I am told, to move the RDCs out of Canberra and into regional areas. I will not dwell on this for too long because I have laboured it before, but, basically, despite their names, research and development corporations do not undertake research. They do not undertake research; they take levy payers' money from the department and make decisions about where that research should be spent. That is where this new database is important, because now they can communicate directly with those who pay the levy. That will no doubt assist RDCs in setting their research priorities. This idea proffered by the minister that we need to get the RDCs out closer to the growers and the producers is a fiction. They do not need to be out closer to the growers and the produces. They do need to be situated where they are efficient and, of course, they do need to be able to retain professional staff. Moving them out of Canberra is not going to help that effort. Indeed, they are likely to lose good staff. The transition out of Canberra to various regional areas is going to cost substantially. Part of that cost will be very significant redundancy payments, which, of course, is less money available to spend on agriculture research and development.

I will just briefly touch on the APVMA. It is not necessarily directly related to this bill, but the APVMA is another Canberra based organisation, or regulator, critical to the future of agriculture in this country. The relocation—the forced move—of the APVMA, outrageously to the minister's own electorate in Armidale, is nothing more than a pork-barrelling exercise which is going to dramatically impact on agriculture. Agriculture needs the regulator to push through the process for those crop protection chemicals and other products as quickly as possible. The APVMA move is going to cause a dramatic loss of professional staff, scientists and the like. Again, there will be redundancy costs, because those scientists and professionals, with their kids in school in Canberra, are simply not going to be prepared to move to Armidale. The APVMA's customers are not farmers; they are the chemical companies—often multinational chemical companies—based in here or in other capital cities. They are not going to be very happy, I am sure, about the prospect of getting a once-a-day, or whatever it is, plane to Armidale every time they need to talk to the APVMA.

I just want to go back to GRDC because it is linked to the concerns I have raised about this bill and the questions that we want to test in the Senate committee. In my view, when the GRDC starts spending money outside its remit, it lowers trust in the grower community. I am sure plenty of growers out there have less trust, or less confidence, in the GRDC today than it did before it started the Alan Jones roadshow. So that undermines confidence. On that basis, we need to be able to test these questions in the Senate. Of course, we will be doing so on behalf of those growers who pay those levies.

The other point is: this is a minister, in a sense, asking us to take him on trust. This is the same minister that doctored his Hansard, misled the House on the Hansard and is now fighting at every opportunity to stop us procuring under FOI documents that go to both the circumstances in which that Hansard was changed and the circumstances in which a very good departmental secretary, in the name of Dr Grimes, was sacked from his position. So this is not a minister we take on trust. These are not necessarily changes that we take on trust for very good reason, and we will be testing them through the Senate process.

I saw the minister's media release on this change in this bill. It was a reasonable explanation about what this bill seeks to do, but let us not get too carried away with what it achieves. It is a step in the right direction. It is one which we will support if our answers are provided. There are two reports relevant to this bill from the Senate, neither of which have been properly responded to by this government. In particular, the report specific to the R&D system has not been responded to by this minister. The cattle transaction levy inquiry, so promoted by the minister during the last election campaign, has been done and dusted, but it has still not been specifically responded to—I should not say 'not specifically responded to'; not adequately responded to by the minister. It is always very easy from opposition to make promises to the beef industry, the cattlemen, but the minister has found out it is not so easy in government. I will be asking Labor senators on the committee to test any relationship between what the minister was trying to do but was unable to do when, pre-election, he was promising new arrangements in the beef industry and this bill. I will be interested to see what departmental officials have to say about that.

There are many things that the minister could be doing for this sector that he is not doing. We saw a white paper that was failed white paper, lacking any strategic narrative. We hear lots about dams which we know have either already started or will never come to fruition. Today, the minister was boasting that the government was going to change section 46 of the Trade Practices Act. I know that that will be popular in some rural seats. I know that members on the other side will be out there exploiting it, but this is bad policy. We know it is bad policy. The Treasurer knows—

See this speech in context