Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like the attention of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to be drawn to some of the deficiencies in the drought administration as it now operates. The area south of Hughenden, the southern half of North Queensland’s mid-west, was in very serious drought. A large number of stations were in that situation, but a survey only took into account a number of stations in the Hughenden shire area—Flinders, if you like—that in fact had not bad rainfall. The area that was very badly short of rain was not surveyed at all. So we would ask the minister to look again at the anomalies that led to that arising and also to have a look and see if we can help those people south of Hughenden that are in this situation.

The second part of the Appropriation (Drought and Equine Influenza Assistance) Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and the Appropriation (Drought and Equine Influenza Assistance) Bill (No. 2) 2007-2008 are about the issue of equine flu. The contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Wide Bay, was a most extraordinary contribution. One has to really wonder about a party that would put a person like that up front. We are talking about quarantine. Let us go through it. He allowed the grapes in from California in the same month that one-tenth of the entire grape production in California was wrecked by Pierce’s disease. There was damage done to the Australian industry by these imports, even without the disease. When he was confronted at the central council meeting of the National Party—by no less a person than Jeff Seeney, until recently the Leader of the Opposition in the Queensland parliament—his reply was that it only affected Queensland. We did not have to worry about the grapes coming in from California, because it only affected Queensland—that was his answer! If anyone doubts me, they can ask Mr Seeney. That is what was said. Mr Seeney was very, very angry indeed. Let us move on.

On the issue of pork, the outcome before the High Court was that the pork farmer lost the pork case. The reason they lost was that the High Court said there were actually no guidelines by which a decision could be made. They could not say it was a bad decision, because there were no rule in there by which to make a decision. There could have been no more scathing indictment of the quarantine services of this country than that passed by the High Court in the pork case. Let us move on.

Black sigatoka came in and cost us nearly $100 million in the banana industry. Every single quarantine official said that it had come in from the Torres Strait. I was the minister for the Torres Strait for nearly a decade, so I speak with very great authority. It is very simple—very, very simple—as I have told the quarantine service again and again: there are only two ways that anything can get in from the Torres Strait to Australia. There are private aeroplanes, but that is negligible. The main way is the Jardine ferry. Everything has to go across on the Jardine ferry. Unless you want to go through four feet of water, you have to go on the Jardine ferry. So all you have to do is pay the ferryman to check that no bananas or vegetable matter are coming in from the Torres Strait, and have checks at the Horn Island airport. That is all you have to do to stop anything coming in from those areas.

Spiraling whitefly, which would be absolutely devastating to the Australian beef industry; bluetongue disease; and most certainly foot-and-mouth disease are all endemic in the Indonesian archipelago, and yet there is nothing to stop them from coming into Australia; there has been no effort made to pay the ferryman at Jardine, and there has been no effort to pay anyone at the Horn Island airport. So we got the black sigatoka and it cost us $100 million. Let us move on.

The former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry actually raised the issue of citrus canker. After having read the Australian newspaper, the last thing that I would ever raise if I were that member—the Leader of the National Party, as he is now—would be the issue of citrus canker. There were very serious issues raised about this. It is some reflection upon this House that the former minister has never been asked to front his responsibilities and the fact that citrus canker came in at Emerald, where people had—as the media reported—brought product in from overseas with the agreement of the quarantine service, which the former minister was responsible for.

Whether the former minister knew of the special permit that was given for them to bring matter in that obviously had citrus canker in it is something that I think the current government should have a look at. There were some generous donations involved, according to the newspaper. I will say no more. But I would not have raised it if I were the Leader of the National Party—it would have been the last thing I would ever have raised. But he has never been noted for intelligence—no, I withdraw that remark unequivocally.

Beef is arguably the fourth biggest product in this nation—most certainly the biggest agricultural industry is the beef industry. None less than Senator Heffernan expressed his absolute disgust that the quarantine service, for which the former minister was responsible, allowed beef to come in from Brazil, a foot-and-mouth diseased country—and from a part of that country that was provisionally declared at the time the beef came in—and it ended up on the Wagga Wagga dump, where pigs regularly eat.

This man has got away with the most incredibly irresponsible behaviour. It is no use for you to say it was some officer in the department that was to blame. If you are the minister, you are to blame. I was the minister for the best part of a decade and, if something went wrong, I knew it was my fault. I never resiled from my responsibilities. On two occasions I handed in my resignation to the then Premier, because I thought things had gone wrong and I knew that it was my duty to take full responsibility for it. No responsibility has been taken by this ex-minister in his entire history in this place—not once. Yet he should take responsibility for losing four seats in the last election for his party—the Liberal Party in one case—Page, Flynn, Dawson and the Liberal seat of Leichhardt.

For those of you not familiar with the sugar industry, there was a burning issue. It was the issue of ethanol. This former minister is on record again and again in this place making negative statements about ethanol. So who is to take responsibility for the loss of those seats? I will tell you who is to take responsibility for the loss of those seats: the minister. It was his responsibility as agriculture minister to introduce the use of ethanol in Australia—like every other responsible country in the world is doing. Canada, Brazil and the United States have done it and even countries that cannot grow grain or sugar cane are doing it, such as Europe and Japan. But no-one takes responsibility. In fact, he got promoted. Do you think you can go forward with a person that has provided you with that sort of leadership?

Let me move back to AQIS for a moment—to the subject of white spot in prawns. Imported prawns were allowed into this country from countries that had white spot. So we had an outbreak of white spot which devastatingly damaged the prawn-farming industries of Australia. Is there anything that has not been wrecked here by the irresponsibility of the people responsible for AQIS in this place?

The papaya fruit fly cost us $75 million. It came in from the Torres Strait. Where was the paying of the ferryman to inspect product coming down from the Torres Strait? Where was the paying of the people at Horn Island? These were the simplest of actions that needed to be taken—and it was $75 million of taxpayers’ money gone. Now some people have been bankrupted and are living in sheds—and I do not hesitate to name the founders of the coffee industry in Australia, the Jaques family, people who were reduced to penury by the irresponsibility of this minister and his administration. But they have fought back yet again successfully.

Let me move on. The ex-minister spoke about the diversion of the northern floodwaters. I thought that was a beauty. He spent a lot of his speech saying it was raining in one part of the state and there was drought in another. This came as a great revelation to all of us! Having come up with this marvellous breakthrough in understanding the geography of Queensland, he then said we should harvest the floodwaters of North Queensland and divert them south. In fact, his Premier, Peter Beattie, proposed that and yet his party attacked Premier Beattie when he proposed it! And in all my years in this place I have never heard him open his mouth on this. Who was responsible? Who was the minister that should have been damming those floodwaters and making use of the great resources that God has given us? Who was it that should have been helping people who did not have much water—such as those in Central Queensland, for example? I am not saying it should go to southern Queensland, but most certainly to Central Queensland. Who should have been doing that? The person who should have been doing it was the minister for agriculture. After 12 years in government, he stands up here and says that—even after his own party has attacked Mr Beattie for making the proposal.

Mal Brough, who is no longer in this place, advocated the same thing on numerous occasions, but he was given no support by the minister for agriculture. The current Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson, whose electorate is very suitably named the Bradfield electorate—after the great man who proposed the diversion of some of these massive waters of North Queensland into Central Queensland—advocated it. He got no support from the current leader of the National Party—not a word of support in 10 years. Senator Heffernan, a great advocate for the development of water resources in our nation, has had no support from this particular person. In the mandatory code of conduct, where we desperately needed assistance to fight off the two great oligopolies that have 82 per cent of the retail fruit and vegetable industry in Australia, this person actually ensured as the minister that it would not go there. Peter McGauran quite clearly was fighting tenaciously on behalf of the farmers. Did he receive any support from this minister? No, of course he didn’t. If this minister had backed him in cabinet then we would not have the ridiculous mandatory code of conduct that we have today. Minister Dutton, who did an excellent job—he has been one of the finest and most successful ministers in this place—went out very courageously fighting the battle of the managed investment schemes that desperately needed to be assailed for the good of the farmers of Australia. Did he get any support? No, he didn’t. He fought the battle courageously by himself and half-won the battle for us, and God bless him. But God will not bless those people who did not support Dutton. They did not support him publicly and they did not support him privately. So all the more power to him!

The former minister mentioned woody weeds. I happen to represent an electorate that is suffering from what has been described as the greatest environmental holocaust in Australian history—the acacia prickly tree, which has now gobbled up six million hectares—almost an area the size of Tasmania—in 30 years. All native flora and fauna have been destroyed by it. Who was the minister responsible for dealing with this issue and for doing something about the destruction of all this magnificent area, an area which is described on the old map of Queensland as being the richest natural grasslands in Australia? That pasture was utterly destroyed by the prickly acacia tree. Whose job was it to protect those grasslands and our native flora and fauna? It was this ex-minister—and he comes in here and has the hide to start pointing the finger at the Labor Party for doing nothing about woody weeds! They have been here for 10 minutes! It absolutely amazes me that a party that is trying to fight back into existence would put this man up front.

But I have not finished there. He then attacked them for taking funds away and said, ‘We had put in huge amounts of funds.’ I will tell you the funds that he put into agriculture. He gave us a buyout so that he could win back the votes of the fishermen. He gave us a buyout after closing down about 2,000 fishermen in Australia. He took their livelihoods away and gave them some ridiculously small figure to compensate them for the loss of what had been a great business for some 2,000 Australian fishermen. Unfortunately for us, 700 of them were in North Queensland.

He gave us compensation of $150,000. The tobacco farmers, who were earning on average $200,000 a year, were completely destroyed. There were 2,000 tobacco farmers in Australia and now there is none. They were completely destroyed and got $150,000 in return. He said, ‘We gave them this money.’ Yes, he did, but he took away their right to make a living and he gave them a pittance in return to try and buy his way through the election because of his misdemeanours. A lot of those people, sadly, still vote for that party. They still have loyalty. They still believe in the National Party, even after what has been done to them.

The egg industry got compensation, but only after they took 2,000 egg farmers out of the industry. There were over 2,000 in the egg industry, now there are fewer than 300. The sugar industry signed a deregulation agreement with the ALP. I am told it came out of Canberra. Whether it came out of Canberra or out of Brisbane, who cares, the net result was the deregulation of the sugar industry and the removal of tariffs. The ALP removed half. But this man who purports to represent farmers took the other 50 per cent of the tariffs away. Of course, our incomes on the Australian market then dropped by 50 per cent. In the supermarkets, Mr Woolworths and Mr Coles did not drop the price to the consumers, nor did they drop the price to the consumer for dairy products. I sat with five members of my old party and their faces went white when they saw this ex-minister’s press release where it said, ‘We will give $150,000 to every farmer, but only if every state deregulates.’ He held a gun to their heads. It was politically stupid, of course, because I think the Labor governments would probably have done it anyway. He forced them to do it which meant of course that the targets were pinned onto the National Party. I said to one senator there that day: ‘You’re a great free trader. You should be very happy about this event.’ He said, ‘Yes, but I did not want us to be blamed for it.’ Well, blamed they were.

If I speak with some passion and rage, it is because I represented nearly 300 dairy farmers; I now represent fewer than eight. Every single one of those people who exited the industry represent heartbreak and bankruptcy. Those people got up at 5.30 in the morning and were still milking cows at seven o’clock at night. They employed nobody; they did everything themselves. Those people were shattered. A lot of them are still showing loyalty to this party. Those poor people. What great deception has been worked upon them. This ex-minister forced the issue with his statement, and five of them who were there that day went white in the face.

I should say this: Ian Causley fought like a tiger against that dairy deregulation. Larry Anthony could not go public, unfortunately for him. He was diametrically opposed to that deregulation. I was diametrically opposed. It was Julian McGauran who raised it. For those people who represent the National Party in this place, reflect upon the fact that, within four years, Causley had resigned—and there was no way they could hold the seat once he had resigned—Julian had joined the Liberal Party, I had become an Independent and poor old Larry, one of the best men in this place, had lost his seat in parliament. He was loyal to the government, he had cabinet solidarity and he had a sense of decency, but it cost him his seat in parliament. This place lost a great member of parliament. So four were lost, and whose responsibility was it? It was the bloke who has just been made Leader of the Nationals. He pontificated in this place earlier today and told us all about woody weeds, how much money he had given to close down all these industries and how we should divert the northern floodwaters.

In speaking to this legislation today, and speaking with some considerable passion, it is my sad and sorry lot in this place to represent dairy farmers. Every four days in Australia, a dairy farmer commits suicide. But if I speak with passion and try and hurt some of the people who have hurt us so dreadfully then I am entitled to, just as the good Lord whacked into those moneychangers in the temple. There are not anywhere near as many sugar farmers as there are dairy farmers. We are closing four mills every three years. We only have 24 mills left. Brazil is opening 25 new mills every year, because they have ethanol and we do not. We pay $1.40 for our petrol and the Brazilians pay 74c. Whose fault is that? Who was the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and who was the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in this place back then? In the trials at Nuremberg, the prosecutor listened to all the terrible people called Nazis. Each of them blamed public opinion, Hitler or the army. They all had somebody to blame. Why did 30 million people die in the Second World War, six million poor Jews in the concentration camps? The reason for that obviously was the penguins in Antarctica. Why is it that a dairy farmer commits suicide every four days in Australia and a sugar farmer commits suicide every two months in Australia? Someone is responsible for that. Unfortunately and sadly for me, I know the sugarcane farmers personally. This place must take responsibility. (Time expired)

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank those contributors to the debate, both the Leader of the Nationals and the member for Kennedy. I understand the member for Kennedy’s passion, particularly with respect to the sugar industry. Within a couple of weeks of receiving this portfolio, I was pleased to meet some of those people who work in the sugar industry in his electorate in the town of Innisfail. On some of the issues that the member for Kennedy raised, I have spoken to the departmental officers concerned, and I undertake to report back to him on the issues he raised with respect to EC funding to the south of Hughenden. I will report back to him on that. Also, I will make some further inquiries on some important issues he raised concerning border integrity with respect to the Torres Strait. I do understand the member for Kennedy’s passion with respect to quarantine and the threats that an inadequate system can pose to the nation, particularly to those involved in our primary industries. We will have more to say about that later.

I would also like to make comment, before I get to my closing remarks, on the comments made by the Leader of the Nationals. If you listened to what the Leader of the Nationals said on radio and what he said today in this place, you would think you were listening to two different people, because there is no relationship between the two concepts at all. We had something verging on reasonable in the chamber today when he had all his peers watching, but when the Leader of the Nationals has been on radio there have been extraordinary claims. The comment was made, which Labor had raised prior to the election, that if we were successful we would conduct a review to see how exceptional circumstances funding could be improved. We had outrage from the Leader of the Nationals on the radio saying that this was putting everything under threat. Then, having caused a stir in the community, having tried to make a whole lot of people in a desperate situation frightened about what the future would hold, he comes into this chamber and says, ‘We’re not critical of there being a review.’ Don’t say one thing in here and send a completely different message to the rest of the Australian public. It does farmers no good at all to have a fear campaign that simply makes them think they are not entitled to assistance to which they are patently entitled.

The Leader of the Nationals said, ‘Labor’s got form on exceptional circumstances.’ You bet we have form on it. We started it in 1992. It is a Labor reform which has always enjoyed, at each stage of its development, bipartisan support. When we were in government and we introduced exceptional circumstances funding, we had the full support of the opposition—at that time they were responsible in the way they dealt with that. When the government changed in 1996, exceptional circumstances funding continued to have bipartisan support across the chamber. It was not until we had the comments of the Leader of the Nationals in this parliament subsequent to the election that we had the first signs—since exceptional circumstances funding was first introduced—that that bipartisanship is going to be dropped.

In terms of getting a good outcome for our primary producers, the members of the National Party in this chamber should have a talk to each other—and it will not be hard; there are only 10 now, so there are not that many of them—about the implications of turning exceptional circumstances funding into a party political issue. Since 1992 it has not been, and it would be a very big step. If they do want to take that step, my second piece of advice is: work out how it works. I was astonished to see, following the statement about savings measures that was made by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, a media release go out and media comment be made by the Leader of the Nationals. The Leader of the Nationals heard that there were some areas where what had previously been forecast was going to be reduced and he put out a media release about what a disgrace this was. It says:

“The announcement today by Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner that drought funding will be cut – while much of the country remains mired in a big dry that has lasted up to seven years – is incredibly hard-hearted and short-sighted,” Mr Truss said.

He used to be the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. He ought to understand how it works.

In September, when the drought was looking worse, more appropriations were required. When the outlook is worse, in a demand-driven program you do not change the rules for who qualifies so that when times are tougher more people will qualify and you will need more money. When the forecasts improve because there has been sustained rain in some—not all—parts of Australia, you do not change the eligibility rules; you have to change the forecasts. This means either one of two things. One of the following two things has to be true—and I am not sure which is more frightening. Either the Leader of the Nationals knew full well what was going on, decided to con the people of rural and regional Australia about what was happening with the exceptional circumstances forecasts being changed and ran a scare campaign so that people who were eligible might not even bother to apply, because he put the message out that the changes had all gone through, or—actually, I reckon this one is more frightening—he just does not understand how it works. Given that he used to be the minister for agriculture, you would want to think he at least understands how exceptional circumstances works. But with the fear campaign that he has run, completely irresponsibly and only to the detriment of primary producers, we have ended up with a situation where the explanation is either that he did not understand it or that he did understand it and decided to run the fear campaign anyway.

The great irony of it is that, having run the whole fear campaign, he then comes into the parliament to speak about the Appropriation (Drought and Equine Influenza Assistance) Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and the Appropriation (Drought and Equine Influenza Assistance) Bill (No. 2) 2007-2008, appropriation legislation that is about providing more money. How do you know that appropriation legislation providing more money is coming up and then speak to it while at the same time running a fear campaign saying the government are not looking after the farmers because everything is being cut? If everything is being cut, we are letting down the farmers and all the things that the Leader of the Nationals has claimed are true, why do we have appropriation legislation before the parliament right now for more money? When you make cuts in agriculture and you are taking away a whole lot of entitlements for farmers, it is unlikely that in the process you will be spending more. Yet we have appropriation legislation that has been on the Notice Paper. When money is being appropriated it is because the money is going to the department; that is the concept of an appropriation. I think every other member in the parliament understands that. It is a bit tragic that the person who does not understand it is leading the political party that claims it is the representative of the bush. It is an extraordinary claim.

As we go through the first speeches, which are going to start the moment I sit down, I will enjoy hearing the stories and finding out the number of people who now represent this side of the House who have significant primary producers within their seats—including, as the member for Kennedy said, those sugar seats that were won by the government at the election. Anyone who wants to claim that the National Party represents the bush really needs to have another look at what the people in the bush are deciding to do with their votes.

The appropriation bills before us will provide additional funding for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to continue delivering drought relief and to provide assistance to the horse industry as a result of the equine influenza outbreak. Given the comments from the member for Wide Bay, the Leader of the National Party, I must say that for him to be in here speaking on funding to do with the outbreak of equine influenza holds a very deep irony. I will have to await the outcome of the inquiries currently underway before I have an opportunity to say more, but I suspect the opportunity to say more will come.

The measures were announced last year by the previous government as drought conditions worsened and, as conditions improved subsequently, the measures were modified to provide an immediate response to the equine influenza outbreak last August. I am pleased to advise the House that, despite the concerns about how the outbreak initially occurred, it does appear that the measures taken subsequently mean that we are hopeful—and I do not want to be overly optimistic—that by 14 March there will no longer be red and purple zones in Australia with respect to equine influenza. There is still a way to go. A lot of people have had intense hardship on this—and I have to say that they include a lot of small businesses. They have fallen shy of the guidelines but have suffered in a very serious way. The equine influenza assistance would have run out on 8 February—last week—but it will now continue until 14 March.

The assistance is vital to farmers and farm dependent small business operators affected by the drought and to those affected by the horse flu outbreak. Funding for the measures was not included in the May 2007 budget. They were announced by the previous government in September and October 2007. The equine influenza measures were extended by the government earlier this month.

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has been meeting all payments for the assistance packages from its existing appropriations, but it is now in urgent need of additional funding. When this appears in the Hansard, for the benefit of the Leader of the National Party, existing appropriations—footnote: more money—are otherwise due to run out at the end of February. The amounts and assistance provided are as follows: drought assistance measure, $699.127 million—that is extra; equine influenza assistance measures, $255.705 million—once again, that is extra; and the Equine Influenza National Eradication Response, $97.2 million—and again, that is extra. This money will allow the department to continue funding these vital assistance measures.

While the Leader of the National Party might be able to get a run from time to time on the radio with the campaign he has tried to run of late, ultimately, if primary producers lose out and lose out significantly from a fear campaign that makes them think they are not entitled to benefits which are available to them, there will be nothing but shame for the National Party in the bush.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.