Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge my neighbour, the member for Richmond, the previous speaker on this bill. The member for Richmond is a very pleasant person. We run into each other around the place quite often in the far North Coast of New South Wales. But I must take account to a couple of the things that the member for Richmond has just said about Labor having a proud record in relation to rural industries or agriculture. She said, 'I know many rural industries, if not all rural industries, had an issue in the previous Labor government.' The cattle industry in our area was aghast when the previous Labor government overnight stopped the live cattle export. That destroyed the beef industry in our area. It obviously meant that cattle that were bred for export suddenly were not. Far northern Australia was brought to its knees, and over the proceeding weeks and months, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, because I know you would know, these cattle found their way south and prices were exceptionally depressed. We had cattle everywhere. We have starving cattle in the end because they were not able to be exported and we had a very depressed sector there.

The other one I would remind the member for Richmond of with regard to our rural industries was, with all due respect, the carbon tax. She made reference to the sugar industry as well as others. I can remind the member for Richmond that very few, if any, rural industries in my region, be they sugar, be they dairy, be they beef, be they anyone who used power, was happy with the previous government and their solution to climate change being a carbon tax, which did not change the temperature but—and this is the big issue here—made it very hard for them to compete. And we know that our agricultural industries are very much built around export. I think there is a bit of selective memory there.

However, let's get to the bill in hand. This bill, as we know, will amend the rural research and development legislation, and one of the big aspects of this bill, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I know you would be very appreciative of these changes—is to reduce regulatory burden on the rural research and development corporations. It amends legislation to remove requirements for RDCs to table certain corporate documents. This is to reduce regulatory burden and promote consistency between RDCs. In the interest of good governance, the RDCs will still need to produce these documents and make them publicly available.

This is in line with a big theme of this government. We on this side of the parliament know that we have to remain competitive. If we want to maintain our standard of life and to provide the social services that many people in our country require, we need to get the money from somewhere. To get the money we need the private sector in all sectors not just agriculture to be competitive, and this bill moves in that area as well. I know there is going to be legislation and legislation has already been introduced into parliament. We will have reduced $2 billion, which is not a small figure, of red tape in our first 12 months—double what we said we would do—because we understand and are very clear that this is very important to maintaining our competitiveness in many industries.

Dairy Australia, Forest & Wood Products Australia, the Australian Livestock Export Corporation and Sugar Research Australia will no longer need to table funding agreements or variations to funding agreements. Dairy Australia and the Australian Livestock Export Corporation will no longer need to table the annual report and other compliance reports. Again this all saves in red tape costs.

The Primary Industries Research and Development Act 1989 is amended to remove the requirements for the minister to organise annual coordination meetings for the chairs of the statutory RDCs. This is an unnecessary requirement. Again this bill removes a regulatory cost to them and indeed to government.

It is also important to remember that in 2014-15 the Commonwealth will provide funding of approximately these figures to the different areas: $11.6 million to the Grape and Wine R&D Corporation, $68.9 million to the Grains R&D Corporation, $5.1 million to Sugar Research Australia, $8.5 million to the Cotton R&D Corporation and $17.4 million to the Fisheries R&D Corporation. Again this is not money to be sniffed at.

The government in this bill very much recognises the importance of R&D in the agriculture, fisheries and the forestry sectors. The results of R&D help primary producers to produce more with less, giving them greater profit at the farm gate. Around $700 million per year is spent by the Australian government on rural R&D and extension activities. Within 10 years farmers generate a $12 return for each dollar the government invests in agricultural R&D. Australian farmers have an innovative culture. They know that R&D is essential if Australian industries are to keep pace and compete successfully in the international arena.

The 15 rural research and development corporations provide a mechanism for farmers and fishers to invest collectively in services that will benefit their industry, such as research and development and in some cases marketing. The government encourages investment by establishing and collecting a statutory levy if an industry so requests and by returning the funds to the relevant RDC, less the cost of collection. In addition, the government matches the RDC's eligible R&D spending up to the legislated limits. In the current financial year the government will provide an estimated $250 million to the RDCs. In recognition of the good work they do, the government has committed to an additional $100 million in funding for rural RDCs, starting in the next financial year. This funding boost will enable the RDCs to further contribute to farm productivity and profitability and better deliver cutting-edge technology.

Delivering on the coalition's 2013 election commitment, the first round of funding opened for applications on 15 October 2014. The guidelines include the research priorities for the first round of funding. The application period will close on 15 December 2014. Proposed research projects will need to address one or more of the research priorities that fall into these four areas: one, increase the profitability and productivity of primary industries; two, increase the value of primary products; three, strengthen primary producers' ability to adapt to opportunities and threats; and, four, strengthen on-farm adoption and improve information flows. There are a range of issues in Australian agriculture that can be managed through this process, such as improvements to wild dog control, better techniques to control Parthenium, and blackberry control using pathogens.

I want to make it very clear that this government has always been very in tune with the needs and desires of the agricultural sector. In our first 12 months of government, besides abolishing things like the carbon tax that were very damaging to the agricultural sector and agribusinesses, we have reinstated with full vigour the live export trade with our neighbours to again increase farm gate prices for that part of the agricultural sector. We also have free trade agreements with Korea and Japan. I know that most of the agricultural sector in my region would export around 70 per cent of what they produce, whether it be beef, dairy or macadamia nuts—and I could give you many other examples. Most of these products—well over 50 per cent—are sold offshore, so these markets are very important to us.

We did free trade agreements with Korea and Japan and are now also working on a free trade agreement with China. In fact, the Minister for Agriculture recently took a delegation to China. I was very pleased to organise for three or four industry sector representatives from my area to travel with the minister. They represented diverse agricultural produce. They have all come back and are very appreciative of the work the government are doing—the fact that we are trying to lower the red tape burden, have lowered their cost of production with the abolition of the carbon tax and are trying to actively work with them to give them access to new markets.

If the next generation of farmers in our communities are going to see a future on the farm, the one thing we have to do is improve the farm gate price, because that is the bottom line literally. If they are going to have a financial future and if the younger people are going to have a financial future in carrying on with the family farm or indeed entering the industry, that is what is necessary. So this, along with many other things we have done in the first 12 months, is focused on the agricultural sector. We want the agricultural sector to survive and prosper. I commend this bill to the House.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hotham was right about one thing; I am passionate and will wax lyrical about the contribution that regional electorates like mine make to the national economy. Unfortunately, I am disappointed to indicate to the House I fear that she is wrong about almost everything else. She spoke about rank hypocrisy. This is from the party that gave us a ban on live exports to Indonesia, the party that was so reluctant to enter into free trade agreements that their activity in that space could only be described as glacial. Yet she comes in here, as a member representing a vast area of 75 square kilometres in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, and seeks to lecture those of us who represent many hundreds of thousands of square kilometres—as you do, Mr Deputy Speaker, and as I do—about what people want to see in the bush.

I will tell you one thing about farmers—and I am not telling you anything you do not know, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am certainly not telling my family anything they would not tell me—a farmer knows one thing for sure: a farmer knows you cannot live beyond your means. If you spend more this year than you earn in revenues in the highly commoditised market, you are one step closer to the bank or some other entity taking control of the farm over which you have had stewardship. I wonder how much we could allocate to research and development year on year if we were not as a nation spending a billion a month—in interest only—near on $800 million of which is being paid to entities overseas.

We are here to talk about the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. It makes amendments to the rural research and development legislation, which will give effect to the budget measures of 2014-15. It will also make some additional governance amendments. Why are we making these changes? We are making them because we arrived in September 2013 and, when we checked the cupboards, we found they were bare. Against that background, we have had to make some difficult decisions.

Obviously I need to stress to the House the importance of rural research and development to the economy's security and how high a priority it is for this government. I wish to note the work in recent days of the Minister for Agriculture, who announced six new appointments to the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, and the reappointment of Dr Len Stephens from South Australia as Managing Director of the Seafood Cooperative Research Centre, which, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, is crucial to the aquaculture industry in my electorate. This gives me the opportunity to shout out to the crayfishermen of the southern coast.

I also note the release of the green paper into agricultural competitiveness which will in turn lead to the development of the commensurate white paper—the Minister for Agriculture has emphasised the importance of increasing farm gate returns. This process is inherently linked to Australia's economic security, research and development and the continued maintenance of our reputation as a quality producer.

Agriculture was once the bedrock of the Australian community, and now as we head to the 21st century we must build on the lessons and practices of the past, both good and bad, to keep our farm sector competitive and to cement our global brand. The farm sector will drive economic growth in new ways going forward, not simply in the traditional fields of fruit, vegetables and livestock, but in other areas—such as education, water management, intellectual property, financial services, advanced manufacturing, science, human resources, management practices and biotechnology to name just a few.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall that in this, our first budget, we proposed $100 billion of additional funding for research and development, specifically to support continued innovation in agriculture, fisheries and the forestry sector. Our government recognises the strong link between research and development and agricultural productivity growth, and recognises that it is a key driver for industry productivity and farm gate profitability. This research will focus on delivering cutting edge technologies with an emphasis on making research accessible to farmers on property. Research must be practical and support our farmers and producers.

As you have heard—and no doubt will continue to hear throughout this debate—the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences estimates that, for every dollar a government invests in agriculture research and development, farmers can expect a $12 return within 10 years. In a tight fiscal environment, the fact the government has allocated substantial additional funding demonstrates how important research and development is to the future of rural industries. It demonstrates the link between innovation competitiveness, profitability and sustainability, as well as natural resource management.

The budget measure referred to in this legislation allows government to recover the costs of membership fees to international commodity organisations and regional fisheries management organisations from the matching amounts paid to rural research and development corporations, or what have come to be known as RDCs. The additional measures remove the requirement for the minister to organise an annual coordination meeting for the chairs of the statutory RDCs and removes some parliamentary tabling requirements to reduce regulation. This of course gives me an opportunity to mention that this Wednesday in this place will be the second of our repeal days which focus on repealing unnecessary and unwanted red tape in the interests of the nation's economy.

The RDCs were established in 1989 by the Primary Industries Research and Development Act to undertake scientific research for the benefit of Australian rural industries, with benefits flowing to rural communities and the nation more broadly. There are currently 15 RDCs; five of these are statutory RDCs governed by that act; and 10 are industry owned RDCs which were created from former statutory RDCs. Most RDCs are able to undertake marketing activities in addition to their research and development activities at the request, of course, of relevant industries.

Most of the RDCs are primarily funded by statutory levies on primary production or products. The statutory levies for research and development are matched by Commonwealth funding up to a cap. The funds raised through the statutory levies are appropriated to the RDCs, less the cost of the levy's collection. The government provides matching funding to the RDCs based on their expenditure on eligible research and development activities. The RDCs are required to submit invoices to the Department for Agriculture to claim matching funding; matching funding provided to each RDC is subject to a cap based on the relevant industry's gross value of production.

Funding for the fisheries RDC operates differently in some respects. The fisheries RDC receives funding from state and territory governments as well as from levies. The caps on Commonwealth funding are based on gross value of production but are calculated differently to those of other RDCs. The Department of Agriculture currently pays for Australian government membership to international commodity organisations and regional fisheries management organisations. These organisations work to improve the trading environment for agricultural products by funding and coordinating research and development, providing information and statistics, setting international standards and ensuring ongoing access to fisheries.

Australia's membership of these organisations benefits the industries concerned. The international commodity organisations deliver good industry outcomes, such as trading standards, research on global issues and market statistics. The regional fisheries management organisations facilitate the management of migration restock and high seas stock that are fished by various nations. They inform international fisheries management stock assessments. And what ought to be noted at this juncture is the recently-announced position for those fish under Commonwealth management in this country, that we no longer have any that are subject to overfishing. That is a great fillip for that industry and a great example of this R&D in practical application.

In 2014-15 the budget measure changed the way that the government will fund the membership costs. From 2014-15 the government will cover the costs of the memberships from the matching funding it contributes to relevant RDCs that coordinate research for the industry which benefits most from the membership. The membership costs will be recovered by either deducting an equivalent amount from the matching funding paid to RDCs or by requiring the relevant RDC to pay the Commonwealth an amount equal to the membership fee. The Department of Agriculture will continue to be responsible for Australia's membership of the relevant organisations and for the payment of membership fees.

The bill amends the act with respect to the Sugar Research and Development Services Act 2013, the Australian Grape and Wine Authority Act 2013 to allow the government to recover the costs of membership fees. Currently, the Australian government is a member of four international commodity organisations relating to the sugar, wine, grain and cotton industries and six regional fisheries management organisations. The organisations and RDCs from which membership fees will be recovered will be specified by a new legislative instrument.

The rural R&D legislation currently contains different requirements for the preparation and tabling of certain corporate documents. Some acts require RDCs to produce certain corporate documents and, in some cases, to table them in the parliament. For consistency across industry owned RDCs the government has decided that tabling requirements are an unnecessary administrative burden for the RDCs and for the government and therefore they will be removed.

The following legislation is amended to remove tabling requirements: the Dairy Produce Act 1986—I am sure the dairy producers of Barker will be pleased to hear that; the Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services Act 2007—and with such a significant forest industry in my electorate, centred around the south-east, again, they will be pleased to hear that, and I should take this opportunity to mention the establishment for the first time in this place of the Parliamentary Friends of Forestry and Forest Products; the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997—again, highly relevant to the electors of Barker, given the amount of meat and livestock that we produce; and the Sugar Research and Development Services Act 2013. The RDCs will still be required to produce the relevant documents and, where required, make them publicly available.

The PIRD Act requires the minister to organise an annual coordination meeting for the chairs of the statutory RDCs. Only five of the 15 RDCs are statutory bodies and the government has decided, as I have said previously, other coordinated mechanisms to be more appropriate.

I indicated at the beginning of my contribution that Australia has relied upon the agricultural and farming sectors to provide for her prosperity. We know that this will continue to be the case for many decades. The changes brought about by this legislation will help to sustain our competitive edge in the agricultural sector into the future. I commend the bill to the House.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 is an interesting one. I say that because it comes at a time when this government is cutting so much money from research and development. It is cutting funding from the CSIRO of $146.8 million, which will cost about 500 jobs; it is cutting $11 million in appropriate funding for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation; and there is an $80 million reduction to the Cooperative Research Centres Program. This is at the same time as there is a radical overhaul going on of our universities, where we will see funding cuts to our regional universities.

So it strikes me as odd that they would stand up here and say that the government is a champion of regional research and development when, in fact, it is a bit of a smokescreen: 'Here is a small amount of funding, whilst we cut over here to the left and over here to the right and radically restructure universities.'

The member for Indi raised this issue in her contribution to this debate around the effects of funding cuts to our regional universities. It is pretty hard to have the scientists that you need for regional and rural development and research if you do not have university students. I wanted to start my contribution on the effects that this government will have on higher education when it comes to science, industry and the regions.

We are concerned—regional MPs—particularly those on this side of the House, about the government's effects on science and on ag in our part of the world. We have already had the Melbourne university close its agricultural campus, Dookie, and it is now running agriculture from its campus in the inner city of Melbourne. It is pretty hard to be actively involved in the grassroots of your industry if you are in the city at an inner city based campus. Sure, you can jump on a train—if it runs on time—and get out to the ag areas. But one of the real strengths of having a strong, grassroots-driven, research, innovation and development sector is if the science, the study and the expertise are occurring in the very communities where the industry is based. And yet we are seeing the very opposite occur as this government pushes to deregulate the university sector—as they start to talk about deregulating fees, which will only see an increase in fees for the vast majority on campus and as they promote how good the scholarship fund will be for regional students so that they can go to a Melbourne or city based university.

What they are not talking about is the negative impact this reform will have on agricultural studies and on science studies. The member for Indi has already told us that there is a shortfall of at least 4,000 skilled professionals that we require in the regions. This is an issue that comes up over and over again in the roundtables and discussions that I have with the industries in my electorate. I come from quite a big regional producing area, central Victoria. Bendigo city itself has become a hub for our region, whether it is people in agriculture doing their finances and their banking in our area or whether it is the head offices of organisations such as the Victorian Farmers Federation, which now has an office in Bendigo. Bendigo is definitely a hub for the regional agricultural sector. Locally it is one of our biggest employers. There are more people involved in agriculture and food manufacturing now than there are in heavy manufacturing in my electorate. The big employers in my electorate are Hazeldene's, Tip Top Bakeries and KR Castlemaine. We also have a number of people who work in Hy-Line Australia and in B&B Basil.

I mention Hy-Line and B&B Basil because they are two agricultural businesses that could benefit from this particular fund. The story of B&B Basil is one of those great innovative regional success stories. They produce the microherbs or the garnishes that you have on your dinner plate. So successful has their business been that they are now exporting their microherbs overseas. They have talked to me about the need for greater assistance when it comes to Austrade, not so much in the way of R&D but the need for Austrade to support developing markets for their products. They have basically done it on their own, with the help of other local manufacturers. Where R&D has been important in their organisation is to develop the equipment that they need to grow their microherbs. As you can imagine, it is not your average planter that is required to grow microherbs; it is quite a small container that is required. So they have also needed quite a bit of innovation when it comes to the equipment on their property.

Hy-Line is an interesting business. Most may not realise what it actually does or that it is based in Bendigo. It is the largest specialist supplier of day-old chicks for the poultry industry. In fact, 70 per cent of our hens that lay eggs have come from this facility based in Bendigo. For more than 50 years, Hy-Line has provided the Australian poultry industry with the livestock that they need to lay eggs. They talk to me about the importance of biosecurity—which is another debate for another day—and they also talk to me about the need for R&D. More importantly, they talk to me about another area where this government has failed them, and that is having the infrastructure and the technology that they need to be able to continue to manage their business effectively. They talk to me about the need for a decent NBN and the need to be able to monitor the climate conditions of their facilities via a closed-circuit network. But, because they do not have a fast-speed broadband network, with the upload that they require, they struggle to do that.

It is another area where this government is letting regional and agribusinesses down. When I talk to young farmers, they have the apps ready to go for how to monitor their livestock. They are innovating in science, yet they cannot connect properly because this government is dragging its feet when it comes to vital infrastructure. It is another example of how this bill is designed to be a great big smokescreen, to pretend that this government is doing something when it comes to research and development and innovation in agriculture. Yet there are so many other areas where this government is failing.

There are a number of niche businesses in the electorate of Bendigo: wineries, bakeries, coffee roasters, olive oil processors, honey producers and craft beer producers. These are all boutique niche industries that are developing product and getting it ready for market. All of these businesses struggle with their own issues when it comes to export. Their issues include not being able to get past the red tape at the other end when it comes to New York or China, say. They want to see this government investing more in Austrade being able to resolve some of those issues. One particular winery do not want to import wine into New York; they just want to send the wine to a taster, and those tasting notes will be how they then onsell their product into Hong Kong and other parts of Asia. So they do not actually want to sell the product; they just want to get it to the taster so that his tasting notes will then help them market their business. To date, they have struggled to have somebody help them resolve the receiving end in New York. These are some of the challenges that people in my electorate talk to me about that they face in the agricultural industry.

This bill talks about research and development corporations. These were created by Labor in the late eighties to undertake scientific research for the benefit of Australian rural industries that would flow on to the community and the nation more broadly. The government would put half the amount, matching dollar for dollar, into R&D if the industry levy was able to come up with the funds—a co-funding model. Labor will fight to protect the original model we had when it comes to R&D, and the reason is the acknowledgement on this side that government does have a role in creating industry. As other speakers have said, within this particular co-funding arrangement there needs to be, as the NFF have called for, some form of sunset clause so that we can continue to come back to assess whether this is the right model.

Labor's R&D model is working with industry. It is not telling industry what to do but facilitating and encouraging partnership. Labor's model brought together the universities, brought together the skills, brought together the industry and brought together the government, brought together the CSIRO and brought together other organisations to help create product, to help create the innovation.

There is another area that this government is failing when it comes to this particular sector. Constantly the government stands up and says: agriculture is the future industry for jobs, we will be the food bowl of Asia and we will help feed Asia, which, in turn, will create exports and that, in turn, will create jobs. But I ask the government: who will actually work these jobs? Because there is a growing problem in our agricultural sector. A lot of the work that it is being created, a lot of the jobs are going to people who are not just on 457 visas but to people who are international students working in ag businesses on 416 visas or 417 visas, which are holiday working visas. We are not just talking about one or two; we are talking about organised workforces being brought into Australia to do these food production jobs.

In my own electorate, there are what we call boners at Hazeldene's. Hazeldene's is a company that employs about 800 people directly. But what we often do not hear is that they also employ about 200 contractors. These workers are on Thai holiday work visas. They come over here specifically for these jobs. So before these jobs are being advertised locally, there are Thai people brought to Australia specifically for these jobs. They are employed as contractors and are paid per kilo for boning chicken. That is the kind of job that we are creating at the moment in the agricultural sector. We are not creating high skilled jobs. We are not creating jobs where Australians will get first go at them.

The jobs being created in the ag sector are actually jobs going to imported labour that undercuts local labour. There is no way you can be an Australia and be employed in Hazeldene's and paid to bone chickens by the kilo. To be employed as an Australian in Hazeldene's, you are not a contractor; you are on the union based EBA and you are paid by the hour. We are creating this competition in our agricultural workplaces. Again, it is quite easy for these companies like Hazeldene's to say it is because there is no skilled workforce locally.

We have heard, yes, it is true when it comes to the high-tech, high end jobs—because we are struggling—to get universities through the funding cuts to ensure that we have the skilled workforce. But at the lower end, when it comes to the unskilled jobs, there are people willing to work; they are just not be given the opportunity.

As I said, this bill cuts funding to research and development specifically in the rural research and development area. There are $80 million in reductions to the cooperative research centres; $164.8 million in cuts to the CSIRO, which will cost about 5,000 jobs. There are more are more examples about how this government is willing to hide behind the smokescreen of this legislation but not talk about the real challenges that are going on in agriculture. The current funding cuts, the challenges with the workforce and not hiring locals and the challenges when it comes to the NBN and making sure that these businesses have the infrastructure that they need are the issues that this government is not talking about.

Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. The bill implements the 2014 budget measure and reduces unnecessary regulation imposed on the rural, research and development corporations and on the Commonwealth combined. The bill directly affects only those relevant RDCs. The budget measure allows the government to deduct the cost of membership fees to the international amounts paid by the Commonwealth to the relevant RDCs. Australia will continue to be a member of the organisations for which it currently holds membership and the Commonwealth will continue to be responsible for membership and for the payment of the membership fees.

The bill only changes the way that the cost of membership fees are paid by the Commonwealth. Additional measures remove the requirement for the Minister for Agriculture to organise an annual coordination meeting for the chairs of the statutory RDCs and remove the requirement for some RDCs to table documents to parliament such as funding an agreement, the annual reports and other compliance reports. The RDCs will still be required to produce those documents where required but they will still have to make them publicly available. The essence of the bill is to cut down red tape and to pump more money into R&D for our rural people.

As in my and all other rural electorates, the farmers of our nation do deserve backup and it is our government that is prepared to give them that backup. They play important roles in the whole real economy. There is an old saying: if the rural guys are not doing any good, you can rest assured that the rural towns are not doing any good either. Our farmers are some of the most productive in the world. They have a very good image and the products they produce are clean and green. That is recognised by the Asian markets and it is a credit to what our farmers do. But they do need support, they do need to be profitable and they do need to be competitive. It is a changing world that we live in and there are changes in our agricultural world. I can see that with our government initiative here, pooled with private investment and farming investment, we can go forward at the right pace that will take us into the years ahead.

The retailers and distributors of some of our farm products do seem to skim some of the lion's share of the profit. For instance, if you buy a kilogram of rump steak in a butcher's shop on the Gold Coast, you might pay something between $20 and $25 a kilogram. I know, and you know, that the beef producer may get $1.25 or $2.25 at the most; it depends whether you are talking live or dead weight.

Government supports research and development. It is essential that the industry, the farmers and the universities work together on this. That is why the government maintains its membership of the international commodity and regional fisheries management organisations. We still have to keep our leg in the industry and have skin in the game as a partnership with our fishermen, forestry workers and agricultural people in general. Whether it is in relation to grain, sugar, cotton or macadamia nuts, we all need to be up-to-date with the modern technology. I believe this $100 million that we are pumping into the industry will go a long way in keeping us on top of the market.

The International Cotton Advisory Committee sponsors research into cotton production methods and directly benefits farmers in the Central Highlands and Dawson and Callide valleys in my electorate. This will not stop. This will continue, and we can only expect better crops in the future.

Some of the biggest drawbacks in rural and regional areas are the lack of NBN services, as the previous member mentioned, and the lack of phone services. Marketing one's product in rural and regional areas is getting harder and harder. I recall the 2PH farms in Emerald telling me that they use daylight hours to pick their product and prepare their product for market and they use the night-time hours to market their products all over the world. You need a very good NBN system to do that, to keep up-to-date with the rest of the world and to keep communicating and promoting your products. It will be a godsend when the NBN gets to our rural and regional areas; for them, 2018 will not come quick enough. That is the date when our minister has said that we will have good service to most of Australia—and we are talking in the high 90 per cents. That should be encouraging, but 2018 is a fair way away. It is good to see the minister is concentrating on the rural areas first—the sooner the better—to get people up-to-date with their communications.

Through our membership of these organisations we will ensure that our local fishing industry is fairly represented when decisions are made regarding management of their own fishing grounds. In Australia—and especially in Queensland, which I can speak about—the wild catch per square kilometre is nine kilograms. Why do we want to lock up more of the Coral Sea reef? I see it as foolish. There is no fish in Queensland waters that is endangered, but we keep on putting hurdles in front of our fishermen. The fact is that we import something like 80 per cent of our fish products and I think that is a shame. It is the same with our pig products—we import something like 80 per cent of our pig products.

A farmer said to me: 'Ken, you are talking about dams. I really applaud you for that. I think it is a great move. But don't forget there's a lot of farmers out there who could build their own dams, on their own properties, with their own money—and put them in the right place, so that they could benefit themselves on their own agricultural farms—but we are just burdened with regulations and red tape. Hopefully one day you can get rid of that so we can then go ahead and build our own dams without one cent of government money.'

There are some farmers out there who have done very well. Some have got into organic farming. These guys who have done that—and I know there is a cost to them to do it—benefit by about $400 to $500 a beast when they send the organic cows to market. These are the type of innovative people we have out there, and I think we should be using their skills as best we can. Hopefully, pumping this $100 million into the industry and cutting back on red tape will only benefit the real people who we need to develop our nation further and further into the future.

We have a population of nine billion planned for about 2050. These people will all have to be fed. I would like to see farm margins increased so we can get to a point where farmers and agricultural people can afford to employ people again. At the moment there is no outside help, no outside labour, because they cannot afford to pay the wages. The commodity prices are not good enough for these farmers to develop and improve their businesses. There is a lot of work to be done on the properties. They just need labour that they can afford. I do not believe in child labour or slave labour, but farmers need the right commodity prices without mark-ups in the retail industry. The price you pay for a kilogram of rump steak compared with what the farmer gets: there is the margin that you could use to afford to pay wages. That is not happening. That is something I hope to promote as long as I am in parliament. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

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

I rise to speak many times in this place, but I must send the last speaker an application form for our party because he is obviously in the wrong party, given all the things he has just said. He will get into terrible trouble when the bosses hear about what he said today. For his information, the closure of the fishing industry occurred under the Liberal Party not the Labor Party. On the budget cutbacks—I am a great admirer of frugality and I like to think that my years in the state cabinet in Queensland were marked by very strong, frugal eyes. There was no profligacy in spending. It was very cost-effective where we put the money. So I applaud the government for striving to cutback government expenditure, but it can become quite ridiculous when we go chasing $7 million over three years. We are wasting the time of the parliament on $7 million over three years on a budget of $450,000 million. Just how petty has this become?

I think it needs to be said and resaid and resaid. I am holding here a wonderful article from Professor Denniss on Bob Menzies and budgets. According to the current government, Swan's deficit of 3.3 per cent of GDP in his final year in office was a 'disaster', a 'budget crisis'. That is how the current government described Mr Swan's deficit. It turns out that Mr Menzies in his last year had a budget deficit much higher than that recorded by the ALP. So by the current government's yardstick, Mr Menzies was a shocker, worse than the Labor Party.

When we talk about budgets, the world record for deficits was held by the government that I was part of, the old Country Party Bjelke-Petersen government. I would say we must have had the biggest budget deficit in human history because on an income of about $3,000 million, we borrowed $3½ thousand million over two years just to build a railway line, a port and a power station. The point of this very brilliant article by Professor Denniss is if you spend $5,000 million—and this is not what he says but what I say—like the Queensland government is doing, building another tunnel in Brisbane, then what you do is burden the people of Brisbane with, according to their Treasury, one-seventh for maintenance and upkeep. So of $5,000 million, you would burden the people of Brisbane with a $700 million weight upon their back—not my figures, Queensland Treasury figures. It says when you build an asset, you must allow one-seventh for amortisation, maintenance et cetera. I think that is not a bad figure, actually.

What happens when we do this—to quote my son, the state member for Mount Isa—what do we get for $5,000 million? A few thousand people get home a few minutes earlier to watch the television. That is what we get for the $5,000 million. If on the other hand that money was spent, as we spent it in the old Country/National Party government, on a railway line into the Galilee Basin and the coalfields then, I estimate, within five years you would generate $1,000 million a year in, if not profit, most certainly operating surplus. That is what we did in Queensland. We ran these massive deficits, but the money was not spent on self-indulgence. The money was not spent on a more agreeable lifestyle and cutting the time to get to and from work. The money was spent on creating real wealth continuously.

Let me go back to the tunnel example because it is very relevant to this Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. This bill says we should get the people to put the money into research; the government is not going to put the money into this area any more. Rather than the state government in Queensland committing $5,000 million of resources to build another tunnel, it could spend $3½ thousand million building a railway line into the Galilee Basin, where half of this nation's coal assets lie, and create 20,000 jobs for the next 100 years at least. You tell me what is the best use of that money, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is not a matter of budget deficits or budget surpluses; it is a matter of what you spend the money on. The Queensland government is spending $5,000 million on another tunnel. It would appear to me that per capita Brisbane already has twice as many tunnels as anywhere other city in the world. If that money was spent on a railway line, we would create 20,000 jobs in a state where jobs are vanishing at the speed of the sun going down in the afternoon—universal collapse of the economy Queensland.

Let me turn to bill specifically. Geraldine Maguire is president of the Malanda Chamber of Commerce, a once great milk producing area which was slaughtered by government deregulation by the LNP and ALP. Geraldine is being very positive. They are putting forward an Australian agricultural precinct concept where there will be a great emphasis on innovation—they will create an innovation hub. She is drawing upon the strengths we have in this area because in the lower tablelands per capita we have more PhDs than anywhere else in Australia. Unfortunate and sadly the reason for that is governments have progressively, in the time that I have been in parliament, cut back on all scientific research. I think there were 20-odd people working in the CSIRO arboreal research centre in Atherton. I doubt whether there would be six working there now. Keera research station was the biggest research station in northern Australia and employed about 32 people under Mick Nasser. There is no Keera research station now. When I became member for Kennedy we had about 126 scientists working full time, mostly in the area of agriculture and agricultural processing. I doubt whether we would have 30 now. I think the figure is about 26. All of that accumulated handed-down knowledge is gone.

I will give you one example of what this means. There are over six million hectares of heavy infestation of the mid-western Gulf Country by prickly acacia tree. Written across the map—it is 25 years old now—it says, 'The best natural grasslands in Australia.' Sadly, they are not grasslands at all; they have this terrible weed, pest, whatever you want to call it, the acacia nilotica tree. All of the accumulated research over 20 years is in the pest and weed research station in Charters Towers, which has virtually been cut in half by the current Queensland government. All of that accumulated knowledge and wisdom has simply vanished. So instead of moving forward we are moving backwards.

One of the saddest things in Australia is that CSIRO say you have to be more related to the marketplace—the free market philosophy and ideology. I do not know that we would have any science much on earth if past governments throughout the world for the last 2,000 years went on that policy. Galileo was on the payroll of the Medici family. Unless money is coming in from powerful people and government and they have banking resources available to them, then science simply cannot move forward.

Let me go back to the CSIRO example. Our little party believes that we need an extra $2,000 million a year put into science and some of that needs to be earmarked for CSIRO. It is one of the great institutions on earth. CSIRO came up with the mix amitosis virus which wiped out the rabbit plague in Australia. I could quote 100 other examples of brilliant internationally renowned work done by CSIRO but the sad thing now is that the Murray-Darling commission wanted these people to come up with a report that would say, 'Oh, terrible, terrible, what's going on in the Murray-Darling. We've got to do something about it.' So CSIRO came up with figures that were 300 per cent different than the Murray-Darling Basin. I do not know; the Murray-Darling Basin may have been wrong and CSIRO right, but there was a 300 per cent difference.

In ethanol they were paid effectively by the greenhouse gas emissions office of the federal government to do a number on ethanol and they remain responsible for the only report on earth that I know of which says that carbon dioxide increases if you use ethanol instead of petrol. Every country on earth now has ethanol except for African countries and Australia. China, India, half of Indonesia, Thailand, all have moved to biofuels, ethanol. All the north Americas, Canada, Mexico, the United States, all of the South American countries with the exception of Venezuela of course—an oil producing country—and all of Europe have signed up to 15 per cent. Everyone one of them has done it on the basis of a report saying that it dramatically reduces CO2 and other volatile and dangerous emissions. Basically, ethanol is introduced to stop people from dying from motor vehicles but all harmful emissions are reduced dramatically by ethanol, which is pure alcohol and gives a magnificent burn, which overcomes most of the problems with gas emissions. But to see CSIRO, this great and renowned institution, prostituted to the extent where it will produce an article which says the exact opposite of the truth is unfortunate. Their argument was that they were given parameters by the greenhouse gas emissions office and they had to work within those parameters. Well actually they had to come up with a report saying that they had increases CO2 emissions. The point I am trying to make here is that we do need research. Sometimes it is wasted. Academics get a little bit carried away and go into peculiar areas but they have to be given some latitude and they must be given independence.

On the same issue, one of the major bodies involved is the Sugar Research and Development Corporation. It has been rejigged in such a way that the millers have effective control now instead of the farmers. You say, 'What does that mean?' It means that they are going to breed new varieties. We have to breed ever-newer varieties of sugar cane and a variety that will suit the mill will be one that goes for a longer period yielding sugar content, whereas the cane farmer would like a greater sugar content in a shorter period when he would like to see the milling take place, but it is very much to their detriment that this is taking place. (Time expired)

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. Agriculture is vital to my electorate and the Wide Bay region more broadly, so let me read, for the benefit of the House, some of the data contained in the 2014 ABARES report for Wide Bay. About 15 per cent of all people employed in the Queensland agriculture, forestry and fishing sector are based in Wide Bay; the sector employs about 8,500 people locally, representing about eight per cent of the region's total workforce. In addition, about 2,700 people are employed locally in food product manufacturing. In 2011-12 the gross value of agricultural production in Wide Bay was $949 million, or nine per cent of total agricultural production in Queensland. Of that $949 million, fruit contributed 22 per cent, or $207 million, and vegetables contributed 17 per cent, or $166 million. Sugar cane accounted for 14 per cent, or $128 million. The region is home to about 4,620 farms, or 16 per cent of all farm businesses in Queensland. I am a former cane farmer. My father and brothers continue to operate a substantial cane harvesting business. Agriculture and family farming are a part of me, and always will be.

The Australian government supports rural industries in a variety of ways, including grants programs. Since coming to government, the coalition has signed free trade agreements with Japan and South Korea—two of our largest trading partners. My region has endured two major floods in three years and is now in the midst of a drought. Would you believe it? Two floods and now a drought! With exorbitant electricity prices and ongoing price pressure from the supermarket duopoly, growers are locked in an uphill battle. That is why I am pleased to be part of a government that consults and not one that makes ad hoc decisions, like Labor's overnight suspension of live export trade. We are committed to restoring some stability to the sector, to improve productivity and farm gate returns.

Earlier this week Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce, released the government's green paper as another step forward to developing an agriculture competitiveness white paper. The green paper draws on feedback from real people, people on the ground, people who have shared their experience and opinion on a wide variety of agricultural issues. The taskforce held hearings in Bundaberg earlier this year, and I would encourage Hinkler constituents to comment again on the green paper, to share their ideas for opportunities and solutions. The green paper represents a range of possible policy options that now need further consideration and prioritisation.

Support is also currently being provided to the sector through 15 rural research and development corporations. During the 2013 election campaign the then coalition opposition committed to provide an additional $100 million to these rural research and development corporations when in government. This is aimed at improving Australia's capacity to deliver cutting edge technology, continuing applied research focussed on collaborative innovation and increasing the appeal of Australian commodities to potential markets. The boost is on top of the $250 million already provided each year as matching funding and more than $450 million in levies collected from industry. To keep our rural industries engaged on the world stage, the government is a member of international commodity and regional fisheries management organisations. This bill changes the way the government pays its membership of these organisations. Membership fees will now come directly from the budgets of our 15 rural research and development corporations. This will save the government about $7 million over the next four years.

Agricultural research and development operates in a global system and, as such, must take international issues into account. The same can be said for trade. If we expect to be able to sell our produce overseas, we must also be willing to accept their exports when it is safe to do so. Australia is a member of the World Trade Organisation and, as such, import risk analysis must be based on science and free of political interference. The Department of Agriculture recently announced it will lift a ban to allow imports of fresh ginger from Fiji to Australia. Fiji has exported fresh ginger to New Zealand and to the United States for years, but Australian growers were understandably concerned about the threat posed by pests and diseases—things like burrowing nematode and yam scale.

There are 49 ginger growers in Australia who produce around 8,000 tonnes a year, worth about $35 million. Having met with Australian Ginger Growers Association chairman, Anthony Rehbein, on numerous occasions, I publicly urged the federal Department of Agriculture to adhere to the strictest possible import standards when inspecting fresh ginger from Fiji. The department assured growers and the public that it had very stringent measures in place to ensure biosecurity risks are reduced to the lowest level possible. The department said it could review import conditions in light of new scientific information.

The association intercepted five boxes of ginger at Sydney Markets in one of the first consignments from Fiji and asked the Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to inspect them. DAFF said the ginger was generally very clean but of poor condition. They found scale, traces of soil and foreign vegetable matter such as nut grass. There were also sunken lesions present, which could be indicative of burrowing nematode or fungal invasion. There were also a considerable number of rhizomes affected by root-knot nematode. There is now a dispute between ginger growers, the association, state and federal biosecurity officers, scientists and departmental bureaucrats as to whether similar pests already exist in Australia; how deep each of these bug varieties burrow; which variety is more invasive; and whether methyl bromide fumigation can disinfect ginger rhizome of both external and internal feeding parasites.

But the point that growers and the association are now making—and it seems to me to be a valid one—is that on page 2 of the import risk assessment it states:

… consignments must be free of live insects, disease symptoms, trash, contaminant seeds, soil and other debris on arrival in Australia.

Should it matter whether some of the parasites already exist in Australia? Should the testing carried out by DAFF and the research gathered by the association be considered new scientific information? The risk is this: we may find ourselves in the future in the same situation as the Northern Territory, which, from recent reports, now has an outbreak of cucumber green mottle mosaic virus. This will absolutely decimate the melon industry in the Northern Territory. This virus in other countries produces 50 per cent losses in the field—50 per cent!

This is an industry in the Northern Territory that is worth $50 million to their economy and it is something that is transmitted by sea. I note the contribution of the member for Capricornia about the pineapple industry, which is worth $80 million a year to Australia. There are 80 growers and they have year-on-year growth, but they have real issues with the potential for a disease which makes pineapples in the field explode. Can you imagine walking through a field of exploding pineapples?

As I said earlier, the import risk assessments must be free of political interference. It is incumbent upon the federal Department of Agriculture and Australia's biosecurity offices to ensure our crops and farmers are protected, because I sure as hell hope we do not see a repeat of what is happening in the Top End. Agriculture is vital to our national economy, our regional economy, and of course the people in my community in my electorate. Their livelihoods depend on the vigilance of these offices. It is absolutely vital that it be protected.

I encourage Australians to support their local farmers by buying Australian produce as the first choice and, of course, especially ginger.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have heard a lot in this chamber today about changing the meaning of things when it comes to agriculture. Yes, we have changed the meaning. We have elevated agriculture to one of the main pillars of the Australian economy. We have made it something which is supported by sound policy, valued for what it does for people and nurtured so it receives the investment to make it not just survive but thrive into the future. The Minister for Agriculture and member for New England has changed the meaning of agriculture from a forlorn, forgotten portfolio under Labor, to being a meaningful, vibrant and, hopefully, highly profitable sector under the Liberal-National government. That is the meaning the agriculture minister has changed.

For Labor to come in here and try to score cheap political points this afternoon with anything, absolutely anything to do with agriculture after its six years—six years—of woeful neglect for this vital portfolio area shows contempt, sheer contempt, for those who work the land.

We have given agriculture real meaning and real purpose. We did not put it on the skids as Labor did by stopping live exports; by abandoning irrigators; and by imposing a carbon tax which had such a disastrous effect on farms and farmers and which Labor, if ever re-elected, will introduce quicker than you can utter the words 'there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead' or quicker than the shadow agricultural minister, the member for Hunter, could say 'Barnaby Joyce'.

The opposition agricultural spokesman is fixated by the minister. He really is. He talks about him more than he talks about anything else.

The Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 will reduce the regulatory burden and reporting requirements for research and development corporations, enabling them to be more productive—more productive—and focus directly on agricultural innovation, ensuring Australian agriculture remains a global leader.

The government through this year's budget put forward responsible measures necessary to repair Labor's budget mess and ensure the Commonwealth lives within its means. We are getting on with the important work across the board, addressing budgetary challenges which we face today and preparing for the future. Unlike Labor, this government has an extensive agenda for regional Australia and our focus is on supporting Australian agriculture to remain profitable, productive and competitive, and on building for the future. As has been previously mentioned, this is a modest budget measure which will provide savings of about $7 million over four years.

The coalition has a plan to build a strong, prosperous economy and a safe, secure Australia. Only the Abbott-Truss coalition government has an economic action strategy which will grow the economy and fix Labor's debt and deficit disaster. Labor's legacy to Australia is 200,000 more unemployed, many of those in rural and regional areas. Gross debt is projected to rise to $667 billion if we sit here and do nothing about it and $123 billion in cumulative deficits.

Agriculture is at the heart of the Riverina in my electorate. It is one of the most productive and diverse agricultural regions in the country, giving rise to our claim as one of the significant food bowls of Australia. We grow just about everything in the Riverina. There are large-scale producers of wheat, canola, citrus, apples, beef, dairy, oil seeds, wool, barley, vegetables, sheep, lamb, wine grapes, cotton, hay, poultry and cherries. You name it, we grow it. These are the many fine products which generate income and stimulate our local economies. Food production is serious business in the Murrumbidgee and Coleambally irrigation areas. The MIA contributes more $2½ billion annually to the Australian economy and, for argument's sake, Riverina rice producers grow 52 per cent of the total value of the New South Wales rice harvest, which has a farm gate value of around $300 million a year according to the June 2013 ABARES report.

In grains research, I was pleased to see the announcement of the Minister for Agriculture and the New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries, Katrina Hodgkinson, just last month which provides $10.8 million—serious money—for grains research and development in New South Wales. This will transpose to the creation of 18 new research offices—there is that word 'research', so important in all of this—in key cropping locations across the state, including in Wagga Wagga and Yanco in my electorate. Given agriculture's importance to the region, there is much research and development which is undertaken in our region to ensure our product remains efficient and competitive in changing local, national and international markets.

In my electorate, Charles Sturt University is a leader in agriculture research and development. The EH Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation, which is named after a long serving member for Wagga Wagga, Eddie Graham—you might be interested, Deputy Speaker Mitchell; he was actually from your side of politics and a good man, too, who was also the New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries for a long time—excels in agriculture research and innovation. Currently, its multidisciplinary and integrated research covers climate change and the need to make sure that we use minimum water and get maximum production; water availability; adapting to increasing input costs; biosecurity threats; capacity crisis and succession planning; and risk management and adaption to change. The Graham centre undertakes extensive undergraduate and postgraduate research, with several students currently undertaking PhD research at the state of the art facilities.

In this year's budget, the Minister for Agriculture confirmed the government is honouring its commitment to provide $100 million in new funding for rural research and development, specifically to support continued innovation in agriculture, and that is extremely good. That is extremely needed.

This government understands that, while we need to target our spending wisely and not waste a cent, we also need to continue to invest in the productivity and profitability of Australian agriculture. There is a strong link between research and development and agricultural productivity growth as a key driver of industry and farm gate profitability. We hear all the time how farmers need to increase their farm gate profitability.

The Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resources Economics and Sciences estimates that, for each dollar the government invests in agricultural research and development, farmers generate $12 within 10 years. So they turn a dollar to $12 within a decade—that is tremendous; that is putting food and fibre on the plates and the backs of Australians and others.

By allocating substantial additional funding to agricultural research and development, we, the coalition, are demonstrating the important role rural and regional industries will play into the future in a tight fiscal and budgetary environment. We understand on this side that there are challenges ahead. We understand that climate variability is going to play an important part in the future for farmers but we also understand their worth and that we need to help them as much as is humanly possible by this parliament.

We continue to see evidence that this government holds our agricultural sector in high regard by delivering on our 2013 election commitment by developing a white paper on Australia's agricultural competitiveness—I know I am using a prop, but it is important that people see this great little booklet, because it is going to, hopefully, help transform our agricultural industries.

Through the initial green paper process, almost 700 submissions were received, demonstrating that Australians recognise the potential development and opportunities in agriculture and primary production. I went to the forum held in Griffith in the MIA and I listened to the passion of the people who made verbal submissions—and many of them written submissions—to that particular inquiry. Through this process, further ideas about deregulation and reducing regulatory burden on farmers is also being considered to ensure we increase our competiveness, increase our farm gate profitability and ensure we lift the shackles from small business and primary producers.

Australian agriculture has a great future and huge potential, if we can continue to build on our current foundations and ensure that we get the policy setting right for the future. Through investment in research and development, the dams taskforce and the agricultural competitiveness white paper, we are ensuring that we are taking the opportunities before us.    We recognise that agricultural and primary production has a critical role to play in ensuring we grow productivity and get our economy back on track.

The member for Watson continues to demonise and disparage farmers. He should know better; he was after all the 28th Minister for Agriculture, the 10th from Labor, of this great farming nation. Last Monday, after question time, the member asked the Speaker a series of questions, during which he spoke of disruptive conduct in the public galleries of the House of Representatives.

He talked of anticlimate change groups and farmers. Maybe it is just an inconvenient truth for the member, but he ignored mentioning the noisy mob who cheered on 12 October 2011 when the carbon tax was brought into law —remember that awkward embrace between Julia Gillard and the man whose prime ministership she took, Kevin Rudd. And whilst they did not make it into the gallery—they all but did—who could forget the Canberra riot of 19 August 1996 when out-of-control trade unionists, the ones who bankroll Labor, kicked down the doors of Parliament House, ransacked the gift shop, damaged property and attacked police officers? Around 90 people were injured that day, and it was lucky someone wasn't killed. Why didn't the member for Watson pick on those thugs instead of criticising farmers, which he does at every opportunity?

The member for Watson was Minister for Agriculture from 2007 to 2010, during which time—on 23 June 2008—the single wheat desk was dismantled. Riverina farmers are still cursing him for that. He was the water minister, amongst other things, when the greenies threatened to impose a permanent man-made drought on irrigators. Thank goodness the Abbott Government, since coming to office, has capped water buyback.

What has the member for Watson got against farmers? Farmers—the ones who sustain this nation; let's never forget: irrigation feeds the nation. Farmers—who work damn hard, a lot harder than the member for Watson, me and everyone else elected to this place, let me tell you, in order to eke out a tough life in trying conditions. Farmers—who deserve to be praised over and over, again and again for the job they do growing food for Australians and other hungry nations besides. Farmers—who do not get a say as to what someone will pay for their produce, because they are price takers not price makers. Farmers—who, if and when they do have a problem with Canberra, voice their protest in a meaningful yet peaceful way, not with some violent smash and grab. Farmers—those true environmentalists, carers of the land, custodians of our proud heritage, and protectors of our productive rivers for the future.

Farmers—the ones not understood by those opposite such as the member for Grayndler who just last month, 24 September to be precise, wrote in The Guardian:

But don't hold your breath waiting for urban policy leadership from the current Commonwealth government. Tony Abbott has no interest in policies affecting productivity in cities, even though they produce 80% of our nation's gross domestic product—

80 per cent of our GDP.

I would question that figure. It might be 80 per cent, if you take all the mining wealth, the agricultural wealth, value add to it, export it out of the metropolitan ports and then claim that it is some sort of urban product, urban generated wealth creator. I would argue that it should be the other way round: it is the regions such as those in the member for Lyne's electorate, the member for Hasluck's electorate and the Riverina, which are producing the food and fibre which is boosting our GDP; helping our balance of payments; helping drive our exports; and helping generate wealth for this nation.

Farmers are the backbone of Australia and it is high time that those opposite just sometimes recognised that. As the son of a farmer, I can proudly declare they always were the backbone of the nation and always will be. They are the group overlooked by those opposite and to whom the member for Watson, I believe, owes an apology.

I commend this bill. I commend the work that the coalition government is doing on R&D. Only today the coalition-led committee produced their report on food labelling, which is something that our side talked about in opposition. Now in government we are getting on and doing something about it. It is absolutely critical that we have correct food labels so that people can make a discerning choice when they go to the supermarkets and be sure that the product they are buying is accurate and, if they want to buy Australian made, actually made in Australia.

The R&D being done by our side of politics, by the government, is getting on with the job of helping to boost farmers and helping to boost that great group of individuals: men and women, those who left school at an early age and those who have really high tertiary qualifications. They come in all spectrums. But they are the ones who we should be admiring. They are the ones who we should be applauding at every single opportunity. They are the ones that this parliament owes a debt of gratitude to. They are the ones who do not deserve to be—as they continually are—criticised, rebuffed and rejected by those opposite.

We are getting on with the job of making sure that the farmers of this nation know that they cared for, know that we have concern for them and know that we—as Liberals and Nationals—understand that the job that they do for the nation is helping to grow the food and the fibre that is going to help continue make this nation even greater than it already is.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 is a very important piece of legislation for a very important sector of our economy. The extent of research and the impact of the rural development corporations is profound. There are five statutory bodies run by the government and 10 industry led bodies, whether it be the Cotton Research and Development Corporation, the Grains Research and Development Corporation, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, the Grape and Wine Authority or the industry-led bodies, such as Sugar Research, Forest and Wood Products Australia, Dairy Australia, Australian Wool Innovation, Meat and Livestock Australia and the Australian Egg Corporation. All of these bodies are doing an essential task for the good functioning and the growth and development of Australia's primary industries.

As the member for Riverina just alluded to, a lot of people focus on gross domestic product being centred around the metropolitan centres; but I remind this House that it is wealth creation that builds the capital that is then circulating in the GDP. A lot of our gross national product is all onshore. Some of the essentials of wealth creation are missed when you look at GDP figures. It is more of a reflection of turnover. An economy is great if you have got a bigger GDP. But somewhere along the line the nation has to produce wealth. It starts with our primary industries, whether it is agriculture in this instance or in the mining industry, where it starts with bit of dirt and mine it for a mineral. It is the same with agriculture. It is making wealth and support for the nation out of the land.

I have the utmost respect for people in the rural industries because basically we have the best and the most efficient farmers, graziers and croppers in the world. The amount of production that we put out this country is enough to feed 60 or 80 million people. That is way in excess of what we need in this country and it is in one of the harshest climates in the world. There have been two studies showing the benefit of investing in research and development in the rural space. The first one was in 2008 and the second one was in 2010. They confirmed that for every one dollar put into research, you get a five-year return of $2.36. The 10-year return is $5.56 for every one dollar you put in. For the 25-year return—depending on which study, although they were both very similar—one was $11 for every one dollar invested and the other came out as $10.52 for every dollar invested. It is a fairly robust analysis.

That is why there is such good value in us investing in research, particularly in this space where we have a competitive advantage over the rest the world. Doing the research and the development in the agricultural space will help us maintain that; because for every commodity in the world that we sell, there is someone elsewhere in the world trying to sell it. All our commodities are subject to world commodity prices so we if can be more efficient and get 10 per cent more protein out of an animal or get crop yields are 10 or 15 per cent, that is a bottom-line improvement for our farmers and graziers. It means the farm-gate price that they are likely to get is so much better if we have got good product.

This extensive network of rural research capacity was set up in 1989. They are funded by statutory levies, which are matched by Commonwealth funds up to a capped amount for appropriate research activities. The cap is based on the relevant industries' gross value of production. The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation receives contributions from the Northern Territory and the states. No doubt, you all appreciate that some of the fishing goes on within the states' sphere of influence, way out to our national fishing borders. This act will modify some of the workings of this complex set of research and development processes. It will affect the Primary Industries Research and Development Act, the Sugar Research and Development Services Act and Australian Grape and Wine Authority Act—just to name a few—so that the government which pays the fees for all the international bodies and similar peak bodies and advisory bodies around the world are paid for by the Commonwealth government. This legislation will allow the government to recoup those fees from the relevant development corporations.

That seems harsh, but all these changes in finances are predicated on us because we are committed to getting the budget back under control. We inherited such fiscal mess that we have had to make these hard decisions. The fees that are payable are considerable and every portfolio has to do its part. There are changes across all levels of government, whether it is social security, health or rural research and development. Some of these fees—in the Fisheries RDC, for instance—are almost a million dollars a year. Sugar research is $160,000; the Grape and Wine Authority is $110,000; the Grains RDC, $150,000; cotton, $95,000.

Because we are an island nation and our fisheries surround us, we have to keep track of what is going on with other fishery bodies—for information about fish stocks and so on. Most of the fish we catch migrate around the great oceans of the world. If our responsible authorities are not in tune with the Pacific Island nations and what they are doing with their fisheries—and with what is going on in the Indian Ocean and in the Great Southern Ocean—our fisheries will suffer. We have to be hooked into them. Whilst we are doing a good job of minimising our harvest rate so that we have sustainable fish stocks, if our neighbour nations and states do not apply similar restraint, our fisheries will eventually suffer. That is why it is so important that there are so many fisheries organisations.

Unfortunately, we in the government have to fund all this research and we have been put in the red by the previous government. That is why we are taking responsible, measured steps to help, at least with this portfolio, bring things back into the black. Not only are we funding these statutory bodies, as I have outlined, those amounts are matched dollar for dollar by the industries—or, rather, the government matches the money the industry bodies raise. All up, along with our research-for-profit initiative, which includes another hundred million dollars, there is $250 million a year being spent on rural research and development. Twelve days ago the minister announced the R&D-for-profit program, which is putting $100 million out there for all 15 of these research and development corporations. Whether they are industry owned and run or statutory organisations, they will be competing for these funds. It is a competitive process. The people with the best hypothesis or business case will be the beneficiaries of it. Again, all this research over time leads to better product and better returns for the growers and producers—and better take-home pay for the individual.

What we need is a secure, long-term funding set-up. This is a minor change, making the rural research and development organisations pay for their memberships in their associated international bodies. In addition, we are trying to reduce some of the cost burdens and the regulations that these organisations face. Regulations always have a financial impact, no matter what industry you are in. We have modified the requirements for these statutory bodies to table reports every year—saving them that cost. They still have to keep their papers in order, but there is a financial cost to preparing these reports. Some of them cost up to hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce, publish and table. In a way, we are saving them, on a recurrent basis, quite a lot of money—in a cumulative sense.

Another thing mandated by the existing legislation—which this legislation will amend—is the requirement for coordination meetings. What do we want? Do we want to have meetings for meetings' sake or do we want these R&D corporations to go out there and do research and development? I would much rather have the RDCs spending all their energies organising research and marketing for their industries than having endless meetings—coming here to Canberra and getting on the merry-go-round of meetings. I am sure there are better ways to coordinate research than to have yet another meeting in Canberra. These are well-staffed and well-credentialled bodies and I am sure they know how to coordinate their research.

My electorate produces up to a quarter of the state's milk. Whether you are a dairy farmer on the Comboyne Plateau, down in the Manning Valley or in the Lorne Valley, you would be reassured to know that Dairy Australia, in this instance, is doing research and developing marketing that will help you on your farm. A quarter of the state's milk from one reasonably small geographic area—that is incredibly productive. But it is incredibly productive because 10, 20 and 30 years ago there was extensive research that helped generate the productivity our farmers now demonstrate. There is a herd of 750 on one farm up on the Comboyne Plateau. That is a huge undertaking. There are 350 on another farm up there. There are similar herds down in the Manning Valley—all highly productive undertakings with cutting-edge technology.

If you were to walk onto one of those farms, it would be easy, with a superficial look, to say, 'That's easy—you just get them out there and milk them.' But vast amounts of research have gone into generating the productivity increases that have been achieved over the last two or three generations. There have been improvements in genetics, cross-breeding, fodder development, fertilisation regimes and irrigation—all of these together having an overall cumulative impact on productivity, whether in the abattoir at Wingham, the processing plant at Wauchope or on one of the many beef properties in my electorate. The research that has led to the genetic improvements has taken place over generations. It has been undertaken by the CSIRO, by Meat and Livestock Australia and by other bodies before them—decades of research into making our production of meat and livestock more efficient. In the Wingham area for instance, the abattoir is the single biggest employer. It is those efficiency improvements that give them good product to export to Korea, to Japan and to Hong Kong. That is why they are able to employ that many people. My colleague the member for Cowper relies on the same industry—he has a branch of that processing plant up in his electorate.

The ramifications of supporting R&D in the rural research space are extensive. It increases profitability, and not just for those businesses—Wauchope township relies on a lot of the small scale and larger scale producers coming into town and shopping at the co-op. There are several agricultural suppliers there. In the Manning, the biggest industry outside the health industry is the dairy industry. It is the shining light of productivity. They have had to be so efficient because they have had to deal with low commodity prices in the daily fresh milk market which, as we all know, has been subject to some very difficult trading conditions.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I am the only member of this place who is a dairy farmer and so I bring a particularly direct focus to this debate on the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill. I was disappointed to hear some of the comments from those opposite earlier in this debate, particularly given that for six years I sat in this place and, as a farmer, felt like I was a poor relation in the debate on policies and issues. Unfortunately, the comments we hear now demonstrate great hypocrisy. In bringing my contribution to the table today, as a farmer and as a levy payer, I want to talk about some of the reasons behind this—because, unfortunately, what we see is selective memory by those opposite.

All of us on this side would dearly love to have those conditions that Labor inherited when they came into government. As we all know, we left $20 billion in surpluses and $50 billion in savings—what an opportunity for the government of the day. Is that what we inherited? Clearly, the answer is no. I remind people, because sometimes we forget—we get so used to hearing the numbers—why it is that we need tough decisions. We had $191 billion in deficits left by Labor. If we did not make any changes, there would be a further $667 billion in gross debt, another $123 billion in further cumulative deficits ahead, and $1 billion in interest every single month. That equates to $30 million a day. That is $1.4 million an hour. Each speaker here has spoken for about 15 minutes, and in that time, thanks to Labor, we are borrowing another $340,000 to service the interest on the debt. That $12 billion a year in interest that is currently flowing out the doors could be going to any one of a number of very much needed programs and portfolio areas, not least the agricultural sector. Some of those opposite have suggested that $12 billion is not an issue—but $12 billion is more than the aged care budget. It is more than we spend on universities. If we do not make any changes and continue just to spend, as Labor would do, it would end up at being $2.8 billion a month in interest. In my view, that is obscene. As the IMF said, our spending under Labor was on the highest trajectory in the OECD. That is what we came into government facing—not $20 billion in surpluses and $50 billion in savings. Tough decisions are necessary.

The other issue that I wanted to talk about is the absolute lack of respect that I saw on the opposite side for our primary production sector. We saw that manifest itself in practical terms, as if this industry was an expendable one. That is exactly what, unfortunately, I have heard in the debate today—it is lip-service and is still seen, clearly, as an expendable industry. The Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill will make amendments to the Primary Industries Research and Development Act, which controls the research and development. It gives effect to some of the 2014-15 budget measures, and I have explained why they are necessary. It will allow the government to recover the cost of membership fees of international commodity organisations and regional fisheries management organisations from the matching amounts paid to rural research and develop and corporations. The bill also makes a number of additional amendments to the governance of R&D corporations.

I want to talk about some of what is happening in my electorate and why R&D is so important. In my part of the world we have the dairy industry, the beef industry, horticulture, viticulture, vegetables—everything down to olive oils, and even the forestry sector and the fisheries sector. We have a very good irrigation scheme run as a cooperative by farmers—one that those at the time at a state government level thought was bound to fail. There is a wonderful saying—where water flows, food grows. It certainly does, and that cooperative of farmers has done an amazing job. It is a multi-award-winning organisation. In my part of the world there is much said about the efficiency of farmers. I am of the very strong belief that, in the environment that has existed since 2000, in the south-west of Western Australia if you were not among the most efficient farmers in not only in Australia but the world you simply would not have been in business.

They are the efficiencies required in Australia to compete with countries when we export, when there are tariffs, when there are subsidies, when there are non-tariff barriers and all of the above. Our farmers have to compete in that environment—and compete they do. They produce some of the best food and fibre anywhere in the world. In my sector, the dairy industry, Western Australia produces some of the highest quality milk not only in Australia but in the world. As we have heard previously, our farmers operate in one of the harshest climates that you will find anywhere in the world. Australia is, I think next to Antarctica, the driest continent in the world. This is the environment in which our farmers operate, and they are very, very efficient at it.

The bill also makes some additional amendments to the governance of R&D. It removes the requirement for the minister to organise an annual coordination meeting for the chairs and it also removes some parliamentary tabling requirements. These are just further efficiencies. There are currently 15 R&D corporations, five statutory Rural Research and Development Corporations governed by the Primary Industries Research and Development Act. Ten of these are industry owned rural research and development corporations created from former statutory rural research and development corporations and, at the request of the relevant industry, most of them are able to undertake marketing activities in addition to their R&D. Also, most of them are primarily funded by statutory levies on primary production or products. These are the producers—us; the people just like me in the south-west of Western Australia. We are funding ourselves and directly investing in research and development and, by extension, investing in not just our own future and the future of the communities that rely on us but also Australia's future.

I note that the productivity growth—and, again, this is an area where we have seen and continue to see a lack of respect—in the farm sector has outpaced the rest of the economy. I wonder how many people not just in this place but in the rest of Australia actually grasp that fact, actually understand just how well our people on the land right are doing their job. Productivity growth in the farm sector has outpaced the rest of the economy. Right now, in my part of the world, it is hay season. There are a whole lot of farmers out there on tractors, mowing, tethering, raking and baling hay. They just get on with their job—like a lot of small businesses in this country. They work in their business, they have got their heart and soul in their business and they do what they do very, very well.

As I said, we had the Brunswick Show this last weekend—one of the biggest regional shows in Australia—and we saw a wonderful display of beef cattle, dairy produce, trade displays and machinery dealers. We cannot underestimate how important these shows are not only in bringing everybody together but also for the small businesses that keep our rural and regional communities operating and vibrant. These are the people who actually contribute to fundraising events in local communities, to football clubs and to other local community service organisations. Often it is the farmer's gear that is used for the local fire brigade or to help out to level a particular piece of ground. It is often the farmers who are called on for their common sense and expertise. Frequently, it is their tractor or truck or some other of their gear that is needed to be used. It is farmers and primary producers who provide this.

In Western Australian, Western Dairy uses some of the R&D funds for practical on-farm work. This is the sort of R&D that makes a difference on the ground. This is what we want to see and this is what our farmers need. To stay ahead in the environment in which they find themselves, they need research, innovation and practical outcomes. This is basically the edge that Australia has got, along with our biosecurity. We really need to protect our biosecurity and our clean and green image. With R&D—by constantly innovating and by constantly being efficient—we can stay ahead of the rest of the world in this sector. You do not outpace the rest of the economy, as the farming sector has done, without very effective R&D. In recent times some of that has eased slightly, but this is an industry that is constantly looking to innovate.

The other side of it is that most farmers in Australia are part of Landcare groups or Natural Resource Management groups. This is not just because they want to be efficient environmentally; they also want to manage their properties well. They know that there will be another group of farmers who will need to produce food and fibre on it, and so they are looking to manage their properties in a way that allows that capacity to stay with the land. This is another thing that is often overlooked in the debate about what farmers bring to the table. It is not just the economic multipliers but also the environmental management that they are very, very good at. As a member of the environment committee, I remember another member of parliament saying to me, 'I'm surprised to see you here.' I said, 'Why is that?' She said, 'Well, you're a farmer.' I said, 'Yes.' And she said, 'Well, you're an environmental vandal.' I said, 'Well, that's really an interesting comment. Are you aware that the majority of farmers are part of Landcare and Natural Resource Management groups?'

We live on rain water on my property. I do not know how many other people do that. If we are talking about managing resources and making the most of recycling and others measures, then we do that. We live on rain water. We grow a lot of our own vegetables and fruit. Of course, we have our own milk and, at times, eat our own beef. So when we talk about who is having an impact and how—and that is besides how well we manage or pastures or how well we manage our irrigation—there is a lot of misinformation out there about the contribution that farmers make across a range of areas of our economy. R&D is important to such management. We on this side have committed an extra $100 million to R&D, on top of the $250 million already committed, which will start next year. This is a critical to our primary producing sector being able to not only stay competitive but also continue to innovate and change

The number of farmers, who are constantly looking for information the best way they can, want to receive it on their farm while they are doing the job—while they are in the tractor. They want to get on with their job; they want the information they need; and they want to be the best at what they do. That is why I support the measures contained in this bill. Equally, we need some understanding of the reasons the government keeps having to make tough decisions, and those tough decisions are brought about by the lack of financial management by the previous Labor government. It is unfortunately a habit that we see repeated frequently in this place.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me pleasure to rise to speak on the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. R&D has been huge for agriculture over the years and it is something we are committed to. We stand by that commitment with an extra $100 million, despite the state of the budget and what we inherited. It shows how important we all believe rural R&D is.

It is not so long ago that the previous government not only did not want to increase R&D, but actually wanted to cut it by some 50 per cent of government contribution. I always recall the words of the recently deceased Prime Minister of Great Britain, Margaret Thatcher: 'Socialism's quite a good thing until you run out of other people's money to spend.' When the previous government did realise they spent a little too much and were having to borrow so much, one of their first targets was agricultural R&D. Their way of doing that was to hold a Productivity Commission inquiry into the R&D that was run by the various corporations and contributed to on a dollar-for-dollar basis by Australian agriculture. The Productivity Commission, being an arm of Treasury and an arm of government in that particular case, was happy to suggest that they were spending too much. It was only because we warned them of what was going on that agriculture and the various industry bodies got up and embarrassed the government from cutting their matching funding of 50 per cent. I was rather proud of our industry and ourselves in that instance in achieving that. The current Manager of Opposition Business was the minister at the time; he and his successors backed off on that one, but they certainly had no intention of supporting or increasing the R&D budget, even though their own Productivity Commission acknowledged just how good agricultural R&D was and the benefit the taxpayer got from it.

Australian farmers are very innovative and very adaptable. I have always thought of agriculture as being in groups. There is corporate agriculture, which I am a fan of and I will come back to say why. There is what I call family corporate, which is a family big enough to have economies of scale, with a family farm where the family is totally focused on running that farm. Then there are those who have off-farm income and who go along quite happily because they are getting enough money off-farm and so they do not need to get every dollar out of that farm. The ones under most pressure are the ordinary family farmers who are not big enough to achieve economies of scale—both partners are full-time farmers.

I add the word 'innovation' to R&D. All four levels of R&D are extraordinarily important. Unfortunately since about 2000 the gains that R&D have historically made for Australian agriculture have levelled out, particularly in the decade since then. Having said that, R&D is not just about increased productivity; it has to be about profitability. There is absolutely no point in producing more if you are not making any more. I have always said: 'Everything we have to do for agriculture revolves around profitability. Agriculture is not a charity; it is here to ensure that Australia has the best quality food in the world, and by and large that is true, but if you can't make a quid you're not in the game.' The No. 1 job of R&D is to increase profitability. It goes without saying that that will also include productivity and quality production. As the member for Forrest said, our image around the world of how we produce and what we produce is probably the biggest selling point of trade for us that exists.

I also want to say that there is another side to this that R&D can help with too—and that is the health aspect of food. R&D needs to look very hard at things like grains without gluten. The health thing is very big these days, but I am not talking organic here. I am afraid that, if the whole world went organic, the whole world's population would shrink considerably. If people want to work in the niche market of organics, good luck to them. I am talking about the health aspects that R&D can look at to increase the profile of agriculture but, more than this, to increase the profitability and the reliability of Australian agriculture.

There is one thing that is so important here with R&D. The extra money demands cooperation amongst the various bodies. I mean cooperation in not just how this money is spent between an R&D corporation and manufacturers or processors, as indeed it must—and that is why I mentioned the word 'innovation' as well—between them and industry bodies, as indeed it must, or between them and other private R&D bodies, as indeed it must; I mean cooperation between the different R&D corporations themselves. I think that is incredibly important.

The Productivity Commission report that the member for Watson, as the minister, called for stated that our bodies do not cooperate enough. For example, the various plant R&D corporations and the various animal R&D corporations should be working much more closely whether they want to or not. It is a fact that the industry bodies and the growers are all for total cooperation between the various bodies. In fact, they can see nothing but gain with it, and common-sense says that there is nothing but gain with it. It is not always true to say that those corporations—

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

We want to have a division before—

John Cobb (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Come on, I have still got six minutes. Stop panicking. The various corporations must learn to cooperate better. I believe it is the government's job to make sure that they do.

I have been involved with this for a long time. I think it is quite obvious—and I am no scientist and never intended nor wanted to be—that common-sense says that the genetics that are inherit within plants and animals means that if you do not cooperate you are going to miss out. I understand why some scientists want their name up there. If you do the work, you deserve to have it that way.

While the shadow minister is talking down there, I will say that I am sure that if he had been the minister he would not have wanted to knock $100 million out of the government's contribution of matching funds, but his predecessor certainly did want to do that. I am not going to go on any longer except to say that this $100 million means an awful lot. It better be used wisely and cooperatively. Historically broadacre has done enormous things. As I said, it has levelled out a lot in increasing productivity and the like. Horticulture today can probably make greater advances quicker with genetic work than broadacre can because it is so much more controllable and it lends itself naturally to laboratory work. Whether it is horticulture or broadacre, we need this R&D and we need the cooperation. The government must make sure it happens.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. As with many National Party members, I have a strong agricultural constituency that contributes to the productive capacity of Australia and the national wealth of Australia. In my electorate the blueberry industry is making a great contribution to wealth and employment. We have seen this industry go from strength to strength. This industry is employing many Australians and many visitors from overseas, who come to this country on a working holiday and find the blueberry industry an excellent source of employment. They are not only contributing to the productive capacity of the country but providing tourism dollars that will be spent in our local economy.

We have seen some great efforts in relation to blueberry production in my electorate. We have seen many hundreds of people employed in production. We have seen the great local cooperative by the name of Oz Berries going from strength to strength. It has achieved blueberry production growth in the order of 20 per cent per year. Not that long ago—I recall it was in the Howard era—Oz Berries secured a grant to assist them with constructing a packing facility. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that before that facility was completed it was already too small to meet the needs of the cooperative. So strong was the growth in production in blueberries that their packing facility had to be extended by the time it was officially opened. The facility has been progressively extended.

What started off as a private company has been transformed into a cooperative. That cooperative now provides a range of facilities to its members. It provides centralised buying as well as getting goods to market and a whole range of other services. Oz Berries is a credit to our local area. It does great work. It employs many locals and is producing great wealth for our region.

We also have a very large blueberry facility run by the CostaGroup at Corindi. Again they are employing many Australians. They produce high-quality fruit that has an Australia wide and worldwide reputation. They produce not only blueberries; in our local area there has been a move into the production of raspberries, which is also very welcome. It is also a high-value crop. We are seeing very labour-intensive agriculture on those properties enhancing our local wealth.

The Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 amends rural research and development legislation to give effect to a 2014 budget measure and to reduce red tape. The bill implements a 2014 budget measure to change the way that the government pays for its membership of international commodity organisations, including those for wine, grains, sugar and cotton. These organisations provide significant benefits to our producers. The amendments to payment arrangements will also encompass Australia's membership of six regional fisheries management organisations that manage migratory fish species. Our membership ensures regional arrangements are in line with domestic arrangements and secures access for Australian industry.

The bill amends the Primary Industries Research and Development Act 1989, the Australian Grape and Wine Authority Act 2013 and the Sugar Research and Development Services Act 2013 to allow the government to recover the cost of the memberships from the Commonwealth funding provided to relevant rural research and development corporations. The amendments will result in a saving to government of around $7 million over the next four years. Red tape will be reduced for a number of research and development corporations. This is in line with the government's commitment to reduce red tape. As a government, we think it is vitally important to reduce red tape so that businesses can act and operate more efficiently. The bill removes the requirement to table certain documents in the parliament. This provides consistency across the corporations, with funding contracts and variations no longer needing to be tabled. In the interest of good governance, the corporations will still produce these reports and make them available to the public or to members as required. Also repealed is the need for an annual coordination meeting for the chairs of statutory research and development corporations. Only five of the 15 corporations remain as statutory bodies. As there are other means to coordinate activities, the bill removes the need for a legislated coordination meeting. These are sensible changes in relation to red tape.

The government is obviously cognisant of the importance of reduced red tape in making business more efficient and more effective. A more efficient business sector can create more jobs. A more efficient business sector can create greater wealth for all Australians. I know that all sectors of Australian business, not only in the field of agriculture, welcome our commitment to the reduction of red tape. We have had oppositions in the past promising time after time to reduce red tape, but when they move from opposition into government they fail to make good on that commitment to reduce red tape. This government has a real commitment to red-tape reduction. This government is reducing red tape in a range of sectors right around the country, and this legislation is just part of that process. They are small changes, admittedly, that are making a difference to business by reducing that burden of red tape and reducing the costs of operating. That is a very important thing: if we can reduce business costs, we will have a more profitable and efficient business sector. The government's red-tape reduction agenda is very much a part of that. As I get around the country and talk to people in business, they are very pleased to see the government's solid commitment to red-tape reduction. They welcome the fact that there is finally progress being made by a government in stripping away those levels of red tape. Red tape creates inefficiency. Red tape creates increased operating costs for businesses, and this government is absolutely committed to reducing that red tape.

Australia's rural industries are innovative and productive, and the government is committed to ensuring their profitability and competitiveness now and into the future. This legislation is part of that commitment, as is our commitment to reducing red tape. We believe that we should be lifting the burden from business. We believe that we should be removing red tape as quickly as possible. We have seen hundreds of millions of dollars saved by business as a result of the government's commitment to red-tape reduction to date. We are having discussions in this session of parliament about the changes to red-tape requirements that are easing the burden on business. It is vitally important that we reduce red tape so that we allow businesses to function more efficiently and more effectively.

In my portfolio area of employment, we have made significant inroads in the reduction of red tape. We have lifted the burden of red tape off employment service providers, allowing them to do what they do best, and that is getting people into a job. When we came to government we inherited an employment services system that was mired in red tape and being prevented from doing what it should be doing. Employment service providers were spending their time filling out forms and complying with government requirements—

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Up to 50 per cent of their time.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Up to 50 per cent of their time. The member for Aston is correct. Some providers were telling me that they were spending up to 50 per cent of their time filling out forms, absolutely mired in red tape. So as we move toward the employment services contract, starting on 1 July 2015, we will have a significant increase in red-tape reductions over and above those red-tape reductions that we have achieved to date. It is a big commitment to red-tape reduction, and we are keeping our promise to the businesses of Australia that we would reduce red tape. That is reflected in reduced operating costs for businesses and increased profitability for businesses and it is also reflected in more jobs. That is what this government is all about. We are all about creating jobs, whether it be in agriculture or whether it be in the services sector, we are about creating jobs.

I will draw my contribution in relation to the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment bill to a conclusion. This bill, and the changes it makes, fit in well with the government's commitment to reduce red tape and our commitment to agriculture. We are committed to a strong and vibrant agricultural sector, and I commend the bill to the House.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be now read a second time. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after 8 pm.

Debate adjourned.