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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A lawyers' picnic.

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

A lawyers' picnic, my colleague suggests—and I think that is true. We know that the Assistant Treasurer and, indeed, the Treasurer are longstanding opponents of this change to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act, but, for some reason, it seems that the Prime Minister has decided to roll all of them and go with what he believes is the most popular thing to do out there in some rural and regional seats where the government is under substantial pressure a short time before an election.

Section 46 has been studied to death in this place. I have been here 20 years and I have been involved in a number of inquiries into section 46. Section 46 is there for the interests of consumers and it does that by promoting and protecting competition. At the moment a firm with a substantial degree of market power that misuses that market power to the detriment of a competitor—obviously, more often it is a smaller competitor—is guilty of a breach of section 46.

Under the current law someone needs to prove that the big firm intentionally set out to misuse that market power to the detriment of the smaller player. I acknowledge that that hurdle has been quite a high one in a number of court cases. But this sledgehammer approach will have a chilling impact on competition in the market. Larger firms will not be game to take a step to the left or to the right, or to take a step forward, for fear that someone might find that it had the effect of taking out a competitor. But what is good for a consumer is plenty of competition. We need competition in the market. It may be that, in some circumstances, the loss of someone from a market is a good thing, if they are not competitive. That is what competition in markets is all about. The fact that someone drops out of a market is not, in itself, proof that someone has misused market power. So, rightly, we have had to test it before the courts. This change is, if you like, a complete reversal of that onus, and one which will, in my view, have a chilling effect on the market.

Mr Taylor interjecting—

I can hear the assistant minister at the table groaning a little. I acknowledge that he knows a little bit about these things. But I would be very surprised if he agreed with every word that I am saying. I will pose a question to him in case he speaks next on this bill. Given the minister's rhetoric, how many plumbers, electricians and other tradesmen or farmers in his electorate will now be going to the ACCC seeking a victory in the courts under the new section 46 of the trade practices act?

Mr Taylor interjecting—

Where it will have a chilling effect is in medium-sized companies, with maybe 100 employees, that take action against a larger player who made a smart move in the market which had the effect of adversely impacting on the medium-sized firm. The court will have no choice, given that there was an adverse impact, but to find that the bigger firm had a deliberate intention of injuring that medium player in some way. That is not good law, Minister, and you know it is not good law. If you were very honest, you would jump to your feet at the first opportunity.

I can see the member for Hughes at the back of the chamber. He was challenged in an earlier speech to mention section 46, because the member for Hughes has been on the record more than once opposing these changes to section 46. Maybe he will have another opportunity to rise to his feet on this bill—we will give him leave, if he needs it—to explain his position on section 46. He joins the Assistant Treasurer, I think the Treasurer and many others on that front bench who have been railing against this change to section 46 all of their political lives, but who are now not even prepared to stand in this place and talk about it. It is a damning indictment on all of them. That is the truth of it.

Those opposite say they are standing up for rural and regional Australia and small business people, but we know it is not about that. It is about saving the Prime Minister's backside. That is what it is all about. They have done a strategic plan. They have said: 'We are going to look silly in the big end of town. The business community will come down on us, but at this point in the electoral cycle what matters is how this plays out in certain rural and regional seats.' That is all that matters: how this plays out in certain rural and regional seats. That is exactly what this is all about, and they will be found out eventually.

The minister was on television today saying, 'We fixed milk. People are only paying $1. We fixed that. We'—as if he did it—'exported milk to China and we got $11. So we fixed that.' In other words the minister thinks that Australians should be paying somewhere between $1 and $11. I am not sure which; he did not nominate the price. But there are two people at the table: the producers, who need a fair return, and the consumers, who expect a fair go. The real way to make sure that they are both winners is to have a productivity agenda, so that there is a win-win. But this government has no productivity agenda for agriculture.

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

It is clear, by those comments that he just made, that the member for Hunter has never been a dairy farmer like me and been an absolute price taker in the marketplace. As someone who has been through this process, I would desperately have liked to have had access a number of years ago to the revised section 46 to assist my group of farmers in what we were trying to do.

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

I would remind the member for Hunter that I have been through that process with the ACCC. The process was particularly difficult. There were many breaches of what was then the trade practices act associated with that. So I speak from a position of experience of being an absolute price taker in the market, and focusing on consumers is a challenge when you are in that position in the marketplace.

It is important that we minimise the regulatory burden on our nation's farmers and food manufacturers. It is also vital that we maintain our reputation for producing high-quality, safe food that is the envy of the rest of the world. This is our greatest advantage in the international food marketplace. Australia's gross value of farm production is worth an estimated $48.7 billion a year, with an export value of farm commodities well over $30 billion a year. We export 60 per cent of what is grown in this country by some of the best farmers in the world.

There is no doubting the quality of Australia's food production. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said:

Australia has a worldwide reputation for producing superior quality, premium food. Australian food producers are committed to providing the highest international standards of quality management and food safety.

As a dairy farmer myself I can say that that is exactly the case in my industry. It is an industry that is focused, and has to be focused, on innovation. It is focused on increased productivity, often with less land, less water, less fertiliser and less profit. Agriculture keeps many rural and regional communities alive. Although the nation may no longer ride on the sheep's back, as we have heard historically, agriculture is still the lifeblood of the bulk of the Australian landmass. Australia's rural industries are among the most innovative and productive in the world. Continued investment in rural research and development is vital to ensure ongoing growth and improvement in the profitability and competitiveness of Australia's agriculture, fisheries, forestry and food sectors. In recognition of this, the Australian government works with industry to co-invest with the growers in research through our world-leading rural R&D system.

The RDCs were established under the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989 to provide research and development services or, as they are commonly known, research and extension services. They are vital to keep Australian primary producers at the forefront of industry around the world. Continuous innovation underpinned by pertinent—it has to be pertinent—and high-quality research is essential to maintaining competitive and profitable industries and maintaining the rural communities that depend on them right around Australia. There are 15 R&D corporations—five statutory and 10 industry owned—supporting a wide range of rural industries. Through them, primary producers invest in themselves and their future. They invest in research, development and extension. Like all industries, it is essential that the agricultural sector invests in its own future, as we have for many years. With the development of an RDC, the respective industry has the capacity to set up and collect a levy paid by its own members. Government helps this process by doing the collection and passing on the proceeds after, of course, recovering costs. To encourage producers to invest in their own productivity and to support the industries themselves, the government matches the corporations' eligible R&D up to legislated limits.

The national interest demands a healthy agricultural sector, and a healthy agricultural sector requires farmers to be both competitive and profitable. There are approximately 134,000 farm businesses in Australia, 99 per cent of which are Australian owned. Australian farmers produce almost 93 per cent of Australia's daily domestic food supply and export 60 per cent of what they produce. There are around 300,000 people directly employed in agriculture, and over 1.6 million people are employed in food and fibre production, processing, distribution and marketing. Farmers themselves contribute around $48.7 billion, or three per cent, of Australia's total gross domestic product. With the value-add, this comes to around 12 per cent of GDP—approximately $155 billion.

There is no doubt that farm profits have been squeezed in recent years. We have seen constant demands for farmers to become more efficient. Australian farmers have responded magnificently. They remain internationally competitive, often in one of the toughest environments to produce, if you look at Australia. They have done this through efficiencies and productivity growth. This has been strong relative to other sectors of the economy and comparable with other OECD countries. It had increased steadily over a 30-year period at 2.8 per cent, consistently outperforming other sectors to the point of doubling the rate of some other industries. Without this level of growth, the gross value of production in Australian agricultural sectors would be approximately $12 billion per annum rather than $40-odd billion. In recent times, agricultural productivity growth has slowed to one per cent per annum, further highlighting the need for research and development to ensure that the industry can continue to grow and develop, and, of course, those profits are received at the farm gate.

Rural industries are engaged with and firmly support the R&D corporation model. The development of levy-payer registers has been identified in a number of reviews and inquiries as important to the ongoing strength of Australia's rural R&D system. The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry into industry structures and systems governing the imposition of and disbursement of marketing and R&D levies in the agricultural sector recommended the imposition of and disbursement of marketing and R&D levies in the agricultural sector, legislative amendments to allow for the development of a levy-payer register, improving consultation with levy payers and ensuring the accurate allocation of voting entitlements.

The Agricultural competitiveness white paper identifies a number of measures aimed at improving Australia's world-leading rural R&D systems. These measures and the outcomes they seek to deliver, including new R&D priorities, improved governance of RDCs and increased funding for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, will benefit from timely improvements to consultation between RDCs and levy payers.

I also want to touch on a few organisations. I looked at the Cotton Research and Development Corporation. There are 1,250 growers and they are running 150 R&D projects. There is $20.6 million, between the government and the growers, available to five key priority areas: farmers, industry, customers, people and performance. This is just a snapshot, but they look at weeds and pests—there is critical R&D in weeds and pests—water and self-cooling cotton fabrics for the market. Around the priority area of people, there is rural leadership investment. Frequently, CSIRO is a researcher in this space, along with these organisations. I looked at what the Grains Research and Development Corporation were doing: meeting market requirements; improving crop yields; protecting farmers' crops; advancing profitable farming systems; building skills and capacity; rot resistance; fertiliser, fungal and viral R? adaptive practices; and climate change. Of course, again, researchers were from CSIRO.

As to MLA, I looked at the R&D on grass-fed cattle and grain-fed cattle, and on sheep and goats and their supply chain. And I looked of course at Dairy Australia. I am aware of what is happening with Western Dairy on the ground in R&D. But, equally, at a Dairy Australia level, the investment arm is returning a $3 benefit for every levy dollar raised from the farmers. They are investing in things such as farm margin improvements, animal performance and elite genetics, in herd fertility and in milk quality, in farm business management and in benchmarking between actual farm businesses. They are also investing in resource management; in the things that are really live issues for our dairy farmers: issues around nutrients, water, soil and energy; in industry natural resource management strategies; in on-farm emissions mitigation; and in water-use efficiency. These are the practical matters.

So the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016 makes legislative changes to the act which will allow the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources provide levy and charge payer—levy payer—information to the rural research and development corporations for the purpose of developing levy payer registers. As it stands, the act only permits the distribution of levy payer information to the wool and dairy RDCs. This bill remedies this by allowing the government to provide the levy payer information to the 13 other RDCs. Levy payer registers allow RDCs to identify and consult directly with the levy payers—the levy payers who actually fund the R&D system—and ensure accuracy in the allocation of voting entitlements. That is very important if you are the grower. Through greater levy payer engagement in their work, RDCs will be better able to align research investments to industry priorities, to improve returns to farmers, fishers and foresters, and to contribute to a more profitable, competitive and sustainable agricultural sector. The bill removes the legislative impediment to the development of levy payer registers.

However, recognising that a one-size-fits-all approach would not be appropriate, given the diversity of Australian agricultural industries, as we know well, the bill allows for the distribution of levy payer information to an RDC to occur only where an RDC, in consultation with industry, requests it and that request is approved by the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. The department would then work with the RDCs on the administrative design and development of a register. This is consistent with the government's approach to the broader R&D levy system where levies can be introduced or amended at the request of industry.

The bill allows an authorised person to provide levy payer contact information, and details of the levy paid or payable, to an eligible recipient. The bill defines an eligible recipient as an RDC or the Australian Bureau of Statistics; it is prescriptive in that form. This is consistent with the government's Public Data Policy Statement, which commits to securely—securely—sharing data between Australian Government entities to improve efficiencies, and inform policy development and decision making.

The bill also sets out the purposes for which the information provided to the eligible recipient can be used. This includes matters relating to the development and maintenance of the levy payer registers, the ability to make public any statistical, de-identified information, and any functions required of the recipient under Commonwealth laws or under a funding agreement between the RDC and the Commonwealth. The RDCs will also be able to use levy payer registers to allocate voting rights for industry polls more efficiently and accurately, without the need for paper based statutory declarations.

I will go back to where I started. The work of RDCs and the contribution of the growers, the farmers, to this, with the government, are critical for the future of the agricultural sector, and for the growers in particular, as well as for the industry as a whole. We need to not only maintain our international reputation as a clean and green producer of some of the highest-quality products and fibres in the world but also make sure that our farmers have sufficient profitable businesses to maintain the capacity to be effective in a constantly changing world.

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

I rise today to speak on the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016. This bill makes it possible for rural research and development corporations or RDCs to identify and connect directly with the primary producers who fund their work.

My region is one of the largest and most diverse agricultural regions in the nation. It produces a wide range of fruits, vegetables and nuts, and beef, sugar, pork and dairy, just to name a few. Data from the 2015 ABARES report for the Wide Bay region—which takes in the five local government areas of Bundaberg, Fraser Coast, Gympie, North Burnett and South Burnett—states that, in 2012-13, the gross value of agricultural production in Wide Bay was $1 billion, or 10 per cent of the total agricultural production in Queensland. Of that $1 billion, vegetables contributed 23 per cent or $239 million, with the major crops being tomatoes at $90 million, potatoes at $25 million, and beans at $20 million. In 2012-13, the Wide Bay region accounted for almost 98 per cent of the total value of Queensland mandarin production, and 85 per cent of the total value of macadamia nut production. The region is home to about 4,356 farms, or 16 per cent of all farm businesses in Queensland. About 24 per cent of all people employed in the Queensland agriculture, forestry and fishing sector are based in Wide Bay. The sector employs about 12,700 people locally, representing about 12 per cent of the region's total workforce. All the producers of these products, the hardworking farmers of Hinkler, pay levies on their production that are invested in research and development—invested in the future of agriculture; invested in securing the livelihoods of our farming families and the jobs in our communities.

This bill allows a levy payer's contact details and the amounts of levy paid to be provided to RDCs. This information is currently only available to the wool and dairy RDCs. Access to levy information would provide RDCs with the ability to identify and consult directly with levy payers on the strategic direction of research activities. It will place levy payers—our farmers—in a more central role on how levies are spent for their benefit. It will allow RDCs to better rely on research investments to industry priorities, improving returns to primary producers and contributing a more profitable, competitive and sustainable agriculture sector.

Australia's primary industries have a strong tradition of being innovative and of being able to adapt to new challenges. They are highly efficient and competitive international markets. The outlook for the sector is strong, with the demand for good-quality food on the rise. Investment in research, development and innovation is vital for the ongoing growth and improvement in the productivity, profitability, competitiveness and sustainability of the nation's agriculture, food, fisheries and forestry industries.

The coalition government currently provides around $250 million every year in matching funding for RDCs. This is on top of the approximately $500 million provided directly by producer levies. This is a significant commitment from both farmers and government and we need to make sure it is used as effectively as possible and delivers the best outcomes for our farmers, rural communities and the nation. This funding is used by the RDCs to commission and manage targeted investment in research, innovation, knowledge creation and extension. There are also Rural Research And Development Priorities to balance new and ongoing R&D investment needs for the primary production section and to ensure R&D objectives of the Australian government are met.

These priorities, which were developed in consultation with state and territory governments, industry, research funders and providers,    are: productivity and adding value, improving the productivity and profitability of existing industries and support the development of viable new industries; supply chain and markets, to better understand and respond to domestic and international market and consumer requirements and improve the flow of such information through the whole supply chain, including to consumers; natural resource management, to support effective management of Australia's natural resources to ensure primary industries are both economically and environmentally sustainable; climate variability and climate change, to build resilience to climate variability and adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change; biosecurity, to protect Australia's community, primary industries and environment from biosecurity threats.

The June 2015 report from the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee stated just some of the gains in the agricultural sector brought about by research and development investments. In the cotton sector there was an increase in domestic cotton yields at almost three times the world average, a 95 per cent reduction in the use of pesticides, a 40 per cent improvement in the use of water, and the generation of over $2 billion in annual export earnings.

In the vegetable sector there was greater access to vital crop protection products; export development and capacity development activities have contributed to increased export of Australian vegetables, improved soil health and productivity solutions as well as innovative soil DNA testing for potato disease. In the dairy sector the total factor productivity for Australian dairy farms increased at an average annual rate of 1.6 per cent from 1978-79 to 2010-11. While there were other factors involved, research and development provided the basis for much of this productivity improvement. Independent experts estimate the overall benefit of R&D expenditure to the levy as being in the range of 3.3 to six to one.

In the horticultural sector, the cross-benefit analysis of R&D investments undertaken within the apple and pear industry suggest the benefits of $1 invested range from $2.10 to $5.20. An assessment of Cotton Research and Development Corporation research projects has shown CRDC R&D research returns around $13 for every dollar invested to levy payers, but $30 for the wider community.

In the same Senate committee report, the Australian Lot Feeders' Association made the observation:

In the pioneering days of Australia's history, technology and innovation were used to overcome the obstacles faced by farmers trying to make a living off impoverished soil and very dry land.

Since then, we see farmers making use of technology and innovation to remain viable players in a keenly competitive international market, while ensuring the sustainability of their social, economic and biophysical environments. Into the future, rural R&D will continue to help the agricultural sector meet the challenges associated with the rising cost of agricultural inputs, declining commodity prices, climate change and meeting the increasingly discerning needs of consumers.

Bundaberg—in my electorate of Hinkler—is home to the world's largest macadamia processing plant and is the second largest macadamia-growing area in Australia after the Northern Rivers of New South Wales. With an estimated yield of just short of 20,000 tonne of macadamias grown in the Bundaberg region, this industry is worth well over $100 million.

According to the Australian Macadamia Society, macadamias have one of the highest investments in research and development relative to its size of any Australian horticultural industry—more than $4 million every single year. Macadamia research and development projects have focused on improving soil and orchard floor management, disease management in macadamia, progressing integrated pest management in macadamias, regional macadamia variety trials, and optimising kernel processing for shelf life.

Other programs being undertaken by the Australian Macadamia Society are: a breeding program, which has identified new selections that are expected to outperform existing commercial varieties and one of the potential benefits from these selections include 30 per cent higher yield; a precision agriculture project that aims to improve farm operational efficiency and reduce impacts on natural resources; and research is underway to develop a functional-structural model that helps identify and prioritise the physiological processes affecting macadamia growth, yield and quality.

Another example of the benefits of research and development was a 13-year $20 million joint investment led by the Sugar Research and Development Corporation, now Sugar Research Australia, to halt sugarcane yield decline, which returned independently evaluated benefits to industry of $237 million. According to the Council of Rural Research and Development Corporations, the investment returned a benefit cost ratio of 7:1 and an internal rate of return of 19 per cent. The then SRDC led the investment and was supported by BSES Limited, CSIRO, Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, and Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water. The program hinged on successfully integrating legume rotations into sugarcane production systems that involve minimum tillage and controlled traffic.

Former chairman of SRDC Mr Ian Knop said growers who implemented the farming practices reported savings of up to $500 per hectare. This represents money straight onto the bottom line of a farm business. The Sugar Yield Decline Joint Venture—a three-phase research, development and extension investment—was established in 1993 after yield decline and yield plateaus had been a concern for the sugar industry for a number of years.

Economic, environmental and social benefits from the venture included: cane yield increase after the legume crop in the cane plant crop and subsequent ratoon crops, due to improved soil health; savings of nitrogen fertiliser and its application in the cane plant crop and, in part, the first ratoon crop; reduced cultivation costs for the plant cane crop; labour savings and improved timeliness and flexibility of operations; capital savings due to lowered requirements for high-powered tractors and tillage equipment; and an overall likely reduction in any impact the cane industry could have been having on the water quality and biodiversity of proximate coastal waters and possibly on the Great Barrier Reef.

The 2011 Productivity Commission report into rural research and development corporations also highlighted how research and development could benefit consumers and the wider community. There were benefits such as: better standards of living, through cheaper and higher quality food; improved environmental amenity; and greater capacity within rural communities to adjust to changing circumstances, which may in turn reduce calls on the welfare system.

The report stated that any given R&D investment can lead to a mix of benefits for different parties:

For example, pests that cause damage to crops might also blight backyard gardens, and hence efforts by producers to prevent or limit pest outbreaks may be beneficial to others in the community. In the other direction, the provision of high quality food can generate health benefits for consumers — and insofar as this encourages them to buy more fresh produce, benefits may flow back to producers. Indeed, in many ways, benefits to producers and benefits to the community are heavily intertwined.

In summing up, it is important to note that the bill does not create levy payer registers. The distribution of levy payer information to an RDC will only happen where an RDC, in consultation with industry, requests that it occur and that request is approved by the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Whether an industry sees benefit in implementing a register is a matter for each RDC and industry to consider.

The coalition government considers that the ability to hear directly from the levy payers who fund the system will result in a positive outcome for RDCs and Australian agriculture. I commend this bill to the House.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always good to follow the member for Hinkler, the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister. I listened closely to his contribution. I tell you what, it was a lot better than the member for Hunter's effort earlier in this debate. I heard the member for Hinkler say quite clearly that, for every dollar of research and development levy money spent, $13 goes back to the farmer and $30 goes back to the wider community—and he is so right. R&D is so important, and that is why it is crucial that the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016 be passed by this parliament. This bill amends the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 to allow for the distribution of levy payer information to rural research and development corporations, RDCs, for the development of levy payer registers.

Just as I listened carefully to the member for Hinkler, while sitting in my office a short while ago I also listened very carefully to the member for Hunter, the so-called shadow minister for agriculture, who rubbished the decentralisation of research and development corporations to regional areas. He ought to be sticking up for regional areas. He ought to be advocating for decentralisation. He is one of the alleged Country Labor members. You would think he would be coming into this place and talking up decentralisation, talking up the relocation of RDCs to rural and regional areas.

I have to say that Wagga Wagga, my home town, is the beneficiary of one of these decentralised projects. Wagga Wagga, on 10 February this year, was announced as the new home of a dozen jobs in the core function of the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, RIRDC, in a shake-up announced by the federal government. I welcomed the announcement.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I bet you did!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did, Member for Wakefield. Of course I did. It is jobs. You stick up for jobs in your electorate, as you should, as I do—any jobs. When it was announced, it was a dozen jobs. That might not mean much, but I tell you what, it is 12 large pay packets. It is 12 professionals. When 12 professionals of that ilk move into a city the size of Wagga Wagga—admittedly it is 66,000 people; it is a good sized city—they bring not just 12 large pay packets. Quite often they bring two or three kids, who go into the Catholic or public schools. They end up getting involved in school parents and citizens associations. They get involved in local Rotary clubs, Lions clubs and sporting groups. They contribute so much to our community. Not only was it a dozen jobs, Member for Wakefield, but, on 5 March it became 21 jobs, because there were nine additional jobs with that particular RIRDC. So there were 21 jobs in total. They will provide a very much welcome boost not just to Wagga Wagga but to the wider Riverina region.

Everyone in this place ought to know, because I have talked about it often enough—goodness knows the member for Barker has heard me say it often enough—that our region is a proud and productive agricultural hub. This commitment by the coalition government, by the Nationals in government, builds upon the region's leading agriculture research at places such as Charles Sturt University—what a marvellous institution that is—as well as ensuring more government agencies are on the ground in the regions and closer to the places where our food and fibre are grown and produced. When it comes to food and fibre, the Riverina is a leader.

Decentralisation is not just an abstract idea; it is a real priority for this government. It is a significant priority for the Nationals in government. The 10 February announcement is living proof of our election commitment being put into action, with a dozen jobs and then, on 5 March, an additional nine jobs—21 jobs in total.

The formerly Canberra based RIRDC is going to increase its regional presence. When I say 'formerly based', they will still have a presence in Canberra, in the nation's capital, but they will now be extending that to boost jobs and opportunities and prosperity in places such as Wagga Wagga, Dubbo, the electorate of the member for Parkes—what a wonderful representative he is—Toowoomba, the electorate of the member for Groom and other areas. These RDCs are focused on rural research, including grains, fisheries, aquaculture—small and emerging industries—and are taking advantage of the National Innovation and Science Agenda that this government is fostering, enhancing and making a significant financial contribution to. So it just makes good sense to locate them away from Canberra where the boots actually hit the dirt in their respective sectors. I am very pleased that 21 jobs are coming Wagga Wagga's way.

I listened carefully, as I said, to the member for Hunter's contribution. I did not hear him talk about foreign investment. Foreign investment is good—it made this country great and it continues to make this country prosper—but it has to be in the national interest. I have to say, when Labor has a policy to have $1,000 million being the trigger point at which the Foreign Investment Review Board would look into the foreign takeover of an agribusiness or farmland, I worry. The people I serve worry. The people I represent worry.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You worry?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do worry about that, member for Wakefield and you should too. We do not need foreign takeovers that decide what the price of our wheat or our rice is going to be in a boardroom in, for argument's sake, Illinois in the United States of America. We need to have control over our agribusinesses right here in Australia. Sure, foreign capital is welcomed. It always has been. As I said, it has made this country great. But, when the Labor Party has a foreign investment takeover policy that does not even offer a trigger to FIRB until it actually passes the billion-dollar mark, I worry. I know a lot of the people out there on their tractors or in the shearing sheds, working hard and listening to parliament and to this speech—and they do—and a lot of people who will be reading the Hansard are concerned, as they ought to be.

The member for Hunter is very anti-Nationals. I cannot understand why. He should be getting on board with some of the policies, if he were a fair dinkum country representative. If he were fair dinkum about agriculture, he should actually be endorsing and not rubbishing many of the policies—indeed, all of the policies—that the Nationals bring to the table. We have produced many achievements in just 2½ years of being in government, including abolishing the carbon tax and the mining tax, those job-destroying and regional-Australia-destroying taxes. We have signed preferential trade agreements with South Korea, Japan and our largest trading partner, China. They are very, very important.

We are unlocking the logjam of Commonwealth environmental laws which are impeding rural, remote and regional growth. We have a drought support package—a comprehensive package supporting farmers, particularly those in north-west New South Wales and Queensland areas which have not seen rain for a considerable amount of time. We recommenced the live export of sheep, cattle and goats to such countries as Bahrain, Iran and Egypt, while rebuilding the live cattle trade with Indonesia. Wasn't that a disaster. Wasn't that an absolute diplomatic disaster. It was an economic disaster. Honestly, to do that over just a television program was an absolute disgrace and one of the worst decisions that many people have seen. It is not just me saying it; many, many people are saying it. It was one of the worst decisions that this parliament has perpetrated on the hardworking cattle producers of this country.

The National Stronger Regions Fund is already rolling out money to regional Australia. The Roads to Recovery Program enables the food and the fibre to be taken from regional areas to export markets. I did not hear the member for Hunter talking much about those—we provided $565 million in our first year alone to black spots on roads. When I talk about black spots, I also refer to the significant amount of money—tens of millions of dollars—being spent on mobile black spots. Not one cent was spent on mobile black spots during the six sorry years of Labor.

I am so glad that in my electorate we are finally funding the Bridges Renewal Program. I say 'finally', because Margaret Merrylees, a councillor and a wonderful local government representative for the Murrumbidgee Shire, has fought hard for a new bridge over the Murrumbidgee at Carrathool for many, many years—decades, in fact. Finally, this government, in conjunction with Duncan Gay and his New South Wales coalition government, are funding that bridge.

At the Barralong in Gundagai Shire, there is another new bridge. Just recently, I announced funding for Eunony Bridge, which is a vital linkage to the Bomen industrial area at Wagga Wagga City Council. These are all important linkages which are all providing value or eliminating road network pinch points. I could also talk about the Kapooka Bridge—this side of government provided $27½ million for that. They are all important. They are linking in with primary industry research and development, which is so significant. We have provided hundreds of millions of dollars for the heavy vehicle safety projects.

I hear those opposite so often condemning the 2014 budget, but it contained $100 million for rural research and development, $15 million to support market access and $20 million in extra money for biosecurity. I have to say that biosecurity was ignored under Labor. I made a trip to New Zealand—a self-funded trip, mind you—to ensure that the potential apple blight did not come across from New Zealand apples and onto those fine orchards of Batlow. When the Asian honey bee incursion threatened our fine honey producers, what did Labor do? Nothing. Absolutely diddly-squat. They did not care, they did not know and they did not want to know.

I was very pleased to take part in the turning of the soil at Mickleham, in the member for McEwen's electorate. I have to give him credit: he was there too and he was a supporter of the post-entry biosecurity facility just near Melbourne Airport. They are the sorts of things that our government is getting on with and doing in the R&D space in rural Australia.

The northern Australia push has been complemented by this government looking after southern Australia. Just recently, last August, farmers and irrigators in my area were told that they were going to share in $263.5 million of on-farm irrigation in New South Wales, particularly around the Coleambally area. I had the chief executive officer of Snowy Hydro, Paul Broad, a former guru with Infrastructure New South Wales, in my office this morning. He was praising the work that they do there and the fact that every single drop of water at Coleambally is accounted for. They know where it is. They know how it is being dripped out onto those wonderful rice paddies, the marvellous cotton crops and the vegetables that they grow in the huge paddocks that they supply to many wholesalers and supermarkets.

It all comes about through R&D. It all comes about because this government is prepared to spend money on infrastructure, research and development and making sure that every drop is accounted for. That is not like those opposite. All they wanted to do was make sure that every drop of water flowed down the rivers, down the systems and down the Murray-Darling Basin and out of the mouth of the Murray. That is all they cared about.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about Broken Hill? Tell us about Broken Hill.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the member from South Australia opposite. They forget that our areas are fine producing areas. I know he originally comes from an irrigation area. I know he knows of the importance of irrigation in communities. I know he knows the importance of those farmers who provide the food and fibre that keep this nation great. It is also important that we have water reform. We are doing that. But it is equally important that this primary industries levies bill passes this House, as it will.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the next member, I will remind the member for Wakefield that he should not continually interject.

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

We should not admonish the member for Wakefield too much; he adds some colour to this place, if not intellectual rigor! It is a privilege to follow the member for Riverina. He is a staunch and strong advocate for rural Australia. It was a double pleasure to have him highlight to the member for Wakefield the important achievements of our coalition government over the course of this term. That is something which I think the member for Wakefield knows, deep down in his heart.

I rise today to speak on the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016. It is a bill of significance for many primary producers across my electorate of Barker. Barker, the agricultural hub of South Australia—that is something the member for Wakefield may take issue with, but it is a title we own—is home to some of the best primary producers in the nation. From the Riverland to the Lower Lakes and right across the region, agriculture is the most significant industry sector in my electorate. Indeed, agriculture employs more of my constituents than any other sector. From small owned family farms to large corporate enterprises running farms across the electorate, Barker is home to the full range of primary producers from beef to cheese and all manner of horticulture.

Whilst my electorate is perfectly suited for the production of agricultural produce, farmers across my electorate are constantly striving to capture the opportunities that new developments in research and development may have for their industry. Across the spectrum of primary production, the government collects levies which are directed towards R&D. Importantly, it is estimated that, for every dollar that the government has invested in rural research and development, farmers over 10 years have generated $12 in return. That is worth repeating. For every dollar this Commonwealth invests in rural research and development, farmers generate a $12 return.

This government remain committed to facilitating innovation across the agricultural sector. I think it is fair to say that farmers were the regional innovators. Having announced our comprehensive national innovation statement in December of last year, the government have laid the foundation for the transition from the mining investment boom to the new economy. It is, if you like, the mining boom to the dining boom. I echo the optimism of the Deputy Prime Minister when it comes to the healthy state of prices for primary produce across the nation, whether it is beef, sheep meat or other products which are grown and distributed to the world by my electorate.

1t is against such an agenda of economic transition and innovation that this bill clears the constraints which currently block the dialogue between rural researchers and the primary producers who fund them. This bill will seek to clarify the current situation through enacting such measures as would facilitate a healthy and productive dialogue between these important partners.

The bill amends the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 to allow for the distribution of levy payer information by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to rural RDCs for the development of levy payer registers. Doing so enables the levy payers, the bodies that represent them and the research entities to collaborate on issues relevant to their respective industries. The information that may be distributed is the name, address, contact details and ABN of any entity that has paid, or is liable to pay, a levy or charge. The information may also include details of the amount of levy or charge that that person or entity has paid, or is liable to pay, on a leviable commodity. This will provide clarity when it comes to the size and scope of each levy payer's contribution to the research process, which in turn will enable representative bodies and research entities to better understand the state of their respective industries.

The bill allows the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to permit levy payer information to be provided to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and used for the performance of its very important functions. This is consistent with the government's public data policy statement, which commits to securely sharing data between Australian government entities to improve efficiencies and inform policy development and decision making.

The bill also allows the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to approve the disclosure of information given to an RDC, under limited circumstances, to another party such as to a ballot provider for a levy vote or to an industry representative body to consult on a levy proposal. However, the information must be used for an activity related to research and development or marketing, or for biosecurity or National Residue Survey purposes. Essentially, the bill delivers greater situational awareness when it comes to the primary production sector. This will enable government to better formulate policy decisions in a targeted and informed manner. The bill, in and of itself, does not create levy payer registers. The distribution of levy payer information to an RDC for a levy payer register will only occur where an RDC, in consultation with industry, requests that it does occur, and that request is to be approved by the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources.

This bill is consistent with the government's reasonable and responsible approach to agricultural policy creation in the nation. It is only the coalition that understands the plight of rural and regional Australians and understands the importance of rational and sensible policy when it comes to agriculture. Today the coalition is delivering a better outcome for primary producers across the nation, and in my case particularly those in Barker. The provisions in this bill will provide greater clarity for our primary producers, their representative bodies and their related research entities. It has been widely acclaimed by representative bodies, such as the Cattle Council of Australia, whose CEO, Jed Matz, said:

This will have multiple benefits such as improved disease management and prevention, improved extension services, more targeted communication and policy.

The sheepmeat industry welcomes this legislation too, with the President of the Sheepmeat Council of Australia, Jeff Murray, saying:

The introduction of this legislation is an important step in empowering industry representative organisations.

He also said:

Once passed, these amendments will enable peak bodies such as SCA—

the Sheapmeat Council of Australia—

to identify the industry issues and priorities of the levy payers we represent through better engagement with them and therefore empower us to oversight levy expenditure more effectively.

These are ringing endorsements and are but a few of the multitude of organisations who have lent their support to this legislation today. Those opposite could not say the same of the endorsements they received from the primary production sector. Primary producers in this country have long memories; long memories indeed. They have not forgotten the live export fiasco that was initiated by the Labor government to halt the exports of our hardworking producers. The primary producers of Barker, in particular, have not forgotten that decision, a decision I should remind the House that was supported in the other place by Senator Xenophon.

We probably should have an award given daily for the hypocrisy of the day. My nomination today is the member for Bendigo. It would be unparliamentary for me to refer to her as the 'bleater from Bendigo,' so I shan't.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Withdraw!

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

I will. I cannot help myself. In her contribution to the matter of public importance, which I think we should call a matter of rank hypocrisy today, she said that Labor had fixed the live cattle issue for the nation. I appreciate that mine is only one nomination for the award of hypocrisy of the day, but I think it is a strong candidate for victory, because, whilst it is true that Labor ultimately undid the harm that they occasioned on the northern cattlemen and the cattlemen of this nation more generally, it was their act and their act alone to prohibit the live export of cattle to Indonesia which caused that very harm. Effectively the member for Bendigo was seeking credit for fixing a problem that was wholly the product of Labor in government.

I think those opposite might grow tired of us continually referring to this fiasco but we must, and we must continue to remind them of the harm they wreaked to regional Australians as a result of that knee-jerk reaction, that kind of ill-informed policy making on the run that does real and substantial damage. We could draw a correlation to that kind of decision making and the decision making that has led the now opposition to come up with a negative gearing policy which would wreak the same sort of harm across this nation.

Thankfully, they are developing that policy position from opposition. If they were in government, it would be the policy today and no doubt it would be enacted into law and we would see rents increase, we would see a flood of investment into new residential dwellings that would effectively drive the price of those dwellings up, but, at the same time, effectively pulling the carpet from under existing housing stock. Owning a house in that situation, or buying one, or a house and land package would be the same as taking a new car off the lot. It would see an immediate diminution in the value of that property. The nation has learnt in recent days that, not convinced that that was enough harm to wreak on the nation, their proposal would see negative gearing prohibited from commercial property. It would see it prohibited from margin loans. For some reason they think that the best way for Australians to work, save and invest is to make it harder for them to do those things.

I do not think it is too much of a stretch to take the kind of decision-making methodology that led us to the live cattle fiasco which led to significant harm to rural and regional Australia, and, sadly, resulted in very tragic circumstances. It is not too much of stretch to take that lack of policy development rigour and compare it to the lack of policy rigour that it takes to develop a crazy policy which would do nothing but harm hardworking Australians who have invested in property or have interests in business. At the same time, the opposition are proposing increases in capital gains tax and other taxes. They really are about putting a handbrake on our economy.

When it comes to agriculture, this government delivers policy based on consultation, not knee-jerk reactions. They are policies and legislation born of deep consideration, and methodologies that come to the right conclusion because we consult widely and we consider third-party consequences—and that is why we get the kinds of third-party endorsements that I have referred the House to this evening.

I look forward to seeing the fruits produced as a result of the new arrangements facilitated by this legislation. Through a strong commitment to innovation across the agricultural sector, this government will ensure that the future of primary production in the nation is secured for a very long time. I commend this bill to the House.

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

I rise to speak on the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016. I commend the previous speaker, the member for Barker, for a wonderful contribution to this debate.

This legislation is about primary industries. I know because of the seat that I represent, and I want to reinforce—because sometimes it is forgotten—just how important the agricultural sector is to not only rural and regional areas but also the wider country of Australia. The primary industries sector has had a couple of great years because of the many things that this government has done, not least the free trade agreements we now have with China, Japan and South Korea, as well as the Transpacific Partnership Agreement, which are opening markets for our industries in many other parts of the world and, in parts of the world where we already are, making access easier through lower tariffs.

That has already had a real impact on my local community, because all of the rural industry sectors across my community, whether they be beef cattle, dairy, sugar, macadamias or blueberries—I could go on—are getting better farmgate prices. A lot of them have had good seasons as well. That has had a real impact on our towns, because those sectors have better cash flow and they are employing more people, and so, when those people come into our towns, they are spending more money, which is obviously good for every small business in our community as well.

As a coalition, particularly as members of the Nationals, we have always had a focus on and an interest in making sure that these sectors do well and flourish, and these achievements have had a real impact on and are causing some great flow-on effects for our regional communities.

Australia is a competitive country in agriculture because we have always exported a lot of what we produce. Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, I am sure you would be interested to know that, like other sectors in my community, the local abattoir—which by the way is the biggest private employer in my community, employing over a thousand people—export close to 70 per cent of what they process. The local macadamia industry also exports close to 70 per cent of what it produces. There is a blueberry producer who is developing a huge venture at a place near Tabulam. He has a window to access and provide blueberries to the Chinese market that other people do not, just because of the seasons. These are really export-orientated businesses, and, when you are an export-orientated business, of course you have to be competitive, because you are competing against the rest of the world in those markets.

Australia's rural industries have always been recognised as being among some of the most innovative and productive in the world, and continued investment in rural research and development is vital to ensure ongoing growth and improvement in profitability and the competitiveness of our agriculture, fisheries, forestry and food sectors. In recognition of this, we have worked closely, as the member for Barker said, with industry to co-invest in research, through our world-leading R&D system, and much of this work is delivered through the 15 rural research and development corporations. These RDCs provide a mechanism for industry participants to come together and invest collectively. We have assisted by establishing and collecting a levy on behalf of an industry, if the industry requests this. The government also matches an RDC's eligible R&D spending up to a legislated cap. It is estimated that, for every dollar that the government invests in rural R&D, farmers generate a $12 return over 10 years. That is a wonderful return on the taxpayer dollar.

Feedback from primary producers is an integral part of how RDCs work. They are required to consult with industry on their activities and to give those who fund the research via levies an opportunity to provide input into the strategic direction of the corporation. Recent reviews and inquiries—including the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee's inquiry into industry structures and systems governing levies on grass-fed cattle, and its inquiry into industry structures and systems governing the imposition of and disbursement of marketing and R&D levies in the agricultural sector—have identified improved consultation with levy payers as key to the ongoing strength of Australia's rural R&D system. Several of these inquiries recommended that the establishment of levy-payer registers would offer a way for RDCs to consult more effectively with the primary producers who fund them.

The government agrees that levy payers should have more of a say in how their levy funds are spent. RDCs should know who their levy payers are. Levy-payer registers would provide RDCs with the ability to identify and consult directly with the levy payers on what they perceive the research priorities to be and where they want the levy expenditure to go, and therefore allow the RDCs to accurately and efficiently allocate voting entitlements, where this is relevant.

This bill makes possible the establishment of levy payer registers by RDCs by amending the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991. As it stands, the act only permits the distribution of levy payer information to the wool and dairy RDCs. This bill remedies this by allowing the government to provide levy payer information, for the purposes of a levy payer register, to the 13 other RDCs. The bill removes the legislative impediment to the development of levy payer registers. However, recognising that a one-size-fits-all approach would not be appropriate given the diversity of Australian agricultural industries, the bill allows for the distribution of levy payer information to an RDC to occur only where an RDC, in consultation with industry, requests it, and that request is approved by the minister. The department would then work with the RDC on the administrative design and development of a register. This is consistent with the government's approach to the broader R&D levy system, which is centred on industry support.

The bill also allows the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to permit levy payer information to be provided to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This is consistent with the government's public data policy statement, which commits to securely share data between Australian government entities to improve efficiencies, and inform policy development and decision-making. The bill maintains current practices for distribution of the name and address of the person or body that lodges levy returns with the department to RDCs, industry representative bodies and others. In limited situations, the person that lodges returns is also the levy payer—for example, in the turf industry.

The bill does not permit secondary disclosure of information included in a levy payer register, except in limited circumstances and where expressly permitted by the secretary in writing. This aims to protect the integrity and security of levy and charge payers' personal information. Where an eligible recipient is permitted to disclose levy payer information to a secondary recipient, that person or body may only use the information for restricted purposes relating to R&D, marketing, biosecurity or the National Residue Survey. Where levy payer contact details are to be provided to an industry representative body, the administrative arrangements will enable levy payers to choose to opt out and not receive information.

The passage of this bill is the first key step in allowing for the development of levy payer registers, making it possible for the RDCs to identify and connect directly with those who fund their work. Through greater levy payer engagement in the R&D system, RDCs will be able to better align research investments to industry priorities, improving returns to primary producers and contributing to a more profitable, competitive and sustainable agricultural sector. We will work with the RDCs and industry to make this happen. The government is committed to an Australian R&D system that remains transparent and consultative and delivers tangible benefits to our very valuable and very important agricultural industries into the future. I commend the bill to the House.

Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016 amends the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991. This bill makes possible the establishment of levy payer registers by RDCs by amending the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991. As it stands, the act only permits the distribution of levy payer information to the wool and dairy RDCs. This bill remedies this by allowing the government to provide levy payer information for the purposes of a levy payer register to the 13 other RDCs. The bill removes the legislative impediment to the development of levy payer registers. However, recognising that a one-size-fits-all approach would not be appropriate given the diversity of Australian agricultural industries, the bill allows the distribution of levy payer information to an RDC to occur only where an RDC, in consultation with industry, requests it and that request is approved by the minister. The department would then work with the RDC on the administrative design and development of a register. This is consistent with the government's approach to the broader R&D levy system, which is centred on industry support.

In the electorate of Macquarie we have apple growers and some significant mushroom growers—one of the largest privately owned mushroom growers is in the electorate of Macquarie—and of course we have other agricultural industries such as winegrowing. Recent reviews and inquiries, including the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry into industry structures and systems governing the imposition of and disbursement of marketing and research and development levies in the agricultural sector, have identified improved consultation with levy payers as important for the ongoing strength of Australia's rural R&D system. Several of these inquiries recommended levy payer registers as a way for RDCs to consult more effectively with the primary producers who fund them.

The government agrees that levy payers should have more of a say in how their levy funds are spent. RDCs should know who their levy payers are, and levy payer registers would provide RDCs with the ability to identify and consult directly with levy payers on research priorities and levy expenditure, and to accurately and efficiently allocate voting entitlements where relevant. This is certainly important to the producers in my electorate that have spoken to me about their levies and how they are spent. As it currently stands, the legislation does not allow for levy payer information to be distributed by the department to RDCs except in the wool and dairy industries. This bill remedies this by making it possible to provide this information to the other 13 RDCs.

Debate interrupted.