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

I will begin by formally moving the amendment distributed in my name, and I understand that it will be seconded by the member for Lingiari, and I thank him for that. So, I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the Turnbull Government has failed to ensure that the collection of levies and charges which are directed to our agriculture-based research and development corporations enables a greater effort to improve the take-up of the best and latest farm management practices, particularly in light of the current drought crisis".

I've deliberately moved that after giving it some thought, for very important reasons. Obviously the opposition will be supporting the bill before the House. This is about the third attempt by this government to get what is a fairly simple change in the legislation. It's a very significant change, but very simple in legislative terms. It should not have been so difficult. In fact I think the first time I spoke on a bill related to these changes was in March 2016. The government clearly was unable to have the legislation passed through the parliament before the July 2016 election. Then we had another go after the election and that bill secured passage. On both occasions, during the debates I warned that there were real and meaningful concerns about the lack of protections around the way in which levy payer information might be shared with third parties. One of the things that this bill does is give greater confidence that that assurance has now been forthcoming, although I do note that in the Senate committee report there are some ongoing concerns, particularly around the excessive use of delegated executive power rather than enshrining some of these measures in legislation. But these are very difficult to fix from opposition. We will let this bill go through in its current form and give the system an opportunity to work and to work well.

I want to highlight two points. I'll return to them both. First of all, our research and development corporation structure, its architecture and the way it operates is in need of review. The second point is that I think it is wrong and inappropriate for us to be speaking on agriculture matters in this chamber at this point in time without having a conversation about drought. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we are certainly in the worst drought since the 1960s and, if we don't receive meaningful rain in the not-too-distant future, we will almost certainly be in the worst drought in the history of European settlement. Many farmers are hurting, and hurting badly, along with their families. At this point in time it should be a priority for this government.

It disappoints me again that there are no members of the government speaking on this bill. I see the member for Calare in the House. He may be on chamber duty or he may be a late addition to speak on the bill; I'm not sure. But this is not just today; this is now a trend. Week in, week out, in parliamentary sittings, I find myself in here talking to my colleagues. That is wonderful and fine, because they all have a deep and abiding interest in matters to do with agriculture and are certainly concerned about the drought; but I never see any speakers on the government's side. What is the explanation for this absence? You could come to many conclusions. I like to think they haven't abandoned the agriculture sector—surely not. It's such a substantial part of our national economy. I suspect they're just a bit shy about coming in here these days to try to defend the record, behaviour and lack of achievement of this government. I remember that just after the 2013 election it was quite the opposite. Because they had so many members of the National Party, for example—I concede that a number of Liberals represent regional seats—they'd be in here en masse wanting to talk about agriculture policy and the issues impacting upon agriculture. But these days they don't turn up at all. It's very curious. I think they're just embarrassed. I don't think they want to be in here defending the Turnbull government and its record, particularly in the agriculture sector—another matter I will return to. For five years we've had lots of talk about the agriculture sector being the fifth pillar, I think it was, of our economy, but all we have is a failed white paper and a pedestrian response to drought, notwithstanding the fact that we have been alerting them to the issues for up to five years now, but I'll return to that.

Throughout the course of this week a number of people have announced that they're leaving this place at the next election, and it makes one think about the reason we are all here. I'm sure that without exception we are all here to make a difference, to make Australia a better place. Most of us arrive here having chosen a political party as our vehicle, and we choose the party which is most likely to achieve the things that drive us. You always have to be cautious about trying to summarise it, but I think it's fair to say that it's as simple as this: we're here to expand the economy; to make sure that everyone gets a fair share of the dividends of that growth; to ensure that every Australian, regardless of their background or economic position in life, has the best opportunity to capitalise on a strong Australian economy; and to give a hand up to those who slip through the cracks for whatever reason—be it prejudice, poverty, disability or any other form of disadvantage, we as a parliament are there to ensure that they too have an opportunity and to help them get there.

After more than 30 years I still very firmly believe—in fact, I know—that I chose the right party in the Australian Labor Party. I have no regrets. I think it's fair to say that Labor's achievements in government have been many: in education and the expansion of higher education in particular to all Australians, not just those with the biggest credit cards; in workers' rights, one of the key reasons for our existence; in building social justice and equality; in correcting the wrongs of the past through our response to the Mabo case, for example, and former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's apology to the stolen generations—the list goes on and on. In the eighties and nineties the Australian Labor Party opened up and made the Australian economy more competitive, putting us on a path to 27 years now, I think, of unbroken economic growth, building a resilience which allowed us to go through the global financial crisis without technically going into recession. They are big achievements, and all of us on this side are proud of them and like to talk about them.

Amongst those many achievements of the eighties and nineties was one that doesn't rate too many mentions and deserves to be mentioned far more—that is, under former minister John Kerin, the establishment of our current agriculture based research and development corporations. In all parts of our economy we can't hope to be competitive and to meet all our aspirations in future decades ahead if we haven't fully embraced and adopted research and innovation, and agriculture is no exception. What was somewhat unique around the world about the research and development corporation structure John Kerin put in place was its co-funding model. In other words, the government took the view that, to maximise effort, it was appropriate for taxpayers to match levy payer contributions under that research model up to a certain gross value—I think it's 0.5 per cent—of the sector involved. Back then, and still today, we have 15 agriculture based research and development corporations across the various commodities: Meat & Livestock Australia in the red meat sector, Dairy Australia in the dairy sector, the Grains Research and Development Corporation in the grains sector—the list goes on. Four of those remain statutory research and development corporations—in other words, tightly controlled by the government under legislation—and the balance of them, 11, are now industry-owned organisations. All of them do a wonderful job. The Kerin model lives on today and lives on very, very effectively. However, 30 or more years on, it's time to revisit that model to ensure that levy payer money and taxpayer money is being spent in the most efficient and effective way in each of those commodity sectors and in terms of the contribution they make to the Australian economy.

That was certainly the view of the government of the day in 2011, when it commissioned a Productivity Commission report into the agriculture based rural research and development corporations. I have the report with me. It should be compulsory reading for anyone with an interest in the agriculture sector. It's a comprehensive report, and it identified back then that there were ways in which we could make that model even better, because obviously, over that considerable period of time since 1991, the economy and the world have changed so substantially. It could be taken as a criticism of the former Labor government that, having reported in 2011, we didn't embrace any of the changes recommended either, but I think most people would fairly appreciate that there was a very limited time between the tabling of this report and the September 2013 election. But this government has had five years to have a think about this report, and the only thing we've seen in terms of adjustment of that model are the measures that we're talking about today. Again, while I think they are important and Labor supports them, I hardly think they are revisiting in a full review the RDC system and how it operates.

The bill makes a number of changes that will ensure improvements to the collection and reporting of agricultural levies and charges to ensure better consistency between the legislation and industry changes. The bill also makes improvements to the effective operation of levy payer registers. I will focus on that point for a few moments. As I said, the last time the government attempted to get this bill through the parliament, I made the point that, surely, people listening to the debate would be surprised that levy payers, whether they be cattle producers or grain growers, pay their levies to the Australian government, which then passes them on to the relevant research and development corporation. But the part that would really surprise people is that the research and development corporations still don't know who their levy payers are. These are organisations which are focused on their commodity sector, and there are many of them. The 15 RDCs I mentioned strike 130 levies collected across 77 commodity sectors. They look at their sectors, and their job is to ensure that farmers, growers and producers have available to them the very best in research and innovation and that that innovation is getting inside the farm gate down on the ground where it really can make a difference. But RDCs don't know who their levy payers are, which I think is somewhat surprising, because if you don't know who they are, you're not necessarily well placed to have a proper dialogue with them. These amendments will allow that opportunity, but, more particularly, they are about making sure that that information isn't inappropriately shared with third parties, and that's the issue I raised on the last two occasions that I spoke to this bill. Hopefully, these amendments put in place the changes that provide the necessary protection. Data and information like that, as you know, is quite a valuable commodity these days, and our right not to have that information shared is very important as well. Again, while this is not a big change to the model, the changes will be important if they are properly implemented.

I return to drought and, more generally, lost opportunities in the agriculture sector for the course of the past five years. I note that in the Prime Minister's speech—I think it was in his last speech and certainly in the Prime Minister's speech yesterday—he made reference again to this aspiration that Australian agriculture will be valued at $100 billion by 2030, I think it was. I think it's important to have aspirations and goals, whether they be exercise goals—losing weight—or whatever it might be. Goals can't hurt. But I think $100 billion is somewhat modest. I think we can do better than that, if we try harder—and we should strive to do better than that. In fact, $100 billion would just leave us on the same trajectory we've been on for the past 10 years, if you rely on the ABS stats.

We can do better than that, but it won't happen magically. It will require ongoing hard work by those who work in the production of our food and fibre. It will also require smart guidance from government—something that's been lacking over the course of the past five years. In fact, over the course of the past five years there has been no guidance. We waited very patiently for an agriculture white paper, and when it finally came it was a dud. That's something that I think is generally accepted in the agriculture sector now. You won't hear too many saying it publicly, but when you talk to the sector's leadership and to growers and producers on the ground, that's what they say all the time. Expectations were raised, and they were deflated as a result of that white paper. It's never referred to now. In fact, when the now Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, launched the latest document, spruiking the aspiration of $100 billion by 2030, I thought it was an admission on his part that the world had moved on, that the agriculture white paper was no longer of any use to the sector and that it would provide no guidance and provide nothing special to help us go beyond those aspirations.

That takes me to drought: I talked already about how bad the drought is, and it is certainly very, very bad. Is there a role for government? Yes, there certainly is. Is there a limit to how much government can do? Yes, there certainly is. Governments can't make it rain. But there are important things for government to do. The first, of course, is to ensure that those who, for whatever reason, just haven't been able to manage the severity of the drought have an income support payment for them and their families when things get tough. You can prepare for some droughts—many droughts, very bad droughts—but you can't necessarily prepare for the worst of the droughts. And there will always be those who, through no fault of their own, have been unable to work their way through a protracted drought period.

But there's another important point to that. It's why, when the COAG ministers entered into an intergovernmental agreement in 2013, they said, 'Yes, there should be a welfare payment'—I shouldn't say 'welfare payment'; I meant to use the right description, which is income support payment—'but it should be limited,' so that people have three years to work their way through their situation. And if, through no fault of their own, they haven't been able to adjust sufficiently to make their farm enterprise viable, then it might be time to do something else and to liquidate their assets. The important part of that, of course, is that there were supposed to be other measures taking place, other guidance from government, throughout the five-year period of the intergovernmental agreement, which would have helped farmers build that resilience and that capacity to make the decision to stay. But that work hasn't been done.

So, what happens? The government takes the clumsy, lazy policy way out and says, 'Oh, we'll just extend it for another year.' Well, we support extending it for another year. The drought is very, very bad, and that support is desperately needed. But it's not a policy solution to an issue that we will continue to confront for decades to come. We have to accept that the climate is changing; it's becoming more challenging. Those on the other side want to argue about what is causing it. I'll let them go. Interestingly, Minister Littleproud said on Q&A last Monday night that he didn't care what was causing it, which I thought was a curious approach. They can have that argument, but they should at least embrace the precautionary principle and accept that if there's a case to be made that human activity is causing the climate to change for the worst, we should act. So mitigation is step one. The second step is adaptation. If the majority of the scientists are right and the weather will only continue to get more challenging, we need to assist farmers to adjust to that situation.

Let me give the government a rap, as it will please the member for Dawson. There are two components to this. I won't dwell on the positive for too long, member for Dawson, because it won't take me long. There are two components to this. First, we need to give farmers the incentives that they need to invest in infrastructure: water infrastructure, irrigation infrastructure and fencing, et cetera—

Mr Christensen interjecting—

I'll take the interjection from the member for Dawson. He says dams. They talk about dams in a generic sense. We never know whether they're talking about on farm dams, off farm dams, off river dams, catchment dams—

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All of them.

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

All of them he says. I said to the member for New England, 'Scrap all the COAG approaches to long-term drought reform,' because he was just going to build a dam. I said he'd never build a dam and he never did. Now he's sailed off into the sunset—

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We did.

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

The member for Dawson said he did. He's talking about the augmentation of Chaffey Dam, which was a Labor government initiative. It was all but finished when the now member for New England was elected in 2013. I say to the member for Dawson: who do you think you are talking to when you make these claims? If you are talking to the farmers and the people who live in New England, they know that is rubbish. It does your credibility no good telling porkies around the electorate and taking credit for projects you had no control over and can take no credit for.

But this government did do a few things. They improved accelerated depreciation for farmers on water infrastructure, smaller projects on the farm that might help them build resilience, and Labor supported those. In fact, our Australian investment guarantee now expands that proposition. And they made some adjustments to the farm management deposits scheme, which is a scheme that allows farmers to put money away in good times to draw down at a concessional tax rate in tougher times.

I should reflect there on Minister Littleproud, who has tried to make the focus of the drought debate his most recent changes to FMDs. That is, putting some pressure on the banks to provide offsets between the FMDs and their debt, and that's fine. But guess what, most of the farmers who are struggling don't have money in FMDs. It's axiomatic. They don't have money in FMDs, so don't make FMDs the focal point of your drought response, because it is not the answer. It's about as good an answer to building catchment dams, which is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem. The member for Dawson should know better.

The next thing is the way in which farmers approach their business model and, in particular, how they farm the land. This is not new. We've known for a long time that European farming methods—the overapplication of fertilisers and other methods—have been bad for our landscape. This is where we should never talk about farmers generically, because many, many farmers embrace the latest science based farming methods, but not sufficient are. This is the area where this government has done absolutely nothing in five years, and worse it abolished the COAG committee designed to progress it. We're now five years behind the times in what could become the worst drought we've faced. But it's not too late. It's not too late to accept that the climate will continue to change and become more challenging, and that we need to improve the uptake of adaptation and the embrace of the best and latest farming methods—whether it be cell grazing, whether it be the planting of trees, whether it be work on lifting the carbon levels and other organic matter levels in our soil so that we can retain more moisture in our soils. I say to the member for Dawson: we can retain more moisture, improving the carbon levels in our soils, than we can do building dams, and we can do it more cheaply, certainly more quickly, and certainly with less adverse impact on the environment—certainly.

I now go back to the first tranche: income support. We've been saying for 4½ years now that Farm Household Allowance is not working for many, many farmers. In fact, my colleagues will recall my asking the member for New England a question on this in this place back in 2014, because we were very concerned it wasn't working, that it wasn't reaching farmers. And what did he do? He embellished. He deliberately gave an incorrect answer and then decided to doctor his Hansard, which led, very sadly, to the dismissal of his departmental secretary, because his departmental secretary had the temerity to challenge the minister, because he was drawing his professional and dedicated public service into the mire.

The key point here is that we've been saying this for more than four years, and it still isn't getting fixed. We welcome the change to the assets test and we welcome the supplementary payment for those already on Farm Household Allowance. But we have seen little sign that it's going to be any easier to secure Farm Household Allowance. The big black hole of Centrelink and the paperwork appear to be very much still in place. That model has not changed. Until it does, farmers and farming families will continue to struggle to secure it.

This is a debate about our research and development corporations. I have challenged the government to return to the COAG model and to work out how we get a better uptake of the best and latest science based farming methods. We have reflected on this for a long time, because it is hard to get more innovation rolled out onto the farms—there are at least 80,000 of them and they are spread geographically across the continent. There are organisations that are already doing it to an extent, and they are called our research and development corporations. The grain growers have their GrowNotes—the messages that go out to the growers on the latest and the best information, whether it be on genetics or soil health. MLA does something similar. Dairy Australia does these things.

But it's nowhere near enough, and that's why I announced a fortnight or so ago that a Labor government would better-utilise the research and development corporations. We would ask them to come together through the Council of Rural Research and Development Corporations and lead and mobilise a much greater effort, both on furthering the science but more particularly on getting the innovation down onto the farm. They have the resources, they have the people, they have the experience, and, as we were talking about today, through the levy system they have this special relationship with growers and producers. In my view, all they need is some guidance from government. It is not that difficult. But if they are going to do it most effectively, we need to ensure that the more than $300 million of taxpayers' money they receive to do this work is being spent most effectively and most efficiently. That also goes for the money that comes from levy payers.

That is why we need a broader review of our research and development corporations. It is not to give them less money—no, no, no. It is to make sure that the money they receive from both the taxpayers and the levy payers is spent in the best possible way, producing the best possible outcome for both our growers and producers and also for the Australian economy and the Australian people.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Medicare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to give fair warning to the whips, who may be listening: I don't propose being on my feet for the full 10 minutes, but I did want to follow the shadow minister, the member for Hunter, to emphasise the importance of the amendment to this bill. The Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2018 itself is fairly unremarkable. The role of RDCs is supported by both sides of the House. The shadow minister quite eloquently described how important they are in terms of providing expert advice on agricultural policy to the government. As he said, we need to make sure that their expertise is properly utilised, and he's proposed a way forward on that.

I wanted to get to my feet today to talk about the shadow minister's second reading amendment. It is an important amendment to this bill, because, if you turn on the television anywhere in Australia today, it's drought-affected New South Wales and Queensland that are right there in full view. This country arguably has never seen a worse drought. Thousands and thousands of families are affected by it. Millions of Australians have responded with donations, as is the Australian way. We've seen convoys of hay and feed making their way to these drought-stricken farmers. This parliament has a duty to do all that it can to ensure that farmers in regional communities are supported in their time of need, so it's disappointing that the bill before the House today fails to ensure the collection of levies and charges that are directed to our agriculture-based research and development corporations, enabling a greater effort to improve the take-up of the best and latest farm management practices, particularly in light of the current drought crisis.

We need to get serious as a nation about encouraging farmers to employ the best and latest farm management practices. That includes—it must include—a focus on climate change, which arguably poses the greatest threat to farming in Australia today. I note the member for Dawson interjected earlier, saying, 'Stop it? How are you going to stop climate change?'

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He should. We don't pretend to be godlike on this side of the House. We don't think we can stand in the way of climate change. I think that time has passed. All the scientific evidence is that climate change is upon us. It's not something in the future; it's upon us now. We need to manage its impact as best we can. Climate change is affecting farmers right now. You talk to farmers. They know these changes are not just part of the cyclical weather patterns that we see from season to season. These are permanent changes to the climate. The climate in Australia is getter drier and it's getter hotter. You talk to firefighters who go out every day during summer to fight blazes, and they'll tell you: the fires are hotter and more frequent than they used to be. And the firefighters are not going out just in summer anymore; they're going out all through the year. So we need to address climate change. It's not some sort of voodoo science, some sort of conspiracy of the Left against those on the Right; it's a scientific fact. Ninety-seven or 98 per cent of climate scientists in the world agree. It is real. You need to face up to the fact that climate change is real. It's impacting farmers and it's impacting agriculture in this country, and, unless we face up to this reality, we're going to be behind the eight ball every day of the week. I wanted to get to my feet to briefly discuss that, because I think this second reading amendment is very important in addressing this point.

There was a piece in The Conversation last year titled 'Australian farmers are adapting to climate change'. This is true. We on this side of the House have had briefings from farmers who want policymakers in this place to get serious about climate change as it pertains to agricultural policy. They don't see this as some sort of inner-city issue; they know that climate change is affecting them on the land. Rising temperatures caused global wheat yields to drop by around 5.5 per cent between 1980 and 2008, and the effects in Australia have been larger, as a result of major changes in rain patterns. Talk to farmers in New South Wales and Queensland. It's winter. The paddocks are normally green this time of year. There's dust—dust in the middle of winter! You can't bury your head in the sand on this issue. You can't say that you care about farmers, that you care about the impacts of and addressing drought, unless you're serious about addressing climate change. They go hand in hand.

Labor does support the bill. We think it needs to go further. I think this government's most, not famous, but most well-known contribution to agriculture policy to date has been the release of the member for New England's book, Weatherboard and Iron. That's perhaps what most people would associate with agriculture policy from this government. Certainly the white paper on agriculture came and went with nary a whisper. I think they were too embarrassed by that document. On that note I will conclude. I thank the House.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to thank those members for their contribution to the debate. The Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2018 will improve the collection and reporting of agricultural levies by allowing the acts of intermediaries to be clarified under the legislation. The bill further supports the operation of levy payer registers, including by protecting the privacy of levy payer details. It allows the secretary to impose conditions on an approval to disclose levy payer information to third parties. It allows revocation of an approval if conditions are breached and permits reconsideration and review of such decisions. It also provides for the collection of commodity-specific information if needed for levy payer registers. The amendments also allow the publication of statistical information about levies and charges to allow primary industries to make informed decisions about their levies. An efficient and effective levy system will support producers in managing their levy investments for profitable, sustainable industries. I commend the bill to the House.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.