Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Nationals proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

This government's anti-farming and anti-resources agenda

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than t he number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, we saw out the front of the Australian parliament farmers forced to travel from Western Australia, from right across this country, to protest against the government, something they have not done for 40 years. Such is the siege that they have been under since the Albanese government was elected 2½ years ago. They feel as though their livelihoods and their future have been torn up because of the ideology of some that want to save the world but forget about their important place in producing the food and fibre of this country—those Western Australian farmers that have come across the Nullarbor, that have had their livelihoods taken away, the live sheep export industry, without an explanation. If this government has the courage of its conviction and says that it wants to shut this down because it's an inhumane industry, then go to Katanning and face these people. Look them in the eye and explain the science.

Let me explain the science for them. I was the agriculture minister when there was a mistake. The Awassi boat and the horrific incident there was fixed, and we fixed it with reform. We are the only country in the world that measures our boats in success from animal welfare standards and not through mortality. We actually measure, to the millimetre, the length of wool on each sheep before we put them on a boat and, to the kilogram, the weight of those sheep. We independently score each boat for the air flow that goes through that boat to be able to give them the carrying capacity that they can have. We've also put independent observers that actually count the pants per minute of a sheep on those boats. Once they hit a certain number, then there are measures taken to ensure that that heat stress is taken away. That is science. That is leading the world.

Instead, what the Albanese government has done is cut and run. And what that will do is see the perverse and horrific death of millions of sheep from other parts of the world, from those parts of the world that will take this market up—from Sudan, Ethiopia and South Africa. Let me tell you: they don't work on animal welfare. They don't work even on mortality numbers, in measuring any success of a shipment. They simply put as many sheep as they possibly can on a boat, and they get paid for what's left over. Those that want to shut Australia out of this industry are morally bankrupt. Those that sit there and say Australia cannot do this and Western Australians can't do this are morally bankrupt. We will see horrific animal welfare outcomes. We will see 3,000 livelihoods in Western Australia torn up all because of ideology, all because animal activists did a deal with the Albanese government to get their preferences in the last federal election.

Where is the courage of their conviction to stand up and face these people and explain that science? They won't, because they can't. For the Prime Minister to quote numbers in here that the industry is in decline—it is actually in incline. For those years that the Prime Minister talked about, where there was a steep decline, what he might want to understand is that there was this little thing called the drought. On the eastern seaboard, we de-stocked. We had nothing left because we didn't have the water and we didn't have the feed. If it weren't for Western Australian sheep producers, we wouldn't have got the two million sheep that were brought across when it started raining. They got east coast farmers up off their knees and gave them a livelihood. That's why they weren't put on a boat—because they were sent across the Nullarbor to save us. Western Australia saved the east coast straight after the drought.

But to sit there and arbitrarily say, 'Bad luck, it's all over,' without even the courage to turn up to Katanning, to have meetings at the back of Parliament House here—he didn't even have the courage to walk out here and explain the science. If you want to lead this country and you're going to take away someone's livelihood and you're going to change their lives, then have the courage to stand up there, look them in the eye and explain the science.

But that's before you even get to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, a plan that these people put in place. The Labor Party put this plan in place in 2012. That plan they have now walked away from. And what they are saying to every Australian is that they are going to take an extra 450 gigalitres off farmers and they're going to shove it down a river where they can't even physically get it down—taking away livelihoods, taking away your food security and driving up your food prices. This is the insanity of a plan that they implemented. The member for Riverina, who's sitting here next to me, proudly stood against that and voted against that, and I acknowledge him for that. But we, when we were in government, made sure that we implemented a plan that didn't go towards buybacks. They are a brutal instrument on the communities that are left behind, because the farmer takes the money and runs to the coast. It's the machinery dealer. It's the irrigation shop. It's the local CRT. It's the local hairdresser. They're the ones that are left behind with nothing. They're the ones who are left to pick up the pieces, without the jobs and without the income. They're the ones that are being destroyed by a change in the government's very own plan to take another 450 gigalitres in buybacks. Buybacks will destroy regional Australia, but they're also going to destroy Australia's food security and push up your food prices.

We stand committed to making sure that the plan that is put through here is common sense. We'll return water to the environment through infrastructure—with the smarts—backing a country with technology and science. We'll use infrastructure to give it back to the environment, not take it out of communities. That's common sense and that's what we intend to do.

We're going to bring back the ag visa that was ripped away by those opposite, the ag visa that the Vietnam government had signed up to. Subsequently, we learnt in Senate estimates that Senator Wong, the foreign minister—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Solomon—

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think he's gone.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He'll be called back in to withdraw that.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was highly disorderly. You have the call, Leader of the Nationals.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong subsequently had requests from other ASEAN countries to take up the ag visa, and this government has turned its back on them. I actually went to their job summit, to be constructive and to say what regional Australia's issues were. I told them we needed workers out there. The NFF and COSBOA said we needed another 172,000 workers to get food from the paddock to Australians' plates—and all we got was the Pacific scheme, at best 42,000 people. All they did was change the Pacific scheme. That was unworkable. When you take away the ag visa farmers have nothing. What they do is make investment decisions. You don't plan a crop or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to plan a crop if you can't pick it. That's economics. So what we have seen is farmers lose their confidence in investing, which is driving up food prices because they don't have the tools.

Now this government wants to take away the 88-day rule for backpackers. What happens when you come to Australia as a backpacker is if you go and work in the bush for 88 days you get another 12 months to stay in Australia. The unions want this taken out. They've got a paper out there at the moment, wanting to rip this away from country towns—not only farmers, but country pubs. You won't have pubs if you take it away. That's what we'll get back to—it's common sense and it will give certainty back to Australian farmers.

It's also about the bill that was passed yesterday, the financial market infrastructure bill, which not too many people have heard about. What it means is that the government is going to force the reporting of scope 3 emissions. Now, some might say, 'What does it mean?' What it means is that if you've got a turnover of over $500 million—that is, a bank—and you've got customers, what you've got to be able to do is report the scope 3 emissions of all of your customers. That means a little old cocky in western Queensland in my electorate who runs 5,000 sheep and probably 5,000 acres of grain has to be able to give his emissions profile to his bank. Even from the Treasury's own numbers, that is going to cost the Australian taxpayer $2.3 billion in administrative costs, which has to be passed on to you.

We saw in Blayney last week that they're shutting down a gold mine, and the environment minister is saying, 'They can still do it.' She might want to go out there and have a look at it. If you stand on that mine site and see where you can actually place a dam, there's this thing called topography. Water runs a certain way. You can't just whack a dam in any part of that, particularly a tailing dam. For a company that spent $300 million and five years of investment in 800 jobs in Blayney—it has been cut out. The local Indigenous representative group that is recognised by law said that while it didn't support the mine they didn't oppose it. The New South Wales environment department, the New South Wales EPA, approved it. Even Minister Plibersek's environment department approved it. But for some reason she has listened to some other Indigenous group, and she will not release the statement of reasons. I would have thought that that's owed to Regis. It's owed to the people of the Central West of New South Wales so that they have certainty and an understanding of why the minister has declined an 800-job mine and a billion dollars of investment.

That is what regional Australians are cranky about and that is what has brought them to Canberra. When the Prime Minister was elected he made this grand statement: 'No-one held back. No-one left behind.' Well, that's unless you live in regional Australia. That's what they're feeling and that's why they were out there today.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an interesting contribution that was from the Leader of the Nationals—I mean, seriously! I'm actually pleased to be given the opportunity to stand up here and talk about our record investments that will support our critical industries of agriculture and resources, which is what this MPI is actually supposed to be about, because we do have record investments supporting both the resources sector and the agriculture sector. We have invested over $3 billion in new investments in agriculture since we came to office, including fixing up the messes that they left behind. You talk about a world renowned biosecurity system keeping out pests and diseases in this country; we've invested over a billion dollars in extra funding to be able to secure that. Those opposite left it in deficit and left it in a mess, and we had been cleaning it up. What about the APVMA? We all remember what a mess that was—an absolute mess. We had chemicals in this country that had not been checked for more than a decade.

We also have these two critical industries, resources and agriculture, which we know are going to pay a critical part on our road to net zero, and we have legislation that's being debated in the parliament—we just had some votes on it yesterday, and it's on its way to the Senate—called the Future Made in Australia Bill. What does the Future Made in Australia do? It supports the critical minerals industry, in Western Australia particularly. It also provides opportunities for our agriculture industry when it comes to low carbon biofuels. It will provide a lot of support to both of those industries to be able to actually make more here in this country, and, for some reason, those opposite are opposed to it. It will create more regional jobs, and those opposite are opposed to it—a future made in Australia. I cannot believe that even the Nationals—I can see a grin over there. This is a serious bill about making sure that we make more of the opportunities and our great raw products here in Australia.

Both the agriculture and the resources sectors provide great raw products in this country, and we want to do everything we can do to support them. When it comes to agriculture, this financial year, the agriculture sector will contribute $84 billion to Australia, the majority of which, over $70 billion, is in exports.

So what have we been doing as a government? We've been trying to open up trade markets and repair our international relations which those opposite decimated when they were in government. We all know that has actually been one of the things that our government has been recognised and praised for around the world—restoring those trade relations, particularly when it comes to places like China. Indeed, we had $17.2 billion in agriculture, fisheries and forest products going into China in the last financial year. But we know that, when those opposite were in government, there were some serious issues. The Prime Minister, today, talked about our red meat going into China. He talked about our bottled wine going back into China. He talked about our barley going back into China. He talked about our oat and hay going back into China.

We have worked diligently not just with China but to diversify our trade markets, so we've also maintained access to canola for the EU. We've got new access for live eastern rock lobsters for Vietnam. We've improved access for wine in Thailand. We've got new access for hass avocados to Thailand. Just yesterday, the trade minister and I announced access of plums to Vietnam. We've maintained access for queen bees exported to Canada. We've improved dairy access for products to Chile. We've got new market access for Australian honey and edible aquaculture products to be exported to Vietnam.

If you want to add it all up, we've actually got, just in the last financial year, 88 technical market access achievements, of which 10 are new markets, 44 are improvements to existing markets and 29 are actions to maintain and restore existing markets. These are worth $4.6 billion, just when you talk about restoring the existing markets we had and maintaining them. This is very significant support for our agriculture sector, because we know how important it is. It's important to the country.

We know what happened during COVID: our producers produced and kept this country going to make sure that we could keep our supply chains going and Australians were fed. We know how critical it is. What we need to do is continue to support them. Our National Reconstruction Fund will have specific money set aside for agriculture, forestry and fisheries, and, indeed, they're eligible to apply for that now. That, together with the Future Made in Australia, will provide enormous opportunities for the sector in this country to be able to continue to grow. We're working on the agriculture and land sector plan with the industry so that they can get the benefits from our Road to Net Zero. There are huge opportunities here for diversifying income on-farm. There are huge opportunities for increase in productivity, as we're going to need to invest in lots of research and development when it comes to reducing emissions on-farm.

We heard from the member opposite about scope 3 emissions. What we have said very clearly is that these need to be collected only where there's not a huge cost and they are available. That is the truth of the matter. The member over there, the Leader of the Nationals, has been running a bit of a scare campaign on this. We've also heard all sorts of rumours about how we're going to change the diesel fuel rate—again, untrue. He was up here talking about the 88-day working visa—they are the ones that removed that requirement when they did the trade deal with the UK. It was actually their government that removed it. Seriously! He talked about the ag visa; nobody came to Australia for nine years under their ag visa. It didn't actually do anything. We're serious about the workforce. We have changed PALM. Importantly, with our fee-free TAFE, we have also got more than 14,000 people doing agriculture studies that wouldn't have otherwise been doing it. We have actually been working when it comes to workforce. We've been working when it comes to improving our biosecurity system. We've improved the AMA. We've opened up trade markets. We are working incredibly hard to make sure that our agriculture sector continues to thrive.

I know my colleague Madeleine King has also been working hard when it comes to our resources sector. Indeed, modelling shows that by processing more onshore our critical minerals industry could generate close to an extra $70 billion in GDP. That would increase jobs in regional Australia. We've invested $3.4 billion for the Resourcing Australia's Prosperity program, for Geoscience Australia to identify the likely locations of the critical mineral deposits to make sure that we can access them and get the benefits. We know that other countries are trying to get onto the critical minerals because we all know that they're going to be vital for the road to net zero, but we want our country to take those opportunities. We do not want to be left behind as a country, which is why we're making these investments. The value of our resources projects is more than $13 billion in investments that we are making to support the resources sector in Australia. The Prime Minister and the cabinet have been over to Western Australia several times—I've been over to Western Australia, and I'll be travelling to Western Australia again in coming weeks—to work with the state government on the transition in terms of the phase-out of live sheep exports. We are very serious about engaging with the Western Australian community, working with the Western Australian government and making sure that we get the best for Western Australians.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should be out on the lawns.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been out to Launceston on a sheep farm, actually, talking to them.

I thought you said 'Launceston'. I have been talking to farmers right across the country, from Cairns all the way down to the south of my electorate, for just over a month, since I've had the agriculture portfolio. I am very keen to engage with the sector. I want to make sure that our farmers get the very best representation, as they did under former Minister Murray Watt, and I want to continue that important and vital work.

The other thing that I want to ensure is that farmers' voices are heard in this place, and that those opposite don't get away with telling furphies about what's going on for our region and for our farmers. We heard a lot of stuff from the Leader of the Nationals over here that simply isn't true. Interestingly, at the rally today, I was really surprised to see the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party standing up behind their leader, Peter Dutton, particularly given she was in here moving private members' bills to do the exact same thing that she is now saying she doesn't support. I mean, seriously! We had the Leader of the Nationals out there also. Surprisingly, he came in here and talked about the Murray-Darling Basin—I understand that he actually had farmers attack him and ridicule him for what they did in government when it comes to water and the Murray-Darling Basin. They're not very happy with him, so perhaps he should be honest with farmers about what's going on.

Our government is providing record investments when it comes to resources and when it comes to agriculture. We want to make sure that both of these industries get the support they need in terms of the Road to Net Zero. It's important that we support them, because we know that their critical support and the things that they will be required to do as we go down the Road to Net Zero will mean that they are continuing to receive a high yield for our great products around the world. If we don't do that, they're not going to continue to get the market access that they deserve. We'll continue supporting them and Western Australians.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Solomon seeking the call?

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I'm here to withdraw an interjection.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I remind all members in the chamber and anyone listening that interjections, even from your own seat, are disorderly behaviour. But, as you leave the chamber, interjecting is highly disorderly. So let's conduct this debate without offending the standing orders.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is, unfortunately, in this country right now a huge divide between inner-city, elite MPs and the country and its farmers. That's not me saying that—

Government Member:

A government member interjectingRubbish!

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear interjections from opposite, but that's not me saying that. You know who's saying that?

It's the thousands of farmers who are out there today and who I'm sure the member for Lyons wouldn't have gone anywhere near. It's not me saying that; it's the thousands of farmers who were out there today saying there is a big divide between inner-city, elite MPs—you can feel the sanctimony dripping in this place at times. The sanctimony is no heavier than it is over there with the teals and the Greens inner-city MPs, but certainly there's a fair share of inner-city Labor MPs from whom sanctimony drips heavy. That's not me saying that. That was from the farmers out the front of this building today, who were saying inner-city, elite MPs do not understand what they do, do not come and talk to them about what they do and have, again, hypocrisy over what they do.

Deputy Speaker, you'll remember just a couple of weeks ago that we were talking about another divide between inner-city, elite MPs and the country, and that was over the transmission system for solar panels and wind turbines. We saw that inner-city MPs—the teals, the Greens and the Labor ones—didn't want any solar panels or wind turbines on North Head, but, gee, let it rip out in the country. And here again today it's the same thing.

There were about four or five themes out there today, but the driving one was the inner-city MPs' ideological hatred of live export—that's what drove today's rally. I'd be interested—and I'm happy to stand corrected—if any of these entitled, inner-city, elite MPs want to come in and tell me they have been to Katanning. I have. I've been over there to speak to the sheep producers there. I've been onto a live export ship to see, as the Leader of the Nationals just articulated, that a lot of work has happened. No industry is perfect, and mistakes have been made. But, gee, a lot of good work has happened in the live export industry over the last five or six years. We lead in animal welfare around the world. But, again, there's this ideological obsession of the entitled elite, inner-city MPs who think they know best and say: 'We'll tell you what you can do. We'll tell you what you can't do. We know best, from our inner-city, leafy suburbs, about what you should be doing out on the farms that you have.' That was one of the really heavy themes out there.

But I also want to make the point to those opposite that when you say to countries like Kuwait, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, who want to import live sheep, 'The industry of exporting live sheep is not okay,' you're saying to those countries, 'What you want and the fact that you want it are not okay.' That's what you're saying. That's damaging to trade relationships. That, again, is the entitled attitude that these inner-city MPs have. They think they know best. They're saying to Kuwait, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, 'The fact that you want to import live exported sheep is bad; you shouldn't do that.' That's what they are saying. Again, you shouldn't be surprised. I'm not surprised that our inner-city, elite MPs think like that, but it is disappointing for the industries and the people who are trying to make money out of that industry. As we said to the farmers out there today, on the election of a Dutton-Littleproud government we will reverse that decision and let the live export of sheep continue.

There were a number of other themes. The other one, certainly, was water. The other thing that the entitled inner-city MPs don't want—the minister for the environment, being an inner-city MP herself, doesn't want farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin to have all the water they have now. She's taken water away from them. What does that mean? That means our farmers don't have the water that they otherwise would have to grow food and fibre in this country.

I was going to go into the Minerals Council resources dinner last night. They're not happy with the government. The Prime Minister said, 'No-one held back, no-one left behind'. Well, you're doing a lot of that, Prime Minister.

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

I rise today to make a contribution towards this debate, and I do feel like I need to give the National Party and the members of the National Party a bit of a 101 on how to organise a rally. I've organised a few in my time, not just here as the federal member—I do confess I've helped organise a few—but also in my life before. Rule No. 1 in organising a rally is: do not overinflate the number of people who come, because you will get called out. There weren't thousands of people out on the lawns. You'd be lucky to have had a hundred farmers, and then all the staffers stacked it out to probably about 400 people. So rule No. 1 in rally organising 101 is: do not overinflate the number of people at a rally, because you will get called out and usually by your own.

Rule No. 2 relates to the rallies that happened in my electorate over the break. We had the bush summit in my electorate—mine is, you know, a bush electorate. We had the Rural Press Club hold an event, and the National Party in Victoria bussed in some farmers to protest against the Premier of Victoria. To show you how ridiculous this MPI is, because it tries to link farming and resources: some of the signs that the farmers had at the rally in Bendigo included, 'Save our farms, no mines,' and 'Farming, not mining.' These are signs that stacked-out National Party rallies had in my electorate. There was also, 'Farmers say no to mineral sands on the Wimmera,' but possibly my favourite was, 'Grains of wheat, not uranium.' This was at a National Party rally. I have to say, I said to those farmers: 'I'm with you. Grains of wheat, not uranium. Our party is opposed to nuclear energy.' So, another rule in the 101 of organising rallies is: make sure you get the message right to the constituents who are turning up if you want to get a clear message out about what you're rallying about. If you're going try and organise a political protest, be organised. That's the 101 of organising a rally. At the moment you're trying to please two constituencies, big energy—big mining—and big farming, and it's not working.

In my part of the world, central Victoria, we do have the balance of mining and farming. We have goldmining that is growing and going gangbusters. We've rediscovered gold in Bendigo. I'm the first to stand here and say that I'm really proud of what our local mining industry is doing and the way in which they are working not just with our local farmers and agricultural community but also with our First Nations community. Fosterville goldmine has about a thousand workers, including contractors, and Mandalay Resources over in Costerfield are also mining gold. We have significant mining work going on, and it's a demonstration of what can be done well when you bring people together in a collaborative way where you don't try and blow up the relationships, like we are seeing to the north of my electorate and to the west of my electorate.

I just don't know how the member for Mallee—who I notice isn't speaking on this—can reconcile those two issues: 'Grains of wheat, not uranium' and 'Farming, not mining of mineral sands.' They're at this stage where the farmers in the Mallee are starting to call for a moratorium on mining farming land because they don't want mining going on. The Nationals are heading for a collision within their caucus room—a collision between their original constituency, the farming community, and then their big mining mates. To give you an example of the mining mates that have moved into the north, Gina Rinehart has an interest to the north. These are the kinds of interests that are coming back into Victoria, and it's a problem that they've created because of the way in which they've fuelled misinformation and disinformation in communities.

In the government, on our side, we believe in bringing people together and in finding common ground to work through smart policy. We want to make sure that new resource projects stack up economically and environmentally. We want to make sure that, when people are investing in these, the local constituents, the local people who might be concerned, have their day and can raise their concerns, but that then decisions are made based on the law—that we've applied the law to all projects. I can see that rolling out in my state of Victoria, as well as in other parts of the country. We also want to make sure that, when we are farming, we are doing it in a way that is collaborative and we're supporting and embracing new farming technologies and new farming methods.

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australian farmers are the backbone of our nation, and their contribution extends far beyond putting food on our tables. In my electorate of Capricornia, over 73,900 people are directly employed in the agriculture sector. The dominant form of farming here is cattle production, with 768 dedicated cattle graziers working the land to sustain our thriving beef industry. Farmers across Capricornia contributed an astounding $1.88 billion in gross value product for the 2023-24 financial year, but that's just the beginning.

This industry alone employs 270,000 Australians, and nearly 37 per cent of those workers are outside our major cities. These aren't just numbers. They represent how agriculture is the lifeblood of rural communities. It sustains families, businesses and entire regions. Our farmers ensure Australia's food security, and without them we would be far more vulnerable to global shocks and supply chain disruptions. The hard work of our farmers doesn't end in the paddock; it continues when they come together to share knowledge and advance their industry.

Beef2024—these events are held every three years—is one such event that attracts graziers not only from across Australia but from across the globe. This year the impact of Beef2024 on the Rockhampton region was nothing short of remarkable, injecting an astounding $102 million into the local economy. This event showcases the critical role agriculture plays in supporting local businesses, creating jobs and driving economic growth in our community.

However, the importance of the agriculture industry is lost on a government who bows to the loud voices in the inner city. Since taking office, the Albanese Labor government has consistently targeted regional Australia with policies that have hit our farmers hard. As the backbone of our agriculture sector, they are now facing increased challenges due to Labor's misguided approach. Rather than offering the support needed to sustain the industry that feeds both Australia and the world, Labor's decisions have led to greater uncertainty and instability and mounting pressure on our farmers.

One of the most detrimental actions taken by the Albanese Labor government was scrapping the agriculture visa. Industry leaders have made it clear that Australian agriculture is in desperate need of more workers, with an estimated shortfall of 172,000 people. Despite these warnings, Labor's decision has left farmers without the necessary workforce to keep operations running smoothly. The government's heavy reliance on the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme has only worsened the situation. Additionally, Labor proposed a fresh food tax which would force farmers to bear the financial responsibility for biosecurity risks introduced by international competitors.

Labor's assault on farmers extends beyond workforce challenges, more red tape and taxes. They are also undermining the critical infrastructure that supports water security and boosts agricultural productivity. By stripping billions of dollars from vital water infrastructure projects, Labor is putting the future of Australian agriculture at risk. In their first budget, Labor stripped $483 million of funding from the Urannah Dam, a project which would deliver water security for Central Queensland farmers.

Yet the blatant hypocrisy of the Labor Party is to rush to Rookwood Weir only weeks ago to officially open this coalition-funded project. It's ironic that Labor pretends to support water projects one week, then the next week axes 970 gigalitres from Urannah Dam, killing off water security for 20,000 hectares of prime agricultural land. Those opposite are quick to cut the ribbon on coalition-funded projects but refuse to invest in the very initiatives that could drive growth in our regions. These cuts are not just an attack on our farmers but an attack on the entire agricultural supply chain. Every dollar invested in water projects brings exponential returns, ensuring that our farmers can continue to thrive, even during challenging weather conditions. By pulling funding from these essential initiatives, Labor is not only jeopardising the livelihoods of farmers but also threatening the stability of rural communities and the broader Australian economy.

Australian farmers are staring down the barrel of a government who doesn't care for the work they do to create jobs and growth, while also driving up the cost of every Australian's grocery bill. Labor's agriculture policies are nothing short of shameful, reckless and blatantly ideological. As I did today at the National Farmer Rally, and as I have done every day of my four terms as the member for Capricornia, I will stand with farmers and fight to keep farmers farming.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I want to say how proud I am to be the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture. We work collectively and in a bipartisan way with both members of the opposition and the crossbench. Earlier this year, we were asked to conduct an inquiry into the phasing out of live sheep exports, and I'm pleased the member for Lyons and the member for Hasluck are both in the House with me today, talking about this matter of public importance.

I want to say to the 3,500 people that came along to our inquiry, many more than were here today—but I understand that distance can be a tyranny. They came to the Muresk Institute to hear the inquiry, and I understand it is a concern for the farming community. I want to acknowledge that sheep farmers in the west are concerned about this. I acknowledge that, and I thank them for their efforts and the input they had into our inquiry.

It is now the law that the trade will cease from 1 July 2028, and it won't be revisited. But what our government wants to do is provide certainty. We're not vacillating on this, as those opposite have done with so many policies over the last decade. We have made a decision; we were not afraid to make that decision, but we recognise that there are going to be challenges for the people involved in that industry, particularly in Western Australia. With this in mind, that's why we have offered up the $107 million transition support package, to help individuals and families who are going to make some business decisions and do some planning around what will replace that live sheep export trade revenue for their businesses and families. It's four years away, and we did make a recommendation that, in concert with the Western Australian state government, we look at potentially extending that package. So I do want to say it is important. We get it, and we thank and recognise the farmers who work so hard for not only the Western Australian farming economy but also our Australian farming economy.

I also want to share an interesting statistic. We spoke with Roger Fletcher, who gave evidence to us at that inquiry. He, of course, on the eastern seaboard will be well-known to the people of Dubbo because he has a very big abattoir out there—and he also has abattoirs in the west. I asked him about the export of sheepmeat, and I was interested in how long it would take to process in Australia the sheep currently being exported live. If they weren't being exported, if they were being slaughtered in Australia, how long would it take for them to be processed and boxed up to be exported? The amount of sheep currently going out on boats in Australia could be processed in four days. That gives you an understanding of the size of the industry these days.

We know that this industry is in decline. No matter what those opposite say, these are the facts. We know that we can earn more and we know that we can support farmers with better, more vibrant export markets. The trade minister, Don Farrell, from South Australia, has been working night and day, doing a brilliant job restoring our relationships with Asia, particularly China, and opening up those markets for our farmers.

To close, I received an email from a vet about this. Today, the Leader of the Nationals, David Littleproud, asked the Prime Minister about sheep from Sudan. In this email the vet said to me: 'The move away from sheep exports from Australia should actually see a net global animal welfare gain, as our sheep will no longer be travelling for up to three-plus weeks by sea from opposite seasons. Instead, locally grown and heat acclimatised sheep and goats will be sourced from much closer destinations to the Middle East, some with voyages as short as 10 hours, from Sudan and Saudi Arabia, animals that were never going to be afforded the relative luxury of a pre-stunned slaughter. Also, with our less-crappy ships more freely available, they will most likely displace some of the very old ships in the Middle Eastern region and lead to safer shipping. Thanks again for your work. I value that I can put away all the memories I have of sheep suffering on these unnecessary voyages. Sincerely, Dr Lynn Simpson, live export vet.'

We want to support Australian farming and Australian farmers, and we also want to play our role across the globe in the adoption of better farming practices—and I think that we're achieving it.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to reflect on the contribution the member for Paterson has just made. It must be a frustration for her to be sitting on the backbench. She quite frankly should be on the frontbench, but of course her attitudes to many of those things don't accord with those of the Prime Minister. She's more Fitzroy River than she is Fitzroy, and that's the problem here in this debate.

I do want to address contribution from the member for Bendigo. I think she was kind of critical of the number of people who came all the way to Canberra to protest. I mean, I've got constituents up there. They've driven for two days, and, unlike those at the rallies that the member for Bendigo used to organise, the people up there aren't being paid to come here to represent the interests of their community. When the member for Bendigo was an organiser for United Voice every single one of those people who turned up to protest was on the pay. So I don't think those opposite should be critical of people coming here and expressing their objection to the policies of those opposite, particularly when those opposite are led by a man so weak, so gutless that he wouldn't even walk out the front of the building and confront these constituents. Now, talk about someone who is more focused on Fitzroy than he is on Fitzroy River. Those opposite are led by exactly that person.

Now the reality here is this: the Australian live sheep export industry provides the best animal welfare standards anywhere in the world. We not only export sheep; we export animal welfare standards. What those opposite don't understand is that Western Australia producers cannot produce an animal that has the characteristics that processors want and that consumers want. You're effectively saying to these producers that they don't have a future.

The member for Hasluck is welcome to contribute. But the bigger issue is this: this industry, to those opposite—and the member for Paterson knows this—has done every single thing the government has asked it to do, and yet it has been banned. Mark Peuker, up there in the gallery, all the way from Mount Gambier, is a beef producer. He is thinking, 'Am I next?'

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. The member for Hasluck—

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'I've done everything I can.'

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hasluck will cease interjecting. I call the member for Barker.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's thinking, 'Am I next?' He's living in an electorate where he has watched a government make life very difficult.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Scare tactics.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. If those opposite want to talk about scare tactics, they gave us 'Mediscare'.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Scare tactics.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, please. This isn't a scare tactic; this is real. Go to Western Australia and talk to a Western Australian sheep producer and ask him if it's a scare campaign. It's not, mate. It's a bill that has become law, which means their business doesn't exist anymore. I don't know why those opposite hate farmers so much. You've ruled out an industry. You've rubbed it out. And while I'm talking about rubbing out food production let's talk about the Murray-Darling Basin. Those opposite want to take water from the basin, from farmers—intergenerational farmers—and take their water rights away.

The Riverland in my electorate is a highly productive horticultural zone but without water it is a desert. Those opposite are going to take the equivalent of all of South Australia's water entitlement away. In the South Australian context, many people think South Australia won't have to make a contribution. That's not true. South Australia will have to make a contribution. It is best estimated at 32 gigs. That is the size of the Renmark irrigation district. That would be like saying to every horticultural producer, every almond producer, everyone growing an orange, mandarin, an apricot, in the Renmark irrigation district, 'We are going to rub you out, just like we rubbed out West Australian sheep producers.' Those opposite can call it a scare campaign all they want. The people of Western Australia call it something else: real.

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

The Leader of the Opposition stood outside this place today and told farmers he has their backs. Well, if that was true he would come clean on his nuclear plan. How much water will his nuclear reactors use and how much more will water cost as a result? How much more will farmers be paying for energy under the Liberal-National nuclear plan? The CSIRO and others say it will be at least twice as expensive and perhaps up to six times as much as it would cost under renewables. If the Leader of the Opposition had farmers' backs, he would acknowledge that the National Farmers' Federation is one of 18 major business and farming groups that last month issued a statement saying Australia requires more renewable energy at all scales.

The Leader of the Opposition would acknowledge that 12,000 farms are located within 80 kilometres of his seven reactor sites in regions that are major contributors to Australia's food supply, with cattle, milk, lamb, grain and vegetable production. Under international standards, that radius is classified as an ingestion exposure pathway, and farmers must take preventative measures to protect food supply in the event of a nuclear accident. Farmers would be required to inform customers of the risk of nuclear contamination. They would have to stump up for the cost of decontamination and livestock destruction. Will the Leader of the Opposition tell farmers how much that is going to cost them and what the implications are for their farms? No, because this is a Leader of the Opposition interested in only one thing—his own relentless political ambition—and he will tear down and rip up anyone and anything who gets in his way. He will say anything for a headline—wedge, divide, dog whistle, drive Australians apart. That is the stock in trade of this Leader of the Opposition. He won't support renewables, even though they are already delivering results for farmers and regional communities, cheaper power and more jobs for the regions, and it is the Liberals and Nationals standing against it.

Now outside this place today we have a couple of hundred sheep farmers from WA who don't agree with our government's decision to phase out the live sheep export trade. They have the right to express their views. Our decision directly affects them and we accept that, which is why we have put a $107 million transition package on the table. The fact is our decision is consistent with the position we took to the 2022 election. We have been upfront and fair dinkum. It is worth noting the live sheep export trade is valued at $77 million, which is one-third the value of Australian's total mandarin exports, by way of comparison. It also contrasts to the $4.5 billion sheepmeat export trade and the $3.5 billion domestic sheepmeat industry. It is also important to say that that $77 million doesn't disappear. Those sheep, once destined for live export, go instead to domestic processing.

Our Labor government is not alone in supporting the transition away from live sheep exports. The deputy Liberal leader, the member for the regional New South Wales seat of Farrer, has referred to the live sheep export trade as 'an awful trade'. The member for Farrer said the trade 'fails on both economic and animal welfare grounds'. So, when the Leader of the Opposition falsely seeks to paint this issue as Labor versus the bush, remember we have a regional, senior Liberal MP—his own deputy—who is on the record in sharing our position.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She's changed her mind!

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

I acknowledge she's since changed—of course she's changed her mind now she's the deputy Liberal leader. With the opposition leader breathing down her neck, of course she has. But we know what's in her heart. We know what she really thinks.

One of the more tiresome tropes of this place is those opposite claiming this government doesn't get the regions. We have a number of regional MPs: Ministers Collins, King, McBain, McCarthy, Marles, Conroy and Jones, as well as the members for Gilmore, Bendigo, Cunningham, Dobell, Lingiari, Hunter, Newcastle, Paterson and myself, to name a few.

The fact is our Labor government is committed to a robust, sustainable agriculture industry, which currently stands at $84 billion a year and is expected to get to $86 billion. We stand by that, and we're going to grow it.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have severe doubts about the last statement. I do defend the Labor Party in my electorate when people say to me, 'Why do they hate us so much?' I say, 'I don't think the Labor Party hates miners or farmers, but they think they can bear any amount of pain that they inflict upon them.' They say, in the Labor Party: 'They'll be alright; those farmers have got big utes and things. They always whinge about everything, and they don't vote for us anyhow. They'll be able to soak it up, don't worry. We'll be able to grab a few green votes in the city.' Don't think that this isn't about that. They say, 'We'll be able to grab a few green votes in the city, and they'll get over it.' They say the same to the miners.

I attended the Keep the Sheep rally out the front this morning. I don't think any members opposite did. From my estimation, there weren't 200 farmers there; there was somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000. I didn't put them all down the sheep race and count them personally. I can count by about five at a time, but that's the number I reckon were there. Farmers had come from my own electorate, and I recognised them. They came up to me and said g'day to me.

It's no wonder the banning of live exports has galvanised farmers, because there's no science behind it. There was precious little consultation and no courage. In fact, the industry has jumped through every hoop. Millions have been spent on upgrading ship ventilation; on decreasing onboard stocking rates; on better handling, feed and water systems; and on having mandatory onboard vets, resulting in close to negligible stock losses. Additionally, the ESCAS system ensures Australian animals are tracked beyond demarcation and slaughtered in approved facilities. We're setting the standards for the world.

I led the coalition ag policy committee through the sheep country of Western Australia in March this year. I had one meeting in Adelaide—a hundred people rolled up there—and we staged another seven meetings across WA, culminating at the Wagin Woolorama. I have to say: we went there because the government members would not. We went and talked to the farmers there because government members would not. One of the things we told them was, 'We will fight for you here in Canberra, but we can't win the battle unless you're prepared to fight for yourselves.' Well, they showed today that they are more than prepared to fight for themselves.

But it's not just in relation to sheep that farmers are being attacked. We have the recommencement of the indiscriminate water buybacks, and others have mentioned that. There's the closing of the fully sustainable Gulf of Carpentaria gillnet fishing to protect the reef thousands and thousands of kilometres away—someone should look at a map. There's the building of transmission lines and renewable energy parks all over farming country—and that is even starting to bark in my electorate, I have to say. There's the abolition of the ag visa program, reducing the instant tax write-offs and imposing a biosecurity levy on farmers to inspect imports brought into Australia by non-agricultural businesses. Really! There's the abolition of the native title respondents fund, the commitment to expand Australia's parks and reserves from 20 to 30 per cent and the new vehicle emissions standards, which punish people who live in regional and remote Australia, in particular farmers. We've got the scope 3 emissions coming down the pipeline, and some big emitters are buying up agricultural land to offset their emissions. I heard the APVMA mentioned by the minister earlier, and now it's looking like they're going to ban paraquat for all intents and purposes. This is an incredible assault on farming. But it's not just farmers; they're after miners as well. Last night, I attend the Mineral Council dinner and I heard their CEO, Tania Constable, lay down quite clearly what the minerals industry think about what the government is doing to them. She said that Labor risk returning the mining tax wars between the big resources companies and the Gillard government. 'We want cooperation, not conflict,' Ms Constable said. The sector was under siege and being punished by the Albanese government for its stream of reckless, restrictive policies, industrial relations changes, raids on mining royalties, new regulations, and a looming threat of onerous and arbitrary environmental approvals.

Of course, we've just seen in this last week the Blayney goldmine disapproved, if you like, something that had already been through the process with the local Indigenous owners then some fringe group claimed to have an interest and the minister folded like a deck of cards. No wonder Australian farmers and miners are upset with this government.

Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again, we are confronted in this place with an opposition focused only on believing its own hype. This coalition are totally convinced that nobody knows about agriculture except for them, totally convinced that being on this side of the House removes you from the lived experience of Australian agriculture. In fact, the member for Barker made that point himself before question time today. That sentiment is offensively wrong, and those opposite should dispel that notion rather than use it to score political points. Let me demonstrate why.

Referring to the earlier comments of the member for Barker, I was also born in a regional community. I also grew up on a farm in Sunraysia. I also know, to quote the member for Barker, what 'blood, sweat and tears' go into the work of farming families. I watched my parents pour their very hearts and souls into our family farm while raising me and my two sisters. It's physically and emotionally draining work. I lived that experience that the member for Barker spoke of, and I'm proud of it too.

I remember clearly when we had our last farm, our vineyard. I'd have to go off to school in the morning, come home, my father would come in and look after my two sisters, and I'd have to go out on the tractor and work the property, just to make sure we could keep on top of our day-to-day requirements. During the middle of harvest, we would get up early in the morning, unwrap all of the dried fruit, rake it out before heading off to school, rinse and repeat every single day during the harvest, just to make sure that we made ends meet. I know what hard work is. I've lived those experiences all too often, and I'm proud of it too—extremely proud.

I was on the phone just hours ago, just before question time, speaking to growers in my electorate, discussing the concerns that they're experiencing. For those that don't know the electorate of Spence, it's a peri-urban seat, and we have the largest undercover cropping in the Southern Hemisphere. We produce around one-third of the state's fresh produce. I'm extremely proud of what we grow in my area, so it's hugely offensive that the member for Barker would insinuate that I am working against farmers in this country and that I don't know what they're going through. It is absolutely disgusting that the member for Barker would even attempt to make that point, not just because it's completely separate from reality but because I share the same lived experience as him. It's even worse that his colleagues would try to back it in with a statement like this.

This kind of born-to-rule rhetoric from the coalition when it comes to agriculture has become all too familiar in Australian political discourse and it's incredibly disappointing because all that talk does nothing to actually improve livelihoods on farms in this country. Instead, that perception tries to weaponise Australian agriculture as a tool to fill a Liberal-National ballot box. That agriculture sector deserves so much more respect than it gets from those opposite. A Labor government will always show that respect, take farmers seriously and work with them to produce positive outcomes. That's why we are investing more than a billion dollars in new biosecurity funding, to help ensure that our farmers can remain free of disruption and continue to operate effectively, as our nation leads the world in biosecurity. Those opposite would have instead persisted with the $100 million drain they placed on that funding while in power, which this government fixed—despite knowing agriculture better than everyone else.

Our respect for farmers is why we've opened the doors to a multitude of export markets: in cotton, barley, oaten hay—and especially wine, given the foreign policy failure of those opposite, which brought winemakers to their knees in 2020. This government has corrected that failure, getting rid of the tariffs in China, with $142 million of wine exported to China in May alone as a result. We're making farmers more resistant to climate in the years to come, to ensure their sustainability. The coalition would rather weaponise our future for their own nuclear ends. We're also scrutinising Australia's food security, taking the necessary steps to ensure supply to the most precious of resources, the Australian people.

Of course, those opposite know all of this already because, just by virtue of being themselves, they know everything! Perhaps they aren't quite sure on the resources sector—I'm yet to hear a member state they were born in a copper mine and then use that to justify their point of view. I'm happy to help those opposite on this front, too. Our last budget was the most significant investment in resources in a generation, including the $17.6 billion production tax incentive to help secure a future made in Australia.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion has concluded.