Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

No, we don’t. We have to come up with a solution that keeps this issue ventilated, with a process that actually takes it forward. I would be only too happy to cross the floor—but to what effect? There would be me and, I imagine, a couple of others and the Greens, and the issue would be lost. I believe there is a genuine sense of concern as we go forward. I am hoping that Senator Ronaldson in due course will talk to an inquiry to deal with this issue. In dealing with this issue we will get a chance to further ventilate this issue and to flesh this issue out further so that we can change the law—because the law has already passed, unfortunately.

I acknowledge also that we have the capacity today to reach back into that law if it were the wish of the majority of the chamber—that is very important: if it were the wish of the majority of the chamber—to change the law. But it is quite evident that the wish of the majority of the chamber is not there. So you have to be honest and practical and, in trying to deal with the farmers who have a concern with this, come up with a solution that actually takes them forward in some way, shape or form. To do anything else may be a pious amendment; it may be a Pyrrhic victory. I am only too prepared to do that, if it were not for the chance out there that you do have the potential to go forward and deal with this issue in another way. That is what my responsibility is here today. And I imagine it is the same for the responsibility of others.

It is self-evident. Why on earth are we going to give a tax deduction to coal companies, who are receiving record prices and record returns, to go out there, buy agricultural land that is currently supplying the Australian supermarkets with cheap product, so that they can get a tax deduction and the Australian consumer can pay more for food? It is an absolute no-brainier. How on earth can this have come forward? There is an amendment I have tabled, which I will have to withdraw, to hold an inquiry. That talks about strengthening the guidelines specifically for that. I acknowledge fully that, even if I did go forward with the amendment, it would not get up because it does not have the numbers.

So how do we progress the issue in such a manner so that we have an inquiry, so that we have a proper ventilation of this issue, so that we have the capacity to clearly explain to the Australian community and get away from the technicalities of talking about a TLAB bill to a situation where we are talking about the price of food in the supermarket, the economies of local towns, the capacity for certain mills to stay viable, and the problems that MISs are causing from the Murray River up to Tully? To try to properly deal with it, these issues have to be further ventilated. If there were a move today against the numbers then the issue would die today. But we must continue to pursue the issue.

When the amendment comes forward I propose to withdraw my amendment on the premise that an inquiry will come forward. I am hoping to hear about a foreshadowed inquiry. That is extremely important. There are issues. I think that, as people become genuinely and further engaged with this issue—we have only had about three days of good oxygen on this—and we get a further inquiry into this, over a period of time, we have a better chance to do something about it. However, I also clearly put on the record that, if this inquiry turns into a farce, if it turns into something that is not taken seriously, if it turns into a tick-and-flick show, then, if other instances occur in the future where people need our support, it might be a little harder to come by.