Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the comments of my colleague Senator O'Sullivan in supporting the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016. I am absolutely delighted here in 2016 that agriculture and agribusiness have found their place in the Australian psyche. When I came here in 2008/09, you could not even get agriculture onto the agenda. Today, it is recognised that agriculture is not only so important domestically but that, from an export point of view, agriculture contributes about $50 billion to the Australian economy. It is one of those areas that is expanding astronomically as we embrace the free trade agreements with Korea, with Japan and with China. I hope we embrace the opportunities with the Trans-Pacific Partnership over time, because it is going to open up a whole new geographic area for us in the areas of Mexico, Chile and Peru—into Central and South America.

I want to make some comments more generally about agriculture and primary industry levies and charges, but I do want to focus for a few moments more particularly on the beef industry. With regard to agriculture more widely, it is important for people in the chamber and those listening to understand that the government support on a dollar for dollar basis the research activities of levy payers. For that reason, it is vitally important that we in this chamber and in the other place, on behalf of the Australian people, have an interest in, and an oversight of, how levy moneys are spent.

During the inquiry into this bill, we heard from pretty well every one of the agriculturally related companies or organisations, and we learnt from different sectors within the agribusiness and agricultural industries that there was frustration as to who the levy payers were, as to how much they were paying, as to whom they were making the payments and as to, most particularly, where their dollars went. Again, the government, on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia, do support that research component very, very actively. It is important, particularly in today's world with today's technology, that levy payers are identified, that the amount they pay is correctly recorded and reported, that those funds are made available through the responsible organisations and that, most importantly, we have the smallest amount of administrative burden between the payment of moneys by levy payers and the value of those levies paid by way of research, marketing, development or whatever purpose they are allocated.

In proposing this legislation, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Deputy Prime Minister made the point that there are 15 rural regional and development corporations, RDCs, and that one size does not suit all. The Senate inquiry we had into this legislation led to a report and recommendations which, I am pleased to say, were almost unanimous if not unanimous. In that inquiry there was a recognition from those who pay levies, to those who receive the levies and those who allocate the research and marketing funding: (a) that there be a separation between the two and that it be transparent, and (b) that on the research component we know where those dollars are being spent.

I want now to focus more centrally on the recommendations that came from the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report into grass-fed cattle. That is going to lead me also to make some observations on the first speech this evening of the newly elected Senator Derryn Hinch. I go back, initially, to the recommendations of the grass-fed beef levy report and its hearings. We held those hearings around Australia: in Canberra, in Broome, in Tennant Creek, in Rockhampton, back to Canberra and back to the Riverina area of New South Wales.

The recommendations of that inquiry are reflected widely in the bill which we are discussing this evening. The first recommendation was that there be established a producer owned body which would have the authority to receive and disburse the funds for research and development as well as marketing, in this case, of the cattle transaction levy funds. Why did that come about? Simply because there was a recognition that there was a wide gap in the knowledge of who paid levies, when they were paid, to whom they were paid and the source of that funding. That recommendation went on:

The producer-owned body should also be authorised to receive matching government research and development funds.

There was also mention made of reforming the Cattle Council of Australia to achieve these outcomes. So immediately this chamber and this parliament became involved in the oversight and husbanding, on behalf of the Australian taxpayer, of funds for research and development—not for marketing but for research and development. I am very pleased to see that the bill, as it has been presented to us for approval, does pick up those questions associated with the recommendation that was made.

The second recommendation was for the establishment of a cost-effective, automated cattle transaction levy system. That system, we said, should identify levy payers against levies paid. The scenario that we encountered as we went around Australia was that there was no immediacy with settlement. A levy payer would sell cattle into the market and funds would be taken out of that transaction for the purposes of the levy. But a long time gap existed between when the levy payer paid the funds to the person—often the agent who held the funds—and when those funds were eventually retired to the responsible authority. We said in 2015—bearing in mind the current electronic settlements that occur by their billions today in the credit card market et cetera—that there should be a more immediate settlement of levy fees paid and allocation of what are called voting entitlements.

I want to introduce that topic because, obviously, upon the payment of levies a levy payer—a producer—then has certain entitlements to vote on where research, development and marketing funds are allocated. We also said that this should be the subject of independent auditing and verification, which at that time it was not. We did recommend, and it was perhaps a bit unique to the grass-fed beef industry, that there should be an amendment to the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act so that levies paid by beef processors—in other words, those who are involved in the processing of the product from the live animal through to the product available for retail—should be separated, and recognised as being separated, as slaughter levies and not as producer levies. This was somewhat unique to that industry but, nevertheless, vitally important. Why was it important? Because there was a concern that processors, as a result of the dollars involved in their component of levy collection, had an unfair benefit over producers in terms of how levies were allocated and the purposes for which research and development was undertaken.

During that inquiry we recommended—as I recall, it was again unanimous with the support of my own side and of my colleagues from the Labor Party Senators Sterle and Gallacher—that the Australian National Audit Office should conduct an audit of the cattle transaction levy scheme, tracing the levy from inception and focusing on revenue through to expenditure and the respective components—research, development and marketing.

The final recommendation that is relevant to our discussion this evening involves drawing on international experience. The fear was raised continually by producers that there was no transparency in the supply chain from the calf through to the retail plate, so our final recommendation was that the Department of Agriculture, in consultation with the cattle industry, should conduct an analysis of the benefits, costs and consequences of introducing American legislation akin to the US Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 and the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 1999. What does this legislation do in the USA? Basically, it allows a scenario in which those involved in production, processing, transportation, marketing and retailing have a greater degree of transparency on where the funds come from and what the fate of the funds is. I am pleased to see that my colleague Senator Reynolds is now in the chamber, because she was instrumental in the original Senate inquiry being undertaken, which has led to the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016.

I now turn to the speech given this evening—or at least a small part of it, since it was so long—by Senator Hinch. Where is the relevance? The relevance involves the beef industry and the grass-fed levies. When we went around Australia—Senator Whish-Wilson, as I recall, was a participant in Broome and in Tennant Creek, but I do not recall if he was there in Rockhampton—it was the first time since 2011, when that shocking ban on the live export trade was visited upon the beef industry of this country, that the beef producers had their opportunity to be heard on the effect of that event on their industry. I want to reflect on it this evening because, while there are some elements of what Senator Hinch said tonight with which I agree, let me tell you this, and let me place it very firmly on record: it is obvious that Senator Hinch has no understanding of the live export trade in this country at all—whether it involves sheep or beef. He mentioned the names of people who I do not mention anymore, because I am under legal recourse to not mention their names anymore. But the time will come when I will speak to Senator Hinch, and I will explain to him the error of his thinking when it comes to this industry.

As Senator Whish-Wilson has heard and knows, there are 109 countries in this world that export live production animals for processing purposes. Senator Hinch, in his little cocoon, does not know this: there is only one country that has ever invested time or money or personnel or expertise in the wellbeing and the husbandry and the management and the transport and the nutrition and the welfare of animals in our target markets, and that country is Australia. I will not stand by and listen to the nonsense that was visited upon this parliament this evening by this man, who pretends to think, because he has been on the end of a radio microphone for some years, he is the voice of all knowledge in this industry. It was the worst piece of legislation that ever came down in this country. Not only did it affect cattle producers across the country but it affected transporters, it affected marketers, it affected transport companies and it affected helicopter companies.

As I have said in this place, does Senator Hinch, if he understands anything about this industry, think for one minute that the timing of that Four Corners program at the end of May in 2011 was in any way coincidental, that it coincided with the trough of the revenue side of that industry and the peak of the expenditure side? Does he not understand that it was a deliberate effort by a number of people, including the meat industry employees union, GetUp!, animal activists and others whose only interest was the destruction of an industry and to get a Prime Minister off the front page?

Let me tell you a little bit more. I know Senator Hinch will not be in the least bit interested but let me tell you a little bit of the history. In 2010, Dr Ivan Caple then, or prior to that, the senior honorary veterinarian for the RSPCA in this country, had been commissioned to go to Indonesia with a highly specialised group to look at issues associated with the processing of live cattle in Indonesia. He presented that report to the then agriculture minister, Mr Burke. An officer of Mr Burke's office had been an ABC journalist, a Ms Skye Laris. Ms Laris subsequently became the chief of staff to Mr Burke and subsequently his wife.

From the time that Dr Caple produced his report advising that there were some minor problems associated with the processing of Australian beef in Indonesia but by no means the nonsense that we saw in that Four Corners cooked up show. That show, incidentally, reminds me to tell you that the producer, Ms Sarah Ferguson, lied to me under oath six times in a subsequent Senate inquiry. Let me put that to one side. Ms Laris received the Caple report but never presented it to the then Minister for Agriculture, Mr Burke. We know that that 2010 election occurred, Former Minister Burke went on to other ministries and then Senator Joe Ludwig became the agriculture minister. Did Ms Laris ever report to new Minister Ludwig the events associated with the Caple report, reported to Ms Laris? No. Caple was never called upon to report to any minister of a Labor government. We know the sequel: late May 2011 we had the Four Corners report; early June the ban on the trade took place.

Some days later, on the steps of Martin Place in Sydney, we had a group of people including animal activists and GetUp!, who stood on those steps to say that they would see the end of the live export trade in this country. Do you know who the representative of GetUp! was on that occasion? It was Ms Skye Laris, the recent chief of staff to the Minister of Agriculture, who had withheld any information from the Caple report from 2010 upon which action could have been taken if they so minded but nothing—no action no nothing. And so we had a circumstance in which the then chief of staff, now a GetUp! aficionado, proudly telling us all that she had tens of thousands of email addresses to whom she could send this information.

Senator Hinch stands condemned for his lack of knowledge and for the presentation of that information.