Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to make some remarks regarding the government's abject failure to support Australia's agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries. It is not only a failure to support. The government is actively undermining the future sustainability of primary industries. We saw this afternoon a minister—Senator Ludwig—in answer to a Dorothy dixer on agriculture show his complete incompetence when it comes to rural Australia and agricultural issues. Indeed, he was simply making a joke in a lot of instances within his answer.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

I note Senator Carr is already rising to the bait and making a contribution. I think I am about a minute into my remarks and Senator Carr simply cannot help himself. It was extraordinary watching the minister over there. I was thinking to myself, well, if I talk to the hand it is actually going to give me more information than the minister is and it is actually going to give me more care for rural Australia than the minister is. The minister this afternoon was trying to throw barbs at the National Party which sort of came across like wet fish indicating that the Nationals were pining for the single desk. Well, I will absolutely say on record I am pining for the single desk for wheat. I think getting rid of the single desk for wheat was one of the most stupid decisions a government has ever made and to just philosophically go down the line of deregulation for deregulation's sake was just simply stupid. I say that in the light of now we have growers who are not being paid for wheat they have sold because there is no certainty underpinning that payment for them in many of these instances and that is wrong and that is as a direct result of the deregulation of the wheat industry in many instances.

I come back to the subject at hand. I do note that, in 2011-12, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry spent nearly $80,000 on consultants. I am sure people would be very interested to know that part of that funding went towards the department altering its mission statement. So what did the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry actually do as a result of spending all this money? They remove the word 'agriculture' from their mission statement. So it went from

Increasing the profitability, competitiveness and sustainability of Australia's agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry industries—

to—

We work to sustain the way of life and prosperity of all Australians.

I hope they did not spend the entire $80,000 on determining that change which shows completely the government's abject failure to support agriculture in this nation.

How on earth can a minister preside over a department for agriculture and tick off the fact that they are taking the word 'agriculture' out of their mission statement? How stupid is that? Does it show the minister's complete disconnect from what is important, right at that position at the top of the department, with a mission statement outlining their mission? It is no wonder at all that people in regional communities are despairing of this Labor. We only have to look at the funding cuts to see that it is truly an abject failure on the part of this government when it comes to agriculture and the primary industries.

Funding to agriculture and the communities that agriculture supports under this government has been slashed from $3.8 billion to $1.7 billion. What kind of support does that show to our agricultural communities? What kind of support does that show to the people out there in the regions when this government is presiding over budget cuts at probably the time that regional Australia needs the support most. It simply does not make sense.

We need to turn no further than the issue of water management in the Murray-Darling Basin to see that it is an absolute abject failure of this government to support agriculture. In so many areas it just shows the government's complete lack of understanding of the impact of permanently removing water from those regional communities.

Senator Sterle interjecting—

I hear across the chamber my colleague Senator Sterle sighing and shaking his head and tisking. I can only assume that the senator's shaking of the head and the sighing and the tisking is in complete relation to something else because I know that Senator Sterle knows how important regional communities are. I am sure he would join with me on many an occasion—not that he would say this—knowing that the government should be doing more and some of the things that the government is doing when it comes to regional Australia should simply not be happening. I do have to say I have the greatest respect for Senator Sterle. I have worked with him for a very long time now on our rural and regional Senate committee. I have great respect for him and I do know that he does care. It is just a shame he does not have a little more influence on his minister when it comes to the decisions that the minister is making.

When we look at water management in the Murray-Darling Basin, the fact that the government has failed completely to properly take into account the social and economic impacts of removing water from the communities is absolutely unacceptable. The government does not even understand, when we have not even got the Murray-Darling Basin Plan finalised yet, that the decisions that have been made, and even those that are going to be made, are having an impact now. That is before the plan is even finalised, before the legislation—and goodness knows when that is going to happen and how and why—has even gone through this chamber. We see a lack of certainty and a lack of confidence out there in the communities in places like Griffith. There is a real lack of confidence in the future of that particular community and that is really sad because Griffith has a fantastic future, as do the rest of our rural communities. But when we see house prices falling and businesses not changing hands in towns like Griffith simply because of the uncertainty that is being created by this government, it is no wonder that people out there are saying that is unacceptable.

There are no two ways about it: the government simply have not placed the same weighting on the social and economic impacts of permanently removing water from those towns as they have placed on the environmental impact. That is simply wrong. It has to be a triple bottom line approach and those three key areas have to be addressed equally. On that, I noticed the other day, when we were debating the bill on small pelagics and the supertrawler, that the Greens were calling for the social and economic impact of the decision on the supertrawler to be taken into account. Indeed, they were moving an amendment to do so. As I said on that day, and I will say this again, the Greens should be stumping up right now and calling for that same social and economic impact on our rural communities to be taken into account. Why on earth does it apply to a fishing boat and not to our regional communities when it comes to the Greens? It is inconsistent and hypocritical.

The failure of the government to support agriculture goes on and on when we look at the Murray-Darling Basin because they simply cannot give us the answers that we need. They simply do not know what is going on. There is the complete failure of the government to show us what the environmental water holder is currently doing, what the benefit to the environment has been and how much water has been released. The failure of the government to do that leaves the agricultural communities hanging out to dry.

I asked a question back in April, during a Murray-Darling Basin hearing of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs Committee that I am on, about how much water the environmental water holder was going to let go, how much they had let go in a given year, how they did measure the benefit, which environmental assets it was going to, and what the benefit to the environment was. I suppose it is fair enough that the department said they would take it all on notice. Indeed, Mr Robertson said he would be happy to make them available; they had not done them to date but they would be happy to do so—and I appreciate that. So what did we get? We got the answers to the question, and that was terrific. The only problem was it was 3,451 pages long. How this government can expect there to be any confidence in the decisions that they are making around the Murray-Darling Basin when the department gives senators an answer which is 3,451 pages long and expects us to be able to (a) take them seriously and (b) wade through that is incomprehensible. It is a complete failure by this government to manage this properly. So we did ask them, even taking into account that perhaps the department was being incredibly diligent, if they wouldn't mind just summarising the 3,451 pages for us. We did that on 4 September and we asked them to have it back to us by 13 September. It is now 20 September and it is a week overdue. We still have not seen it. So we can only imagine that it just as difficult for the department to get through the 3,451 pages as it was for us because simply nothing has turned up yet. That is unacceptable.

We have $1.9 billion spent by the government on water buybacks and yet only $494 million has been spent on Better Infrastructure investments, through 'infrastructure and works and measures'. The litany of failure continues and the buybacks that they have done have been rash and not thought through—$303 million to buy back entitlement from Twynam, over four or five river systems and Twynam offered it up as a job lot and there was no ability for the government to be able to determine whether or not the entitlement they were buying back across those rivers for each of those river systems was appropriate. 'Oh, no, we have to take the whole lot.' So $303 million with no ability for oversight or proper scrutiny of which ones were actually going to be appropriate for the environment and value for money.

There is probably nothing that shows more clearly the government's absolute failure to support agriculture than bringing in a carbon tax. The undermining of future sustainability of primary industry through the carbon tax is going to be absolutely appalling. I know I use the word 'appalling' a lot, colleagues, but I tell you this: quite often it is the only thing we can use because it is the only word that is appropriate. This carbon tax—and as you will remember, colleagues, Prime Minister Julia Gillard had said 'there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'—is going to hit regional Australia harder than anywhere else. Farmers are at the bottom of the food chain—and I will declare my interest as a farmer—and they have no ability to pass on the costs of fertiliser, electricity, chemicals, packaging. From 2014 the temporary exemption from tax on transport fuels will be removed. I know my colleague Senator Williams has been at the forefront in raising this issue, saying that this exemption is only going to be there for a minimal amount of time and then the fuel cost impact is going to get passed through to our farmers. A study released in June by business analysts IBIS World forecast the new carbon tax imposts would push down revenue for the agricultural sector next year by 6.4 per cent, from $54 billion to $50.5 billion in 2012-13. It gets even worse as from 2014 there would be a $3.7 billion hit. Despite farmers being exempt from the direct tax, these costs are going to hit farmers harder than anyone else. What is quite extraordinary is the government trying to tell regional communities that the carbon tax will not be a problem. You try telling dairy farmers, meat processors and irrigators opening their power bills that the carbon tax does not apply to them. We are going to have a 9.7 per cent rise in dairy farm power bills. Milk companies will pass back the carbon price. According to Dairy Australia, the average cost per farm will be well over $4,000. The list goes on and on.

In every area we look and everywhere we turn, it seems that this abject failure of the government to support Australian agriculture goes on and on. It is nowhere more stark than in my area of education. The Australian Council of Deans of Agriculture indicates a potential demand for around 6,000 tertiary qualified graduates per year in the sector. What have we got, Mr Acting Deputy President? We have a significant undersupply of graduates. We are actually seeing fewer than 800 graduates per year coming through our Australian universities. The government does not seem to understand that this will be a huge issue for our future sustainability, for food security in the future, if we do not address it now.

It seems that everywhere we turn the government is putting more barriers in place when it comes to agriculture and also when it comes to education. It is not just agricultural industries where there is a failure; there is also a failure on agricultural families. Credit where credit is due: Minister Evans has taken some successful steps forward in some areas of support when it comes to students. But the one area where he has not made the change he should have made after the complete stuff-up at the beginning of 2010—and I do again acknowledge the minister's very sensible backflip about 18 months later to restore some equity for regional students—is in students applying for independent youth allowance. Having a parental income cap of $150,000 apply to those students whose parents earn that amount when they are applying for independent youth allowance is simply wrong.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Disgraceful.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Williams, I will take that interjection—it is disgraceful. There is a huge inequity for regional students when it comes to accessing tertiary education, and that is because of the cost of relocation and the difficulties of having to move away from home to access tertiary education. One of the ways they do so is by accessing some support through the independent youth allowance.

Senator Sterle interjecting—

As you well know, Senator Sterle, and I know you understand, many of those students choose the path of working for a year, proving themselves independent of their parents to gain the assistance under the criterion. Yet the government has said, 'I'm sorry, young Australian that is trying to apply for independent youth allowance—'particularly young regional Australian—'if your parents earn $150,000 combined before tax you can't apply. You are ineligible.' That is simply stupid. We are talking potentially about two parents, one who might be a schoolteacher and one who might be a police officer. The government are telling that family that that student cannot apply for independent youth allowance, cannot go and work their tail off for a year, cannot prove their independence from their parents because 'we're still going whack that cap on there'.

Normally we on this side are demanding things; normally we on this side are stamping our feet and being angry. I am pleading with the minister to listen to all of those regional families that this is affecting and to please, please provide some equity for those regional students, who so often choose not to go to university because of the difficulties in place, because of barriers like the $150,000 parental income cap. That is just wrong. If this government were to change one thing to help regional students, that would be it. Mind you, there is a whole range of things but that is absolutely one of the priorities.

The list goes on and on. Unfortunately, time precludes me from exhausting the very long list of things that does prove that there is an abject failure by this Labor government to properly support Australia's agriculture, fishery and forestry industries. Our farmers are the backbone of this nation. They are not only now but into the future the absolute driving force, the engine room, of this nation. It is about time that this Labor government recognised that. It is about time that this Labor government stopped being so disconnected from regional communities and so disconnected from regional families and finally started listening to what is really needed out in regional Australia. This is not on. It is unacceptable. It is an abject failure by this government and people in rural and regional communities know that.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been looking forward to rising and making my contribution to Senator Fifield's notice of motion. I find it quite disingenuous, actually; I thought Senator Fifield might have a bit to say about it as he is from that great rural area called Melbourne. There is absolutely no argument: I concur with Senator Nash that farmers are the backbone of our country. There is no disagreement on this side of the chamber with that statement. We all understand fully the importance of farming communities, farmers and agricultural industries to our country and to our economy. It is a well-known fact that we are still massive producers of food in this country. We are a lucky country; there is no argument about that. We have seen some tough times through drought, and after about seven or nine years—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Eight years—from 2002 to 2010.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Eight years—thank you, Senator Williams. In our great state of Western Australia we have had those terrible conditions of drought for a number of years. But, if you were a stranger to this place and you read Senator Fifield's motion, you would think that we were absolutely in dire straits in this country and that, if it were not for that great bastion of freedom fighters for the farming community, the Nationals, nothing would get done. I actually find that quite insulting.

I concur with Senator Nash in that Senator Nash and I came in at the same time, back in the 2004 election, and took our seats in 2005 and we are still on the same committees. Senator Nash was a highly regarded and respected chair of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, and her work has no doubt been second to none in trying to represent rural communities. But there is something that the people of Australia have to understand. This great coalition on the other side of the chamber, which has stood up for farming people all of these years—well, there is something going on. It is a secret. I do not want everyone to know, so I am just going to tell you lot in here. Back in 2007, when the Rudd government came to power, there was a great push—if there are any interested Australians listening to this debate—about some issues around a company called AWB. There were some shenanigans going on in Iran and Iraq and whatnot. To cut a long story short: there was a great desire by certain parts of the farming community that we deregulate the export wheat market.

For those who are not quite sure of the split on who exports and who does not, the great majority of export wheat comes from WA. Western Australian farmers are the major exporters of wheat around the world. That is not to say that wheat growing is not a huge industry in the eastern states; in South Australia, where Senator Gallacher comes from, it is. But in the majority of eastern states wheat is sold on the domestic market; it is not bulk export.

So under the guidance of the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Burke, we set about seeing how we could assist the export wheat market and the export wheat growers to deregulate the industry so they could sell their wheat to whomever they wanted to sell it to and not through a single desk being controlled by AWB. That was met quietly, behind the scenes, with great support from the Liberal Party. The Liberals, those bastions of free enterprise, thought this was a wonderful thing. Ladies and gentlemen, through you, Acting Deputy President: when it comes to agricultural issues, they are not a coalition. They are head-butting, they are bluing. But the smart, grown-up people from the Liberal Party back in 2008 supported the deregulation of the export wheat market and sided with the government.

We have heard nothing but rantings and ravings from the National Party about how unfair it was to deregulate the export wheat market. We did not hear that it was a great thing for progressive farmers from Western Australia that they could choose who they wanted to sell their wheat to; no, that did not come into it. It was all about looking after The Nats' constituents on the eastern seaboard who did not export bulk wheat, who were selling into a domestic market but expected the Western Australian growers to take all of the grief and the pain.

So we had what was called the Wheat Export Authority—it was set up with a timeline; it was only going to be around for about three or four years—and for that wheat growers would pay a levy of about 22c per tonne. This Wheat Export Authority would oversee the export of wheat, check accreditation to make sure there were no shenanigans going on, give everyone an opportunity to sell their wheat to who they wanted to, and the rest is all history. Part of that was that by the end of 2012 the Wheat Export Authority's job would be finished, it would be disbanded and everyone would get on with business. That was not good enough for The Nats—all good to them; I know I get passionate about certain issues and I want to keep representing my constituents who have certain views—as they thought the matter was not good enough.

So what we have seen over the past few months is something that is very interesting. We have a situation now where the bill is up, we are going to disband WEA and The Nats—the smaller, the junior partners of the coalition—have actually convinced Mr Abbott and the Liberals that they were wrong in 2008 to look after the Western Australian wheat exporters and producers and that it should come back to being a single desk again.

It has got to the point—I am taken by surprise!—where I have been bombarded in the past week by press releases from the PGA, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia, who represent a heck of a lot of wheat growers. The PGA, since day 1, when we said we were going to deregulate the export wheat market, have been on board. They want this; there are no ifs or buts. There were some dramas in WA, but, as it is in a normal democracy, you have a count: 50 plus one per cent wins and that is the way it moves on. They have been very supportive, but they are showing massive frustration, to the point where every day or every second day a media release comes out.

It is no secret they have been lobbying Ms Bishop, the member for Curtin and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in the other house, that she has to direct the Western Australian Liberals, those Western Australian senators and members, to come back to the table and to remember why in 2008 they voted with the government to deregulate the export market. They have been pleading publicly through the media—it has been an ongoing thing; it is in the West Australianandit is no secret—that the Liberals have to stand up for Western Australian growers and Western Australian producers. It is not a lot to expect that those of us from a certain state, when we have a major industry that we have supported for the past four years to do their best to be successful in international markets, that they should continue that support and they should say to their junior partners: 'It's over. We voted for the deregulation in 2008. We're not going to rat on our constituency. We have morals and we're going to continue to stand by those morals and we are going to deliver not only for Western Australian growers and producers, but also we are going to stand up for Western Australian rural communities and agricultural businesses and continue to support the government's move to completely deregulate the export market.'

Not good enough. There has been a public showdown; it has been a public brawl. The heading of the latest media release from the PGA is 'Bishop’s gambit fails—WA wheat growers call on Abbott'. They have said:

Western Australian wheat farmers are calling for Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to step in and front up to the nation’s largest export wheat growers and explain why his Federal Liberal Party is refusing to follow through on its previous commitment for full deregulation of the wheat industry.

Not uncommon.

I want to quote a couple of very important lines here. This has come from the PGA Western Grain Growers Chairman, Mr John Snooke, who yesterday said:

The vacuous comments made today by Deputy Liberal Leader Julie Bishop in defending the Federal Coalition’s decision to not support the full deregulation of WA's $2.5billion wheat export industry—

That is $2.5 billion. This is not a small industry.

clearly shows that Mr Abbott's Liberal Party Deputy is either ineffective, incompetent - or both - in advocating the interests of Western Australian wheat farmers.

That is quite a damning statement to make on the public record. It is difficult to understand what is going on over there. I cannot work it out.

What we have seen as a nation is some shocking statements and media stunts around none other than the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Senator Joyce, about Chinese or foreign investment. I may digress a bit but I have to lay it on the table so everyone can understand. Senator Joyce has made it absolutely clear that he is going to grab some attention, get a media caption or grab, or get his head on the front page of the local rag or on the TV by having a go at Chinese investors who are coming in to buy out an Australian operation at Cubbie Station. It had gone broke and there are no other investors around. Let us not forget that when companies go broke a lot of things bad come out of it, but jobs are lost. We have a Chinese company that says that they are going to pay whatever money they are going to pay. The receivers of Cubbie Station have said, 'That's great,' and they can continue to keep the operation going and continue to keep rural people employed. That can only be a good thing. Not from Senator Joyce. All we hear about is Chinese investment and how China is going to come and take over Australia.

Thank goodness Senator Joyce has no role to play in a government—at this stage. We must be so happy that he is not sitting at the right hand of Mr Abbott as the Prime Minister, because what else would he not want in this country in terms of foreign investment? Do we go to the mining industry and say, 'We are not having you because you have Japanese owners or Korean owners'? Come on! What sort of a conversation is this to have in this day and age? I could understand that conversation back in the 1800s, but I clearly do not get it in today's day and age.

So Senator Joyce 'freelanced'. That is the word that Mr Abbott uses when some of his backbenchers or frontbenchers or whatever go haywire and start speaking out against Liberal Party policy, if they have some policies. Anyway, I am starting to confuse myself now, so we had better get back on track. I apologise to the Senate for misleading the Senate by saying that the Liberal Party had some policies.

We saw Senator Joyce, I think, on Sky News where he said that he lost the argument. He got pulled into line by Mr Abbott. How embarrassing for the only member country of the OECD that never went into technical recession during the global financial crisis was is that Mr Abbott had to come out all of a sudden and say, 'We're going to have a look at some of this foreign investment stuff, but can I keep telling you: we love foreign investment.' Whoa! What a mixed message that was. Maybe I am a little bit slower than half of the coalition there, but I saw that as Mr Abbott thinking, 'Oh my God, my loose cannon of my right hand, who could be the Deputy Prime Minister in an alternate government, has gone completely crackers and now he wants to fight Chinese and anyone else who is not Australian, but we do not want to save jobs.' So he comes out with some silly statement. It does not stop Senator Joyce, who is on the soapbox in rural Queensland around Cubbie Station and is not worried about jobs.

Then all of a sudden we have a public showdown where Senator Joyce confesses that he lost an argument. So virtually he was gagged. He was told to shut up. It is quite entertaining but after about 13 seconds of Senator Joyce's carry on about foreign investment it is not funny any more—it is boring.

Next a Newspoll came out and all of a sudden there are some changed figures and the opposition go into meltdown. All of a sudden the reason for the drop in support of the Liberal-National Party is, according to the member for Curtin, Ms Bishop, and also the deputy leader, is because the Labor Party is picking on Mr Abbott or something, but another reason is because of Senator Joyce. So here we have the deputy leader, who will not stand up for West Australian producers and farmers, West Australian exporters, West Australian rural communities, and Western Australian agricultural businesses, because it is not in the best interests of—whatever it is; I do not know what planet she is coming from in that argument. But it is all about Senator Joyce.

By the same token I have some interesting comments from Ms Bishop doing a TV interview. I want to share this with the Senate. She was being interviewed by Mr David Speers on Sky on the backflip of not supporting Western Australia and farmers, producers and wheat exporters. The heading is: 'Libs backflip on support'.

Julie Bishop: This is a matter that we have been looking at over recent times.

'We' being the Liberal Party, I assume—or it could be the Western Australian party. Who knows. Anyway.

This is a transition period and there are views depending on which side of the country you live and whether you are.

Okay! That has sunk in! If you understand what that means, please tell me. David Speers pops in and says:

But what is yours?

Which she answers by saying:

Wheat grower in the west or wheat grower in the east, I believe that we need to go carefully on this one. Of course we believe in deregulation. It is a question of timing.

This is the same person who has just slapped Western Australian farmers, who have supported the Nationals and do not want deregulation.

I am bringing the Senate back to the confusion that I am experiencing while I am watching the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, talking about having more of an inquiry into foreign investment review boards and foreign investments in agricultural land and, before he has even finished the statement, talking about how much we support foreign investment. Talk about confusion and mixed messages! Talk about the rabbit in the spotlight. But David Speers goes on to say:

So it could be another couple of years before deregulation happens? A fair question. Ms Bishop says:

Not necessarily. It is a question of timing and we are looking very closely at it. We are national opposition so you have to take into account the views of the West Australians, who have a very good case about deregulation, but also on the east coast, those who want a smoother transition to full deregulation.

What the heck is she saying? Ms Bishop is a West Australian member of parliament. In 2008 Ms Bishop, along with every other member of the Liberal Party—both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate—sided with the government to support the deregulation of the export wheat market. Then there is the confusing situation between whether she has her way with standing up for West Australians or does she just toe the eastern state line of: 'Shut your mouth. Don't say anything to upset the cart. It is bad enough Senator Joyce is saying things that are upsetting the cart. We are going to back the five Nationals in this place.'

I must confess that I do not know how many Nats are on the other side. I will hazard a guess. I am sure Senator Williams will correct me if I am wrong. I think you could count them on two hands. So, all of a sudden, we have got the dog wagging the tail.

Senator Williams interjecting—

I am taking that as a term of endearment when you stick your fist up like that, Senator Williams. You out there in media land, don't think that he was threatening me with a blue; he wasn't. We are having a bit of fun.

So I suppose I should take this as: 'We don't give a toss about standing by the principles that we held in 2008'—we being that side of the chamber, the Liberals over there—'and we do not give a toss about a $2½ billion market in Western Australia. We don't give a flying toss about the agricultural industries or rural communities in Western Australia. All that matters to us is that we have taken a bit of a kick in the backside in the last poll and we have to get our head back down again. We can't upset the Nats. We don't care what West Australians think; we'll change our views on the whim of a poll.'

I am West Australia and I am going to stand up for the Western Australian wheat industry. I am going to stand up for those rural communities and for West Australian agricultural businesses. I will fight to see that we get this bill through.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a pleasure, as always, to follow Senator Sterle from the capital city of Perth in Western Australia, particularly on a motion dealing with the Labor government's abject failure to support Australia's agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries. I will start by demonstrating why the Labor Party has absolutely no interest in agriculture or fisheries and little interest in forestry. It comes down to simple mathematics. The number of rural seats held by the Labor Party in this parliament you could count on one hand—and I will count them shortly. Every other rural seat in Australia is represented by either the Liberal Party or the National Party—and why? It is because they do support our primary industries—our agriculture, our fisheries and our forestry industries. The electors of rural and regional Australia—the electorates that provide the food and fibre for our country and for export—decide themselves that the people they want to represent them in this parliament are not members of the Labor Party; they are members of the Liberal and National parties. That is because they understand that the Liberal and National parties have a genuine interest, commitment and understanding for agriculture, fisheries and forestry, whilst the Labor Party has little interest whatsoever.

I said I could count on one hand the number of seats in rural and regional Australia held by the Labor Party. They are Capricornia and Blair in my state of Queensland and Eden-Monaro, Richmond and Page in Senator Williams's state of New South Wales.

A government senator: What about Lyons?

I will come to Tasmania. There are five seats in Tasmania. I have a special interest in Tasmania, which I will elaborate on very shortly. On the five mainland states the seats are Capricornia and Blair in Queensland and Eden-Monaro, Richmond and Page in New South Wales. As opposed to that, there would be 30 or 40 other rural seats in Australia—all represented well by Liberal and National party members.

Let us have a look at Capricornia, held by the Labor Party—mainly on the strength of what used to be a supportive railway vote in Rockhampton. Even the railway men detest the Labor Party now, after the previous Labor government sold Queensland's railways after promising not to do so. Capricornia is called the beef capital of Australia—Rockhampton; the beef capital of Australia—and is represented by a member in this parliament who destroyed the beef cattle industry in Northern Australia by supporting the quite outrageously ridiculous decision of the agriculture minister, Senator Ludwig, to ban live cattle exports to Indonesia. In so doing, they put pressure on all of the northern beef industry and, by attrition, the southern parts of Australia, thus putting pressure on every element of the beef industry. What a great representative the member for Capricornia is for agricultural Australia!

The member for Blair—the temporary member for Blair, I might say—represents an agricultural area. But Labor, by supporting things like the carbon tax, by removing diesel fuel rebates, have added to the costs for every farmer in his electorate. But does he stick up for his farmers? No, he toes the Labor Party line and votes against the farmers. It is a similar situation in Eden-Monaro.

The member for Richmond has an electorate which has big fishing, beef and sugar industries. And what have the Labor Party done to those three industries? As I have already mentioned, they have destroyed the beef industry; they are about to destroy what is left of Australia's fishing industry; and our sugar industry will continue to struggle under a Labor administration. I will come back to that. In Page, the member actually led the charge to destroy live cattle exports from Australia and in so doing destroyed the live cattle industry.

Then there are the five seats in Tasmania that are currently, regrettably, held by Labor members, or at least until the next election—

Lin Thorp (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not true. If you're going to—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry; one of them is an Independent—but try to point me to any important legislation on which he has not voted with Labor and you will understand why I include him in the Labor Party. Tasmania is a state rich in natural resources that had the most sustainable, well managed timber industry in the world. But, thanks to Labor rolling over yet again for the Greens, the world's best-managed, most sustainable forest industry has been destroyed. I can never forgive the Labor Party for rolling over for the Greens.

There was a time in 2004 when the ALP held strong in the interests of workers' jobs in Tasmania and joined, along with at least the 'F' part of the CFMEU, the Howard government in saving the timber industry and workers' jobs in Tasmania. Since then, because Ms Gillard desperately needs the Greens in order to retain power—and it is all about power and only about power as far as the Labor Party is concerned—you have the five Tasmanian Labor Party members, or Labor-supporting members, playing a major role in the destruction of Tasmania's once grand, sustainable, best-managed timber industry.

Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin, you also have a fishing industry going through a tough time. But Minister Burke as Labor's fisheries minister said to the fishing industry: 'You need to be more efficient, you need to catch the specific quota in a more efficient way, and here's what you should do. You should get one of those big trawlers from overseas and bring it here. That way, although you won't catch more fish—there's a quota—you'll catch it more efficiently and effectively. So why don't you do that?' There were some foolish people who believed the Labor Party—although why would anyone believe the Labor Party? 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' hand on heart, and what is the first thing that happened? They introduced a carbon tax. 'There will be no interference in the Medicare rebate.' What is the first thing they do? Bring in the—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order on relevance to the topic. The carbon price has nothing to do with the motion before the chair.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, I remind you that the motion before us relates to agriculture, fisheries and forestry policies.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am talking about Tasmania and the impost of the carbon tax on every element of agriculture, fisheries and forestry. But that is not why I raised it, even though it is right on message. I raised it because I was wondering why you would believe anything the current Prime Minister says—anything at all. She has form. Didn't she promise the people of Australia that her party would not be part of any move to change the definition of marriage? And what have we been debating today in the chamber! So it is a matter of trust. What can you believe? Ask the farmers around Australia if they will ever believe any Labor promise in the future.

Tell me what the carbon tax will do to the cost of production for Australia's farmers, fishermen and foresters. Every element of their operational costs will increase, but there is no compensation for them, and they are all price takers. This is the thing the Labor Party do not understand, because none of them are involved in rural and regional industries at all. They do not understand. The sugar industry is a price taker. The sugar industry cannot say, 'We've got to pay more for our electricity and our fuel, so we'll add that onto our world market price,' because, when it went out into the world market, the world market would say: 'Bad luck, Australia! You get what we're paying everyone else. You know what the world market price is, and that's what you'll get. Don't try passing on to us a carbon tax that your stupid government put in place and which our governments would never countenance,' because other governments know that the introduction of a carbon tax just makes their primary producers even less competitive.

Tasmania has five Labor members who have done nothing to protect not only the forestry industry but the fishing and agricultural industries as well. In comparison, have a look at the knowledge of and commitment to agriculture, forestry and fisheries on this side of the chamber. There are farmers like Senator Heffernan, Senator Williams and Senator Nash. Senator Edwards is a very successful and productive agriculturalist. Senator Scullion is a real fisherman. And that is just in the Senate. I could go through dozens of lower house Liberals and Nationals who are farmers or fishermen—Alby Schultz, for example, was in meat processing. I do not think there are any foresters, but certainly there are many people who are committed to the forestry, fisheries and agricultural industries of Australia.

If you need an example of the Labor Party's regard for agricultural industries, I again refer you to the live cattle export ban. There were many pastoralists, including many Indigenous pastoralists, who had been making a living out of the export of live cattle or who had made investment decisions on the basis of that export trade. Overnight, without any warning, the trade was stopped. As a result of that, a very high percentage of landowners in Northern Australia now face financial ruin. It has not always been an easy industry. The people in it had always borrowed money—but they had worked out very carefully how they could pay their interest and pay their way. Then suddenly, overnight, without warning the trade was stopped. As a result, there is a group of pastoralists—upon whom many Indigenous communities and families relied—who are going out of business. And the Labor Party claims that it is interested in farmers—what a joke!

I predict that, after the next election, the members for the five rural mainland seats currently held by the Labor party and the members for the five Tasmanian seats currently held by the Labor Party will not be returning—because the farmers in those seats are just sick of a government which has done these things to a range of agricultural industries. We have a minister, Senator Ludwig, who has little interest in agriculture, fisheries and forestry. He goes through the motions but he has no courage and no conviction. He is not prepared to stand up to the Greens, his leader or the left wing of his party. He simply rolls over—to the detriment of Australia's farmers.

People from the capital cities—which is all of the Labor senators here and most of their members in the other place—can sit here and read about how things like the live cattle export ban impact on pastoralists and their families or how the marine reserves decision impacts on people in the fishing industry or how the stupidity of following the Greens hurts the forestry industry. They can read about that in the paper and think they are concerned, but I ask some of those Labor members and senators to go out and talk to people. I ask them to go out and see and go out and feel the despair and frustration of families whose lives have been ruined by the agriculture, fisheries and forestry policies of this government.

The fishing industry, if it hasn't already, will soon realise that there is no such thing as certainty under this government. A minister of the Crown encourages someone to invest big money in a big trawler. But then that same minister, now in another portfolio—the fishermen having followed his advice—turns around and destroys their investment and indeed their industry.

Let us talk about my own state of Queensland. Where I live, in the lower Burdekin area of North Queensland, there are a couple of very good aquaculture businesses—there are quite a few up there, in fact. One of them has been trying to set up a state-of-the-art aquaculture prawn farm at a place called Guthalungra for almost 5 years. I forget exactly what they said, and surely this cannot be right, but I think they told me they had spent $10 million—if it was not $10 million, it was a lot of money—just trying to get through the red and green tape to set up the farm. This is a farm which will provide Australia with clean, fresh seafood and will create a lot of jobs in my locality. But under this government it takes them three, four or five years and millions of dollars to fight through the green and red tape to try and get there—and they are not even there yet.

There was a cassava proposal, again in my local area—I am being a bit parochial here—with a great idea for a new biofuel source. But this government, through the environment minister—the same guy who was so duplicitous in his dealings with the fishing industry—has put them through every hoop in the world under the EPBC Act. This, I regret to say, is the Labor Party all over. They have no interest and no understanding.

Recently, when I was in Japan and Korea as part of a trade delegation, people there were predicting—as were some Chinese people I was talking to—that, whereas the last couple of decades have been the decades of the mining boom, the next couple of decades will be the decades of the food boom. And what are we doing in Australia to help provide food security for Australia and the world? We have governments like the current one, who go out of their way to destroy rural industry. Rather than encourage them, as a coalition government will do, we have, as the motion before the Senate quite rightly notes, 'the Labor government's abject failure to support Australia's agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries'. For this sector of Australia and for Australia's future, I can only hope that there is an election as soon as possible so that these industries can have some hope and some vision for the future.

Lin Thorp (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to be able to stand in this place and talk about a subject that is so important to me and my fellow Tasmanian senators, let alone more broadly—that is, the thriving businesses and industries of fishing, aquaculture, forestry and farming in Tasmania.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Including wine.

Lin Thorp (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you; I acknowledge that interjection—including wine, which is extremely important.

Many members here would know that Tasmania has plentiful rainfall and plentiful arable land. The issue we have is to make sure that we have that water resource available to us during those times of the growing season when irrigation is required. It is as a consequence of an incredible partnership between this Labor government, of which I am proud to be a member, and our state government—a Labor government—that my state is paused to become the food bowl of the nation.

I take up the comments made by the previous speaker, Senator Macdonald, who mentioned that on his trade mission he was in Asian countries that refer to the next boom as being around food. There are many people who are anticipating that Tasmania may well become the food bowl of the nation because we have the land and we have the rainfall; what we need is the irrigation. The partnership between the federal Labor government and the state Labor government has led to a commitment of an investment of $220 million to make this come true. That is nearly a quarter of a billion dollars that is currently being rolled out in Tasmania to make this happen. This money is going towards the development of sustainable irrigation schemes in Tasmania.

Any of you who have had the pleasure of being in Tasmania and visiting the wine areas referred to by my Tasmanian colleague Senator Whish-Wilson may have had the opportunity to go to the Coal River Valley, which lies not far outside Hobart. In the last 25 years that has gone from an area that was lucky to sustain pretty hand-to-mouth farming, in many ways, to an absolutely lush and wonderful area that is growing an incredible range of stone fruits and supporting the most wonderful mixed and varied farming that is all the result of irrigation coming from the Craigbourne Dam—a big project. Now we are seeing these same projects being rolled out around the state. Sensitively placed, those of them that have approval have gone through very stringent environmental examination so that we know that they will be there for the future and will be supporting our farming.

To date, approximately $125.5 million has been released to Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd for the development of these schemes. This includes $16.7 million for the Meander Valley pipelines, which have been completed and are now fully operational; $4.93 million for the Whitemore Irrigation Scheme, which was completed and launched in May 2011; $6.03 million for the Sassafras Wesley Vale Irrigation Scheme, which commenced operations late in 2011; $2.12 million for the Headquarters Road Dam Irrigation Scheme, which also commenced operations in 2011; $6.23 million for the Winnaleah Irrigation Scheme, which has been commissioned and will commence operations shortly; $5.9 million for the planning and assessment phase of the Midlands Water Scheme; $12.7 million to assist farmers who were able to demonstrate hardship due to the recent floods, to purchase water from Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd schemes;    $7.12 million of the $8.8 million for the Lower South Esk Irrigation Scheme, which is currently under construction; $32.3 million of the $73 million for the Midlands Water Scheme, which has recently been approved; $29 million for feasibility and planning of the schemes mentioned previously, and administration of Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd; and $1.4 million in emergency works to existing irrigation schemes. This is the kind of support that farmers and our farming communities want. They want to be able to build their future knowing that they have got reliable water resources so that they can plant the crops that they need and run the animals that they need well into the future. This is the kind of support that is given to the Tasmanian people by this Labor government.

During the 2012-13 financial year, a further $52 million will be provided for the construction of a number of schemes, including the Midlands Water Scheme. There are irrigation projects at various stages in 12 regions of the state. The Whitemore Irrigation Scheme is operational and completed its first irrigation season earlier this year. It is designed to deliver 5½ thousand megalitres of water over the summer period to about 12,000 hectares of farmland stretching from near the foot of the Western Tiers to just north of the Bass Highway near Carrick. The Headquarters Road Dam near Scottsdale is operational and has also completed its inaugural irrigation season. It is designed to deliver about 2,000 megalitres annually to an irrigable area of 1,800 hectares along the Great Forester River nearly as far as the coast east of Bridport. The Sassafras Wesley Vale Irrigation Scheme is another operational project which has had its first irrigation season. It is designed to deliver nearly 5½ thousand megalitres annually to 10,650 hectares of farmland extending from Devonport almost to Port Sorell and down to Latrobe.

The Winnaleah Irrigation Scheme augmentation was completed in April this year and has been officially opened. This will provide an additional 3,700 megalitres of water to take the Winnaleah scheme's total licence capacity to 6,950 megalitres and extend its irrigable area to a total of approximately 4½ thousand hectares. It will supply water during the coming 2012-13 irrigation season. So you can understand the level of excitement occurring in the Tasmanian farming community.

The program to irrigate the Midlands of Tasmania is underway. This comprises two schemes: the Lower South Esk Irrigation Scheme and the Midlands Water Scheme—the Arthurs Pipeline. Together they will deliver a total of 43,800 megalitres. Construction of both schemes has commenced. Not only will these in the long term be providing the water for the arable land that I have referred to earlier but, of course, there is a lot of work and a lot of employment going into the construction of the dams.

Water sales to landowners to be serviced by the Kindred North Motton Irrigation Scheme have been successful. Farmers are supporting this very well. This scheme is planned to deliver 2½ megalitres of water annually to an irrigable area of 8,485 hectares of some of Tasmania's prime cropping country in the central north-west. The project is scheduled to move from the design and approvals phase to the construction phase imminently.

The South East Irrigation Scheme also is in the planning and approvals phase following acceptance of the project's business case. This will supply more than 5,000 megalitres to an irrigable area of about 25,000 hectares extending in a broad arc from north of Hobart through the Coal River Valley to Orielton, Sorell and as far as the Forcett area. The schedule is for the scheme to be completed ahead of the 2014-15 irrigation season. Interestingly enough, the whole area that I referred to there—the Coal River Valley and Orielton as far as Forcett—historically was known as the wheat basket of Australia. In colonial times particularly, that was where a great deal of the wheat was grown that provided for the needs of our growing country during its colonial stage. In recent times, changing conditions have meant that that has not been possible. This irrigation scheme should see that area flourish once again.

Tasmanian Irrigation is examining water development in catchments in north-east Tasmania. The Upper Ringarooma Irrigation Scheme is expected to go to water sales next month now that the business case has been approved by the Tasmanian government.    Preferred options for the Great Forester and Brid catchments, the Southern Highlands in the Bothwell area, and the Dial Blythe in the north-west have also been developed.

I have really been concentrating on irrigation then, but in an area like Tasmania—as I am sure my colleague Senator Bushby would agree—it means that Tasmania can take its place quite proudly where it should be as the food bowl of the country. Irrigation, of course, is key, but there are many, many other things that need to be done to make sure that agriculture, fisheries and forestry have a good future in our state. Some of the key achievements in the primary industry area recently in my home state have been in effective management of biosecurity threats, including through risk assessment of imports, barrier interventions, surveillance and emergency response training for staff and industry.

We have recently seen the Macquarie Harbour salmon expansion receive approval for an amendment to the Macquarie Harbour marine farm planning development in May, and this amended plan has been provided to the Commonwealth for consideration under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. We are optimistic that that will be the case. This is a huge body of water, and over time, given where some of the farms have been placed, they are not necessarily 100 per cent compatible with the growing tourism industry. The new plan will mean not only that there will be an expansion in the area but that the farms will be moved so that they can work more closely with the tourism industry, which is of course huge in the area.

We have seen the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture continue its world-class research, development, extension and education activities, providing support to the farming sector that exceeds anything that is available interstate. I am very proud to say that Tasmania has also introduced a ban on sow stalls, brought forward to mid-2013, in partnership with industry and supported by half a million dollars in the budget allocation. The phase-out of cage egg production, initiated in partnership with industry, is also occurring. There is a review of the RSPCA underway with a view to recommending actions required to achieve a financially sustainable position. I am sure that animal welfare is at the heart of all people in this place.

Labor in Tasmania has entered a partnership agreement with the University of Tasmania to form the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, IMAS. The Sustainable Marine Research Collaboration Agreement underpins the operation and governance of IMAS, and it is an internationally recognised institute. In Tasmania there are scholarships being provided for a degree of Master of Business Administration (Professional) in Agricultural Innovation at the University of Tasmania. The Inland Fisheries Service has entered into an MOU with tourism bodies to align marketing strategies so they can work together to extend brand partnership activities as well as facilitating communication for activities relating to inland fisheries and tourism.

People would know very well that forestry in Tasmania is going through some fairly challenging times. Whilst I do not pretend to be an expert on the issue of forestry, I do take some umbrage at some of the comments made by the previous speaker when he referred to events of the 2004 election, which did in fact see the 'F' in the CFMEU support then Prime Minister Howard—actually on the same stage at a forum in Launceston. It is something that most Tasmanians, and indeed all Labor people, were extremely sad to see. I think we can track some of the difficulties we have in forestry in Tasmania today back to the fact that we were subjected to the results of that election and received the funding under the Howard government at the time which kept a lot of unsustainable practices going.

One could wonder if the result of that election had been different and we had had the then leader Mark Latham become Prime Minister with his promise of a very large amount—I cannot remember the exact number off the top of my head, but I do think it was in excess of $800 million back then—to look at restructuring our industry whether we would be in the difficulties we are in today.

But this federal Labor government has nailed its colours to the mast and made sure that it is standing up and prepared to help with the restructuring of Tasmania's forestry industry through the Tasmanian forestry intergovernmental agreement. I can only hope to see a good end to that process. We have had difficulties around forestry in our state for a long time now. That asset is valued by all Tasmanians—sometimes from a slightly different perspective, but definitely valued. To see a mutually acceptable end to the negotiations that are currently going on as I speak would be a good thing for all of Tasmania. This federal government has made a considerable sum of money available—I believe it is in excess of $120 million—to help facilitate that.

So for members opposite to stand up in this place and say that Labor members do not understand rural Australia, that they do not stand up for rural Australia, that they do not hold dearly in their hearts our farmers, our farming practices, our fishermen and our forest workers is, quite frankly, completely wrong. Labor is a party for all workers. To us it does not matter whether they work in the city or in the country. In fact, it might behove our members to look back in history and remember the shearers strikes and some of the things that happened under that tree to make us all remember where the roots of the Labor Party are and where they always will be—and that is in the heart of the land on which we live.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on general business notice of motion 953, which moves that the Senate notes the Labor government's abject failure to support Australia's agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries. These industries make an important contribution to Australia economic, social and environmental prosperity. They surely deserve a bit more support, along with the third of Australians who live in rural and regional Australia. The industries employ 332,000 people across our region is in full- and part-time work. There are 134,000 thousand farm businesses in Australia, with each Australian farmer producing enough food to feed 150 people locally and 450 people overseas. Our farm gate contributes three per cent to Australia's total GDP and our farmers export about 60 per cent of their produce.

It has been a big week in fishing. We have learnt a lot in the discussions and debates that have occurred in the Senate this week. I know I have. Our commercial fishing and aquaculture industry is worth $2 billion annually and the Australian fishing industry employs over 16,000 people.

Senator Thorp was mentioning the forestry industry. My own father began his business career as a logger in the early 1960s in a little town in regional Victoria called Marysville. Wood product industries are also pulling their weight, despite the Greens-Labor policies of Tasmania. Their annual turnover is $22 billion. In 2006 they did employ 120,000 Australians, but that number is much fewer now thanks to successive state Labor governments. Senator Thorp made some commentary around forestry workers and how sad she was to see them stand with John Howard in that classic meeting in Tasmania in the 2004 election. That was because the forestry workers chose jobs over the joke of the Labor government they were heading for. Watching Mr Latham's subsequent behaviour after that election bears those workers choice out.

It is hard not to agree with the business notice of motion before the Senate. The Labor government has forgotten regional Australia's key industry, and not just because of its dirty, big deal with its partners in government, the Greens. In the regions, our industries need a few things to thrive and prosper. They need water. They need a certainty to invest. They need support to continue to export our clean, green produce. And they need recognition from government that our way of life is inclusive. We consult. You do not mess with the fence unless you have had a chat with your neighbour. Let's face it: the ALP's track record on any of these key factors is failure.

Firstly, on water, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has the ability to pull the economic and social rug out from under the community. The basin is a thriving contributor to our Australian economy. Total agriculture production within the basin is worth $15 billion, and 2.1 million people live in the basin and 900,000 are employed. The lack of confidence and certainty around the Basin Plan is affecting local investment and having a significant social impact. There needs to be more information on how water will be recovered. We on our side, along with the community—because I have been to every public consultation in my home state of Victoria—have been clear that water recovery needs to be through infrastructure or environmental works, not buybacks. For the plan to work, it needs the states to cooperate, because the states are the ones that are actually going to be operating the system and developing detailed environmental water plans. But the Gillard government's track record with the states is appalling, and so the lack of confidence continues.

The ALP must admit its approach to water recovery thus far has been a disaster. It has spent $1.9 billion on water buybacks but just $494 million on investment in infrastructure in the basin. For every one litre of water that is being saved through infrastructure, five litres has been taken out of communities through buybacks. If the government wants to recover water above the 2,750 gigs then it must commit to it coming at no additional economic cost to the community. They cannot afford it.

Remember in 2010 when the government assembled the first draft of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan without any community or stakeholder consultation? We heard communities screaming out from Victoria right through up to Griffith. A thousand people rallied in Mildura, angry over the lack of local input. When we talk about how the ALP does not even understand how we live and work in the regions, they scheduled those public consultations during harvest time in a place like Shepparton, where people are busy working in their business, trying to make a dollar and do not have the time to head off to listen to Tony Burke and Craig Knowles.

The carbon tax, another great Labor Party policy, disproportionately affects regional communities. Dairy, hort, coalmining, transport—they are all major employers out in the regions. Despite the rhetoric of agriculture not being included, it is right now battling the flow-on effects of the tax—increased power prices and input costs on fertiliser and refrigeration. The processors in the dairy sector are battling. Some of the bigger energy intensive sectors are paying the carbon tax itself. The red meat industry will find it harder. Their heavy reliance on road transport will make it easier for competitors in New Zealand, Europe and South America who are not facing the world's biggest carbon tax.

Australia's produce reputation is a great one. We are very proud of our clean, green record. That is how we want to keep it. But how has this government been supporting industry? Let's have a think. Whether it is apples, nursery products or the potato industry, the government's support in Biosecurity and Customs has been to ignore growers' concerns, increase costs and increase regulation. A future decision favouring New Zealand potato imports carries with it serious threats to Australia's $10 billion horticultural industry, an industry that employs over 60,000 people. New Zealand has been ravaged by the zebra chip disease, a bacterium that is spread by a psyllid insect and has caused an estimated loss of $200 million for their producers. Under a Labor government, growers can be uncertain of their biosecurity future.

Turning to science, I have a science degree, so I feel I can speak on this. Science must be a guiding factor when it comes to any decision of this magnitude being made. A decision based on anything else is not acceptable when we are dealing with the economic, social and environmental impacts of getting it wrong. It is not the first time the Gillard government has decided to ignore growers. Last year the government gave the green light to import New Zealand apples. I notice Senator Heffernan has entered the chamber—a fantastic advocate for our horticultural industry. The only problem is that fire blight has existed in New Zealand for almost 90 years, and during that time Australia has managed to keep free of this damaging disease. Almost 90 per cent of the pear industry is concentrated in my home state of Victoria, in the Goulburn Valley. The industry is worth $200 million per annum and employs approximately 2,000 people. But Labor did not listen to growers. We now have New Zealand apples in Australia.

The list continues. Regional development funds of the government should focus on supporting local communities to achieve local outcomes, but Minister Crean has frozen the regional development fund. Where does that leave those communities who had hoped to use the funds to revitalise their towns? The Australian newspaper confirmed the government would halt the $2 billion worth of grants. This is after slashing $400 million from the program over the past two years. So it is not just the current effort to deal with the current economic mismanagement that we are dealing with but a sustained program of de-investment over time.

Not that regional Australia under this government is defined in a way that accurately reflects what we on this side understand a region to be. When this Labor government under the regional development program gives 80 per cent of the money to cities, we have a problem, Houston—and so does Mitiamo.

One of the issues with this Labor government is that they are so desperate to be liked. They are also so desperate to be green. They are so desperate to be like the Greens. It means email campaigns and public pressure from the left, from inner urban elites, can cause catastrophic flip-flops in ministerial decision making. There is no greater example of this than the live cattle export debacle. The cattlemen and their families are still dealing with the fallout in an industry that may never recover—because Joe folded, because Julia could not take the heat. Even this week we saw the ship of fools throw science overboard, the science underpinning how our fisheries are managed. When ministers can overturn the livelihoods of a minority because of an email campaign, something is seriously wrong with the democracy. Ministerial insecurity complexes have been a direct result of Labor's dance till the death with the Greens.

Forming the alliance with the Australian Greens was always going to be bad news for regional Australia, and we know that. We tell the nation every time we get to vote. That is why the Greens vote in Mallee is just a little over seven per cent and why the Greens vote in Murray, right across northern Victoria, was six per cent. Every day that this government remains wedded to the Greens is another day that regional Australia continues to wonder if those in power can hear, because they are hypocrites.

When Christine Milne acknowledges that rural Australia 'faces complex agricultural, environmental and social challenges', she is right. They are challenges that her own policies have created. Their policy on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan says otherwise. They would like to see 4,000 gigs go. That will have a catastrophic economic and social cost on communities right throughout the basin. The Greens' food production policies say otherwise. Their economic management credentials say otherwise. They are all hope and no hard work. Out there in the regions that is something we understand all too well—it is hard work.

In closing, while this government supports a carbon tax it cannot support the dairy industry. When this government does not support science, it cannot support our fishing industry. And while this government supports locking up the forests it cannot support our forest industry. So when we look at the motion we are debating today—that the Senate notes the Labor government's abject failure to support Australia's agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries—the evidence is clear. This government cannot support agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries because it is supported by the Greens.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the opportunity to quickly address Senator Macdonald's view that Labor is uninterested in rural electorates. My diary would clearly illustrate the work done in the electorate of Grey, from trade training centres to infrastructure projects such as the development of Port Lincoln airport, the Curramulka town centre, the Yorktown town centre and right across the great York Peninsula.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Gallacher, the time for the debate has expired.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate to Senator Ryan that I think you are clarifying as to where we are on the Notice Paper. The debate was a strict 90-minute debate. The debate commenced at 5 pm and concluded at 6:30 pm, so we are now moving to consideration of government documents.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that there are divisions after 4.30 and I was informed that as a matter of general business we would put that motion.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the debate had expired before the 90 minutes elapsed then the motion would have been put. But we continued through to 90 minutes. Senator Gallacher was the next speaker and had the right to speak, so he was afforded that opportunity for a number of seconds.