Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Export Control Amendment (Quotas) Bill 2015 is an uncontroversial bill. But even though it is an uncontroversial bill it does go to many of the issues that are important for Australia to maintain a strong export capacity in the agricultural area. I will come to some of those issues shortly.

This bill consolidates four pieces of legislation which govern export quotas and it allows quota certification arrangements for agriculture to be carried out under one set of powers. That is a good thing; people know where they are going, we consolidate it and we get one set of powers. Australia is, of course, a great producer of food and fibre product—despite the fact that Australia faces many, many challenges as a food-producing nation. We are challenged by water scarcity, we have less than optimal soils, and we are challenged more than most countries by climate change. Climate change is an issue that I think the coalition have not dealt with seriously in terms of their policy, which is the direct action policy. Most people now understand that the direct action policy is, as the current Prime Minister said, a fig leaf policy—a policy that will not deliver the goods.

In relation to our capacity to export into the future, a decent, proper climate change policy that is understood across the country is the key issue for agriculture going ahead with benefits to the nation into the future. It should be a policy that is non-controversial in terms of anyone with any scientific understanding at all or anyone who has been briefed properly by the scientists.

We have got vast distances between the farm gate and our markets—both our domestic markets and our export markets. These vast distances that we send our produce across are also coming under the threat of climate change. Not that long ago countries were saying that if you do not play your part in climate change you could be faced with a climate change tariff at the border when you bring goods into another country. That is another challenge that the agricultural industry faces, and that is why it is important for the good of our agricultural industry and for the benefit of our economy into the future that we play our part in dealing with the challenge of climate change. As we have seen this week, climate change is becoming a bigger issue around the world with countries trying to deal with its scourge. Despite all of these challenges, the value of our farm output, for an island nation of only 24 million people, is more than $50 billion annually, and our exports are more than $30 billion. In other words, we export around two-thirds of the food product we produce.

While we should always be cautious and alert to our food security issues, talk of food insecurity in Australia is really rather silly. Food security is not one of our challenges in food production and this is made clear by the fact that we export two-thirds of everything we produce. It is also why much of the debate around foreign ownership is so silly. If we are to grow our agricultural opportunities we will also need a lot of investment in agriculture over the coming decades. With a small population and a limited savings capacity, much of that investment will need to come from other sources, as it always has done in all of our history.

I would simply say to those who are behaving in an alarmist way in relation to foreign ownership that they should turn some of the alarm that they have about the future of farms in this country to properly understanding the science that governs climate change—the physics of climate change, what the scientists are telling us are the problems for our agricultural industry arising from climate change.

We have got to be willing and able to provide leadership and strategic guidance in an increasingly globally competitive market for our agricultural products. When I hear about all the great benefits that we are about to achieve in relation to free trade agreements through CfAFTA or China, if you go onto the websites of the departments of agriculture of our competitors—Canada, the USA, Brazil and elsewhere—you will see that they are saying, if not exactly the same thing, similar things to us. We have signed this free trade agreement and look at the great opportunities we are going to reap. What none of those websites says is that all of the countries that are importing have the same challenge, and that is to be competitive—to be able to deliver the produce at the right price, the right quality and on time.

From the speeches that we hear here in the Senate from the coalition, we must be up to about 25 million new jobs in relation to free trade. In relation to agriculture, nothing is guaranteed. The econometric modelling that is done about the benefits that agriculture will achieve through free trade are simply that—they are econometric models. They are economists' best guesses. As the deputy secretary of the Treasury once told the Economics Committee, econometric modelling is not accurate but it is better than asking your Uncle Ted. It is not a science. As they say, you can put garbage and you can get garbage out.

So the modelling in terms of our export capacity is something that we have to understand, and we also have to understand that everyone is claiming the same benefits as us. Every one of our competitors who has signed a China free trade agreement, and every one of our competitors who has signed any free trade agreements, is claiming the same benefits as us. China will not be importing from everyone; China will be using their best endeavours to reduce the costs into China. They will be looking at the quality and at on-time delivery. We need to understand that our competitors are catching up and some of our competitors will be able to service those markets equally as well as us.

So effective management of our limited natural resources—more importantly, our water and soil resources—is critically important. The question in the future will be: how do we do more with less water and soil resources? We are already the driest continent on earth. I have to say that that is the debate I would have thought the National Party would have been engaging in. The National Party, who claim to represent rural and regional Australia and claim to represent the farming community, have not, in my view, made one constructive contribution to the debate about the sustainability of farming in this country. In fact, when the then Labor government tried to do something in relation to our contribution to global warming their position was to ridicule our contribution and run a scare campaign about a $100 leg of lamb. We all remember the $100 leg of lamb, and we all remember that 'Whyalla would disappear as a town'—wiping out Whyalla. That is the sort of rhetoric and rubbish we hear from the National Party, instead of focusing on the key issues affecting the farming community: global warming, climate change and the need to conserve both our water and our natural resources.

As we become a dryer continent, our droughts are becoming more protracted. And we are entering into another El Nino period, which means that these challenges are going to become greater. We need to focus on how we better manage our soils, including our capacity to retain water in our soils. How are these challenges being met by the current government? They are being met in what I would describe as a very dopey way. In fact, they are reducing the capacity, the scientific capacity, of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to properly analyse and deal with the biggest challenge to farming into the future, and that is climate change. The office within the agriculture department dealing with climate change has basically been disbanded.

The minister's focus is on how he can increase the cronyism in the National Party by promising his mates in regional Australia that he will move jobs out of Canberra and into regional areas where he thinks that will benefit himself and the National Party politically. Departments within agriculture are now saying that they are going to lose all their history, all their capacity and all the people who actually know the industry, because those people have lived in Canberra, their families are in Canberra, they have commitments in Canberra and they cannot move out of Canberra for personal reasons or as a matter of choice. So Minister Joyce's big policy issue was to dismantle an effective operation or organisations under the umbrella of the department of agriculture and try to move them for political purposes into the bush. I do not think that is a very smart thing.

It would have been far better for the minister to actually concentrate on the big issues in the bush. How do we ensure the survival of the industry in areas that will be affected by climate change and El Nino? How do we meet the growing competition from overseas? How do we keep the head of cattle that we need to be a competitive exporter when the breeding cattle are being shot as a result of drought of El Nino? They are the big challenges for the department. I never hear the minister talking about any of those issues. So while we are talking here about export control amendments and consolidating different bills and being a bit more efficient in terms of the regulation of the industry, the major challenges facing the industry are not being dealt with effectively at all. I think it is quite clear that Minister Joyce really does not have a great understanding of the challenges that face the industry. He might be able to go out and gladhand, he might be able to talk the talk and he might be able to go out there and have the latest joke at someone else's expense, but I do not see much more in this minister than that.

The clown prince of the Senate has now become the clown price of the House of Representatives, and he wants to be the leader of the National Party—what a joke! We have seen the Nationals start to manoeuvre to try and get more influence in the government, and that influence is going to be because people are now deflecting from the Liberals to the Nationals. I think I have said here before the Liberals hate the Nationals, the Nationals hate the Liberals and the Liberals hate each other, and that is where we are. It is a rabble that is under the guise of a government that is actually going to deliver. They are an absolute rabble. We know that, no matter how shiny the new apple or the new peach is, the grub is in there eating away at the heart of this coalition, and we have seen that today when we now have defections.

Instead of playing petty politics, as in the reports in the press this morning by Minister Joyce, he should stop playing petty politics. He should stop trying to pork-barrel for his members in rural and regional Australia. He should actually focus on the real issues. How do we conserve water? How do we use water more efficiently? How do we conserve our resources? Are there family farms that, year after year, do not produce any profits but simply rely on support from government? When is it time to say enough is enough?

It did not take the coalition long to say they were not prepared to support manufacturing workers in the car industry. But, for the sake of this rotten and crumbling coalition between the two parties, they are prepared to continue to support and to put public money—good money after bad money—into some areas that, quite frankly and quite sadly, are not sustainable. But, really, there have to be some hard headed decisions. Is Minister Joyce in a position to do that? I do not think so. The minister has not ever, in my view, dealt with the key issues in terms of rural and regional Australia. If we do not deal with climate change and if we do not deal with the economic issues that are impacting on the social sustainability of rural and regional Australia, then we have lost the plot.

Headline grabs of $100 legs of lamb are not good enough. We need a government that is actually focused on the key issues. How much support do we give agribusiness? How do we ensure that agribusiness in this country can compete against the challenges from our overseas competitors? How do we ensure the quality of our produce with declining resources in terms of water and land? A dry continent and more droughts: these are the issues that we need to deal with.

I am not a farmer. The closest I got to being a farmer was living for 12 years in Muswellbrook. In Muswellbrook I could see great farming families, families that have been there for years and years, challenged by the impingement of the coal industry and challenged by global warming. They had huge challenges about conserving water. Yet we have a minister who disassembles the capacity of his department to deal with these issues. I am of the view that, while we support these bills, we would call on the government and call on the minister to actually concentrate on the real issues that are facing the farming community in this country. Show some leadership and stop playing politics. Be serious about the environment. Be serious about the future of our agricultural industry and deal with the real issues. Stop playing games and get on with the main issues affecting the country.

Bob Day (SA, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge this bill is being resolved in the non-controversial section of business this week and Family First supports the bill. I speak on this bill today, as opportunities are rare to talk on behalf of our farming constituents on quotas and tariffs which affect export opportunities and farm gate returns. I was also eager to speak on this topic because my political mentor, the late Bert Kelly, the former member for the South Australian seat of Wakefield—and regular columnist under the name 'The Modest Member'—was committed to removing the tariff barriers because of their impact on our exporters, and it is pleasing to see the progress being made on free trade under this government.

I rise today to acknowledge that a modest member's work is never done, and this bill relates to the quotas that still remain. There are some 33 export quotas currently managed by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources—and I will come to those in a moment. There are, of course, further quota limits that we do not manage but are managed by the destination country. There are about 1,300 quota arrangements around the world. I cannot say how many affect Australian exports but Australia applies only one to its importers, and that is the cheese and curd quota. However, let us put that solitary quota into context. The World Trade Organisation says this single Australian import quota represents coverage of just 0.9 per cent of all agricultural imports. South Korea's comparison rate for instance is 13 per cent, the European Union is 11 per cent, Canada is nine per cent, Israel is seven per cent, Thailand is seven per cent, Japan is six per cent, Malaysia is five per cent, China and the USA are five per cent, Russia is three per cent, Indonesia is one per cent and India is the same as us at just under one per cent. While we impose quotas on cheese coming into Australia, two significant jurisdictions, perhaps the last two bastions of protectionism, namely the European Union and the United States of America, impose major quotas on our cheese.

Australia is also subject to quotas imposed on our meat exports into the United States and the European Union. These are two quotas that we manage. Thankfully, our free trade agreement with the US sees its quota on our beef rise until 2022, when there will be no quota at all. Whilst we almost hit the EU quota levels almost every year because it is a very low threshold, in recent history we had barely got over half the total annual US quota level. However, a recent surge in our beef exports to the US saw us, in the most recent quota quarter, hit quota control levels during November. A driving force for this has been the lowest US cattle herd level in 60 years and the relatively high US dollar hurting US domestic beef supply and making imports from Australia more attractive. Our beef, sheep and goat meat exports are being hampered by the EU's low quotas, and that is one of the many reasons I have been regularly saying we need to pursue free trade with the European Union.

Our recent free trade deal with Japan has been important on the question of quotas because Japan imposes multiple quotas on pork, poultry, apple and orange juices, and honey. I am advised that under the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, the Japanese honey and apple juice tariffs will be eliminated by 2024. The quotas I have described so far are all quotas that are managed by our government through the processes modified by this bill. As I foreshadowed earlier, there are 33 quotas but a further 1,267 might apply to Australian exports—that is, quotas regulated by the government of the receiving country. I will touch on a few key quotas affecting Australian trade.

A significant quota that we do not manage is the sugar quota in the United States. Exporting sugar to the United States is something very close to the heart of Senate colleagues in the Liberal National Party from Queensland. Without going into the numbers, Canada and Mexico get preferential treatment for exporting refined sugar into the USA, leaving very little of their quota for Australia to supply. Getting more Australian refined sugar into America is hard work and no doubt a big disappointment for sugar exporters from the recent Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. This blatant protectionist behaviour of the Americans is artificially keeping their sugar prices high for their farmers and is forcing the market to shift behaviour at the ultimate disadvantage of the farmers it is meant to help.

I also note in relation to the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement that, whilst China has a total worldwide import quota of 287,000 tonnes of wool, under ChAFTA Australia got an exclusive, duty-free country-specific quota of 30,000 tonnes of clean wool—about 43,000 tonnes of greasy wool—rising five per cent per annum to 45,000 tonnes clean by2024. I am told this is the best deal any nation has had for wool exports to China to supply its textile industry.

Another significant quota managed by the destination country is Indonesia's quota on Australian beef cattle. Its imports have been growing significantly, but due to shameful acts by people in this place, radical animal rights activists and elements in the media, those exports were shut down by the Indonesians. I note the Australian beef industry is suing the government for $1 billion for the former government's actions in relation to that matter. It is taking some time for Indonesia to restore previous quota levels of around 250,000 head of cattle per quarter. For instance, in July the Indonesians set our quota at a low 50,000. So whilst this bill is being resolved in the non-controversial section of business in the Senate today, the question of quotas and controls is a very important issue to our nation, as the government is fond of saying, quite rightly, 'Australia is a great exporting nation.'

My key message in putting these figures on the record today is that there is far more work yet to be done in reducing quotas, not just those managed by the department, but through expanding free trade to give our sugar, beef and indeed agricultural, horticultural, manufacturing and other exporters the best opportunity to sell high-quality products to the world.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we all know, the Export Control Amendment (Quotas) Bill 2015 is listed as uncontroversial and Labor, of course, will be supporting it. I want to complement Minister Joyce for getting his bill on the agenda this week because, as we know, it was not on the agenda on Monday, but now as it is on the agenda today it is going to be able to be passed. He obviously had the power within cabinet.

Today I wanted to have the opportunity to speak on this bill because my family is from the Darling Downs and has many long years of experience in the beef industry, and this is a really important issue for them. As people in the chamber would understand, at the moment the beef industry is going through a process where beef prices are extraordinarily high. Anyone who is looking at buying beef for their Christmas period will know that the whole area of beef has very high prices at the moment, which is great for the producers. The sad thing, of course, is that they have gone through a period of crippling drought—and I know that adjective is used a lot, but in this case it is absolutely true. It is ironic and sad, and also quite real in the agriculture industry, that you face this particular position: at the time when the prices are so high and people are able to benefit so well, many people in the beef industry and other producers have suffered greatly and are not able to benefit from this time of great wealth because they have had to destroy stock and they are still facing great drought, particularly in the far west area—the Darling Downs and into the upper area of central and western Queensland.

I wanted to talk on this bill so I could talk about how important the export control amendment is to people who are planning their agricultural futures. I am not expert in this area, but there are discussions around tables and in phone conversations about prices and about what should be done to save the country. As you would know, Mr Acting Deputy President, some of those family conversations about what we should be doing to save the country are quite extensive. In my family there is not always an absolute understanding that the Labor Party, when we are talking with the farm producers, are the key to moving forward in this particular process. But I believe we are, and I actually win some of those arguments on the phone.

In terms of today's bill—the export control amendment—I went to the explanatory memorandum because I had to check out, when I was talking about the issue of quotas and how they operated, exactly how they worked. We know that this bill is bringing four different groups into one and we know it will simplify things. I hate the term 'red tape'. We keep talking about reducing red tape, which is often an excuse for changing things that do not need to be changed and not actually looking at the importance of regulation, because regulation has its place and we need to have it. But I know the minister has said in his contribution that this is one of the bills that are cutting red tape, so in this case I am prepared to say that the removal of regulation may well be of benefit. But I then went back and checked exactly how Australia administers our quotas. The explanatory memorandum told me:

Australia administers quotas in a way that:

I think most importantly in the case of our producers—

That is how the quota system operates in Australia.

Export tariff rate quotas are established by trade agreements, and we know that there has been a lot of discussion about trade agreements recently in this place, but by no means has this discussion been limited to just the last 2½ years. There has been a long history of free trade and trade agreements put in place in this place over a series of governments. This particular legislation is not only relevant to the last couple of years and the ChAFTA and the Korean trade agreement; it goes back a long time in terms of the way the tariff rate quotas are developed. I think it is important to know that this system has been evolving over a period of time. It is not new. It has been there for a long time and it works out, as I said, those points for which it is developed. The explanatory memorandum says:

Where export tariff rate quotas are established by trade agreements Australia seeks to manage the quotas in order to offer exporters the maximum concessions possible on agricultural products.

Indeed, that is the idea: that we maximise the concession for agricultural products, get the best deal and—a very great point—reward market development so that, as people develop their industries and develop their skills, they will get the best possible return when their government negotiates the agreements that will look at the export trade.

The current bill before us consolidates the four acts that govern tariff rate quotas into one act that covers all commodities. This is important because, in our producing area, there are many more producers who now act in more than one specific area—there are a lot of mixed farms, a lot of mixed businesses. So it is important that, for simplification purposes, there is this consolidation so that the one act covers all commodities. I think that reflects the work that has been done over many years, again, to make this simpler. I know the department has been working in this area for a very long time, and the guarantee that we have been given is that the department and the minister have taken significant consultation—not just recently but over a period of time—to look at how this could best operate. The information that was provided to the opposition in the extensive discussions that Minister Joyce had with our shadow minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, talked about this as one element of the ongoing work to make sure our agricultural area is best rewarded.

We had information from the department through Minister Joyce that the stakeholders consulted included DFAT, because of its position in terms of developing trade agreements; the Australian Meat Industry Council, which, as I have said, is a particular area of interest for me, though I do put on record again that I am the vegetarian in the family; and the fruit juice council and the Australian Honey Bee Industry Council, which are probably areas that I would understand better in terms of my own particular taste. In terms of the consultation process, it is most important, as I have said, that it included the Australian Meat Industry Council and also Australian Pork Limited—again, an important area in our economy at the moment and one that has had significantly tough times in the past. The pork industry have faced significantly difficult times in the recent past not just because of climate conditions but also because of imports and their ability to get reward for their product. It is important that they were involved in this consultation as well as the Chicken Meat Federation. So for all these groups with all their particular needs and particular interests, the government has absolutely committed that there has been full consultation with them and that they favour the approach put forward in the legislation before the chamber.

The bill also enables the secretary of the department to make orders in relation to the establishment and administration of a system or systems of tariff rate quotas for the export of goods. Orders may be made to cover goods currently subject to quota regulation but could cover any other goods that quotas may apply to in the future. These quotas come as trade agreements are developed and agreed through this place. More quotas could come as we have more trade agreements. The recent Japanese free trade agreement resulted in 33 new quotas. I think that is what I heard. I am looking desperately across the chamber at the officer in advisers box. Eight new quotas—okay. That is a great difference—33 to eight. Maybe we will get more in the future. Eight, thank you. As we get the new trade agreements, more quotas will be introduced. These orders can be made to take into account any new quotas that come in the future.

Importantly, the bill provides the ability for the secretary to make directions in relation to matters covered by an order—orders that I have previously spoken about. The real importance are the directions, which provide flexibility to deal with complex situations relating to an individual exporter in a fair and transparent manner. The amendments enable the directions to override an order, and that is consistent with subsection 17(4) of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997, which provides that if a direction given by the secretary is inconsistent with an order the direction prevails. The important element here is the fact that they are transparent and fair and also flexible.

We talk a lot in this place about the importance of transparency. We know the area of concern from, in this case, producers is if they do not really understand the basis of a decision—if they do not understand why something is happening. I value the fact that the department has prioritised the process under this legislation to be done in a fair and transparent manner. That means people will have a better understanding and that automatically means there will be less confusion. When decisions are being made about what will impact on their production, what will impact on the industry, what will impact on their livelihood, it is absolutely essential that there is a clear and transparent understanding. That is one of the real strengths of this legislation.

Also, there is clear priority on flexibility in the explanation as to how the bill will operate and in the contribution made by the minister in the other place, as well as by many of the other speakers. They talked about the need for flexibility, because they understand that our agricultural market is becoming more complex. The days of people concentrating exclusively in one area are changing. Whilst, of course, we will have specialists; we will also have many more people where their industries and commercial interests cross over, and it is important to have the flexibility to ensure that these orders and directions apply consistently, and that there is transparency.

Also in the explanatory memorandum is that exporter participation in a scheme of tariff rate quotas is voluntary. That is something about which I was unaware before I looked into this bill. Whilst it is voluntary, an exporter's failure to comply with an order or a direction would be a relevant factor in the use of the secretary's discretion under an order in respect of quota entitlements, certificates, conditions, audit and reporting requirements. It is not compulsory for exporter participation in the scheme of tariff rate quotas. But if the exporters do not choose to be involved in this scheme of tariff rate quotas, it could be taken into account when the secretary is making a decision. The secretary has discretion to make decisions about quota entitlements and the other things that go with that—the certificates, conditions, audit and reporting requirements. It is important that the scheme is transparent. It is important that people understand this process and understand the impact of a decision they make on any decision by the secretary. That element is clarified and transparent and it can move forward.

The bill also introduces new powers consistent with contemporary, flexible and efficient legislation. These are adjectives with which we all agree—contemporary, flexible and efficient. The proponents of this legislation state that this bill will work to introduce powers which will make all these things contemporary, flexible and efficient. They are bringing in the use of registers and computer systems to make decisions under a system of tariff rate quotas.

I note with some caution the introduction of the computer system. I would hope that the minister will be able to guarantee that the computer systems will be up to date and that we can have confidence that the introduction of this new system with the new computer system will be safe and on ,time and that the necessary resources to ensure the computer systems work are dedicated to this purpose.

Whilst we aim to have a consistent, contemporary, flexible and efficient system, we also need to have a transparent and fair system. I am all too aware of the resultant aggravation and concern, if computer systems, which are there to ensure that the system will work, are not working, and this can be quite significant. There could well be some problems, if we are relying on this system being contemporary, flexible and efficient, relying on the registers and the computer systems, and the development process is not in place to meet the requirements of bringing this legislation in on a particular date.

The bill has been designed to facilitate reduction in red tape, as I have said before. In this particular case, I will applaud the reduction in red tape, because we have been assured that this is going to happen. It is most important. I know that, when talking with my family members, the amount of paperwork and discussion they have often raises their concerns and their blood pressure to the extent to which it becomes a health issue. If this bill can guarantee that there will be fewer complications and people can get on with the business that they want to be in, that is a really great result for the legislation and one of the reasons that Labor is supporting this bill without any conditions.

We know that bringing regulation of quotas under the same legislation as other export controls for the same commodities will offer opportunities for synergies in the deployment of staff. It is always a good thing to have synergies, and this legislation will make more efficient use of resources in our departments not only for the departments working with this system but for the producers and the people in the export markets who are trying to use the systems. It will enable a consistent approach to the appointment of third parties as authorised officers, where permitted, by importing countries.

Again, we welcome the fact that the consistency of approach will ensure less confusion and more confidence in the people who we are trying to help through those items, as I said earlier. It minimises those interventions that made it more difficult for producers to ensure that they get the best possible result for the work that they do and it gives an incentive to look at market developments and bring forward best practice in their own industries.

Therefore it is important that we cooperate in this process to ensure that the bill is passed today. It appears to be a bill that we can all agree on and that this is one more step in the ongoing work within the Department of Agriculture, with the producers and everybody in this parliament, to ensure that the regulation is appropriate and the approach is consistent in making sure that we meet our requirements internally in development and maximise our effect in the export market.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise, alongside my Labor colleagues, to indicate our support for this bill—declared a non-controversial piece of law making today called the Export Control Amendment (Quotas) Bill 2015.

It is uncontroversial in that it seeks to do something rather simple but nonetheless effective by consolidating four pieces of legislation that govern export quotas and allows for quota certification arrangements for agriculture to be carried out under one set of powers.

I want to speak on this, because it is a bill that goes to issues of trade. I think it is important to get on the record that Labor is the party of trade and that we have a very profound and outward-looking view to the world with regard to trade. It was in fact Chifley in 1948 who, in the Bretton Woods project postwar that saw an economic architecture established that was outward looking, understood the power and importance of trade—not just traditional trade back to the mother country but burgeoning new opportunities for trade, which particularly focused on America in the first instance but also started to look, through Labor eyes, for a way to create markets and jobs of quality for Australians and to Asia. It was that vision that drove Labor early in the last century to be the party of trade.

I think also people listening to this debate and perhaps those here with us in the gallery might recognise the importance of the Labor contributions to trade in 1973 with the decisions of the Whitlam government to cut tariffs by 25 per cent. I know that this was controversial at the time and there was much debate about it; however, it recognised that there was nothing very progressive about a policy that meant working people were not able to afford things such as children's school shoes.

The intimacy of our trading patterns, what we do in terms of trade and the way in which we live are all intertwined. The government tries to talk about families in one breath as a liability for the country—cutting family tax benefit A, putting a GST on school, health and education; that is their agenda—and, at the same time, they are saying, 'We are the party of trade,' as if these things are separate. Labor understands that they have a deep and intimate connection.

Again, in 1998 and 1991, Labor, under the Hawke-Keating governments, continued to make sure that Australia remained a competitive economy. It has been estimated that the tariff cuts of the Hawke-Keating era put nearly $4,000 per year into the pocket of the average Australian household. This is a very important part of understanding how trade and our everyday lives are intertwined.

I also wish to refer to the fact that Australia is a great producer of food and fibre product and we are so despite the fact that we have many challenges as a food-producing nation. In fact, we are clearly challenged by water scarcity. We have less than optimal soils, and we are challenged much more than many countries by climate change. Indeed, I would like to refer to the Climate Commission's report The critical decade 2013: climate change science, risk and responses. I know that there are, alive and well, climate sceptics on the other side, and I know that there are many still in the media who have more access to the Australian ear than I think is their right and continue to peddle nonsense about alternative views of the world that do not involve science, but this report is critical. In fact, it declares Australia as 'the world's driest inhabited continent'. It says:

The impacts of climate change on Australia's water resources are therefore of critical importance for our communities, agriculture, industries and environment.

We do know.

Just last weekend, I was in the beautiful part of New South Wales known as the Riverina in the city of Wagga and prior to that, earlier this year, down in the areas of Leeton and Griffith. They very clearly understand that 'river flows in Australia vary substantially from year to year and decade to decade' and exacerbate 'the multiple conflicting demands' on water supplies for Australia. This is a critical issue that impacts on our capacity to trade and on our capacity to innovate in agriculture. We are known for being a remarkably successful, science and evidence based agricultural nation, and that is one of our great export capacities. We actually take dryland farming to other, similar parts of the world and share that expertise from our great farming communities right across rural and regional Australia.

Of course, we do have vast distances between the farm gate and our markets, both our domestic markets and our export markets, but, despite all of that and the many challenges that face Australian producers, the value of our farm output—for an island nation of only 23 million or 24 million—is more than $50 billion annually, and our exports are worth more than $30 billion. In other words, we export around two-thirds of the food we produce. While we should always be cautious and alert to our food security issues, talk of food security in Australia really is rather silly. It might grab the odd headline. It might titillate those who want to peddle and continue to peddle a climate of fear in this nation, but fear will not help us advance. We need a language of hope, and we need policies of endeavour and recognition for effort.

Sadly, that is not the game that is being played in this space by many of those in the government. They compromise the very people that they claim to represent. The National Party are the party of the bush, they say. Well, regional and rural Australia is sadly let down by that party day after day in this place. Continuing escalation of fear about food security plays into the hands of those who would limit our capacity as a nation, not those who would enable it. Food security is not one of our challenges in food production. That is made clear by the evidence that we export two-thirds of everything we produce, and it is why much of the debate that is going on around foreign ownership is also silly and misinformed. If we are going to grow our agricultural opportunities, we need a lot of investment in agriculture, and we will need it over the coming decades. We have a small population, and, with limited savings capacity, much of that investment will have to come from other sources. And that is as it has always been in all of our recent history.

There are many things that will determine the extent of our success in agriculture over the coming decades, and these are some of the issues that this bill is attempting to contend with. The first element that it attends to is the extent to which the government is willing and able to provide leadership and strategic guidance in an increasingly globally competitive market for agricultural products.

The second is the effectiveness of the management of our limited natural resources—most importantly, as I indicated, our water and our soil resources. The question in the future will be: how do we do more with less water and fewer soil resources? We are already the driest continent on earth and becoming a drier continent because we are finding our droughts becoming more protracted, and entering an El Nino period signals that those challenges will just become greater. We need more focus on how we better manage our soils, including how we develop the capacity to retain water in our soils. And everything that we do in agricultural planning has to take into account the sustainability of what we do—how we ensure that those precious resources are available not just for today but for decades to come.

The third is our performance in research, development and extension, and our embrace of biotechnology. These are going to be critical also to our future success.

The fourth element is the extent to which we are able to lift productivity and our cost competitiveness. Clearly, that is a comment that speaks for itself. I know that the remarks of Senator Moore and Senator Cameron, who spoke just prior to me, addressed many of those issues.

The fifth—and I want to spend some time on this—is the issue of how we deal with the challenges of having a workforce in the regions. We have the reality of an ageing population. We have an ageing workforce generally, but in particular these are significant challenges for Australian agriculture. We are dealing right now with the question: how do we attract people to agricultural employment? Can I tell you: we do not attract people to agricultural employment or to employment in the regions of this country by slashing their wages. That is what this government is pushing forwards with: the cuts to penalty rates.

Many of the jobs in our regions are supported by people who work in the retail industry. Right across the state of New South Wales this summer, this Christmas, people who need to travel quite long distances across the great state of New South Wales to spend time with their families will now be forced to work on Boxing Day. That is not because the law actually says that but because the workplace practices have now been liberated by a vote in the New South Wales parliament to enable exploitative employers to push people to work on Boxing Day. This means that, for families who once were able to say, 'Yes, I'll be home for Christmas on Christmas Eve; we'll have two days together, Christmas and Boxing Day,' that will become a thing of the past in New South Wales unless the review in two years overturns a disgraceful decision that was enabled by the so-called family-friendly Fred Nile in the upper house of New South Wales.

These sorts of decisions that are made around workforce capacity and possibilities in our regional and rural areas impact on people's lives in profound and significant ways. While this party of government, the Turnbull-Abbott government, say that they care about the bush, cutting penalty rates for workers who work unreasonable and extraordinary hours is not going to enable our communities in the bush, in regional and rural Australia, to thrive and grow. We need people to come back to the farm, and they will do that when good money is there to be made and they can assure themselves of a few important things—that they can give their families the opportunities they need to succeed.

We want to trade. We want to export. We have capacity and we have expertise. But there are a few things that are missing. The seat of Farrer, the seat of Riverina and the seat of Hume, three of the duty electorates that I have, are definitely rural. But closer to Sydney, on the Central Coast, where I live. I think of Mangrove Mountain and that plateau, which has been a significant part of the food bowl of Sydney. The resources that people need to have to do their work there and to do it efficiently involve access to a global market. That is what we are talking about: trade with the rest of the world. And instead of a visionary NBN, where we were getting fibre to the premise, fibre to businesses and fibre to homes right across this country, with ubiquitous access, we saw Mr Turnbull, the current Prime Minister, when he was the Minister for Communication, rip that visionary infrastructure project to absolute shreds to deliver a dog's breakfast called the mixed technology mode, better known as 'Malcolm Turnbull's Mess' across this country.

You can talk to anybody in regional Australia, whether it is the Northern Territory, Queensland or Western Australia, and all of them know that they need access to the internet. Their kids need access to the internet. They will not stay and farm in our communities and generate the income for this country that we need and have relied on if they cannot give their kids access to the future that they need or if they cannot run their businesses because they cannot compete because this miserly government, with a limited vision for the country, has ripped away a vital piece of infrastructure that they need to grow and compete.

But that is not the only thing that is challenging us in terms of our capacity to create trade and to benefit our country. People in the bush are screaming at me every time I am out in the country when we are looking at health and hospital access. This is a government that has taken $57 billion out of our hospitals across the country. In Melbourne a couple of weeks ago, they told us it is the equivalent of shutting down two hospitals. In Queensland it is taking $11.8 billion out. It is 4½ thousand jobs that should be coming to Queensland that will not come because this government has decided that health is not its bag. It has just decided to walk away. It has torn up national partnership agreements, and the impact is on the people of the bush. That is a critical reason for why they are leaving the bush. If your child is born with a speech pathology problem and you want to live in the country and work in the bush, in regional and rural Australia, you cannot have access to those services, because they have been torn apart by this government—

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order, I believe we are still on the Export Control Amendment (Quotas) Bill 2015. I am not exactly sure what the topics that Senator O'Neill is mentioning have to do with that bill. I think they are completely irrelevant, and on relevance I would ask you to draw her to the question before the chair.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, I have been listening to the senator, and she has been absolutely on the key issues facing the agricultural community, and that is the problem and why this point of order has been raised, because the Nationals are embarrassed about being exposed the way this is exposing them. If they did their jobs then they would not need to stand up and pull stupid points of order.

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

There is no point of order.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to concur with the comments made by my colleague here in the Senate, Senator Cameron. The reality is we have a wonderful agricultural industry. We have fantastic capacity there, but we have communities leaving rural and regional Australia in droves because the representation that they thought they were going to get when they voted National-Liberal is not delivering anything that they need or expect. You cannot go out and farm by day and come back and watch your children unable to get to the doctor because you cannot afford it anymore because they have tried to put a $7 GP tax on, which we stopped. They had another go at adjusting the funding for local doctors, which we stopped, and then they had—

Senator Canavan interjecting—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order, Senator Canavan is being constantly disorderly. This is his modus operandi in here, and every time one of the female senators stands up in here he is after them. He is constantly trying to disrupt them. It is unacceptable and he should just shut up.

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

There is no point of order. I remind senators that interjections are disorderly and that each senator is entitled to be heard in silence.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can see the resistance coming from there, because they do not want this conversation to happen. They do not want Australian people to hear how much the National Party have abrogated their responsibilities to the people of regional and rural Australia, and that is before I even get to education.

If you want a decent education in the bush, do not look for these guys to give it to you. In addition to taking $57 billion out of health, on the Gonski reforms, which they backed 100 per cent before they got in, the minute they walk through the door they tear up the agreements and they destroy any agreements still under construction. Then they add another insult to the people of the bush by taking $30 billion out of investment in our kids. That is $1,000 per child that these guys want to take away, and in country and regional Australia it is even more, because the needs elements are escalated in the bush. We have more Indigenous kids and more kids from low SES who need that support, and that is where the money would go. That is what needs-based funding does. The bush stands to benefit from the needs-based funding of the Gonski model. But these guys, who said they backed it 100 per cent before the last election, do not back it at all. They are trying to pull away from that all of the time, and that will hurt the bush. That will hurt our capacity to have a workforce that can continue to do the great work in the agricultural field that Australia is well known for around the world.

In addition to this, they talk about being trade oriented and wanting to do business with Asia. I am proud that the China free trade agreement was finally signed onto with very significant restrictions around 457 visas, hard-won by Labor to make sure that the government pulled back from the edge of completely ruining the opportunity for good workplaces in this country. But we have seen that this mob have even had a go at the curriculum to take out any Asia focus. Here they are: 'We want to help build trade. Let's increase our trade with Asia but let's just make sure our kids don't understand anything about Asia.' That is how hypocritical this government is.

In the minutes that remain to me I want to go to one of the major concerns that I think needs to be addressed with this government. We know that agriculture needs strategic guidance from the government. It does not need a government that is sending signals in a very competitive market that foreign capital is not welcome in the country. That is what it has been determined to do in recent months. There have been amazingly confused messages to an international market. It is playing to the crowd. I fear it is playing on fear in our community that somehow Asian investment in agriculture is not good for this country. I can only say that, having been to see the Ord stage 1 and stage 2, it is amazing when we see this level of investment and what it can generate in regional economies in terms of jobs, higher quality experiences, bringing in doctors, bringing in health professionals and creating communities where people really can see a future for their children.

This government should instead be showing leadership. They should be going out and saying,' We need investment and we're in competition for it with others.' Without that investment we cannot be internationally competitive and we will not exporting more. We will not be pushing our agricultural product up the value curve. We should be working together in this place to send a very clear message to the Australian community that they should not fear foreign investment in our agricultural land and agribusinesses in the country. We need that investment, and without it we will fall further behind.

Labor once again appeals to this government to give up the folly of trading off on what sorts of investment they think are acceptable today and what they might think tomorrow. Stop playing to the crowd. Recognise that, to meet all our aspirations in agriculture, we are going to need $600 billion of agricultural investment in this country by 2050. It is not going to come from within. Even if we put all of our super funds into agriculture tomorrow, it still would not be enough. By necessity, growing our agricultural capacity is going to need income and investment from foreign sources. We are in competition with others and we need to be inviting it—discerning it but absolutely inviting it.

This bill does represent one of the many things that will develop our attractiveness. I support the bill and commend it to the Senate.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Export Control Amendment (Quotas) Bill 2015 is important to the meat industry. It is a bill that once again facilitates the reduction in red tape, according to the government. It is a bill that, of course, goes to a major export industry said to be worth some $30 billion. It is an industry where, I understand, we are producing something like $50 billion worth of product a year, so two-thirds of the industry is about exports.

Tomorrow I will, hopefully, get the opportunity to discuss with the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union in Melbourne at the annual Christmas party these issues that are being canvassed. The concern that the meat industry union would have on behalf of the workers who actually produce this $30 billion worth of export product would be the way in which the deregulation approach of this government, if allowed to be implemented, could see substantial increases in the abuse and exploitation of meatworkers, all of which we have seen too often in this industry as a result of unscrupulous employers, who rely upon the skills of meat industry workers to ensure that we have the high-quality product that produces such wealth for this nation. The meat industry union tomorrow at its Christmas party will undoubtedly want to know the position of this parliament about the measures that are being taken to protect wages and conditions in the industry and what actions this government has taken to undermine unions' rights to organise and ensure that the conditions of labour are protected in such a way as to preserve the living standards of meatworkers in this country.

When we are discussing a bill of this importance, we ought to be making sure we understand the value of workers who produce the wealth of this nation and the capacity of this government to increase the level of exploitation and abuse of workers as we have seen particularly through the immigration system, which has now seen a massive number of cases emerge in meatworks. We have seen people being abused under 457 visas, backpacker visas and various other holiday-maker visas designed to undermine the wages and conditions of workers in the meat industry—a proposition which I strongly condemn.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contribution on this debate and commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.