Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have noted with interest the many speakers before me on this bill, the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Amendment Bill 2007, and I think the debate has been, without exception, very positive on all sides of parliament. That is always a good thing to see. Many of our constituents expect that we are always at each other’s throats and that we always have disagreements, when in fact there are many times when we do agree. This important issue is one of those areas where we do agree virtually in total—although I did note that the honourable member for Hotham claimed that investment had fallen from 1996 to 2000 because the Howard government had reduced the allowance for investment from 150 per cent to 125 per cent. That is factual, but of course he did not tell the chamber why the Howard government had to make many cuts in 1996. It was because the 13-year Hawke-Keating Labor governments increased debt from $16 billion to $96 billion in five years. So there needed to be some tough action by a responsible government. Whilst it would have been good to keep the allowance at 150 per cent, in many areas it has been increased to 175 per cent because we can now afford it as a country. We could not when we were going further and further into debt under Labor.

I met with some of the scientists last night and I had some very interesting conversations with them. I grew up with the idea that the CSIRO was probably the best institution of its type in the world, especially for agricultural research. Whilst there has been a slight shift towards manufacturing by CSIRO, it still does a considerable amount of research in agricultural areas. My home area, the Tatiara, which is Aboriginal for ‘the good country’, is a prime example of what scientific research can do for us. The Tatiara used to be known as the Ninety Mile Desert, but scientists did research which showed that there were some trace element deficiencies in the soil, namely copper, molybdenum, manganese and zinc. By using those trace elements, generally only once every seven years, the Ninety Mile Desert has been transformed into a very healthy bit of country for both stock and crops. It might seem simple now that we have this knowledge, but it did take the scientific research to discover the problems and to come up with the solutions, and it has really transformed that country. We are talking about an area of 90 miles, probably 150 kilometres in circumference.

Even on my own farm in that area, I can point to many areas where agricultural research has been absolutely wonderful and has been taken on board by many of the farmers in the area. The research and the introduction of first myxomatosis and then calicivirus to control the rabbit scourge in many areas of Australia has had a wonderful effect. We will need some more research because, unfortunately, as is their wont, rabbits tend to build up a resistance to these diseases after a while. But it certainly has increased productivity by reducing rabbit numbers. When I went to school we were told that about eight rabbits equal one sheep, so if you had several hundred rabbits on your property you were reducing the amount of feed available for your sheep.

Keith in South Australia is the lucerne capital of Australia, if not the world, for producing seed for other producers. In Australia we have a very substantial lucerne breeding exercise and we are continually upgrading our lucerne varieties. At one stage we relied on one variety. Unfortunately, we had the introduction of blue-green aphids, and the Hunter River lucerne that was used virtually on its own around Australia was decimated by this bug. So we needed to bring in and breed new varieties that were resistant to the aphids, and that has been a great success story for lucerne production all around Australia and probably all around the world.

As the member for New England also mentioned, Australia’s wheat-breeding regime has been very successful. We continually upgrade our varieties for both yield and protein. I note the member for New England’s comments on what may be needed in a different direction—lower protein and higher starch—if we go further into the development of ethanol using wheat in Australia. That may need a shift in research.

In Australia we probably grow the best barley in the world. A lot of this development goes through the Waite institute in South Australia, a fantastic institute next door to one of the schools I went to, Urrbrae Agricultural High School. A former Speaker also went to that school. I think we can almost claim the same number of students as Melbourne Grammar in this parliament. Beyond that, the Waite institute is involved in a large number of areas of agricultural research. I have been to the institute about four times, and it is always interesting to see their latest programs to help our farmers.

We have the LAMBPLAN and BeefPlan, the equivalent setup for beef. As breeders of sheep and cattle we can improve our animals through certain breeding processes. It might interest this chamber to know that Professor Rob Banks’s thesis, I think, was on breeding flies—yes, those pesky little things that annoy us at times. It is very interesting that we brought Professor Rob Banks’s research into the breeding of flies into the LAMBPLAN process, which is used by many stud breeders all around Australia with various breeds, whether they be White Suffolk, Poll Dorset or even Suffolk. Many of the sheep breeders use the LAMBPLAN to improve things like growth rates and meat density or width so that we get bigger chops—‘more chop for our dollar’ is one way of putting it. It can also be used for things like fertility.

That process for improving our lamb and our beef in Australia was originally created using flies for breeding. That is now also being used to improve the growth rates of trees. So we have gone from flies to sheep to trees using the same process. When some people look at this research they think, ‘Why would we be doing research into flies?’ That is the answer—we have used that process to improve other areas of agriculture. I think it is very interesting to look at the range of areas that scientists use to improve our lot in Australia.

In a consumer-driven market, the agricultural industry is fast becoming more accountable for its produce and it is searching for and adopting the most up-to-date, innovative and efficient techniques to improve quality and processes to make its produce the best in the world. I think it is a fairly good claim that we can make in Australia that we produce, if not the best, amongst the best food for the whole globe.

Research and development into improved industry practices play an imperative role in such progress. Because of this it is essential that we and the industry leaders look to improve our practices, our accountability and our efficiency and how those affect industry down the line. Amendments to the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989, the PIERD Act, aim to improve governance of the eight statutory rural research and development corporations, otherwise known as RDCs. The PIERD Act provides the legislative basis for the funding and administration of RDCs. RDCs are already highly successful. They are a major contributor to the 2.3 per cent average productivity growth rate per annum of the agricultural sector for the last 30 years. To get that sort of growth over that period is quite an incredible achievement. Through the RDC partnership, industry and government spent more than $540 million in 2005-06 on research and development. But there is room to improve—there always is.

The amendments to the PIERD Act reflect the government’s endorsement of the assessment of the governance arrangements of RDCs in the Review of the corporate governance of statutory authorities and office holders, the Uhrig report. The Uhrig review was undertaken by Mr John Uhrig AC, who was engaged by the government to assess the governance arrangements of Commonwealth statutory authorities.

In his report of June 2003, Uhrig made six major recommendations. Firstly, government should clarify expectations of statutory authorities by ministers issuing statements of expectations, and statutory authorities should respond with statements of intent. These would be public documents. Secondly, the role of portfolio departments as the principal source of advice to ministers should be reinforced into strong information flows to portfolio secretaries in parallel with ministers. Thirdly, governance boards should be utilised in statutory authorities only where they can be given the full power to act. Fourthly, government should establish an Inspector-General of Regulation. Fifthly, government should establish a centrally located group to advise on the application of appropriate governance structures. And finally, financial frameworks should generally be applied based on the governance characteristic of a statutory authority.

We may look to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 being applied to statutory authorities where it is appropriate that they be legally and financially part of the Commonwealth and do not need to own assets—these are typically budget funded authorities, the executive management template—while the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 can be applied to statutory authorities where it is appropriate that they be legally and financially separate from the Commonwealth and are best governed by a board—the board template.

These recommendations, apart from the establishment of an Inspector-General of Regulation, were adopted by the government. In August 2004 the government announced that ministers would assess their own portfolio agencies against the governance templates of the Uhrig report and implement appropriate improvements to existing governance structures. The government’s Uhrig review process, under the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Peter McGauran MP, has involved extensive and very thorough consideration of corporate governance and accountability.

In making his assessment of the eight RDCs in his portfolio, Minister McGauran concluded their future governance arrangements should continue to be based on the board management template. This reflects the need to provide RDCs with sufficient entrepreneurial freedom to go about their key roles—setting investment strategies and priorities for primary industry R&D, as funders and investors in R&D services and as facilitators of the adoption of R&D outcomes by industry. That is probably the most important part of putting what you have learnt into practice.

Minister McGauran also agreed that the board structure, in line with the Uhrig report’s board template, was best placed to enhance partnership between industry and government, determine investment strategies and priorities, keep pace with changing industry R&D demands and maintain key relationships with the extensive range of primary industry stakeholders and research providers. This is a wide-ranging mandate, requiring RDC boards to set corporate strategies and directions and to operate again with entrepreneurial freedom.

In keeping with Uhrig best practice, Minister McGauran recommended the discontinuation of the practice of appointing an Australian government director to each RDC board, thus removing potential for conflict of interest for serving public servants. Also, the skill set for board selection would be expanded to include expertise in government policy processes and administration. All amendments proposed to the PIERD Act respond to the Uhrig report intent to improve corporate governance and board expertise, experience and management arrangements.

These amendments also provide a practical response by government to recommendations by the recent report of the inquiry into women’s representation on regional and rural bodies of influence—the At the table report. A number of other statutory agencies within the minister’s portfolio were also assessed against the Uhrig report, including the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation—something that I take quite a bit of note of, as I represent nearly half of Australia’s wine industry; as I fondly say, the best half—and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, which are both very important sectors. Amendments to their legislation will be introduced into parliament shortly.

There is no doubt that our RDCs are already operating very successfully, but in order to make progress we must continue to review and improve the way they work. This is what we are doing here. These particular amendments to the PIERD Act will enhance the effectiveness of the RDCs even further, which can only be a very good thing for the rural agriculture industry. The amendments will commence on the day the bill receives royal assent, and I urge all members to support the bill.

See this speech in context