Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

When it comes to the state of agriculture, I don't believe that we have seen before as wide a chasm between city and country, and that is a great shame. I appreciate that we've got many people here for whom agriculture is their livelihood, whether they're in the bureaucracy or elsewhere. But out there, often listening to these broadcasts, are people working the land, farmers, and we owe a debt of gratitude to those farmers. At last count I think there were 135,000 famers in Australia, tilling the soil and making sure that they grow the food and fibre to feed and clothe not just our nation but many others besides.

They are under threat like never before, and they're under threat from a number of things. They rely on the weather to make money. My late father, Lance, farmed at Marrar and Brucedale, midway between Junee and Wagga Wagga, all his life up until his death in 2008. He always said that, in any given decade, there'd be three very good years, three average years, three very bad years and the other year—just take your pick. That was up to the vagaries of the weather. It was a mere matter of luck. I can remember he only ever protested once, and that was when he came to Canberra. Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister. The farmers ringed Parliament House. They were very concerned about the policies of the then Labor government. Lo and behold, it rained, and Prime Minister Hawke took the credit for it. The farmers went away and did what most farmers do—and that's not complain as a matter of demonstration but just get on with the job.

We're very lucky that we've got the world's best farmers, but government policy is important. It's also very important that the agriculture minister goes and visits farms—not just the ones that are environmentally friendly, not just the ones that might be doing wonders with organics, not just the ones that might be tilling the soil and putting soil science front and centre, but also those generational family farms that, at the moment, are doing it as tough as they ever have. When it comes to farming, I do really worry about the continual impacts of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan upon irrigation farmers. I worry about how they are demonised—not just irrigation farmers but also those who grow fruit and vegetables in the Murrumbidgee and Coleambally Irrigation Areas and down in the Goulburn and Murray Valleys in your state of South Australia, Deputy Speaker Sharkie. Our cotton growers out west too are maligned continually for the role that they play. Our farmers are expected to grow more with less—and when I say 'less' I mean less water.

Famously, it has been said that, 'Whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over.' Mark Twain apparently said that. It was as true then, when he said it in the 19th century, as it is today. The water battles will go on. Every valley thinks that the farmers north of them, or the farmers living wherever the water is otherwise coming from, are pinching the water and that those below them are wasting water. But they think: 'We're okay. We're doing everything right when it comes to utilising the water that we have or have been allocated.' That is, the water they have bought—I shouldn't say 'allocated', because they pay for every precious drop. We very much need to continually look at the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

I know Darren De Bortoli, a wine grower from the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, has made a lot of comments about water and about its allocation. Sadly, this week he pulled out a lot of his vines, and that should not be happening. It should not be happening in Griffith, a place that produces, last time I looked, up to a quarter to a third of all the wine bottled in Australia. They produce some of the finest wines not just in Australia but in the world. And when you've got one of the biggest wine growers, one of the most established winemakers—as De Bortoli is—pulling out vines, what does that tell us about government policy?

I know Darren would point the finger, long and loud and passionately, at both sides of government—and, yes, both sides of government have been at fault in not having the best water policies, particularly for our irrigators. But I was proud to say that I was the one who put in the disallowance motion back in 2012 against the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I see the member for Makin over there. He was in the parliament at the time and he no doubt voted against it too. I think there were only five who voted with me at the time, and that included the then member for Melbourne, who did so for the complete opposite reasons; the member for Kennedy, who's still in the parliament and probably still will be for quite some decades to come; the then member for Murray, Dr Sharman Stone; and the late Alby Schultz, who was the member for Hume. That was the five.

There was a celebrated photo of us five. Mr Bandt was very much up the back of the chamber. I don't think he really wanted to be associated with our disallowance. Then, of course, we had everyone else on the other side—everyone else from every other part, and the Independents. But we made the point. And I know that, when we got into government, we stopped the buybacks. Stopping the buybacks is important. Buybacks divide and conquer irrigation communities. It's not just the farmer. The farmer is well looked after. They get their price bought at a premium amount. It's the hairdresser. It's the mechanic. It's the schoolteacher—because they have fewer children to teach, the school decreases in size. That is the peril that is facing and awaiting our river communities.

At the moment, we are in a drought in the Riverina. When I say 'the Riverina', I represent the electorate by name these days, not necessarily by nature. Not much of the Riverina geographical area, or any other quantum you put on the place, is actually in the boundaries as determined by the Australian Electoral Commission. My electorate now wraps around Canberra and goes all the way into Whitlam and Illawarra. Go figure that one! But the country people that I represent are proud and passionate. Many of them are farmers, and they are having their areas carpet-bombed with wind turbines. That is a huge challenge when it comes to agriculture.

I think the greatest challenge that is facing humankind—people say it's the weather; people say it's climate action et cetera—is actually growing food to feed a hungry world, and Australia can play a big part in that. People will say that the two are linked. They'll say, 'Well, without good action on climate, you won't be able to grow the food.' Yes, there's an argument to that, too, but you can't grow food and produce fibre if you're going to carpet-bomb one of the best growing areas, which is the Riverina, whether it's the AEC boundaries or the geographical boundaries. If you cover that area with wind turbines and pit farmer against farmer and family member against family, how on earth are you going to continue to grow the world's best food and fibre? Our farmers will desert the land. Many of them will lease the land to companies that represent overseas superannuation companies, who send out these spivs and shysters, who then divide and conquer.

An Old Junee farmer told me that he'd phoned five of his neighbours. Three knew about the wind turbine proposals and the others didn't. That area doesn't have great ridgeways. It isn't a very windy place. But these companies come in and buy off farmers. They are cruelling our area. I won't stand for it. That's why I'm against the net zero proposals being put forward by this government. It is going to ruin our farmland. We're going to carpet-bomb our pristine farmland, our wonderful producing farmland, with wind turbines—and for what? It's not going to change the weather. It's not going to lower the temperature. It is a nonsense and it is a crock.

See this speech in context