Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, some of these answers are longer than my questions.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I assure the member for Kennedy that is a serious problem.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Could the minister advise the House of any joy on the EC assistance for the flood ravaged gulf, log jammed by the Queensland government now for over year? In light of the anniversary of this flooding from Ingham to Burketown, would he not agree that a task force of five Indigenous representatives, three bureaucrats, two greenies, one Sydney suit, a cattle rep and mining rep—neither of whom are pro-irrigation resumptions—and only one lonely farmer is not a task force that is going to, as directed, find sustainable water projects? On the contrary, their self-appointed spokesman, the World Wildlife Fund’s Stuart Blanch, most arrogantly informed the government that such would not be able to be found because of the north’s climate, soils and topography. Since most of the United States, China, India and Brazil—half of the world’s population—lie within 35 degrees latitude with similar climate, soils and topography, and since Northern Australia’s 305 million megalitres rivals the Brahmaputra, Yangtze and Mississippi, would he not agree that the findings are not only absurd but deeply embarrassing? And finally—

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More!

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Look, these are serious questions. If you want to interject, interject intelligently. It is a serious question on a very serious matter.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Kennedy will come to the conclusion of his question. The member for Kennedy will ignore the interjections.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Finally, the minister would be aware that the top one-third of Australia has 300 million megalitres of water but negligible farming, whilst the bottom two-thirds, with only 80 million megalitres, has almost all of Australia’s food production. Since most of Australia’s food comes from the crippled Murray-Darling, would the minister not agree that unless dams and weirs are built in Northern Australia the country will not be the do-nothing, free-trading Mr Tim Fischer’s food bowl of Asia but its basket case? Would the minister not agree that the task force verdict on Northern Australia—no water—has led to Australia’s verdict on the task force: no brains?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Kennedy for all the elements of the question. I also want to acknowledge in the House that the member for Kennedy is someone who says the identical thing in his electorate as he says in here. That is not replicated by every regional member in his place, and can easily be contrasted with Senator Barnaby Joyce, who reckons he does not like overseas investment when he is talking to farmers but is quite happy to fly around in Clive Palmer’s private jet, backed with Chinese currency.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister will respond to the question.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. I ask you to bring the minister back to the detailed question.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! If the member for Sydney had been listening at the time he jumped up to the dispatch box, he would have heard that I said that the minister will respond to the question. The minister will respond to the question.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question goes to two issues: firstly, the northern task force and the prospects for increased agriculture in the north of the country and, secondly, an application for exceptional circumstances in the gulf area of Queensland, in particular in the member’s seat. If I could deal with the northern task force issues first. I am reminded very much of a conversation I had in the north of Australia but on the other side of the country at Kilto Station, where I remarked to a farmer that I had been advised that one of the problems with agriculture in the north is that there are a hundred things you can grow but a thousand things that will eat it all—that is, in terms of the biosecurity challenges. He quipped straightaway with, ‘But one of those things is people.’ It is true that we need to look very seriously at opportunities for improved agriculture in the north of Australia. We were reminded of this at community cabinet in Townsville where we met with a delegation with particular proposals for the Gilbert River—proposals the farmers involved made clear are very much ready to go.

There are some conclusions which have been drawn out of the commentary that has followed from the report of the northern task force to which the government do not subscribe. Some of the commentary has claimed that the government would never contemplate dams and weirs, or that some line is drawn where they would never be considered. This is not true. Where they are appropriate and where they are sustainable, the federal government does not in any way rule those things out. However, some expectations for that report were probably built higher than they should have been. The concept that all of the agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin was going to be transplanted to the north was never going to happen, but it is true that there are significant new opportunities in the north and a lot more can be done there than is currently being done.

I refer to the mosaic form of agriculture and in particular what can be done for the beef industry in the north. At the moment, one of the reasons we are reliant exclusively on the live export industry is that we are not able to get cattle to finishing. There are significant opportunities to get cattle to finishing in terms of limited irrigation in the mosaic way. Those sorts of opportunities are contemplated in the northern task force report and supported strongly by the producers involved, including Terry Underwood, whose property I visited in the Northern Territory. Those opportunities are real, and as the government works through that report we have a very clear view that a lot more is possible in the north than we have been doing in the past. That is something that the member for Kennedy has long advocated.

He has also advocated that not only should we be very mindful of the fires which happened in the south of our nation last year but also we should be mindful of the massive flood which occurred in the north of our country last year. In that context, an application was made for exceptional circumstances. Members would be aware that exceptional circumstances in the ordinary case deal with drought, and the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements deal with the immediate impact of flood. When I visited those floodwaters with the member for Kennedy—and, from memory, we went to Cloncurry and Normanton—it was made clear at the time that this was not a usual flood. Normally after a flood the pastures kick back and kick back pretty strongly. On this occasion, the water had remained over these pastures for more than eight weeks and that meant that the pasture underneath died completely.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the seed had gone too.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The seed had gone, yes. And that means that the weeds get an advantage, but other than weeds there is not a whole lot growing in the immediate event after a flood like that. The EC application was therefore assessed not on the basis of there having been a flood but on the basis of the impact of the long-term inundation. That meant, just as the farmers predicted that day, that if you came back in a few months time it would not look like the aftermath of a flood but the aftermath of a long-term drought. That is exactly what those producers have been seeing—in addition to the loss of in excess of 100,000 head of cattle.

With all of that, we did what we always do and referred it to NRAC, the National Rural Advisory Council. They came back with their recommendations. I am glad the member asked the question today and not yesterday because this morning the government accepted the advice of NRAC and EC will be provided for that area.