Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) calls on the Government to provide for agricultural security in Australia particularly given recent dramatic increases in the cost of production as a result of dislocations in imports and Australia continuing to be a net importer of fruit and vegetables and:

(a) food and manufacturing labelling that highlights hidden imports and prevents fraud;

(b) fresh produce labelling system that indicates the farm gate price (and the supermarket mark up);

(c) 'divesture' legislation that reduces the market power of the corporations that operate the major supermarkets. With the objective of levelling the playing field providing a competitive marketplace for consumers and suppliers;

(d) a National Office of Better Agricultural Regulation with powers to reduce red tape and consider the actual cost of implementing both marketplace regulations (ie. Freshcare, HARPS, Fair Farms), and government regulations (ie. PALM Scheme, reef regulation, water, conservation and protection);

(e) investment in infrastructure and critical supplies/support industries to reduce production and transportation costs (ie. gas prices for fertiliser, chemical, fuel, worker access);

(f) reforming the PALM scheme to ensure farmers have direct access to the program.

I don't think there's anyone in this place who has not mentioned the phrase 'affordable living' in the last four or five months. On a personal note, my wife was away and so I went down the supermarket. I didn't have to buy any meat—there was plenty of that in the fridge—and I spent $363. I nearly died of shock! I have Venetian ancestors. They invented money, and I've had a very great attachment to it throughout my life.

In 1990, the average household in Australia spent $92 a week on food. They're now having to spend $279 a week on food. That is a 2020 figure and there has been a huge escalation in food prices in the last two years. That's a 229 per cent increase in the price of food. The average weekly earnings have gone up only 150 per cent. So the average weekly earner is being short-changed by 80 bucks a week. The CPI, which pensions are attached to, has gone up by 110 per cent. So food's gone up by 230 per cent, but average weekly earnings have only gone up by 150 per cent and the pension has gone up by only 110 per cent.

Now, on a basket of key items that we took—and I must emphasise that we did not get a full basket—the mark-up in Woolworths and Coles 20 years ago was 106 per cent. The average mark-up now is 242 per cent. There have been 15 inquiries into Woolworths and Coles in this place and not a single thing has been done; not a single recommendation has been put into practice.

In 1991, Woolworths and Coles held 50.5 per cent of the market; that's all. When a really searching inquiry was done in 2001, their percentage of the market was, according to the ABS, 68 per cent and, according to global world ANOP, 72 per cent. They'd gone from 50 per cent to over 70 per cent in the space of 10 years. There's no doubt that they're up around 90 per cent now. So we have a duopoly. When I went to university and did economics they said that it was very, very bad to have a duopoly. I'll say it's bad. Woolworths and Coles can give themselves a 229 per cent pay increase, whilst the poor struggling pensioner got only a 110 per cent increase in the money that he receives. And I find that the CEO of Woolworths is struggling along on $8 million a year and the CEO of Coles is struggling along on $7½ million a year. I feel so sorry for them!

In the same period of time, there were 16,000 dairy farmers; there are now 6,000. We had 2½ thousand in Queensland. We now have about 400 in Queensland and, as you yourself are well aware, Madam Deputy Speaker Sharkie, many of them exited in the most terrible of ways. The highest suicide rate in Australia was recorded in the heart of the Atherton Tablelands, the densest dairying area in Australia.

There was a most infamous statement by John Anderson, leader of the National Party. He said: 'We have 240,000 farmers in Australia and we only need 130,000.' I went up to a Rural Action meeting three days later and they kicked my head in—I was still a member of the National Party then—and so I should have had my head kicked in. I asked them to vote for this bloke. They said, 'What's he up to—advocating that we get rid of 100,000 farmers!' Well, now we have 83,000 farmers, and whose fault is that? Throughout those years, what was the government that introduced free markets into every one of these things? A free market meant Woolworths and Coles had a free-fire zone to push us down through the floor. They could pay us anything they wanted to pay us— (Time expired)

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to rise today to speak on the motion from the member for Kennedy, who, like me, is an independent member who proudly and passionately supports regional and rural Australia. Like the member for Kennedy, I support Australian agriculture, and I want to see government policies that support the Australian agricultural sector, policies that better educate and inform consumers about where their producers come from and what goes into getting it from the paddock to their plate.

In Indi we have a diverse range of agricultural industries, including beef and dairy farming; fat lambs; wool; fruit such as cherries, berries, apples; and more. I will focus on a different element of labelling from that which the member for Kennedy is focusing on. I want to tell you today that, when it comes to Australian wine, what's on the label matters. An incredibly important part of our agricultural industry in Indi is viticulture, with major wine regions in the King Valley, Rutherglen, Beechworth, the alpine valleys, the Strathbogie Ranges, Glenrowan and the upper Goulburn. But a major part of our viticulture industry is facing a very serious challenge, and I'm calling on our government to do all it can to protect this vital part of our economy.

As I know you understand, Madame Deputy Speaker Sharkie, the Australian government is negotiating a free trade agreement with the European Union, a development which I support and hope will bring significant benefit to Australian farmers, including those farmers in Indi. But, through that agreement, Italy wants to restrict the use of the name prosecco to wine that comes only from a specific area of that country. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you know, but other members may not, that 57 per cent of Australia's prosecco comes from the beautiful King Valley in the electorate of Indi. It was in the King Valley that Otto Dal Zotto planted the first prosecco vines in Australia, inspired by remembering his childhood in Valdobbiadene in Italy. I look across the chamber and I see my colleagues nodding and I see the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Viticulture, who saw and met with the people from the King Valley just last week here in parliament.

Now, in just a few short years, prosecco has grown to be worth $205 million a year in sales alone, with even more value added through the significant tourism that this great wine creates in our region. That's a massive increase from the $60 million in sales in 2017. Even with the challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic, prosecco is growing, innovating and finding new markets. This is exactly what we want to encourage in Australian agriculture; we don't want to stifle this. If the use of the name prosecco were to be banned for Australian grapegrowers and winemakers, it would have a devastating impact on the wine industry in Indi and across the nation and it would have a chilling effect on the industry more broadly. It would threaten wine sales domestically and internationally, affecting jobs across Australia.

It needs to be said that it was only in 2009 that Italy changed the name of the grape variety to glera and registered prosecco as a geographic indicator in the European Union. In 2013, the Australian wine industry successfully challenged a previous application by the European Union to claim prosecco is a GI in Australia, with recognition that prosecco is a grape variety. If GI status were to be granted to prosecco, it would create a concerning precedent. In recent European Union trade negotiations with China, Japan, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and New Zealand, attempts were made to protect an expanding list of grape varieties, including prosecco, fiano, montepulciani, barbera, nero d'Avola, alicante, dolcetto and others, as GIs. All of these varieties are grown across Australia's 65 wine regions.

Last week, representatives from Brown Brothers, Pizzini Wines and Dal Zotto Wines travelled to Canberra to ensure that the government knows just how important it is that the use of the name prosecco is not traded away. I am very grateful to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Don Farrell, and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Murray Watt, who heard their stories and listened to why prosecco is so important to Australian viticulture and Australian agriculture.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm absolutely delighted to speak on this private members' motion put forward by the member for Kennedy, and I thank him for that. I want to speak on the good work and continued commitment of the Albanese government and the great successes that we've had in agriculture in this country. We aren't wasting a minute when it comes to supporting this industry, and that's why the House Standing Committee on Agriculture has decided to hold an inquiry on food security in Australia. Our committee is working closely with the minister to better listen and understand the needs of the agriculture industry and ensure that agricultural security remains a priority area for our government.

We understand Australia exports around 70 per cent of our agricultural production, and that's a good thing, but this has an important role to play in our economic prosperity. Equally, we want to ensure that we're supporting industry and encouraging every domestic opportunity available to producers. It has been said that Australia does not produce everything consumers like to eat, and imports account for around 11 per cent of food consumption by value. Some of these imports are largely motivated by consumer preferences that cannot be met by domestic production. I'm pleased that as part of our inquiry we'll explore strengthening and safeguarding food security in Australia. The committee will enquire and report on the national production, consumption and export of food, as well as considering access to key inputs such as fuel, fertiliser and labour and their impact on production costs.

Additionally, the committee will explore the impact of supply-chain distribution on the cost and availability of food and the potential opportunities and threats of climate change for food production in Australia. We can see by recent floods that it can have a very devastating effect indeed on food production. We understand that food security is a growing issue nationally and internationally, with population growth, war, weather and climate all posing risks to the availability and accessibility of food. Australia has a role to play globally for food production as well. We do have a responsibility to help the globe feed itself as well as our own country.

Our inquiry is taking submissions until 9 December this year and wants to hear from as many stakeholders as possible to ensure a broad contribution from the agricultural and food sectors. I'm very proud to be a product of the regions, and I welcome the Albanese Labor government's commitment to working with industry to explore opportunities to improve price and market transparency and ensure a fair marketplace to enhance the productivity, profitability and sustainability of the agricultural sector.

As suggested, government has provided approximately $4 million to the dairy, seafood, red meat, horticulture, wine and chicken meat industries to improve price and market transparency. These projects are critical to supporting supply chains and allocating resources more effectively and will ensure that we adapt production in a timely manner and implement appropriate risk management strategies.

I also want to acknowledge and commend Minister Murray Watt on his work since taking carriage of this important portfolio. One of our government's key achievements has been in progressing legislative amendments to strengthen protections for consumers and small businesses, including primary producers, by making unfair contract terms illegal. The legislation also provides a larger number of small businesses with protections due to changes in the eligibility thresholds. It would be a matter for the Treasurer to determine whether to consider legislation into a divestiture regime under the Competition and Consumer Act to apply to the food and grocery industry. We understand that there are risks associated with divestiture which would need to be examined to ensure any action would not undermine the viability of the retail sector, as this would have flow-on effects on agricultural industries and primary producers. Ours is a government that is committed to working with this sector on the challenges it faces and on all the problems that have been ignored for the past decade by those opposite. I look forward to continuing to work with industry and Minister Watt to progress meaningful reforms and investments for this incredibly important sector to Australia.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The agriculture sector is a significant contributor to the national economy. In 2020-21 the gross value topped $70 billion, increasing by seven per cent in the last 20 years in real terms adjusted for consumer price inflation. This equates to a long-term GDP contribution of between three and four per cent. In 2019, ACIL Allen consulting prepared an agricultural road map for the sector to achieve a farmgate value of $100 billion by 2030. Yet, despite the enormous economic and employment contributions by the sector to our nation, we do very little to protect it or nurture it compared to the other 37 member countries of the OECD. Australia's support for the agricultural sector, as a share of gross farm receipts, is a mere 2.5 per cent, compared to 15.1 per cent, which is the average for the OECD nations. This low level of support was driven by Australia's National Competition Policy and procompetitive reforms to meet our obligations to the WTO.

Our agriculture sector does not ask for handouts, but it does rightly ask for a level playing field. While we have limited ability to influence our OECD neighbours regarding their agricultural support, we can and must influence our domestic arrangements, which in many instances are unfair. Australia's food and grocery sector is a duopoly, as the member for Kennedy said. Just two major supermarket chains cover about 75 per cent of the market. Suppliers have to be on the shelves of both the major chains in order to operate at scale. The majors know this, and they deliberately squeeze the best deal. Farmers are price takers; they are not price makers. Suppliers are at the mercy of retailers, and each year billions of dollars worth of fruit and vegetables are sent to landfill because the retail sector deems them too ugly for sale, even though they're all good food. They may just have a mark on them.

There are so many examples where producers can't even afford to pick their produce because the cost is so great. While we're talking about labour costs, I note that we've just signed a UK-Australia trade deal that's taken backpackers off our farms, and we're potentially going to do that again with the EU. This is a nightmare for regional Australia.

The adage, 'With great power comes great responsibility,' is certainly appropriate for our supermarket segment. The market power of the major chains is so pronounced and influential that, in the absence of reasonableness, government intervention should be considered. I'd just like to draw to the attention of other members a very good book—it's a few years old now but still is relevant today—called Supermarket Monsters. It talks about that duopoly and gives many examples. If you have the time over Christmas, have a read of it.

I've also got to say that it doesn't help when our city-centric living has divorced us from connection with the land and those who work on it. We have children in our community—in fact, we have adults in our community—who struggle to identify where milk comes from this. For clarity, it's not a carton from Woolworths. I support the member for Kennedy's motion to improve transparency on food and manufacturing labelling to eradicate hidden imports and to introduce fresh produce labelling that provides consumers with a better understanding of the actual gate price. Can I say to every member in here and, in fact, anyone who's listening to this on the radio or perhaps taking the time to read Hansard: put the effort in. If you can, buy from the farm gate or from farmers markets. I'm really fortunate. I live in regional Australia. I can pretty much do all of my food shopping within a few country roads from me. But can I say: when you see a farmer out and about, thank the farmer. I am deeply worried that in a generation's time, we will not have local dairy farms anymore; we'll just have agribusiness. We won't have mum-and-dad farmers. We need to do more in this nation to support agriculture, particularly mum-and-dad farming. I thank the member for Kennedy for this motion.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Kennedy for bringing forward this private member's business on this very important issue in my electorate. I must point out the first sentence in this motion, where it says:

(1) calls on the Government to provide for agricultural security in Australia particularly given recent dramatic increases in the cost of production as a result of dislocations in imports and Australia continuing to be a net importer of fruit and vegetables …

This is not factually correct. We are a net exporter of fruit and veg. But I digress.

In response to the current threats, the Albanese government has deployed the strongest ever response to a biosecurity threat to our border. We've supported our Indo-Pacific neighbours, toughened our legislation, stress-tested our preparedness and aligned ourselves carefully with state and territory partners in the nation's first National Biosecurity Strategy. It's worth repeating that Australia remains both foot-and-mouth-disease free and lumpy skin disease free.

The last few months have illustrated the need for a biosecurity system which is up to the contemporary challenges we face today. To that end, I'm pleased to say that Senator Murray Watt, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, has made the centrepiece of our agriculture budget an investment of $134.1 million to bolster Australian biosecurity systems against the immediate threat of disease. This includes more money for frontline biosecurity officers and more money for detector dogs that will help with getting the cargo moving whilst protecting Australia's biosecurity. But there's always more to do.

In my electorate in the Hunter Valley, we have a very diverse agriculture sector, from viticulture, fruit and veg to dairy and, of course, the meat industry. Every day that I'm out speaking with our farmers and growers, the common theme I hear is the lack of workers. The Albanese Labor government is committed to working with and supporting our agriculture sector to access the workers it needs. To tackle those workforce challenges, this government is undertaking a range of measures in collaboration with state and territory governments and with industry and unions. The three-way Agricultural Workforce Working Group, comprising government, unions and industry members, has been established to pursue solutions to better skill, attract, protect and retain workers in the agriculture and processing sector.

This government is also implementing a number of whole-of-economy measures to address workforce needs. These include increasing the permanent migration program ceiling to 195,000 in 2022-23, including 34,000 places specifically for regional visas within the skills stream. We are also providing an additional $42.2 million for Home Affairs to address the visa backlog, with more than two million visas already having been processed since June 2022. We are partnering with state and territory governments in delivering 465,000 new fee-free TAFE places, with 180,000 of those to be delivered next year. Our agriculture sector has been prioritised under this measure, meaning more Australians are supported to take up a career in agriculture. We are undertaking a comprehensive review of the purpose, structure and objectives of Australia's migration system to ensure it meets the challenges of the coming decade.

The government also continues to implement a range of measures under the AgATTRACT and AgFAIR initiatives, which will support the sector to enhance and attract skilling and retention in the sector. This includes a structured employment pilot to offer young Australians the opportunity to try working in the agriculture sector as a gap year. In addition, the Australian government's Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, or PALM, scheme is a key program for meeting unskilled, low skilled and semiskilled workforce shortages in rural and regional Australia, including in the agriculture and meat-processing sectors. The scheme grew significantly during the pandemic, to 31,500 workers as of 31 October this year, which is a record number of PALM workers in Australia. Over 95 per cent of PALM workers in Australia are working in the agriculture and meat sectors. The government has committed to improving and expanding this scheme, with $67.5 million invested in the last budget.

As I said before, there is always more to do, and this government won't waste a single day in office. We are getting on with the job we were elected to do. I thank my mate the member for Kennedy for bringing this motion to the House. (Time expired)

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.