Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing and Sovereign Capability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the contingent from the Queensland parliament. It's nice to see you folks here. This is about the agriculture statement, but what it should be about is how Labor has failed the agricultural sector in this country. In my neck of the woods, lets start with the fishing industry. In the last term of parliament, the then environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, decided to shut down the fishing industry, the gillnet fishing industry within my electorate, where fisherman for many decades have been catching barramundi, salmon and flathead. This is all about supposedly looking after the Great Barrier Reef. Let me tell you that a gillnet goes nowhere near the Great Barrier Reef. They're more than 60 miles away from the Great Barrier Reef. They're used in inshore fisheries. They were shut down. The fine fishermen and women are actually monitored. They have cameras on them. They have to log in when they go fishing, and they have to log out. It's a fully licensed and fully sustainable wild-caught industry—but, no, it's totally shut down. So then what happens? The chandlery shops, the boat builders, the outboard mechanics and the ice-makers all go to the wall as well. It's just an absolute disgrace.

Let's have a look at the live sheep trade. They shut down the live sheep trade last year. And why did they do that? It was done to keep their mates the Greens happy and to make sure that all those little preferences came sneaking through—a little belly tickle to make sure everything was going alright there. This wasn't done because of science. The only science involved in this was political science.

I've been over and had a look, as part of the inquiry into live sheep trade, and there were less than one per cent mortality rates. When the sheep are travelling across on the boat, they are actually better looked after than they are in the paddock. There's a higher mortality rate in the paddock. I've seen fourth and fifth-generation farmers in tears about potentially losing their farms—all for this absolute nonsense. I've been on the boat. I've seen the ventilation. I've seen the food and water supplies. There are vets on board. There are people walking around monitoring the sheep on the ships. It's a world-class industry and it's been shut down for no good reason.

Let's have a look at biosecurity. The Albanese Labor government has brought in biosecurity measures that have never been seen before. The biosecurity measures now are making our Australian farmers pay for the biosecurity risks of their competitors. It's absolutely disgraceful and unheard of.

Let's look at labour, because you can't run a farm without a labour force. We had a PALM scheme with our Polynesian neighbours that was working exceptionally well, but Labor came in and they had to change it. Where I come from, if it's not broke, you don't try to fix it. We had the ag visa. We're calling on the Albanese Labor government to bring back the ag visa. When farmers don't have enough workforce, the fruit and veggies fall on the ground. What does that mean for you at home? That means your produce will be more expensive in the supermarket. It's that simple—supply and demand. What's even worse is, if the farmers haven't got a workforce that they know is going to be there to harvest their crop, they won't plant as much. They scale their business back. So this is bad for productivity and bad for the farm, but it's also bad for the consumer because you pay more at the check-out. Every time people go to the check-out now to buy their fruit and veggies and see how much extra these will cost them, they should see Prime Minister Albanese's face on that receipt. They're just paying too much.

Energy costs under this government have gone through the roof, and farmers use a lot of energy. Farmers use a lot of electricity. I'm a farmer myself, so I'd know. When you pick the crop and cool it down, that takes a lot of energy. But this Albanese Labor government's reckless race to renewables has seen the energy costs go through the roof. I've got canefarmers in my area that can't irrigate their cane, because they simply can't afford the energy cost. This is crazy when you think about it. If you had cheaper energy costs, they could pump more water and grow more crops—crops that photosynthesise, that pull carbon dioxide out of the air and turn it into oxygen. Why wouldn't you want to do that? If you're interested in saving the planet, that to me sounds like a very, very good idea.

Where else has this government let the agriculture sector down? The supply chains. In the last season alone, the Bruce Highway in my electorate, the electorate of Dawson, was cut in six places. In one spot, it was cut four times. There was an announcement at the election for $7.2 billion, and we welcomed that. Thank you very much for that. But, again, the little secret behind that is there's only $336 million available. The rest of it has been kicked out to the never-never. That was never really told.

When we talk about renewables and transmission lines, this reckless race to renewables is taking up so much good quality agricultural land to put solar panels and wind turbines on it. And let's not forget the 28,000 kilometres of poles and wires. That's going through agricultural land, land that should be used for growing the food and the fibre for this nation. I'm not against renewables in the right spot. I think we need an energy mix. We need to make sure we can have the electron deliver to the farm, to the household and to the business as cheaply as possible. I'm agnostic to it. What I'm against is when you put solar panels all over good-quality agricultural land. They should be on rooftops, they should be on top of parking lots at Coles and Woolworths, and on top of those buildings—not on good-quality agricultural land. Certainly, the transmission lines for 28,000 kilometres are absolutely ridiculous. This is pitting mate against mate and family members against family members within the area—not good enough.

In other industries, the Mount Isa copper smelter is almost at the point of closing. We've called the government and asked for a Senate inquiry about metal manufacturing in Australia. Why is this so important agriculture? The gas from that smelter is the byproduct used for making MAP and DAP, the sources for soluble phosphate. That's very important to Australia, and we need to get behind these industries. We talk about a manufacturing plan to have more things made in Australia—which we should have, we should be sufficient. It should not be used by name alone; it should actually have something done about it.

Talking about farmers at risk, you need to listen to this one. Farmers are at risk because this is what your government is about to do. It's going to tax unrealised capital gains on the family farm. I'll explain to you how that works. When you've got a farm and you've got that in your super fund, and a valuer comes along and says, 'That's worth $2 million more,' that farmer might not have that in cash—you might have a really bad season—but you have to pay the tax bill on that, so where do they get the money? We really need to take this on board, and I urge you to vote against this when you think about it, because the taxing of unrealised capital gains is an absolute nonsense.

In summing up, I urge the Albanese Labor government to rethink what they've done to the fishing industry, rethink what they've done to the live sheep trade, rethink the biosecurity—because no-one else in the world does that. It's an absolute disgrace to make our farmers pay for their overseas competitors—absolutely ridiculous. Get the PALM scheme back on track and the ag visa back on track, look after our infrastructure and look after the farmers, because without farmers, you'll all be starving, naked and sober.

Debate adjourned.