05 Outlook 2015 Tues 1030 1100 HON BARNABY
JOYCE
Agriculture is at the core of any society that will prevail. And without an agricultural economy,
inordinate efforts, or incredible alternate, lack must underpin that society's basic tenant, to
sustain the population, maintain order, and find an alternate for trade. Throughout the history of
mankind, civilizations have started or grown around the presence of an agricultural economy.
The Fertile Crescent was known as such because of its capacity to provide cereals and other
produce.
Rome created the opportunity for the maintenance of a global empire without compare when it
secured the grain supplies of Egypt. England reached out to countries over the seas and sent
people, such as Joseph Banks, to inform London of alternate agricultural precincts. The Soviet
Union jealously guarded the agricultural capacity of the Ukraine and the Black Sea, and some
might suggest that Russia still does the same today.
Australia was a fluke of history. Its massive agricultural capacity remained undisturbed from
global influence for tens of thousands of years. And indigenous society, for that time, was the
sole and unobstructed benefactor. Even today, we remain with vast untapped capacity.
No, we're not going to be the food basket of Asia. We couldn't even be the food basket of
Indonesia. But we have had major advances from when Lachlan Macquarie took charge of an
economy, which at that point in time, had serious questions raised over it. People were being
asked whether it should be folded up and sent back to Liverpool.
Great leaders and good governance of this nation have applied their minds to the sustenance and
growth of our agricultural economy. And the actions of people, such as Farrer have used their
God-given intellect to identify economic deficiencies and work out how to improve issues, such
as yield of grain and the type of soils it grows in. Builders in our nation, such as Deacon, Curtin,
Chifley, and Menzies constructed dams that underpin both the food stock of our electricity whilst
creating the off-take for further food and securing the requirements of the agricultural precincts,
the Lower [INAUDIBLE] and the Murray.
In Southern Queensland, taxation policy drove investment from an obscure and Australian terms
and at times little known crop called cotton to something that now rivals at times and exceeds the
production of wool. This government, with its dams policy in northern Australia, The Northern
Australian White Paper, and most importantly for this conference, The Agricultural White Paper,
is already taking the next step.
Prior to discussing this further, I think it is important to give a report card of basic commodity
prices and how we have gone thus far. When we came to government, the price of the live cattle
steer was 165 cents per kilogramme. The price today is 275 cents per kilogramme. This means
we've had a loading price for 350 kg beasts of just shy of $1,000 a head, which means a 67%
increase.
The price of grown steers has also gone up. Through [INAUDIBLE], we look at it going from
160 cents to 183 cents. I've just noted today, just before I started speaking, that the price of
grown steers at Roma has topped out at close to 393 cents a kilogramme. These are record prices.
The price of a bale of cotton in Australia when we came to power was $425 a bale. Now, it's
$525 a bale, a 23% increase. The price of a 18 to 24 fat score sheep has gone from a 211 cents to
352 cents a kilogramme, or around $84 live. This is a 67% increase.
Pork, for a 60 to 75 dress weight win, a pig has gone from 308 cents to 315 cents. Prices even for
goats has gone from 209 cents to 390 cents. That's a 87% increase and good news to all
politicians. Milk at the farm gate from the Murray Goulburn has gone up slightly. But that has
been in a time of turmoil, where prices have been affected by the issues around the Ukraine and
the trade issues that surround that.
Wool has fallen slightly, and it is an area where I have to put a lot more of my endeavours. But
of course, as a Minister for Agriculture, you minister just as much for wool as you are for
capsicums as you are for every part of that produce. Horticultural products, such as Cavendish
bananas, have gone from $12.76 a carton to $28.85 a carton, a 126% increase.
Lemons have gone from $19.41 for 12 kg box to $50.20 per box, 159% increase. Kiwi fruit, from
$19.50 a bulk pack to $27.50 a bulk pack, a 41% increase. Yes, we've also had some
disappointments. Oranges fell. Cherries are down because of some of the issues pertaining to
Vietnam. And peaches are down. But one can say, all-in-all, that we have been part of an
historical turnaround in agricultural process in this nation.
As an anecdote, I believe that my job is best expressed in the dignity it brings back to people's
lives at the farm gate. The whole purpose of my job and my department's job is not about our
own personal gains, our own personal misfortune, or our likes or dislikes, but our desire as a
team to work together to make sure that the people we are paid to serve prosper by our
endeavours.
I think this is in no better displayed when before Christmas, a lady northwest of Charters Towers
contacted me and said, look, I rarely contact a politician, and if I do, it's generally to complain.
But I'm telling you that I'm loading bullocks now over $1,300 a head, paid for. And so we have
money for Christmas. That is the sort of message that drives me.
When a better return goes to the farm gate, the mother can afford to renovate her kitchen, like
other people in cities can afford to renovate theirs. When a better price goes to the farm gate, the
family can go on holidays like other families go on holidays. When a better price goes to the
farm gate, the farmer can refurbish his plant and equipment, rebuild his yards, rebuild the fences,
buy better genetics, improve pastures, get better plant, increase their irrigation capacity. And as a
collective, this refurbishes our nation's capital base to support the requirements we so often hear
of.
It is through money such this as it makes its way into our nation's economy, which will support
the health care, support child care, support pensions, support defence, education, police, and
might I dare say, our own selves on top of the hill. When we talk about general employment
across this nation and increasing the employment base, we must remove the rhetoric and
understand where it actually happens. We must continually remind ourselves that the largest
manufacturing sector in our nation is meat processing. The largest employer in regional Australia
is Abattoir.
When you go to an abottoir, you see that dynamic. You see that awe-inspiring view of sometimes
400 to 500 to 600 people on a boning floor, almost like an industrial Olympics of where people
are working to quotas and working flat out. In some instances, you go to abottoirs where you will
see thousands of people at work, thousands of people in high-vis suits, thousands of people with
white helmets on, with overcoats, thousands of people taking home money for their families,
thousands of people, to be honest, who without the forms if this form of work was not there,
possibly wouldn't have a job. There is real dignity in what we do.
It is better to be better at what you're good at than trying to conjure up skills that we know other
nation's have an intrinsic advantage in. We are good at agriculture. We are good at employing
people in agriculture. We are good at research and development agriculture.
We have the highest yields of cotton in the world. We attain some of the highest prices for
agricultural product in the world. We are known for our beef throughout the world. We are know
for and people aspire to our branding because they see it as a quality product that they wish to
buy.
And in recent times, the largest proportion of growth in employment in this nation has been in
agriculture. But unless you have the farms that are producing the product, then all else that
follows is naught. Agriculture is a noble pursuit. It does not benefit from the weakness of others.
It does not leave people diminished. It is the essence of what feeds and clothes them.
As such, agriculture must not only economically be at a pillar of the economy, but morally, is a
pillar of the economy. As it is fundamentally tied to the future of our nation, it is my belief that it
should remain overwhelmingly an unambiguously the domain of the Australian farming family,
the Australian farm owned by mums and dad, like you.
This is not only my desire, but overwhelming, the desire of people from Blacktown to Geelong.
To this purpose, we have reduced the level at which an individual must report to the foreign
investment review board when they purchase land if they come from overseas. It will go from its
current level of $252 million noncumulative-- that means that currently, a person from overseas
could buy a $250 million property every day of the week and never have to tell anybody about it- to $15 million, and that is cumulative. So if you buy a $14 million place one day, and you
desire to buy a $2 million place the next, it's not that you will be rejected, but it must be
reviewed.
The alternate government, the Labour Party, in some mysterious diversion have said that the
levels should go from $252 million to a unilateral level of 1,000 million. Now, whether you're in
Blacktown, or Bulla, or Ipswich, or Boronia, this idea is overwhelmingly rejected by the
Australian people.
One of the greatest attributes our nation has is a clean, green image. This is a selling point, not
only in Australia, but overseas. In many countries that I've gone to, the reason the Australian
product is preferred is not because it is cheaper, because it is not. It's because it is cleaner.
Recent events have highlighted this in even clearer focus. The Australian people have asked for,
and we will deliver, a clearer country of origin labelling system, a system that is diagrammatic,
simple, reflects the proportionality of what is in the packet removed of fillers, such as water, and
also is compulsory. Current ambiguities, such as "Made in Australia from local and imported
ingredients," or "Made in Australia" when it's not actually come from this nation at all will be
removed as a source of confusion for the consumer.
For our nation, to take the next step, we must invest in the infrastructure that underpins it. And
this task has already started. The previous coalition government put $10 billion on the table for
the refurbishment of the Murray-Darling basin. And you can go now to places, such as the
Macquarie Valley and see this immense investment already paying dividends, in straightened
channels, in telemetric measuring, in taking away the absorbents, so that the water that's there is
the water you can use, and better irrigation plans. You can go to Mildura and see investments
well in excess of $100 million in new lift pumps for more effective watering.
You can go to the length and breadth of the Murray-Darling basin and see pivots, laterals, and
trickle irrigation taking the place of flood irrigation. You can see that investment also in other
ways, such as the better yields that we are getting for cotton. If you can get more cotton from an
acre of land, then inherently, that is also a water saving.
We invest around $700 million a year in research and development in agriculture. We make sure
that our genetics remain at the forefront globally. Anecdotally, as an example of this and
recently, I was part of an announcement of $15 million to teach PhD students involved in
Toowoomba at the GRDC. This process follows in the footsteps of Farrer and developing better
disease resistance and higher yielding strains of grain.
Dams are being constructed, from Chaffey Dam in the north to the most recent $200 million
investment in water infrastructure in Tasmania. This will continue to be rolled out in short order.
The Green Paper on agriculture has been through cabinet, and The White Paper is imminent. The
Northern Australian White Paper intersects these two and likewise, will soon be released.
People might ask why have these not been released sooner? And there's a simple answer to that.
We want these documents to be formidable. We want them to make a difference. We want them
to beyond merely motherhood statements that adorn so many shelves and crevices, collecting
detritus, living obscurius per obscurum until they are finally shredded, purposeless and unread.
Ladies and gentlemen, I see this job as an incredible honour. I grew up on a farm. I was one of
six kids. A My father in his 90s and my mother in her 80s still live on the property. I own a
property myself. I don't see this as a conflict of interest. I see this as real motivation.
I've made it my objective not to live or die to be a politician, but to be judged as having made a
difference. I am so proud of this government, because I believe for once, it's actually doing that. I
get a sense of real purpose when I stand next to a prime minister who actually wants to do
something. He's going to break away from what merely keeps him in a job and do that which if
we have forgotten, leaves our nation in a better place. I believe that is the essence of a purposeful
life.
My goal in agriculture is to make sure that whoever comes next, and I hope that is not imminent,
that they have a foundation to further build on, so the great and unending work of building a
stronger Australia, a country which can support itself, feed others, sustain what we believe is
morally proper, and to be a beacon to others in the rest of the world continues unobstructed.
Thank you very much for your attention. All the best, and God bless.
[APPLAUSE]
You've got plenty of time for questions.
Oh no, I'll stand up.
OK.
Minister, thank you. What an impassioned case for agriculture this morning. In a moment, I
might change spots and go over to a microphone there and help direct traffic. The good news is
we have got plenty of time for questions this morning. So I'd ask you to come forward to the
microphone points that are in the aisle and indicate that you came to ask a question, and I'll take
you in due course.
I might break the ice first, though, because nobody likes breaking the ice, but Minister, it was an
impassioned case for agriculture. You talked about agriculture being a noble profession. You
made the case for the family farm in no uncertain terms. It was interesting. ABC Rural did a lot
of coverage about the announcement recently.
Surprisingly, there was a lot of reaction on the other side of the question from people around the
country, particularly in Western Australia with farmers saying look, hang on. Yeah, it's an issue,
but is it that big an issue? So that is my question to you. How important is the question of foreign
ownership, and do we really need to have strong controls?
Well, obviously if it wasn't, I wouldn't be putting my endeavours towards it. You must be a
reflection. You must always be a reflection of what your constituent is asking for, and put it
through the filter of what is right and proper for the nation. But if I always base this on-- I'll base
this on two principles. I remember even in Queensland in the town where I lived, where I lived
prior to moving back home to Tamworth, I asked, I said, show me the register that you have of
foreign owned land in this district. And I got one. And the obvious one was there, obviously
Cubbie Station. And there was the [INAUDIBLE].
But I knew full well that that wasn't a complete register. I knew because I was an accountant in
the town where the other properties were that were either owned by a trust or owned by other
mechanisms, which were owned overseas. So even in a place where we're supposed to have
transparency, it wasn't. The record was not complete.
I'll back it up with another conversation I had with a real estate agent merely last week, where he
said to me-- and before I was in politics, I was known as Joycie. He knew me from a long time
ago. He said, Joycie, I like you, and I hate you. I'll tell you what I like about you is all the tirekickers out there who have been wandering around, not wanting to close on the deal. They're
rushing in. They're closing. They're closing on a deal, and they're settling.
He said, that's good. He said, but I imagine when it's past, that this will sort of create, will
caution in the market. But then he said something to me. He said I think you will be
overwhelmed, he said, because I know what around this district I have sold. And I have sold
heaps.
And it's not just the size of-- it's not just a number. The ABS statistics, which I think are way
below, have a way below what the actual truth is, because to be honest, a lot of people, they just
don't bother filling out the ABS statistics if they don't think they want their story told. And I
think it's just a little over 80% actually return the ABS forms.
But on those statistics alone, it's about 2 to 2.3, 2.3 times the size of Victoria is either now totally
foreign owned or partially foreign owned. Now, that in itself should ask some questions of us.
And we will remain the most liberal nation on earth for investment.
I had a meeting with ASEAN ambassadors last week. And we had this discussion. They were
quite upfront about it. But my retort was this, is well, can I invest in your respective countries in
the way you can invest in mine? And the answer is overwhelmingly no. You can't. In some
instance, not allowed to buy land at all.
Now, this doesn't mean that we have a right to the Australian people to make sure that we have
got proper transparency and public control of their most vital asset, the land that they stand on.
And if that brings me into conflict with certain sections, then so be it. That is it.
As I've said before, this is more than just an economic argument, because if you just want a
purely economic argument, then we can go through a whole range of things. I mean, why do you
need health care? Why do you need child care? We can have a whole range of economic
arguments and completely change the dynamics of what this nation is.
And it would be economically feasible. As an accountant, it'd be economically prudent. I will
save you-- if you want me to be a purest accountant, I will save this nation a lot of money, and
you will find the consequences lying on the street within a matter of years.
But we are more than that. We are more than just purely an economic principle. We are a nation.
And as a nation we must move forward to the future our nation.
And of course, we must indelibly have control, and understand, and respect, and in times as
required, protect the interests of our nation because it is more than just the commissions of this
generation that need to be looked after. It is our nation of the future that must be protected.
Minister, a question to your right.
Good day. Barnaby Day, Brown Hill Farm on Liverpool Plains . I congratulate your
governmental on making all the commodity prices go up. [LAUGHTER] A slight long day, I'm
hoping that I can make the Australian cricket team beat New Zealand sometime soon. But my
question to you is, and I agree with everything you said, and especially your last sentiment, but if
we're going to after agriculture-- and you probably know where this questions is going to come
from-- Liverpool Plains is a magnificent farming area.
Mm-hm.
Old farmers seem to live in the best farm here. But I would argue having travelled most of the
world looking at farming that Liverpool Plains is in the top 10 places to farm in the world. Why
are we going to get it mined?
Sure. I'm going to answer your question in seriatum. And the first part is I don't for one moment
claim that the government is the sole responsibility for the increase in prices. However, it's
vitally important that you understand the role the government has played to that purpose.
We talk about the three free trade agreements. And of course, they've been signed for China, for
Korea, and for Japan. But besides that, and without people watching, we've also opened up the
live trading to Egypt, Bahrain, Cambodia, Thailand, Lebanon, and after four decades, Iran.
And if had wanted the support of the economic purists outside, when the emails turn up to my
office, as they do the thousands, asking for these trades to be closed down, for us to pull back,
for us to not participate in our region as a southeast Asian, but to start participating in our region
as still some enclave of Europe, and I'd say that that's where you should put your shoulder to the
wheel. Make sure that we remaining engaged in those markets, understanding our customer and
trading with our customer.
To the next part of your question, David, in as regards mining, as you're well aware, merely two
days ago, I took Greg Hunt to the Liverpool Plains, and taking to those farmers, those ones with
the most inherent concern, I said I'll take Greg Hunt to your kitchen, to your kitchen table. And if
you get a group, and we have a succinct conversation about the issues for which the
Commonwealth has oversight-- we do not have oversight over whether people like mines, or
don't like mines, or whether they're too noisy, or to dusty. We have a very small area which we
have authority in. And that is predominantly in the hydrological question and the interference
with aquifers.
To that purpose, Greg Hunt has now, as he said, stopped the clock for further information. Does
this mean I'm against coal mining? Not at all. I'm an accountant. Without coal mines we'd go
broke, and go broke very, very quickly.
But we must understand, if we're going to even, once more, go to the economic argument, you
must look at the forward cash flows that provided by land on prime agricultural land. In some of
those areas, David-- and I know you understand this, but for the benefit of the rest of the crowd-collecting two tonnes of durum wheat to the acre, so about 560, so well over $1,000 return for an
acre of land. So if you've got 1,000 acres in, and this person did, that's $1 million a year for that
crop.
And remember, this is underpinned with a water right that's sits beneath it, so you've got real
security. And what also sits beside this is one of the last battles I had was the removal of some of
the water licences or restrictions of the water licences. And we have seen a recharging of the
aquifers in that area. So I think there's a special case needs to be made.
And I will always go back to the key principles that agriculture should reign supreme when
you're on prime agricultural land. When there's a threat of a destruction of an aquifer, whether
you're imposing on the quiet enjoyment of a person who is already there, and they must be, there
must be the respect of the property right of the farmer. If you're not destroying an aquifer, and if
you're not on prime agricultural land-- and that's certainly is not the [INAUDIBLE] Plains, where
it is primary cultural lands, and where there is, obviously, with the reaction between Goran Lake
and the Mooki River, and the working aquifer, which underpins that agricultural precinct-- but if
you're not destroying an aquifer, and if you're not on prime agricultural land, then I think the
negotiation has to respect the right of the farmer being a partner in the business. And I'm
referring here coal seam gas.
Why is that? Because hydrocarbonous material was initially vested with the land holder. It is not
like gold, silver, and iron ore, which is always vested with the crown. Hydrocarbonous material,
coal, oil, gas, was initially an asset of the land. It was divested from the land, in part, in
Queensland, the 1915 Petroleum Act.
In the territories, it was 1953, in South Australia, 1971. And the last vestiges of the ownership of
coal rights in New South Wales were taken away by [INAUDIBLE] in 1983. So let's dispense
from our mind that his asset was never owned by the land holder. It initially was, taken from
them without so much as a cent of payment.
And then we seem to transfer from roving free marketeers to unrepentant communists, that we
believe it's our right to go onto a person's place and take from them an asset that we formally
stole off them without them complaining. That just won't work.
Minister, there's another question up the top to your right.
Thank you, Minister Joyce for your talk. I'm coming at this shifting gears a little bit with this
next question. But it's something that's been in the news quite a lot.
Can I just grab your name?
Sure, yep. I'm about to say that. So I'm Wendy Umberger. I'm an Associate Professor at the
University of Adelaide. And I'm actually an economist there, so I run a group called Global Food
Studies. So I'm asking this question, I guess, with two hats. One is my academic hat, someone
that does a lot of research on looking at consumer interest in food labelling, understanding
consumer demand for food labels. I'm on the programme later today, but also wearing the hat of
a mother with a young child who had some of the berries in their freezer.
And so I've been paying a lot of attention, been actually asked to comment a couple of times on
the proposed new food labelling law. And I understand where you're coming from. But I guess I
have some concerns. And it would be good to hear from you about why what you're proposing
with respect to the percentages on the labels, why that's going to get at the issue of if this is a
policy issue of food safety, how this new type of labelling being proposed would actually address
that food safety issue any better than what's currently there.
That being said, I completely agree there needs to be some changes in food labelling. But I don't- I really, and can say that with evidence from research we do-- I don't think that's going to solve
the issue. So just some comments would be appreciated. Thanks.
Sure, Wendy. The first thing about, Wendy, about food labelling is honesty. I mean, if we
believe it's worthwhile putting it on the packet, then surely, we believe that it's worthwhile
honestly putting it on the packet. Wendy, as you know, we tell people their essential daily intake.
We tell them how much carbohydrate. We tell them how much sugar. We tell them its weight.
We tell them it's use by date. Many instances, we tell them whether it's halal-certified or not.
And then we tell them, we have this sort of obscure terminology of "Made from Australian
imported ingredients." Wendy, what on earth does that mean? What on earth does that term
mean? Does it mean 1%, 2%, none? Does it mean one peanut, and a packet of peanuts came
from this nation?
We then said "Made in Australia." And we've seen, Wendy, recent examples of the fish that was
caught in the Atlantic, taken to China, processed there, taken to New Zealand, processed there,
put in a package in Australia and labelled "Made in Australia." Wendy, why do they want to put
the word Australia on it? Why do they want to put the word Australia on it? Because it sells.
Because it sells.
So what we're asking for is honesty. I've got no problems if people want to buy something from
overseas or not. But I have a right as a consumer to know. And what am I buying when I buy
that? Well, I'm buying the right to know that it was farmed-- just like when we're selling the
product to China, the reason our product sells in China so well is because it was a clean image,
Wendy.
I'm buying the right to know that it has one of the highest level of phytosanitary controls in the
world, that it's been found in there with one of the highest levels of phytosanitary controls in the
world. I know that it's had one the highest levels of occupational health and safety, backing that
in from the farm to the processing sector. I know that the wages that were paid were paid at a
decent rate to support people in a decent way of life.
I think I have the right as a consumer to know that information. And I have the right not to be
misled by, to be honest, weasel words, which basically get the word Australia on it when in fact,
if they're honest, it's not really Australian at all.
Now, this doesn't mean that there are not products there. Of course, there will be a whole range
of products. We're a trading nation. But this nation has a right to display in an unambiguous form
what is there.
The second part of your question, Wendy, has to deal with issues, such as the hepatitis A issue,
and we were talking about recent issues. Well, I think first of all, to get the facts about hepatitis
A, a lot of people who consume berries are not going to get hepatitis, probably about 1% if they
were infected. The only reason that you get hepatitis from berries is because it's part of the oral
faecal root. And therefore, your register, such as E. coli have to be detected.
And as a protection from that, you have to have an understanding of exactly-- it gives you some
form of insurance that if you have a concern, to be able to shop to know where if you believe that
is a risk, where you can go to buy to mitigate that risk. That is, I think, a disclosure document
that any product should be allowed to have. And of course, it's in our interest.
Alternatively. If we don't believe in product of origin labelling, if we believe that all things are
the same, then we should go back to our farms and say you also can work at the same level of
control as your competition can work at. And no one in Australia would accept that. So let's be
honest about how we display it on our package.