Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [11.45 a.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes the extraordinary damage that can be caused to the livelihoods of farmers as a result of hailstorms, fire, drought, pestilence and other exceptional circumstances;

(2) notes the loss sustained by the farmers involved and Australian consumers when foods are destroyed as a result of these exceptional circumstances; and

(3) calls on the Government to recognise that farmers often budget for a failed season one out of five years and when there is a high rate of crop failure, due to fire, hail, drought or pestilence, farmers need assistance to get back on track.

The purpose of this motion is self-explanatory. It is time the Government recognised how tough a lot of farmers have been doing it. For many years in this place I have talked about the impact of the drought on not only my electorate of Burrinjuck—which encompasses the Central Tablelands, the Southern Tablelands, the south-west slopes and into the Riverina—but also on many other areas across the State, most particularly the Murrumbidgee and the Murray-Darling Basin area, throughout the electorates of Murray-Darling and Barwon, and to some extent through Bathurst, Orange and the Northern Tablelands. Differing weather events in other parts of the State have resulted in a loss of food production for farmers in those areas, which has been no less significant than the loss of food production that has been occurring in my electorate as a result of the drought.

I will highlight the North Coast area. I acknowledge that my friend the member for Tweed will also speak on this motion. This motion came about as a result of representations made to me from people I know along the North Coast who were victims of the hailstorm that occurred about this time last year. This motion has been on the Business Paper for 12 months now, but it is as relevant today as it was 12 months ago. I know this family through social circumstances. They wrote to me out of frustration that they had not been able to receive exceptional circumstances assistance for their plight. They had lost their entire fruit crop and faced two hailstorms in as many years. From memory, the storm caused $1.5 million in lost production, which they experienced two years in a row.

Part of my motion calls on the Government to recognise that farmers often budget for a failed season one out of five years. Based on current statistics, one in five years that crop will not be successful. However, when significant weather events occur two years in a row and sometimes more frequently—such as occurred on the North Coast—it becomes extremely difficult for farmers. Farmers borrow a lot of money to either plant their crop or grow their crop or horticultural product. They really rely on the return to pay back the bank. I am sure that members are aware that I am not talking home loan figures; I am talking very large figures, regularly into multimillions of dollars.

Why is this important to us? It is important because we need to continue to grow our food at home. In recent years there has been a trend towards importation, particularly of food. However, once again, I hammer home that today Australia must be able to sustain itself with its own food production. It is incumbent on Federal and State governments to ensure that our farmers, the people who grow food for us to consume locally, are given the tools, incentives and assistance they need to continue food production for us. It is all very well and good to begin relying on international markets to bring their products into this country in their good times, but we are not the only country to experience drought.

We do not know what the impacts of climate change will be, but it is obvious that it will impact on other countries in the future. If other countries are to be subjected to the severe weather events that Australia has experienced, particularly drought, hailstorms and tumultuous wind events—we have experienced several recently—there may be times when they will need to produce food to supply their populations. Obviously local populations come first; a nation has to put its needs before those of other nations. Therefore, we need to be able to produce our own food for the times when we will not be able to import food. In addition, we need to stimulate our economy. I am very passionate about Australian-made and Australian-grown products.

Pestilence is a continuing problem, whether by mice, rabbits, hoppers, locusts, cane toads, et cetera. They are a continuing threat. Late last year there was a threat of hoppers through the Riverina and the Murray area and they were heading towards eastern coastal areas. Of course, hoppers eat everything along the way, as do mice and other pests.

Mr Craig Baumann: What's a hopper?

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: A hopper is a locust, a grasshopper. The member for Port Stephens probably does not experience many grasshoppers in his electorate, but he has other concerns. In May this year a big rabbit drive was undertaken across the State. There was a call for people who had seen bunnies on their properties to take part in a mapping program. There is even a bunny problem in metropolitan Sydney, particularly in the Pittwater and Ku-ring-gai areas. There was an attempt to determine where the rabbit population was expanding. Many issues face our rural population today, including the terrible effects of windstorms. A lot of topsoil has been lost, particularly from the Western Division. Sydney was quite dust-affected for a few days recently. City members saw firsthand the effects of those dust storms.

Last year I made representations on behalf of the Young Shire Council in relation to a severe windstorm that struck Young on the evening of Wednesday 3 February 2008. I tried to get Young declared as a natural disaster zone as that storm had damaged roofs in several public buildings and had brought down trees throughout the town. In the greater agricultural area dozens of power poles had fallen. There was significant damage to a lot of buildings in the town and beyond. I was so disappointed that, once again, the Government chose to not announce a natural disaster declaration on that occasion. The town has faced many difficulties as a result of that windstorm.

Severe weather events occur regularly. When the Government is called on to provide extra money for drought support, it is important that it comes through with that assistance. The Government should seriously analyse the severity of the situation and inspect the situation. Far too often bureaucrats make that determination, and probably they do not have an understanding of the area that has been impacted by a severe weather event or the level of pestilence experienced or forthcoming. A paltry amount of drought assistance has been provided over the past 10 or so years of this drought. It is time that the Government woke up to itself and understood the significant impact that farmers feel when weather events or pestilence affects their area. Every year they face challenges in trying to determine whether they should plant or lay fallow for a year, and what stock numbers they should get. And, of course, it is all for our benefit as consumers. Far too often farmers are left in the lurch and with very heavy bills, which also impacts on the future of our farming industry.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [11.55 a.m.]: The member for Burrinjuck has moved the following motion:

That this House:

(1) notes the extraordinary damage that can be caused to the livelihoods of farmers as a result of hailstorms, fire, drought, pestilence and other exceptional circumstances;

(2) notes the loss sustained by the farmers involved and Australian consumers when foods are destroyed as a result of these exceptional circumstances; and

(3) calls on the Government to recognise that farmers often budget for a failed season one out of five years and when there is a high rate of crop failure, due to fire, hail, drought or pestilence, farmers need assistance to get back on track.

The Government will not have too much difficulty with the three paragraphs of the motion. In fact, we would not disagree with about 90 per cent of the member's speech. Towards the end of her speech she used a couple of political terms, such as "it is time that the Government woke up to itself" and she referred to bureaucrats making decisions that affect farmers. That was a little bit of licence, and we could not agree with it. The farming business in New South Wales and every State and Territory is not easy. Farmers deal with natural disasters, weather, market forces and so on, and it is important that city people recognise that.

The Royal Easter Show is a great opportunity to bring the knowledge of farming communities to the residents of Sydney, many of whom have never been to a country area to see how a farm operates. I would like to think that the Government's role is not all negative. Not all Federal and State governments down through the ages have been negative. However, I make the point that the Government is not the insurance company of last resort for every disaster that hits the farming community. Of the great majority of farmers with whom I have dealt over the years, none have expected the Government to be the insurance company of last resort for every disaster that strikes them.

The Federal and State governments have gone as far as possible to provide, to use the words of the member for Burrinjuck, "the tools and incentives" that are involved in having farmers cope with, manage and plan to run their business during, as stated in her motion, "crop failure, due to fire, hailstorm, drought, or pestilence". Although we may not have patched up every disaster that has hit farmers, I argue strongly that in the term of this Government, since 1995, we have laid a lot of framework and put the tools in place to ensure that we have a sustainable agricultural industry in New South Wales.

Many of the Government's decisions and policies have been resisted by members opposite. I have participated in debates in this House on motions opposing some of the initiatives that I believe lend themselves to ensuring the long-term viability of farmers. For example, bearing in mind the tools referred to by the member for Burrinjuck, the Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payment program has played an important role. The extension services of the Department of Primary Industries and the former Department of Agriculture have provided research and backup to the farming community to help address many issues. I would like to think that some of this Government's broader policies have played an important part in making agriculture sustainable. For example, the water reform program is very important in making sure that our dying river systems—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Tweed will come to order. He will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Mr RICHARD AMERY: I hope the member for Murray-Darling has not slighted someone else again.

Mr John Williams: I have said nothing. I haven't even interjected. I have been quiet.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Let us keep it that way. The member for Mount Druitt has the call.

Mr RICHARD AMERY: I would have thought our water reform package was one of those policies that gave the farming community and regional New South Wales the tools to be sustainable in the long term—introducing such things as environmental flows, water management committees and so on, and making sure that our river system and waterways, both groundwater and surface water, are sustainable in the long term. These policies have been resisted strongly by Opposition members and their parties over the years. Our native vegetation laws were vehemently opposed. As the words imply, they are about preserving our native vegetation and plant life, the loss of which is one of the major causes of those dust storms that have affected not only Sydney but Melbourne and other cities. Farmers will tell you that preservation of their grasslands is a very important weapon—one of the great tools that were mentioned—in protecting their farms and soil from wind erosion. Again, that was a great initiative by this Government that members opposite have never recognised.

We do not have enough money—and nor does anybody else—to insure or cover the cost of everything that impacts on farming life. It is a risky business. A lot of money has been advanced not only by government but also by industry bodies. I pay credit to the work done by the New South Wales Farmers Association. Okay, it gets involved in agripolitics from time to time, but I have read many of its bulletins and reports about the work it is doing with the farming community to provide the information, intelligence and education that farmers need to manage their farms and plan for the future. Farmers consider actions such as investing in more silage and water storages, and having native vegetation plans for their properties to make sure their farms will be viable in future. These strategies do not solve all the problems but they cover many of the points raised by the member for Burrinjuck in her motion.

In relation to the Exceptional Circumstances Relief Program, the member for Burrinjuck mentioned criticism that all the decisions under this program are made by bureaucrats. She gave the impression that public servants working down the road in Sydney were making decisions from afar. Government departments and industry bodies have a lot of experts on the ground in farming communities. They are working with farmers to get the information that feeds into the data that results in drought declarations, exceptional circumstances qualification and natural disaster relief. These decisions are not made by a public servant sitting in an office on the thirtieth or the forty-first floor of some building in Sydney; they are made on the basis of the data provided by regional areas. This Government can take credit for the decentralisation of many of our agricultural and farming-related agencies to western parts of New South Wales.

As well as the commitments under the exceptional circumstances program, I would like to highlight in the time I have left that the Government has provided a range of additional drought assistance measures for farming families and their communities. Originally introduced by the Carr Government in 2002, these additional drought measures have been developed in close consultation with industry to provide targeted support throughout the drought. I make this point strongly: many of the initiatives brought in by the State Government under various Premiers since 1995 have come about as a result of workshops and meetings with the Farmers Association, to name just one of many organisations that have brought ideas to us and had those ideas accepted by the Government.

The New South Wales Government's drought assistance programs have focused on technical and management information for farmers as well as some businesses, and community support. These programs have provided drought management workshops, which include strategies to maintain livestock enterprises in preparation for the recovery from drought, and assisting with the cost of transporting livestock, stockfeed and water. The member for Burrinjuck said we have not provided much, but I am advised by the Minister's office that since 2002 the Government's drought assistance has totalled over $500 million. I do not care what one is reading, that is a lot of money in anybody's book.

That $500 million complements an amount probably in excess of that provided through the exceptional circumstances program. That has been a political football on both sides of politics for a long time, but I think farmers would recognise that the exceptional circumstances strategies, not to mention the money and the use of organisations such as Centrelink, have been a great help to those farmers in severe financial difficulties in the areas affected by an exceptional event. I have no problems, and I do not think the Government has any problems, with the wording of the motion, but unfortunately motions such as this sometimes bring out the worst in some members who use it to attack the Government politically. The Federal and State governments, as most farmers would recognise, are not the insurance company of last resort. The New South Wales farming industry is very successful. It operates under the most extreme circumstances, as set out in the motion moved by the member for Burrinjuck. Governments, communities and taxpayers are doing all they can to assist those farmers on many occasions during very difficult times.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [12.05 p.m.]: I support the very important motion moved by the member for Burrinjuck. There are two parts to the motion. One part concerns the livelihood of farmers in the face of hailstorms, fire, drought, pestilence and exceptional circumstances. Unfortunately this is a continuing occurrence for farmers and rural communities. They have suffered considerably. I take particular exception to the member for Mount Druitt saying the Government is doing all it possibly can. That apparently means closing agricultural stations and selling off agricultural schools such as Hurlstone.

There is one issue that is very dear to my heart, which affected the Tweed last year. The Minister for Primary Industries announced that the tick gates would no longer be manned but would have video surveillance. That has proved to be an absolute disaster. Since then we have had eight tick outbreaks in our local area. There was one particularly unfortunate case involving a dairy farm that lost about $80,000 worth of cattle. Those people are doing it very hard and I doubt whether that business will survive. I take exception to the remarks of the member for Mount Druitt because I think budgetary cuts are the problem. Last year the member for Lismore, the member for Ballina, the member for Clarence and I combined to help the farmers of the North Coast overcome significant flood issues. I was extremely touched by the plight of the cane farmers who lost large portions of their crops, as did the soya bean farmers. We also worked to get recognition for the fishing industry, which is very large both in Ballina and on the Clarence. It took our efforts in working through the different levels of bureaucracy to gain assistance for those farmers. The Australian farmer is the backbone of this country. We so often hear negativity about our farming industries. They face adversity, as the motion says, in drought, fire and pestilence. We have had significant fires in the Tweed that have caused the loss of agricultural land. Sadly, one of our firefighters died in those fires. Earlier this month I spoke in this House to his condolence motion.

I believe the blame should go further. Currently, the Federal Labor Government is hell-bent on allowing imported bananas into this country, which would present a biosecurity risk. On the North Coast—the area in which I reside—our significant banana industry needs support. We should to be able to buy Australian products and create jobs in Australia as opposed to anywhere else. I encourage those Government members who constantly inform us of the great job they are doing to visit rural areas in this State and to start talking to farmers. If they talk to our farmers—something that Opposition members do regularly—they will gain some insight into their plight.

I am proud to be a member of the Liberal-Nationals Coalition. Liberal-Nationals Coalition members, most of whom are farmers, go into these rural areas and talk to farmers. Even though the Tweed is one of the smallest seats held by a member of The Nationals, farming is one of its greatest assets—from cane farmers to dairy farmers and cattle producers. Time and again, farmers talk to me about issues such as ticks, weeds and feral animals. Every time I approach people in the Department of Primary Industries, who are great, I am told, "We cannot help you because our budget has been cut. We have no more money for these projects and they are no longer in operation."

Cattle producers in the Tweed use their own money to take blood samples for cattle tick. Because of Department of Primary Industries budgetary cuts it takes weeks to obtain the results from the tests, which is unacceptable. I support the motion moved by the member for Burrinjuck but I would like to see a separate inquiry into the effectiveness in our local farming areas of this Government's drought, hail and pestilence assistance. The Premier has said often in this House that his Government will be transparent, but it does nothing other than hide facts and figures, to the detriment of hardworking farmers in our electorates. Once again, I am 100 per cent for the Tweed.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [12.10 p.m.]: I agree with most of the sentiments expressed in the motion but I take great exception to the suggestion by Opposition members that this Government and previous Labor governments have done nothing in the bush. The member for Mount Druitt made a good contribution to debate on the motion. Currently, 67.6 per cent of New South Wales remains drought declared, with 27.4 per cent of the State marginal and 4.9 per cent satisfactory. There is no doubt that the cost of drought is enormous. I agree with much of what was said by the member for Burrinjuck and the member for Mount Druitt. A natural disaster could cost between $10 million and $50 million.

An Australian Bureau of Statistics study found that, on average, floods and storms cost the New South Wales economy $324 million per annum and bushfires cost around $17 million per annum. Although agriculture contributes less than 3 per cent to Australia's gross domestic product, droughts are estimated to have reduced annual gross domestic product by more than 0.8 per cent, which is significant. The two-year exceptional circumstances assistance, which is primarily controlled by the Australian Government, is now running out. As a result of the prolonged drought, the New South Wales Government has submitted 41 applications from farmers wishing to extend their exceptional circumstances assistance. That exceptional circumstances assistance is about to run out and this Government must ensure that it is extended.

Since 2002 the New South Wales Government has submitted applications for exceptional circumstances funding, the first in September 2002 for the Bourke and Brewarrina districts, and in October 2009 for Eurobodalla and parts of the Shoalhaven district. The New South Wales Government has implemented programs to assist with the cost of transporting livestock, stockfeed and water; drought management workshops for farmers; drought support workers and farm family gathering programs; improved access to emergency household support; and introduced additional mental health support services in rural areas. As the member for Mount Druitt said earlier, this Government's commitment to drought assistance since 2002 is now in excess of $500 million. The member for Tweed, who has been doing a song and dance routine this morning, might not be aware of the Liberal-Nationals reaction when the member for Mount Druitt was Minister for Agriculture.

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: You were not a member when we were debating that.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI: I am stating the facts; it is irrelevant whether I was a member of Parliament at the time. This morning the Leader of The Nationals said that the member for Mount Druitt was a good Minister for Agriculture. When he became aware that we were debating a motion about drought he walked out the Chamber. Members of the Liberal-Nationals Coalition said that this Government had not provided enough drought assistance for farmers in this State, but they forgot to mention that when the member for Mount Druitt was Minister for Agriculture and he decentralised agriculture in New South Wales they opposed that proposal. The member for Lismore might not remember, but the Liberal-Nationals Coalition opposed agricultural decentralisation.

Mr Thomas George: Point of order: I draw to the attention of the member for Maitland that the former Coalition Government decentralised the Department of Primary Industries to Orange—one of the biggest decentralisations of any department in the history of this State.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The member for Maitland has the call.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI: The member for Lismore is correct; the former Coalition Government decentralised the Department of Primary Industries to Orange, but the member for Mount Druitt continued that decentralisation, which was opposed by the Liberal-Nationals Coalition. I have it on good authority that the Liberal-Nationals Coalition moved a motion of no confidence in the former Minister for Agriculture, which highlights the hypocrisy of members opposite. They say one thing but they do another. This Government has provided great assistance to farmers in the bush. It is time for Opposition members to stop playing politics and to tell Government members what they would do in government.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [12.15 p.m.]: There you go; there is clear evidence to show that that is why most criminals get away with it.

Mr Frank Terenzini: Point of order: I am curious to know what the member for Murray-Darling is implying by that comment. I seek clarification of his comment.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murray-Darling would be well advised to withdraw his remark.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: I withdraw the remark. It is important to recognise the contribution made by farmers in this State. I thank the member for Burrinjuck and shadow Minister for her hard work in her electorate. Farmers in our State take many risks and we as a society are totally reliant on farm production. No-one in this House would suggest that farmers are not aware of the risks they take. Outside the normal risks to which they are subjected, events occur that cause them additional pain and suffering. Most recently in the Western Division we witnessed extremely high winds and dust. The areas that were subjected to that dust were documented in the press and it was evident to all the effect that it had on our farmers. Most of their dry feed was lost and what remained was covered in dust.

Sheep that took shelter behind trees and bushes were covered with sand that built up and many of them were suffocated. Farmers asked the Government for support and it responded by declaring the event a natural disaster. Natural disaster relief is provided by way of a loan of up to $130,000 at low interest. That is commendable, but in most cases the graziers are not in a position to borrow more money. Ideally, they would prefer immediate assistance. This disaster placed the graziers in the situation of monitoring their stock daily because they knew that at some point they would have to make a decision about when they would begin to reduce their stock numbers. Most properties were carrying stock on the basis that feed was available to February next year.

However, graziers had to decide overnight whether to maintain stock on their property or transport it out. In most cases transporting the stock out was the only solution, but in the meantime feed was needed to keep the stock alive before transport. Graziers' immediate needs involved transport assistance that fell outside the current relief regime. No doubt the State Government has supported farmers with transport cost relief in the past. The farmers acknowledge that support, and so too does the Opposition. But in this instance additional assistance was needed. Obviously, the Government is limited in the assistance it can provide. However, in acknowledging that natural disasters occur, additional funds should be set aside in order to support people caught up in unusual circumstances. The provisions of the native vegetation Act have caused hardship for many farmers. [Time expired.]

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [12.20 p.m.]: I support the motion of the member for Burrinjuck. I am pleased also that the chair and deputy chair of Country Labor are taking part in the debate. I shall refer to a particular case. Many of our constituents have been affected by natural disasters and have sought assistance through natural disaster relief and recovery grants programs. I represent today a constituent whose property is located on the boundary of my electorate of Lismore and that of the member for Ballina, Don Page—who, as members will be aware, is absent from the Chamber. Peter and Sue Hume wrote to the Rural Assistance Authority, and said:

In November 2007 our farm was decimated by a hailstorm: our trees were stripped of the newly set crop and to remain viable we leased some of our farm plant to the newly formed company while Peter acted as a short term consultant to the Epicurean company. Sue and I also worked at increasing our income from the farm-stay bed and breakfast we operate [on our farm]. We took these actions to survive through till the next macadamia crop. We have now been penalised for the actions we took to remain financial during the year 2007/08—but we had no worthwhile crop left on our trees. We now see we should have done nothing. Peter should not have worked; we should not have leased any plant to [the company] but simply let it rust away, we should not have increased the farm stay bed & breakfast; we should have stopped spending on the repair of our property, stopped our continuing work starting to restore and improve our farm. We should have simply gone on the dole! We would have then "qualified".

They applied for a $15,000 grant and received a letter from the Rural Assistance Authority that stated:

From the information you have provided, the majority of your income is from off farm wages and property lease but not from primary production.

It was the first time in 40 years that Peter and Sue Hume had been in this situation. Their property was decimated at the end of 2007 after a major hailstorm and the area was declared a natural disaster. The following year a major flood again caused much damage to their crop. That is the reason the Government made the $15,000 grant available. However, Peter and Sue Hume's application was not successful because in the previous year when their trees were decimated in the hailstorm they took steps to remain self-sufficient. Naturally, I will make representations to the Minister on behalf of the member for Ballina and this couple, who have been hardworking primary producers for 40 years.

But this was not the first time that primary producers have been knocked back on their applications for relief. What happens to farmers when their properties are decimated? They either go on the dole or become self-sufficient by getting additional off-farm income to see them through until their next crop or next lot of calves. Naturally, when they make their decision they do not know whether they will apply for a grant. All they want is to survive, maintain their property and continue production. Many smaller farms need off-farm income to survive the 12 months following a natural disaster.

The problem is that that off-farm income makes them ineligible for any subsidies or support that may be available in natural disaster circumstances. I call on the Rural Assistance Authority and the Minister to re-examine the situation. An averaging system should be put in place for farmers who can prove that they have been primary producers for a certain period—say, five years—to make them eligible for natural disaster assistance. Producers must have the opportunity to prove their eligibility for any assistance that may be available from the Rural Assistance Authority.

Mr PETER BESSELING (Port Macquarie) [12.25 p.m.], by leave: I support the motion of the member for Burrinjuck. There are many cattle farmers and dairy farmers in my electorate. We talk about droughts and storms being natural disasters, but so too are floods. Floods impact particularly on the oyster industry in my electorate of Port Macquarie. The booming oyster industry in New South Wales is valued at more than $70 million. However, the recent mid North Coast floods have certainly had a serious effect on oyster production and supply throughout New South Wales, across Australia and elsewhere.

The Port Macquarie electorate has been caught up in two declared natural disasters that caused significant damage and challenged the ability of local oyster farmers to sustain their infrastructure—the racks et cetera that they use to grow oysters—and the availability of stock. The recent disasters also affected the immature stock that is traded between oyster farmers. The oyster industry is thriving on the mid North Coast, particularly in the Port Macquarie electorate. Camden Haven and the Hastings River are well known for their oyster production. Oyster farmers can adjust to rising floodwaters by raising the racks on which the oysters grow. However, the contaminants that flow through the floodwaters create a huge problem.

Unfortunately, we have problems with acid sulphate soils. When we have heavy rainfall the run-off affects oyster production in the area, and other contaminants are produced as a result of floods. As everyone knows, all sorts of things float down flooded rivers—from dead livestock to other contaminants that are washed off properties. Mark Bulley, who is a tremendous advocate for oyster farmers, expressed a number of points that I wish to convey to the House. He said that the temporary zero oyster output could have a significant impact on some farmers, depending on the harvest stage at the time of flooding. But, he added, the effect on immature stock is of greatest concern.

The Hastings River produces a substantial number of juveniles for the rest of the State's industry, which has an annual farm-gate value of $36 million. It is quite a significant industry in the Port Macquarie-Hastings region. Biosecurity issues restrict where farmers can source stock from. Oysters will not grow in fresh water, and if they spawn at the beginning of a flood juveniles can be swept out to sea. Mark Bulley stated:

Unlike Tasmania in NSW we rely mainly on natural spat fall. We have limited access to hatcheries.

He said that is why the oyster industry has to look for ways to reduce supply inconsistencies. Climate change is predicted to raise sea levels, which is another issue we will be facing in years to come. He also said that any variation in water height would not be an issue because flood gauges monitor water height and oyster racks can be mechanically adjusted. However, chemical differences and higher water temperatures could impact on pH levels and nutrient availability, causing industry relocation or, in a worst-case scenario, shutdown. More research trialling production under forecast conditions is needed, with a view to breeding suitable strains if necessary. He said that this applies to the oyster industry nationally. The motion refers not only to droughts in the western part of New South Wales—and I certainly feel for the farmers in that area—but also to the high rainfall that occurred earlier this year. The highly competitive and highly vibrant oyster industry on the mid North Coast has been severely affected by those weather conditions. I commend the motion to the House.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [12.30 p.m.], in reply: I thank very much all members who contributed to debate on the motion. The debate has resonated throughout the House, as evidenced by members wishing to speak on the motion. As I stated at the outset, the motion is as relevant today as it was 12 months ago when I gave notice of it. It could have been expanded to include noxious weeds, including Patterson's curse, fireweed and serrated tussock, which is rampaging throughout New South Wales. The South Coast also is experiencing big problems with noxious weeds, feral animals, ticks and pestilences that have adversely impacted on productivity.

The member for Mount Druitt gave his annual speech. Apparently, he is away with the fairies. As a former Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Land and Water Conservation he complimented himself on water reform legislation in 2000, which I remember very clearly. At the time I was working on amendments for the member for Ballina, Don Page, and I remember him speaking about them in this place. So much has happened since then. The member for Mount Druitt is kidding himself if he thinks that the Native Vegetation Act is popular with rural people. I have a file that is inches thick of complaints from people in my electorate who have genuine concerns relating to that Act. I have spoken to the New South Wales Farmers Association and received many delegations from people in relation to the impact that Act has had on the productivity of farmland.

The member for Mount Druitt complimented the New South Wales Farmers Association. I also extend my compliments to that very fine organisation. I must declare an interest: I am a member of the New South Wales Farmers Association. I commend the organisation on the work it does. The member for Mount Druitt also referred to drought relief. The Government is refusing to meet the Opposition's policy commitment of subsidised and fixed water charges on general security licences. Irrigators are extremely upset about that. The member for Mount Druitt complimented himself on drought support, but I point out that for the entire period of the drought the New South Wales Government has provided barely $400 million in drought relief, which is an average of only $57 million a year—a very paltry amount. The Government can take no pride in its efforts; in fact, it should hang its head in shame. It provided a very paltry sum from the point of view of the assistance that was needed by people who are really struggling.

The member for Tweed referred to ticks, weeds, feral animals, the fishing industry, difficulties in gaining assistance, recent fires in the Tweed and the loss of one of his constituents, a local firefighter. The Opposition certainly extends its sympathies to that firefighter's family. The member also referred to the importation of bananas and biosecurity risks. He referred to cane farmers, dairy farmers and the fact that spending by the Department of Primary Industries has been absolutely slashed. Research stations are being closed or are under threat of closure. That is action for which the Government must take responsibility. For some time there has been a looming or overhanging threat of closure of research stations throughout rural New South Wales. The member for the Tweed also referred to the inquiry into the impact of pestilence on the farming community.

The member for Maitland cited statistics showing that drought assistance extensions have been widely sought. I know that: I have been campaigning in my electorate for drought assistance extensions as well. He mentioned drought support workers and mental health counsellors, and of course they have the Opposition's full support. There was no need for him to become particularly political about it. I assure him that suicide is quite widespread in rural New South Wales. It is an extremely trying issue. We need more mental support workers and more counsellors in country towns. We still do not have the required number of counsellors that rural areas need throughout New South Wales. He also referred to the move by the Department of Primary Industries to Orange. I advise him that it was proposed when the former member for Lachlan, Ian Armstrong, was the Minister for Agriculture. Ian Armstrong is a very strong and loyal member of The Nationals. The move was instigated by a Coalition government. I advise the member for Maitland to get his facts right before he speaks next time.

The member for Maitland attempted to claim credit for closure of agricultural research stations. I know that the Labor Government has got it into its collective head to close agricultural research stations, but I implore the Government to keep research stations open. The member for Murray-Darling, the member for Lismore and the member for Port Macquarie spoke about some very serious issues. The member for Murray-Darling referred to low interest loans and the choice of graziers and farmers to transport stock or to maintain stock. The member for Lismore referred to electorate issues in the context of the Rural Assistance Authority [RAA]. The member for Port Macquarie described the oyster industry in his electorate, its infrastructure and the effect of floods on the distribution of immature stock. I thank all members who contributed to debate on this very important motion.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.