United States Farm Bill
Page: 1771
Urgent Motion
Mr BLACK (Murray-Darling) [3.47 p.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(1) supports the New South Wales beef export sector worth $600 million a year and the 180,000 people who rely directly or indirectly on beef production for their livelihood;
(2) notes the United States Farm Bill passed by Congress last week will add more than $70 billion to local farm subsidies over the next 10 years;
(3) further notes that the bill includes a mandatory country of origin labelling clause on all beef and farm produce that would give United States products an unfair advantage in their own markets; and
(4) condemns Prime Minister Howard for his unsuccessful trade negotiations with President George W. Bush.
The Howard Government began discussions on a free trade agreement with the United States of America in mid-2001. The proposal is being driven by the Australian Ambassador in Washington, and by John Howard himself. Last month Mark Vaile stated that the United States-Australia free trade agreement was his number one bilateral trade policy priority. The Federal Government has assembled a high-profile group of Australian companies, including BHP Billiton, Bonlac, Southcorp, Visy and Telstra, and led by trade consultant Alan Oxley, to lobby for the United States-Australia free trade agreement.
Country Labor warned about the American bill as early as December 2000, just weeks after the election of George W. Bush. The Federal press gallery ran our stories—opinion pieces by Malcolm Farr and the like—and at the same time John Howard was saying what a great result this was for Australia because of his special relationship with President Bush. Mr Howard, I would hate to think what they might have done if we were an enemy. First it was Aussie lamb, then steel, and now the knockout blow: the United States Farm Bill, which increases subsidies by more than two-thirds, or 70 per cent, to $ US17.3 billion or $A32.2 billion.
Last week the United States Congress voted 280 to 141 to add $US 7.3 billion a year for the next six years to the $US10 billion the Government already shelves out to its own farmers. President Bush has already indicated that he will sign the bill into law after it clears both Houses of Congress. Most of the new money—US$4.8 billion a year—will be directed to crop support. Ian Donges from the Farmers Federation has described the move as a blight on the world agricultural trade. The result will drive down prices, as I indicated earlier, for Australian farmers. It is as simple as that. I specifically make mention of cotton and rice.
Country Labor is committed to free trade. There is no question of the benefits that Australia has reaped from opening up its economy. Free trade is a proud legacy of previous Federal Labor governments. Today, one in five Australian jobs rely on exports, one in four in regional and rural areas. We do not deny that liberalisation is a difficult process but it is the proper role of governments to look after those worst affected by global forces and step in where markets fail. Labor governments modernise the Australian economy through an uncompromising commitment to global free trade rules. We did not just play by the book—we helped to write it.
Labor's foundation role in the Cairns group of agricultural exporters sets the standard for leadership in free trade. One-on-one trade deals can be good for Australia but no-one should automatically assume they will be. Country Labor is not against preferential trade agreements, whether they be free trade agreements or in other forms; we simply need to be convinced that they are good for Australia. Country Labor wants clear evidence that Australians will get a good deal. That is our role and right, and the responsibility of this House. Spinning a web of bilateral trade deals must be carefully co-ordinated. Those deals must help support the momentum towards free trade in the region and within the new World Trade Organisation round.
There is absolutely no sign that the Howard Government has any strategy for trade bilateralism. The Federal Labor caucus will host a seminar on 24 June on free trade agreements, featuring speakers from business and academia. We are committed to ensuring that the parliamentary party can play an informed role in public debate on Australia's trade policy. Federal Labor will not allow the Howard Government to negotiate preferential trade agreements unscrutinised, and the same applies with Country Labor in New South Wales. I have heard the Premier refer in this House to his Stasi. I have my Stasi. Look at some of the press releases issued by senior National Party leaders on this matter. I start in 1996:
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, Tim Fischer, and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, John Anderson, today welcomed the progress of the US Farm Bill through the final legislative processes in America with its passage through the Joint House Senate Committee.
"Whether this progress translates into worthwhile change will be a matter for judgement," the Australian Ministers said.
"The final form and detail of the Bill will be carefully considered against the clear objective of the Australian Government and the world trade community to meaningful trade liberalisation."
I repeat, these are press releases by senior National Party Ministers. In 2001 the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade released this press release:
Trade Minister Mark Vaile has welcomed the findings of an APEC Study Centre report today which finds Australia could reap wide-ranging benefits from me Free Trade Agreement … with the United States.
Mr Vaile said the report An Australia-USA Free Trade Agreement: Issues and Implications by Monash University's APEC Study Centre confirmed that it made sense to pursue discussions with the US Administration on a possible FTA.
That was his position on 29 August 2001. On 11 September 2001 the department issued this press release:
Trade Minister Mark Vaile will discuss in coming weeks with these US counterpart, United States Trade Representative Bob Zoellick, how to progress the proposal for a Free Trade Agreement … between Australia and the US.
"During their meeting in Washington, Prime Minister Howard and President Bush reaffirmed their commitment to enhance our close economic relationship, including the possibility of an FTA," Mr Vaile said.
What has Warren Truss been doing? On 28 August 2001 he wrote to the Prime Minister about raising the Farm Bill during his September 2001 visit to the United States. He wrote to the Hon. Ann Veneman, the United States Secretary of Agriculture, on 30 August 2001 with regard to the debate on future directions for farm policy in the United States and, in particular, the administration's approach to the Farm Bill. He met with Secretary Veneman in Washington on 10 December 2001, and he met Mr Charles Connor, Special Assistant to the President for Agricultural Trade and Food Assistance on 11 December.
Subsequently he wrote to Special Assistant Connor to follow up matters raised at the December meeting. The first concrete proposal for increased financial support for US farmers through a new Farm Bill occurred with the passage by the United States House of Representatives of its version of the bill on 5 October 2001. The Minister's office was advised of the passage of the bill in a cable dated 6 October 2001 from the Washington Embassy. A press release dated 18 December 2001 said:
Federal Agriculture Minister Warren Truss said today that the passage of the Trade Promotion Authority … through the United States House of Representatives is a major step forward for freer trade and in giving the US Administration the authority to take a lead role in opening up international trade, including in agricultural products.
I can go on, but time does not permit. I come to the crunch. After endlessly saying how wonderful his visits to the United States were and that Australia's lobbying efforts were paying off, Mark Vaile put out a press release on 29 April this year, saying:
Trade Minister Mark Vaile today said the Australian government was very disappointed with the trade-distorting measures allowed for in the new US Farm Bill.
What an absolute change in stance. The press release went on:
"While details of the $US 100 billion US Farm Bill are yet to be released, it is clear that the Farm Bill is not good news for Australian farmers," Mr Vaile said.
"The sheer size of the Farm Bill is a blow to efficient Australian agricultural producers.
This is a total admission of failure by the Federal Minister for Trade. I turn now to a media release by Warren Truss of 12 December 2001:
Elements of the Farm Bill currently being debated in the US Senate have the potential to damage deeply farmers in Australia and in many of parts of the world, the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Warren Truss, said in Washington today.
Mr Truss is in Washington with the delegation of Australian farm leaders to discuss with Members of Congress and the US Administration a range of concerns associated with legislation.
Again we note that action on the US Farm Bill has been too little too late. Two senior Federal National Party leaders have been issuing press releases consistently through 2001 about how wonderfully their discussions were progressing with the United States. This year, both these senior National Party Ministers, including been-and-gone John Anderson, are professing failure. [Time expired.]
Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [3.57 p.m.]: We have heard from the mover today a rhetorical recitation from a swag of press releases. I am not too sure—and I do not think anybody else is either—what the import of his message was. I note the four-part motion, and I will read the first part:
That this House;
(1) supports the New South Wales beef export sector worth $600 million a year and the 180,000 people who rely directly and indirectly on beef production for their livelihood;
That is quite correct and well put, and to that extent I wish to draw attention to a couple of facts, because the New South Wales Labor Government and its Country Labor members have done almost the opposite to that in recent years. This month the majority of abattoirs in New South Wales, be they at Dubbo, Inverell, Cootamundra, Goulburn, Junee, Griffith or various other places in the State, are eligible to pay payroll tax. Payroll tax in New South Wales is 6 per cent, with a threshold of $600,000. Just over the border in Victoria it is 5.35 per cent, with a threshold of $550,000, and in Queensland it is 4.75 per cent, with a threshold of $850,000.
Mr Martin: Point of order: My point of order is to do with relevance. The motion relates to the American Farm Bill and its impact. It has nothing to with a comparison of the rates of payroll tax premiums in different States of Australia. I ask that you bring the honourable member back to the motion.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. A fairly wide-ranging debate is always allowed on these matters.
Mr ARMSTRONG: Clearly, one factor inhibiting beef production is the indication from the New South Wales Government, through its performance on payroll tax, that it does not actively support the New South Wales beef export sector. The second point is that only a few months ago every member of Country Labor in this Parliament voted against a motion that would have seen a holiday on payroll tax for up to two years for new employees under the age of 25 in the beef processing sector.
To put it simply, there has been a lot of hypocrisy this afternoon from members of Country Labor and the Labor Party. During question time this afternoon the Minister for Agriculture's reply to a question about the Government's response to the Performance Audit Report brought down by the New South Wales Audit Office was predictable but astute. However, he did not read the Auditor's full report, because the Auditor said that the impact of animal diseases on our exports is not only significant but quite dramatic. For example, in the report the Auditor states:
Emergency animal diseases, like foot-and-mouth disease, can cause severe economic and social disruption. They affect processing industries, exports, tourism and general movements in the State. The foot-and-mouth disease in the UK during 2001 is a clear example of this occurring. As a consequence, Government preparedness is vital to controlling and limiting the effects of outbreaks.
The Auditor then makes a number of positive comments about how that management deficiency may be rectified. That would help us to address the State's unpreparedness for the effects of diseases such as foot and mouth on our exports, which is the subject of this motion. The Auditor found significant gaps in the State's ability to respond to and manage large-scale emergency animal disease outbreaks. He formed the opinion that while gaps remain in surveillance and response capabilities, New South Wales is exposed to various risks from an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The Auditor said:
Actions by NSW Agriculture since the Newcastle disease emergency at Mangrove Mountain in 1999 have positioned the State to manage better emergency animal diseases. Many of these actions have been pursued within the context of national agreements and programs.
Issues requiring urgent attention include finalising a surveillance strategy, being able to trace the movements of affected animals, digital mapping of diseases, and destroying and safely disposing of large numbers of animals. I had hoped that the mover of the motion would tell us how his Government will give our overseas customers a guarantee that the State supports the New South Wales beef export sector, which is worth $600 million a year, and how it will address the questions that will come from importers and our trade enemies throughout the world, who will use that report as a tool to counter Australian exports. It is a major trade political lever. We are exposed because of the Government's mismanagement of the State.
Mr Martin: Rubbish!
Mr ARMSTRONG: The honourable member for Bathurst says that is rubbish. The bottom line is that, because of its trade performance, Australia is now seen as one of the highest quality primary industry exporters in the world today. Australia's opponents who are trying to trade in the same markets as Australia—notably, North America and Asia—are using any lever available to suppress trade. No doubt the American Farm Bill will work negatively against many of our exports. There is a cliche that farming in America is mainly postbox farming these days: profits arrive in an envelope in the postbox; the farmers do not have to grow produce or raise animals to make a profit.
Mr Black: That is real American socialism.
Mr ARMSTRONG: It may well be, but the fact of life is that it will not help us at all. That is one reason why the Opposition will not oppose this motion. In principle, the motion has merit. However, the Government of the day must do its part by supporting export industries and the Federal Government's export drive, it must guarantee the management of its departments by providing proper health regulation and protection to our exports, and it must provide at least—
[Interruption]
All I am asking for is a level playing field so that abattoirs in New South Wales may compete with their interstate competition. Arguably, abattoirs such as those at Goulburn and Harden produce the best lamb in the world today for the American market. They should be able to go ahead without facing the prospect of a department putting the processing industries, exports, tourism and general movements in the State at risk. An important issue has been raised this afternoon, but I do not think it was addressed constructively by the mover of the motion or, indeed, the Government. The Government needs to clean up its own backyard before it starts to use a litany of press releases to make political points.
The importance of this issue cannot be denied. As I said, the mover of the motion was right to raise the issue. However, to ignore the points I have made would be a dereliction of duty by the Government, which has the responsibility of ensuring the good health of agriculture and, indeed, of supporting the export industries of Australia. Rather than supporting Minister Vaile, Minister Truss and others who are working on this issue, the Government should work with the Federal Government to overcome the inequality in international trade caused by America's decision to go back on the discussions about free trade between Australia and North America that have been taking place for probably nearly 30 years. As I said, the Opposition will not oppose this motion, but it unequivocally calls on the Government to get its act in order, particularly with regard to the management of health under the Department of Agriculture. The Government should at least provide a level playing field regarding payroll tax in this State; it should recognise the importance of jobs for young people in agricultural processing industries by reducing the payroll tax rate and accepting the Opposition's proposition.
Mr MARTIN (Bathurst) [4.07 p.m.]: First, I will expose the honourable member for Lachlan's hypocrisy about payroll tax. I remind honourable members that when the Coalition Government left office, New South Wales had an historically high payroll tax rate, introduced by the—
Mr Armstrong: Point of order: I remind honourable members that this Government has been in power for seven years now.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
Mr MARTIN: When the Coalition Government left office, New South Wales had an historically high payroll tax rate of 8 per cent. Not only that; the Coalition Government raised the payroll tax threshold to trap small businesses. When the Coalition was in Government the previous Independent member for Tamworth introduced a payroll tax bill, which the Coalition Government opposed and voted against. If members opposite want to sling mud they should cast their minds back to more than seven years ago. Since this Government has been in office it has progressively reduced payroll tax rate. That has been well mapped out by the Treasurer in his budget speeches.
When members opposite troll through those budget speeches they will see the Government's record on payroll tax. Members opposite have no credibility on payroll tax. As for the motion moved by the honourable member for Murray-Darling, in addition to the massive boost in support, the new Farm Bill has plenty of other stings in its tail. New mandatory country of origin labels and the revival of target prices are potentially the most damaging facets for Australian farmers. Country of origin labelling for meat, fish, vegetables, fruit and other farm produce will be voluntary at first but then compulsory after two years. No doubt this is in line with world trade regulations, but that does not seem to worry Mr Bush. This is a domestic political issue in America, where George Bush is trying to shore up his support for the forthcoming congressional elections. He has been spending $A70 billion over ten years to do that.
The mandatory labels are designed to tell consumers from what country hamburgers and other meat, fish and produce come. In other words, they will give local United States products, which are usually inferior to those from Australia, particularly lamb and other meat products, a huge boost in the domestic market. The labelling system will not affect manufactured beef and cuts supplied to restaurants and fast food outlets; it only applies to the retail market. Eventually this could work against the Americans when they get a taste for, and know when they are eating, our product, because our lamb is far superior to that of America. Just last month Country Labor welcomed the news that McDonald's, the world's largest fast food restaurant, has agreed to trial Australian beef in its hamburgers in the United States. Australian beef will be used in 400 McDonald's United States outlets because of a shortage of local cattle. That is great news for our beef producers and their workers and a huge vote of confidence in the Australian industry.
The United States is the largest export market for Australian beef. In 2000, Australia exported $3.2 billion worth of beef to all markets. New South Wales accounted for one-fifth, 21 per cent, with a total value of $600 million. New South Wales beef production occurs mainly around the Northern Tablelands and the central slopes—Tamworth, Armidale, Orange, Bathurst, Moree, Grafton and Casino. About 50,000 people, including owners, work in beef production on the farm, and about 130,000 people work in related sectors such as processing, transport, meatworks and retail. Last year Australia filled its beef quota of 378,000 tonnes for the first time. It is expected to fill the quota even quicker this year, but it will substantially affect our growing pre-packaged grinding beef exports. That is now at risk, thanks to this bill. Hopefully we will be able to limit the damage if our beef can be labelled "Australian" rather than "imported" product.
The bill also has other wider implications for world commodity markets. Subsidised United States farmers are now insulated from price falls. Quite frankly, they could not care less. They will continue to grow over-supplied product to grab the subsidies on offer rather than switch to more profitable crops. Make no mistake, the farm bill legislation in the United States is a backward step. It is "back down the time-tunnel" stuff compared with the reforms that were introduced by President Clinton in 1996 that were meant to wean farmers off subsidies. Many people close to the Liberal Party, and to the National Party in particular, said at the time of the drawn-out final count for the presidential election that the election of George Bush would probably be the best option, and they would welcome him over the Democrat, Al Gore. I wonder whether they are now eating their words. Obviously the election of George W. Bush has been a disaster for Australian primary producers.
Mr GEORGE (Lismore) [4.12 p.m.]: I foreshadow an amendment to paragraph 4, to which I will refer shortly. Coming from Casino and representing the electorate of Lismore, I am proud of the meat industry in this State. Probably 20 per cent of the production is carried out in the north of the State. I remind honourable members that producers need the support of government, whether it is local, State or Federal. I also place on record that I support the honourable member for Lachlan in relation to the higher payroll tax and workers compensation that meat companies in this State pay compared with other States.
This matter has to be raised because I have continually said that New South Wales is at a disadvantage. I have highlighted that meat operators and companies in this State do not compete on a level playing field with other States. They have a great impost imposed on them by this Government. Recently the House debated stock theft and the identification of livestock. Sadly, the so-called Country Labor members did not contribute to the debate. Identification of livestock is needed in this industry if our exports are to compete with the products of other countries. We need a national livestock identification scheme. That would enable livestock to be traced for the whole of their lives and provide many other benefits to the livestock industries and producers, including disease control, residue monitoring, performance record keeping, and identification in ownership disputes.
Mr Hickey: What has this to do with the motion?
Mr GEORGE: The honourable member for Cessnock interjects and asks what that has to do with this debate. For us to provide a good, clean product to the export market we need to be able to identify livestock from the farm gate all the way to the export markets. That cannot be done in this State because the Carr Government has failed to get behind the national livestock identification scheme. I move:
That the motion be amended by leaving out paragraph (4) with a view to inserting the following:
"(4) calls on the New South Wales Government to provide financial support for the immediate introduction of a national livestock identification scheme to assist our producers to compete in the United States of America market by guaranteeing a clean green alternative product."
That is essential if our producers are to continue to compete in the overseas market and provide such a product. At the moment we are delivering but cannot guarantee it unless we have a national livestock identification scheme. We will see where the Carr Government sits in this debate. We have got to get this scheme off the ground to enable the export industry in this State to continue to flourish. As I understand it, the country of origin labels for meat, fish, fruit and vegetables will be voluntary for two years, and become mandatory after that time. Although Australia opposed this provision it certainly may impact badly on our exports of manufacturing meat, which will impose costs on the industry and confer no actual benefit.
I appreciate that point of view. However, we need to be able to produce and provide a good clean, green product, which we have been able to do in this State. We are a major exporter to America and other markets in the world who require it. We need the national livestock identification scheme to be able to do that. Recently the Coalition had the pleasure of releasing its rural stock theft and rural crime policy at Dubbo, where there is a major sheepworks. Our policy includes financial support for the industry to get a national identification scheme. The Victorian Government has already got one, and I call on the Carr Government to follow that lead and to support the producers and offer financial support for a national livestock identification scheme. [Time expired.]
Mr HICKEY (Cessnock) [4.17 p.m.]: As a member of Country Labor I am appalled that the Prime Minister, John Howard, and the Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile, have made no progress in talks with the United States Government on the tariffs and subsidy debacle. Despite John Howard crowing about his so-called special relationship with George W. Bush, it has got us nowhere in this matter. All it provided was lovely photos of the Prime Minister that he will cherish for the rest of his life. The fact remains that Australia has gone backwards. New South Wales farmers need to compete on the world market on some sort of even keel, without the protectionist policies that have been recently signed off by George W. Bush.
In November last year my Country Labor colleague the honourable member for Bathurst expressed concern in this Chamber that the new farm bill that was before the United States Congress would affect Australian, and particularly New South Wales, primary producers. The honourable member for Bathurst moved a motion that called on the Prime Minister, John Howard, to demand that the United States President, George W. Bush, protect our farmers. What did the Prime Minister do? He took an ineffective Minister of Trade with him to the United States to meet with officialdom in America. He got his photograph taken and came back to Australia and told farmers that he had lost the case with Bush. During the November debate on this issue those opposite supported the motion on the books, but one must ask whether they told their masters.
Then the honourable member for Barwon informed this House "that Mark Vaile has earned a great reputation overseas as an active Minister". The honourable member should get on the plane immediately and try to convince America that putting all this money into agricultural subsidies simply will not work. We all know that Mark Vaile got on the plane that the honourable member for Barwon spoke of, but did the honourable member for Barwon give him the message? If so, it must have been a heavy message because Mark Vaile did not carry it off the plane; he forgot to relay it. He must not have taken any notice of the honourable member for Barwon. This is what President Bush said about the bill:
I am pleased that this farm bill provides a generous and reliable safety net for our nation's farmers and ranchers and is consistent with the principles I outlined...
… and are consistent with America's international trade obligations, which will strengthen our ability to open foreign markets for American farm products.
What are we going to do about these trade-distorting subsidies that would violate United States international commitments? The Federal Minister for Agriculture, Mr Mark Vaile, and Federal trade Minister Mr Warren Truss said the Federal Government would monitor the situation and go to the World Trade Organisation, if necessary, if the American bill is not compliant with regulations. George W. Bush must be shaking in his boots! Remember the lamb tariff debacle and the years of speculation while New South Wales farmers were subjected to the pressure from the United States?
Mr Howard is quick to tell Australians about his special relationship with the United States, but he has proven that he is only a two-bit player dancing to the United States' commands. From the Country Labor perspective, and from feedback from grassroots rural producers, farmers want the Prime Minister and the Federal Government to stand up and fight for them. They do not expect a great deal—just someone to stand up for them. That is why it is essential to seal a bilateral free trade agreement with Japan. The Japanese Prime Minister met with the Premier, Mr Carr, who told him of his support for a free trade agreement with Japan. Australia's miners, farmers and fishers would be big winners under such a bilateral agreement.
Last year trade with Japan was worth $24 billion, and Australia enjoyed a trade surplus with Japan of $8 billion. Japan is New South Wales' largest single trading partner, accounting for 21.1 per cent of our exports. Mr Vaile could do worse than follow the lead set by our Premier. The honourable member for Lachlan spoke about payroll tax being at a high 6 per cent. Under the National-Liberal Coalition it was 8 per cent. What hypocrisy from the Opposition! In this House the Coalition opposed the bill put forward by the former member for Tamworth, Tony Windsor. That bill proposed a reduction in payroll tax. The Federal Coalition Government opposed the employment zone tax. The Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Farmers Federation put that before the Federal Government, but the National Party voted against it. More hypocrisy from the Coalition! [Time expired.]
Mr BLACK (Murray-Darling) [4.22 p.m.], in reply: I might say at the outset that it is good to see the real leader of the National Party in this Chamber in action. I note that the artificial leader is still skulking in his level 12 cave while this debate is proceeding. The issues raised by the honourable member for Lachlan are real issues, but some were not relevant to the motion before the House. The point that Government members are making as clearly as they can is that at least three senior Federal National Party Ministers are not standing up either to the Liberals or for Australia.
Mr Slack-Smith: What a lot of rubbish!
Mr BLACK: I acknowledge the interjection of the honourable member for Barwon. He was more than happy to support Country Labor in the debate on rice. Not long after the last record crop of 1.74 million tonnes of rice, as the honourable member for Barwon acknowledged at the time, we learned of the effect that a $US262 per tonne subsidy to Californian rice growers had on the Japanese rice market. That subsidy led to a crash in rice prices in Japan from $US400 a tonne to $US200. Our farmers were getting $US200 for growing rice when their Californian counterparts were getting $US462 per tonne for growing rice. With the United States farm bill going through, the disparity will be even greater.
The point I was making about the comments made by the honourable member for Lachlan related to a media release by the Federal Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, of 15 February 2002 headed "Australia's Lobbying Efforts Paying Off" and saying how wonderful it would be for Australia when the United States farm bill went through. I now come to the two press releases that I wish to talk about. One is headed "Farm Bill Questions U.S. Commitments to Agricultural Trade Reform", put out by Mr Mark Vaile, and the other is headed "US Farm Bill will damage all of the world's farmers", and was issued by Mr Warren Truss.
With respect to other comments made by the honourable member for Lachlan and the honourable member for Cessnock, might I say I salute them. I am not quite sure about the comment made by the honourable member for Bathurst with respect to McDonald's. I have little time for McDonald's when they will not use Australian orange juice, but I do recognise that in the United States market McDonald's is now on its fourth cow. With respect to the overall debate, a press release of Senator Kerry O'Brien, shadow Minister for Primary Industries and Resources, said:
Australian farmers will pay the price for the Howard Government's failure to take quicker action to lobby the Bush Administration and the US Congress on the passage of the US Farm Bill, Senator Kerry O'Brien said today.
Senator O'Brien said the Howard government failed Australian farmers by refusing to take urgent action to lobby the Bush Administration and US Congress when it first became aware of the significant increase in funding for the Farm Bill.
As a result, lobbying in Washington on the package of subsidies was left exclusively in the hands of US farmers.
"This farm support package has been on the US agenda for some considerable time with the Farm Security Bill, which adds $146 billion to the existing subsidy of $190 billion …"
That passed through the House of Representatives on 5 October last year. I salute the comments made by the honourable member for Lismore with respect to a clean and green product. This is what Country Labor is about, of course. I remind the honourable member for Lismore that Country Labor is supporting people like Janie McClure in western New South Wales in going through West 2000 Plus and getting grants for accreditation and the labelling of that meat as organic. Remember, it was Warren Truss as Minister who opposed the extension of the West 2000 Plus program. He did not want it. But this is where the money is coming from for accreditation of that clean and green product to which the honourable member for Lismore referred. Finally, I comment on an article in the Washington Post of 5 May 2002 headed "US Farm Bill finds few fans abroad". This is what that newspaper said about the United State Government:
Of all the problems that plague the world's poor in the age of globalisation, few are so widely condemned as the subsidies that rich countries provide their farmers.
I commend the motion to the House.
Question—That the words stand—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 51
Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Aquilina
Mr Ashton
Mr Barr
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Crittenden
Mr Debus
Mr Face
Mr Gaudry
Mr Gibson | Mr Greene
Mrs Grusovin
Ms Harrison
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr Lynch
Mr Markham
Mr Martin
Mr McManus
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Mr Moss
Mr Newell
Ms Nori
Mr Orkopoulos
Mr E. T. Page | Mrs Perry
Mr Price
Dr Refshauge
Ms Saliba
Mr Scully
Mr W. D. Smith
Mr Stewart
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whelan
Mr Woods
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Anderson
Mr Thompson |
Noes, 35
Mr Armstrong
Mr Brogden
Mrs Chikarovski
Mr Collins
Mr Cull
Mr Debnam
Mr George
Mr Glachan
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson
Mrs Hopwood | Mr Humpherson
Dr Kernohan
Mr Kerr
Mr McGrane
Mr Merton
Ms Moore
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Oakeshott
Mr D. L. Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Richardson
Ms Seaton | Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Mr Webb
Tellers,
Mr Fraser
Mr Maguire |
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment negatived.
Motion agreed to.