- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 8 November 2005
Rice Industry
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 29 of 56
| Next Item »
Page: 19182
Urgent Motion
Mr PETER BLACK (Murray-Darling) [3.40 p.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(1) condemns the Howard Government for its continued failure to support the New South Wales rice industry against the National Competition Council's deregulation policy;
(2) recognises the success of the New South Wales rice industry and the net public benefit of existing marketing arrangements for domestic and export rice sales—as well as the important role these arrangements play in supporting an industry worth $800 million a year and employing over 8,000 people in this State;
(3) notes the refusal of the Prime Minister, despite repeated requests by the New South Wales Government on behalf of the New South Wales rice industry, to override the recommendation of the National Competition Council in respect of rice marketing arrangements; and
(4) urges the State Coalition to join the New South Wales Government in its efforts to secure an adequate transition period for the New South Wales rice industry to new domestic marketing arrangements.
We last debated matters relating to rice in an urgent motion on 18 October. Since then we have had either sins of commission or sins of omission by a number of people, some in this House and some elsewhere. I will go through them in order. First, in response to two pieces of correspondence from our Premier, dated 22 September and 17 October—the letter of 17 October immediately preceded the debate in this Chamber on 18 October—I refer to a response received on 7 November from the Prime Minister. The letter stated:
Thank you for your letters of 22 September and 17 October 2005 regarding the National Competition Council's assessment of New South Wales' compliance with its National Competition Policy obligations, particularly with regard to domestic rice marketing.
As you would be aware, the process for determining NCP payment penalties was agreed by all jurisdictions and intervention by the Australian Government prior to finalisation of the assessments would be inconsistent with that process.
However, I understand you are concerned that as a result of the payment penalty recommendation by the NCC you are being compelled to deregulate domestic rice marketing, which you claim will adversely impact on NSW growers and exporters and may be detrimental to the export industry. I am advised that the NCC only recently finalised its assessment, and that the proposed actions by the NSW Government to deregulate its domestic rice marketing satisfy the NCC. Accordingly, we would anticipate that the proposed payment penalties in relation to rice marketing for 2004 and 2005 (totalling some $26 million) are likely to be made available to NSW.
Importantly, the penultimate paragraph stated:
You also expressed disappointment that the Australian Government has not committed to establishing a national rice export desk. Unfortunately, previous efforts by the Commonwealth in this regard failed to gain the necessary support from the other jurisdictions.
I have provided a copy of this letter to the Treasurer, who has portfolio responsibility for matters relating to National Competition Policy.
That letter is an outrage. It is an affront to this Government, all members of this Parliament and, in particular, rice growers. The Prime Minister of Australia is saying that, because we have expressed disappointment that he is not committed to establishing a national rice export desk, it is all because previous efforts by the Commonwealth "in this regard failed to gain the necessary support from the other jurisdictions". The other jurisdictions are Victoria, the Northern Territory, Western Australia, et cetera. However, the problem is that rice is grown in New South Wales; we produce 98 per cent of all rice grown in Australia. The other jurisdictions have no interest whatever in the matter, and for the Prime Minister of Australia to hide behind this rot is complete and absolute nonsense.
We need to look at some of the statements made since the debate on 17 October, out in the real world, not in the rarefied world of John Howard in Canberra and his National Competition Council [NCC]. I want to talk about the real world in the rice industry. I have a number of similar press releases that I want to read onto the record. The first, which is dated 18 October—the date of the previous debate—is from Laurie Arthur, a great leader of the Ricegrowers Association, and is headed, "Disbelief at decision to deregulate rice industry". Why would he not disbelieve it? Let us be blunt and honest about this. The decision was forced on New South Wales because of the continuing threat to fine this great State $26 million under the fraud known as the national competition policy if we did not yield.
The Deniliquin Pastoral Times of 21 October states, "Rice deregulation: We had no choice, says minister". It is a great article and I commend the Pastoral Times to honourable members. Another article in the Pastoral Times of 21 October is headed, "RGA 'disbelief' at rice industry deregulation". An article in the Rural Times of 21 October is headed, "Decision over rice unpopular". The Griffith Area News of 21 October is headed, "Disbelief at moves to deregulate industry". How about this for something absolutely dopey! An article in the Area News of 21 October is headed, "MLC should fight: Piccoli". The article states that the honourable member for Murrumbidgee has called on the Hon. Tony Catanzariti to cross the floor of the upper House to vote against what has been forced on New South Wales.
It is a simple fact of life that the shadow Minister in this House wants to cost New South Wales $26 million under National Competition Council payments if the Hon. Tony Catanzariti crosses the floor in the upper House to enable us to keep our export desk and domestic market arrangements. The editorial in the Area News of 21 October states that because of the Federal Government's action "the Riverina and rice will suffer". Here we go! Here is a king hit for us! This will tell people who is supporting John Howard on this matter. An article in the Rural on 4 November is headed, "Rice group welcomes changes". The article stated:
Chairman of the Organic Rice Movement and rice farmer for 16 years, Peter Randall, represents pioneering organic rice growers, and said he welcomes deregulation of the domestic rice industry.
I do not know who these organic rice growers are, but in a survey undertaken earlier this year by the Rice Growers Association some 600 growers said, "No way, keep the single desk. We will not go down the same tube as coal went down with the Japanese market." However, three growers said, "Let's deregulate." John Elliott would have been one of them if he were still a rice grower. Why he is not in gaol, because he sold rice from Water Wheel and paid the growers nothing, I do not know. Three organic growers want to get rid of the marketing arrangements, and that is an absolute disgrace.
I have mentioned the honourable member for Murrumbidgee. Today we have seen another disgrace in relation to this matter. Yet again we saw the Leader of The Nationals in New South Wales asking questions about nothing pertaining to the bush. We have seen his performance in recent months: talking about water for Sydney, tunnels in Sydney, anything other than the bush. He has not talked about rice in southern New South Wales. He has shown no leadership whatsoever—a problem with The Nationals in New South Wales. We get more leadership from the Liberal Party in southern New South Wales than we ever get from The Nationals.
There is one great exception: Kay Hull. When I mention Kay Hull I also think about her opponent within The Nationals, John Cobb. Recently in a debate I was asked how low could I get, and I nominated John Cobb. He wanted to be Federal Minister for Agriculture. He reminds me of a Texan—big hat and no cattle. He is the would-be, wanna-be Federal Minister for Agriculture, but he says not a word about the rice industry. He leaves it to Kay Hull, who crossed the floor on Telstra. Full marks to her. She got exceptional circumstances assistance for rice growers and was criticised in The Nationals party room in Canberra. Kay Hull stands out consistently and persistently with no support from John Cobb whatsoever. I congratulate the Liberal Party because it is doing a damn sight better job in southern New South Wales than The Nationals. They will go to oblivion at the 2007 election and they will not have party status in this House.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [3.50 p.m.]: I again put on record that The Nationals and the Liberal Party will oppose legislation to deregulate the rice industry in New South Wales. People in my part of the world are calling the honourable member for Murray-Darling "Peter Slack" because he is not able to influence the New South Wales Labor Government in any way. I agree with them. I was recently in Deniliquin with councillors from different councils in the area and somebody referred to Peter Slack. I thought it was pretty funny because it is absolutely right. Perhaps half the rice grown in New South Wales will be grown in the new seat of Murray-Darling. The Minister for Primary Industries is not a friend of the honourable member for Murray-Darling, Peter Slack. I saw the honourable member's Christmas letter to the Minister in which he condemned the Minister for closing the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture and other disastrous things.
Peter Slack was very critical of the Minister, and I agree with him. However, being critical and putting out a friendly little Christmas newsletter does nothing. The honourable member needs to go to caucus and do something about the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture. The honourable member promised the Minister a month in Deniliquin. Flying in at taxpayers expense once a month is great, but how about getting a good announcement for Deniliquin or for Murray-Darling? People want to see the honourable member do something and change the New South Wales Government's decision about deregulation. The honourable member should go in to bat for the rice industry and for his electorate instead of squealing and blaming The Nationals and the Federal Government—blaming everybody except himself.
The honourable member for Murray-Darling might not have noticed, but he is sitting on the Government benches. The Government controls the legislation and what happens in New South Wales. Therefore, he has a great opportunity to influence events in New South Wales. I urge the honourable member for Murray-Darling and the Hon. Tony Catanzariti, a Labor MLC from Griffith—another important part of the rice-growing world—to influence the New South Wales Labor Government to oppose this deregulation legislation. We will certainly be opposing it. We do not have the numbers in the lower House, but that is not necessarily the case in the upper House. More is to come in respect of the deregulation.
A couple of weeks ago an almost identical motion for urgent consideration was moved by the honourable member for Murray-Darling. It received an interesting response in some local media. The headline of the Deniliquin Pastoral Times of Friday 21 October read, "RGA 'disbelief' at rice industry deregulation". The Land headline read, "Deregulation move stuns rice industry". The Leeton Irrigator of Friday 21 October contained the headline, "SunRice quick to denounce govt's rice decision". On 27 October the Rural Times headline read, "Calls to save rice industry". Shepparton News Online carried the headline, "Plans for rice deregulation bring criticism". Shepparton is not even part of the New South Wales industry and does not grow rice. Victoria grows a bit of rice. The Irrigator of 23 October stated, "Leeton farmer says decision too ideological". Plenty of people are critical of the New South Wales Government because of its decision to deregulate the rice industry. The article in the Pastoral Times of 21 October stated:
SunRice and the Ricegrowers Association of Australia have expressed their disappointment at plans to deregulate the domestic rice market in NSW by 2006.
The article quoted the Ricegrowers Association president, Laurie Arthur, as saying:
I accept that the NSW government was under enormous pressure from the federal government which was threatening to withhold payments as part of their competition policy.
But it is disappointing that the NSW government chose to act now as the rice industry is still in negotiations with the federal government, having proven our arrangements meet the NCC's net benefit requirements.
We therefore believe that this act is premature.
SunRice chairman, Gerry Lawson, is also quoted in the Land as saying:
It is disappointing that the New South Wales Government has chosen to act while the industry is still negotiating
with the Federal Government.
A number of people involved in the rice industry are critical of the New South Wales Government. We cannot just be critical of Peter Slack. That is not fair. We know what he is capable of and not capable of, so let us give him a bit of latitude. We must also question the Minister for Primary Industries. I remind the honourable member for Monaro that Paul Keating signed off on the National Competition Council [NCC]. It was a Labor Government creation in 1996. When the NCC was created the States were asked which industries should be deregulated. Guess who listed the rice industry? Bob Carr! That is why every couple of years the rice industry has to justify why it gets to retain vesting powers. Over the past 10 years those justifications have been made.
When the honourable member for Mount Druitt was Minister for Agriculture he was prepared to have a go for New South Wales industry. He had a big department with lots of staff and he got his department to put together a case, together with the rice industry, to argue why the vesting powers ought to be retained. It proved that there was a $45 million public benefit to having the vesting powers in place, and the National Competition Council accepted that. The present Minister for Primary Industries has not made such a submission because he is too lazy. That is the hallmark of this Labor Government, especially over the past four or five years. It is lazy.
Time and again it needs extra money because it cannot rein in spending. It has introduced vendor duty, land tax, Crown roads and fishing taxes. It needs more money and it has increased taxes because it is too lazy to introduce any sort of meaningful reform. Of course, the unions have the Government tied up with their donations and the like. This is a classic example of such laziness. What are the public servants in the Department of Primary Industries doing if they do not have to make a submission to the National Competition Council [NCC] in defence of the rice industry? I move:
That the motion be amended by leaving out paragraphs (1), (3) and (4) with a view to inserting instead:
"(2) calls on the New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries to table his submission to the National Competition Council in defence of the rice industry."
Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [4.00 p.m.]: For the second time in a few weeks the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, who purports to represent many rice farmers in New South Wales, has rambled on in this House. He did not speak for his allotted 10 minutes, he was not prepared and he gave no thought to the future of the rice industry. He rambled on for virtually his entire speech. It is a disgrace that the honourable member purports to represent rice growers in New South Wales. He seems to be unaware that yesterday the Premier received a letter dated 3 November 2005 from the Prime Minister again rejecting the efforts of New South Wales to avoid deregulation of the rice industry. The honourable member kept referring to old press clippings that predated that letter.
Once again, the honourable member for Murrumbidgee said that New South Wales taxpayers should be prepared to face a $26 million slug by the Federal Government. Once again, the Opposition is not willing to back up the people of New South Wales. The New South Wales Government has made efforts over a number of years to convince the Federal Government that the existing rice marketing arrangements in New South Wales are suitable and do not pose a disadvantage to Australian consumers. Indeed, there is a net advantage to the consumers of New South Wales. In 2004 the Minister for Primary Industries in talks with the NCC was able to convince the council to suspend the penalty payment.
The State Government has carried out three reviews of the rice industry, all of which have shown that the rice marketing arrangements currently in place are of benefit to Australia and the people of New South Wales. The Premier has written twice to the Prime Minister in defence of the arrangements. The National Competition Council has consistently advised that it will not accept the current marketing arrangements. It has stated that if we retain the current marketing arrangements New South Wales will get slugged with a $26 million penalty. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee seemed content to say that New South Wales should cop that penalty.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: Hear! Hear! I do say that.
Mr STEVE WHAN: The honourable member for Murrumbidgee says "Hear! Hear!" He says we should cop a $26 million penalty. That money represents 350 teachers, five primary schools or any number of infrastructure projects that our electorates in rural New South Wales need. His comments go hand-in-hand with the Opposition's unfunded promises worth $16 billion. They have no idea about budgeting for this State. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee has confirmed by his interjection that he believes that New South Wales taxpayers should pay the $26 million penalty. It is very clear to the people of New South Wales what the Opposition stands for. It stands for only one thing: backing up John Howard. It is not interested in the people of New South Wales. It is certainly not interested in protecting the rice industry, which has an export value to New South Wales of more than $64 million a year.
The Opposition is not willing to back up this industry. It wants it both ways. It says the rice industry should not be deregulated, but it also says the people of New South Wales should cop a $26 million slug. It cannot have it both ways. The Government has led on this issue, but we have seen nothing but hypocrisy from the Opposition. Opposition members have had three years to pick up the phone and tell John Howard or their colleagues in Canberra that they are not willing to stand by and let them slug the people of New South Wales with a $26 million penalty. As I said a few weeks ago when I spoke on this issue, the Liberal Party is willing to make the people of New South Wales pay because it believes the slug will place a political penalty on the State Government. At the Liberal Party State council meeting John Howard said:
I want to say on behalf of my Federal parliamentary colleagues that we will do everything we can to bring about a change of government in New South Wales at the next State election.
This mob in Opposition, The Nationals, who pretend to stand up for rural New South Wales, have strayed far from what used to be a fundamental part of their platform. They are a disgrace to rural New South Wales. It is about time they had the guts to stand up for the farmers and the people of New South Wales. They are a bunch of utter sellouts.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [4.05 p.m.]: I am pleased to join the debate on this very important issue. The rice industry in New South Wales supports 27,500 people directly in the farming community. This figure has a multiplier effect. New South Wales produces almost all of the rice for Australia. Rice production is undertaken in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, the Coleambally Irrigation Area and the Murray Valley Irrigation Area. These three areas are part of the Murrumbidgee and Murray statistical divisions. In 2001 increased plantings resulted in a 50 per cent rise in production to approximately 1.6 million tonnes. In 2001-02 approximately 589 million tonnes of paddy rice were produced worldwide. Australia produced 1.25 million tonnes of paddy rice in 2001-02. Production volumes have steadily increased since the 1950s.
Information from the Australian Bureau of Statistics reveals that approximately 200,000 tonnes of rice were grown in 1951. Approximately 405 million tonnes of rice were consumed in 2001-02. Up to 40 million people across the globe eat rice every day. Our Australian industry exports to 70 countries and is the first Australian agricultural industry to initiate biodiversity enhancement and greenhouse gas strategies. The Australian industry generates more than $500 million worth of value-added exports annually. Australian rice growers are the most efficient and productive in the world. Production has increased by 50 per cent, and that production increase was gained with a net drop in water usage of about 60 per cent.
I put that information on the record so that honourable members and the wider community understand the importance of the rice industry to New South Wales and Australia. Therefore, I was shocked by some of the headlines that the honourable member for Murrumbidgee read onto the record about the deregulation of the rice industry and the statements by leading commentators about their disbelief at the proposed deregulation. I have listened carefully to the debate and the reasons given by the Minister as to why deregulation is necessary. This industry is critical to parts of the region where the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, the honourable member for Murray-Darling and I reside. The economic benefit that the industry provides to the region demands that we do more than just quote statistics and figures and throw insults at each other in this debate.
When one considers the scale of the New South Wales budget and the fact that the Government allocates many billions of dollars, $26 million is not a large amount. It may appear to be when one looks at specific projects, but when considered in the context of the overall budget and the billions of dollars managed by the Government, it is not a large amount. Let us have some progress on the issue. I suggest to honourable members opposite, including the honourable member for Murray-Darling, that Government and Opposition backbenchers get together to identify waste and mismanagement, whether it be in Federal Government operations, State Government operations or the operations of both governments, so that the money can be made up and the rice industry can continue in its current form.
Mr Steve Whan: Why don't we just ask John Howard to give us money?
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: What I am suggesting requires the honourable member to put on his thinking cap. Honourable members on the backbench who can identify waste and mismanagement, be it at a Federal or State level, should put a submission together, go to the Minister and say, "Here is the solution to your problem." Time and again all we hear is rhetoric and the suggestion that we put out a hand to the Federal Government. I am saying to members "Here is your chance." When the bill comes before this House I fully expect that those who have spoken in this debate and other members who support the rice industry will vote with the Coalition against the bill.
Question—That the words stand—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 47
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Chaytor
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Ms D'Amore
Mr Debus
Ms Gadiel | Mr Gibson
Mr Greene
Ms Hay
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride
Mr McLeay
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Mr Morris
Mr Newell
Ms Nori | Mr Orkopoulos
Mrs Paluzzano
Mr Pearce
Mrs Perry
Mr Sartor
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Ms Tebbutt
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whan
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Ms Saliba |
Noes, 33
Mr Aplin
Mr Armstrong
Mr Barr
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mrs Fardell
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson | Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humpherson
Mr Kerr
Mr Merton
Ms Moore
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Pringle
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts | Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire |
Pairs
| Ms Allan | Mrs Hancock |
| Mr Price | Ms Seaton |
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment negatived.
Motion agreed to.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:43:42 : Update this page