PASTORAL SECTOR

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:30): I move:

That this house—

(a) calls on the Pastoral Board to re-form the rent review committee over its decision to increase pastoral rents by up to 230 per cent;

(b) condemns the Weatherill Labor government for once again failing to consult with those affected; and

(c) notes the important contribution of South Australia's pastoral sector to primary production.

This is a very important motion that I bring to this house. The 230 per cent example that I alluded to is from a Stuart constituent, whom I directly represent, but, of course, through this motion I represent many people in the pastoral sector of our state, including yours, Madam Speaker, and other electorates as well.

This is critical for many reasons, but let me concentrate on the first part about re-forming the pastoral rent review board. The reason it is so necessary is because of the exorbitant rent increases we have seen in the last few years. My office has acquired these rent changes over the last few years. From 2008 to 2009, on average pastoral rents went up 1.92 per cent. From 2009-10, on average pastoral rents went up 17.5 per cent. From 2010 to 2011 pastoral rents went up on average 26.4 per cent. Over those three years that is a whopping 51.4 per cent increase in rents on average—some higher some lower—but the whole industry had to bear in excess of a 50 per cent rent increase in those years, which by any standard is exorbitant.

I will turn briefly to how pastoral rents are calculated. They are calculated as a percentage of unimproved capital value. That is very important, because the improvements on the land, the land that belongs to all South Australians, are actually owned by the leaseholder and include things like roads, fences, pipelines, watering points, shearing sheds, other sheds, yards, homes and so on. They actually belong to the lessee and not to the taxpayer. It is fair to charge the rent on the unimproved capital value, which essentially is the land value.

The rates are 2.7 per cent for pastoral industry use, 2 per cent for unstocked or destocked pastoral industry use (and that happens during drought or when set aside for conservation use), 5 per cent for tourism use and zero per cent for heritage use, for pastoral leases set aside for heritage or conservation use. People would, of course, like to pay less rent, but broadly speaking they do not object to those percentages. It is the land valuation that causes the problem. This is publicly-owned land—it is owned by all South Australian taxpayers—so it is fair to charge the rent which, just like council rates, land tax and many other levies, is based on a percentage of the valuation, but the valuation is key.

The way the land has been valued has actually changed very much from a commercial and stocking capacity basis in previous years to a vegetation-type and land system basis, and that has changed things enormously. I think that is one of the single biggest factors that has created high values and so higher rents. What these higher rents can do is completely exclude market and business realities which are, of course, what give people a capacity to actually pay their rent.

There is an argument to say that rents were kept low during the drought. That may or may not be the case, but the reality is that they cannot be increased by in excess of 50 per cent in three years because the drought has finished. It takes many years in pastoral country for people to recover. By its very nature, it is pastoral country, not cropping country, and that is why it is so hard for people to recover. It takes a long time to rebuild your stock and for your feed to regenerate, so reinstating this pastoral rent review board is very important from an equity position.

Let me also advise that the most recent Pastoral Board annual report says that they have received 36 objections to rent increases in the last year. I believe there were only two in the year before and, in fact, it is something they have not even reported on in previous years so, clearly, this is a very important issue for this industry. Let me just read from the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989. Section 23—Rent, subsection 2(a)(v), provides:

(2) The annual rent for a pastoral lease is to be determined as follows...

(v) the views of any consultative committee established by the Minister for the purpose of assisting in the determination of pastoral lease rents.

This capacity is very well within the minister's grasp to set up this rent review committee so that this very important issue can be addressed. No industry in our state can absorb 26 per cent rent increases across the board in one year and 51 per cent rent increases across the board over three years. There is absolutely no basis upon which these rent increases should not be reconsidered.

I now turn to paragraph (b) of my motion, that is, to condemn the Weatherill government for once again failing to consult with those affected. Let me say at the outset that I predict a government amendment to try to completely reverse the intent of my motion in this area. I know the government will stay within the rules and not do a 100 per cent reversal, but I suspect that it will change the words in a way which I think is very sneaky and inappropriate. I think every member of parliament and every person aware of this issue will understand exactly what the government is trying to do here.

In regard to consultation, these rent increases have come as a complete surprise to the industry. There was no consultation with pastoralists. This is very much in the old style of the Rann 'announce and defend' government that Premier Weatherill said he would step away from. Clearly, there has been no change. Just like it did with the Cadell ferry, the government is now trying to rip off pastoralists all over our state. The Cadell community stood up, as did all the communities up and down the river to support them, and I hope that other communities will support our pastoral areas on this very important issue.

The government clearly has no appreciation for the long-term nature of the pastoral industry. You just cannot increase rents in this way. It is true to say that every now and again a pastoralist gets extremely lucky, purchases a station with debt, has a couple of great seasons and is really up and running and financially well off quite quickly. But let me tell you that far more people get very unlucky. Overall, the long-term difficulties that apply to this industry far outweigh the short-term benefits, so for the government to try to accrue a short-term benefit for itself on this issue is completely inappropriate and has the capacity to really demolish this industry.

Pastoralists have millions of dollars invested in this industry; it is not easy to get into. There is not only the purchase price of acquiring a pastoral lease or of holding a pastoral lease, but the cost of earthworks for dams, pipelines, fencing—it goes on and on. There is the cost of providing electricity and, Mr Deputy Speaker, you may or may not be aware that it costs at least tens of thousands of dollars a year to supply electricity to a pastoral lease off the grid. There is the cost of diesel for electricity provision and also for all the work that is required running vehicles and machinery and, with the cost of building fences, materials, roads, this is all an exceptionally expensive business.

Many hundreds of thousands of dollars can be earned and lost in just a few years. It is not fair to try to overcharge rents in the good times because pastoralists are not paid back quickly after the bad times. Price cycles associated with selling and buying of stock in line with climate are very important. Pastoralists are at the whim of international markets when it comes to the prices of stock they sell. They are also at the whim of climates, and it is very rare for pastoralists to get both lined up in a positive way at once; but it is not rare at all for them to get bad prices and bad climate come and hit them at the same time. They are also subject to devastating droughts and a myriad other issues, including the scourge of dingoes, which I have talked about many times in this house.

Pastoral business incomes to do fluctuate significantly and, of course, as I hope members here would know, wool, beef and sheep meat are the three key incomes for pastoralists; they fluctuate. They go up and down, but their operating costs only ever go up. It is not only the rent: it is the labour, it is the diesel, it is the materials, and it is the ever-increasing red tape and compliance costs that affect pastoralists and the whole primary producing industry at the moment. I believe the government really has no understanding or no desire to include what they do know in this area in their discussions, I think that they are really just trying to tax pastoralists by these very significant rent increases.

Now, let me turn to the third part of my motion. I note the very important contribution of South Australia's pastoral sector to primary production, and this is undisputed—undisputed at many different levels. Let me start, first of all, with history. The first stock (which were sheep) brought into South Australia came from Tasmania in 1838; so, this has been an exceptionally important industry for us for a long time.

The Pastoral Board in South Australia was established in 1894, which is well in excess of 100 years. The importance of the sheep and pastoral industries stems right back to the beginning of our settlement. It really is one of the foundations of our economy, along with many other sectors which are vital to South Australia. This is one of our longest serving sectors, and also has a very positive future for us.

The pastoral zone covers approximately 410,000 square kilometres in South Australia: 230,000 square kilometres running cattle outside the Dog Fence and 180,000 square kilometres running sheep and cattle inside the Dog Fence. The Dog Fence runs for 2,250 kilometres, and that is just within South Australia. There are 328 individual pastoral leases, operated by 220 station runs or management units. South Australia has the largest sheep and cattle stations in the world: Commonwealth Hill, run by the MacLachlan family, and Anna Creek Station, run by S. Kidman & Co.

These are very important for our culture. Our culture in South Australia has grown up with sheep and cattle stations, and that is something that should not be underestimated. We should be incredibly proud, in South Australia, of our part in this national industry, in our past, present and future. There are many future opportunities: food and fibre; increased recognition of heritage, both Aboriginal and settler; tourism; mining; petroleum; environment; and communities that exist in our pastoral regions.

A wonderful example of all of these combined together is Innamincka Station, which encapsulates the history of Burke and Wills on Cooper Creek, and is held by the famous S. Kidman & Co pastoral company. It includes the Cooper Basin petroleum and gas reserves in the same area. And the Innamincka Regional Reserve and the Coongie Lakes Ramsar site are a very important environmentally in that part of the state. The Innamincka township in an important tourist location.

In closing, let me say that pastoralism is absolutely vital to South Australia for so many things. All these other industries that I have mentioned rely on pastoralism for their success. Pastoralism and pastoralists are actually the glue that holds together all of these very important elements, including mining, tourism, petroleum, community, and environmental perspectives. Pastoralists are the people who live there. Nobody knows more, and nobody puts more work into our environment in outback South Australia than pastoralists themselves.

We actually do it better in South Australia than in any other state, but pastoralists, working with NRM boards, DEWNR, PIRSA and other government departments, are the ones who hold it all together. None of those departments could achieve a thing without pastoralists doing it for them, so it is incredibly important that our government supports our pastoral industry because, if the government keeps jacking up the rents, the pastoral industry will suffer.

If the pastoral industry suffers, all these other incredibly important industry, environmental and community areas will suffer. Pastoralists should be supported in our pastoral zone. They should not be throttled by vicious rent increases, and I call on the government to take this issue very seriously. I call on the government to reinstate the pastoral rent committee to look at this very important industry. Pastoralists are just looking for a fair go. They are looking to be fairly represented.

Time expired.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (11:45): I appreciate the member's obvious passion for this but, on this occasion, we do oppose this motion. Of course we do note the important contribution of South Australia's pastoral sector, but I am advised that the annual rent for a pastoral lease is determined by the Valuer-General, not the Pastoral Board, in accordance with section 23 of the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989.

It is the role of the Valuer-General to determine and provide to the board the unimproved value, rate of return and the rent for each pastoral lease, of which there are approximately 225. Seven properties had rents increased by an amount greater than 100 per cent. The increase in rent between 2005 and 2009 of approximately 12.5 per cent represented the Valuer-General's reluctance to increase costs to pastoralists at a time when extreme drought conditions and poor commodity prices were impacting on the viability of the pastoral industry, despite a rising market for pastoral properties.

Given the statutory independence of the Valuer-General, the minister has no discretion to direct him in relation to any of his valuation decisions. Increases in rents for the current financial year are a result of both positive market movement over an extended period in land value and a realignment of rents with the market.

I am advised that the act also contains a provision for lessees to appeal against the Valuer-General's rental determination should they disagree with the rental amount. In these instances, where lessees object to their rental amount and remain dissatisfied with the Valuer-General's decision, they can exercise a further right to have an independent valuation review or appeal to the land and valuation court. In addition to this process, the act also provides a remedy for lessees suffering financial hardship, by enabling them to apply to the Pastoral Board for their rental amount to be deferred or waived.

I am advised that extensive consultation has been undertaken by representatives of the Valuer-General in the determination of the annual rent. That included on-site meetings with several pastoralists, distribution of information articles including frequently asked question sheets with rent notices, a meeting held with the South Australian Farmers Federation and the Pastoral Board, and courtesy letters sent to pastoralists affected by valuing increases greater than 40 per cent, including an invitation to meet with the valuers who determined the rentals, by providing direct contact details. The government does acknowledge the important contribution of the South Australian pastoral sector to primary production, but opposes this motion.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (11:48): I rise to support the motion by the member for Stuart that this house calls on the Pastoral Board to re-form the rent review committee, condemns the Weatherill government for once again failing to consult those affected and notes the importance of South Australia's pastoral sector to primary production.

I would congratulate the member for Stuart on the eloquent way in which he backgrounded his motion and I concur entirely with his thoughts and sentiments. To see rents increase in the pastoral community by an average of 51 per cent over three years is untenable. It would appear that the land valuation does not necessarily reflect the productive capacity of this land, but seems to take some other considerations into account, which of course is of very little value to the business of the pastoralists.

I can only imagine the surprise within the pastoralist community, when they opened their rates notices each time over the last three years, to see such increases with no real consultation at all. Once again, the Weatherill government seems to have raised these taxes and rents without any consultation or consideration for the businesses that are meant to be operating in that part of the world.

I took the opportunity to visit the north-east pastoral country just recently, and I note that the member for Stuart is held in very high regard in that part of the world. I have also had occasion in the past to visit the north-west pastoral country. They are wonderful people and it is wonderful country, and of course they contribute so significantly to the economy of South Australia.

It is very important to consider pastoralism, as it is one of the very oldest of human endeavours, and we undertake it so well in the arid and semi-arid areas of this state. I believe it is most important that we take the opportunity as a community and as an economy to make the most of what can be a productive landscape. We have an obligation to have a productive and managed landscape on this planet. There is no value whatsoever in shutting up land or countryside and gaining no productivity out of it and at the same time not managing it.

I note with despair some of the feelings of the pastoralists when they see neighbouring properties purchased by this state government and the gate effectively shut on those properties, never to be used again for production and never to gain any economic value out of them: they simply shut the gate and walk away, and they are not managed in any way. This sort of activity must be discouraged.

Pastoralism must continue and at the same time not be burdened with significant rent and rate increases because these businesses must be competitive. Like it or not, we are operating in a global economy and all our businesses—all our agricultural and primary production industries right across the state, not just in the pastoral country—must be competitive on a global scale. They must be able to achieve return on capital and return on investment, which is going to continue to be difficult for the pastoral sector in this state.

I support the motion from the member for Stuart. I also support the pastoral industry generally and hope very much that their good season continues and that prices continue to hold well for them.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:52): I also rise to support this motion. I do not do so from an overly informed position, other than that I had the great opportunity from 1993 to 1999 to live in Orroroo in the Flinders Ranges area and have many friends who were either cropping on that fringe cropping country or were pastoralists through that northern area.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You were CEO, if I remember correctly.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I was, yes, of the local government authority there. I can tell you that they are great people who live a very hard life in circumstances that would challenge all of us, and I have no doubt about that. The member for Stuart has shown me the figures of the rent increases on the pastoral leases. I can understand that the Crown owns the land and therefore the Crown has to get some form of return that goes through to public funds. I can appreciate that, but I am sure that the public at large wants to ensure that they do not put a payment scheme in place that makes it near impossible for profits to be derived, and that is what it comes down to.

These are multigenerational people who are connected with the land. They are custodians of the land, and they want it to be there for their successors. They try to do the right thing. They put up with the absolute extremes that the weather throws at them. They put up with grasshopper and locust plagues, droughts, blinding dust storms—all these sorts of things—on the basis that they provide a lifestyle for their families, have an opportunity to make revenue, and provide a food source both for South Australians and for export.

Not only is it important that we put in place a process that recognises that, where there is a fair and equitable level of return and where the difficulties before them are recognised, but also that they have the opportunity to be profitable. In putting this motion, the member for Stuart is not trying to score political points, but I truly believe that it is just about putting a reality check into the argument to ensure that we have the opportunity to give these people the greatest chance to be profitable.

As much as God is in charge of so many other things that impact upon them, if they have a chance to have a fair and equitable rent situation in place on their pastoral lease to give them a chance to prove to their bank manager that they are worthy of ongoing financial support after the hard times and when they are trying to recover from drought—

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Kavel talks about tough bank managers. It is important that we get this right. I hope that some reality comes into it. It is unfortunate that the government has indicated that it is not prepared to support the motion but, when you look at the cumulative effect over a three-year period of a 53 per cent increase in pastoral leases, you have to shake your head in wonderment and think that, okay, there might have been a recognition before that of difficult times and that is why there were no changes then, but you still have to give people some hope and, when you make such a significant increase, you take away that hope.

I hope that there is a change of attitude and some common sense prevails, and we allow an industry that has been so important to South Australia in the past and will be very important to us in the future every chance of success.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:55): I rise to also support this motion. It is an attempt to get some level of common sense and balance back into a dismally failing Labor government and a government that completely does not understand the primary producers in the country. Sooner or later in this country, people are going to have to wake up to the fact that they need to eat. This is just a further impost on those who live and work in the pastoral lands and are seen by bureaucrats in the city as a soft touch.

Ninety-four per cent of Australians live in cities or urban areas. Only 6 per cent of Australians produce food to feed the world. They produce food that feeds 20 million Australians and, in addition to that, they produce food that feeds a further 50 million people overseas. So, 6 per cent of Australia's population are feeding 70 million people. If that 6 per cent decided to withhold everything, if could be a case of 'look out', and you might get a bit hungry in your leafy suburbs, because I can tell members that Australian producers, by and large, are fed up with having imposts continually thrown at them by government. They are fed up with putting up with the imposts, whether they be of the federal government, state government or local government (which, in this particular area, is pretty much nonexistent, of course). However, food producers need all the encouragement in the world.

We have just over two billion people living to our north, many of whom want to eat from time to time. We have a decaying economy in China where the middle class are finding out suddenly that they do not have the money they did have. We have millions of people in Africa who are starving. The people in the pastoral country produce a wonderful food source for Australia and it is criminal what this government is attempting to do to them by jacking up these rents and making life difficult for them. They want to stop everything, and they want to put imposts on them.

The best thing that could possibly happen is get government right out of the faces of primary producers. Governments do not induce prosperity: business (small business, particularly) produces prosperity in this country, and they need to be given a fair go. It is outrageous that these bureaucrats, who probably sit over the road here from us 500 or 1,000 metres away, make decisions which just make it harder and harder for people who live way outside the city boundaries to get on with their lives and make a living and produce food sources.

I am not impressed. It is appropriate that the member for Stuart raises the issue. There is also another member in this place with a large amount of pastoral country in their electorate and I suspect that they probably have similar views. However, we need for the government to get a jolt on this. I do not know whether or not they will—I think they are beyond being jolted on a lot of things after the affairs of the last week or so that have come to the fore in this place. On this particular issue I say to the government that you need to strongly consider supporting this motion. You won't, of course. However, we will get up and talk about it. I know there are other members who want to speak on it and I look forward to hearing what they have to say. But, for heaven's sake, get the government out of primary producers' faces.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:59): As the member for Hammond and the spokesman for agriculture on this side of the house, I certainly support the member for Stuart's motion that this house calls on the Pastoral Board to reform the rent review committee over its decision to increase pastoral rents by up to 230 per cent; condemns the Weatherill Labor government for once again failing to consult with those affected; and notes the important contribution of South Australia's pastoral sector to primary production.

I think members on this side of the house have made very good contributions in regard to this motion. I commend the member for Stuart for bringing it forward. I note that the Hon. Michelle Lensink has made a contribution in the other place.

It is interesting that just when you see areas like the pastoral areas of this state have a couple of good seasons, they suddenly get belted with rent rises of up to 230 per cent. What I would compare that to is, say, if members on the other side in this place had their council rates come in and they had suddenly gone up 230 per cent. I reckon you would be making a noise. I reckon you would be making a lot of noise.

Mr Griffiths: You'd get lots of telephone calls.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, and I think there would be quite a bit of correspondence into your electorate office if a rate rise of 230 per cent was placed on people's homes. It would be outrageous, as this is outrageous, so it is exactly the same process that has happened here. We have had these people in the pastoral areas who live through droughts and flooding rains, and they do a great job. They live in isolated conditions but they enjoy what they do. However, the thing is they always seem to get taxed out of existence. It is interesting when you go through these areas and these are the outer areas where a lot of these people are, so out of council areas, and the services that these people get are quite limited at times. You only have to drive out of South Australia and drive into Queensland and you see straight away the improvements of having money spent right up to the boundary.

There is a real issue here. Where is the fairness and equity? These people are up there producing wool and meat, whether it is lamb or beef, and doing a great job for this state's production. We have a Premier who indicates that agriculture is going to be the great saviour now that Olympic Dam has fallen over for another 46 months. We certainly hope that Olympic Dam gets going in the future, but suddenly that has fallen over and the Premier and the Labor government had banked everything on that mine cranking up now, yet it has not. So, suddenly, there is a big economic hole in the budget and a big flaw in the credibility of the government of this state.

You also see the sixth point—of the seven points the Premier said are the main themes of how they are going to govern this state—is about promoting clean green food. How does increasing pastoral rents by up to 230 per cent promote clean green food? This is some of the greenest food you can get from some of these stations. I know that a lot of them are branded as organic lamb or organic beef and they are in just the right environment to do that. They obviously can farm without using some of the chemicals or drenches or whatever that are needed in some of the wetter areas of the state so that you can keep your stock in good health.

I can fully understand why our pastoral people, who make such a valuable contribution to this state and who cover the largest percentage of land mass in this state, would be upset. Certainly I acknowledge their contribution. It should be acknowledged by the government as well but, no, they see it as an easy tax grab. I note that once again people were not consulted about the rent, so they just got the notices in the mail and away you go, that is what you have to pay if you want to be involved in the industry, and away you go. It is just like another place in the member for Stuart's electorate with the Cadell ferry—a short-sighted affair where the government thought they would save $400,000, which barely did up minister Conlon's office and I do not think that amount did, by shutting down a ferry. The community got on board and said, 'No, we're not going to live with that', and the member for Stuart and other members from this place campaigned long and loud and got a great result for Cadell, the people of this state and tourists from interstate and overseas, who can still have access to that ferry, as well as the primary producers of that area.

One day, Premier Weatherill will realise that there is a place north of Gepps Cross and realise the economic boom that these people give to this state. They suffer during the droughts but they survive. They pull through. They know what it is like to have tough times and get on with the job, and they do not need the imposition of having to pay these great rent increases. They put up with not only the floods and droughts, but the fluctuations in primary industry production and prices. Obviously, they can have great differences in their wool or meat production, but they still have to be up there with sometimes only themselves and sometimes a limited amount of staff to run these vast properties.

As I indicated earlier, they do a very good job, they contribute tens of millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars, to the state's economy and they should be helped along and promoted, instead of having this high impost of tax in the case of a pastoral rent imposed on them. Otherwise, what we may see, down the track, are vast tracts of this country just being left. I note that some of these properties are being bought out by green groups and locked away from production, when we are concerned about food production in the future. I know members on this side of the house are, and members on the other side of the house should also be concerned, because we all want to eat, as the member for Finniss rightly said. If we do not promote production, we will not get on with it.

I note that a lot of people from the pastoral areas, certainly in the Far North, Northern Territory and from our pastoral areas, support the live cattle and live sheep trade. I note someone wrote in the Stock Journal today asking Lyn White from Animals Australia whether they want us all eating lentils. I certainly do not want to. These people make a vital contribution to the state and they need to be supported. As we saw with the debate over the live cattle trade for our landowners in the north, there were hasty decisions made which have upset the trade, upset the income, lost hundreds of jobs, and the turnaround was that slow that we have upset our Indonesian neighbours, and it is going to take a long time to get that trade back on track appropriately.

In closing, I indicate that I firmly support the pastoral producers in this state. They do a great job under very hard and difficult conditions, at times. I fully commend the motion of the member for Stuart.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:08): I support the motion of the member for Stuart and thank him for bringing this to the attention of the house. The former member for Stuart, the Hon. Graham Gunn, would be proud of this motion because he had nearly 40 years of fighting for this district, under previous boundaries and other significant parts of the pastoral part of the state. Our own Speaker represents some of this area and she too ought to be outraged by the government's decision—yet another announce and defend—not only to increase the pastoral rents by up to 230 per cent but to do so without consultation. The call on the rent review committee to be introduced back into the process is a good one. We on this side of the house welcome it and condemn the government for not adhering to that.

I will not cover the issues raised about the significant sacrifice that people make in these areas of the state, both in lifestyle and cost of living, particularly for the education of children and the like, the extraordinary distances that they travel and that their stock travel, and the hardships that they endure. Certainly, at present, the productivity from these regions is largely enjoying a good commodity price, and that is to be welcomed, of course. However, what this government does not and never seems to understand is that these are cyclical and there are circumstances where productivity is down or the commodity price is reduced, and there are difficulties in staying alive. There are also drought conditions added to that.

I am sure that the member for Stuart and other members will be familiar with the very difficult times that some of the pastoralists needed to endure. Shooting sheep when they get caught in mud is not a pretty sight and it is emotionally destructive. It is a very difficult circumstance when pastoralists have to sell up their lease to be able to relocate and salvage their lives together. These people live in harsh conditions.

I just wish to place on record that of the recently published Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade figures for South Australia's contribution to trade, of the top 20 merchandise export commodities in this state No. 6 is meat (excluding beef), which totals some $505 million a year (in the 2010-11 year); No. 10 is beef which, on its own, produced $196 million in that year; and wool and other animal hair is No. 13, $135 million. These are not exclusive products of the pastoral area and, of course, I am sure that if the member for MacKillop was listening intently here, he would be saying that he has the best cows and the best sheep in the state—and they are pretty good; I am not here to argue that.

However, a very significant area of production in this state for these commodities is in the pastoral regions, and that should not be ignored. It is quite unconscionable for the government that, during a brief period of really good times, it might want to come in and try to harvest it out by introducing an unfair system. We have processes and they are good ones. We have had the rent review committee in the past and it ought to be restored to its proper position, let the local people make a contribution to this debate and have a decision which is fair and equitable. Thank you, member for Stuart, for bringing it to our attention.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (12:12): I am pleased to make a brief contribution to the motion brought to the house by the member for Stuart. I particularly look at paragraph (b) in the motion from the member for Stuart which states:

condemns the Weatherill Labor government for once again failing to consult with those affected;

This is another glaring example of the Labor government's inability or failure—whatever you want to call it—to consult with the community. It is another example of an 'announce and defend' decision where we have seen pastoral rents hiked up by up to 230 per cent. We have heard all the platitudes and statements made by the current Premier but the rhetoric does not match the reality. The member for Stuart highlights the fact that the pastoral rents have increased by a staggering 230 per cent.

This is another example of the extremely poor state that this government has put our finances in. The government is scratching around, clawing around in every little corner of the state to try to raise some money. What we see is that they are looking at the pastoral industry—a very important industry here in South Australia—to claw some money from that sector. We know on this side of the house, from shadow ministers looking through budget papers and so on, that the government is looking to scratch out, claw out every last cent that they can from the community. That is why South Australia is the highest taxed state in the country. South Australia is the highest taxed state in the country, and one of the reasons for that is that this Labor government has mismanaged the state's finances.

Other speakers, on this side of the house particularly, are people who know about these types of things, people who have had real-life experience. The member for Flinders is a primary producer. The member for Stuart has lived and operated a business in that particular part of the state, and now he represents that part of the state. The member for Bragg was brought up in a family of primary producers. The member for Finniss is a primary producer as well. There is a number of members on this side of the house who are primary producers and have come from that background or have a direct relationship.

My family are farmers. Part of my family is from a farming background, but if I look across at the other side of the house, the Minister for Finance, the Hon. Michael O'Brien, is the only member—I stand to be corrected—on the other side of the house who has had any involvement in the primary production sector. His involvement was when he was an executive working for Elders. There is a glaring contrast between the people on this side of the house who understand the issues that the pastoral industry faces and those members on the government benches.

I highlight the Minister for Mineral Resources, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis. The minister may have some understanding of that country, but he may not have driven through it. He may have flown over it and into it when he goes to visit the mines up in the northern parts of the state, when he goes up and visits Olympic Dam, Prominent Hill and places like that. I think he probably has not driven through it. He may have; if he has, I would like him to communicate that to the house. The Minister for Mineral Resources has flown over the top of it and landed in it, but that may be the extent of the minister's involvement in that country.

As has been pointed out in the house previously, the agricultural sector, the primary production sector, is critically important. I cannot emphasise this enough. It is critically important to the economic wellbeing of this state. It contributes $4 billion to the state's economy. The government must be aware and realise the importance of the primary production sector to the state's economy and therefore to the state budget, and needs to have policy direction so that it supports the primary production sector in South Australia.

I have travelled through the country, I have holidayed up there in the pastoral country in the Far North of the state. It is absolutely magnificent country. It is tough country; we know that. The people who live there and earn a living know the ravages of the seasons—the hot, dry summers, the extended drought periods but then also the flooding rains. They understand that it is tough country but it is great country; it is a magnificent part of our landscape. I think that open pastoral country—that open station country—really is part of what defines South Australia and Australia. With those few brief comments, I have real pleasure in supporting the motion the member of Stuart brings to the house.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Small Business) (12:20): Well, after that speech, it is no wonder he was demoted. I note with interest that the motion moved by the new shadow minister for mineral resources calls on the establishment of a pastoral board and then condemns the government but will not announce Liberal Party policy to reverse the decision.

Perhaps this could be a moment when he can announce a policy decision. Perhaps the Liberal Party can announce how it will be dropping pastoral leases. Perhaps the Liberal Party could announce a whole range of policies. Perhaps he could talk about what royalties he will cut. Perhaps the member for Kavel—the recently demoted member for Kavel—could talk about which taxes he will cut. When he makes the claim that we are the highest-taxed state in the country, perhaps they could offer to us a solution rather than just whingeing from the sidelines.

Look, no policy! They have had only a decade to come up with policy. They have had only 10 years in opposition to come up with up with a plan. They have plenty of complaints, but no road map. They have nothing! They just sit down there and complain—they are professionals at it. This government is getting on with governing. We have an agenda for this state, we are setting out our path, we are building this state.

When oppositions claim the mandate that they should be the government, rather than just cheap shots in the parliament talking about how they understand the country better than everyone else because of their birthright, perhaps they could tell us their policies. I have no doubt that members opposite have a deep connection to the country and a deep connection to the land and to those who work the land. No doubt, they have deep concerns about their constituents. But do not come in here and lecture us that we do not. Do not come in here and tell us that we do not understand the plight of farmers simply because we are not farmers.

Quite frankly, member for Kavel, you are a politician, not a farmer. The member for Flinders is not a farmer: he is a politician. The member for Stuart is not a farmer: he is a politician. It is about time they woke up to their profession and worked out that they are legislators full time and not part-time employees of this parliament and that they work here full time. Perhaps then, within a decade, they would actually have a policy—just one would be nice—rather than the moaning we get from people who have been demoted to the backbench.

Perhaps then the member would understand why he has been demoted—because he came up with not a single policy in his time as a shadow minister—rather than criticising me for sitting down listening to him quietly. Is that the best you have? Sitting here quietly, and he attacks me! Why? Because I am in the building? Got nothing else to say? Got a policy? Ten years, and he has done nothing—nothing. How do you draw a salary with a straight face?

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:23): Let me start by saying thank you to the government for not amending the motion. I did actually think that they would do that in a very sneaky, underhanded way, as they have on previous occasions when they had no other way of dealing with a motion I have put forward. So, I do thank them for not doing it this time and for putting their position clearly on the table and just opposing it. But, of course, I am incredibly disappointed with the government's position. I am incredibly disappointed that it has chosen to oppose this motion.

Let me just highlight the fact that, when the member for Little Para talked about the Valuer-General, he was quite correct, but my motion deliberately did not include any reference to the Valuer-General. There is a process there. What I am asking the government to do is to reinstate the pastoral rent review committee; that is what I want the government to do. The Valuer-General will do the Valuer-General's job, but the Pastoral Land Management Conservation Act 1989, section 23, clearly gives the minister the authority to establish a rent review committee that can look into this work. So it is nothing about giving the Valuer-General a hard time, and it is actually nothing about giving any section of the government a hard time, other than the minister for not doing exactly what the act gives him the power to do. He has that responsibility and he should do that.

Let me turn very quickly to the provocative comments from the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, and I do take exception to his comments that any one of us is not a very serious full-time politician. I have no birthright in this capacity. I am not a farmer or a pastoralist. I have lived and worked and run businesses in the outback and I have been exceptionally passionate about it, but what I am doing right now is very much a part of my serious, genuinely applied, full-time application as a member for parliament representing the people of pastoral areas and other parts of this state, and I take very genuine exception to the minister's assertion that there is anything else going on here except for that.

I would also like to say thank you to the Small Business Commissioner and the Deputy Small Business Commissioner who have taken a great deal of interest in this. I will not put words in their mouth; they have the capacity to make statements on their own behalf, but I do thank them for coming to Port Augusta and meeting with representatives of the pastoral industry in my office at Port Augusta. They have taken this issue on board very seriously. The vast majority of pastoral lessees are small business operators. That is often forgotten because they operate with thousands of square kilometres of land and they run tens of thousands of sheep or cattle, but, broadly speaking, they fit into the definition of a small business. So I thank the Small Business Commissioner and his office for looking into this issue.

Let me wind up by saying that the government and the minister have the opportunity to reinstate the rent review committee. It is in the act for a reason, and the reason is, at times like this, to look into these rents. When the number of objections to the rents—as in the Pastoral Board's most recent annual report—jump up to 36 in one year, from two objections in the previous year, clearly there is a problem that the minister needs to look at. There is no industry in our state or anywhere else in Australia that could take in excess of a 50 per cent increase in their rents across the board, across their industry, in two years. If it were retail, manufacturing, education, hospitality, tourism, transport, trades, or any other industry, I know that the government would take this issue much more seriously. I know that they would go straight to the act and say, 'Actually, it is in the act; the minister has the right to establish a rent review committee and we'll do it straightaway.'

I call on the government to do exactly the same thing for the pastoral industry. It is exactly what the act is there for, and it is exactly what the minister should do. Let me just finish by saying that the people who work on pastoral leases, whether they are the lessee or the staff working there, are some of the hardest working people in our state. They work, without doubt, in the harshest climate anywhere in Australia and they deserve exactly the same support from this government as if they worked in the Adelaide CBD.

The laws are here for everybody, the government is here for everybody, and the legislation and the acts are here for everybody. These people deserve exactly the same support from any minister as anybody else, and the fact that they are remote and out of the way is no excuse. The minister should take the authority he has under the act and support them when clearly there is a very serious issue to be dealt with. The increase in rents would not be accepted by this government if it was applied to any other industry, so the government should support the pastoral industry just as much as it supports any other.

Motion negatived.