HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-08-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Farmers

The Hon. J.S. LEE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:43): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before directing a question to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development about South Australian farmers.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: The National Farmers' Federation has recently published its annual priorities survey of 1,026 Australian farmers, including those from South Australia. The damning report shows that nearly three-quarters of Australian farmers believe that the Albanese government's policies are hurting the industry, and farmers felt they were being steamrolled by harmful policies. Federal climate change policies, biosecurity, supermarket power, transport infrastructure and the phase-out of live sheep exports topped the list of concerns. Asked whether the government had a positive plan to grow the farm sector, some 80.1 per cent disagreed.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I can't hear the honourable member. The honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition, can you please finish your question?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Nearly all respondents said increasing costs were negatively affecting the productivity of their operations. With 8.9 per cent of respondents being South Australian farmers, my questions to the minister are:

1. What is the minister's response to South Australian farmers who feel that they are being steamrolled by harmful policies?

2. What evidence can the minister provide to this chamber that she has done her job and stood up for farmers against the federal government's policy?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Hunter! Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (14:45): I suppose I thank the honourable member for her question, which refers over and over to federal matters, given it was only a few minutes ago that I did refer to the fact that those opposite have constant difficulties in understanding what is covered under the scope of federal matters and what is covered under the scope of state matters.

In terms of specifics I would draw members' attention, for example, to the introduction later today of the new biosecurity bill, which is about streamlining acts: four acts are amalgamated into one and parts of other acts as well. Part of that is in response to the fact that a lot of farmers have said that it is quite difficult to manage many different legislative requirements from different acts and it was important that this was progressed.

Of course, it was not progressed under the former government. They did some consultation and then 18 months later, if I remember correctly, that consultation had not been released, even—it had not even been released. We are not quite sure why that was. Perhaps there was pushback from some of their constituencies and, as they did on so many things, they just threw in the towel—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: They squibbed it, they just squibbed.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —or, as the Hon. Mr Hunter said, they squibbed it. That is one example of what we have been doing. I would also point to the excellent relationships that we have with many of the bodies within the primary production sector. PPSA, Livestock SA, Grain Producers SA, among others, I meet with on a regular basis, and a number of those have spoken publicly about how useful they find the relationships. We of course don't always agree, and of course they don't always get everything that they would like.

But, again perhaps in contrast to the former government, we have a respectful relationship, we have regular dialogue, we are happy to consult, we are happy to debate and we are happy to find solutions. If those opposite would think about the specific issues in South Australia and would perhaps revise the attitude they had when they were in government, which was if someone disagreed then the government would cease to meet with them, perhaps they would be on these benches and not those opposite.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT