The Bush Telegraph - Issue 2

THE

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014SENATOR BARRY O’SULLIVAN

RURAL QUEENSLAND’S ROAD TO RECOVERY

END OF THE BITUMEN

2/ THE BUSH TELEGRAPH WITH SENATOR BARRY O’SULLIVAN – NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014 EDITION

AS THIS LATEST EDITION OF THE BUSH TELEGRAPH GOES TO PRINT, THE ABBOTT GOVERNMENT IS MARKING MORE THAN 12 MONTHS SINCE TAKING OFFICE.

Dear Readers,

Welcome to the second edition of The Bush Telegraph. The purpose of this publication is to provide a snapshot of the issues I have been pursing in recent months.

One of the first promises I made to the people of rural Queensland when I was elected to the Senate was to personally visit all corners of the state.

As this publication details, I embarked on my first extensive tour of Western Queensland as a Senator in August, where we hosted 22 meetings on verandas, machinery and shearing sheds between Cecil Plains and Mount Isa.

Anticipating the need to cater for such long distances, my office focussed its efforts on holding meetings with graziers at their homes as well as their town halls, to reduce landholder travel times and encourage more people to attend.

This tour also provided the opportunity to invite Federal Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs

Senator Brett Mason to meet with rural communities for several days of the tour.

During my tour, graziers expressed candid frustration about earning the same level of income per kilogram for their livestock as they were 20 years ago.

I think we have reached a point where all parliamentarians, and indeed all Australians, must decide if they view agriculture as an integral part of our economy. We can no longer sit idly by and watch our rural communities diminish.

There is still much work to be done, and the task has only just begun, but there is genuine commitment from this government to position Australia to best capitalise on the economic benefits of this Asian Century.

Until next time,

BARRY.

James Stanyer, Charleville with Queensland LNP Senators Barry O’Sullivan and Brett Mason.

/3

Ron Boswell Retires: Salute to a Senate VeteranBy Senator Barry O’Sullivan 23 June 2014Whether it was defending the interests of a canegrower, professional fisherman or beef producer, Boswell provided a strong voice for the community on economic issues that impacted rural and regional Australia.

For many of us, the hallmark of Boswell’s service was the continuity of his courage as he voiced ongoing opposition to the tyrannies of extremist fanatical individuals and political groups – where Pauline Hanson and the League of Rights immediately spring to mind.

Senator Boswell was often a lonely and singular voice at the beginning of some difficult campaigns against the emergence of policies that he considered to be against the national interest.

Many of us have witnessed people of great intellectual prowess try and dissuade the old warrior from his chartered course of action only to be dispatched unceremoniously by the famous Boswell saying: “You’re off with the fairies if you believe that!”

He was a pioneer when in opposition to major ‘ticket item’ policies, such as the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETC), which he immediately understood (and was later proven correct) would have a debilitating economic impact on the household budget with no positive outcome capable of being measured - pain without the gain, if you like.

Ron Boswell showed an almost savant like ability to read the tea leaves when it came to the impact of Senate-preference arrangements across the federal polls.

There are a number of conservative Senators over the last 30-odd years who never would have seen service had Ron not secured the preferences of some of the minor parties.

There remains a strong argument that Ron was the only one who could negotiate the support of those minors, because they held him in such enormous respect.

I know it is a view held by former Prime Minister John Howard – another wily man who knew that the currency of decency and integrity still mattered to influential sectors of the nation’s political landscape.

Boswell’s Christian-based compass and his love of family, coupled with his inherent belief that all of his decisions needed to be tested against a central barometer of a civilized and productive society – led this outstanding man to make an outstanding contribution to Australian life over the past 30 years.

Ever the master of knowing ‘right’ from ‘wrong,’ this old school politician never allowed himself to

I ASKED THE PARLIAMENTARY PHOTOGRAPHERS TO CAPTURE THESE IMAGES OF QUEENSLAND SENATOR RON BOSWELL AND WEST AUSTRALIAN SENATOR DR ALAN EGGLESTON TOGETHER. BOTH MEN RETIRED ON JULY 1 WITH MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY OF COMBINED SERVICE TO THE NATION. A REMARKABLE ACHIEVEMENT.

Barry O’Sullivan, June 2014


make compromises that challenged his core beliefs and principles.

The Senate, and indeed the nation, will be poorer for his retirement on July 1.

Ron’s biggest challenge in retirement will occur if he sees a petite little thing in a pink dress with transparent wings and a star adorned wand running around the flowers in the garden.

He won’t recognise the creature for what it is, because his political pragmatism has prevented him from floating to that fairy-tale level of elevation, where these darlings reside.

It will be one of the only times I will have an edge on the great Senator Boswell when I tell him with some

expertise that they are fairies – and they’re up there in their thousands.

“RON BOSWELL VALEDICTORY” SPEECH

By Senator Barry O’Sullivan 17 June 2014

Firstly—and briefly—to Senator Bishop, I have not served with you here for any length of time. But, as your name has been mentioned amongst colleagues, they have treated your character with great respect. It is often when those conversations happen without you—and particularly in this place in opposition—that you can take that with you. You are very well regarded, and I wish you and your wife the very best. I can see that your service to this nation will continue

through another prism, and I wish you the very best in your retirement.

Whilst I have so much to say about Senator Boswell, I realised that time would not allow that. So I have afforded my chance to speak to Senator Boswell’s beautiful wife, Leita. Whilst it is my voice, it is Leita’s words that we will hear for the next couple of minutes:

“Love” was the instigator of Ron’s life into politics spreading across some 50 years. It was our love for one another and our marriage that started the journey.

My father, Bill Beattie, was a fruit and vegetable grower, later becoming the then Chairman of the Fruit and Vegetable Growers. He was an active member of the then Country Party.

The very first political activity that Ron and I attended together was when Dad was awarded Life Membership of the then Country Party.

It was Dad and I who mentored Ron into the understanding, ethos and structure of the then Country Party. Now it is Ron who mentors others.

Ron joined the Country Party in 1974 and like everything he does became fully involved at every level. We both remain committed to the Party— although with a changed name, some 40 years on.

His passion outside of his immediate family, Cathy, Stephen and me and competitive yachting, was to advocate the needs of small business and fruit and vegetable growers to government.

With our blessing, he was a candidate for the 1982 Senate election, taking his seat in 1983 when Cathy was 15 and Stephen 13. Since then we’ve supported him on 6 separate occasions as a candidate for the Senate,

RON BOSWELL HAS THE POLITICAL ANTENNA OF A NASA SATELLITE AND THE COURAGE OF A SABRE-TOOTHED TIGER.

/5THE BUSH TELEGRAPH WITH SENATOR BARRY O’SULLIVAN – NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014 EDITION

and more generally with 15 Federal campaigns and 14 State campaigns. We truly were and are his “true believers”, his cheer squad, and unofficial advisers.

Stephen as a young lawyer had a big role in helping Ron with his advocacy for small business. He explained to his father, the intricacies of the then Trade Practices Act—particularly Section 45 D—and the meaning of ‘unconscionable conduct’ in the context of small businesses.

Across the 31 years, we have not measured Ron’s political life in the number of speeches, deputations, meetings, visits to towns and communities or the extensive advocacy work but in terms of our family milestones—exams passed, graduations, jobs secured, yachting, birthdays, anniversaries, holidays, weddings, the birth of three darling grandchildren, Tom, Sophie and William, and, the tragic loss of our beloved Stephen to Heaven.

Like all husbands and fathers involved in the Parliamentary Service of our State and Nation,

duty frequently calls them away at the time of special occasions. And, there have been many such occasions when Ron was elsewhere and we wished he was with us.

Although absent, we knew that wherever he was in rural and regional Australia, whatever he was doing, it was a worthwhile cause. Likewise, Ron knew that the family always stood firmly behind him.

The political journey is ending—and for us, it is with pride in Ron’s role as a Senator for Queensland. We, Cathy, Kent, Tom, Sophie and William and I, proudly, lovingly and sweetly welcome Ron home.

But, I suspect, that the inner eye of the champion and competitive yachtsman will espy another challenge. In this case I will not be the instigator. Whatever it is, we will love and support him.

They are Leita’s words, Ron.


“FORUM FLESHES OUT QUEENSLAND’S SEEDY UNDERBELLY”27 June 2014

Stakeholders and elected representatives today met in Brisbane to discuss contract labour hire issues confronting the Queensland agriculture sector.

Member for Hinkler Keith Pitt and Senator Barry O’Sullivan brought peak industry bodies and businesses together to hear firsthand the difficulties workers, hostels, farmers and legitimate labour hire contractors confront.

Mr Pitt and Senator O’Sullivan will take stakeholders’ concerns to the relevant Federal Ministers.

Mr Pitt, a former canefarmer and training provider, said it was the increasing number of very serious complaints made to his office that prompted he and Senator O’Sullivan to organise the forum.

“Allegations range from the underpayment and exploitation of workers to tax evasion, visa breaches, racial discrimination, intimidation of farmers and overcrowding in private residential properties,” Mr Pitt said.

“One of the problems people face in formally reporting their complaint is the sheer number of agencies involved across all three levels of Government. In many cases they are just too scared to give their name to the authorities.

“Today’s forum has helped us flesh out some of the issues. Now, we will be asking our Ministerial colleagues to help us cut this blemish out before it grows and spoils what is by-and-large a very reputable industry.

“We want to ensure our seasonal workers are protected; that businesses have a level playing field and Australia remains a destination of choice for overseas students and working holiday makers.”

Senator O’Sullivan, a former police detective, said maintaining strong communication channels between industry and enforcement agencies was essential to investigating and prosecuting those conducting illegal activities.

“Whether it is concerns over labour, profitability or trade, the most practical and relevant solutions are those developed by industry,” Senator O’Sullivan said.

“The participation of so many peak bodies at this meeting illustrates industry’s willingness and desire to confront these employment issues.

“Growers must remain vigilant in their willingness to report illegal contracting arrangements.

“Our international reputation is dependent on Australia’s ability to develop practical and ethical labour sourcing strategies.”

Senator O’Sullivan and Mr Pitt thanked all the participants for their valuable input, including John Brent (Scenic Rim Mayor and Ausveg board member) who chaired the forum.

“WE WANT TO ENSURE OUR SEASONAL WORKERS ARE PROTECTED; THAT BUSINESSES HAVE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD AND AUSTRALIA REMAINS A DESTINATION OF CHOICE FOR OVERSEAS STUDENTS AND WORKING HOLIDAY MAKERS.”


OPEN LETTER TO WILMAR SUGAR

We, LNP Federal Members of Parliament and Senators, are writing to express concern over Wilmar’s decision to exit the current industry-owned export marketing arrangements and set up its own commercial model from 2017. We ask Wilmar to reconsider its position.

At a series of Canegrowers meetings, impacted Queensland growers have unanimously voted to oppose the move, which would take 2 million of the 3.2 million tonnes of sugar away from Queensland Sugar Limited (QSL).

The unilateral decision is anticompetitive and lacks transparency. It would see the growers, who supply Wilmar’s eight mills, stripped of their long-standing right to choose who markets their sugar.

As such, we strongly support growers’ calls for a transparent, industry-owned ‘single desk’ selling system to be maintained. Growers deserve input into how their sugar is marketed, priced and sold.

Not only will this decision be extremely detrimental to the growers who supply to Wilmar, but it will also impact canegrowers elsewhere by diminishing QSL’s place in the market.

Most growers, some of whom are not members of representative organisations like Canegrowers, are small, family owned and operated businesses. They lack the resources to challenge multinational companies.

Decisions such as this effectively squeeze our primary producers, and further reduce their viability.

Our sugar producers are already struggling under the weight of poor weather, high exchange rates and massive electricity price increases. Losing the competitive advantage provided by QSL may well be the final nail in the coffin for many growers.

The sugar industry is vital to our local communities and the Queensland economy. We urge Wilmar Sugar to reconsider its position.

Member for Dawson Member for Capricornia Member for Hinkler Member for FlynnGeorge Christensen Michelle Landry Keith Pitt Ken O’Dowd

Nationals Senator Barry O’Sullivan Nationals Senator Ron Boswell






































“BUSH MATTERS OP-ED”By Senator Barry O’Sullivan 30 May 2014

It is astounding the pace at which the Australian sugar milling industry was able to swiftly become mostly foreign owned.

From a starting point of less than 20 per cent in 2010, the level of foreign investment has soared to more than 75 per cent by the end of 2013, particularly following the sale of one of our largest milling companies, Sucrogen, to the Singapore-owned sugar giant, Wilmar.

It is clear how and why this industry transformation occurred.

Globally depressed sugar prices and poor climatic conditions through the early 2000s led to long term underinvestment in our milling sector.

Most of the nation’s mills were at least a century old, cooperatively owned and struggling with ongoing underinvestment.

Significant annual capital investment was required to maintain production efficiency across our 24 sugar milling facilities.

But, at the same time, there was strong growth in sugar consumption across Asia, which was experiencing eight per cent annual consumption growth – more than four times the global average.

Australia was regarded as supplying a consistent, high quality product. We were also the world’s third largest exporter.

There was huge opportunity and potential.

It is little wonder overseas companies viewed our sugar industry with hungry eyes.

Initially, foreign investment enabled much needed capital to enter the industry and, it could be said, has allowed our sugar sector to regain its global footing following several tough years.

But at what point does foreign investment become foreign intervention?

Wilmar caused uproar within the Australian sugar industry in recent weeks after it announced intentions to exit the current QSL export marketing arrangements and set up its own commercial model, tied to its global trading operation.

While Singapore-owned Wilmar claims its business decision will only impact a handful of growers that use eight of its mills across the Burdekin and Herbert region in North Queensland, there is little doubt within industry that this proposed business model will shake the entire Australian sugar supply chain to its very core.

Wilmar’s proposal has the potential to remove two million tonnes – or more than two-thirds of all

exported Australian sugar – from industry’s collective annual export pool.

It will weaken QSL’s dominant marketing position in the global sugar export business, leaving the bulk of Australia’s millers and growers worse off. Some question whether QSL could survive this scenario.

We have already seen the looming threat to the rest of the Australian sugar industry’s sales base and structure, with credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s this week downgrading QSL from A/A-1 to BBB-, following the Wilmar announcement.

More than 1200 of the nation’s 4000 canegrowers have written letters of objection to Wilmar and Canegrowers have called on the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to investigate, labelling the move ‘anti-competitive’ and ‘predatory.’

Even cane growers in the Wilmar controlled areas will have little option but to sell their sugar to the Singaporean agribusiness giant.

The average distance cane is transported from farm to mill is only 30km, anything further than 100km increases costs dramatically.

Even more concerning is Wilmar’s gradual purchasing of almost 6600 hectares of farmland within the Herbert, Burdekin, Proserpine and Plane Creek milling regions.

An average cane farm is about 70 hectares.

At a total of only about four million tonnes of sugar produced annually, we are a relatively small industry compared to the rest of the world.

To give some perspective, our two major export rivals are Brazil, which produces about 39 million tonnes annually (which half is used for ethanol production) and Thailand, which produces about 11 million tonnes.

However, Australia well and truly punches above its weight in providing sugar to the world, with more than 80 per cent of all our sugar produced destined for export.

The recent submission by Canegrowers for the Federal Government’s White Paper on the development of Northern Australia displays the overwhelming opportunity in coming decades, with proposals for more than one million hectares of sugarcane to be developed in West Cape York.

If this opportunity could be capitalised on, it would provide much needed national revenue at a time when global consumption of sugar is expected to almost double to 257 million tonnes by 2030.

I am of the opinion that any encouragement from Australia towards foreign investment must commit to working with trade partners and overseas businesses

BUT AT WHAT POINT DOES FOREIGN INVESTMENT BECOME FOREIGN INTERVENTION?


to achieve - as its collective objective - fair and equitable partnerships that bring mutual prosperity.

Enabling a foreign owned business to completely restructure an industry’s landscape at the expense of the remaining, largely Australian owned businesses, is not in the national interest.

By removing itself from QSL, Wilmar will instantly undermine a century of gains and prosperity for thousands of family-owned sugarcane farms.

As such, I do not believe the Wilmar proposal meets the national interest test.

And I believe there are many, many people out there who would agree.

“DEFENDING GROWERS’ INTERESTS”SPEECHBy Senator Barry O’Sullivan 17 June 2014

I rise tonight to speak on a matter of quite significant importance relating to the sugar industry, predominantly in my state of Queensland. I do so in support of federal colleagues, the members for Hinkler, Capricornia and Dawson, and 4.000-odd sugar grower producers in their electorates spread out along the eastern seaboard of Queensland east of the Great Divide, stretching from Bundaberg in the south through to Cairns in the north.

For over 100 years—102 years in fact—there has been the equivalent of a single desk for the marketing of the commodity of sugar in this country. Given the bulk of that industry is in Queensland, I can say that there are no generations of sugar growers in my home state who have not practised the marketing of their commodities, the economic interests they have in their commodities, through a single desk. That single desk is operated through a corporation known as Queensland Sugar Limited. Queensland Sugar Limited is a not-for-profit tax-free company owned by the millers and grower producers in the sugar industry. There are seven milling companies and their canegrower suppliers in Queensland who have an interest in QSL and it supports the 4,000 sugar growing businesses that I mentioned earlier.

Within the scope of being the single marketing desk, QSL provides those growers and millers four key value offerings in the form of finance, pricing, marketing and logistics—the logistics involved with the efficient export of that commodity all around the world. The net sale proceeds and profits that are created by QSL when available are returned back to those growers and millers through the pricing pools through which they market their sugar and have done so—might I say again, to reinforce my earlier statement—for over 100 years.

Apart from those other services, QSL provides the industry with the option to conduct forward pricing through QSL’s books and offers a range of pooling

options where pricing decisions are made on behalf of millers and growers within agreed risk parameters.

This in turn provides both growers and millers with choices that allow them to take low risk, medium risk or high risk or any other hybrid pool for them to place their commodity for sale on the world market. It is a very efficient method; it is a very fair method; it is a cooperative method; and it is a method, might I say once again—and I will repeat myself a number of times during the course of this speech—that has lasted over 100 years.

There is a thing called the economic interest of the grower. In effect, a canegrower, when they harvest their commodity, takes their cane to a mill for processing. Very few growers have a choice of mills.

The natural geographic structure of the industry is such that growers have to take their commodity to a mill. It is a commodity that spoils very quickly after harvest and the harvest has a very short concentration period.

In some 11 to 12 weeks all growers within their season have to have their cane off and delivered to the mill. Those who have been through canegrowing areas would know that the commodity is transported in small light-rail networks to their local mill. It is not as if they get a choice—as we might see in grain, where they can store their commodity and wait for market conditions to change where they might get better price conditions—or have the ability to transport it by road or rail to take to, in this case, a choice of other millers. So there is a very special longstanding and unique relationship between a grower and their mill.

Historically, these mills were owned cooperatively by the growers themselves. However, for various reasons—and time does not allow me to go through these tonight—that tended to go out of trend in the eighties and the nineties. In fact, it could be argued that, during that time, there was insufficient investment in this sector by growers and millers in their own interest and it made the sector very vulnerable to investment. It in fact attracted a considerable amount of foreign investment. Those foreign investors need to be complimented. They came into our state, into our country, and invested large sums of money. There is an argument that, without them, the industry would have lagged behind best practices across the world, and there is no doubt that that would have ultimately had a negative impact on the industry and the marketing of this commodity.

But at the very heart of what I am speaking about tonight on behalf of these growers is the fact that there is a radical change at hand. In 2010 a company called Wilmar International invested about $1.75 billion in the cane industry in Queensland and, in doing so, they acquired significant control over about two-thirds of the commodity that is produced. Initially, at the time that this transaction occurred, Wilmar were familiar with the terms and conditions associated with the marketing of sugar in this country and in fact indicated to the Foreign Investment Review


Board that they did not anticipate disturbing any of the significant arrangements that were in place with sugar in our state.

I do not want to make any comments that draw any inference that Wilmar are anything but a respected

international corporation, to whom our industry, I think, is somewhat indebted given the timing and the extent of their investment in our country, particularly in this sector. They are a very significant company, headquartered in Singapore. They rank amongst the largest listed companies by market

capitalisation in Singapore. They have operations in more than 20 nations, employ more than 80,000 staff and have some 300 processing plants around the world—not just in sugar but also in palm oil cultivation, edible oils refining, oilseed crushing, consumer pack edible oils processing, speciality fats and biodiesel manufacturing. In fact, they have made a considerable investment in ethanol processing in Sarina in Queensland—and for that they deserve our thanks and our support. However, Wilmar have decided to step away from the 100-year convention of marketing sugar in our state to go to their own direct marketing arrangements. This will truly have a significant negative impact on QSL, Queensland Sugar Limited. There are those who have expressed the opinion—and I am not equipped to determine whether the statements are accurate or not—that it will eventually mean that QSL will no longer be able to operate. Wilmar have a relationship with 1,500 of the 4,000 growers in the state, and their decision will

WILMAR HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH 1,500 OF THE 4,000 GROWERS IN THE STATE, AND THEIR DECISION WILL IMPACT DIRECTLY ON THOSE GROWERS

With cane growers Steven Accornero, Brendan Accornero and Michael Pisano south of Ingham.


impact directly on those growers, in the first instance, but it will then have an impact collaterally on the balance of the growers in the state.

It is at this point that the most significant note needs to be taken with respect to the core of the issue. For 102 years—I repeat, 102 years—these growers have had an economic interest in their sugar, and it has been on a two-thirds, one-third basis. What happens is that the grower takes their sugar to the mill, and it is recognised that two-thirds of that sugar, processed, belongs to them and one-third of the sugar belongs to the miller. These things have been enshrined in contractual arrangements—in cane supply agreements, which are the contracts between the growers and their mills, and in the millers’ raw sugar supply agreements; that is, the agreements between the millers and QSL.

Not only has this economic interest been recognised in these various contractual arrangements but, in 2010, Queensland Sugar Limited faced penalties of $110 million when it was unable to fill forward contracts that it had sold internationally. In line with the convention of economic interest, QSL—properly, in my view—put the burden of the $110 million penalties for failure to supply, which was a result of inclement weather conditions in my state that did not allow for the harvest to be completed, back onto the millers and onto the grower producers, the many thousands of small family-owned farms. The grower producers did not blink.

They took up their share of the burden—about $66 million, I am instructed—and paid that through so that QSL could offset the penalties that it had incurred by its failure to be able to deliver on behalf of these growers and millers in the international marketplace.

So, again, just for the purposes of refreshing memory mid-speech: we have an economic interest by the grower producers; it is enshrined in their contract with their mill; it is enshrined in the contract between the mill and the marketer—in this case, QSL—and it was truly tested when the growers had to share the burden of the penalties that were incurred for the failure of supply in 2010.

For almost a year, Wilmar endeavoured to negotiate with QSL to make arrangements that allow them to do direct marketing with the growers’ interests. During that time, the matter of grower economic interest was discussed. It was on the agenda, and the parties were endeavouring to try and make a determination that would enshrine that interest in future arrangements, particularly contractual arrangements. Eventually, Wilmar took the decision to withdraw from QSL.

Wilmar decided that it would take not only its economic interest in the sugar that it processed but that of the growers. There are those who are satisfied now that Wilmar is breaching all of those covenants and contractual arrangements that have existed for over 100 years.

Wilmar now refuse to even recognise the economic interest of the growers. In comments they have made, they said that this was a major decision on their part and they knew it would create community angst. They talked about the deregulated marketing system for sugar and said that they were exercising their own rights. But, in the course of this, they have declared the growers have no economic interest in their sugar.

They have stated that the sugar, when delivered to their mill, belongs to Wilmar and that they will not recognise these conventions, these contractual arrangements, that have been in place now for so long.

Tonight’s speech, as much as it is about supporting my colleagues in those sugar seats, and as much as it is about supporting those grower producers—those thousands and thousands of proud small family farm operations right up and down the eastern coast of my state—is also about giving a message to Wilmar.

I believe Wilmar is a responsible, very respected corporate citizen, both in our state and, it would appear, internationally, on the matters that are before me. I am certain that we will be able, between us all, to sit down, break bread and resolve this issue.

But the message for Wilmar is very clear: there is an extremely deep political resolve, amongst federal members of the Liberal National Party who represent sugar seats and agricultural seats in my home state of Queensland, amongst at least seven members of the state parliament who also have sugar seats up and down the east coast, within QSL itself and within the peak bodies that represent these growers, and there are quite a number of them in my state—and it is consistent with statements of my state agriculture minister and encouraging statements from both the federal Minister for Agriculture and the Deputy Prime Minister, who has weighed in, in a very light way, at a very early stage—to tell Wilmar that we will continue to battle for these constituent farmers, to enshrine, in whatever form is necessary, the guarantee and security that their economic interest in the product that they produce and that, in some cases, their families have produced for generations upon generations, will remain with them.

If that requires us eventually to consider forms of regulation or legislation, then that case will be taken up at a later time. In the meantime—and I know that Wilmar are watching tonight—Wilmar needs to take home the message that it will not matter how long it takes, we will continue to support these farmers and their families to ensure that their ownership rights and their economic interests in their cane remain with them in much the same way as they have for over 100 years.


“PUBLIC CALL ON WILMAR TO TAKE ACTION”SPEECH By Senator Barry O’Sullivan25 June 2014

I rise tonight to continue to speak on a matter that is, on the one hand, of great interest and, on the other, of great concern in my state of Queensland. To reference the subject of my speech, it is about the marketing arrangements that exist in the sugar industry in my home state. For over 100 years, the sugar industry in Queensland has had a single marketing desk. For a long period of time the industry was regulated but for a considerable period of time now it has been unregulated, with Queensland Sugar Ltd marketing the economic interests of sugar growers right throughout the state internationally.

QSL is a not-for-profit company that is owned by the growers and millers in that state, where any profits generated by their trading performances are returned to the growers, producers and millers in the form of enhanced and attractive payments in the pools that are offered in the year following. QSL was not formed accidentally; it was the result of a royal commission

in my home state in 1912, where, with the development of QSL, an attempt was made to deal with an imbalance in market power that was held by the millers over the interests of

the growers. It was created so that the rights of, and the risks and rewards to, growers and millers were equalised and balanced, producing what is now known as the economic interest of growers in two-thirds of the sugar that they deliver to mills for processing. This two-third/one-third agreement has been enshrined contractually for generations within the sugar industry through the raw sugar supply agreement between the millers and QSL and the supply agreement between growers and their mills. It is regarded as a longstanding convention and it is regarded to be in the economic interests of Queensland growers.

On 20 May this year Wilmar International, a multinational company based in Singapore, who has a substantial interest in the sugar industry in Queensland —in fact, control over two-thirds of the sugar that is processed in my home state—notified QSL that it would be withdrawing from the collective single desk marketing arrangements, effective 2017. This has resulted in a significant reaction from the growers in my state. In fact, we have established that over 1,600 —getting up towards 50 per cent—of the grower producers in Queensland have written to Wilmar.

These include, I understand, most Wilmar grower producers and suppliers, as well as growers who are not attached to the Wilmar mills, who have indicated

to Wilmar that they do not want the QSL arrangement weakened by alternative marketing options.

Before anybody challenges us in relation to free market arrangements, there is no challenge to the ability on the part of Wilmar to be able to market their share of the sugar. This is about Wilmar properly recognising 100 years of convention, where growers have a two third interest in that product when it is delivered to their mills. Sugar is somewhat different to other agricultural commodities in that there is quite a short harvest period, where the harvest is delivered to the mills in the region predominantly by a light rail system. Unlike grains, sugar cannot be stored. Therefore, the owners of the sugar—the grower-producers—do not have the same ability as a grain producer to bide their time with respect to where and when they might market the commodity. Unlike grain, once harvested, sugar has to be processed within a matter of hours, otherwise it starts to lose moisture, and then the capacity to process the sugar content diminishes to a point where the sugar is effectively spoiled after a short period of time.

The challenge here is to be able to accommodate Wilmar’s lawful rights to be able to market sugar but not at the expense of taking away the rights of grower-producers. Grower-producers in my home state have made very substantial investment decisions over the last 100 years, and in some cases over recent decades, based on the prospect that they will produce a commodity in which they will have a continued interest after harvest and after processing into the marketing arrangements. This affords our grower-producers in Queensland the opportunity to decide whether they engage in selling their sugar interest through a low-risk pool, a medium-risk pool or indeed a high-risk pool.

They know that, no matter what the outcome, because they are shareholders along with their miller partners, they will share in any of the benefits that are developed as a result of those sales.

Additionally, in 2010, Wilmar and other millers had no difficulty at all in recognising this economic interest to the growers, when QSL, due to inclement weather that prevented the harvest from being completed, were unable to meet about $110 million worth of international contracts. This was the cost of the penalties incurred by that company. Those penalties were properly, in recognition of growers’ interests, sheeted back home to the growers and the millers. The growers in my state collectively stumped up about $66 million.

All I want for my state, and all the grower-producers in my state want, is a free market environment. For that to occur, there has to be choice, there has to be transparency and there has to be competitive tension —that is, of course, unless it is a single desk that is owned, where the interests of that single desk are owned by the grower-producers. The call has gone out to Wilmar to consider—and it has been coined as a phrase—the growers’ choice. The growers’ choice is not a request but a demand on Wilmar

WILMAR NOW REFUSE TO EVEN RECOGNISE THE ECONOMIC INTEREST OF THE GROWERS.


that they recognise the economic interest of these growers that has existed for over 100 years and that recognises the ability of grower-producers to harvest the benefits and expose themselves to the risks that markets produce for the produce that they and their families grow—and in some instances have grown for four or five decades.

I have said before—and others have said it also—that, collectively, those of us who have any capacity to influence the decisions that will result from this departure of Wilmar from QSL will not relent until such time as those growers’ interests are recognised.

I understand that our agricultural minister in the state of Queensland has urged Wilmar to consider this. I understand that our federal agricultural minister has made like statements and intends to elevate his rhetoric in relation to this matter in the near future. I call on Wilmar simply to respect the 100 year convention of the 4,000 families who have nourished them to date in my home state.

NSW Nationals Senator John “Wakka” Williams and Senator Barry O’Sullivan announcing the Senate Inquiry into current and future arrangements for the marketing of Australian sugar.


INTO THE WEST DISCUSSING THE DROUGHT

AND RURAL DEBT WITH PEOPLE ACROSS QUEENSLAND

MOUNT ISA

MCKINLAY

WINTON

LONGREACH

STONEHENGE

JUNDAH

WINDORAH

CHARLEVILLEROMA

WALLUMBILLA

CHINCHILLA

CECIL PLAINS

TOOWOOMBA

CLONCURRY


One of the first promises I made to the people of rural Queensland when elected to the Senate was to personally visit all corners of the state. I said at the time I wanted to meet face to face with constituents who do not necessarily have the same opportunities to meet their elected Senators in the way that a city dweller can expect.

During my period in the Senate I have found that many rural constituents are flexible and gracious with their time and more often than not pleased to participate in a teleconference or, increasingly, a video conference via Skype.

But while technology affords the modern politician the ability to reach more people than ever without even the need to leave their office, I strongly believe it is vitally important that rural Queenslanders are provided the same opportunity to get to know their elected officials in person and, if the opportunity arises, at local social functions.

This allows people to feel more confident when speaking up about the matters that are important to their community.

Indeed, given many of the difficulties confronting the rural sector, there perhaps has never been a more important time in recent memory for constituents to meet with their elected officials face to face and engage actively in decision making processes.

The election of the Abbott Government provided every rural and regional MP in the Coalition with a crucial and prominent seat at the Federal decision-making table.

Our nation is confronting a critical juncture as we see mining revenues, which we have so heavily depended on in the early years of this century, commence to decline.

This was inevitable. As this mining boom comes to an end, we are again experiencing a shift in focus to the so-called soft commodities in agriculture.

More and more, we are hearing economists say that a vibrant, innovative and competitive agricultural sector will be one of the pillars essential to underpinning our world-class Australian economy into this 21st century.

Rural and regional Australia is poised to reap the benefits of this transition, and so their voices must be heard.

Whilst I must admit from the outset, it has proven a bit of a juggling act between committee hearings and parliament sitting dates, I was able to secure my first stretch of uninterrupted days in August to organise the first of several such journeys across the state.

I also took the decision to invite my colleague, Queensland Senator Dr Brett Mason. In addition to his Senator role, Dr Mason also serves the people of


Australia in the capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

So many of the looming decisions in Australian agriculture will depend on our position in the global village –for example, our Government worked hard to secure signed free trade deals with South Korea and Japan in the early months of power.

Politicians such as Senator Mason serve as important decision makers in this process. I invited him along so he, as a Brisbane-based politician, could improve his rural understanding and thus, we could take another step forward towards bridging the rural-city divide.

Similarly, we also determined early on that these meetings should be held ‘on-farm.’ I wanted to meet the graziers and farmers on their own turf, where they felt most comfortable. Also, with many landholders facing tough financial constraints, we hoped reducing the need to travel would encourage more people to attend these gatherings.

In all, we hosted 22 meetings on verandas, machinery and shearing sheds across the state.

What follows is a brief discussion of some of the issues discussed during our journey across Western Queensland. It might also serve to provide a snapshot of the wide range of issues that a politician confronts in their day to day business.

However, it should be noted that none of these issues raised are intentionally regionally specific.

It is true that some of the issues raised are more relevant or prominent in certain regions compared to others, however, the very basics of good farming – access to sufficient water and feed, some degree of supply chain flexibility and sound business planning - remain the same everywhere, and indeed across every part of the sector.

South West Queensland The impacts of the current drought across most of rural Queensland cannot be understated, with many regions confronting the lowest rainfall records in a century.

Since coming to office, the Federal Government has improved the application process and introduced more flexible eligibility requirements for the Farm Household Allowance, which has enabled more than 2,700 families to receive income support of between $900 and $1000 a fortnight, providing some relief to struggling families.

But drought has an obvious knock-on impact on allied industries.

Rural service providers who’ve been around for two or three generations have clients owing big sums for fuel,


fertiliser, or herbicide which is in turn putting pressure on their own financial position with their banks.

It becomes a locust plague of problems in some areas where businesses, ranging from small post offices to car dealerships, have been devastated as their district’s cash flow dries up.

Our journey enabled the chance to speak to people affected in a wide manner of ways by the drought and provided the opportunity to also discuss forward planning to ensure public policy is better prepared in the future to confront the next drought occurrence.

Central Western QueenslandAs many readers would well understand, wild dogs have long been considered a problem for livestock enterprises across rural Queensland, especially where smaller animals, such as sheep, lambs, goats and calves are prevalent.

There are some estimates that wild dogs cause damage to the Australian economy in the order of $66.3 million annually.

This amount relates to loss of sheep and cattle and costs of control measures.

In Central and South Western Queensland, wild dogs are particularly a problem. All levels of government have dedicated vast resources in an effort to combating the problem.

Adding to the woes, graziers are losing up to half their carrying capacity to kangaroos in some areas. Kangaroos quickly consume large sections of feed that landholders had planned to use for keeping their cattle alive during this drought.

As part of the drought package, the Federal Government has announced $10 million to combat wild pests.

We have committed $280,000 for the National Wild Dog Action Plan through the University of New England in Armidale and the Invasive Animals CRC.

When we arrived at Longreach, we were treated to the kind hospitality of Rosemary Champion, a well-known LNP supporter and advocate for her community.

The Champion property is currently running a trial, in conjunction with a fencing company, to determine more effective fence construction to keep the kangaroos and dogs out.

As a keen observer of the latest trends in farm fencing myself, it was encouraging to see ongoing positive efforts to combat feral pests despite the difficult times facing the region.


The Indonesian government responded to the sudden trade suspension by reducing live cattle import quotas for Australian cattle, and stating that Indonesia would in future take steps to become self-sufficient in beef production.

There is some good news for the people in these live exporting regions. The hard work of Federal Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce and Trade Minister Andrew Robb has seen live exports from the Port of Darwin lift by 49%, on where they were under the Labor Party. Despite this, debt continues to hold back many beef properties across Northern Australia. Myself and my national colleagues have sent clear messages to the banks about what we expect in their dealings with impacted landholders. Now the banks must respond accordingly.

The last available data on debt was compiled by the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority (QRAA) in 2011 and it proves the importance of understanding the industry’s financial trends to create better public policy.

The 2011 survey found the number of beef enterprises deemed ‘non-viable’ in the state had increased from less than 1 per cent in 2009 to 6.9 per cent in 2011.

Since 2001, the average debt of beef industry borrowers in Queensland has increased by more than 300 per cent.

This was a recurrent theme during this journey, which helped develop efforts within the National Party Senate team to continue pushing for action on this important matter confronting our state.

North West QueenslandThe impacts are still being felt across Northern Australia from the unbelievable and unprecedented decision of the Gillard Government to suspend the live export trade to Indonesia in 2011.

As many readers will be aware, subsequent to the broadcast of the images in some Indonesian abattoirs the Australian government suspended live cattle exports to Indonesia for several months and these were later resumed under a new quality assurance system (ESCAS) which required exporters to keep track of exported cattle to the point of slaughter.


“WESTERN QUEENSLAND RURAL DEBT CRISIS”SPEECHBy Senator Barry O’Sullivan 8 July 2014

I rise tonight to speak on a matter of importance for beef producers in Australia and, in particular, for beef producers in northern Australia—that is, northern Australia as described in a survey by Meat and Livestock Australia as being those properties above the line reflected by the New South Wales-Queensland border, which takes us all the way through to the northern aspects of Western Australia.

Since 2004 farm debt in our country has increased by some 75 per cent—up, in dollar terms, from $40.3 billion in 2004 to approximately $70 billion this year.

One of the indicators of concern associated with that debt is around a figure established in 1980. In 1980 a producer or a private farm enterprise generated $3.12 in gross income for every dollar of debt held. When last surveyed in 2010 by ABARES, that figure had collapsed to 64c of gross income generated for each dollar of debt that farm enterprises held.

Of the national debt I have referred to, Queensland producers are responsible for about $16.9 billion, which equates to 36 per cent of the national debt and yet we do not generate 36 per cent of the GDP of agricultural production in our state. While, across the country, each state’s primary producers have had their challenges over the last decade or more, I would argue that primary producers in Queensland—particularly those in agriculture and most particularly those in beef production—have faced more challenges than most; in some areas they are accompanied by those in the sector in the Northern Territory and northern Western Australia. These primary producers, in beef cattle production in particular, have battled the force majeure of droughts, floods and cyclones and the impacts that occurred through the suspension of the live cattle trade in 2011. Indeed, some of the issues associated with those decisions are still working their way through the balance sheets of some producers in the Northern Territory, northern Western Australia and northern Queensland.

The increase of debt that has occurred has been applied largely to the purchase of additional property in response to the trend of ‘get big or get out’ that has occurred during the last decade to 15 years, and additionally to farm improvements and capital purchases on-farm for plant and equipment. It is well known that many of these producers who now find themselves in trouble were the darlings of their financial providers as recently as four or five years ago, and certainly up until the advent of the global financial crisis. Over those years, because of the incidence of some improvement in property values, which I will refer to later as having declined, many producers were able to borrow more money against the value of their assets. In many cases this money was

applied in depreciating investments or for stocking purposes or for general operational purposes in the belief that, by subsidising the operations of their property for a period of time, their fortunes would turn around—that is to say that they would have a break in the weather, the dollar would reduce, market demand would increase or the fortunes of the live cattle trade would improve quicker than many of them had hoped.

In subsidising their production and operational costs, many of these producers have in fact artificially subsidised the cost of beef production in our country. When those sorts of things happen, it can sometimes take a number of years before the impacts are felt on the balance sheet of the individual primary producers or, indeed, across the industry. We saw these debt trends commence about 10 years ago with agribusiness banks offering low-interest, interest-only loans. These are dangerous for the non-sophisticated borrower, which many of these producers are—I do not say that in a deprecating way; I say that in the sense that many of these producers are not necessarily sophisticated in the ways of big finance. In much the same way as we have seen with the recent revelations of the Commonwealth Bank here in Australia, this is no less the case when bank managers and agri-advisers within banks are giving advice to primary producers about their expansion programs. They encouraged them to borrow money, in this case in particular it was interestonly loans, some with terms of 10 years.

This was soft credit into what arguably ought to have been seen as a subprime market in the sense that the wrong time to borrow is when there is grass up to your knees and the dams are full, but that was what was happening. It is my view that these agribankers, including in many instances the banks that are part of the big four and those others that specialise in this space, did not take into account the seasonal variations that would generally present to producers. They possibly could not have known about, but ought to have made some contingency provisions for, things such as fluctuating currencies and large impact interference in things like the live cattle trade if the borrower, if their client, had a big exposure in that area. Soft money is what things like credit cards provide: you really do not feel the effect of it; there are no principal payments to be made, just interest payments. Indeed, at the time when interest rates are at an all-time low, one can cope with that until such time as it is time to pay the piper. When it is time to pay the loan back or it is time to restructure the loan or your income streams collapse for some of the reasons I articulated earlier in this speech, then you have a complete incapacity to service your loan.

Many of these loans were a 100 per cent lend against the purpose of the loan. For example, many of these producers who were buying expanded landholdings were doing so by borrowing 100 per cent of the money and using alternative properties—sometimes their only other principal place of business, their


home property as it is referred to in this sector—or assets that were offfarm.

Not only were they at risk, again in a subprime capacity, of exposing the asset acquired, but they also put at risk in many cases some of the only other assets they had. Tragically, for some these were third-, fourthand fifth-generation holdings passed down through their families.

These properties were subject to biannual review covenants, and the same smiling bankers who left them two years previously and helped them to expand a business that always had the potential to fail—or certainly was, by any other measured examination, high risk—were to return into their lives, only this time it was no longer a friendly visit. We had the enormous tragedy, and it plays itself out still today, where there were neighbours with identical circumstances, identical properties and identical debts but where one of them was in grave difficulty and in fact losing their enterprise whilst the other one had perhaps a year or 18 months longer to live. During that time—as was the case with many properties, fortunately, in the Northern Territory—fortunes can turn around, allowing these second families, these second businesses, to recover.

The cases I refer to, of course, are where the live cattle trade was reinstated—and has indeed prospered for many over the last 12 or 18 months.

We have a situation where I believe that in some defined sectors of beef production, certainly more pronounced as one goes further north—indeed, by the time one gets to the line of Townsville to Broome and north of there—this has had a terrible impact. For some months now—indeed, from the very first stages of my time here in this place—I have been calling for a debt survey to occur so that industry and policymakers, both at a state and federal level, have all the facts before them that one would need to make policy decisions that

will impact on the lives of many thousands of these producers.

The banks have a responsibility here. I am not a bank basher. I have had a lot of association with banks over time and it has been my experience that, if I have

held up my end of the deal, they have largely held up theirs. But in this case the banks are frustrating any efforts by us to determine exactly the extent and type of debt levels we are dealing with through what I regard as a crisis. Through many and various media outlets, the Australian Bankers Association chief executive has said that the banks will not participate in a state debt survey. Mind you, from 2000 or 2001 through 2011 the banks did participate in such a debt survey with the rural reconstruction authority in my home state of Queensland, and they acknowledge that by saying:

Banks have previously participated in the survey, however, a number of banks have raised questions about its effectiveness, particularly given the considerable investment banks need to make to contribute.

I find that to be, in all the circumstances on the public record, a difficult statement to accept. The banks are suggesting—mind you, I often cringe when this is said by someone else—that, with the massive profits they have generated, much of it on occasion from people in rural and primary production, they find the cost involved in collating their own data too high. It is their data, yet cooperating with, in this case, a state government agency to determine the debt levels is too difficult. I find that to be a remarkable statement and one that I would suggest does not accurately reflect the truth of why the banks are not participating.

It is my view that the banks would not want to exacerbate a belief that there is softness in the property market. I have said this before and I will say it again:

I need to be particularly careful that I do not, or that anyone else making commentary in this space does not, exacerbate an already difficult situation. But it is a broadly held belief that many properties are in that uncertain space where the banks will progressively and in a very orderly fashion move on them. Many of those property operators are no longer viable. Their loan to valuation—LVR—ratios are in some cases up in the 70 per cent and 80 per cent range, which we all know is not sustainable for rural production, having regard to the return on investment that we have been seeing from these properties over the last 15 or 20 years. In fact, many of them have reported through ABARES surveys a decline in their gross incomes and most certainly a significant decline in their net profits. There was some work done in this space by the meat and livestock authority that showed that, in the 14 different regions surveyed by them, there were losses of about 2.9 per cent of gross turnover recorded. They made this statement at the end of their report:

The majority of northern beef producers are not generating profits sufficient to fund current and future liabilities.

That is a massive statement and well worth repeating. The majority of northern beef producers—and I described who they were: above the line of the

I HAVE BEEN CALLING FOR A DEBT SURVEY TO OCCUR SO THAT INDUSTRY AND POLICYMAKERS, BOTH AT A STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL, HAVE ALL THE FACTS BEFORE THEM THAT ONE WOULD NEED TO MAKE POLICY DECISIONS THAT WILL IMPACT ON THE LIVES OF MANY THOUSANDS OF THESE PRODUCERS.


Queensland-New South Wales border across to the northern part of Western Australia—are not generating profits sufficient to fund current and future liabilities.

That is a very disturbing statement. In the same period that I reported the increase in borrowings we have an increase in non-viable business operations from one per cent to 6.5 per cent at the same time as there was a 75 per cent increase in the debt.

It is essential that the banks of Australia participate in this case in a debt survey in my home state of Queensland. Without diminishing the circumstances of many primary producers in other states, I would have to say that, given that 66 per cent of the nation’s herd is in Queensland, the number of producers who are affected by this subprime crisis in agriculture is probably greater. Given the circumstances in Northern

Queensland, with the run of drought, fires and the live cattle job, there are many producers who fit in this situation.

Only a pigeon knows how to get to where they are going when they don’t know where they are. That certainly would not apply to the agricultural sector or the banks in my home state. I say to the banks: I have been moderating what I have had to say to date. I have been persistent over these last three or four months, but my patience, like the capacity of primary producers, is running thin. They are called upon to immediately respond.

“BUSH MATTERS OP-ED”By Senator Barry O’Sullivan 11 July 2014

Don Chipp launched the Australian Democrats in 1977 with his now infamous commitment to “keep the bastards honest.”

Readers might claim this catch-cry is still a relevant yardstick to measure the current political climate.

But it could also, just as easily, be extended to the Australian banking sector in the 21st century.

Since the deregulation policies of the Hawke Government enabled banks to widen their scope, the financial sector has grown into a Goliath of commerce, with an unprecedented stranglehold of the market place.

It is estimated the Commonwealth Bank, Westpac, National Australia Bank and ANZ will report combined profits of $29.7 billion this year.

For four years in a row, our major banks have recorded better returns than lenders in 10 major developed countries, including Canada, the US, Britain and Europe.

So where is a social license to operate buried among the Australian banking sector’s dazzling mountain of money?

This week I stood on the floor of the Senate chamber and again spoke out about the complacency and arrogance of the banks in refusing to participate in a rural debt survey.

Such a survey would provide a vital platform to understand the true extent of the rural debt problem and enable public policy and social services to be better directed to those who most in need.

The Australian Bankers’ Association has espoused a steady stream of excuses in recent months as to why the banks are refusing to participate in proposed surveys in Queensland and New South Wales.

One of the major complaints is that the process costs the banks too much.

It is a disingenuous claim, given the world-beating profits of the bankers.

Equally, it is an offensive statement to the thousands of landholders who are being forced to tighten their belts more and more, with little else than hope and perseverance pushing them to hold on for another week or month.

At a time when Australian agriculture is looking to capitalise on the economic spoils of “The Asian Century,” we find ourselves confronted with a sector hampered by unsustainable debt loads and stagnant earnings.

Australian agriculture is existing in a space where, increasingly, the value of farm production is being significantly outpaced by the levels of farm debt.

In 1980, output per dollar of debt in Australian agriculture peaked at $3.12.

By 2010, output per dollar of debt had fallen to just 64 cents.

This debt issue is no more evident than in my state of Queensland where the latest available figures indicate total rural debt is $16.97 billion, more than half of which is with the vital beef sector, which has spent years struggling under drought, flood, fire and the 2011 Live Export Suspension.

The warnings signs are glaringly obvious despite the Australian Bankers’ Association steadfast claims there is no rural debt crisis.

Australian farm debt has increased by almost 75 per cent in a decade - from A$40.3 billion in 2004 to an estimated A$70 billion in 2014.

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURE IS EXISTING IN A SPACE WHERE, INCREASINGLY, THE VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTION IS BEING SIGNIFICANTLY OUTPACED BY THE LEVELS OF FARM DEBT.


Land purchase is the largest single contributor to the increases in farm debt over the past two decades.

We are now experiencing the fallout from the “get big or get out” mantra.

MLA’s recently released Northern Beef Situation Analysis reports that the majority of northern beef producers are not generating profits sufficient to fund current and future liabilities.

The report states that across all 14 regions surveyed —stretching from the Queensland/New South Wales border to Central Western Australia—have reported average business returns of -2.9 per cent between 2010 and 2012.

The double lives the Australian banks are living are coming under increasing scrutiny as the divide between their public façade and their masked intentions begin to show cracks.

Questions have again been raised about honesty and integrity of our bankers with the release last week of a Senate report into fraud, forgery and cover-up in the financial planning division of the Commonwealth Bank.

Away from their public statements of contrition, we can only presume the head honchos at our major banks are reviewing their social license to operate policies.

Admitting there are concerns about rural debt loads and agreeing to assist in a survey would be a reasonable start.

It would provide some direction in the effort to address the current troubles confronting the agriculture sector.

Only a pigeon knows how to get to where it is going when it doesn’t know where it is.

Landholders across the nation expect the banks to clear a pathway for a rural debt survey.

And their collective patience, like their capacity to survive this financial crisis, is running thin.

“BEEF CENTRAL OP-ED” THE CASE FOR A RURAL DEBT SURVEY

By Senator Barry O’Sullivan 14 July 2014

The commencement of the 2014-15 financial year has brought the troubling news that banks are forcing more Queensland rural properties onto the market.

Some of these financial institutions have reported that the current value of non-performing agribusiness loans is the largest of all their banking categories.

Yet the representative body of the financial sector, the Australian Bankers’ Association, continues its inaction on these crippling rural debt loads.

In fact, the Australian Bankers’ Association claims there is no rural debt crisis.

This organisation claims the banks will no longer participate in rural debt surveys, which for more than a decade have measured the debt levels and provided context to assist the decisions of public policy makers.

Both Federal and State governments have outlined policy goals to double the real value of agricultural exports by 2050.

Some speculate this could result in additional revenues of $710 billion (in 2011 dollars) for the nation over the next four decades as economic growth will push the Asian continent to account for as much as 70 per cent of global middle class consumption by 2050.

But how do we ensure Australia’s rural communities and family farms are the beneficiaries of these unprecedented opportunities?

Future success in agriculture requires a deliberate focus on fostering globally competitive industries with high potential for growth.

This takes long term thinking and strategic capital injections. Banking loans are an important facility for business growth. This is necessary and unavoidable debt.

But there is another, more alarming, debt stream that is damaging the viability and survivability of many farms.

In 1980, output per dollar of debt in Australian agriculture peaked at $3.12. By 2010, output per dollar of debt had fallen to just 64 cents.

Some of this shift could relate to the increases in cost outlays and operating expenses.

But, overall, it is obvious this trajectory is not sustainable.

I have stood in the Senate chamber multiple times since taking office in February to call on the banks to participate in a rural debt survey.

These calls have been met with stubborn indifference, if not silence.

The last available data on debt was compiled by the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority (QRAA) in 2011 and it proves the importance of understanding the industry’s financial trends to create better public policy.

THE DOUBLE LIVES THE AUSTRALIAN BANKS ARE LIVING ARE COMING UNDER INCREASING SCRUTINY AS THE DIVIDE BETWEEN THEIR PUBLIC FAÇADE AND THEIR MASKED INTENTIONS BEGIN TO SHOW CRACKS.


The 2011 survey found the number of beef enterprises deemed ‘non-viable’ in the state had increased from less than 1 per cent in 2009 to 6.9 per cent in 2011.

Many graziers have struggled, and many others had been unable, to secure financial assistance because of this ‘non-viable’ standard, compounding the family pain and troubles.

Since 2001, the average debt of beef industry borrowers in Queensland has increased by more than 300 per cent.

Land purchase was the largest single contributor to the increases in farm debt over this period, followed by borrowing to meet spiralling operating costs.

Spending borrowed money to meet operating costs is also unsustainable.

The key economic indicators for Queensland producers since the 2011 debt survey only further point to a sector that is not generating sufficient income to alleviate debt stress.

The past two summers have delivered rainfall well below the 324mm state average and while the EYCI has solidly recovered from the lows of last year, when it lingered below 300c/kg, it is still 60 and 80 points shy of the weekly averages of recent, better seasons.

Everywhere I travel across the state I am confronted with stories of producers staring down foreclosure or, in some cases, banks permitting families to remain on the farm because it is cheaper to hold the property and wait for an upsurge in the real estate market than it is to send in the receivers – taking people from lord of the manor to little more than a caretaker.

The social cost to rural communities has been immense and will likely never be adequately measured.

The grazier’s wife doesn’t come into town anymore for a morning at the saleyards and an afternoon shopping.

Families have spent their savings, sold their cars, machinery and jewellery. Parents have pulled their children out of boarding schools.

Allied businesses have shut their doors and left town.

Maintenance programs have been scaled back and there is a reduction in employment opportunities because businesses cannot afford to take on or retain workers.

Bankers will privately disclose they hold concerns that any debt survey that paints a truly accurate picture of the intensity of debt stress across the state’s rural sector will only further hamper their moves to sell-off non-viable properties.

However, the concern of our government is to seek solutions that will keep families on the farm and place their ledgers back into the black.

A better return at the family farm gate must always be government’s driving force.

I will crawl over burning coals from Burketown to Bollon before standing by mutely and watching overseas investors and their pencil pushing lackeys pick off multi-generational family farms and corporatize the Australian rural landscape.

But, to prevent this significant shift that many city commentators believe is inevitable, we need to accept that rural debt is a ticking time bomb that jeopardises the ability of family farms to increase competitiveness, innovate and upgrade.

Alarmingly, financial stress is occurring across the rural sector at a time when the Reserve Bank of Australia’s (RBA) official interest cash rate sits at only 2.5 per cent - the lowest rate in half a century.

Interest on debts grow without rain, and repayments will only become more difficult as rates rise.

The aftermath of the ‘get big or get out’ mantra is strangling our beef sector.

During the property boom in the early years of this century, the banks were compliant in easing loan requirements to escalate borrowings and maximise their business growth.

No doubt some people borrowed more than they should. But the bankers’ hand also signed the paper.

Before we can fully lock our sights on the spoils of Asia, we must reverse the trend of declining productivity, unsustainable debt loads and stagnant earnings.

A fair dinkum rural debt survey will prove essential to understanding and repairing the road blocks to industry progress.

MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN SCALED BACK AND THERE IS A REDUCTION IN EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES BECAUSE BUSINESSES CANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE ON OR RETAIN WORKERS.


THE

THIS IS A MESSAGE TO THE BANKS.

To those who lend to the rural sector, especially to beef enterprises across Northern Australia, I simply say, your time is up!

Your time is up for arrogantly overlooking landholders and rural politicians as they call on you to acknowledge there is a sub-prime rural debt crisis in the north.

Your time is up for refusing to participate in a debt survey that could assess, and then model, the depth and scale of the lending problem among producers and supporting businesses.

The time is up for even contemplating that the banks might partner with those who may be able to influence and deliver better public policy.

The time is up for treating the banks politely!

We all should have known better. Over the past decades we have seen

both domestic and international banks show almost complete indifference to the interests of their clients.

Securing loan arrangements or the authority to invest customers’ savings on terms and conditions favourable to the bank has proven much more

important than the fundamental investment interests of customers.

The examples are all around us. We only need to turn our minds to the Pyramid Building Society in the 1990’s, Storm Financial in the 2000’s and the current atrocious behaviour of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA).

What do they all have in common? Incentivised lending practices.

There has long been a lack of transparency or lack of declaration by those financial sector employees who have been providing advice and negotiating loans when dealing with potential borrowers or investors.

They failed to mention that the more the customers borrowed, the more the banks would reward its staff.

My office has been inundated with stories about lenders throwing themselves at primary producers during the past two decades.

The evidence seems to indicate that the increased efforts of banks and lenders would coincide with good seasons, strong market conditions, low dollars and optimistic commodity forecasts.

Most affected borrowers say there were never discussions, nor modelling carried out, with the banks to determine the servicing capacity on the loans when – not if – the property faced drought or low commodity prices or other events of force majeure.

Borrowers report there were never discussions regarding contingency plans if unforeseen events, such as the Global Financial Crisis or the suspension of live exports, which would have a catastrophic impact on the ability of producers to service their new and additional loans.

The financial loan ‘products’ offered simply ignored some of the quite unique aspects of agriculture.

The impact of ‘cycles’ on the life of a farm (be it economic, weather or

commodity) means different things to different enterprises.

Producing poultry is different to producing pork; pork production is different to beef production; grass fed beef production is completely different to lot feeding.

Imagine two neighbours. One is a beef producer who is praying for rain. Further up the road, his grain producing neighbour is praying for it to stay dry for another couple of weeks so he can get the crop off.

The business needs of these primary producers are as varied as the images in a kaleidoscope.

Simply put – one shoe does not fit all when it comes to rural lending.

Despite this, when the banker calls to sell a loans product to a rural enterprise, they generally offer only one or two types of shoes for producers to try on.

If it was raining the day your banker visited you would end up with a pair of Wellington boots – boots of little use when you have to fit them into the stirrups of your horse to muster cattle in a drought.

Furthermore, two or three year loan arrangements don’t work when the natural rhythms and cycles are over a decade or more.

Loan covenants should reflect these ‘phases’ and ‘cycles.’

When the Senate returns after the winter recess I intend to wear out some shoe leather as I convince colleagues that we need an inquiry to look at these rural lending issues.

There is not much respect for the banks in Canberra at the moment, and the finance sector’s current arrogance in repeatedly refusing to commit to a debt survey should only make my job that much easier.

For four months I have called for the banks to commit to reasonable assistance.

But that has now come to an end.Time’s up!

SENATOR O’SULLIVAN SENDS CLEAR MESSAGE TO BANKS:

“TIME FOR TALK IS OVER”


THE

THIS IS A MESSAGE TO THE BANKS.

To those who lend to the rural sector, especially to beef enterprises across Northern Australia, I simply say, your time is up!

Your time is up for arrogantly overlooking landholders and rural politicians as they call on you to acknowledge there is a sub-prime rural debt crisis in the north.

Your time is up for refusing to participate in a debt survey that could assess, and then model, the depth and scale of the lending problem among producers and supporting businesses.

The time is up for even contemplating that the banks might partner with those who may be able to influence and deliver better public policy.

The time is up for treating the banks politely!

We all should have known better. Over the past decades we have seen

both domestic and international banks show almost complete indifference to the interests of their clients.

Securing loan arrangements or the authority to invest customers’ savings on terms and conditions favourable to the bank has proven much more

important than the fundamental investment interests of customers.

The examples are all around us. We only need to turn our minds to the Pyramid Building Society in the 1990’s, Storm Financial in the 2000’s and the current atrocious behaviour of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA).

What do they all have in common? Incentivised lending practices.

There has long been a lack of transparency or lack of declaration by those financial sector employees who have been providing advice and negotiating loans when dealing with potential borrowers or investors.

They failed to mention that the more the customers borrowed, the more the banks would reward its staff.

My office has been inundated with stories about lenders throwing themselves at primary producers during the past two decades.

The evidence seems to indicate that the increased efforts of banks and lenders would coincide with good seasons, strong market conditions, low dollars and optimistic commodity forecasts.

Most affected borrowers say there were never discussions, nor modelling carried out, with the banks to determine the servicing capacity on the loans when – not if – the property faced drought or low commodity prices or other events of force majeure.

Borrowers report there were never discussions regarding contingency plans if unforeseen events, such as the Global Financial Crisis or the suspension of live exports, which would have a catastrophic impact on the ability of producers to service their new and additional loans.

The financial loan ‘products’ offered simply ignored some of the quite unique aspects of agriculture.

The impact of ‘cycles’ on the life of a farm (be it economic, weather or

commodity) means different things to different enterprises.

Producing poultry is different to producing pork; pork production is different to beef production; grass fed beef production is completely different to lot feeding.

Imagine two neighbours. One is a beef producer who is praying for rain. Further up the road, his grain producing neighbour is praying for it to stay dry for another couple of weeks so he can get the crop off.

The business needs of these primary producers are as varied as the images in a kaleidoscope.

Simply put – one shoe does not fit all when it comes to rural lending.

Despite this, when the banker calls to sell a loans product to a rural enterprise, they generally offer only one or two types of shoes for producers to try on.

If it was raining the day your banker visited you would end up with a pair of Wellington boots – boots of little use when you have to fit them into the stirrups of your horse to muster cattle in a drought.

Furthermore, two or three year loan arrangements don’t work when the natural rhythms and cycles are over a decade or more.

Loan covenants should reflect these ‘phases’ and ‘cycles.’

When the Senate returns after the winter recess I intend to wear out some shoe leather as I convince colleagues that we need an inquiry to look at these rural lending issues.

There is not much respect for the banks in Canberra at the moment, and the finance sector’s current arrogance in repeatedly refusing to commit to a debt survey should only make my job that much easier.

For four months I have called for the banks to commit to reasonable assistance.

But that has now come to an end.Time’s up!

SENATOR O’SULLIVAN SENDS CLEAR MESSAGE TO BANKS:

“TIME FOR TALK IS OVER”

“BUSH MATTERS OP-ED”

By Senator Barry O’Sullivan 21 August 2014

There are many graziers and farmers across the nation who would argue that drought and debt are not the biggest problems facing the bush.

There is no doubt communities are being crippled by certain contract agreements with banks and their associated, and oftentimes, unreasonable penalty clauses.

The desperate need for decent summer rain is also destroying confidence, especially in our northern beef industry.

In the repeated rush to roll out knee jerk public policy, we neglect that other ‘D’ word – debate.

And we overlook it to our own peril.

Solid seasons will improve the market. Restructuring debt issues will enable farms to reconfigure their business outlook.

But a lack of clear debate in the rural sector undermines these gains and increases doubt and uncertainty.

When I speak about debate, I am referring to how rural industry and communities collectively work towards generating wealth and prosperity.

I refer to the open exchange of ideas by stakeholders with a shared vested interest.

When debate prospers, the group is able to reach a conclusion or outcome, with each of the participants understanding how this endgame was reached.

This position can then be taken to key decision makers who can act with the knowledge it reflects a majority view.

The fact is we already have this system in place between landholders, peak industry bodies and rural MPs.

A distant observer with no knowledge of agriculture would argue this long standing communication chain should make rural industry a formidable bloc in parliament.

Yet it is difficult to argue that is the case.

Simply put, peak industry bodies are not open and transparent enough with the agriculture sector about their decisions and landholders have often stopped demanding answers.

As the ongoing Senate Inquiry into Grass-fed Beef Levies has quickly established, many graziers do not trust, nor wish to participate in, their peak industry bodies.

And it is to their own detriment.

I have just completed a week-long tour of Western Queensland, holding meetings in shearing sheds,

machinery sheds and community halls between Toowoomba and Mount Isa.

Whether it is kangaroos, wild dogs or access to rail - it becomes glaringly obvious as you travel across western districts speaking with people on the frontlines of industry that we are all in furious agreement that there are significant problems hindering economic growth in agriculture and rural communities.

However, it is less clear what channels of communication are in place that enables the farmer to confidently lobby the rest of his industry mates to push government to bring about change.

Many of the peak industry bodies would struggle to argue, under scrutiny, that they are the true voice on their sector.

From the point of view of the politician in Canberra, it is similarly unclear who government should be speaking to about industry concerns, given the freefalling memberships of peak industry bodies and sheer number of rival splinter groups.

There is also not the necessary coordination between rural politicians and peak industry bodies to actively campaign for public policy.

This hinders the public policy decision making process and further stifles debate for a sector where there are only ever a small handful of politicians that show any interest in rural affairs.

Unless we begin to address these problems with debate and communication in our rural sector, I am concerned that Australia will simply not be prepared to capitalise on the spoils of the Asian Century.

Our geographical proximity to these Asian markets should not be translated to mean these nations will always trade with us.

We need to promote a new debate, which places the cynicism of the past actions behind us.

If our agriculture sector is ever going to be able to service the economic promises we are making in these free trade agreements, we need peak industry bodies that can truly speak on behalf of their sector and can also better coordinate with rural politicians so that we will collectively roll out a swag at the door of any relevant minister’s office and refuse to leave until we have achieved a result.

We need to reenergize these peak industry bodies, through government support and higher participation among landholders, if we are going to confront this battle head on.

We should all be in furious agreement that things cannot go on in their current form.

There are genuine efforts in motion to re-lay these foundations.


However, perhaps the greatest tragedy is that it takes a crisis in debt and drought to begin this important conversation.

While we work on these urgent drought and debt issues confronting the bush, we must also be working to iron out the long term structural and communication creases.

It will take honest and openness from every corner of the sector.

But the stakes are too high for us to not take action.

“THOUGHTS ON WESTERN QUEENSLAND TRIP”SPEECHBy Senator Barry O’Sullivan 26 August 2014

I intend to continue a theme that has been present in many of my speeches since I came to this place in February—that is, matters that are of significant importance to people in agriculture and primary production, particularly beef producers in my state of Queensland and, most particularly, beef producers in the western and northern aspects of the state, who are engaged in grass-fed beef production. I recently undertook a tour of western Queensland in the company of Senator Brett Mason, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and over time we had a series of about 25 meetings, which allowed us to engage one-on-one, firsthand with over 300 people who are involved in the pastime of predominantly pastoral pursuits west of the township of Roma and all the way through to Mount Isa.

Whilst I have acknowledged before, and I will continue to acknowledge it again, that there are some aspects of agriculture and some agricultural enterprises that are doing well, I would have to declare that the majority of producers in the area through which we travelled are having a very, very significant struggle. I have put this matter on the record previously and I will continue to do so until we are able to start, as a government and as a parliament, to be able to respond with some meaningful changes to support this vital sector of our country to get back on their feet, to grow their businesses and to return to contributing to the wealth of this nation.

There is a belief amongst many that the problems in the bush are confined simply to debt and drought and that somehow by mitigating the debt circumstances, transferring the type of debt and the application of debt and having rain will restore their fortunes and that everything will be all right. I can report to you that that is not the case. Drought and debt circumstances for many have compounded their circumstances, but the problems that are facing these producers have been coming for 20 years. It is about a lack of profitability in their enterprises.

These enterprises are reporting, in many cases, zero return on investment and those that are operating

effectively are operating on about three or four per cent return on investment. These are not anecdotal figures; these are figures that have been borne out by many peer-reviewed empirical studies into this issue over the last decade. We have producers who are reporting the same level of income per kilogram for their commodity —for their beef or for their livestock—as they were receiving 20 years ago. In fact, for those who have looked at the index in the last 24 months, there have been occasions where producers who have sold their entire livestock for up to one quarter of the prices per kilogram that they would have received 20 years ago.

Many of the property owners I spoke to have completely sold all of their breeding stock, and they are in no financial position, even with the return of fortune with the weather and even with restructuring their debt with government support in some instances, to restock their properties. In the language of producers, many sold breeding livestock, including replacement heifers, for as low as 30c or 35c a kilogram, yielding prices that for many barely covered their freight and that certainly showed no return on their investment in that livestock.

We all know that when there is a break in the seasons and surface waters are replenished and the need for investment in fodder and support feed is mitigated, thousands upon thousands of producers will return to the market and will be competing for replacement stock and so, if they are in a position to purchase that stock, they will be buying them at a price 600 or 700 per cent more expensive than they originally sold their breeding stock for.

The issues I found in the bush involved drought, debt, profitability and, in many cases, the impact of a high dollar. There are consequences from the reduction in breeder numbers—they have their land but they have an incapacity to produce the commodity that typically provides their income. I am talking about millions of hectares of country in the west where they have limited or no surface water, even if they did have pasture feed. They have endured diminished extension services funded by state and federal governments, so in many cases they are being denied the sort of support they received for many decades which enabled them to cope better with the circumstances they faced.

People on the land are reporting large increases in the number of dingoes and predatory dogs. I am inclined to think that the dingo is now in the minority. Dogs such as pig dogs have bred with dingoes, and those crossbred dogs now make up the majority of the dog population in the west. These dogs are much more

WE NEED TO PROMOTE A NEW DEBATE, WHICH PLACES THE CYNICISM OF THE PAST ACTIONS BEHIND US.


aggressive and there are many reports of these dogs pulling down cattle of a size that a dingo would be incapable of hunting to ground. Unlike dingoes, these dogs might pull down 20 or 30 calves or weaners in the course of a day and consume none. It is a blood sport for them. There is evidence that these dogs are now travelling up to 120 kilometres in a day, so the traditional means of tracking a pattern of dog activity on your property and responding are gone. By the time you have discovered the work of these dogs, they might be 50 or 60 kilometres away.

Weed infestations are getting out of control. West of Charleville, between Charleville and up around the back way to Stonehenge and Jundah, about 50 per cent of properties in the mulga are no longer occupied.

During the course of our visit a producer who went there in 1988 told us that in one district alone where there used to be nine families on a mail route there are now none and on the north-south mail route that intersects with the route I just spoke of there is one family left out of eight. Survey work on a property north of Aramac showed there were 26,000 kangaroos on a property of 110,000 acres. It is professionally estimated that they are eating up to 50 per cent of the pasture. The cattle are competing with this and they are competing with the dogs, and, Mr Acting Deputy President Back, you would know better than anyone in this place that fertility rates are down around 40 per cent.

It is now absolutely impossible for these enterprises to service any debt—and, mind you, they have got debt.

They have their old traditional debt that in many cases was properly invested in developing and increasing the productivity of their properties but, more recently, they are borrowing money against the remaining equity in their properties to survive. In effect, these producers are now subsidising the production of beef in our country—not all of them, but in the areas I pass through, which make up about 60 per cent of the land mass of Queensland, they are subsidising the production of beef and there are others who are enjoying the benefit of that subsidisation. In any other business one might consider that that was not a very sensible state of affairs. Indeed, for many of these producers it probably is no longer a sensible thing to do but there comes a point for these people on the land where everything they have—everything their forebears had—is invested in their rural properties and the road gets so narrow that it is impossible for them to turn around. In many cases they are on a collision course with bankruptcy.

I listened very carefully to Senator Madigan and Senator Xenophon, who spoke about mental health. As we travelled through western Queensland, these people did not talk in statistical terms—they named their neighbours who had committed suicide. They did not say that a half of one per cent of the population have been subject to mental health issues and have taken their life. They named their neighbours and the people in their community, and they named their wives

and their children. I am not laying that at our feet; I am not going to lay that at the feet of this government or anyone in it. If we allow these circumstances to continue or deteriorate, then we have to take some ownership of what is happening in rural Australia and particularly in our state of Queensland.

In Queensland we are suffering drought conditions that have not been seen since 1902. Properties are receiving less income per kilogram of beef production than they did 20 years ago. The volume of beef that they are producing on their properties is up, because they have invested in pastures—as you would know, Mr Acting Deputy President Back—and they have invested in genetics. They have been able to produce more kilograms of beef per hectare than they did 10 or 20 years ago. They are not currently confronted with some of the big infrastructure and capital costs faced by programs years ago, such as the reticulation of water, the building of dams and turkey’s nests, the fencing of the properties—all things which increased the productivity of these enterprises. But it has taken them nowhere, because, as I said, they are being paid the same per kilogram for their commodity as they were two decades ago. They were rewarded for their hard diligence—I must say, significantly—by the decision to suspend the live cattle trade in 2011 by their Commonwealth government. Again, I lay that at no-one’s feet; that was a decision of this place. In retrospect it was a very ill-conceived decision and its impact is still playing through the balance sheets of these properties and those of their neighbours all the way down as far as Central Queensland.

We have a subprime crisis in Northern Queensland and Northern Australia. We have had reports, with supporting evidence, of declines of up to 28 per cent in the value of properties. When you have a collection of securities where your loan-value ratio is 70 per cent, which is not unusual if you have some more farm securities involved, and when you have a 28 per cent collapse in value of the main asset in the body of securities, you are nudging subprime. I say there are hundreds of properties—possibly more than a thousand—across Northern Australia that are marking time with their banks, with their lenders, waiting for a break in the seasons, waiting for improvements in commodity prices and waiting for increases in live cattle exports that will impact positively back on the domestic markets. I think the banks will then exercise their rights to sell these properties. Over the next five years or more, we are going to see the complexion of primary production in my state change significantly and not necessarily for the better.

Whilst I am not against aggregations of holdings by corporations, Australian or otherwise, their behaviour is completely different to that beehive of familyheld enterprises, partnerships and corporations that underpins the viability of hundreds of our small communities right across my state—I am sure the same applies to New South Wales, Victoria, and indeed to Western Australia.


I made myself a promise during this trip, and I have tied my right wrist to my left ankle on this promise: it is time for us to draw a line in the sand. I am no longer going to devote my speeches, my time and my energy to establishing what the problems are. These people are tired of hearing from their members of parliament about what their problems are. They are tired of us indicating to them what the circumstances were that brought them into these unfortunate circumstances of their own. It is time for all of us across this place to dig deep, without regard to partisanship, to start to produce some solutions to support our primary producers. Each of us has to personally put a value on primary production for our nation. We each of us have to answer the question of whether we intend to continue to support these small communities and the social infrastructure that goes with them. We need to decide whether agriculture is important to us. We need to accept, I say, the proposition that agriculture and primary production will be the next economy.

Long after the mining resources of gas, coal, iron ore and the like have made their contribution, we will go back to the age of producing soft commodities, predominantly for export into the Asian market.

I say to colleagues in this place that we need to spend some of our time—not all of our time; everyone here has a very important mission and they have their own missions—thinking about our fellow Australians who have invested their lives, in many cases for many generations, in agricultural pursuits across Western Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and all the way across the nation until we get to the beautiful west coast of Western Australia. We need to put a value on that. We need to ask ourselves where they fit. We need to ask ourselves whether we want to join in partnership with them as they transition to this new economy and whether we are going to support them to take and exploit these markets in the Asian area. Decisions have to be made with them in mind.

With Rick Gurnett, west of Charleville.



“ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS”SPEECHBy Senator Barry O’Sullivan 19 June 2014

I rise tonight to speak on what is a significantly important matter. As I lead into my speech, I want to briefly reflect on what I think is one of the most powerful honours attached to being a senator in this federal parliament. That is to give voice to someone who does not have the capacity to give voice to an issue for themselves. This evening I stand to speak on behalf of Ms Norma Hamawi, who is a grandmother.

I stand here as a grandfather speaking on behalf of a particular grandmother, but indeed in spirit on behalf of many grandmothers, grandfathers, mothers and fathers around the country who are in a most anxious phase of their lives as their children and their loved ones—their sons, their daughters, their brothers, their sisters and, indeed, themselves in some instances—are suffering from a very severe and debilitating condition called atypical haemolytic uremic syndrome.

This disease seems to particularly strike young women in their teens and early womanhood. It is a violent disease. It is a disease that attacks their organs, in particular their kidneys, their livers and eventually their brain. Without treatment, they can suffer from complete organ failure in periods as short as three or four months. But there is a solution to their plight. The solution to their plight is a drug called Soliris, manufactured by Alexion Pharmaceuticals in the United States. Soliris has been here in Australia for a long time and is available through the PBS scheme for a particular condition, but not the condition that I have mentioned. Soliris is available today for patients in this country who suffer from another rare and disabling disorder called paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria. That the drug is not available to Australians who are suffering from aHUS.

Returning to where I started, Ms Hamawi is the grandmother of a beautiful young woman named Bianca Scott. Bianca is an 18-year-old student or immediate past student who graduated from her high school in 2013 with all of the wonderful promise that comes with that phase of our lives, as we finish our term of education and go out into the world to explore and to grow. Only that was not Bianca’s experience. Within a very short period of time, Bianca found herself on full-time treatment for an attack of this condition on her kidneys.

Because the drug is not available through the PBS at this time, her family set about trying to do what every parent and grandparent would do, and that is to supply their child with a chance at life—a chance at life in the same way that all of us in this chamber tonight and our colleagues in this entire parliament enjoy as I speak.

The family have invested $234,000 of their money in purchasing the drug for young Bianca up until today.

They have nothing left. This family has nowhere to go. They have no chattels left to sell. They have no friends or support in the community any longer, after they have enjoyed massive support from friends and family in being able to supply the drug to young Bianca for these past months.

The tragedy is that Bianca’s family went to the pharmaceutical company, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, with $15,000—their last $15,000—of the $24,000 required to buy these vials of life that last for two weeks. Twelve thousand dollars every week is the cost to this family to keep this little girl alive and to keep and protect her from long-term and debilitating organ failure. After paying the company $234,000 just in this calendar year, they expected that the company might, on a humanitarian basis, have provided their little girl with the drug this once, even though they cannot pay the full amount.

I do not intend to spend a lot more time on Alexion Pharmaceuticals tonight, because I have put a proposition to them, and I am hoping that somewhere in the world tonight it is under active consideration.

They have an application before our federal health department. That application is making its way through the system, through the due diligence, as it should. To their credit, the company have a current humanitarian trial in this country where they are supplying this drug free of charge to 11 sufferers of aHUS. But the tragedy is that there are another 11 souls, as best I can research, who currently are in need of this drug.

I am calling upon the company to consider extending their humanitarian trial until such time as our health department has completed the due diligence required to make a decision with respect to the acceptance of this drug. I understand that that is at an advanced time.

I also understand that there will be further negotiations in the coming weeks. I understand that progress has been made. But, if we are unable to get a positive solution with respect to this drug within the next couple of months, people like Bianca Scott will not be with us—or at least they will by then have suffered such extensive damage to their organs that it will not be able to be reversed.

I understand that Alexion are not a charity. I understand that they cannot go all around the world putting their drug, in which they have had considerable investment, out there for nothing. But I put a proposition to them that they do so, for free, as an investment in being a good corporate citizen in our country until such time as our health department has had the chance to properly and carefully navigate the path that is required to have this drug approved.

And I say this: I intend to rise to my feet at every opportunity I can over the coming days and the coming weeks and the coming months to progressively continue my call to Alexion. I will try and garner support from any quarter that I can by any method that I can until such time as they provide us with the relief that is required for these people whilst


our government looks seriously at approving their drug on terms and conditions that are very financially favourable to them.

“aHUS AND BIANCA SCOTT”SPEECHBy Senator Barry O’Sullivan Tuesday, 24 June 2014

I rise tonight to continue a discussion I started in this place last week, regarding a vulnerable group of Australians who suffer from the medical condition of atypical haemolytic uremic syndrome. This condition is a very aggressive medical condition that promotes organ failure in patients who are exposed—in particular renal failure followed by liver failure and in many cases the patients will go on to suffer brain damage. The condition is often measured in a patient’s life in weeks rather than months and certainly not years. For many this condition is ultimately life-threatening and for some fatal.

For those who do not surrender their life to this condition they often confront a lifetime of living with the results of organ failure—many of them not eligible for corresponding live transplant arrangements because of the condition. I said last time and I will continue to repeat each time I take to my feet that I stand here to speak for those who do not have a voice—for the grandparents, parents, brothers and sisters, uncles and aunties and the patients themselves, who have been engaging with me and other senators and members of the House of Representatives.

There are estimated to be 70 Australians who suffer from the condition, with 22 of them in acute stages of this disease. Not only are their voices silent, but there are very few of them to give momentum for those voices to be heard. Without people like myself and others in this parliament putting forward their case, the condition of their lives will remain in the balance.

There is a solution and that has to do with a drug called Soliris. It is a very expensive drug. The trials are yet to determine whether these patients need to remain on the drug for life or whether exposure to the drug over set periods of time is beneficial. Various time iterations have been presented but up to 12 months may tide them through, protect their organs and their lives until the condition goes into some form of remission. The drug was the subject of an application to the former government, but it was rejected on the basis of clinical trials. Another application was lodged in late 2013 and considered by the PBAC in March 2014. The PBAC have in principle approved the drug for use and have broadly agreed, as I understand it, with the cost impost of the drug, but there are some delays due to negotiations between the health department and the company about the terms and conditions of the managed entry scheme that will apply to Australian patients.

Broad trials for these boutique drugs for rare disorders cannot be conducted and so some trial and error is

involved. This particular drug has only been used in the treatment of this condition for three and a quarter years internationally and so there is much more to be learnt both about the performance potential of the drug and any long-term negative impacts it might have on patients who are exposed over longer periods. The difficulty is that, whilst the Department of Health has agreed with many of the terms and conditions of the manufacturer from the United States, there is disagreement over the government’s resolve to ensure that this drug is accepted on terms that meet the national interest and the requirements of the patients. I think some of the conditions that the department is negotiating are very fair and reasonable in the circumstances, but they are asking the company to enter into arrangements where if the drug proves to be unsuccessful with particular patients—and I understand patients react differently to the performance of this medicine—then Australia reserves the right to withdraw from the arrangements. I think that is perfectly reasonable.

I am satisfied that great progress has been made in these discussions. I think they are at a very advanced

stage. The difficulty now rests in convincing the pharmaceutical company to give access to some of these patients—and there are 11 Australians who are in critical, immediate need of this drug to maintain their health. If negotiations with the PBS are to go on, as I anticipate they might, and are measured in months, then indeed we will have young Australians—beautiful young Australians like Bianca Scott of the Gold Coast in my home state of Queensland—who will suffer from

organ failure, from which they might not return. It may well—and I hope I do not bring Bianca or her family any distress in saying this—put her life at risk. In fact, it will put her life at risk.

That family has spent $235,000 with this company to buy the drug, at a personal level, to this date. They have run out of the capacity to do that. I stand here tonight, as I did the other day, and I call upon this pharmaceutical company. This company is engaging with our country, which is giving favourable consideration to entering into arrangements with that company for tens upon tens upon tens of millions of dollars of Australian taxpayers’ money to subsidise and fund this important drug. This is a company that has a turnover of $1.5 billion. This is a company where the CEO has an annual salary of $14 million and $168 million in share options. I call on them tonight to give consideration to extending access to this drug to these 11 Australians who are in critical need of it at

THE DIFFICULTY NOW RESTS IN CONVINCING THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY TO GIVE ACCESS TO SOME OF THESE PATIENTS—AND THERE ARE 11 AUSTRALIANS WHO ARE IN CRITICAL, IMMEDIATE NEED OF THIS DRUG...


the moment, until such time as we have properly and sensibly worked through the issues associated with the terms and conditions for access to this drug.

I say to the CEO of Alexion tonight—who is, as we speak, I suspect, lying warm and fair in his bed in the United States: tomorrow morning he should ask himself a question; he should close his eyes and give consideration to what he would want his company to do in these circumstances if this were his daughter who faced this terrible plight in life. I am prepared, if he does that in a fair manner, to live with the decision that he takes.

“DESPERATELY ILL GIRL WHOSE 18TH BIRTHDAY WISH WAS LIFE WILL GET WORLD’S MOST EXPENSIVE DRUG”

By Reporter Daniel Mills

• Bianca Scott will receive subsidised life-saving drug treatment

• She suffers from a rare immune condition called aHUS • Soliris treats the condition but at full price costs

$24,000 a fortnight• The 18-year-old’s mother spent up to $250,000

treating her daughter• Her case has opened up debate to subsidise the

drug long term

An 18-year-old Gold Coast girl has won her bid to have a $680,000-a-year drug subsidised so that she can receive ongoing medical treatments to keep her alive.

Bianca Scott, who spent her recent 18th birthday wishing to stay alive, will finally have access to her first government-funded dose of Soliris, which will save her family more than $24,000 a fortnight and help her fight a very rare immune disease which attacks her internal organs.

Ms Scott is suffering the life-threatening blood disease called atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome, or aHUS which can result in blood clots and can destroy internal organs. Bianca has had 11 doses of Soliris since February, costing her family about $250,000, but now she will be given the drug for less after a joint State and Federal Government-funding agreement was reached.

Bianca is one of 70 Australians living with aHUS and among 10 who need the treatment urgently. So far she is the only Australian with access to the subsidised drug but it is hoped her case will open the debate up further for Soliris to be accessible to everyone.

It is a short-term solution, her mother Tammy Hamawi said, but one that she hopes receives long-term funding.

“We have won but we haven’t secured Bianca absolutely to access this medicine long-term,” Ms Hamawi told The Courier Mail.

Bianca’s mother, who had given up her job running her own mentoring and business consultancy company to care for her daughter, thanked Senator Barry O’Sullivan and Gold Coast MP Karen Andrews who told her on Tuesday that Bianca would get the treatment.

She had been spending all of the family’s money, as well as money borrowed from friends, on the life-saving treatment. She was forced to stop the treatment on June 5, given the ongoing financial demands.

She said the government intervention in helping Bianca prolong her life is a big bonus - given Soliris ‘is the only treatment’ which helps manage her condition.

‘Without a doubt Soliris is the most expensive drug in the world,’ said Ms Hamawi. ‘It is the only treatment in the whole world for aHUS.’

Bianca was diagnosed with aHUS, which can strike at any age, when she was seven months old. She then found out then that her uncle had died of the disease as a child.

Unusually, the illness lay dormant in Bianca before resurfacing late last year, just a few weeks after she finished high school.

‘THE MOST EXPENSIVE DRUG IN THE WORLD’: THE DRAMA BEHIND SOLIRIS FUNDING

Soliris is currently available at a subsidised rate for people suffering with another ultra-rare disease, called paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria (PNH) through the Life Saving Drugs Program (LSDP).

It was being considered by the LSDP as a treatment for aHUS when the LSDP was put under review by the federal government earlier this year.

The drug was then moved for consideration to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC).

The PBAC recommended that Soliris be subsidised under the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme for sufferers of aHUS, though there are still several bureaucratic steps to go through before any subsidy will come into effect.

Kirsten Bruce, a representative of the aHUS Patient Support Group Australia said that the PBAC recommendation leaves many questions unanswered.

Of particular concern, she says, is that under the proposed conditions, patients will only be eligible for the drug if they are currently experiencing a flare-up of the condition, and will only be allowed to take the drug for six months after they have recovered from the attack, even though it is recommended that sufferers remain on the drug for the duration of their lives.

‘Sufferers want to know who will qualify for Soliris, whether they’ll be able to stay on it long-term, there are so many question marks,’ she said.

‘The tragedy is there’s a drug that’s available, that works, and it sits on pharmacy shelves, the doctors want to be able to prescribe it but they can’t.’


A spokesperson for the Federal Department of Health confirmed that it was currently in negotiations with Alexion, who hold the patent for the drug.

Alexion were contacted for comment.

‘Mum noticed symptoms and she took me to hospital and they told me the aHUS had come back. Since then I was faced with this terrible battle,’ she said.

‘I couldn’t keep any food down, I was always vomiting, I couldn’t stand up, I’d feel very dizzy, I had fevers… sadly I have chronic kidney failure now.’

She required an endless run of hospital visits – with Bianca requiring eight-hour stretches of dialysis three to four days a week, as well as plasma infusions – before Ms Hamawi heard of Soliris.

‘Thank God for Google!’ she said.

Ms Hamawi was able to fund five doses of the drug, with the help of her family and friends, and two further doses were bought using donations, including a $19,000 donation from Bianca’s school and an anonymous $10,000 donation.

‘I am so grateful for that,’ said Bianca. ‘I thank everyone for that.’

Since starting on Soliris on Valentine’s Day, Bianca has turned a corner.

She still requires dialysis, but the plasma infusions, which she describes as ‘weird’ and ‘scary’ have stopped, her hours in hospital have significantly decreased and she is feeling much better.

Her blood tests are also showing vastly improved results, with the nephrologist telling Bianca on Monday that if her results continue in the direction they’re going she might be able to come off dialysis.

But with the cost of Soliris currently so high, it was costing $680,000 a year to keep her on the drug, Bianca and her mother do not have the money to buy their next dose, which Bianca is due to take on Thursday June 19.

Without Soliris, Bianca will likely deteriorate, and if left too long, the damage to her kidney will be so severe that she will have to remain on dialysis for the rest of her life.

‘She’s 17, can you imagine a lifetime of chronic kidney failure? And when I say a lifetime, it’s not going to be a long life,’ said Ms Hamawi.

Ms Hamawi is frustrated at Alexion, the U.S. company that produce Soliris and own the patent for the drug.

‘On the one hand $680,000 a year to save your child’s life is a big price, it’s too high,’ she said.

However, most of her anger is directed at the Australian government, which she says is ‘a system that we thought was there to protect and look after us [and] has in a way let us down’.

‘It baffles me how could you justify fuelling aeroplanes to go and look for an aeroplane that’s who knows

where. But when someone needs medicine, and it is the only medicine that is available, you sit there and negotiate and it might take six months,’ she said.

FROM BARRY O’SULLIVAN FACEBOOK PAGE

July 28

Dear Barry,

How do you truly thank a man you've never physically

met, yet you know that this man put everything he

could on the line to save your daughter's life? I don't

think I will ever be able to do enough thanking in

this lifetime and... next to ever truly show you how

much I am grateful to you senator Barry O'Sullivan.

Your compassion so overwhelming in it's desire to

truly help the ones in need is what we vote for in

our politicians and often it's the thing that's lost

to policy and bureaucracy, but you renew my faith.

Because you heard our cry, you felt my mothers

pain (Norma Hamawi) and you cried with me over

my daughters suffering. Do you remember that

call?..... And then you committed to doing whatever

is needed to give Bianca Scott (my daughter) a

chance in life and the only medicine capable of

delivering to her the healing she needs to live it. I

had lost faith in the system and through your good

deed to our family you teach me that while all is

not perfect, there is still a huge amount of good

that's done.

My heart and my mothers heart and my daughters

heart and the hearts of many, sleep easier today

because you took us on, Bianca's Battle, and

through the great work of others who helped you,

we have Bianca now on the medicine (Soliris) and

we pray her health reverts and restores.

I believe you've only been in Senate for 5 months.

Congratulations Senator Barry O'Sullivan. Already

you trailblazer and win the respect of many people,

your hard work and passion will benefit. You already

win my respect.

Thank God you found us.

Warmest Regards, Tammy Hamawi.


“DR ROLF GOMES AND THE HEART OF AUSTRALIA”SPEECHBy Senator Barry O’Sullivan 1 October 2014

I am pleased to be able to give the very first of senators’ statements in this place under the new arrangements and on a topic that I am certain will enjoy the support and encouragement of all sides of politics, regardless of our particular partisan interests.

I rise to speak about the advent of an initiative known in my homestate of Queensland as the Heart of Australia.

This project embodies the most innovative approach to front-line specialist medical services to be delivered in generations. It specifically aims at assisting those Australians whose access to medical facilities of a standard that is taken for granted by many of us is threatened by our nation’s vast distances. This initiative is the brainchild of Dr Rolf Gomes and his wife, Kylie Gomes. They have facilitated the establishment of the nation’s first mobile specialist cardiac health service clinic. Whilst this is unique to Queensland, I fully anticipate that this project will operate in some ways as a pilot. I know that it has attracted great interest across our nation, and I expect that health professionals all over the country and those who are responsible for the development and implementation of public health policy will be watching this initiative very closely in order that it may be duplicated, not just in the way that services to do with cardiovascular disease are delivered but also in the way that a very wide range of medical services can be delivered remotely, with the right amount of planning and support.

Millions of Australian are affected by cardiovascular disease. It is rated as Australia’s biggest killer and, at any given time, it affects the lives of up to 3½ million Australians. One of the tragic statistics that goes with cardiovascular disease is that, if you live in rural and regional Australia, you are more inclined to be affected by this disease by about 15 per cent. This is a very significant variation and one that ought to remain of serious concern to all those who develop and implement health policy in our country. If you go to communities where the inhabitants are predominantly our Indigenous Australians then this figure with respect to cardiovascular disease increases once more to levels which I say we should all be embarrassed about.

People living in rural and regional communities have less access to many critical health services. People in regional, rural and remote areas of Australia experience poorer health outcomes than those living in urban areas on just about any test that is applied. Life expectancy in regional areas of our country is one to two years lower and in remote areas it is up to seven years lower than the average in our major cities. These stats are compounded by the fact that people who live in regional areas and whose life is

tragically affected by trauma injuries do not get the critical treatment within that important time span post the event because of remoteness, distance or availability of services. People in regional, rural and remote communities have limited access to primary healthcare services and are more likely to be admitted to hospitals for conditions which could have potentially been prevented through the earlier provision of non-hospital services and care.

In my maiden speech in this place, I made clear the point that over decades the economic rationalist policies of many administrations—and I think I commented at the time that bad policy has no respect for the political incumbent, so they have been decisions taken by governments of all walks of life—have reduced all levels of services in a very critical way to many hundreds, if not thousands, of our small communities across the country. I was quite specific about the affects of this policy on my homestate of Queensland, but I am sure it applies equally to most of the rural and regional areas in the country. Over time we reduced people’s access to services. We closed the courthouses. We pulled up the railway lines. We closed the schools. Also, at that time, we gave licence to the private sector banks, the real estate agencies and the stock and station agencies to leave these small communities and districts. One of the most critical sectors to leave was health services. Indeed, there was a time when women who lived in the many dozens of small communities in my home state could go through their confinement in their community. They could prepare for the delivery of their family member and, indeed, give birth to their child in those communities —but now that is not the case. In fact, many of the communities that at one time were properly staffed with health professionals now have none at all. It means that people in those small communities—and, as importantly, the very big districts that they service—now have to travel hundreds of kilometres to get simple primary health care, such as the setting of a broken bone or some other treatment that might be critical to their condition.

It is within that context that I have been proudly, along with quite a number of others, supporting Dr Gomes in his Heart of Australia initiative. It is a superinnovative project that includes a massive trailer.

This would be of interest to you, Senator Sterle. I understand it is the longest trailer, at 29 metres, to be commissioned to go on the road. Its launch will be on Friday morning in my hometown of Toowoomba, where I will proudly be representing our government and the parliament generally. This service will take state-of-the-art cardiovascular diagnostic equipment to all of the small regional and rural community hubs.

Effectively, an individual—who otherwise may have taken weeks upon weeks to get referrals and to travel from their community to larger centres like Townsville and Brisbane—will now be able to have these tests done right there at home, maybe only a block from where they live, if they happen to live in or near one of these community hubs.


There is evidence that many people on the land often put off testing for cardiovascular disease. They put chest pains and chest pressures down to strains from work. They wait until the shearing is completed or the mustering is done or whichever of those heavy chores for people struggling on the land is finished before they get checked. In doing that, they are taking a gamble. As of Friday, that all changes. They will now have regular and very accessible opportunities for their GP to refer them to this mobile clinic, for want of a better description. If their cardiovascular condition is of a serious nature, they will have access to life-saving treatment.

I commend this initiative to this chamber and to our government generally. I will be seeing that my government pays close attention to observing this trial and the implementation of this service, because I think it has enormous application. I wish to close by saying that, in the fullness of time, Dr Rolf Gomes will be recognised as a pioneer in this very important space.

“THE DRIVE FOR THE HEARTS OF RURAL QUEENSLANDERS”3 October 2014

Cardiologist Dr Rolf Gomes has always lived by a simple motto, “if it is to be, it’s up to me.”

It is this drive and determination that has led Dr Gomes to pioneer a new approach to how specialist medical services are delivered across rural, regional and remote Queensland.

The Heart of Australia, which was launched in Toowoomba on Friday, is the nation’s first mobile medical clinic.

It will provide specialist cardiac and respiratory services to people across rural and regional Queensland, where people are 44 per cent more likely to die from heart disease than their city counterparts

The mobile clinic is a custom-built, $1.5million, 25m-long semi-trailer with specialist diagnostic equipment and technology, staffed by a team of cardiologists and respiratory specialists on a rotating roster.

It will begin its first circuit of south-western Queensland on Saturday, starting at St George.

Dr Gomes said the initiative would be a “game changer for the health and wellbeing of people living in rural and remote communities”.

“For some people in these areas it can be a day’s drive or longer to see a specialist. Now the service will come to them,” he said.

“We are hoping this program and the Heart of Australia brand will move us towards a more sustainable approach to the provision of specialist health services.”

Sharing the journey has been Toowoomba-based Senator Barry O’Sullivan, who has traversed the sometimes rocky road of lobbying for State and Federal Government funds for the Heart of Australia project since taking his seat in parliament in February.

“From the first time Dr Gomes approached me with his concept I knew it could forever change medical service delivery for the bush. This truck really is a glimpse into what the future holds,” Senator O’Sullivan said.

“I think Dr Gomes and myself have both been learning as we go about how to push for commitments from government.

“I was a new Senator and probably didn’t always follow the typical protocol, but we have got a great result in the end. Launching the Heart of Australia mobile clinic is among the most fulfilling moments of my short political life.”

HEART OF AUSTRALIA FACTBOX:• The clinic module is towed by a Kenworth prime

mover and has two consulting rooms, new ultrasound and cardiac stress testing equipment, and telemedicine capabilities.

• It will travel in fortnightly rotations throughout rural Queensland, beginning on Saturday (October 4).

• The first circuit will include Dalby, Roma, Charleville, St George and Goondiwindi.

• Heart of Australia is delivered in partnership with Arrow Energy and is supported by Medihearts, Bayer Australia, St Andrew’s War Memorial Hospital, Kenworth, IOR Petroleum, Brown and Hurley, Telstra, GT Insurance and Skytrans

With cadiologist Dr Rolf Gomes.


“AUSTRALIA POST SENATE INQUIRY REPORT FINDINGS”SPEECHBy Senator Barry O’Sullivan 24 September 2014

I, too, rise to take note of the report. I particularly want to support the comments of the previous speakers in relation to the level of cooperation between all of the parties, including the Independents in this place, who participated in this inquiry. What bound us all, I think, was a sense of fairness—or lack thereof—with respect to the treatment of so many of these small businesses known as licensed post offices around Australia. I would like to recognise the chairmanship of my colleagues Senator Williams and, later, Senator Ruston. And I would like to compliment the secretariat on a very comprehensive and, I think, excellent report.

I would like to briefly mention, also, retired Senator Boswell, who made a big contribution to this in the beginning, and certainly inspired and motivated any number of us to stay the course, as he used to say, to see that this work was done. I also recognise the work of Angela Cramp and Andrew Hirst and, through them, the dozens and dozens of licensed post offices who went way above the call of duty in making contributions to equipping those of us in this inquiry to remain up to speed with what was happening, and to providing us with data and research.

Your contributions are seriously acknowledged, and we thank you on behalf of the entire licensed post office network.

I am going to be brief because a number of people want to speak. I want to put a couple of points on notice. We should never forget in this place or in the

House of Representatives that we are the owners of Australia Post. In fact, the minister owner sits with us here today, so he will be able to listen to the recommendations we are making. It is owned by the Minister for Communications and now Minister for Finance. So we do not have to look too far to find out who was responsible for us being in the position that we are in with these licensed post offices. We do not even have to look any further to find where the solutions to these problems exist.

There have been failures on behalf of the Commonwealth owner of Australia Post for literally decades in keeping the principle of using the base postal rate to increase the payments to these post offices for the services that they provide. These are very vital public service commitments that we have made. I am told that delivery of post was one of the first obligations that we made as a nation when we settled here in 1788.

Finally, I want to put Australia Post on notice. These are my words and I do not speak for anyone else in the inquiry. At times I found Australia Post frustrating. I do not think they were as forthcoming as they ought to have been. I found their attitude wanting on occasions when we were looking for their cooperation to work with this investigation to determine the depth and the breadth of the problems within these post offices. So I say to Mr Fahour: it does not end here today with this report; it begins here today and we will be watching.

The same collection, the same cohort, of senators from this place who have taken this challenge will be watching.

I urge Mr Fahour and his executive management team to get out in front of our ministers, to get out in front of the owners, and fix these issues over the coming

Senator Barry O’Sullivan, Balonne Shire Mayor Donna Stewart and Dr Rolf Gomes at the launch of the Heart of Australia.


months. These are very seriously urgent issues. There are many people on the breadline. They have been waiting patiently for us to stand up because we are their cul-de-sac. There is nowhere for them to go after they have been to us. We stand between them and viability of their businesses. I say to Mr Fahour: keep an ear to the ground and keep an eye on what is happening because I promise you that that is what I am doing with you, and I am certain that is the case with many of the other senators who make a contribution.

We will see justice done here because we have no other course to take. This is an unusual relationship between this government and these people and we have a responsibility to ensure that we behave in a proper manner. While ever I am in this place—and I speak for the others in this place—we will see that that outcome is achieved. I thank you for the chance to speak.

“AUSTRALIA POST MUST ACT ON INQUIRY FINDINGS, QLD SENATORS WARN”JOINT STATEMENTSenator Barry O’Sullivan Senator Ian MacDonald Senator James McGrath Senator Matt Canavan

25 September 2014

Queensland LNP Senators Barry O’Sullivan, Ian MacDonald, James McGrath and Matt Canavan have called on Australia Post to act urgently to ensure the viability of privately owned post offices across rural and regional Australia, following the release of a damning Senate Inquiry report yesterday.

The Environment and Communications Legislation Senate Committee report found Australia Post’s lack of consultation with its more than 3000 privately owned post offices was leading to a “growing divide” that threatened long term viability.

Among the 18 recommendations, the committee concluded that:• Minister for Communications Malcolm Turnbull

should commission an independent audit of the functions of privately-owned post offices (known as, Licensed Post Offices) and;

• Australia Post should be required to renegotiate the terms and conditions of some agreements with Licensed Post Offices to ensure they are fair and equitable.

Senator O’Sullivan said Australia Post must support the recommendations to ensure the viability of privately-owned post offices.

“Some payments to privately owned post offices have not kept up with the consumer price index over the past two decades,” he said.

“This is a great deal of money that privately owned post offices have missed out on. These are matters that make the difference between being profitable and unviable. They need to be examined through an independent audit process.

“Post offices stand alongside hospitals and schools as essential services for rural and regional communities. They are the maypole of some communities and we need to fight for their survival.”

Senator MacDonald said many Licensed Post Office operators had dedicated their life savings to the business.

“My primary concern is for continuation of services across Northern Australia particularly in the rural and remote areas that are more reliant on postal services,” he said.

“I know many small business people who put their life savings into LPO businesses in country areas and we need to make sure they are not being ripped off.”

Senator McGrath said rural and remote and small communities needed vibrant and commercially viable postal offices to ensure the communication services and social benefits they provided were maintained.

“I’m a big supporter of regional and rural and small communities, and I’m quite tired of big business – including statutory organisations – brushing aside the needs of these communities for the sake of saving a buck,” he said.

“Australia Post realises that its outlets provide more than a postal service to smaller communities – they also provide a social function, an avenue to maintain better contact with distant friends and retailers and service providers, and it is vital that this is recognised and valued and that it remains.”

Senator Matt Cananvan, whose office is located in Rockhampton in Central Queensland, said it was in the public interest to ensure privately-owned post offices remained viable.

“We must always be pushing for greater economic resilience across rural and regional Australia – but it cannot be at the expense of community liveability,” he said.

“Post Offices are vital communal hubs in rural and regional areas throughout Central Queensland and the rest of the Australia, and the Senate committee recognises that we must do everything in our power to prevent their demise.”


BARRY’S BEEN MOVING FROM BRISBANE TO THE BACK OF BEYONDJune 2014

2ND• Electorate Office Day, Toowoomba QLD• Meeting with Member for Toowoomba

South and constituents, Toowoomba QLD• Meeting with stakeholder regarding Beef

Levies, Toowoomba QLD

3RD• Electorate Office Day, Toowoomba QLD

4TH• Visit Farmfest, Toowoomba QLD• Attend meeting with Mayor Paul Antonio and

Councillors in City Hall, Toowoomba QLD• Teleconference with members of the Senate

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee regarding Australia Post

5TH• Travel Toowoomba to Brisbane, QLD• Travel Brisbane to Townsville, QLD

6TH• Travel Townsville to Rollingstone, QLD• Attend meeting regarding Sugar Industry• Travel Rollingstone to Townsville, QLD• Travel Townsville to Brisbane, QLD• Attend meeting with Constituent,

Brisbane QLD• Attend reception to celebrate Queensland

Day and Queen’s Birthday, Government House, Brisbane, QLD

7TH• Travel Brisbane to Toowoomba

10TH• Electorate Office Day, Toowoomba QLD• Teleconference with colleagues regarding

aHUS and Soliris

11TH• Travel Toowoomba to Ipswich• Guest Speaker at Safe City Conference,

Ipswich QLD• Travel Ipswich to Toowoomba

12TH• Electorate Office Day, Toowoomba QLD• Attend meeting with Fair Work Australia,

Toowoomba, QLD• Attend meeting with Constituents and

Lobbyists, Toowoomba, QLD• Meeting with stakeholders to discuss East

West Line Park, Toowoomba, QLD

13TH • Travel Toowoomba to Roma• Guest Speaker at Property Rights Australia

National Conference, Roma QLD• Meeting with Mayor and constituents

regarding Pinaroo Aged Facility • Travel Roma to Toowoomba

15TH• Travel Toowoomba to Brisbane• Travel Brisbane to Canberra

16TH• Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT• Attend Nationals Senators Meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Whips Briefing, Canberra ACT• Attend meeting with constituent regarding

proposal for Australian Dam Development, Canberra ACT

• Attend meeting with Guide Dogs Australia, Canberra ACT

• Meeting with Minister regarding Visa Summit, Canberra ACT

• Attend farewell BBQ for Senator Ron Boswell, Canberra ACT

• Attend Coalition Backbench Committee for Small Business meeting, Canberra ACT

17TH• Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT• Attend Joint Senate Party Room meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend meeting with stakeholders regarding

Northern QLD and transporting agricultural products, Canberra ACT

• Attend meeting with stakeholders regarding Beef Levies Inquiry, Canberra ACT

• Adjournment speech for Wilmar Sugar Issue, Canberra ACT

18TH• Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT• Attend Rural and Regional Affairs and

Transport Legislation Committee private meeting, Canberra ACT

• Attend Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee private meeting, Canberra ACT

• Attend Whips Briefing• Attend Joint Standing Committee meeting

on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Canberra ACT

• Meeting with stakeholders regarding Australia Post issues, Canberra ACT

• Meeting to discuss dam proposal, Canberra ACT

• Meeting with colleagues to discuss Australia Post, Canberra ACT

19TH• Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT• Attend Whips Briefing, Canberra ACT• Attend meeting for Nationals Senators,

Canberra ACT• Attend meeting with colleagues,

Canberra ACT• Attend meeting with Ministers regarding

practices in the horticultural industry, Canberra ACT

20TH• Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT • Attend Rural and Regional Affairs and

Transport public hearing regarding beef industry structures, Canberra, ACT

• Travel Canberra to Brisbane • Travel Brisbane to Toowoomba

22ND• Travel Toowoomba to Brisbane• Travel Brisbane to Canberra

23RD• Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT• Attend Nationals Senators meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Whips Briefing, Canberra ACT• Attend Nationals Party Room meeting,

Canberra ACT• Teleconference with Toowoomba staff• Attend Rural and Regional Affairs and

Transport private meeting, Canberra ACT• Meeting with colleagues regarding Visa

Forum, Canberra ACT

24TH• Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT• Attend Joint Party Room meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Joint Senate Party Room meeting,

Canberra ACT• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT

25TH• Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT• Attend Whips Training, Canberra ACT• Attend Whips Briefing, Canberra ACT

The Senator’s Circuit


• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT• Teleconference with stakeholders regarding

Queensland Sugar

26TH• Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT• Attend Whips Briefing, Canberra ACT• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT• Attend meeting with constituent

regarding Northern Australia Agricultural Development, Canberra ACT

• Attend meeting with Senate Clerk regarding Senate Procedure, Canberra ACT

27TH• Travel Canberra to Brisbane• Visa Summit, Brisbane, QLD• Meeting with constituents• Travel Brisbane to Emerald

28TH• Meeting with local member, Emerald, QLD• Travel Emerald to Brisbane

30TH• Electorate Office Day, Toowoomba QLD• Staff meeting, Toowoomba, QLD• Teleconference regarding Sugar industry

July 20141ST• Electorate Office Day, Toowoomba QLD• Teleconference regarding Sugar industry

2ND• Travel Toowoomba to Brisbane• Travel Brisbane to Canberra

3RD• Senate Orientation Program, Canberra ACT

4TH• Senate Orientation Program, Canberra ACT

7TH• Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT• Attend Whips Briefing meeting, Canberra ACT• Attend Cross Party Whips meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Nationals Senators meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend The Nationals Leadership Strategy

meeting, Canberra ACT• Meeting with Minister regarding Wilmar and

the QLD Sugar Industry, Canberra ACT

8TH• Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT• Attend Coalition Whips/Strategy meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Whips Briefing meeting,


Canberra ACT• Attend Coalition Whips Briefing,

Canberra ACT• Attend Rural and Regional Affairs and

Transport private meeting regarding beef levies, Canberra ACT

• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT




• Attend Whips Briefing, Canberra ACT• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT• Attend Cross Party Whips meeting,

Canberra ACT


Canberra ACT• Attend Whips Briefing meeting,

Canberra ACT• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT• Attend Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Legislation and References meeting, Canberra ACT

• Attend E & E Legislation and References Committee meeting, Canberra ACT

• Teleconference with Mayors

11TH• Attend Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Reference Committee Public Hearing, Canberra ACT

• Travel Canberra to Brisbane• Attend State Council Meeting, Brisbane QLD• Attend 2014 LNP Convention, RNA

Showgrounds, Brisbane QLD

12TH• Attend 2014 LNP Convention, RNA

Showgrounds, Brisbane QLD

13TH• Attend 2014 LNP Convention, RNA

Showgrounds, Brisbane QLD• Travel Brisbane to Canberra


Canberra ACT• Attend Cross Party Whips Meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Whips Briefing, Canberra ACT• Attend Coalition Leadership meeting,


Canberra ACT• Attend Nationals Party Room meeting,

Canberra ACT• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT• Coalition Backbench Committee on

Agriculture, Canberra ACT• Coalition Backbench Committee for Small

Business, Canberra ACT


Canberra ACT• Attend Whips Briefing, Canberra ACT• Attend Coalition Leadership Meeting,

Canberra ACT • Attend presentation from Clean Energy

Council, Canberra ACT• Attend Joint Party Room meeting,


Canberra ACT• Attend presentation from Australian Sugar

Milling Council, Canberra ACT• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT• Coalition Backbench Committee on

Infrastructure and Regional Development, Canberra ACT




• Attend Coalition Whips/Strategy meeting, Canberra ACT

• Attend Whips Briefing, Canberra ACT• Attend Coalition Leadership meeting,

Canberra ACT• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT• Attend QLD LNP Members and Senators

meeting, Canberra ACT

17TH• Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT• Attend Nationals Leadership meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Ministerial briefing regarding illegal

labour hire contractors, Canberra ACT• Attend Coalition Whips/Strategy meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Coalition Leadership meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Whips briefing, Canberra ACT• Joint Publications Committee, Canberra ACT• Attend ACLEI private meeting, Canberra ACT• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT• Attend Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Legislation Committee private meeting, Canberra ACT

• Attend meeting with Secretariat from the ALCEI and Law Enforcement Committee, Canberra ACT

18TH• Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT• Travel Canberra to Brisbane

• Travel Brisbane to Toowoomba

19TH• Inspect new office space in Toowoomba,

QLD

August 4TH• Electorate Office Day, Toowoomba QLD• Inspection of new office site,

Toowoomba QLD• Attend meeting with constituents,

Toowoomba QLD• Attend meeting with stakeholders regarding

Medicare Local, Toowoomba QLD

5TH• Electorate Office Day, Toowoomba QLD• Meeting with constituent regarding rural

debt and Bank West, Toowoomba QLD• Attend media interview regarding the beef

levies inquiry, Toowoomba QLD• Teleconference to participate in the E &

C Public Hearing in Adelaide regarding Australia Post

• Teleconference E & C Legislation Committee private meeting

• Attend meeting with stakeholder regarding beef sustainability, Toowoomba QLD

6TH• Electorate Office Day, Toowoomba QLD• Travel Toowoomba to Gold Coast, QLD• Attend Australian Prawn and Barramundi

Farmers Symposium welcome reception, Gold Coast QLD

7TH• Speaker at Australian Prawn and

Barramundi Farmers Symposium official opening, Gold Coast QLD

• Travel Gold Coast to Toowoomba• Teleconference with stakeholders in

Charleville regarding the cattle industry

8TH• Travel Toowoomba to Brisbane• Attend QLD Advocacy Incorporated forum,

Brisbane QLD• Travel Brisbane to Gympie• Attend meeting with constituents,

Gympie QLD• Tour of Abattoir, Gympie QLD• Attend meeting with deputy editor of the

Gympie Times, Gympie QLD• Travel Gympie to Bundaberg• Attend function, Bundaberg QLD

9TH• Guest Speaker at corporate breakfast,

Burnett SEC, Bundaberg QLD• Travel Bundaberg to Toowoomba

10TH• Attend meeting with Toowoomba LNP

Members

11TH• Central/Western QLD Trip• Media interview with Macquarie Radio• Travel Toowoomba to Cecil Plains• Attend shed meeting at property,

Cecil Plains, QLD• Travel Cecil Plains to Dalby• Call into CSG Forum, Dalby QLD• Travel Dalby to Chinchilla• Attend shed meeting at Chinchilla, QLD• Travel Chinchilla to Wallumbilla• Attend Shed Meeting, Wallumbilla QLD• Travel Wallumbilla to Roma• Attend dinner function with local businesses

and LNP Members in Roma, QLD

12TH• Central/Western QLD Trip• Media interview with Macquarie Radio• Visit to Roma Saleyards, QLD• Travel Roma to Charleville• Attend shed meetings at Charleville • Attend dinner function at Charleville RSL,

Charleville QLD

13TH• Central/Western QLD Trip• Media interview with Macquarie Radio• Travel Charleville to visit Weaner Creek

property


• Travel Weaner Creek to Cooladdi to visit drought affected property

• Attend community meeting, Cooladdi QLD• Travel Cooladdi to Windorah• Attend community BBQ, Windorah QLD

14TH• Central/Western QLD Trip• Media interview with Macquarie Radio• Travel Windorah to Jundah• Attend morning tea with Barcoo Shire

Councillors and community members, Jundah QLD

• Travel Jundah to Stonehenge• Attend community meeting in

Stonehenge, QLD• Travel Stonehenge to Waroona• Attend shed meeting at Waroona

property, QLD• Travel Waroona to Longreach• Attend shed meeting at Longreach, QLD• Attend dinner with LNP Members and

supporters, Longreach QLD

15TH• Central/Western QLD Trip• Media interview with 4LG Radio,

Longreach QLD• Media interview with Macquarie Radio• Travel Longreach to Winton• Visit to Age of Dinosaurs• Travel to Winton Industrial Estate• Visit to local businesses, Winton QLD• Attend meeting with Winton Shire Council

and Boulia Shire Council • Travel Winton to McKinlay• Attend shed meeting at The Walkabout

Creek Hotel, McKinlay QLD• Travel McKinlay to Cloncurry • Attend public meeting with BBQ, Cloncurry

QLD

16TH• Central/Western QLD Trip• Travel Cloncurry to Mount Isa• Attend Mt Isa SEC AGM, Mt Isa QLD• Guest Speaker at public meeting, Isa Hotel

QLD

17TH• Central/Western QLD Trip• Visit to Mt Isa property, QLD• Travel Mt Isa to Brisbane • Travel Brisbane to Toowoomba

18TH• Electorate Office Day, Toowoomba QLD• Teleconference with E & E Legislation

Committee regarding Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Measures) Bill

• Teleconference for E & C private meeting

19TH• Electorate Office Day, Toowoomba QLD• Attend meeting with constituent regarding

CS energy and property, Toowoomba QLD• Attend meeting with constituent regarding

Australia Post, Toowoomba QLD

20TH• Electorate Office Day, Toowoomba QLD• Attend meeting with constituents regarding

wastewater treatment line, Toowoomba QLD• Travel Toowoomba to Brisbane• Attend meetings at LNP Headquarters,

Brisbane QLD• Travel to Mount Ommaney• Guest Speaker at Mount Ommaney SEC

Meeting, Mount Ommaney QLD

21ST• Travel Brisbane to Canberra• Senator’s Orientation Program, Canberra

ACT

22ND• Senator’s Orientation Program, Canberra ACT

25TH• Attend Nationals Party Room meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Nationals Whips meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend meeting with stakeholders regarding

Mushroom levy, Canberra ACT • Teleconference with QLD representatives of

Australia Post Franchisees

• Attend Coalition Backbench Committee on Agriculture meeting, Canberra ACT

• Attend Nationals Senators meeting, Canberra ACT

• Attend Cross Party Whips meeting, Canberra ACT

26TH• Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT• Attend Coalition Whips meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Joint Party Room meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Legal and Constitutional Affairs


• Attend Joint Senate Party Room meeting, Canberra ACT

• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT• Attend Legal and Constitutional Affairs


• Attend Nationals Senators and Key Staff meeting, Canberra ACT





• Attend Coalition Whips meeting, Canberra ACT

• Attend Whips Briefing, Canberra ACT• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT• Meeting with constituents, Canberra ACT• Attend Parliamentary Joint Committee

on Law Enforcement private meeting, Canberra ACT

• Attend Nationals Senators and Key Staff meeting, Canberra ACT


• Attend Selection of Bills Committee meeting, Canberra ACT

28TH• Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT• Attend Coalition Whips meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Nationals Leadership meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Coalition Whips/Strategy meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Whips Briefing, Canberra ACT• Attend Parliamentary Joint Committee

on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity private meeting, Canberra ACT


Legislation and References Committee private meeting, Canberra ACT

• Attend meeting with Members of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport committee and the Australian Beef Association, Canberra ACT

• Attend meeting with colleague, Canberra ACT

29TH• Attend Nationals Federal Council 2014,

Canberra ACT

30TH• Attend Nationals Federal Council 2014,

Canberra ACT

31ST• Attend Nationals Federal Council 2014,

Canberra ACT

September1ST• Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT• Attend Coalition Whips meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend leadership meeting, Canberra ACT• Attend Coalition Whips/Strategy meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Cross Party Whips meeting,


Canberra ACT• Attend Nationals Party Room meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Whips Briefing, Canberra ACT• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT• Attend Legal and Constitutional Affairs

private meeting, Canberra ACT• Meeting with constituents, Canberra ACT

2ND• Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT• Attend Coalition Whips meeting,


Canberra ACT• Attend presentation to the Nationals Party

Room, Canberra ACT• Attend Joint Party Room Meeting,


Canberra ACT• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT• Attend Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail

Project Information Session, Canberra ACT• Attend Nationals Senators and Key Staff

meeting, Canberra ACT• Attend Cross Party Whips meeting,

Canberra ACT

3RD• Attend briefing regarding End Animal

Cruelty Bill, Canberra ACT• Attend Rural and Regional Affairs and




• Attend Coalition Whips/Strategy meeting, Canberra ACT

• Attend Whips Briefing, Canberra ACT• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT• Attend meeting with constituents,

Canberra≈ACT• Attend Cross Party Whips meeting,

Canberra ACT


Canberra ACT• Attend Coalition Whips meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Joint Committee on Publications

meeting, Canberra ACT• Attend Coalition Whips/Strategy meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Whips Briefing, Canberra ACT• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT• Meetings with constituents QLD,

Canberra ACT• Media interview with ABC Qld Country

Hour, Canberra ACT• Attend E & E Legislation Committee

meeting, Canberra ACT

5TH• Travel Canberra to Brisbane • Attend meetings with constituents,

Brisbane QLD• Travel Brisbane to Toowoomba• Attend Water Forum, Toowoomba QLD

8TH• Travel Toowoomba to Brisbane• Attend meetings with constituents,

Brisbane QLD• Travel Brisbane to Sydney


9TH• Attend JC on Law Enforcement – Hearings

Sydney – Financial related crime, Sydney NSW

• Travel Sydney to Brisbane• Travel Brisbane to Toowoomba

10TH• Media interview 4CA Breakfast regarding

the Sugar Inquiry, Toowoomba QLD• Media interview ABC Rural regarding the

Australia Fund, Toowoomba QLD

12TH• Media interview ABC Southern QLD

regarding the Australia Fund and drought, Toowoomba QLD

• Media interview 4LG regarding the Australia Fund and drought tour, Toowoomba QLD

16TH• Attend Queensland Dairy Farmers

Conference, Toowoomba QLD

19TH• Electorate Office Day, Toowoomba QLD• Teleconference with constituents,

Toowoomba QLD• Staff meeting, Toowoomba QLD

20TH • Attend the Mayoral Garden Party,

Toowoomba QLD• View the Grand Central Floral Parade,

Toowoomba QLD

21ST• Travel Toowoomba to Brisbane• Travel Brisbane to Canberra

22ND• Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT• Attend Coalition Whips meeting,


Canberra ACT• Attend Cross Party Whips meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Leadership meeting, Canberra ACT• Attend Nationals Senators meeting,

Canberra ACT• Attend Coalition Backbench Committee for

Small Business, Canberra ACT• Attend Whips Briefing, Canberra ACT• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT• Attend Coalition Backbench Committee on

Agriculture meeting, Canberra ACT• Meeting regarding ACLEI Inquiry,

Canberra ACT• Attend E&C Legislation Committee private

meeting regarding Australia Post, Canberra ACT

23RD• Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT• Attend Coalition Whips meeting,


Canberra ACT• Attend presentation to Nationals Party

Room, Canberra ACT• Attend Joint Party Room meeting,


Canberra ACT• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT• Attend Cross Party Whips meeting,

Canberra ACT

24TH • Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT• Attend Rural and Regional Affairs and




• Attend Leadership meeting, Canberra ACT• Attend Whips Briefing, Canberra ACT• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT• Meeting with stakeholders regarding

seafood industry, Canberra ACT• Attend L & C Legislation Committee

meeting, Canberra ACT• Meeting with colleagues regarding the

Australia Fund, Canberra ACT

• Attend Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement private meeting, Canberra ACT





Canberra ACT• Attend Whips Briefing, Canberra ACT• Attend Parliamentary Joint Committee

on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity private meeting, Canberra ACT


Legislation and References Committee private meeting, Canberra ACT

26TH • Australian Commission for Law Enforcement

Integrity hearing in Canberra, ACT

29TH• Nationals Party Room Meeting,

Canberra ACT

30TH • Parliamentary Sitting Day, Canberra ACT• Attend Cross Party Whips meeting,



Canberra ACT• Attend Joint Party Room meeting,


Canberra ACT• Attend Legal Constitutional Affair

Legislation Committee meeting, Canberra ACT

• Whips Duty, Canberra ACT• Attend Coalition Backbench Committee on

Infrastructure and Regional Development, Canberra ACT


“BUSH MATTERS OP-ED”By Senator Barry O’Sullivan 3 October 2014

It could be argued the Australian Postal Service operators have been combating harsh economic rationalist sentiments since their humble beginnings in the 1700s.

As many readers would know, tall ships were the only method to transport mail between the colonies during the early years of British settlement.

Ship Captains often complained of poor remuneration for the work and, as a result, were reluctant to dedicate any time or effort to collecting mailbags from the harbours.

It was not uncommon for post office workers to have to climb into a row boat and brave dangerous waters to force the mail bags onto these passing ships.

Ignoring any community service obligation, it was also not uncommon for Ship Captains to simply order the unwanted mail bags be thrown overboard.

The great turning point in our nation came when overland mail routes were developed. This often enabled the government to award a contract to someone within the community to oversee mail service delivery.

Gone were the days when large shipping companies would toss the mail overboard.

Instead, community members took pride in work that connected their town with the outside world and provided a steady and sufficient income to raise a family. In fact – our nation could not have developed without the proud historical efforts of our national postal system.

For many generations of people, delivery of the mail became a matter of pride and societal obligation.

Take, for example, John Conway Bourke, who was Victoria`s first mailman.

Riding his horse with a mailbag draped over his front, Bourke is reputed to have travelled 18,000km on any given year on the overland mail trail to Yass.

His exploits became legend in 19th century bush folklore.

One story tells how, when being chased by savage dogs, he stripped naked to swim the flooded Murray River.

On reaching the other side he then was forced to shimmy naked up a tree with the mail bag.

When later recounting the story, someone asked why he took such extreme measures to protect his precious freight. His reply: “I am Her Majesty’s Mail.”

Like Tom Kruse on the infamous Birdsville Track more than a century later, John Bourke would take great pride in minimising the isolation of his rural community.

Across many decades, Australia’s pioneers would prove able to brave floods, drought, fire, war and economic depression. But they also proved they could not do it alone.

The issue of community service obligations has again raised its weary head with the release of the Federal Senate Inquiry report into Australia Post last week, of which I was a participating committee member.

Among the recommendations, the committee concluded that Minister for Communications Malcolm Turnbull should commission an independent audit of the functions of privately-owned post offices (known as, Licensed Post Offices) and Australia Post should be required to renegotiate the terms and conditions of some agreements with Licensed Post Offices to ensure they are fair and equitable.

The report details clearly how central Post Offices, many of which are privately owned businesses, remain in the economic and social life of rural Australia. These businesses are the maypole that prop many towns.

There was sufficient anecdotal and empirical evidence provided during the Senate inquiry to conclude there are hundreds and hundreds of small businesses unnecessarily suffering as a result of not being properly and adequately renumerated for delivering what are the Commonwealth service obligations.

Australia Post has said it is reviewing the report and recommendations. It is expected this report will push the company towards ensuring a fairer price, which at least keeps pace with the consumer price index, which would enable privately-owned post offices to remain viable.

This battle is about more than the future direction of Australia Post - it is about pushing against a tipping point in the decline of service delivery across regional and rural Australia.

The Post Office has become, in many ways, a simple yet poignant symbol of government investment in a rural community.

Across many communities, the schools have closed. The medical clinics have closed. The railway station does not function anymore. A hairdresser drives into town every two months. There are more and more empty shops in the main street.

But the Post Office remains. The fresh red and white signage stands out, and provides some example the town has not completely fallen.

The post office in these communities is seen as an integral part of the social fabric of that society.

Since many banks, government services and offices have left regional areas and centralized in cities, rural post offices have become essential for the provision of banking, bill paying, financial transactions, communications and general business services within many country towns.


There is often an expectation that even if a problem does not relate to the post office, someone in the post office will be able to assist.

Many of these Post Office operators have invested their life savings into these businesses, yet some are receiving payment less than $10 per hour. This is simply not sustainable and must be addressed.

There are almost 1800 of these privately-owned post offices across rural Australia. That’s 1800 communities with some vestige of government services that must be protected.

When the hungry hounds of economic rationalism attempt to chase down the last vestiges of public service delivery in rural communities, we need to ensure there are strong enough voices in parliament and across the bush to stop them.

We will be carefully watching Australia Post’s response.

The executive of Australia Post needs to take some inspiration from that mailman extraordinaire, John Conway Bourke.

“FARM ONLINE OP-ED”By Senator Barry O’Sullivan 5 April 2014

AUSTRALIAN producers are proud and fiercely protective of their industry.

So it is little wonder when anti-farm political parties, like the Greens, attempt to cut off the economic security of the agriculture sector that farmers are so fast to respond.

These ignorant attacks on our live export industry must end.

They are anti-export, anti- employment and threaten our terms of trade.

Senator Rhiannon’s latest contribution to the issue, published at FarmOnline, is big on rhetoric and short on facts.

Let’s take Senator Rhiannon’s “important example” of Bahrain.

In her column, the Senator cites evidence that “Bahrain totally replaced live Australian sheep imports with Australian chilled and frozen meat.”

She claims this as evidence that Bahrain is satisfied with accepting chilled meat and the live trade is unnecessary.

That’s the rhetoric. Now for some facts…

Australian industry officials have confirmed to my office that following the Federal Government’s suspension of live export shipments to the Middle East nation in 2012, Bahrain was forced to source more than 125,000 head of live sheep from Somalia, a nation with no central government, certainly no quality assurance system to prevent animal cruelty and an almanac of livestock diseases among its national herd.

According to a 2013 USAID study into the Somaliland livestock market, the poor enforcement of the Somaliand Veterinary Code has resulted in counterfeit, expired and fraudulent veterinary products in the Somali marketplace that prevents producers from receiving quality animal health services.

This poses a risk to both animal welfare and human consumption.

But why would Bahrain meat suppliers take the risk of importing live sheep from an unstable and unpredictable African nation?

Because its population prefers freshly slaughtered meat and not chilled or frozen carcases. There is a market want that has to be filled.

Food security is an increasing concern for Bahrain and it has been hit hard with a series of meat shortages following the August 2012 live export suspension by Australia.

Bahrain is one of the most densely populated nations in the world and has limited capacity to develop its own agriculture industry. Less than three per cent of its 665 sq km landmass is rated as arable.

This difficult geographic situation forces Bahrain’s government to look to the international market to provide a reliable supply of food for its people.

Speaking to media following the release of the

Senate Inquiry report into Licensed Post Offices.


The Bahrain government also provides among the most generous subsidies in the world to ensure the poorest people in its society can afford red meat.

This subsidised product includes the live sheep sourced from Australia.

When Bahrain’s biggest English-language newspaper, The Gulf Daily News, visited the main supplier of subsidised livestock in search of fresh meat in February, the journalist was turned away due to a supply shortage that had lasted several days.

When questioned about the situation, one of Bahrain’s main meat suppliers responded:

“There is no freshly slaughtered meat in any of Bahrain’s markets and no one is telling us when it will be back….We don’t care about the politics of the meat or where it comes from as long as it is clean, good quality and Halal.”

If the customer is seeking freshly slaughtered meat then it is the job of the business owner to source the product, wherever they can.

Some business operators will take the risk and choose Somalian product if it is the only option available.

By attempting to end the Australian live export trade, Senator Rhiannon is pushing for a policy that would deny the poor of Bahrain the right to choose to purchase their preferred option of freshly slaughtered meat from our nation, which provides a safe and reliable source alongside the strongest regulatory system to prevent animal cruelty in the world.

As a result, her policy would simply support the live export trade among other nations with far less interest in animal welfare.

Australia should never show so much arrogance as to believe we can dictate to our trading partners what they can buy and what form it takes.

Luckily for the people of Bahrain, Barnaby Joyce and the Federal Government believe it is the customers that should determine the amount of chilled and fresh meat destined for any marketplace.

The Nationals’ have dug into their trenches on this position and will never take a backward step.

Perhaps next time the good Senator puts pen to paper, she should consider Australia’s contribution to the complex socio-economic issues within the food security debate, not simply a few figures on a spreadsheet.

“BUSH MATTERS OP-ED”By Senator Barry O’Sullivan 13 June 2014

There is a secret club that speak only in hushed tones within the hallowed walls of Federal Parliament.

Fearful of being ‘outed’ by our coalition colleagues, we have considered creating a secret handshake, a secret password and a secret code of ethics.

I am speaking about those members of the coalition that do not blindly salute the flag of the ‘free markets.’

We are certainly no strangers to this debate. The pros and cons of economic rationalism have been debated for several decades.

However, while in its ideal, it refers to the reduction of government intervention in the economy in favour of enabling ‘market forces’ to organise economic activity, the reality has seen the biggest players get bigger at the expense of the remaining supply chain.

Following the rural debt forum at Charters Towers with Senator Matt Cananvan, Senator Ian MacDonald and Noeline Ikin, Georgetown.


While it may be uncomfortable territory across the political divide, it is a fundamental dispute that must be debated in the push for a strong agriculture sector that is positioned to capitalise on the burgeoning overseas opportunities.

In recent weeks, some commentators have argued that stances taken by The Nationals, especially in regards to selling state assets and collective models of ownership, is hypocritical and wrong footed.

But to suggest that ‘market forces’ should simply be allowed to dictate the trajectory of rural industry and, with it, public policy, ultimately becomes a disservice to people across the agriculture sector.

More than a decade of deregulation across several agriculture sectors has not resulted in the monetary gains at the farm gate level that were promised.

Instead, it has emboldened many multinational corporations to stifle competition and, with it, any criticisms of their unbalanced and unprecedented market power.

It has enabled large, multi-national corporate gorillas to break free of their zoo cages, tip over the pie van and climb up the flagpole.

Whether it is rural representative groups or the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission or multiple Senate Inquiries – there are many trying to clean up the aftermath from the gorilla’s ongoing rampage, but no one is ever going to convince it to get back in its cage.

Philosophically, a free market can only exist when there is freedom of choice, transparency of transaction and the existence of true forces of supply and demand.

Proponents of free market policy in agriculture simply like to go to bed and not think about what is happening so that when they wake up in the morning, it is done.

The winner is the last man standing. Disregard that there was no transparency, no choice and no freedom.

Can anyone seriously claim that Queensland dairy farmers currently enjoy an open, transparent and most importantly, free market – one indeed with freedom of choice?

Dairy farmers wanting to provide their fresh product to the general marketplace realistically only have one choice – they can supply their milk to (mostly) foreign owned processors that will most likely place the cartons on the shelves of either Coles or Woolworth.

There is no transparency, there is no freedom of choice and there is certainly no tension of market demand.

If farmers challenge or protest the price they receive, the supermarkets can always just truck milk from the southern states into Queensland.

Currently Queensland Nationals are vocally opposing Wilmar Sugar’s proposal to remove itself – and 60 per cent of Australia’s sugar - from the century-old national marketing system.

Due to deregulation, Wilmar can claim its participation with Queensland Sugar Limited (QSL) is only voluntary.

Wilmar does not need to concern itself with the impacts its decision will have on the family cane farms that do not supply its mills.

Speaking to banana growers with Senator Matt Canavan.


Wilmar does not need to concern itself with the long term viability of the Australian sugar industry.

Of course, business should be encouraged to make its own decisions and profit should be both the focus and the reward for sound management. Government should always work to encouraging this situation.

But when the collective fortunes of any industry are so intrinsically linked as is the case with agriculture, businesses also have an ethical responsibility to ensure viability across the supply chain.

Our rural industries are facing the challenge of maintaining competitive advantage and driving productivity gains within rapidly expanding and changing global markets and operating conditions.

Australia’s future productivity and prosperity is closely tied to our ability to maintain our position as a world leader in the management and production of our sustainable resources, especially across the agriculture and mining sector.

The dual imperative of raising productivity and workforce participation is fundamentally changing the required skills and knowledge required for the agriculture industry.

If industry is to achieve these imperatives, workers will require new skills and deeper knowledge, including higher level technical and innovation skills.

This requires money - at a time of falling profits at the farm gate.

Australian farmers are price-takers. This means their futures are often tied to the whims of the supply chain oligarchs that deregulation has spawned.

The market does not always get the balance right. Responsible policy debate should recognise this and adapt accordingly.

If that means critics will accuse me of being an agrarian socialist, then I suppose it is a flag that I will proudly salute.

“BEEF LEVY INQUIRY OP-ED”By Senator Barry O’Sullivan 26 June 2014

In the coming weeks, the Federal Senate’s Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee will deliver its interim report on the status of the grass-fed beef levies structure.

This follows months of listening to the concerns of producers and other industry stakeholders across all corners of the nation.

As the Australian agriculture sector locks its sight towards capitalising on the increasing numbers of middle class across China and the rising fortunes of Asia more generally, both government and industry are paying closer attention to the health and vitality of the structures that underpin our farming economy.

There perhaps has never been a greater time, at least in recent history, where agriculture has been so central to the focus of the law and policy making agenda.

Both State and Federal Governments have identified agriculture as one of the economic pillars that will deliver wealth and prosperity for the coming generations, with a number of White Papers and other long term planning strategies in development.

As such, the grass-fed beef levies inquiry has been a very worthy and timely focus for the Federal Senate to commit to undertaking.

This is an inquiry that really should be carried out every decade or so to monitor how effective government and industry funds have been in delivering real

All Australians will benefit. Cheaper electricity

Lower costs for small business

More jobs

COALITION GOVERNMENT SCRAPS CARBON TAX



More jobs




More jobs



outcomes and increased profitability for the red meat sector.

The sheer volume of submissions and stakeholders participating in this Senate Inquiry indicates both the concerns inherent in the existing levy structures as well as the desire of all elements of the sector to respond to and repair these issues.

For any Senator attempting to deliver potential solutions through an inquiry, high levels of participation from relevant stakeholders eases the burden of determining those keys concerns, and increases the likelihood of a committee providing relevant and workable recommendations.

Due to my role as a Senator participating in the formulation of the upcoming interim report, I am legally forbidden from publically discussing or speculating on the final outcomes of the Federal Government report.

Despite this, there are a number of observations that have trended strongly throughout the course of the public hearings process and the almost 200 written submissions.

It is worthy to consider some of these factors that each participating Senator is currently grappling with:

Peak Industry Body Participation:

It is glaringly obvious that participation in peak industry bodies is declining and there is strong cynicism among stakeholders about their ability to deliver relevant outcomes.

It is clear that some peak industry bodies are not meeting public expectations and there needs to be more reporting of their activities and further engagement to discover what lay at the heart of these issues.

However, rather than simply walking away, the onus is equally on individual producers to take more

responsibility to engage with these peak bodies to facilitate change.

Funding of Peak Industry Bodies:

Several of the peak industry bodies have argued their apparent funding shortfalls hinder their ability to provide the desired level of representation and thus, struggle with wider industry relevancy.

Central to this problem is the capacity of Cattle Council of Australia to adequately oversee and direct Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) using its limited resources.

There have also been accusations that the independence and oversight capacity of Cattle Council is jeopardised by its cross-funding arrangement with MLA.

Furthermore, Cattle Council’s capacity to lead and instigate national beef sector policies is extremely limited with inadequate resources.

Frankly, this current scenario can only serve to hinder farm gate profitability.

It is clear producers want MLA to be more transparent in its research and development processes and projects, as well as its decision-making when awarding tenders.

Again, the weakened and limited resources of Cattle Council, with its oversight capacity, compounds this problem.

And, as such, producers have limited opportunity to influence the decisions and direction of levy expenditure.

Red Meat Advisory Council (RMAC) structure:

The ongoing accusations of bias towards processors, both in the RMAC board make-up as well as in the decisions made by RMAC, continue to divide the sector.

Welcoming the new look LNP Senate Team to Parliament House.


For example, it is clear that RMAC was divided on how to tackle the live export suspension in June 2011.

AMIC was clearly at odds with the production-based members of the RMAC board who represent those who profit from the live trade.

This rift among industry was exposed at a critical juncture, resulting in inadequate advice being provided to the minister, which, it could be argued, prevented swift and decisive action from the beef sector – leading to a time lapse that animal activists clearly benefitted from.

The beef industry does not benefit from such self-defeating and blatant politically motivated actions.

Processors and Producers

Finally, perhaps the greatest challenge facing our beef sector is the ongoing conflicts between grass-fed beef producers and the processors, especially in how it relates to profitability at the farm gate.

Federal Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce has repeatedly shared his driving commitment to deliver public policy that leads to a better return at the farm gate.

As total farm debt continues to outstrip total value of farm production, industry stakeholders are right to question if their levy dollars are being wisely spent.

Both processors and producers contribute to, and share any benefits from, marketing and research and development programs.

However, processors are at odds with producers even though both are in the same game.

Processors and exporters are margin operators.

Their incentive is to reduce the livestock cost rather than focus on ways to value add and increase their margins and sale price.

As this senate inquiry has clearly established, without a willingness for all sides to better coordinate with, and compliment, other elements of the supply chain, the underlying problems inherent in the system will only serve to prevent the beef industry from reaching its true potential in this ‘Asian Century’.

“BUSH MATTERS OP-ED”By Senator Barry O’Sullivan 25 July 2014

There’s an old joke about an investigator from the Federal Department of Employment arriving at a farm following claims the grazier wasn’t paying proper wages.

The investigator drives through the gate to the homestead, where the grazier has just pulled up for smoko.

“I need a list of your employees and how much you pay them,” the investigator says.

“Let me think,” the old grazier replies. “There are my stockmen who have been with me for six years. I pay them $900 a week plus free room and board.

“There is the cook who has been here for 18 months. I pay her $700 a week with free room and board.

“Then there’s the half-wit who works 19 hours a day and does about 90 per cent of the work. He makes $10 per week, pays his own room and board and I buy him a bottle of rum every Friday night.”

With Property Rights Australia chair Joanne Rea after delivering the keynote address at the group’s annual conference at Roma.


‘”The half-wit!” exclaims the investigator. “That’s the bloke I want to talk to!”

The old grazier wipes the sweat from his brow and tilts his head towards the investigator.

“Well, old mate, that would be me!”

The joke for many is art imitating life.

Life on the land is getting harder and harder for family partnerships and small corporate enterprises.

It is not uncommon to hear some weary landholders say they don’t expect their sons or daughters to remain in the family business.

Even that joke about the old grazier is now probably showing its age. These days it’s harder to find graziers that can afford to employ anybody.

Instead, more often than not, it is family members pulling the extra weight - the kids on break from school; the grandparents who have already battled costly succession planning; or the wife who somehow manages to juggle farm work with home duties and a job in-town.

Commentators have long predicted the decline of the family farm. Yet the agriculture sector has managed to defy the odds with each passing decade.

Despite the fact that iron ore and coal have long surpassed wool and wheat as the guideposts for Australia’s economic direction, agriculture is increasingly returning to the forefront of economic public policy.

There is some speculation that suggests economic growth in Asia - which will push the continent to account for as much as 70 per cent of global middle

class food and fibre consumption by 2050 - will bring additional revenues of $710 billion (in 2011 dollars) to Australia over the next four decades.

These are very encouraging figures. But the earning capacity of each farming family will only increase if the sector’s foundations and fundamentals are strong.

The new Senate has generated a lot of commentary and headlines this month as it tests out its new found notoriety.

But once the upper house wakes from this media bender, will it be the electorate left with the hangover?

Having sat in the parliament for the past fortnight, it is concerning to think there is an increasing potential that the apparent instability in the new-look Federal Senate could entangle the process of government in bureaucratic brinkmanship.

As each piece of legislation is blocked by a Senatorial Mexican standoff and each major government decision is scuffed by prolonged debate, so too are the intended cost savings for the small business and household budget.

This is wasted time that the average farming family cannot afford. For my money, this is a pox on our own house.

Rural debt has skyrocketed 75 per cent in less than a decade and farm gate returns are in alarming decline. No week goes by without some rumour of more properties unable to be re-financed.

The times call for swift and pragmatic policy that focusses on tangible outcomes. The public are sick to their back teeth of politicians not doing our job.

Walking the corridors of the Senate with Rob Atkinson, Hughenden and Barry Hughes, Georgetown.


It will be difficult for my new Senate colleagues, of all political persuasions, to not become ensnared by the political grandstanding and power plays that is actively applauded by the Canberra press gallery.

But Australian voters are tired of personality and ego driven politics.

The majority of those among the new Senate crossbench have politically-conservative leanings - some have rural knowledge – and it is these individuals who should respect the clear mandate delivered by the electorate.

Antagonistic attitudes and obstructionist politics will only further strain the hip pockets of farmers at a time when their budgets are already at breaking point.

And rural Australians will neither forgive nor forget such political games when they next cast their vote.

I say to my colleagues, right across the chamber – do your job or do the nation a favour, and go home.

“BUSH MATTERS OP-ED”By Senator Barry O’Sullivan 8 August 2014

What’s the difference between an Aussie cow and an Aussie prawn?

For starters, you are much more likely to find a slab of Aussie sirloin on a plane or boat headed for the bright lights of Asia because Australia exports between 60 and 70 per cent of its beef output.

In stark contrast, around 50 per cent of our prawns are imported, mostly from Thailand and Vietnam.

In fact, about 70 per cent of all the seafood Australians consume is imported.

At a time when most of our broader agriculture sector is engaged in a national discussion about how to best capitalise on the economic spoils from exporting produce into Asia, our Australian aquaculture industry is rigorously combatting Asian imports.

The market strength of imports means the Australian seafood industry is missing out on more than $1.5 billion worth of domestic consumption every year.

Seafood is the most consumed animal protein in the human diet. It comprises about 30 per cent of all animal protein in-take.

It’s also the most traded global animal protein.

Aquaculture has been the fastest growing food production sector internationally since the 1950s, roughly doubling production each decade.

The global growth of aquaculture is about 7 per cent per year. It far exceeds that of human population growth (about 0.5 per cent per year) and that of food production on land (about 2 per cent per year).

Despite this, the emerging gap between global seafood demand and supply represents a challenge for the world, as well as a big opportunity for our local industry.

This week I was invited to give the opening address at the Australian Prawn and Barramundi Farmers Symposium on the Gold Coast.

The gathering saw industry share some of the ground-breaking work that truly places our product heads and shoulders above our nearest competitors.

But the theme that rang loud and clear was that the environmental constraints on aquaculture are more restrictive than other industries in agriculture.


It seems the more the seafood industry does to address the concerns of greens groups, the more that is demanded of them.

As I told the symposium, the impediments confronting the industry reminded me of the story of the barramundi farmer who found - near one of his above ground ponds - a snake with a frog in its mouth.

Feeling sorry for the frog, he bent down and pulled the frog out of the snake’s mouth and watched him hop away.

Then feeling sorry for taking the snake’s dinner, the barramundi farmer pulled out a hip flask and gave the snake two nips of rum before the snake slithered off happily.

The farmer was feeling pretty content about his good deeds until there was a sudden knock on the side of the pond and he looked down to see the snake eagerly staring up at him with two frogs in its mouth.

The moral of the story is sometimes your good deeds only serve to encourage others to demand more.

No one doubts that we need to be sustainable. However, it must also be balanced with economic viability and commercial imperatives.

Take for example Australia’s $75 million prawn farming industry, which is one of the dominant seafood sectors in my state of Queensland.

Australian prawn farmers are among the only groups in the seafood industry to have a compulsory levy for research and development.

The money has been well spent, with research programs developing new efficiencies and sustainable practices that would be the envy of other agriculture sectors.

While most prawn farmers can only manage one harvest per year, the Holy Grail is to develop the industry to be capable of two harvests – specifically targeting Christmas and Easter, which are the two peak periods for prawn consumption.

The industry is getting ever closer to its goal. In recent years the CSIRO last year released the Novacq prawn feed additive.

Like many intensive livestock operations, feed is the greatest expense for prawn farmers, accounting for about 26 per cent of input.

However, repeated studies have shown that farmed prawns fed with the CSIRO developed Novacq grow, on average, 30 per cent faster.

So not only does it provide a clear economic benefit but it has also been celebrated because it will reduce farmers’ reliance on so-called ‘trash fish’, which have previously been criticised by environmental groups for depleting the number of fish in the ocean.

Prawn farmers around the world have traditionally needed to feed their prawns with a pellet that includes some fish meal or fish oil, in order to ensure that the prawns grew fast, and were a healthy and high quality product for consumers. The development of Novacq provides a clear alternative.

Similarly, the CSIRO has also released research that enables the Australian Black Tiger Prawns spawning to be grown domestically, reducing the need to collect parent stocks from the wild – a practice that means growers cannot fully control the prawn production process.

Not only does domestic breeding reduce the number of commercial fishing boats on the seas, which is

On the campaign hustings at FarmFest with LNP candidate for Condamine Pat Weir and State Agricultrue Minister John McVeigh.


another criticism of environmentalists, but it has also proven to vastly increase yields at farms.

For example, selective breeding at one Australian farm growing black tiger prawns saw an average yield of 17.5 tonnes per hectare, vastly higher than the industry standard of about 5-6 tonnes per hectare.

According to the CSIRO, if the entire Australian black tiger prawn industry adopted this new breeding technology it would increase the industry’s production from 5000 tonnes to 12,500 tonnes and add $120 million to the value of the industry by the end of the decade.

Finally, a strong dedication to research and development has seen the CSIRO release data heralding the Australian prawn industry as leading the world in minimising its environmental footprint.

The CSIRO states there is a large body of scientific research on the environmental impacts of prawn farm discharges that has led to the introduction of a discharge treatment system and among the strictest discharge water quality standards in the world.

As a result, there have been no adverse impacts on surrounding ecosystems for more than two decades.

Despite these commendable efficiency gains and underpinning independent scientific research that affirms the industry’s marginal environmental footprint, there have been no new aquaculture farms approved in Queensland in the past decade.

A key problem is that relentless pressure from green groups has created a spider’s web of green tape that virtually halts any development proposal and intimidates any investor interest.

Top on the list of grievances is the Great Barrier Reef, which covers a significant proportion of Queensland’s coastline and also happens to be the area that is most attractive as a location for prawn farms.

As I said earlier, no matter how many frogs the farmers save, the snakes keep returning with more in their mouth.

By 2025 Australia’s population will exceed 35 million and our national seafood consumption will have increased by 50 per cent.

This important and popular protein will need to come from somewhere.

Among the many challenges will be to secure our food supply as well as contribute to the food supply of the region and be competitive in global food markets.

So with such important crossroads confronting the nation, it is time the green ideologues began working with genuine industry efforts towards environmental sustainability rather than repeatedly raising the goal posts to the levels where economic viability is crushed.

“BUSH MATTERS OP-ED”By Senator Barry O’Sullivan 5 September 2014

The United States’ Packers and Stockyards Act 1921 is a piece of legislation that Australian agriculture is increasingly looking toward as a template to bring much needed price transparency to our national commodity supply chain.

There are some peak industry bodies that have commenced studies into how it could apply to Australia and it has become increasingly mentioned within the corridors of power.

The Act is broadly intended to regulate parts of the supply chain in order to protect the interests of producers and consumers by prohibiting monopolistic or predatory practices through regulation that recognises the unique marketing and distribution practices of livestock production.

It sets out rules that aims to ensure producers are paid promptly based on accurate animal weights and prevents businesses from colluding to manipulate prices or to apportion territory to force sellers to accept lower prices.

Under the act, processors are also compelled to maintain written records to provide justification for differential pricing offered to livestock producers.

Whilst there is work still underway to translate the ideas of this American legislation to the unique needs of Australian beef, we should all be encouraged that a meaningful discussion has commenced about supply chain accountability, openness and transparency.

It’s hard to overstate the urgency of introducing price transparency to the Australian beef industry, given the clear and undeniable concentration of ownership across our supply chain.

As has been reported by some media outlets, my tour of Western Queensland last month served to reaffirm my conviction that debt and profitability are two halves of the same whole, combining to create probably the greatest challenge confronting rural industry.

From the border to the Gulf of Queensland, producers were unbearably frustrated about the fact that they are earning the same level of income per kilogram for their livestock as they were receiving 20 years ago.

These enterprises are reporting, in many cases, zero return on investment and those that are operating effectively are doing so only on about three or four per cent return on investment.

The drought has certainly exacerbated these problems. In the last 24 months, some producers have sold their entire livestock for up to one quarter of the prices per kilogram that they would have received 20 years ago.

Yet it would be difficult for the major supermarkets to argue these pricing issues are also reflected in the retail price.


No other sector would or should put up with such a flat lined earning capacity. And the looming horizon for the cattle market only warns of further pain coming.

Many of the property owners I spoke to during my tour have completely sold their breeding stock, and they are in no financial position to restock their properties - even with a return of fortune with the weather or a restructure of their debt with government support.

Many have sold breeding livestock, including replacement heifers, for as low as 30c or 35c a kilogram, yielding prices that for many barely covered their freight and certainly showed no return on their investment.

We all know that when there is a break in the seasons and surface waters are replenished and the need for investment in fodder and support feed is mitigated, thousands upon thousands of producers will return to the market and will be competing for replacement stock and so, if they are in a position to purchase that stock, they will be buying them at a price 600 or 700 per cent more expensive than they originally sold their breeding stock for.

While there is no doubt there will always be ebbs and flows within the market, which will quite often be challenged and influenced by seasonal conditions and associated supply and demand, it cannot be argued that there is a free and transparent market for cattle already in place in this country that enables businesses to rebuild in a fair and reasonable way.

Introducing and enforcing price transparency will be an essential element to rebuilding the sector following this current drought.

There is perhaps no greater tool that we can arm our agriculture sector with than knowledge and information. This breeds confidence and allows businesses to be more resilient to confront any tough cycles.

We need to open the doors and a shine a light on the financial realities of our beef production cycle. Introducing transparency is essential to this.

It is no longer possible for us to overlook this issue. Our beef producers cannot sustain another decade of unviability.

Announcing $40,000 of federal funding for the Blair electorate, including $6000 for the Ipswich Men’s Shed with LNP Federal Division Chair for Blair Teresa Harding and Ipswich Men’s Shed Vice President Rob Burt.


$5.50 JUNE 2014 VOL. 25 NO.12

QC

1648

419












How Queensland Country Life reported my Senate address in August.



TOOWOOMBA OFFICE

Tenancy A, 189 Hume StreetPO Box 3135TOOWOOMBA QLD 4350Phone: (07) 4638 7555Fax: (07) 4638 7199

CANBERRA OFFICE

Suite SG.109Parliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Phone: (02) 6277 3478Fax: (02) 6277 5968

Email: senator.o’[email protected]

STAFF

Samantha MullerOffice ManagerMobile: 0437 115 883Email: [email protected]

Troy RowlingMedia and Policy AdviserMobile: 0400 386 666Email: [email protected]

Leanne RugeDiary and Entitlements ManagerMobile: 0408 738 963Email: [email protected]

Rose PauliElectorate OfficerMobile: 0429 473 164Email: [email protected]

Authorised by Barry O’Sullivan, Tenancy A, 189 Hume Street, Toowoomba, Qld 4350.

PLEASE NOTEPRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Printed by Greenridge Press Pty Ltd, 4 Freighter Ave ,Toowoomba QLD 4350

FACEBOOK.COM/BARRYOQLD

Date post:	06-Apr-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	senator-barry-osullivan
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

The Bush Telegraph - Issue 2

Documents