house property group ipswich

agriculture is at the core ofany society that will prevail. and without an agriculturaleconomy, inordinate efforts, or incredible alternate, lackmust underpin that society's basic tenant, tosustain the population, maintain order, and findan alternate for trade. throughout thehistory of mankind, civilizations havestarted or grown around the presence ofan agricultural economy. the fertile crescent was knownas such because of its capacity

to provide cerealsand other produce. rome created the opportunityfor the maintenance of a global empire withoutcompare when it secured the grain supplies of egypt. england reached out tocountries over the seas and sent people,such as joseph banks, to inform london of alternateagricultural precincts. the soviet unionjealously guarded the agricultural capacity ofthe ukraine and the black sea,

and some might suggestthat russia still does the same today. australia was afluke of history. its massiveagricultural capacity remained undisturbed from globalinfluence for tens of thousands of years. and indigenoussociety, for that time, was the sole andunobstructed benefactor. even today, we remain withvast untapped capacity.

no, we're not going to bethe food basket of asia. we couldn't even be thefood basket of indonesia. but we have had major advancesfrom when lachlan macquarie took charge of an economy,which at that point in time, had serious questionsraised over it. people were being asked whetherit should be folded up and sent back to liverpool. great leaders and goodgovernance of this nation have applied their minds tothe sustenance and growth

of our agricultural economy. and the actions ofpeople, such as farrer have used theirgod-given intellect to identify economicdeficiencies and work out how to improveissues, such as yield of grain and the type ofsoils it grows in. builders in our nation, suchas deacon, curtin, chifley, and menzies constructed damsthat underpin both the food stock of our electricitywhilst creating

the off-take for further foodand securing the requirements of the agricultural precincts,the lower [inaudible] and the murray. in southern queensland,taxation policy drove investment from anobscure and australian terms and at times littleknown crop called cotton to something thatnow rivals at times and exceeds theproduction of wool. this government, with its damspolicy in northern australia,

the northern australian whitepaper, and most importantly for this conference, theagricultural white paper, is already taking the next step. prior to discussingthis further, i think it is importantto give a report card of basic commodity prices andhow we have gone thus far. when we came to government, theprice of the live cattle steer was 165 cents per kilogramme. the price today is 275cents per kilogramme.

this means we'vehad a loading price for 350 kg beasts of justshy of $1,000 a head, which means a 67% increase. the price of grownsteers has also gone up. through [inaudible], we look atit going from 160 cents to 183 cents. i've just noted today, justbefore i started speaking, that the price ofgrown steers at roma has topped out at closeto 393 cents a kilogramme.

these are record prices. the price of a bale of cotton inaustralia when we came to power was $425 a bale. now, it's $525 abale, a 23% increase. the price of a 18 to24 fat score sheep has gone from a 211 centsto 352 cents a kilogramme, or around $84 live. this is a 67% increase. pork, for a 60 to75 dress weight win,

a pig has gone from308 cents to 315 cents. prices even for goats has gonefrom 209 cents to 390 cents. that's a 87% increase andgood news to all politicians. milk at the farm gatefrom the murray goulburn has gone up slightly. but that has been in a time ofturmoil, where prices have been affected by the issuesaround the ukraine and the trade issuesthat surround that. wool has fallen slightly, and itis an area where i have to put

a lot more of my endeavours. but of course, as aminister for agriculture, you minister justas much for wool as you are forcapsicums as you are for every part of that produce. horticultural products,such as cavendish bananas, have gone from $12.76a carton to $28.85 a carton, a 126% increase. lemons have gone from $19.41for 12 kg box to $50.20 per box,

159% increase. kiwi fruit, from $19.50 a bulkpack to $27.50 a bulk pack, a 41% increase. yes, we've also hadsome disappointments. oranges fell. cherries are down becauseof some of the issues pertaining to vietnam. and peaches are down. but one can say,all-in-all, that we

have been part of anhistorical turnaround in agriculturalprocess in this nation. as an anecdote, i believethat my job is best expressed in the dignity itbrings back to people's lives at the farm gate. the whole purpose of my joband my department's job is not about our own personal gains,our own personal misfortune, or our likes or dislikes, butour desire as a team to work together to make sure that thepeople we are paid to serve

prosper by our endeavours. i think this is inno better displayed when before christmas, alady northwest of charters towers contactedme and said, look, i rarely contact apolitician, and if i do, it's generally to complain. but i'm telling you thati'm loading bullocks now over $1,300 a head, paid for. and so we havemoney for christmas.

that is the sort ofmessage that drives me. when a better returngoes to the farm gate, the mother can affordto renovate her kitchen, like other people in citiescan afford to renovate theirs. when a better pricegoes to the farm gate, the family can go onholidays like other families go on holidays. the farmer can refurbishhis plant and equipment, rebuild his yards, rebuild thefences, buy better genetics,

improve pastures,get better plant, increase theirirrigation capacity. and as a collective,this refurbishes our nation's capital base tosupport the requirements we so often hear of. it is through money suchthis as it makes its way into our nation's economy, whichwill support the health care, support child care, supportpensions, support defence, education, police,and might i dare say,

our own selves ontop of the hill. when we talk about generalemployment across this nation and increasing theemployment base, we must remove the rhetoric andunderstand where it actually happens. we must continuallyremind ourselves that the largest manufacturingsector in our nation is meat processing. the largest employer inregional australia is abattoir.

when you go to an abottoir,you see that dynamic. you see that awe-inspiringview of sometimes 400 to 500 to 600 peopleon a boning floor, almost like anindustrial olympics of where people are working toquotas and working flat out. in some instances,you go to abottoirs where you will seethousands of people at work, thousands of people in high-vissuits, thousands of people with white helmets on, withovercoats, thousands of people

taking home money for theirfamilies, thousands of people, to be honest, who without theforms if this form of work was not there, possiblywouldn't have a job. there is real dignityin what we do. it is better to be betterat what you're good at than trying toconjure up skills that we know other nation'shave an intrinsic advantage in. we are good at agriculture. we are good at employingpeople in agriculture.

we are good at research anddevelopment agriculture. we have the highest yieldsof cotton in the world. we attain some of the highestprices for agricultural product in the world. we are known for our beefthroughout the world. we are know for and peopleaspire to our branding because they see it as a qualityproduct that they wish to buy. and in recent times,the largest proportion of growth in employment in thisnation has been in agriculture.

but unless youhave the farms that are producing the product,then all else that follows is naught. agriculture is a noble pursuit. it does not benefit fromthe weakness of others. it does not leavepeople diminished. it is the essence of whatfeeds and clothes them. as such, agriculture mustnot only economically be at a pillar of theeconomy, but morally,

is a pillar of the economy. as it is fundamentally tiedto the future of our nation, it is my belief that itshould remain overwhelmingly an unambiguously the domainof the australian farming family, the australianfarm owned by mums and dad, like you. this is not only mydesire, but overwhelming, the desire of people fromblacktown to geelong. to this purpose, wehave reduced the level

at which anindividual must report to the foreigninvestment review board when they purchase land ifthey come from overseas. it will go fromits current level of $252 millionnoncumulative-- that means that currently,a person from overseas could buy a $250 millionproperty every day of the week and never have to tell anybodyabout it-- to $15 million, and that is cumulative.

so if you buy a $14million place one day, and you desire to buy a$2 million place the next, it's not that youwill be rejected, but it must be reviewed. the alternate government,the labour party, in some mysterious diversionhave said that the levels should go from $252 millionto a unilateral level of 1,000 million. now, whether you're inblacktown, or bulla,

or ipswich, orboronia, this idea is overwhelmingly rejectedby the australian people. one of the greatestattributes our nation has is a clean, green image. this is a selling point,not only in australia, but overseas. in many countriesthat i've gone to, the reason the australianproduct is preferred is not because it ischeaper, because it is not.

it's because it is cleaner. recent events have highlightedthis in even clearer focus. the australian people haveasked for, and we will deliver, a clearer country oforigin labelling system, a system that isdiagrammatic, simple, reflects the proportionality ofwhat is in the packet removed of fillers, such as water,and also is compulsory. current ambiguities,such as "made in australia from localand imported ingredients,"

or "made in australia"when it's not actually come from thisnation at all will be removed as a source ofconfusion for the consumer. for our nation, totake the next step, we must invest inthe infrastructure that underpins it. and this task hasalready started. the previous coalitiongovernment put $10 billion on the table forthe refurbishment

of the murray-darling basin. and you can go now to places,such as the macquarie valley and see this immenseinvestment already paying dividends, instraightened channels, in telemetric measuring, intaking away the absorbents, so that the water that's thereis the water you can use, and better irrigation plans. you can go to milduraand see investments well in excess of $100million in new lift pumps

for more effective watering. you can go to thelength and breadth of the murray-darling basinand see pivots, laterals, and trickle irrigation takingthe place of flood irrigation. you can see that investmentalso in other ways, such as the better yields thatwe are getting for cotton. if you can get more cottonfrom an acre of land, then inherently, thatis also a water saving. we invest around$700 million a year

in research anddevelopment in agriculture. we make sure that our geneticsremain at the forefront globally. anecdotally, as an exampleof this and recently, i was part of anannouncement of $15 million to teach phd students involvedin toowoomba at the grdc. this process follows inthe footsteps of farrer and developing betterdisease resistance and higher yieldingstrains of grain.

dams are being constructed,from chaffey dam in the north to themost recent $200 million investment in waterinfrastructure in tasmania. this will continue to berolled out in short order. the green paper on agriculturehas been through cabinet, and the white paper is imminent. the northern australian whitepaper intersects these two and likewise, willsoon be released. people might ask why havethese not been released sooner?

and there's a simpleanswer to that. we want these documentsto be formidable. we want them tomake a difference. we want them to beyond merelymotherhood statements that adorn so manyshelves and crevices, collecting detritus, livingobscurius per obscurum until they are finally shredded,purposeless and unread. ladies and gentlemen, i see thisjob as an incredible honour. i grew up on a farm.

i was one of six kids. a my father in his 90sand my mother in her 80s still live on the property. i own a property myself. i don't see this as aconflict of interest. i see this as real motivation. i've made it my objective not tolive or die to be a politician, but to be judged ashaving made a difference. i am so proud ofthis government,

because i believe for once,it's actually doing that. i get a sense ofreal purpose when i stand next to aprime minister who actually wants to do something. he's going to break away fromwhat merely keeps him in a job and do that which ifwe have forgotten, leaves our nationin a better place. i believe that is theessence of a purposeful life. my goal in agricultureis to make sure

that whoever comes next, andi hope that is not imminent, that they have a foundationto further build on, so the great and unendingwork of building a stronger australia, a country whichcan support itself, feed others, sustain what webelieve is morally proper, and to be a beacon to othersin the rest of the world continues unobstructed. thank you very muchfor your attention. all the best, and god bless.

[applause] you've got plenty oftime for questions. oh no, i'll stand up. ok. minister, thank you. what an impassioned case foragriculture this morning. in a moment, imight change spots and go over to a microphonethere and help direct traffic. the good news is wehave got plenty of time

for questions this morning. so i'd ask you to come forwardto the microphone points that are in the aisle andindicate that you came to ask a question, andi'll take you in due course. i might break the ice first,though, because nobody likes breaking the ice, but minister,it was an impassioned case for agriculture. you talked about agriculturebeing a noble profession. you made the case for the familyfarm in no uncertain terms.

it was interesting. abc rural did a lot ofcoverage about the announcement recently. surprisingly, therewas a lot of reaction on the other side ofthe question from people around the country, particularlyin western australia with farmers sayinglook, hang on. yeah, it's an issue, butis it that big an issue? so that is my question to you.

how important is the questionof foreign ownership, and do we really needto have strong controls? well, obviously if itwasn't, i wouldn't be putting my endeavours towards it. you must be a reflection. you must always be a reflectionof what your constituent is asking for, and putit through the filter of what is right andproper for the nation. but if i alwaysbase this on-- i'll

base this on two principles. i remember even in queenslandin the town where i lived, where i lived prior tomoving back home to tamworth, i asked, i said,show me the register that you have of foreignowned land in this district. and i got one. and the obvious one was there,obviously cubbie station. and there was the [inaudible]. but i knew full well that thatwasn't a complete register.

i knew because i was anaccountant in the town where the other properties were thatwere either owned by a trust or owned by other mechanisms,which were owned overseas. so even in a place where we'resupposed to have transparency, it wasn't. the record was not complete. i'll back it up withanother conversation i had with a real estateagent merely last week, where he said to me-- andbefore i was in politics,

i was known as joycie. he knew me from a long time ago. he said, joycie, i likeyou, and i hate you. i'll tell you what i like aboutyou is all the tire-kickers out there who havebeen wandering around, not wanting toclose on the deal. they're rushing in. they're closing. they're closing on a deal,and they're settling.

he said, that's good. he said, but i imaginewhen it's past, that this will sort of create,will caution in the market. but then he saidsomething to me. he said i think you willbe overwhelmed, he said, because i know what aroundthis district i have sold. and i have sold heaps. and it's not just the sizeof-- it's not just a number. the abs statistics, whichi think are way below,

have a way below whatthe actual truth is, because to be honest,a lot of people, they just don't botherfilling out the abs statistics if they don't think theywant their story told. and i think it's just alittle over 80% actually return the abs forms. but on those statisticsalone, it's about 2 to 2.3, 2.3 times the size of victoriais either now totally foreign owned or partiallyforeign owned.

now, that in itself shouldask some questions of us. and we will remain the mostliberal nation on earth for investment. i had a meeting with aseanambassadors last week. and we had this discussion. they were quiteupfront about it. but my retort wasthis, is well, can i invest in yourrespective countries in the way you caninvest in mine?

and the answer isoverwhelmingly no. you can't. in some instance, notallowed to buy land at all. now, this doesn'tmean that we have a right to the australian peopleto make sure that we have got proper transparencyand public control of their most vital asset,the land that they stand on. and if that brings me intoconflict with certain sections, then so be it.

that is it. as i've said before,this is more than just an economic argument,because if you just want a purely economicargument, then we can go through awhole range of things. i mean, why do youneed health care? why do you need child care? we can have a whole rangeof economic arguments and completelychange the dynamics

of what this nation is. and it would beeconomically feasible. as an accountant, it'dbe economically prudent. i will save you-- if you wantme to be a purest accountant, i will save thisnation a lot of money, and you will findthe consequences lying on the streetwithin a matter of years. but we are more than that. we are more than just purelyan economic principle.

we are a nation. and as a nation we mustmove forward to the future our nation. and of course, we must indeliblyhave control, and understand, and respect, and intimes as required, protect the interestsof our nation because it is more than just thecommissions of this generation that need to be looked after. it is our nation of thefuture that must be protected.

minister, a questionto your right. good day. barnaby day, brown hillfarm on liverpool plains . i congratulate your governmentalon making all the commodity prices go up. [laughter] a slightlong day, i'm hoping that i can make theaustralian cricket team beat new zealand sometime soon. but my question to you is,and i agree with everything

you said, and especiallyyour last sentiment, but if we're going toafter agriculture-- and you probably knowwhere this questions is going to come from--liverpool plains is a magnificent farming area. mm-hm. old farmers seem to livein the best farm here. but i would argue havingtravelled most of the world looking at farming thatliverpool plains is in the top

10 places to farm in the world. why are we goingto get it mined? sure. i'm going to answer yourquestion in seriatum. and the first part is idon't for one moment claim that the government isthe sole responsibility for the increase in prices. however, it's vitallyimportant that you understand the rolethe government has

played to that purpose. we talk about the threefree trade agreements. and of course, they've beensigned for china, for korea, and for japan. but besides that, andwithout people watching, we've also openedup the live trading to egypt, bahrain,cambodia, thailand, lebanon, and after four decades, iran. and if had wanted the supportof the economic purists outside,

when the emails turnup to my office, as they do the thousands,asking for these trades to be closed down,for us to pull back, for us to not participate inour region as a southeast asian, but to start participatingin our region as still some enclaveof europe, and i'd say that that's where you shouldput your shoulder to the wheel. make sure that we remainingengaged in those markets, understanding our customerand trading with our customer.

to the next partof your question, david, in as regards mining, asyou're well aware, merely two days ago, i took greg huntto the liverpool plains, and taking to those farmers,those ones with the most inherent concern, i said i'lltake greg hunt to your kitchen, to your kitchen table. and if you get a group, and wehave a succinct conversation about the issues for which thecommonwealth has oversight-- we do not have oversightover whether people

like mines, or don't like mines,or whether they're too noisy, or to dusty. we have a very small areawhich we have authority in. and that is predominantlyin the hydrological question and the interferencewith aquifers. to that purpose, greghunt has now, as he said, stopped the clock forfurther information. does this mean i'magainst coal mining? not at all.

i'm an accountant. without coal mineswe'd go broke, and go broke very, very quickly. but we must understand, ifwe're going to even, once more, go to the economicargument, you must look at the forward cashflows that provided by land on prime agricultural land. in some of those areas, david--and i know you understand this, but for the benefit of therest of the crowd-- collecting

two tonnes of durum wheatto the acre, so about 560, so well over $1,000 returnfor an acre of land. so if you've got 1,000 acresin, and this person did, that's $1 million ayear for that crop. and remember, this isunderpinned with a water right that's sits beneath it, soyou've got real security. and what also sits beside thisis one of the last battles i had was the removal ofsome of the water licences or restrictions ofthe water licences.

and we have seen a rechargingof the aquifers in that area. so i think there's a specialcase needs to be made. and i will always go backto the key principles that agriculture shouldreign supreme when you're when there's a threat of adestruction of an aquifer, whether you're imposing on thequiet enjoyment of a person who is already there,and they must be, there must be the respect of theproperty right of the farmer. if you're not destroying anaquifer, and if you're not

on prime agricultural land--and that's certainly is not the [inaudible] plains, whereit is primary cultural lands, and where there is, obviously,with the reaction between goran lake and the mooki river, andthe working aquifer, which underpins thatagricultural precinct-- but if you're notdestroying an aquifer, and if you're not onprime agricultural land, then i think thenegotiation has to respect the right of the farmer beinga partner in the business.

and i'm referringhere coal seam gas. why is that? because hydrocarbonousmaterial was initially vested with the land holder. it is not like gold,silver, and iron ore, which is alwaysvested with the crown. hydrocarbonous material,coal, oil, gas, was initially an asset of the land. it was divested fromthe land, in part,

in queensland, the1915 petroleum act. in the territories, it was1953, in south australia, 1971. and the last vestigesof the ownership of coal rights innew south wales were taken away by[inaudible] in 1983. so let's dispense from ourmind that his asset was never owned by the land holder. it initially was,taken from them without so much asa cent of payment.

and then we seem to transferfrom roving free marketeers to unrepentant communists,that we believe it's our right to goonto a person's place and take from them an assetthat we formally stole off them without them complaining. that just won't work. minister, there'sanother question up the top to your right. thank you, ministerjoyce for your talk.

i'm coming at thisshifting gears a little bit with this next question. but it's something that'sbeen in the news quite a lot. can i just grab your name? sure, yep. i'm about to say that. so i'm wendy umberger. i'm an associate professor atthe university of adelaide. and i'm actuallyan economist there,

so i run a group calledglobal food studies. so i'm asking this question,i guess, with two hats. one is my academic hat, someonethat does a lot of research on looking at consumerinterest in food labelling, understanding consumerdemand for food labels. i'm on the programmelater today, but also wearing the hat of amother with a young child who had some of the berriesin their freezer. and so i've been payinga lot of attention,

been actually asked to comment acouple of times on the proposed new food labelling law. and i understand whereyou're coming from. but i guess i havesome concerns. and it would be good tohear from you about why what you're proposing with respect tothe percentages on the labels, why that's going to get at theissue of if this is a policy issue of food safety, how thisnew type of labelling being proposed would actually addressthat food safety issue any

better than what'scurrently there. that being said, i completelyagree there needs to be some changes in food labelling. but i don't-- i really, andcan say that with evidence from research we do-- i don'tthink that's going to solve the issue. so just some commentswould be appreciated. thanks. sure, wendy.

the first thing about, wendy,about food labelling is honesty. i mean, if we believeit's worthwhile putting it on thepacket, then surely, we believe that it's worthwhilehonestly putting it on the packet. wendy, as you know,we tell people their essential daily intake. we tell them howmuch carbohydrate.

we tell them how much sugar. we tell them its weight. we tell them it's use by date. many instances, we tell themwhether it's halal-certified or not. and then we tell them,we have this sort of obscure terminology of"made from australian imported ingredients." wendy, what on earthdoes that mean?

what on earth doesthat term mean? does it mean 1%, 2%, none? does it mean one peanut,and a packet of peanuts came from this nation? we then said "madein australia." and we've seen, wendy, recentexamples of the fish that was caught in the atlantic, takento china, processed there, taken to new zealand,processed there, put in a package inaustralia and labelled "made

in australia." wendy, why do they want toput the word australia on it? why do they want to putthe word australia on it? because it sells. so what we're askingfor is honesty. i've got no problems ifpeople want to buy something from overseas or not. but i have a right asa consumer to know. and what am i buyingwhen i buy that?

well, i'm buying the right toknow that it was farmed-- just like when we're sellingthe product to china, the reason ourproduct sells in china so well is because itwas a clean image, wendy. i'm buying the right to knowthat it has one of the highest level of phytosanitarycontrols in the world, that it's been foundin there with one of the highest levels ofphytosanitary controls i know that it's hadone the highest levels

of occupationalhealth and safety, backing that in from the farmto the processing sector. i know that the wages that werepaid were paid at a decent rate to support people ina decent way of life. i think i have theright as a consumer to know that information. and i have the rightnot to be misled by, to be honest, weaselwords, which basically get the wordaustralia on it when

in fact, if they're honest, it'snot really australian at all. now, this doesn't mean thatthere are not products there. of course, there will bea whole range of products. we're a trading nation. but this nation has a right todisplay in an unambiguous form what is there. the second part ofyour question, wendy, has to deal with issues, suchas the hepatitis a issue, and we were talkingabout recent issues.

well, i think first ofall, to get the facts about hepatitisa, a lot of people who consume berries arenot going to get hepatitis, probably about 1% ifthey were infected. the only reason that youget hepatitis from berries is because it's part ofthe oral faecal root. and therefore, yourregister, such as e. coli have to be detected. and as a protectionfrom that, you

have to have an understandingof exactly-- it gives you some form of insurancethat if you have a concern, to be able to shopto know where if you believe that is arisk, where you can go to buy to mitigate that risk. that is, i think, a disclosuredocument that any product should be allowed to have. and of course, it'sin our interest. alternatively.

if we don't believe inproduct of origin labelling, if we believe that allthings are the same, then we should go back to ourfarms and say you also can work at the same level of control asyour competition can work at. and no one in australiawould accept that. so let's be honest about howwe display it on our package.