29 January 2010

TIM HOLT: There's a major rally planned next Tuesday to follow up on the issues raised by hunger striker Peter Spencer to do with native vegetation laws.

We welcome the federal Minister for Agriculture, Tony Burke, good morning and welcome.

TONY BURKE: G'day, Tim.

HOLT: Tony Burke, this has been an issue that - that's Peter Spencer - that has hit the national media. It has raised the ire of many, many, many farmers. What's your view?

TONY BURKE: It's an issue that's been going on a lot over the recent summer. The decisions that many farmers are upset about were decisions taken now more than a decade ago and they've been, as long as I've been in the portfolio - which isn't long, it's been regularly raised with me when I visit properties, particularly in New South Wales and Queensland.

All that we've done at the moment is for the first time introduced, on a pilot fashion, in a limited scale, some stewardship payments. So we've, decided to trial a system where some farmers get paid for the work they do on their land.

I visited some of the box gum woodland sites where we do that and the support from the farmers - it's very popular but, as I say, I'm not going to pretend that that's a complete solution to these issues. It's been a running sore with farmers for a very long time and it's something that for each side of politics there's no easy fix.

HOLT: In fact, if I remember correctly the Wentworth Group of Scientists, one of the recommendations from them a number of years ago now, when it came to the protection of native vegetation, was to compensate farmers for doing that and without doing that, without giving them the incentive, it simply wasn't going to work. This has - I mean, as you say, this is a long-running sore with farmers.

TONY BURKE: That's right and so I can understand why New South Wales farmers have taken the decision to hold a rally around the issue. I do have one particular concern though about the way the rally's been publicised and it's that concern that prevents me from participating and going down to talk to them while that rally's on in any way.

And the concern is this: from time to time people in Australia on a whole range of issues engage in self-harm. Whenever they do, I think it is absolutely important that no politician allows anyone to believe that that's the way you advance a cause in Australia.

When I visit regional Australia constantly, community after community, there will be stories, often terribly recent stories, of people engaging in self-harm, often in the worst possible way.

The response from politicians should never be to rally behind and become a supporter when someone does that and I certainly believe no one should ever form a view that that's a way to make a point in Australia.

Now, the New South Wales Farmers, for whatever reason, in their media around this event, have linked it directly to the Peter Spencer case and so yesterday I picked up the phone to Charlie Armstrong, the head of New South Wales Farmers, and just explained to him that I'm happy to meet with him, I'll meet with him on the day, but I will not meet with him until the rally is over because I will not in any way be involved or lend my name to something which could in the slightest way create a situation that says to people hurting yourself is a way to make a political point in Australia.

HOLT: Well, of course you raise a very good point but let's talk about the issue of those property rights and constitutional lawyers are arguing that the property rights have been taken away by the state government from farmers and the Commonwealth is now receiving the benefit without having to pay anything, no benefit to the farmer at all. How do you respond to that? Because that really becomes at the heart of the issue, isn't it, around property rights?

BURKE: Yes, and the issue, as you've described it is one, as I understand it, that's still being tested before the courts and there's - there's some limitations on the extent to which a federal minister can comment on which way a court ought to land on something. So I've got some limitations on me there.

But certainly the argument that you say about the federal Government receiving the benefit, the farmer receiving none, it's not always as simple as that, I've got to say.

The presumption that farmers would want to clear all their land or that it would be in their interest to clear all their land doesn't match the view of most farmers.

So certainly there's a level of frustration about people being told you're not allowed to, which is what these laws did, but I think any presumption that it's in the interests of farmers to clear their land completely, if that were the case there'd be no such thing as Landcare.

HOLT: We have had a caller on that issue. They say the compensation is one thing and it may suit some but he's a farmer and he would just like to, he says, to have the right to farm the property and make it viable.

TONY BURKE: That's right and this is why there's an issue that we're working through with people and this is why I'll be having the discussion with them on Tuesday, why I've been having these discussions ever since I got the job and why we introduced the stewardship payments in the box gum woodlands.

There's an extent to which farmers are doing extraordinary environmental work and receiving no credit for, in fact sometimes being painted the opposite way, being painted quite unfairly as environmental vandals and so we've introduced for the first time a situation where we're piloting some payments - they're modest but they're payments that the farmers who've got involved have been very happy about.

Can we, at a glance, solve a problem that's been steaming along for more than a decade, in terms of solving it to everyone's satisfaction? I think the answer's probably no. In terms of is this something that's appropriate for us to keep talking about, yes, it is, but I won't talk about it in any context that gives rise to a hunger strike or someone hurting themselves being seen as the right thing to do.

HOLT: Just on a different issue, exceptional circumstances, and there's a real issue for those in the Eurobodalla Shire. It is linked with the Shoalhaven. The Shoalhaven, of course, is faring a fair bit better at the moment. The Eurobodalla is in a different situation. This is something that really needs addressing and fine-tuning. Have you any word on exceptional circumstances for those farmers?

TONY BURKE: Yes, the - a couple of things I can say. One, as you know, we're still working through what the new system will be but the new system won't apply to people who are currently on assistance. The new system is all about how do you prepare for the next drought and that's what we're still working through.

So in the current drought we've kept the same rules that were always there and that remains.

There is one problem that occurs, and I've been pleading with the state governments to think about this when areas come up for renewal and that is what often happens is the state government reapplies for the whole of a region even though part of it…

HOLT: We'll have to quick, Minister, we're just coming to the news.

TONY BURKE: …has been improving. Sorry, but essentially if you end up with more limited boundaries then you can end up with a situation where nobody comes out of assistance to have to reapply to come back in. That's something that we're trying to get the state governments to work with us on.

HOLT: Tony Burke, thanks for taking the time and chatting this morning.

DAFF10/187T

© 2009 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Copyright in the content published above belongs to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The ABC Content has not been reviewed, approved or endorsed by the Minister or the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Any opinion, statement or representation made within the ABC Content does not necessarily reflect the views of the Minister or the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.