Address to the National Rural Press Club

Television Transcript
PREPARED: Tuesday 9 August 2022
TITLE: Minister Murray Watt address at the National Press Club
DESCRIPTION: Minister Murray Watt on the importance of biosecurity measures, climate mitigation and the agricultural workforce
CHANNEL: ABC News
PROGRAM: National Press Club Address
DATE BROADCAST:  9 August 2022 
TIME BROADCAST: 12:30 PM -  1:37 PM

SPEECH

NATIONAL RURAL PRESS CLUB

CANBERRA
THURSDAY, 9 AUGUST 2022

TURNING THE PAGE FOR AGRICULTURE

LUCY BARBOUR, HOST: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. And welcome to the National Press Club of Australia to this Westpac Address. My name is Lucy Barbour, I’m the national regional affairs reporter for the ABC, and I’m also the President of the National Rural Press Club.

Our guest today is the Honourable Murray Watt, the Agriculture Minister, the Fisheries Minister and the Forestry Minister, so quite a lot. But you’re also the Minister for Emergency Management. 

And his address, as I mentioned, is going to be the National Rural Press Club, and we’re very grateful to the NPC for hosting us here today.

Mr Watt will be announcing Australia’s first ever national biosecurity strategy, and, of course, as many of you in this room will know, that could not be more relevant at the moment given that livestock diseases such as foot and mouth and lumpy skin are on our doorstep. It’s estimated an FMD outbreak could cost the Australian economy around $80 billion. Meanwhile, the destructive varroa mite has already made its way here. It’s hard to remember a time when biosecurity was such a hot topic.

Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming Murray Watt.

MURRAY WATT: Thank you very much, Lucy. I’ve heard that bell be rung many times watching National Press Club addresses, but I don’t think I’ve ever been in the room for one, let alone giving one, so it’s a great pleasure to be here. 

Thank you also to Maurice and everyone from the National Rural Press Club for hosting today’s event. It’s a great delight to be here so early in my term.

I acknowledge that we come together today in the nation’s meeting place, Canberra, and pay my aspects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri custodians who for thousands of years have cared for country, tendered our waters and harnessed its produce.

I also acknowledge - before I forget - my wife, Cynthia. I didn’t have you on the acknowledgements list - very bad mistake. It's fantastic to have you with me on this next step in our journey.

Can I also acknowledge Lucy again, and all of the media partners who are here, the sponsors for today, the Indonesian Ambassador, His Excellency Dr Siswo Pramono, and other ambassadors who are with us today. My parliamentary colleagues and good friends Senators Jenny McAllister, Tim Ayres, Raff Ciccone, Alicia Payne, Dave Smith, and I even saw Senator David Pocock up the back there, who we’ve almost forgiven for helping us lose to New South Wales in the State of Origin match the other day.

Can I also acknowledge ACT Agriculture Minister Rebecca Vassarotti – great to have you here, Rebecca. And, of course, former Labor agriculture ministers John Kerin and Joel Fitzgibbon - it’s great to have both of you here. 

The President of the National Farmers Federation, Fiona Simson, the President of the ACTU, Michele O’Neil, industry, union and community leaders and all of us who have an interest in the future of Australian agriculture.
 
As we sit here in Canberra today the judging of the dairy cattle competition is underway in my home town of Brisbane at the Ekka – the Royal Queensland Show. 

The Ekka, if you haven’t been to it before, is where the country meets the city, where the city learns about the country, where families from across our state are reunited. 

The Ekka truly does bring people and agriculture together.

Growing up in suburban Brisbane I remember heading to Ekka with my own family. Heading straight for the main arena to see the cattle judging, the show-jumping, the horticulture displays and, of course, the woodchop. 

I’d listened to my parents’ stories growing up on the land as we headed in. 

Mum’s family, trying their hand on dairy farms on the Darling Downs when her father was out of work in the city.

Dad milking cows before dawn on his family’s dairy farm near Mackay, then riding his horse through flooded creeks to his tiny school and returning home again to milk at the end of the day. 

His stories of having to walk off the farm with his family after trouble with drought and banks before cutting cane and picking fruit in Victoria in the off-season.

For a city kid like me these experiences and conversations opened my eyes to a different world.

Now, I’ve said before already in this role, I’m not a farmer, and I’m not going to pretend to be one. I think Australians have had enough of politicians faking it. 

But I do think that my family’s farming history has helped me appreciate the highs and lows of farm life and why it matters so much to have a government that stands with the industry in good times and in bad. 

It's why as a Senator for Queensland I’ve spent so much of the last six years in our regions and across our north making connections that, as it turns out, have been very important to have made.

And it’s why I was so excited when the Prime Minister asked me to be Australia’s new Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and, of course, our new Minister for Emergency Management. 

When my dad left school, aged 14, to work on the family farm he would never have thought that his son would be up here one day talking about the future of the industry he and my mum grew up in. And it’s an honour that I will never take for granted.

I was back at the Ekka on the weekend talking with farmers, hearing their stories, learning how domestic and world events impact on their prices. 

And it’s truly inspiring to see first-hand the passion that rural Australians have for their animals, for their produce and their profession.

And I believe that the millions of Australians who live in the cities and suburbs around the country share that inspiration. 

Every day we are thankful to the farmer who puts food on our plate. When we savour that fresh piece of snapper or barramundi, we are thankful to those who harvest it. And, as my wife well knows, as one of Australia’s many home renovators, we are very thankful for the millers who produce our timber. 

We are thankful for the pre-dawn starts, the countless hours of hard labour, the care for our land and waters and the sacrifices made to ensure farm products are world class.

Now, the old saying goes without trucks Australia stops, and that is true. 

But it’s also true that without farms, Australia starves. 

This connection that I’m talking about between city and country, producers and consumers, will guide me in this important role going forward.

I consider myself very lucky to become Australia’s Agriculture Minister at what is overall a pretty good time for the sector. 

In most of the country we’ve emerged from drought, commodity prices are high, trade is more diversified.

In fact, ABARES forecasts the gross value of Australia’s agriculture, fisheries and forestry production will exceed $86 billion this year – the second highest on record. 

Our agricultural exports are forecast to be the highest ever at nearly $65 billion. And we’re expecting a 2.6 per cent increase in the value of fisheries exports. Forestry products are expected to grow even further with a 5 per cent increase to the industry value to $2.9 billion.

Now, collectively these forecasts indicate that we are heading ever closer to the industry goal of a $100 billion agricultural sector by 2030, as set out in the NFF’s road map. 

So I feel incredibly positive about the future of the industries that I now have the privilege to represent in Cabinet.

And I’m not alone. The latest Westpac Agribusiness Intergenerational Farming Report – that’s quite a mouthful – finds that 80 per cent of older farmers and 74 per cent of younger farmers are optimistic about the future of their farms.

Now, of course, not all is rosy. 

High input costs mean that many farmers are experiencing a profitless boom. 

Years of workforce shortages affect all industries across every part of my portfolio. 

Ongoing trade issues have impacted wine, barley, lobster and other products. 

Floods have wiped out crops in several regions causing huge farm losses and price rises at the checkout.
 
But these challenges should not blind us to the significant opportunities that exist for the agriculture sector – new products, new markets, new avenues for value adding and more sustainable practices. 

Now this Government and I as Minister are determined to take these opportunities and challenges by the scruff of the neck, to work with all stakeholders for the betterment of our country.

It really is time to turn the page for agriculture. 

We need to have relationships that are built on honesty and respect. 

We need a government that charts a path for industry success, not one that sets up roadblocks to avoid.

In taking this path I will draw on the tradition of past Labor agriculture ministers, inspiring figures who reformed the sector to face the challenges of their times. 

All farmers understand the concept of succession planning, a sometimes difficult process to choose the right person to inherit the farm. 

And now, within Labor, a similar responsibility has been passed to me. 
For some in the room today all the way back to William Scully, a former Labor agriculture Minister who saved wheat farmers during world War II. 
But the person who does keep returning to my mind – and he’s already been acknowledged – is Bob Hawke’s Agriculture Minister John Kerin, who I’m really pleased could be with us here today.

As many of you would know, John was the Minister for Primary Industries for more than eight years. 

And in my view he was easily the most reformist agriculture minister in Australia’s history. And his ideas have already helped to inform my thinking, Those early morning and late night emails don’t go unread, John.

As for me, built on a career as an advocate and a policy maker, I come with my own experiences and my own views, and I come as someone who listens and collaborates, which I will now draw on as together we take this important sector to new heights.

So having told you probably about too much about who I am, I’d like to outline the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ – what are Labor’s priorities in the agriculture portfolio and also the how – how will we approach those priorities and how does that differ from what’s come before?

But, first, the ‘what’, and right now there’s no bigger topic than biosecurity, as you were saying, Lucy. 

Now, biosecurity has been front of mind for a lot of Australians in recent weeks and months, especially since foot and mouth disease and lumpy skin disease reached Indonesia earlier this year. And that focus was sharpened when foot and mouth spread to Bali, a mere month after I became Minister. Quite an introduction.

This whole episode has brought the state of our biosecurity system into sharp relief. 

I personally think of our biosecurity system as a wall, one that’s been built up over decades to protect our agriculture industry. Now the wall is still strong and, in fact, it’s one of the best in the world, and we should all be very proud about that. 

But the reality is that decisions of the previous government have weakened that wall – short-term thinking, a failure to fully implement the Craik review and Inspector-General reports, the botched biosecurity levy, to name a few. 

All of these things created cracks in our biosecurity wall, and now it’s my job to repair that wall and make it even stronger.

So that’s why I’ve begun work to deliver something industry has called for for many years – long-term, sustainable biosecurity funding.

Something that was not delivered by the previous government but which we committed to in the last election.

Now, this will take a little bit of time and it will certainly take a lot of discussion with our Expenditure Review Committee. But fulfilling this commitment is integral to the security and growth of our farm sector.

In the meantime, we have faced the immediate challenge of foot and mouth disease and lumpy skin disease. 

Our three-pronged approach has been swift and strong, but also measured and consultative. 

Firstly, we got to work instantly to provide help to our neighbours in Indonesia. 

Ambassador Pramono, it was a great honour to travel to your country as my first overseas visit as Minister to see first-hand the response from your Government in combating the spread of foot and mouth disease, and to open the door for us to keep working together to fight it.

Already Australia has provided expert veterinary assistance to Indonesia along with over 430,000 vaccines for lumpy skin, to be followed soon by 1 million vaccines for foot and mouth disease. 

Because the best way to stop FMD reaching Australia is to stop its spread through Indonesia. 

And that’s why I’m pleased to announce today that the Albanese Government will provide an additional $10 million in biosecurity funding to Indonesia. And I thank my colleague Senator Wong for her assistance in this important announcement as well.

This package will provide more urgently needed vaccines and technical support, and it reflects Australia’s commitment to leverage our healthy partnership in support of Indonesian efforts to address this challenge. 

It’s in our national interest to offer support to our neighbours when it’s needed.

Beyond our support for Indonesia, we’ve also ramped up our own protection measures at our borders, with more biosecurity officers, detector dogs, sanitisation mats at airports, biosecurity response zones, 100 per cent screening of mail from Indonesia and China and 100 per cent risk profiling of returning passengers from Indonesia. 

As I’ve said, this is the strongest biosecurity response in our nation’s history – more than any government has ever done before.

Thirdly, we are also improving our readiness should an outbreak occur here. 

Last week we created a new Exotic Animal Diseases Preparedness Taskforce to ensure that Australia is better prepared in the event of a foot and mouth or lumpy skin disease outbreak. 

The taskforce brings together our experts in biosecurity and animal health along with our experts in disaster management. 

It’s what good governments do – plan for the best but prepare for the worst. 

It’s what I’ve done in disaster management around the floods, and it’s what I’m doing here as well. 

We don’t need to wait for events to happen and then scramble to respond. That’s something we’ve seen all too often in recent years and we can do better.

And today I build on this, as Lucy said, by releasing Australia’s first ever National Biosecurity Strategy.

This strategy, for the first time, outlines the key actions for all Australians to ensure a stronger biosecurity system.

The strategy provides clear direction to ensure our biosecurity system remains fit to meet the challenges of the next decade and beyond. 

I’m really pleased that a new spirit of cooperation between federal, state and territory agriculture ministers, along with industry, has seen it finalised as an early priority of our new Government. 

From the start, we have worked hand in hand with industry as well as States and Territories to ensure we get our response to the latest biosecurity threats right. 

And I sincerely thank all in industry who are here today for their partnership in meeting this challenge. 

It’s forged very positive relationships that I think will stand us in good stead as we deal with a range of other issues.

As a result of all of our collective hard work, it’s important to remember Australia remains foot and mouth disease and lumpy skin disease free.

It’s an important point to make here today and one we should all project to our trade partners overseas. 

Unfortunately, we have seen some irresponsible fearmongering from some quarters which has only caused concern from our trading partners and cost our hard-working farmers. 

At the Ekka last weekend, I met a farmer from northern New South Wales who said the impact of this politically driven alarmism had already cost him $250,000 due to reduced cattle prices. 

Our farmers don’t deserve that.

We need to take this threat seriously, but we also shouldn’t overstate the risk. 

While the risk is low, the consequences are high. 

And that’s why we’re working night and day on even more measures to help prevent pests and diseases from entering our country and decimating our ag sector. 

And I want to thank my secretary, Andrew Metcalfe, and all of our fabulous departmental team for the incredible effort they’ve been putting in to date with these measures.

Of course, foot and mouth and lumpy skin are not the only exotic pests or diseases we are facing. Varroa mite was detected recently in bee hives in the Hunter region, and we’ve been working very closely with the New South Wales Government to reduce its spread. 

We’re also working to prevent the arrival of threats to our plants, such as Xylella. It tops the list of Australia’s national priority plant pests, causing devastating disease in many crops that we rely on for our food and fibre.

Now, one of the reasons that we face this ever-growing threat of exotic pests and disease is our changing climate. 

For years regional Australia, and agriculture in particular, has been described in some quarters as a handbrake on climate action. That is simply not true. 

Our farmers are on the frontline of climate change, experiencing the harsh cycle of extreme drought and extreme rainfall.

Every single farmer I have met since taking on this role has raised the impact of climate change, usually within minutes of arriving on their property. The impact on their rainfall, on their soil and their yields, and their total commitment to sustainability. 

People like Murray Hall - a sheep and grain grower I visited in Western Australia. The cotton growers I met on Ross Burnett’s property in Central Queensland. The dairy farmers and others I met after the floods in northern New South Wales. 

And there can be no doubt about the impact of climate change on our wild caught fisheries. As the world looks for cheaper and healthier sources of protein, ensuring the sustainability of our fisheries is vital.

Far from being a handbrake on climate action, agriculture has been a pioneer, and the men and women who populate the industry deserve recognition for that. 

The truth is the agriculture industry has been trying to drag governments towards a coherent climate policy for years.

One that works for farmers, that delivers economic and environmental returns, that’s consistent with the policies of our international trading partners. 

The National Formers Federation was on board with net zero by 2050 before most. The Red Meat Advisory Council went even further committing to net zero and carbon neutrality by 2030.

When it comes to climate change Australian agriculture deserves a government that is in step with their thinking. And that moment has arrived. And I intend to work with industry to grab it with both hands.

I want to be the Minister that works with industry, with workers and rural communities to tackle climate change, to reduce emissions, to build resilience, to adapt practices, to develop new income streams, to ensure Australia’s long-term agricultural productivity and food and fibre security. 

I see this as a key pillar in a contemporary Labor agenda for agriculture, not one driven by zealotry from the left or the right – a practical, common-sense agenda that works with the sector to protect our environment and create wealth.

I think of it as good succession planning. So agriculture is still a major export earner 50 years from now, so our country can still feed itself a hundred years from now, so our farms remain productive when they’re inherited by future generations.

I know there’s some incredible work happening in the sector already to manage climate change and adopt more sustainable practices. 

I’m really encouraged by the solutions that I’ve seen Australia’s producers introduce. 
Producers like Brendan Savage who I met in Western Australia, he’s massively cut his fertiliser use through improved soil practices. 

Processors like JBS who proudly showed me their Rockhampton meatworks, which has reduced water consumption by 500,000 litres per day. 

Or Austral Fisheries who are introducing hybrid electronic vessels to reduce their fuel consumption and emissions.

This stuff is happening now. Industry is doing it. And that’s no surprise when you think about the fact that the land sector has reduced emissions by 72 per cent since 2005. 

I want to learn from this and I want to build on it.

Of course, the forestry industry has a huge role to play in our emissions reduction task. If we get the right investment framework and the right regulation, we can create the carbon sinks that we’ll need to help remove carbon from our atmosphere. This is an incredibly exciting opportunity, and I’m really looking forward to working with all in the sector to realise it.

Now, of course, there are many other priorities I could discuss with you - trade relationships, rising input costs, value-adding, making our export and biosecurity mechanisms more efficient, delivering food security. 

But while the ‘what’ is important, the focus should equally be on the ‘how’.

It’s one thing to make a funding announcement or a policy decision but, more often than not, it’s how you arrive at that decision that determines whether it succeeds. This requires a new, different approach.

As I’ve indicated, Labor does have a different agenda for agriculture, and I will be a different kind of agriculture minister, guided by four key principles.

First, I’ll be evidence based. 

Our country continues to benefit from listening to the science on Covid-19 and, similarly, our response to foot and mouth disease is based on the best biosecurity advice. 

I intend that to continue, whatever issue we’re dealing with. 

Australia is so lucky to have some of the world’s best agricultural scientists and research and development corporations.

Listening to the experts and involving them in decision-making is essential for any principled, competent government.

Second, we’ll be forward-looking to chart where want to get to and not pretend that challenges don’t exist. 

As the Prime Minister often says, ‘you can shape the future or you can have the future shape you’. We can see what consumers are demanding, what our international trading partners will insist on, and we owe it to rural Australia to start planning for that, not hide from it or denying it.

Third, we will be inclusive and we will listen. 

I’ve been struck by the number of times industry leaders have already told me that it’s refreshing to have a government that listens, not lectures. 

That’s how we get the best ideas, and industry will continue to be key partners as we develop our agenda. 

Proper listening, however, is also about widening the voices in the discussion. 

As I say, I want agriculture workers to have a seat at the table, including through their unions. 

I want more women’s voices, more young voices and more voices of sustainable practices at the table, too. 

I recognise industry efforts to develop these leaders, and I encourage that to continue, and I look forward to working with you on that.

In particular, I also want more First Nations voices at the table, not just because it’s their right but because it will help us achieve our collective goals. 

Our farmers are stewards of the land they live and work on. That stewardship is passed down from generation to generation. And when you think about it, this has parallels with the way in which First Nations people have cared for and managed the land for tens of thousands of years. 

Following the Prime Minister’s lead, I want to harness the deep and powerful knowledge that First Nations people have about the land and sea to ensure that connection is preserved.

First Nations people have made a strong contribution to the establishment of the agriculture industry, particularly in the area of beef cattle in Northern Australia. 

And they are once again major agricultural landowners. 

All of these things mean First Peoples should be active partners in the future of our agriculture sector, and that’s why I will work with landowners and land managers, communities, organisations and First Nations people. 

By including all who have a stake in agriculture right now we lock in the industry’s long‑term future.

Fourth and finally, we will collaborate, not divide. 

Already you would have seen that cooperation and collaboration have been hallmarks of the Albanese Government. Finding common ground between groups that, at times, have been driven apart. 

I really think that Australians are tired of the confected culture wars that have been driven by the political extremes. 

And agriculture has been a key battle ground – weaponised to suit certain people’s political ends at the expense of so many.

We have so much more in common than we recognise – farmers and environmentalists, consumers and producers, city and country. And, in particular, I want to foster more collaboration between agricultural employers and workers to solve one of the biggest challenges facing the sector – workforce shortages.

I want Australia’s rural workforce, from the ringers to the fruit pickers to the timber workers, to those balancing the books, to be safe at work, treated well and paid fairly. And I doubt that any fair-minded farm worker – sorry, I doubt that any farm leader would oppose that.

I also doubt that any farm worker or union leader would oppose businesses getting the workers they need while planning profitable and competitive. 

It can be done. 

And this is exactly what our Government seeks to achieve through the forthcoming Jobs and Skills Summit. 

And it’s what I’ll be seeking to achieve through industry and union roundtables in the lead-up.

 As a priority we are working to strengthen and expand the Pacific-Australia Labour Mobility Scheme, helping farm businesses to access the overseas workers they need while also strengthening our diplomatic ties. 

But we have to be honest and say that we also need to train Australians for the increasingly high-skilled jobs in agriculture.

So I’m working closely with my Cabinet colleagues to ensure our regional and rural communities benefit from our election commitments in that space.

I’m committed to collaboratively developing solutions here. 

We need to address our workforce challenges while also protecting vulnerable workers. 

Because the reports of farm workers being ripped off and exploited have been around too long for us to ignore. We’ve got to have those honest conversations.

Now, all of these things are complex issues, and the solutions we’ve put forward around workforce may not be enough.

I’ve been very clear to industry and unions that I’m open to other ideas. 

And I’ve been even clearer that that will require more cooperation in the sector than we’ve seen for a long time. Our Jobs and Skills Summit I think is a really good place to start.

In conclusion, as I left the Ekka on Sunday I wondered what the show would look like when I take my grandkids there in 30 years’ time – sometimes in this job I wonder if I’ll make it - what will they and their friends think of the cattle judging and the horticulture exhibits when they go? 

Will they be as inspired as I was when I went as a kid? What will Australia’s agriculture sector be known for by then?

My vision for Australian agriculture is to see a thriving and resilient sector that balances productivity with vibrant rural communities and robust natural environments. 

Where Australia’s food manufacturing industry, its forestries, its fisheries are booming and the value of our exports continues to rise as new countries begin to seek out our prime food and fibre.

If we can master the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ that I’ve outlined here today, we will deliver growth and security for industries, people and country for decade to come. 

A new agricultural triple bottom line. 

Maybe one day I’ll be sitting down there listening to another Labor Agriculture Minister outline her vision for the next 30 years. 

And when they write the book on the Albanese Government, I want the chapter on agriculture, fisheries and forestry to be a lengthy one. Where women, First Nations people, youth and regional communities join with industry to be part of the narrative. 

Because we will have turned the page on years of stagnation and denial and inked a new future that is honest, visionary and collaborative. 

Thank you very much for your time, and I’d be happy to answer your questions.

LUCY BARBOUR: Thank you, Minister, for a really interesting speech. A couple of questions from me before we go to our journos on the floor. You mentioned there a sustainable funding model as part of your biosecurity strategy. I think it might be mentioned, that particular term, about 16 times in that strategy. Is this something, that funding, that we can absolutely expect to see in this year’s budget?

MURRAY WATT: I knew the questions would be the hard part. So just to begin, I think the reason I’m emphasising that – and, again, it’s based on a lot of the discussions I’ve had with industry already – is that in the past while we have seen biosecurity funding from time to time it’s tended to be quite ad hoc, in response to events, a bit of a patch here and a patch there. And clearly what industry is saying is that we do need something more long term, more sustainable.

And I have begun, as I say, to have those discussions with colleagues. I’m not at liberty to say today that that sort of thing is going to happen. And, of course, there are many pressures on our budget. But I am hopeful that we will have some good things to say in this year’s budget as we then work towards the next budget as well. Obviously the next two budgets will be relatively close together – this year’s in October and the next one in May. The reality is that this year ‘s budget will be primarily based on delivering election commitments, whether they be in this portfolio or any else. But I take heart from the fact that pretty quickly I was able to get the extra $14 million that we announced when I came back from Indonesia, and I took that as recognition from my colleagues that they take these issues seriously and are prepared to consider more.

LUCY BARBOUR: So you’re up for the hustle?

MURRAY WATT: Up for the hustle. Expenditure Review Committee is an interesting place to be.

LUCY BARBOUR: Excellent. You mentioned in your speech, or you touched on, succession planning, and you referenced Westpac’s Intergenerational Report coming out tomorrow. I wonder what you see, or how you see, the future of the family farm in Australia, particularly when in this country there is such a big focus on farmers boosting their productivity, and often that can mean getting bigger in terms of the farming operation. How do you see the future of the family farm?

MURRAY WATT: Yeah, good question, Lucy. And it’s obviously not necessarily a new thing, that kind of consolidation of farms. Again, as you were asking that, I was thinking about my family friends who’ve consolidated their sugar cane farms in North Queensland over the years. And, unfortunately, some of the kids have left the industry to pursue other careers. And I know that sort of thing is happening across the country.

I was– to be honest with you when I saw the figures, and I can’t remember the exact numbers off the top of my head, but when I saw the figures as to the number of family farms that we continue to have in Australia, it actually probably was higher than what I had been led to believe. And I think the common sort of wisdom out there is that there’s no place for the family farm anymore, and I don’t think that’s right. I mean, obviously there is a role for large corporates in agriculture, and I know many of them are here today. But firstly, I think it would be sad as a country if we lost family farming, but I also don’t think it’s necessary. I think that, you know, there has been that trend towards consolidation, farms becoming bigger, and that has squeezed some families out, but provided we can work with family farmers and help them lift their productivity, become more efficient, as many of them already are, then I think that there is going to be an ongoing role for family farms in Australia for a long time to come.

LUCY BARBOUR: All right, thank you. First question today is from Mike Foley, a member of the National Rural Press Club and from the SMH and The Age.

MIKE FOLEY, JOURNALIST: G’day, Minister. Thanks for your address. Just picking up on your goals, stated goals, to be evidence based and also seeking robust natural environments. Your Cabinet colleague Tanya Plibersek announced and accepted the findings of the State of the Environment Report here just last month, which noted between 2000 and 2017 nearly 8 million hectares of land were cleared, but 93 per cent of that was done without federal government approval. And there’s a hell of a lot of threatened species habitat mixed into that. And it noted that land clearing along with feral animals is one of the two key drivers of essentially Australia’s natural environment going off a cliff. I was just wondering if you can spell out, does the Albanese Government want to reduce land clearing, and as Minister what is your role in that, on that issue?

MURRAY WATT: Yeah, this is something that I’ve begun having some preliminary conversations with Tanya about. Many of the conversations we’ve been having across ministers are pretty preliminary at this stage given it’s early on. But you can’t ignore those facts and those numbers. And I know from my own state of Queensland this has been a pretty hot debate over a number of years. I guess where I’m coming from is that what I see and what I hear from farmers and farm groups is that they are increasingly conscious of the impact of land clearing on biodiversity and emissions and that that’s something that they want to work with governments on. I mean, to give former Minister David Littleproud his due, the biodiversity stewardship program that he put in place I think was a good start. I don’t think it’s perfect. The feedback I’ve had is that it isn’t perfect and it could be improved. But I take that as a sign that farmers do want to work with government and they want us to put in place frameworks that make it possible for them to manage biodiversity. So I don’t think we’re going to get to a point where, you know, no tree can be cleared on any farm. But I think it is important to be guided by science as to the level of clearing that’s happening, what impact that’s having on biodiversity and emissions and work with the sector to put in place sustainable arrangements that allow farmers to do what they need to do while also preserving the land for future generations.

MIKE FOLEY: The biodiversity scheme is a market that government would facilitate. Do you see a need for regulation rather than just, you know, industry buying into a market‑based scheme?

MURRAY WATT: I think there will always be a place for regulation on these sort of matters. And obviously a lot of this is dictated by state and territory legislation rather than Commonwealth, if we’re talking about land clearing. There will always be a place for regulation. But I think that the more that we can be incentivising farmers through those market mechanisms, I think that’s a good thing for farmers and a good thing for the environment.

LUCY BARBOUR: Next up we’ve got Julie Hare from the Australian Financial Review.

JULIE HARE, JOURNALIST: Thank you, Mr Watt. Very enjoyable speech. Julie Hare from the AFR and also from the National Rural Press Club, I’m on the board of directors. I just want to ask you about vaccines. You mentioned that there’s been a distribution of vaccines to Indonesia, but I understand one of the issues with the available vaccines is that animals that are vaccinated tend to test positive so that you don’t know whether they’ve actually got foot and mouth disease or whether they’ve been vaccinated. Farmers have been pushing for an mRNA vaccine to be developed. Are you backing that, or where do you stand on that position?

MURRAY WATT: Thanks, Julie. Again, I have had some discussions with particularly Ed Husic, the Minister for Industry under whom CSIRO sits. And we do think that there is a place down the track for the development of mRNA vaccines. Not surprisingly, the first priority when it comes to mRNA vaccines in Australia is Covid-19, so that’s, you know, probably the Government’s earliest priority in that space. But as that kind of work starts developing, we think it can be expanded to assist with animal diseases as well. So I would be hopeful that that can happen. Do I think it will happen this year? Probably not. I think we’ve got to make use of the vaccines that exist for the moment, if we find ourselves needing them. But I would be hopeful that we can develop that kind of thing in a little bit further.

JULIE HARE: Okay, thank you.

LUCY BARBOUR: Jess Malcolm from The Australian.

JESS MALCOLM, JOURNALIST: Thank you, Senator, for your address. Jess Malcolm from The Australian. I just want to pick you up on something that you said that you were open to ideas on the issue of workforce shortages. So given there was, you know, widespread kind of concern about the decision to scrap the former Coalition Government’s specific agriculture visa, you know, many farmers are concerned that the decision to implement an ag visa under the Pacific scheme won’t be enough to plug those critical shortages. Are you open to extending the visa requirements to other countries if there were, say, willing workers in South East Asian nations?

MURRAY WATT: Yep, thanks, Jess. Well, I suppose the first point to note is that there are already a range of visa arrangements that farmers can make use of to bring people in from overseas if needed. I’m aware that there are different views about how successful and workable they are. We have already said that we will honour the MOU with Vietnam as to the ag visa, because that MOU was concluded by the time of the election. But it’s not our intention to carry that through with any of the other countries where negotiations were still underway. My sense from speaking to farmers is that there were many who had hoped for the ag visa, but what I sense is that people just want workers and they’re open to different arrangements and schemes that can deliver the workers that they need. And, as I say, I don’t think we should give up on the idea of employing Australians in agriculture. I mean, the vast majority of people who work in agriculture are Australian citizens. And with the right training there are some opportunities there. But, of course, we will always require a level of migration to support our agricultural workforce. What’s important I think is to put in place systems that work for farmers but also respect people’s protections. And I think that the PALM scheme that we’re talking about will make a big dent in the needs of farm workers. And, as I said, I’m open to discussing with industry, unions and others whether there are other arrangements that are needed as well.
There’s no doubt – I mean, when I first took on the portfolio workforce shortages was the issue that everyone was talking about with me. It’s sort of been overtaken by foot and mouth disease in the last few weeks. But I know that the ag workforce issues haven’t gone away, and we’ve got to be open minded about how we deal with it.

JESS MALCOLM: I guess five or 10 years down the track and maybe the NFF is suggesting that workers – that farmers do still need a specific visa that is not related to anything else and, say, Australians aren’t taking up the work in great swathes that you would hope, would you be open to looking at, you know, an agriculture-specific visa with another country?

MURRAY WATT: We don’t consider that that is necessary. I’m happy to have those discussions with farm groups. We don’t consider that it’s necessary to have a separate visa just for agriculture, we think that putting in place the right frameworks around our existing visa system is a way that we can obtain the overseas workers that are needed.
I mean, as I say, there was a lot of talk about the ag visa, especially from the former government. It didn’t deliver a single worker for all the time that it had been talked about, whereas with the PALM scheme we’ve got over 40,000 Pacific workers who are vetted and ready to come here at the drop of a hat. So I don’t know why we wouldn’t make use of that workforce to begin with. I’ve heard some views about whether there might be other people needed with different sets of skills. Happy to look at that. But the PALM scheme we think, as I say, will make a big dent and, of course, it will provide a very big diplomatic benefit to us in the Pacific as well.

JESS MALCOLM: Great, thank you.

LUCY BARBOUR: Thanks, Jess. Josh Butler from the Guardian.

JOSH BUTLER, JOURNALIST: Thanks, Minister, for your speech. To ask a question with your Emergency Management hat on, if I could, you spoke a lot –

MURRAY WATT: My emergency management staff will be very happy. I’m just going to reach for the water while you’re talking, if that’s okay?

JOSH BUTLER: Yeah, sure. I wanted to ask – you spoke about the climate effects on agriculture. Can I ask for your thinking on how that – to ask your thinking how that feeds into your work on emergency management, disaster planning, that sort of thing? Specifically if you could talk about the spending and planning on the Disaster Ready Fund, where is that at, what projects will be first off the rank. And, secondly, could I ask your thinking on a suggestion from Brendan O’Connor before the election about less reliance on the Defence Force in emergency situations like that and the standing up of a potential civilian national disaster response agency?

MURRAY WATT: Sure, thanks Josh. Yeah, obviously in the lead-up to the election I, in particular and the now Government as a whole talked a lot about the need to be better prepared for the natural disasters that we know and will be coming in more frequency and more severity. And investing properly in disaster mitigation is a really key part of that. You know, I think we spoke about the – there’s too many ERFs - Emergency Response Fund, as opposed to the Emissions Reduction Fund, the Emergency Response Fund and how that had done nothing in three years. So that’s why we decided to devote that funding to a new disaster-ready fund that will invest up to $200 million a year in disaster mitigation, something the Productivity Commission had called for several years before. So we have begun work to make the legislative amendments that are required to set up that fund. It will require a small number of amendments to begin with, and I hope to be able to introduce them pretty soon. We have already started talking with the States and Territories about the types of subjects they think might be needed, and local government is very interested in this as well.

Obviously the former government had finally dedicated some of that fund towards post-disaster resilience work, particularly in the Northern Rivers region, and we intend to honour that. So, again, we’re working with – sorry, it wasn’t just Northern Rivers, Queensland and New South Wales after the floods. So we’re working with those states to identify how that money could be spent. But we do want to have that long-term fund that we can start using for disaster mitigation to reduce, you know, what happened – the damage for people, their homes, the taxpayer, every time we have a disaster. The second part of your question –

JOSH BUTLER: Civilian response force.

MURRAY WATT: Again, I’ve had some preliminary conversations with Richard Marles, obviously now the Defence Minister, about that. And I want to be careful what I say here because we are in no way downplaying the importance of the role the ADF play in disaster recovery. They do incredible work, they have incredible skills and equipment that aren’t, you know, necessarily around elsewhere. And having been in disaster zones when the troops roll through, you can’t underestimate the morale boost that gives to a community.  So we think that there will always be a role for the Defence Force, but we do have concerns about how far they are being stretched. And, you know, their core job is the defence of the nation, and we do need to make sure that we’re not stretching them so far that that can’t remain their core focus. So that’s why we are looking at some non-defence mechanisms for recovery work. We made an election commitment to fund Disaster Relief Australia, which is essentially a veterans organisation which gets veterans out to help with clean-up from disasters. And we’d be keen to look at further things like that. Minderoo is doing some good work in the post-disaster recovery space. So it’s sort of about supplementing that disaster workforce because, unfortunately, we’re probably going to need to do it a lot more.

JOSH BUTLER: So would there be some sort of, I guess, separate national state emergency service or something along those sort of lines, would it be that formal do you think?

MURRAY WATT: I don’t really envisage us setting up – what would it be? FES - Federal Emergency Service. I mean, we do need to recognise that the primary responsibility for disaster management rests with the States and Territories, supplemented by local government. But we are certainly open to funding organisations that can help particularly with that clean-up and reconstruction work.

JOSH BUTLER: Thank you.

LUCY BARBOUR: Thanks, Josh. Kath Sullivan from the ABC, and also the Rural Press Club.

KATH SULLIVAN, JOURNALIST: And also next to Lucy’s desk. 

MURRAY WATT: Most important title.

KATH SULLIVAN: Exactly. Minister, thank you for your address. If I could put two quick questions to you, before the election Labor, apart from axing the ag visa and ending the live sheep trade, didn’t really have many agricultural policies. But the main one, I guess, was to end the live sheep trade. And that was announced by an animal rights group - it was leaked through an animal rights group. You talked about wanting to be collaborative and less divisive in this portfolio. Was that move divisive or collaborative, and can we expect more of that kind of thing?

And if I could follow Mike’s lead and point to Tanya Plibersek’s Press Club address the other day, I just wondered if she sought your counsel about the possibility of the Commonwealth re-entering the water market and whether you would support the Commonwealth buying water entitlements from farmers?

MURRAY WATT: Thanks, Kath. So to deal with water first, I’ll be honest, I haven’t discussed water matters in great detail with Tanya up until now. We’ve both been working on a few other things, but clearly it’s an issue that impacts on the portfolio. We remain committed to our election commitment about 450 gigalitres. Of course, we’ve only recently learned, with the release of the water account, the special account, how little the former government had done, so that task is going to be hard be than what we had originally thought. But we remain committed to it.

In terms of live sheep, I think it was unfortunate that that policy was essentially announced by an activist group or by anyone other than the Opposition at the time. I would have felt the same if it was announced by an industry group. I don’t think that’s anyone’s fault, but I think it was unfortunate that that happened. You will have seen that I made it a very early priority to go over to Perth expressly to talk with sheep farmers, meat processors, export firms about the policy. And I’ve been very straight with people to say that I will – I intend to carry out the commitment. We made a commitment to phase out the export of live sheep. That’s largely based on our view that unfortunately for the industry it has lost its social licence because of past events. But we want to do that phase out, again, in a collaborative way, in an orderly way. The Prime Minister made clear that it’s not going to be done in one – just in this term. So there’s time to get it right. That will have impacts on some firms and some regions, and we want to work with them about that. So I think, I’ve certainly since I’ve been in the role in terms of implementing the commitment I’ve tried to be as collaborative as I can.

KATH SULLIVAN: OK, but don’t expect any more policies from third parties?

MURRAY WATT: That would not be my intention. Especially now we’re the Government.

LUCY BARBOUR: Next up we’ve got Jamieson Murphy from The Land and the Rural Press Club.

JAMIESON MURPHY, JOURNALIST: G’day, Minister. Thanks for your speech. It’s been two years since the Federal Court ruled the 2011 Gillard Government ban on live cattle trade was illegal, yet the federal government is yet to settle the class action and compensate those affected. The class action is over $600 million, and it’s accumulating interest at a rate of about a million dollars a week, which taxpayers will have to pay eventually. Many of the small businesses in that class action are in Northern Australia and they’ve been really affected by what’s happening with foot and mouth, there’s been a big drop in the industry there. And this compensation would really tie them over the next few months. When can they expect that compensation?

MURRAY WATT: Thanks, Jamieson. And I should have declared, I’m a former class action lawyer, including in the agriculture space. So I followed that case with interest. I wasn’t involved in that one.
This is something that I have discussed with my department, and what I’m advised is that there are pretty active discussions underway between the parties and with insurers. This will involve insurers in terms of paying those – whatever settlement is reached. I think that people understand we do need to finalise this as quickly as we can, but we’re talking about large amounts money and we need to do it properly. So I would be hopeful that, you know, I can’t give you a time frame exactly, but I would be hopeful that we can reach a conclusion in that as soon as possible.

LUCY BARBOUR: Krishani Dhanji from SBS.

KRISHANI DHANJI, JOURNALIST: Krishani Dhanji from SBS News. Thank you for your address. I was wondering, you mentioned earlier there are 40,000 workers in the PALM scheme that are ready to go. Can you provide more of a timeline as to when they will be arriving and how much you think they will provide support for farms?

MURRAY WATT: Again, I can’t give you an exact time frame but, again, I’ve had discussions with Pat Conroy, the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, about this. And I know that Penny Wong and her office are pretty engaged on it as well. We recognise that there is a critical shortage of agriculture workers at the moment in the country, and so the sooner we can have people in the better. Obviously there are already Pacific workers here, but there are many more who could be brought here to assist. We made commitments around the payment of airfares and a range of other measures to make it more attractive for people to come here and work as well, which we are going to be putting in place. So I’m pretty confident that it’s a high priority for the ministers who have direct responsibility for it.
Sorry, the second part of your question – what kind of work would they be able to do?

KRISHANI DHANJI: Or just how much of the gap do you think that they’ll be able to fill?

MURRAY WATT: Well, look, I don’t know that anyone has quantified the exact shortage of agricultural workers. I know that it’s very big and probably is more than the 40,000 who are available. And that’s why I say I’m happy to talk about other options while noting that there are also existing visa programs that can be used. It may be that between me and industry we can do a better job of making farmers aware of those options. But, as I say, if there are improvements that can be made to make those options work better, then I’m open to them as well. You know, the principle is let’s get workers in on board. Whether that – you know, preferably from Australia, if not, from overseas. Make sure they’re treated well and their rights are respected.

KRISHANI DHANJI: Thank you.

LUCY BARBOUR: Next up we’ve got Simon Grose from Canberra IQ. Thanks, Simon.

SIMON GROSE, JOURNALIST: Thank you. You used the metaphor for our biosecurity defence of a wall. It’s solid, but there’s probably a need for it to be a bit more responsive than a wall. Going to FMD, it became an issue in Australia because of Bali. But it had been in Indonesia for some time before then. And I understand there’s evidence that it got to Indonesia from Thailand. I also understand that FMD hasn’t yet got to PNG or Timor, and I figure there’s informal contact between parts of Indonesia and those countries. So how – what can you tell us about the defences we have against FMD and other diseases from countries other than Indonesia?

MURRAY WATT: No, good question, Simon. Most of the focus I’ve found in this debate has been on FMD and has been on Indonesia, for understandable reasons. But, you’re right, particularly if we’re talking about lumpy skin, if it were to get into Timor Leste or PNG, that would be a bigger risk, just given their closer proximity to Australia. Some of the funding that we’ve already announced, while it was pretty much badged and reported as being for Indonesia, it also included support for Timor Leste and PNG. And we would intend to ensure that some of the extra support that we’re providing found its way there as well. Because we’re acutely aware that were those diseases to get in to countries even closer to Australia with existing travel and trade relationships, that would be a big problem as well.
I think you can understand why Indonesia has been the highest priority for the moment. And it’s encouraging to see the reports that are coming out of Indonesia as to how they’re managing that outbreak. But we certainly have not lost sight of those other countries. I’m pretty sure I’m right in saying that our deputy chief vet or one of our other senior people has either been into those countries recently or is about to go. So we certainly are maintaining contact and thinking about what more we can do to help.

SIMON GROSE: Thank you.

LUCY BARBOUR: Keep building that wall.

MURRAY WATT: I need a flexible wall by the sound of it.

LUCY BARBOUR: Andrew Tillett from the Australian Financial Review.

MURRAY WATT: I can’t tell you why Liverpool drew 2-all and didn’t win. It pains me as well. 

ANDREW TILLETT, JOURNALIST: Long season – 37 games to go. Thanks, Lucy. Andrew Tillett from the Australian Financial Review and a board member here at the Press Club. Minister, one of the – when China began its campaign of economic coercion of Australia a couple of years ago, primary industry producers were the ones that were – bore the brunt of it. We obviously saw tariffs put on barley and wine. But there are other industries affected by sort of effectively de facto bans – timber, cotton, seafood, et cetera. I was just wondering, in the improvements that we’ve seen on the surface at least in the bilateral relationship with Beijing whether we’ve started to see some of those commodities moving back into China or if you think that that’s probably not going to happen? Some have already started to diversify. Is the idea of getting back into China perhaps gone for those industries?

MURRAY WATT: Thanks, Andrew. I don’t think it’s necessarily gone forever. And, I think, you know, we need to remember that despite some of the trade disruptions we’ve had with China it remains not only our biggest trading partner but our biggest agricultural export market. So there are many commodities that are still being exported in to China as we speak. But I think also while the picture overall might not be too bad, we need to recognise that there are particular commodities that have suffered and particular regions where those commodities are very important to their local economies. So, you know, you would have heard both the PM and the Foreign Minister say it’s in both Australia and China’s interests for our relationship to stabilise. We don’t intend to back off in protecting our national interest and standing up for our values. But, of course, we would welcome a stabilisation of that relationship, and we would welcome China lifting some of the trade barriers or bans that it’s put in place. I haven’t got any evidence in front of me to suggest that that has changed. As far as I’m aware the barriers and bans that have been in place remain in place. But we would be hopeful that would change before too long.
The second part of your question?

ANDREW TILLETT: Well, I think you’ve pretty well –

MURRAY WATT: Diversification. But in parallel, we are keen to support more trade diversification, and some of the stuff that we're seeing and hearing there is really encouraging. I know Vietnam, as one example, there’s a lot of interest amongst our producers in Vietnam. There’s a range of other countries as well. And I think all Australians have learned a bit of a lesson that it’s helpful to spread your eggs across a few baskets, whether it be in agriculture, education, tourism, other industries as well.

ANDREW TILLETT: Vaccines. Thank you.

LUCY BARBOUR: And the Chinese Ambassador will be appearing at the Press Club tomorrow at 12.30, so there might be more on that then.

MURRAY WATT: You can see what he has to say.

LUCY BARBOUR: Tim Shaw, Board of Directors from the National Press Club.

TIM SHAW: Minister, thanks so much for your speech. You’ve given us the ‘what’ and you’ve given us the ‘how’. But importantly you mentioned First Nations voices. You’ve also spoken about the success, members of the NFF, certainly the union movement, expansion of the industry. More than 200 years ago, Indigenous men and women cared for the land and now the Federal Government is talking about a voice in the constitution. Can you give us the ‘how’ you and the stakeholders, your Department, particularly with agriculture, can deal with some of the challenges facing Indigenous custodians, particularly, say at the South Coast, abalone farmers that are over-fishing? How are you going to bring those voices together? Do you need to wait for a Constitution reform to do that? And should there be Indigenous voices heard at the Jobs Summit to expand the number of Indigenous men and women working in Australian agriculture?

MURRAY WATT: Thanks, Tim. I would be – I haven’t seen the full invitation list to the Jobs and Skills Summit, but I’d be pretty surprised if there weren’t representatives of First Nations people as part of that discussion. And I don’t think we have to wait until a Voice to Parliament is hopefully established to involve Indigenous voices. The very first roundtable I organised as the new Minister with a cross-section of people with an interest in agriculture of course included many representatives from industry but it also had representatives from First Nations communities, it had union representatives, it had conservation voices as an early demonstration that what I was going to be about and what this Government is about is about widening the voices, as I said in the speech. I know – I don’t know a lot of about the abalone issue, I know a little bit about the abalone issue, and there’s probably many other examples right around the country. And I think the only way to empower First Nations people and assist them take full economic advantage of the assets that they own, is by having them at the table. That’s what the Voice to Parliament is all about – it’s about giving people a voice, giving them a say on things that directly affect them. So I certainly intend to keep involving Indigenous representatives in any roundtables or discussions I have.

TIM SHAW: Thank you.

LUCY BARBOUR: Thanks, Tim. Catie McLeod from NCA NewsWire.

CATIE MCLEOD, JOURNALIST: Hi, Senator. Catie McLeod from the NCA NewsWire. Thank you very much for your address. Given that you’ve spoken a lot about the agricultural workforce shortage, I’d like to ask you what your position would be on an amnesty for undocumented horticultural workers. And following on from that, the union movement has called for a royal commission into exploitation in the sector in the past. Would you support that, and do you think it’s still needed given that now legally farms are required to pay an award minimum rate?

MURRAY WATT: Thanks, Catie. I’m going to leave the undocumented arrivals to my ministerial colleagues who have responsibility for migration matters to respond to. In terms of the royal commission, I have to say no representative of a union has raised that with me since I’ve taken on the job. So I guess from that I take it that that doesn’t remain a massive priority. I’m happy to be informed otherwise. My sense is that all Australians, including unions, are keen to see some of the measures that we already announced at the election implemented – whether that be national labour hire licensing schemes, some of the other migrant workforce exploitation issues that we made commitments around. So it would be my intention to work with my ministerial colleagues to deliver on some of those improvements in consultation with unions and industry rather than setting up a royal commission.

CATIE MCLEOD: Thank you.

LUCY BARBOUR: Thanks, Catie. Minister, I had one final question: you touched in your speech on our ability as a country to feed our ourselves. But what role or how important do you think it is for Australia to help feed other nations, and, in particular, what’s your view on the role of food security for our trading partners, especially in the context of our global diplomacy efforts?

MURRAY WATT: Yeah, I guess I don’t see it as one or the other. Of course, we would want to ensure that we have enough food to feed ourselves both now and in the future. But we are a trading nation. Most of our agricultural produce is exported, you know, depending on the industry. So I think that we can do both. When I was in Indonesia the Agriculture Minister that I met with raised food security as a very big priority for their Government. And it’s the same for many other countries in our region. So I do think that there is a really big role that we can play in assisting our neighbours with food security.

LUCY BARBOUR: Does it need to be bigger? 

MURRAY WATT: That role? Yeah, I mean, I think – as I say, I feel pretty positive about the state of the sector going forward. And as long as we can keep growing it, then there’s enough to go around. I think it is – I think it’s really helpful for our diplomatic relationship in our region – Asia Pacific – to play that kind of role. I think it wins you points with your neighbours and it’s – you would have already seen our Government putting in a lot of effort in that regard. So food security can certainly play a role there too.

LUCY BARBOUR: Murray Watt, thank you so much for your time today.

MURRAY WATT: Thanks, Lucy.

LUCY BARBOUR: And as a little token of our appreciation, we have a fabulous membership card to the National Press Club.

MURRAY WATT: You beauty!

LUCY BARBOUR: Which I understand gives you free car park rights.

MURRAY WATT: How about that!

LUCY BARBOUR: What more could you want? Ladies and gentlemen, join me in thanking Murray Watt.

MURRAY WATT: Thanks very much.