News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 How new is Qld's 'fresh approach' to agriculture? 

How new is Qld's 'fresh approach' to agriculture?

26/06/2008 1:14:00 PM
The Queensland Opposition has claimed credit for many of the ideas in the State Government's 'Fresh Approach' for the Department of Primary Industries unveiled this week.

Primary Industries Minister Tim Mulherin announced on Tuesday his new strategy aimed at trebling the value of the State's farm output by 2020, including leveraging more private sector investment in research, the sale of old facilities, and the DPI taking over the running of Queensland's agricultural colleges.

But Shadow Primary Industries Minister Mike Horan said the Coalition had proposed the revamp and change two years ago, but it was then rejected by Labor.

"Now it's Minister Mulherin's 'Fresh Approach' so I welcome this direct lift of our policy," Mr Horan said.

"The Coalition will also provide local boards with agricultural and independent expertise to make the colleges a real success and a thriving part of rural education, research, development and field days."

Mr Horan said the devil would be in the detail of the Government's approach, and the industry needed to be sure that any new approach would deliver benefits and not just more cuts to research and closure of valuable ag research facilities.

"I am concerned that assets will be sold off to prop up Labor's massive $65 billion bubble of debt ... we must ensure that out of all this comes better training and courses to provide workers for our primary industries," Mr Horan said.

This claim prompted an angry response from Mr Mulherin, who said he had "made it absolutely clear" that "funds raised from selling some old and outdated facilities would be re-invested in new state-of-the art facilities".

"Any astute businessman, or in this case a Smart State Government conscious of how it spends rate-payers money, knows that you must divest to re-invest," Mr Mulherin said.

"To claim that we are looking to do otherwise is just mischievous and to drag out the same old, discredited lines about the budget and staff numbers shows how far removed the Opposition is from reality."

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size


Comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Very concerned by the decision to move tick research to Dalby Ag College. Don't they know there is a tick line and that Dalby is tick free and way west of the tick line. We in ticky country need experts running tick research and need to get our supplies of tick fever vaccine on a regular basis. We have had good service from Brisbane which has access to all freight lines, Dalby is too far away to get it quickly bearing in mind the short life of the vaccine.
Posted by Mrs Mac on 27/06/2008 7:52:08 AM
Agree with the comment on ticks above. Maybe they are being blinded by the real estate value of the assets to be sold! Agricultural research and development has had chronic under-investment (especially in people and staff numbers) for years in Qld. No different to the rural doctor issue, but less sexy.
Posted by R See 1 on 27/06/2008 10:58:05 AM
Agree totally with the first comment. The tick control program was shelved in order to combat the fire ant threat. If our quarantine services had been on the alert, the latter threat would not have arisen. We are in the situation that we were declared tick free, but were 'lit up' by a neighbour who did not do the right thing. At that time, DPI personel told us they were not at liberty to disclose to others the status of neighbouring properties. what a load of old cobblers! The cost to individual producers of re-gaining tick free status is high, but completely avoidable if 'freedom of information' existed. Yes; we do need experts runniong these programs, but with the cuts in staff, where are these experts to come from?
Posted by impartial on 27/06/2008 5:18:17 PM
I have serious doubts that there will be a net gain to research and development by the DPI under this scheme. This govt has been all too handy in selling assets and closing or strangling for funds any research facilities they do have. We have lost a lot of extension services, the Queensland Forestry Research Institute was gutted, the forestry seed centre was shut down without industry consultation, beef research has been castrated and scientists have been leaving the employ of the DPI for years. Most of the most experienced scientists are gone, so where is the experienced crew Tim claims to be looking after and retaining? All he will have left is a few old time-servers waiting for their super.
Posted by Sally on 27/06/2008 7:07:54 PM

Post A Comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.

Q: What should the Federal Government do to relieve the cost of petrol?

Continue with its current approach
(4.2%)

Cut petrol excise by 5c/l
(1.6%)

Cut petrol excise by 10c/l
(29.9%)

Invest petrol revenue in alternative fuel research
(39%)

Mandate 10pc biofuel content in petrol
(13.3%)

Other
(11.9%)

Total Votes: 428
Poll Date: 23/06/2008

11/12/2008 | Farm lobby groups will decide next week whether the future of farm representation will stay as it is or be broadened to bring in the big end of town.
QCL Subscriptions
 
QCL Rate Card
 
Rural Bookshop
 
QCL - Mail Order Cataloge
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...