Yes Minister – There are No Cuts in your Budget

You know a minister is in hot water when she dives down rabbit holes in an interview, desperately trying to dodge the elephant in the room.

For those who regularly tune into ABC Country Hour, you may have caught my recent chat with the sharp Belinda Varischetti about the decline and fall of the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development’s (DPIRD) budget and its consequences for agricultural research in Western Australia.

For long suffering readers of this page, it’s no secret this topic is a recurring grievance of mine—something I’ve covered consistently in the Farm Weekly over the past five years. Time and again, I’ve exposed how a parade of ministers over the last 40 years has failed to protect the Agriculture Department from continual Treasury cuts.

My recent Country Hour rant added our current Minister for Agriculture to this sorry list, pointing out that under her watch, DPIRD's agricultural research division is on track to be halved over the next four years.

Now quite rightly the Country Hour gave the Minister the right of reply (29 October) which I urge all readers to have a listen to the recording on the ABC website.

Minister Jarvis, adept at excuses and blame-shifting, came out swinging on the radio, calling my analysis a “beat up” and claiming that the department had nothing to fear. She dismissed my concerns as “politics” (well, yes, analysis in the Farm Weekly is, after all, political commentary) and accused me of failing to raise my concerns with her—although, she knows very well my views on DPIRD budgetary woes.

So, other than repeatedly throwing the Director General under the bus the Ministers line was ‘move on nothing to see; look at all the good things I’m doing’.

Now either the Minister does not understand the budget papers, does not read the budget papers, has no idea what has been happening for the past 30 years in the budget papers, or knows very well what’s coming in the budget papers and just wants to get to the election and into another portfolio before the retrenchments start.

First and foremost, I am not overly interested in regional development or fisheries which make up a large part of DPIRDs budget.

What I am interested in is the small and shrinking part of the $665m and 1901 staff that supports agriculture. Unfortunately, without a detailed breakdown in the annual report of all the research projects directly related to agriculture and who’s funding what, it is near impossible to work out just how much research is happening in that respected but struggling part of the Department.

Something that needs to be addressed is the Ministers claims that there are no cuts in the pipeline is to be believed.

The Minister’s chief defence is that the figures in the budget are misleading as they don’t factor in new money coming in from the likes of Grains Research & Development Corporation (GRDC) and Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA) for cofounded ag research projects. Hence there is no problem as the forward estimates are not estimates at all.? That’s almost Yes Minister in itself.

The facts are that both DPIRD and Treasury have a pretty good idea of what’s coming by looking backwards which allows them to estimate forwards. If we go back over the budget papers it lists the actual income from grants from external sources which for the last three years totalled $29m, $30m, $23m so any competent Treasury official who understands how GRDC and MLA works would know that they will have around say $20m a year to pump into DPIRDs coffers for cofounded projects.

Which fits into the forward budget projections of GRDC, MLA and Dairy Australia’s own budgets which are readily available.

Now $20m is a drop in the ocean of DPIRDs entire budget which is forecast to shrink by around a third over the next four years, which means it’s not just agricultural research that’s in trouble; its fisheries, food and regional development.

But let’s focus on the research side of things. The 2022-23 budget allocation under the technical support l heading was $127m with income from external sources at $24m but the actual spend came in well below budget at $100m with farmers via the Rural Research and Development Corporations (RDC) etc kicking in even more at $30m.

The 2023-24 budget was cut to $117m with $25m coming in from outside but the estimated actual spend again fell below budget of $110m as did the external source of funds $22m so we have a pattern of falling budget allocations under this Minister from $127m to $117m and this is repeated in the current 2024-25 budget which is set at $108m.

We won’t know the actual spend for this financial year until the annual report comes out this time next year but I’m assuming they will again crunch the scientists down and leave them sitting working from home rather than spending money out in the labs and fields doing research. ??

The real concern is the forward estimates when the budget for technical support is set to fall from the current $108m to $66m over the next four years.

If the current Ministers’ track record is anything to go by, the final amount could well be half what the current spend is in real terms.? So, unless the current 437 FTEs are planning on sitting around doing nothing other than attend diversity and inclusivity training or putting in bullying complaints against the senior staff (which seems to be a growing trend), then at least a third of them will have to go by 2027-28.

That is, unless there is a massive injection of new funding from Treasury and or external sources, but we are looking at an additional $50m a year which, if Treasury has anything to do with it, simply won’t appear.

But then maybe I have got it all wrong, so let’s now look at exactly what the Minister said on the Country Hour.

JJ: ?I have not cut any funding. This government has not cut any funding. There are no plans to cut.

Ummm not true, it’s all there in black and white in the budget papers.

JJ: I have opened brand new glass houses at Albany to where they're doing grain research. I've opened refurbished labs up in Kununurra. I've been down to Katanning where they're doing amazing work with MLA.

Classic political attempt to change the topic, which means she’s on the back foot.

JJ: You know you talked about that budget, but you know what is it? Half a billion dollars a year, 2000 staff there would be lots of industries who would be very envious of the support the primary industries.

Make that 1901 staff and it’s actually over $665m but who’s counting unless you want to talk about how its set to fall to $406m in four years’ time.

I doubt any industry would want to be in agriculture shoes as the old Ag Dept was cut in half over the past forty years and now looks set to be cut in half again over the next four years.

But now that the Minister has raised it, lets look at the mining industry and see how they are faring. Under the Department of Energy, Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS) Resource and Environmental Regulation budget, which is the bit supporting Mining and Petroleum, their 2024-25 budget allocation is $164m and they are not facing any cuts in four years’ time as 2027-28 shows $167m. So, let’s not start comparing industries as I’m sure DMIRS Mining section does not want to end up like DPIRDs ag section.

JJ: Look, Trevor knows perfectly well how budget papers work, and I'm sure if you look back to 10 years ago when he was a chief of staff for an agriculture minister, you would see what happens in budgets.

Yes, I do.? Weak Ministers get their Departmental budgets cut by Treasury while they run around spending money on low priority projects to buy votes.

JJ: An agency like DPIRD gets significant partnership funds from the likes of GRDC, MLA.

No, it doesn’t. On average less than 3% of DPIRDs budget around $15m annually comes from GRDC and MLA plus another $10m from other sources.

JJ: I mean this year alone, this year's budget, $37 million for GRDC partnership that the State government put in.

Good try but let’s look at the facts. GRDC contributed $11.6m to DPIRDs projects last year. The latest project agreement was $55.9m with DPIRDs contribution $29.2 m and GRDCs $26.6m but here’s the kicker the Minister did not mention its over 5 years.? So DPIRDs annual contribution is all of $5m, of mostly in-kind support.? The State clearly is not lifting its weight when it comes to research that supports what the State should be interested in…..regional jobs, animal welfare, soils, carbon farming etc. ?

JJ: There are literally hundreds of millions of dollars in research funds coming in from the State and going in partnership with MLA, RDC, Agriculture Australia, to name just a few.

Seriously?? Let’s have the list. In fact, I’m offering this page to print all the projects along with all the resulting science publications. One look at DPIRDs list of recent publications shows they have fallen off a cliff under this government. If the Minister does take up my offer, I suggest she includes some pictures otherwise it won’t fill the page.

JJ: So, look it's an old political trick to say that the forward estimates are showing a cut. It's simply not true.

Try reading the past budget papers.

JJ: The CF funding the core funding of DPIRD remains the same, and those are funding agreements as they roll over.

See above, about reading the budget papers.

JJ: And as I said, I suspect I haven't checked, but I suspect if you look at, say, the budget estimates from 10 years ago, you would see the same pattern.

No, you obviously have not checked. But I’ve checked, the Minister might be interested to know that 10 years ago during the Barnett government when I was working for the Minister for Agriculture, net appropriations for the 2014-15 budget for the old Department of Agriculture was budgeted to grow from $128m to $134m over four years (more money), with employee benefits growing from $126m to $136m, (more staff) and income from grants sitting at $25m, $24m, $24m, $24m (roughly the same as now).

JJ:? So, if there's a research project that has been cut, I'm happy to get a response for you about a particular project.

Ah if only any of the staff were brave enough to come forward, with the culture in that place any complaints are a career ending move. Hence, I am speaking up for them.

JJ: But we have not cut any funding to the agency. We have no plans to cut funding to the agency. As I said, we have 2000 staff.

Note that for the record. The Minister has twice said ‘There have been and are no plans to cut funding.’ Now the Premier has a problem with a Minister who has lost all credibility with both her department and their stakeholders.

.

As it stands the Minister is like the emperor with no clothes, with the Departmental Executive no doubt quietly shaking their head every time they leave her office.

JJ: The $80 million is new funds for a state biosecurity response centre in recognition that we had to close South Perth. So, we will have staff in a new state Biosecurity Response Centre in the metro area. Again, Department of Finance is finalising commercial leases soon.

New money.? Seriously?? So that means Treasury is planning to spend $320m plus $80m on a department with a declining budget. Clearly the Minister does not understand how Treasury operates.? As to spending $80m on a leased building, that’s not smart as that’s some seriously expensive fit out to be putting in a leased building. With labs at $20k/m2 why would you lease a building, it’s the sort of building the State would own. I’ll have more to say on this when the Minister comes out with the big announcement.?

JJ: So, there is a new metro facility that will be happening that was originally going to be announced to be open in 2027. What became clear during the planning phase, we couldn't build a five-storey building at Murdoch in that time frame. What will happen is we will go to a new green field site. It will not have to be 5 stories. It will be easier to build, and it will future proof the agency.

So, lets get this straight, Murdoch Uni was no go even with all the acres of green fields out there to build on and it took them 18 months to work out they could not build a 5-storey building by 2027. The new site which was supposed to house all of DPIRD will now be separate from the biosecurity section which will be in the leased building which defeats part of the purpose of the big amalgamation. Or maybe they are going to lease a building and then build next to it which sounds crazy. As to the previous plan to be completed in 2027 which was too long to wait, how long will it now take when they are starting again from scratch. What a mess.

It's hard to believe anything that comes out of the Minsters office anymore.? The total lack of direction, the confusion over policies such as drought, (good for the Ministers electorate, not so good for the rest of the State), the failure to find real money for protecting the States horticultural section from Varroa Mite, the endless stream of media releases that have nothing to do with agriculture ‘Govt helping to reduce costs for pet owners $1.1m,’ or my favourite ‘Free entry for kids to Perth Royal Show $5.2m’. Money that should have gone into keeping our pollinating bees safe and topping up our researchers’ budgets.

The way to fix all this is to start by addressing the confusion in the budget by giving the department staff confidence their heads are not on the block for redundancy and ensure there is enough money to attract new blood into the ranks.

If the Minister is so confident that there are no cuts, then she needs to organise a press conference and stand with the Treasurer and Premier to announce that State Labor commits to no more cuts to the DPIRD over the next term of government.

The government then needs to roll out a comprehensive set of policies leading up to the election plus a new budget that gives confidence to DPIRD staff that the budgeted cuts to Employee Benefits $253m to $204m will not happen and the cuts to the total budget $665m down to? $409m won’t happen and most importantly the Ag Science part of DPIRD, the Technical Section, won’t have its budget halved.

The Minister will no doubt be ropable for me for highlighting all the above, but if peak bodies representing agriculture don’t apply pressure to the Government to guarantee the future funding of our agriculture, fisheries and regional development department in the lead up to an election, then you can guarantee what’s going to happen during the third term of this government should they get back.? Those budget numbers will become a reality, and the Minister will be yet anther example of the Peter Principle.