In March last year one-time Australian Democrat Senator John Cherry became CEO of the Queensland Farmer’s Federation, click here for ABC news report.
At the time I wondered how an x-Democrat who has been an outspoken critic of GM food crops could be appointed to head a farm lobby know to be very dependent on the cotton industry which is very dependent on GM. I have been sort-of watching for Cherry to say something positive about GM – but haven’t noticed anything. When he was a Senator he seemed to have a close relationship with Greenpeace and I note they are still running his old press releases, click here.
Yesterday the Courier-Mail newspaper ran a story about the new Paradise Dam – built following a lifetime of lobbying from sugar industry leaders in the Bundaberg region of SE Queensland.
The dam is apparently already at 30 per cent capacity, having captured about 70,000 megalitres from the Burnett River system.
According to the newspaper report: Queensland Farmers Federation chief executive officer John Cherry said the dam was good for the region but farmers were concerned its water might be too expensive.
Who would have imagined, say just one year ago, that John Cherry would be speaking on behalf of irrigators in favour of a dam and possibly in favor of cheaper water? Then again, what was he really saying in the newspaper report?
Now what is the QFF/John Cherry position going to be on GM – or is the QFF going to ignore this most important of rural issues? I can’t find anything at their website on GM – but I’ve only had a quick look.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation.
“A key question for regulators is deciding when to regulate and when not to regulate. QFF is of the strong view that in many situations involving natural resource management, voluntary self-management approaches will achieve better, more cost effective outcomes than regulation. However, this will not work in all cases. Water entitlements, for example, are a classic case where rigorously enforced regulation is essential to ensure equity between water users competing for a scarce resource. Point source pollution lends itself better to regulation than the more diffuse pollution seen across a rural landscape. In the latter case, encouragement of better management practices is likely to be more effective.”
http://www.conlog.com.au/aelert/Presentations%5CCherry,%20John.pdf
I, too was surprised at this appointment. His only qualifying motivation at the time appeared to be his obvious need to replace one six figure salary for another. I await a response to your query, Jen, with interest.
I think that’s a bit unfair Ian. John Cherry had been chair of the Senate Rural & Regional Affairs references Committee and had also got reasonably heavily involved in a number of agriculture and regional issues as Democrat spokesperson on these and related issues. He wouldn’t have done this if he wasn’t genuinely interested, as rural areas and industries were never vote winning areas for the Democrats (not that anywhere else is much better these days, but that’s another matter)
That doesn’t mean people can’t query the suitability of his appoinment, but he clearly came to the position with a good degree of knowledge of the state and the issues, and the QFF wouldn’t have appointed him otherwise.
I don’t know what QFF’s approach to GM is, but as their federation is made up of a number of different agri-industries, it may be that there are varying views. While cotton may be very pro-GM, it is possible that some other member groups (such as the Biological Farmers for example) are very anti-GM. Others may have competing views within the same industry and thus not want to take a categorical position.