Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Riverina for her question. She well knows, as do so many other members of the House, the severe and prolonged effect of the drought—which before the recent rains seemed to be never ending. I do hasten, of course, to caution that the recent rains could well prove illusionary in that they were not uniform or heavy enough to break the drought. Nonetheless they are welcome. They have given some hope for the future, but we do need follow-up rain urgently if we are to end the curse of this long drought. A great deal of hardship has been caused to farmers, their families, farm businesses and the general community—not to mention the effect on the Australian economy. It is for this reason that the government has been unstintingly in its support of drought affected farmers, to the extent where, since we relaxed the eligibility criteria late last year, we are now spending $17 million a week on income support and interest rate subsidies for around 19,000 farming families. I would expect that number to continue to grow exponentially. In New South Wales alone, the home state of the member for Riverina, we are providing more than $1 million a day to 8,700 farming families. In Victoria, which is now 100 per cent drought declared, more than $5 million a week is being provided to 6,300 families and businesses. This is a level of support, as the wider Australian community would expect, which is unprecedented but consistent with the extent and severity of the current drought.

I was asked about alternative policies. I was interested to observe the goings-on of the Labor Party’s national conference, especially its 265-page draft national platform and constitution. Drought gets a mention once, and only in a phrase relating to its impact on our cities. Of course, we expected the agricultural section to be perfunctory and shallow in its analysis, to the extent that it existed, but we did expect drought to be mentioned more than once. It is mentioned only in the sentence which reads:

Labor believes the Commonwealth has a responsibility to support innovation in urban planning, which is critical to combating the threat of climate change and the impact of drought on our cities.

Labor have always failed to understand farming. We fully understand that. But what we do not accept for a moment is their callous disregard of the greatest problem in Australian agriculture today. It was up to the Leader of the Opposition to rescue the situation. In his 45 to 50 minute diatribe, in which he canvassed all aspects of Labor policy and world affairs, he used 5,772 words to describe his views. He mentioned drought just once. I quote:

We have faced great threats in the past—through drought, depression and the threat of invasion.

That is it. Well, I have news for the Leader of the Opposition. The threat of drought is not in the past; it is with us now. Farmers and the rural communities of Australia expect a great deal more analysis, commitment and thought from the Labor Party than you have demonstrated. The greatest threat to farming families in Australia, apart from the drought, is the Labor Party.

See this speech in context