Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

The Appropriation (Drought and Equine Influenza Assistance) Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and the Appropriation (Drought and Equine Influenza Assistance) Bill (No. 2) 2007-2008 are being brought to the House, and it is the wish of the government—and that wish is supported by the opposition—that they should pass smoothly and quickly. As most of the measures were either announced by the previous government or an extension of the previous government, naturally we support them.

We have, as a nation, faced a very serious drought. It is not over. In my own electorate at the present time, there are people battling floodwaters and there are a lot of other parts of Queensland as well where the floods are quite severe. Ironically, some of the areas that are now flooded are still declared for exceptional drought. That is a normal part of the process, because the exceptional circumstances arrangements have always intended that there should be a recovery period. But the flooding may actually make the recovery even harder because, in some cases, crops or livestock that had been built up following the drought have now been lost. So this is really for those people a double tragedy. In other places, the season has turned dramatically for the good and we warmly welcome those improvements. But there will need to be an ongoing commitment to those who have been affected by drought. Vision of the floods should not wipe from our memories the fact that there are still people who have not had any opportunity to recover for as many as six or seven years of consecutive drought. So there will need to be ongoing support for these people.

The measures proposed today would fund announcements that were made towards the end of last year as various areas moved into a stage where they needed to be declared or to have their declarations extended, so the funding needs to be provided. In addition to that, we need to look constructively at how we should address those issues in the future. I would like to make a couple of comments about some of the government’s proposals in that regard—some of which, I have to say, cause me some concern.

The government have announced a review of exceptional circumstances assistance. I do not criticise them for that because, at the end of a long program, it is appropriate that we look at whether we should do things differently in the future. There have been a number of such reviews in the past. The National Rural Advisory Council was set up to do that sort of thing, and it is quite a good vehicle to undertake those sorts of reviews. It has been very close to the EC system because of its role in the declarations and, therefore, it can play a constructive role.

Farmers, though, are naturally concerned about what threats might be associated with this review. I appeal to the government to undertake the review with goodwill and not to settle old scores—not to remember the traditional warfare between those who live in the country and those who live in the city but to look at this constructively. I appeal to the government to talk also to the farmers—to talk not just to the university academics whose salaries are paid in droughts or in floods but to the people who are actually affected. Those who pontificate from professorial chairs do not have, very often, a real understanding of the practical implications of the sorts of things they advocate. And to suggest that people should prepare, and that, if they did, the problems would therefore go away, is superficially attractive but does not understand many of the issues which are of concern.

The problem that the Labor government will face in dealing with these issues is that Labor has form on drought assistance. The federal government was forced to step in and provide exceptional circumstances assistance in enormous quantities during this serious drought because, essentially, the states had all walked away from their responsibilities. In years gone by, the states provided all or nearly all of the drought assistance. As time moved on, the Commonwealth started to provide a bit of assistance but, in this particular drought—the worst in our history—the states have all largely walked away from their responsibilities. And, unless the figures have changed in the last few weeks, the Commonwealth is now meeting well over 95 per cent of the total cost of drought assistance. It used to be the other way round, and then there was a concept that perhaps it should be fifty-fifty, but the Commonwealth has been increasingly obliged to take this up because the Labor states have simply walked away from their responsibilities. Now we have a Labor government at the federal level and you can understand, minister at the table, Minister Burke, that farmers are anxious to ensure that this federal Labor government does not behave the way its state colleagues have in the past, because from time to time there will be a need for drought assistance in the future. None of us want it to be ongoing and permanent; clearly that is not a way that it will work.

Some are saying—and the government says this quite a bit—that, because of climate change, droughts may be more severe in the future. I guess a judgement about that is some generations away. There are a number of theories. If the rainfall events become more severe though less frequent there are ways of harvesting those rainfall benefits which would help us ensure we make our way through the drought. We should not ignore those possibilities, particularly—and I guess it has never been more evident than it is today—with much of Northern Australia covered by floodwaters, and droughts in other places. Why aren’t we harnessing some of those northern waters so that they can be effectively used to foster new agricultural industries in the north or, alternatively, to make sure that we are able to support the agriculture in those areas?

If I may add an aside on these issues: I note that airlines and quite a number of organisations now are talking about encouraging people to leave no carbon footprint. So you pay a couple of extra dollars on your fare and the airline promises to plant some trees. If they plant those trees in all the best agricultural areas of Australia, we may have a nice cool planet but we will have no food to eat. I think that we need to look very carefully at the effectiveness of some of those programs. They need to be more than some kind of feelgood stunt. We need to make sure that we are not delivering perverse impacts as a result of those sorts of programs. And it may be that the north is a place where some of these plantations could effectively be provided. There is lots of productive land in northern Australia which is currently overrun by woody weeds. Why not get rid of the woody weeds and use that land productively and harness some of the water that is in that area for useful purposes?

So you should not assume that agriculture is doomed or we should live without food just because it is going to be dry from time to time in the future, particularly if we have aggressive climatic events. We need to harness those for the future. I am not one of those doom and gloom pessimists who believes we cannot find the way through this. I think it can be managed. In the 1960s we were told that the world was going to run out of food. That was the popular academic view at the time. But then the green revolution came along and that has reduced poverty and starvation around the world to a degree nobody could have envisaged. Now we have genetic modification, which presents an enormous opportunity to make a quantum leap forward again. I think, therefore, with careful management, we can look through these sorts of issues.

Whilst I welcome the fact that the government have announced today that they will provide funding for EC declarations, I was concerned by the range of budget cuts announced last week by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. About three-quarters of those cuts are in rural and regional areas. Three-quarters of those cuts are to significant programs, including significant cuts to drought assistance and support for re-establishment. Regional Australia will be affected and I am concerned about the impact of those cuts—around $115 million altogether. I would welcome an assurance from the minister that the cuts will not affect payments to farmers. I am pleased Minister Burke is at the table. I invite him to give an assurance to farmers that the cuts that have been announced will not mean farmers will not get the payments to which they are entitled. That assurance needs to be given.

Even accepting that this is money provided for particular declarations where there was a lower than expected uptake—and I know that that happens—there are real cuts to drought assistance measures included in the announcements last week. For instance, the $10 million that was to be provided for research and development has been axed. That breaks an election promise. The Labor Party said that there would be extra money in fact for research and development and that there would be no cuts to R&D. Yet, a month or two after the election, a clear, unequivocal election promise has been broken. The finance minister suggested that the $10 million could go because the government was going to provide $15 million for research under climate change. That money itself was stolen from programs under the AAA package. Labor are axing a range of core programs that support farmers so that they can fund research and other measures in relation to climate change. For instance, the government are axing the FarmBis program. That is quite an extraordinary measure for a government that claim they are about addressing the skills shortage. If they are about addressing the skills shortage, why are they axing the program to upskill farmers?

I know the New South Wales Labor government have not been supporting FarmBis for some time. The logic and reason for that I cannot understand. This program has worked well and there is a lot of very good evidence that it has actually delivered improved management and improved systems in the agricultural sector. But the government have decided to axe it. I think that is inconsistent with their professed advocacy of skills development. Whilst I am talking about that, I note that they have also, quite incredibly, axed the $47 million program for incentives for apprenticeships in agriculture and in horticulture. Again, this is absolutely contrary to their rhetoric about wanting a skilled workforce. These key programs to train the rural sector are to be axed and there is nothing to replace them.

They are also getting rid of the program to help industries reinvigorate themselves and develop new systems and approaches. Also going are the food industry grants. These have been enormously successful in developing new food products, value adding and developing nutraceuticals and the like—new projects to help provide value adding to the Australian rural sector. But that program is to be axed. This cut in funding for research and development is real and it is a broken election promise.

The government has also decided to axe $6.4 million of funding for communication programs that tell farmers about the drought assistance to which they are entitled. In theory, the government may well keep the measures in place. But in practice it is not going to tell anyone about them so the farmers do not know how to apply for them. There are some terrific programs, such as the drought buses that have been touring regions to let people know about what is actually happening, and it would be a tragedy if those sorts of programs were axed. They have provided real communication to people in very distressed circumstances and to people who do not have access to the communications systems that might be available in the cities and other places. You do need to go the extra mile to make sure that those who are entitled to the benefits actually know about them. I am very disappointed to find that those cuts are occurring.

I also make the observation while the minister is at the table that the only department to suffer cuts in its administered appropriation as a result of these measures will be the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. His department has been singled out for cuts in its administered funds that no other department has been asked to bear.

See this speech in context