Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I thank those contributors to the debate, both the Leader of the Nationals and the member for Kennedy. I understand the member for Kennedy’s passion, particularly with respect to the sugar industry. Within a couple of weeks of receiving this portfolio, I was pleased to meet some of those people who work in the sugar industry in his electorate in the town of Innisfail. On some of the issues that the member for Kennedy raised, I have spoken to the departmental officers concerned, and I undertake to report back to him on the issues he raised with respect to EC funding to the south of Hughenden. I will report back to him on that. Also, I will make some further inquiries on some important issues he raised concerning border integrity with respect to the Torres Strait. I do understand the member for Kennedy’s passion with respect to quarantine and the threats that an inadequate system can pose to the nation, particularly to those involved in our primary industries. We will have more to say about that later.

I would also like to make comment, before I get to my closing remarks, on the comments made by the Leader of the Nationals. If you listened to what the Leader of the Nationals said on radio and what he said today in this place, you would think you were listening to two different people, because there is no relationship between the two concepts at all. We had something verging on reasonable in the chamber today when he had all his peers watching, but when the Leader of the Nationals has been on radio there have been extraordinary claims. The comment was made, which Labor had raised prior to the election, that if we were successful we would conduct a review to see how exceptional circumstances funding could be improved. We had outrage from the Leader of the Nationals on the radio saying that this was putting everything under threat. Then, having caused a stir in the community, having tried to make a whole lot of people in a desperate situation frightened about what the future would hold, he comes into this chamber and says, ‘We’re not critical of there being a review.’ Don’t say one thing in here and send a completely different message to the rest of the Australian public. It does farmers no good at all to have a fear campaign that simply makes them think they are not entitled to assistance to which they are patently entitled.

The Leader of the Nationals said, ‘Labor’s got form on exceptional circumstances.’ You bet we have form on it. We started it in 1992. It is a Labor reform which has always enjoyed, at each stage of its development, bipartisan support. When we were in government and we introduced exceptional circumstances funding, we had the full support of the opposition—at that time they were responsible in the way they dealt with that. When the government changed in 1996, exceptional circumstances funding continued to have bipartisan support across the chamber. It was not until we had the comments of the Leader of the Nationals in this parliament subsequent to the election that we had the first signs—since exceptional circumstances funding was first introduced—that that bipartisanship is going to be dropped.

In terms of getting a good outcome for our primary producers, the members of the National Party in this chamber should have a talk to each other—and it will not be hard; there are only 10 now, so there are not that many of them—about the implications of turning exceptional circumstances funding into a party political issue. Since 1992 it has not been, and it would be a very big step. If they do want to take that step, my second piece of advice is: work out how it works. I was astonished to see, following the statement about savings measures that was made by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, a media release go out and media comment be made by the Leader of the Nationals. The Leader of the Nationals heard that there were some areas where what had previously been forecast was going to be reduced and he put out a media release about what a disgrace this was. It says:

“The announcement today by Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner that drought funding will be cut – while much of the country remains mired in a big dry that has lasted up to seven years – is incredibly hard-hearted and short-sighted,” Mr Truss said.

He used to be the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. He ought to understand how it works.

In September, when the drought was looking worse, more appropriations were required. When the outlook is worse, in a demand-driven program you do not change the rules for who qualifies so that when times are tougher more people will qualify and you will need more money. When the forecasts improve because there has been sustained rain in some—not all—parts of Australia, you do not change the eligibility rules; you have to change the forecasts. This means either one of two things. One of the following two things has to be true—and I am not sure which is more frightening. Either the Leader of the Nationals knew full well what was going on, decided to con the people of rural and regional Australia about what was happening with the exceptional circumstances forecasts being changed and ran a scare campaign so that people who were eligible might not even bother to apply, because he put the message out that the changes had all gone through, or—actually, I reckon this one is more frightening—he just does not understand how it works. Given that he used to be the minister for agriculture, you would want to think he at least understands how exceptional circumstances works. But with the fear campaign that he has run, completely irresponsibly and only to the detriment of primary producers, we have ended up with a situation where the explanation is either that he did not understand it or that he did understand it and decided to run the fear campaign anyway.

The great irony of it is that, having run the whole fear campaign, he then comes into the parliament to speak about 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, appropriation legislation that is about providing more money. How do you know that appropriation legislation providing more money is coming up and then speak to it while at the same time running a fear campaign saying the government are not looking after the farmers because everything is being cut? If everything is being cut, we are letting down the farmers and all the things that the Leader of the Nationals has claimed are true, why do we have appropriation legislation before the parliament right now for more money? When you make cuts in agriculture and you are taking away a whole lot of entitlements for farmers, it is unlikely that in the process you will be spending more. Yet we have appropriation legislation that has been on the Notice Paper. When money is being appropriated it is because the money is going to the department; that is the concept of an appropriation. I think every other member in the parliament understands that. It is a bit tragic that the person who does not understand it is leading the political party that claims it is the representative of the bush. It is an extraordinary claim.

As we go through the first speeches, which are going to start the moment I sit down, I will enjoy hearing the stories and finding out the number of people who now represent this side of the House who have significant primary producers within their seats—including, as the member for Kennedy said, those sugar seats that were won by the government at the election. Anyone who wants to claim that the National Party represents the bush really needs to have another look at what the people in the bush are deciding to do with their votes.

The appropriation bills before us will provide additional funding for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to continue delivering drought relief and to provide assistance to the horse industry as a result of the equine influenza outbreak. Given the comments from the member for Wide Bay, the Leader of the National Party, I must say that for him to be in here speaking on funding to do with the outbreak of equine influenza holds a very deep irony. I will have to await the outcome of the inquiries currently underway before I have an opportunity to say more, but I suspect the opportunity to say more will come.

The measures were announced last year by the previous government as drought conditions worsened and, as conditions improved subsequently, the measures were modified to provide an immediate response to the equine influenza outbreak last August. I am pleased to advise the House that, despite the concerns about how the outbreak initially occurred, it does appear that the measures taken subsequently mean that we are hopeful—and I do not want to be overly optimistic—that by 14 March there will no longer be red and purple zones in Australia with respect to equine influenza. There is still a way to go. A lot of people have had intense hardship on this—and I have to say that they include a lot of small businesses. They have fallen shy of the guidelines but have suffered in a very serious way. The equine influenza assistance would have run out on 8 February—last week—but it will now continue until 14 March.

The assistance is vital to farmers and farm dependent small business operators affected by the drought and to those affected by the horse flu outbreak. Funding for the measures was not included in the May 2007 budget. They were announced by the previous government in September and October 2007. The equine influenza measures were extended by the government earlier this month.

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has been meeting all payments for the assistance packages from its existing appropriations, but it is now in urgent need of additional funding. When this appears in the Hansard, for the benefit of the Leader of the National Party, existing appropriations—footnote: more money—are otherwise due to run out at the end of February. The amounts and assistance provided are as follows: drought assistance measure, $699.127 million—that is extra; equine influenza assistance measures, $255.705 million—once again, that is extra; and the Equine Influenza National Eradication Response, $97.2 million—and again, that is extra. This money will allow the department to continue funding these vital assistance measures.

While the Leader of the National Party might be able to get a run from time to time on the radio with the campaign he has tried to run of late, ultimately, if primary producers lose out and lose out significantly from a fear campaign that makes them think they are not entitled to benefits which are available to them, there will be nothing but shame for the National Party in the bush.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context