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

I thank the member for Page for her question. The government provided an important opportunity for regional Australia where we were able to deliver on the commitments we had made, where we were able to provide a long-term vision and, in particular, where we were able to take on the war against inflation, to which rural communities are particularly sensitive. A centrepiece of the preparation for that future is the program Australia’s Farming Future, criticised by the opposition spokesperson for being too focused on climate change, yet welcomed by others. I am pleased to note the following comments with respect to Australia’s Farming Future:

The $130 million under ‘Australia’s Farming Future’ begins the shift towards the NFF’s call to better prepare our agricultural productive base for less water, increased climate variability and the possibility of longer periods of drought.

It’s about long-term management, preparedness and planning.

I am pleased to have seen from both the National Association of Forest Industries and the NFF an endorsement of the policies contained within the budget. A criticism went out with respect to what the budget did in drought relief. The criticism was fairly scathing. It came from the Leader of the Nationals. The only problem with his critique of what was contained in the budget is that his media release criticising it went out on Monday, before the budget, on the basis that:

There are extremely strong rumours coming out of the public service that this much-needed assistance is in the firing line in Labor’s first Budget.

Then the budget papers come out, and what is the system being used? The same as under the previous government. What is the system used to assess whether or not people should remain on exceptional circumstances assistance? The same as under the previous government. Not only that, the decisions and the determinations will be conducted by NRAC, all of whom were appointees by previous National Party ministers, without exception.

I heard the scoffing before about whether regional Australia should be concerned about the fight against inflation. May I make clear to the House that, if anyone in the bush is concerned about inflation, it is because they are concerned about fertiliser prices and because they are concerned about fuel prices. You do not end up with debates about interest rate subsidies unless there are concerns about inflation.

The thing that concerns me about the scare campaign being run by the Leader of the Nationals is that, if he wins, if he actually persuades people as he goes from regional radio station to regional radio station claiming benefits are being slashed, the best he could achieve is to end up having farmers who are 100 per cent entitled to support not claiming it. That is the sort of irresponsibility that the Leader of the Nationals is willing to go ahead with.

It is not only that. While they want to airbrush any memory of inflation, they also want to airbrush transcripts that refer to it. I say to the members opposite: you can airbrush your transcripts but you cannot airbrush away inflation. Yesterday the shadow Treasurer put out a printed press release where he said that the measures will add 0.4 percentage points to the CPI. That was at 8.30 pm. At 9 pm the Leader of the Opposition said in his actual doorstop that, ‘Our economic analysis is that one-quarter of one per cent will be added to the consumer price index.’ That is what he said—one-quarter. But when the Leader of the Opposition released his actual transcript, the figure of one-quarter was gone. It had disappeared entirely because the transcript had been airbrushed to match the words of the shadow Treasurer. You might be able to airbrush your transcripts but you cannot airbrush the previous government’s record on inflation.

See this speech in context