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

No, I have had that one for a while and I have been waiting for the moment. This MPI today is seeking to deal with the budget that we have in front of us and it criticises the credibility of the plan. And that is how it is dealt with by the Leader of the Nationals.

On the issue of the plan, let us not forget that every single issue that the Leader of the Nationals raised was an argument as to why we should spend more. Where the government is spending money, it is doing so in areas which do two things: support jobs now, and make sure that we are positioned for the recovery with the infrastructure for the future. They are the two things that the infrastructure projects do. Those infrastructure projects go all the way from the level of nationwide projects—whether they be roads, rail, ports or broadband—back to the local and community level and all the way back not just to the farm gate but on farm. On farm infrastructure is part of the government’s commitment in the framing of this budget.

I want to refer to the significance of the small business tax break. The small business tax break, which had already been increased to 30 per cent, was expected to expire. Far from expiring and more than being extended, it goes from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. In terms of farmers’ representative organisations and in terms of conversations with farmers, this has been of front line assistance at the 30 per cent and is only going to be of more significance at the 50 per cent level. Yet somehow it is not sufficiently significant to rate a single mention in the speech that we heard from the Leader of the Nationals.

In the same way, we have the $5.8 billion for the sustainable rural water use and infrastructure program containing $300 million for on farm water efficiency. I have heard complaints from the Nationals saying, ‘Why isn’t something happening for on farm water efficiency?’ Yet, now that it is there, there is no mention of it. The program that the former minister for agriculture wants to refer to is the irrigation management grants, which were part of the program that had bipartisan support for its full time line until apparently this budget.

But if it is the position of the coalition that there should be $1 billion extra for the agriculture portfolio, I expect that we will hear it from that despatch box tonight. I expect that the Nationals have enough clout within the coalition that, if they believe that there should be $1 billion extra for the agriculture portfolio, they will make sure that the leader of the coalition announces that in his speech tonight. If it is their position that the infrastructure money that has been announced in the budget and been spoken about today by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government is a tiny amount of what actually needs to happen then I presume that we will hear that from the leader of the coalition, the Leader of the Opposition, in his speech tonight.

The problem is that this opposition has no way of reconciling the arguments that they have now put. At the time of the stimulus packages, they were arguing that what we needed to do was to lower taxes. Now, today, we hear from the National Party that what needs to happen is for the government to spend more. Somehow, we get a cocktail of three: they are going to manage to lower taxes, spend more money—a billion dollars in my portfolio alone; if you can make that work on the macro figures, sensational—and at the same time knock at least $25 billion off debt. The extraordinary thing is that the Leader of the Nationals began his speech today in the parliament by referring to magicians. Of all the analogies that he could have used, that is one that he really did not want to walk into.

I imagine that every member of the National Party has media releases ready to go out at 7.30 tonight, because if the National Party has any clout within the coalition they will have media releases ready to go saying that the Leader of the Opposition has promised a billion dollars extra for the agriculture portfolio; that the Leader of the Opposition has promised more money across the board; and that the Leader of the Opposition has promised more money for roads, more money for rail and more money for infrastructure everywhere—except probably for broadband, because they get confused about that one. They will be able to have all those media releases ready to go about those things at the same time as the ones about lowering taxes and reducing the deficit.

The simple thing is—there are a few ways I could end that, looking opposite! The simplicity of the argument is found in a very simple concept which the Leader of the Nationals decided to go nowhere near, and that is there is a global recession, there are massive write-downs in revenue, and savings have to be put in place to make sure we have the long-term structural changes to be able to return to surplus and take the benefits of the recovery. That has to be part of the framework of any responsible budget. Yet, against that, the Nationals say that the only way to go forward is to continue to throw around buckets of cash, which somehow I do not think are going to be part of the speech that we hear tonight.

At the end of tonight, everybody will know the answer to one very simple question: who actually runs the coalition? Are the Nationals, all nine of them, nothing more than a cheer squad to make up the numbers for the Liberal Party—is that what they have become? Or will they actually be successful tonight and have the Leader of the Opposition promise the massive extra spending that they want? In tonight’s speech, either the extra billion dollars is promised or they have nothing to argue about anymore—the extra roads and infrastructure money is promised or they have nothing to argue about anymore. If they do win their argument, I will be interested to see whether the shadow Treasurer has any arguments at all in terms of what he has been saying about the deficit.

See this speech in context