John Forrest (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 2009 . To the uninitiated, it probably seems like a very simple piece of legislation. There are really only two effective pages, but it is designed to allow NRAC, the National Rural Advisory Council, to continue their appointments beyond the current limitation of two years. I think that is a good thing. NRAC have been playing a valuable role in providing important advice to government for many years now, most particularly in response to drought and exceptional circumstances. In addition, advice on rural adjustment and regional issues has been vital. Members of the council are appointed by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and I am pleased the minister has recognised the importance of the role of current members to extend their appointment for one more term. Council members have built up a considerable pool of knowledge over two terms and it is important that that corporate knowledge is retained. Rural Australia is in a very fragile state at this stage and that important knowledge will be very useful as the government struggles with the challenges with which it tells us it is confronted. But there are some more significant comments I would like to contribute on the issue of EC and drought. This bill provides that opportunity.

Quite a number of my farming communities out there, especially in dryland agriculture, as they finish their cropping season are probably listening to this debate as we speak. We have had some rain across my constituency, which has created new hope, a new positive feeling, after seven years and in some areas nearly nine years of drought. In fact, a real grain crop across the north-west of Victoria has not really been achieved since the mid-eighties. So rural Australia, particularly the part I represent, is in a very vulnerable state. Proper advice on ongoing future policy directions will be paramount. I support the minister in his intention to give current members another term.

Trying not to be cynical about the circumstances in which we find ourselves, the government, particularly this minister, has made it quite clear that its ambition is to dismantle exception circumstances. It has not been able to tell us yet what it intends to replace it with. In fact, this was all well described 12 months ago, but the minister could not resolve the difficulties with which he was confronted and he extended all existing EC regions until about April of next year. The whole of my electoral division, the entire electorate of Mallee, has been in exceptional circumstances for four years with some of the smaller areas even longer than that.

There are a number of pointers to the government’s intentions and the minister’s own comments of his intentions are pretty clear. The second is in regard to the budget papers. In fact, if you go to page 60 of the portfolio budget statements, you see that there is absolutely no equivocation. I have heard the minister try to defend this situation, that it is because drought funding is considered in each term, but the reality of the words has terrified the people I represent. Page 60 of the portfolio budget statements says:

The reduction in expenses between 2009-10 and 2010-11 is due to the cessation of drought programs.

Those are the words that my constituents read in the budget papers. If you add to that the recommendations of the Productivity Commission—which has to be quite an economically dry organisation—it quite strongly recommends the termination of drought EC, the termination of interest rate subsidies, the termination of income support and the termination of the whole way in the EC declaration process operates. It also recommends in the Productivity Commission report that no new areas of EC be declared either for full or even interim declarations.

I am convinced a little bit more about the cynical view of the minister. It defies credibility that he sat on that Productivity Commission report from as early as February this year. In fact he did not publicly release it until budget day itself. I imagine he thought the release of a report of such significance to the people of my constituency might have been missed and gone under the radar given the media focus on the budget itself. I have made this plea in this place to the minister on other important legislation in this place: he must adopt a much more sympathetic attitude to that sector of the Australian economy that he purports to represent. We are dealing with real people—real working families who are beside themselves in the circumstances they are confronted with.

Every day I am confronted with people’s uncertainty when they come into my electoral office about what they quite clearly see as the government’s intention to abandon the safety net—the support base—and which they have had to accept. Given that the people of the north-west of Victoria are a very determined, resilient and quite proud people, the minister needs to get into the family environment and understand how it makes them feel that their only option is to rely on social security when they have had generations of independence and support from their own industry. I am asking the minister and making that plea loud and clear: please understand you are dealing with real people.

I will give you an example that happened to me last Friday week. I had an appointment with an agent from Telstra to tutor me in the replacement of my PDA. I was quite content with the jazz jams facility I had but the department told me I had to now accept what they allege is better technology—the Blackberry. I insisted that somebody come out and convince me that it was going to work in my remote region.

See this speech in context