Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Hansard source

I will invite the minister before closing tonight to give the parliament an update on the white paper, the timing of the initial paper, the final paper and maybe some information about the process leading up to the completion of that document. I will ask the minister next time he gets to his feet to tell me exactly where. He has cited live trade, timber exports, frozen beef, bumper wheat harvests—and I assume he was referring to WA—and the free trade agreement. I ask him how what he describes as reconfiguration of the concessional loans package brought any of those outcomes; how additional money for water infrastructure, as he calls it, has brought any of those outcomes; how the family payment—and of course there has always been a family payment, Minister—has brought any of those five outcomes; and how the free trade agreement, which is not yet ratified, has brought any of those five outcomes you boasted about and claimed credit for tonight.

I have got so many questions to ask. I wasn't sure where to start but you have taken us to the concessional loans scheme, so it is probably as good a place as any. You said, Minister, that you reconfigured Labor's concessional loans scheme. It is untrue to say that the states were not signed up. There was one outstanding state, Western Australia, when I left office—and you do not need to look to your advisers; I can confirm that for you, Minister; I can assure you that that is the case. It is true that you took money off some states and transferred those amounts of money to other states—and of course the losers were the smaller states of WA, Tasmania and South Australia. You say that that was a ridiculous arrangement, because some of those states obviously were not suffering bad drought—partly true, Minister. But you have to recall that the concessional loans scheme wasn't a drought package; it was a drought relief package and, when it was constructed, the farm sector in Australia was not facing severe drought. It was never a drought package. Yes, if drought was one of reasons farmers were struggling to deal with their debt, then that would feed into that process. So it is wrong to say that, Minister, and you know it is wrong.

My question to you specifically on this is: what methodology was used to determine which states would receive the amounts taken from the smaller states? What consultation was undertaken with the smaller states before that money was taken? More particularly, the money you took away was more than the money you distributed to Queensland and New South Wales—a substantial difference; $40 million, if I remember correctly. You made a commitment that that $40 million would be put back into the concessional loans system—that is, the original concessional loans scheme. I ask you: has that money been put back; and, if not, do you still guarantee that that $40 million will be returned to that particular package?

I take you to your package, Minister, what I call the drought concessional loans scheme, which you implied tonight is assisting farmers as we speak, but, as I pointed out in question time today, on my last advice—and I would be very surprised if it has changed—not one farming family or farm enterprise has been a beneficiary of that drought concessional loan package since its implementation. I remind you that you first announced that scheme late in February. We are now well into June and that has not been bedded down. You stand here and criticise the design of Labor's concessional loans scheme, which, as you know, is flowing to farm enterprises and farm families, and yet your own scheme is not flowing. So I would really appreciate answers to what I think are very, very reasonable questions.

On the issue of the transitional or family payment, you know that welfare payment has always been part of drought. It is the one thing that has survived the COAG reforms. You should not claim that that is a big step up by this government. We were happy to support the changes you made and facilitate them to the parliament, but you might tell me whether it is true that those who are in receipt of those payments are therefore denied certain social services under the rural counselling scheme. I was just outside Emerald last week and I was informed that people are being denied certain services under what is generally known as the rural counselling scheme because they have taken up the offer under that family payment arrangement. If you would confirm that for me, it would be very much appreciated.

See this speech in context