Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Hansard source

With regard to the drought, we have currently had 5,096 claims for farm household allowance being granted. The Australian government offers three concessional loan schemes. So far 551 farm businesses—I think this was to the end of May—have approved loans totalling over $284 million. The current interest rate for drought recovery loans is at 3.21 per cent; current recovery loans at 3.84 per cent; and concessional loans at 4.34 per cent.

It is surprising when the actual cost of the relocations—that is, a maximum worst-case scenario—

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

You asked a range of questions, Shadow Minister—member for Hunter. If you ask a range of questions, you are going to get a range of answers. What that means is if there was a worst-case scenario, including such things as if you could not re-lease or sublease the building, which in the current market is rubbish—of course you are going to be able to re-lease the building. The issue is: you talk about 30—

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

I seem to remember a place—was it Australia House or something that the Labor Party had—that had some of the dearest rents in the world owned formerly by the Labor Party? This is one of the reasons that if we want to spend money on research and development, then over the longer term we have to make sure we are in a more affordable market.

What I can say is, recently, as part of the $330 million drought package, we made quarter of a billion dollars accessible for a further 12 months. The longest term within that category is up to 10 years—10 years at 3.21 per cent. It is unsurprising that, in areas where the drought is most prevalent, you get the biggest draw down on the facilities; and, in areas where the drought is prevalent, of course you do not. But in New South Wales and Queensland, we are, I believe, pretty well close to the tranches as they are made available have been fully drawn.

What you also asked about within this research and development criteria and the incredible sin of a maximum cost—even at Senate estimates, Shadow Minister, they noted a maximum cost. When the Howard-Vale government was kicked out, lost the election, the budget in the Department of Agriculture was $3.486 billion a year. When we came back into government, it was about $1.5 billion. It is amazing that you more than halved the size of the agricultural budget; decreased it by more than $1,500 million, and then you have the gall to talk to us about the cost of trying to do a better job with $30 million or between $30 million and $40 million at a maximum cost.

If Labor, the alternative government, has a distinct policy they want to put money alongside, then that that is a statement for Mr Shorten to make in his budget reply speech—and we did not hear boo. In fact, we have no guarantee whatsoever that the Labor Party will stand by any of the budget allocations we have made available so far and which will be further apparent in the white paper. I look forward to substantive statements from you, as the alternative agriculture minister, clearly spelling out your willingness to stand behind the agricultural industry—and that must be something we can hold an alternative government to. What we have at the moment is remonstrations, ridicule and derision—but no policy. I think it is about time we started getting some policy. I think the people of Australia deserve attention to detail to show that you are taking this portfolio seriously.

Going back to further research and development issues, the $26.7 million tranche— (Time expired)

See this speech in context