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

Given the contribution from Capricornia, I ask the minister: does he agree that it would be prudent to establish a business case for the project before proceeding with full planning and construction of the project? Does the project have any business whether it be in the area of urban infrastructure, industrial water, urban water or indeed agriculture water customers?

On Shoalwater Bay, I welcome the fact that the government has agreed that there will be no compulsory acquisitions of agricultural land in the region. I ask the minister: what steps has he taken to satisfy himself that voluntary acquisitions will not be lead to a significant supply shortage in the beef supply chain? Because obviously whether they are compulsory or voluntary, it has the same impact on the supply chain, on the supply of cattle and therefore the same impact on the town if farmers in the region are not shopping in the town.

I refer him to his contribution to the House not all that long ago on the issue of carp eradication. I ask: the minister, if the next steps in the research are completed and successful, when does he expect that project to come to fruition—in other words, when would he expect a significant reduction in European carp in our waterways? I ask him whether he realises now, having misled the House, that scientists are not proposing a venereal disease and, if he now acknowledges that, whether he is prepared to correct the record? I would advise him to correct the record.

On the issue of white spot disease outbreak, I point out that the fisheries RDC has undertaken research on the economic impact of the outbreak. The cost has been to farmers and to the industry. It has been suggested it is nearly $50 million, which is very significant particularly given the proportional size of the contribution the minister has made. I ask the minister whether affected prawn farmers, those affected by white spot, who would be eligible for the extended or changed arrangements in farm concessional loans for farmers, would be eligible under that program as well?

On the issue of concessional loans and the Regional Investment Corporation, I ask the minister: given the new criteria for the loans has not been determined and it was suggested in Senate estimates that in fact part of the remit of the RIC board will be to determine what these loans will look like—how they will be designed, shaped and who will be eligible for them and given that they are not coming into effect until 1 July 2018, what market failure is the minister seeking to address by reshaping the loans?

If he has not identified a market failure—or, in other words, he does not really even know what they are going to look like—isn't it true to say that in effect the program will now become simply a lender of last resort for farmers? If that is not the case then I would welcome his contribution and explanation as to why it is not the case.

See this speech in context