House debates

Thursday, 17 August 2017

Bills

Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017; Second Reading

11:47 am

Photo of Mark CoultonMark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 and to speak against the amendment moved by the member for Hunter. Just for those who might be listening to this broadcast, I will read the member for Hunter's amendment. It states:

That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

'the House declines to give this bill a second reading as it places the Government's political interests ahead of the interests of Australia's farmers'.

That is the member for Hunter, the agriculture spokesman for the Labor Party. The reason I quote that is that I have been listening to the contributions of the members of the Labor Party in this House and they're speaking, supposedly, in support of the amendment that says that they don't want to give this bill a second reading, but they spend most of their time saying how the Regional Investment Corporation should be in their electorates. Either they are opposed to this bill or they are for it. I think it is a little strange.

I am in strong support of this bill. I think it fulfils a promise that was indicated in the ag white paper that Minister Joyce introduced several years ago. What this bill will do is streamline the concessional loans to farmers, those who are struggling with issues around drought, dairy deregulation, decline and other such things. I do believe it has the potential to grow into much more over a period of time. I was listening to the member for Hunter's contribution to this debate. He was talking about the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Minister Joyce, and his contribution to his portfolio. I might say I believe that the ag white paper and the policies that have grown from it have been, possibly in my lifetime, some of the most influential changes to agriculture. I might remind the member for Hunter, who is sitting at the table, that the farmers in Australia in my electorate are a resilient lot, but there is one thing that the farmers in my electorate fear more than a hailstorm at harvest time, and that's a Labor ag minister. A Labor ag minister is about as welcome as lousy weather at shearing time.

For the member for Hunter to move this scurrilous amendment to discredit what is an essential piece of legislation, I think, is indeed very short-sighted. That is because agriculture has now regained its rightful place as one of the leading drivers of the Australian economy and certainly one of our largest income-earning exports. The policies that have been put in place by this government are having a real effect, not just for the farmers in Australia but for entire communities that are economically intertwined with the farmers. I will give you a great example: the instant write-off for water and fencing has put a huge boom into the ag supply business for contractors right across Australia and particularly in my electorate. If you drive around my electorate, you'll see there is a shining new tank on the top of nearly every hill and a water supply that will enable those farmers to much better manage their property and pasture the next time a drought hits. There is the ability to re-fence their properties and get an instant tax deduction for that so that they can manage their assets in a more efficient and sustainable way. There is the ability to have accelerated depreciation on fodder and grain storage. If you once again drive around my electorate you will see shining new silos and sheds all over the place because of the taxation advantages that these farmers can take to prepare themselves for the next time there is a dry period of time.

I was here in 2008—from memory, I think the member for Watson might have been the agriculture minister at the time—when the agriculture minister removed the word 'drought' and replaced it with 'dryness'. He said, 'This is climate change, and we've just got to get used to it.' In contrast to that mindset, this is a policy where farmers take control of their own future and invest in their own sustainability, a policy that has faith in the rural community because they are the ones who know how to best manage what is happening. The other thing is recognising the fluctuation in income. For instance, in the north-western part of my electorate, around Walgett, they've had four drought years in the last five years. Last year was an exceptionally good year. Farm management deposits being increased up to $8,000 gives those farmers the opportunity to level out their income and control their cashflow to a degree so that they can manage these times better and they are not coming to the government in a dire circumstance like we've seen in the past.

The other change from this government that has been a real boost to the economies of rural Australia, and particularly my electorate, has been the $20,000 instant asset write-off. Suppliers of small equipment—bikes, quad bikes, side-by-sides and cattle yards—and a whole range of people have had a real economic boost because of policies that have been put in place by this government, in this parliament, driven by the agriculture minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, that are having an effect day after day in regional Australia.

We can combine that with some of the larger projects. The one that is of particular interest to me is the Inland Rail. About 700 kilometres of the Inland Rail will come through the Parkes electorate. Already, we're starting to see businesses and farmers looking at how they can take advantage of the efficiencies that that will bring in their freight, and we're starting to see councils align their planning for roads and infrastructure to tie in with this rail network so that we will have not only the cities of Melbourne and Brisbane connected but also every capital city in Australia connected for the first time. The farmers, the agribusinesses and the manufacturers that are in western New South Wales will have access to cheap and efficient freight all over Australia and to numerous ports around the country.

This is a red-letter day for regional Australia—to have another piece of legislation coming through to back up the economy of that region. I might comment on the member for Mayo's contribution and some of the contributions from the other side over the last couple of weeks about the Four Corners program. There are four investigations under way at the moment about the accusations that have been raised, and they are accusations. My electorate is particularly affected by this because not only do I have the downstream people who are affected by the water management in Broken Hill—Broken Hill is the canary in the coalmine when it comes to the health of the Murray-Darling system, more so than Adelaide, even—but also the irrigation industry that I represent is also important to my community, so I've got both sides of the argument.

Members have come in here and spoken like an accusation on a television show is somehow a fact. The people that have been caught up in that television show have been denigrated without any form of redress. I think we should wait and see what these inquiries come up with. If they indeed show that there has been illegal behaviour, corruption or any misdemeanour of any sort, then action should be taken. But, until then, I think people should be very, very careful about what they say. The Labor Party has form on this. We saw the Four Corners program on live-cattle trade. The federal government now has a lawsuit running from the northern cattlemen because of that program. An entire industry and an entire region was decimated by a knee-jerk reaction. I need to remind the people of Australia that, if the Labor Party were on the government benches last week, we would've had the same knee-jerk reaction. Where was the former minister for agriculture then instead of sticking up and defending the farmers that were supposedly the responsibility of his portfolio? Where was he then? He was lock, stock and barrel with the rest of them—chanting across the table baying for blood. I just think everyone needs to be very, very careful. The people of Broken Hill are very concerned about what's going on upstream, and so they should be. But we just need to wait and see what comes out of this.

So, I strongly support this bill. I'm strongly opposed to the amendment by the member for Hunter, and I would encourage everyone who's involved with regional Australia, everyone who's involved in the agriculture industry, to have a look at the amendment from the member for Hunter and see where his energies are being placed in his role as the Labor Party spokesperson for agriculture.

Comments

No comments