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

The member for Dawson said he did. He's talking about the augmentation of Chaffey Dam, which was a Labor government initiative. It was all but finished when the now member for New England was elected in 2013. I say to the member for Dawson: who do you think you are talking to when you make these claims? If you are talking to the farmers and the people who live in New England, they know that is rubbish. It does your credibility no good telling porkies around the electorate and taking credit for projects you had no control over and can take no credit for.

But this government did do a few things. They improved accelerated depreciation for farmers on water infrastructure, smaller projects on the farm that might help them build resilience, and Labor supported those. In fact, our Australian investment guarantee now expands that proposition. And they made some adjustments to the farm management deposits scheme, which is a scheme that allows farmers to put money away in good times to draw down at a concessional tax rate in tougher times.

I should reflect there on Minister Littleproud, who has tried to make the focus of the drought debate his most recent changes to FMDs. That is, putting some pressure on the banks to provide offsets between the FMDs and their debt, and that's fine. But guess what, most of the farmers who are struggling don't have money in FMDs. It's axiomatic. They don't have money in FMDs, so don't make FMDs the focal point of your drought response, because it is not the answer. It's about as good an answer to building catchment dams, which is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem. The member for Dawson should know better.

The next thing is the way in which farmers approach their business model and, in particular, how they farm the land. This is not new. We've known for a long time that European farming methods—the overapplication of fertilisers and other methods—have been bad for our landscape. This is where we should never talk about farmers generically, because many, many farmers embrace the latest science based farming methods, but not sufficient are. This is the area where this government has done absolutely nothing in five years, and worse it abolished the COAG committee designed to progress it. We're now five years behind the times in what could become the worst drought we've faced. But it's not too late. It's not too late to accept that the climate will continue to change and become more challenging, and that we need to improve the uptake of adaptation and the embrace of the best and latest farming methods—whether it be cell grazing, whether it be the planting of trees, whether it be work on lifting the carbon levels and other organic matter levels in our soil so that we can retain more moisture in our soils. I say to the member for Dawson: we can retain more moisture, improving the carbon levels in our soils, than we can do building dams, and we can do it more cheaply, certainly more quickly, and certainly with less adverse impact on the environment—certainly.

I now go back to the first tranche: income support. We've been saying for 4½ years now that Farm Household Allowance is not working for many, many farmers. In fact, my colleagues will recall my asking the member for New England a question on this in this place back in 2014, because we were very concerned it wasn't working, that it wasn't reaching farmers. And what did he do? He embellished. He deliberately gave an incorrect answer and then decided to doctor his Hansard, which led, very sadly, to the dismissal of his departmental secretary, because his departmental secretary had the temerity to challenge the minister, because he was drawing his professional and dedicated public service into the mire.

The key point here is that we've been saying this for more than four years, and it still isn't getting fixed. We welcome the change to the assets test and we welcome the supplementary payment for those already on Farm Household Allowance. But we have seen little sign that it's going to be any easier to secure Farm Household Allowance. The big black hole of Centrelink and the paperwork appear to be very much still in place. That model has not changed. Until it does, farmers and farming families will continue to struggle to secure it.

This is a debate about our research and development corporations. I have challenged the government to return to the COAG model and to work out how we get a better uptake of the best and latest science based farming methods. We have reflected on this for a long time, because it is hard to get more innovation rolled out onto the farms—there are at least 80,000 of them and they are spread geographically across the continent. There are organisations that are already doing it to an extent, and they are called our research and development corporations. The grain growers have their GrowNotes—the messages that go out to the growers on the latest and the best information, whether it be on genetics or soil health. MLA does something similar. Dairy Australia does these things.

But it's nowhere near enough, and that's why I announced a fortnight or so ago that a Labor government would better-utilise the research and development corporations. We would ask them to come together through the Council of Rural Research and Development Corporations and lead and mobilise a much greater effort, both on furthering the science but more particularly on getting the innovation down onto the farm. They have the resources, they have the people, they have the experience, and, as we were talking about today, through the levy system they have this special relationship with growers and producers. In my view, all they need is some guidance from government. It is not that difficult. But if they are going to do it most effectively, we need to ensure that the more than $300 million of taxpayers' money they receive to do this work is being spent most effectively and most efficiently. That also goes for the money that comes from levy payers.

That is why we need a broader review of our research and development corporations. It is not to give them less money—no, no, no. It is to make sure that the money they receive from both the taxpayers and the levy payers is spent in the best possible way, producing the best possible outcome for both our growers and producers and also for the Australian economy and the Australian people.

See this speech in context