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

If you are looking for a motivation lying behind the member for Calare's motion today, you just heard it at the end of his contribution. This motion is not about our farmers and the impact of a terrible drought; it is about the political survival of the member for Calare! That shone through so strongly towards the end, when he, amusingly, started to talk about the so-called Regional Investment Corporation. I was a bit intrigued by that, actually, because none of his ministers ever mention it any more—not in the House during question time, not outside on the doors. That leaves me very curious as to why ministers never ever mention the boondoggle, the pork-barrelling exercise now called the Regional Investment Corporation.

I was so amused to hear the member for Calare say that his farmers in the district are championing the Regional Investment Corporation and expressing joy about the difference it's making in their lives. What a load of rubbish! As if farmers in the immediate district have somehow been beneficiaries of a corporation that is barely up and running, that has no permanent CEO, that has skeleton staff and that has no real home. This is a motion full of self-congratulation about what this government has done on drought for the last five years. But let me tell you what it has really done—

Mr Gee interjecting—

Don't worry about Jess Jennings! Jess Jennings is a very good candidate for Labor in Calare, who happens to be an academic with expertise in farm extension.

Mr Gee interjecting—

You could learn something from him. The reason you put this motion up tonight is that you're scared of Jess Jennings. You know Jess Jennings is coming to get you in Calare. That's what this is really about.

Mr Gee interjecting—

The climate is changing in the most challenging way for our farmers. Dry spells are becoming more protracted; the temperature is getting hotter. Government can do three things, and those opposite have hardly done any of it in the last five years. First, we can act to mitigate climate change, something the government are unprepared to commit to. Second, we can give drought assistance, assisting farmers who are struggling most with drought in times of protracted dry spells however and wherever we can. Third, we can work with farmers to help them build that resilience and better prepare themselves for drought. But unless we are doing all of those things, we are failing our farming community, we are failing farming families and we are failing, very importantly, the Australian economy.

Governments, plural, and political parties, plural—including the two major parties in this country—agreed more than five years ago that all the old exceptional circumstances initiatives were not working; they were a failure. It was universally agreed that we would tear it all up and all the moral hazards involved and start again. In 2013, something of a miracle was achieved: the states and the Commonwealth, with bipartisan political support across the spectrum, agreed to a new intergovernmental agreement, recognising the failure of past drought policies and the need to redirect our attention and resources mainly to resilience, business models et cetera—things that would help farmers treat drought as a regular event which can be managed within the business cycle. But what did those opposite do on their election? The then Minister for Agriculture, the member for New England, abolished the COAG committee which was charged with progressing these reforms and turning them from principles into something meaningful.

Now, more than five years on, they want us to believe that they now realise that resilience is part of the equation, and that they are going to do something about it! As always, they have enhanced or embellished the look of their spending, by putting it into a future fund, which they can say is a $5 billion fund. But, importantly, they are only spending $100 million a year, not ad infinitum but only for the first four years—sensibly, because whatever they do should be reviewed after four years. So those opposite are slow coming to the party, but for many farmers it is too late, quite frankly. Those opposite need to apologise to those who have not been given the assistance they need to better adapt to a changing and more challenging climate; instead of congratulating themselves they should be hanging their heads in shame.

See this speech in context