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

I am in continuation from 13 May on this bill and I did move a second reading amendment. I have some doubt in my mind whether that second reading amendment was seconded and we need to formalise that before the end of my contribution to this debate. I moved:

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

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the Government's failure to provide a strategic plan for the agriculture industry, including fisheries and forestry, and rural and regional communities who continue to be impacted by drought, bushfires and COVID-19".

The bill we're debating, the Export Control Legislation Amendment (Certification of Narcotic Exports) Bill 2020, involves an amendment to the Export Control Act which will allow a compliance certificate to be issued on goods to be exported which might fall under the category of a narcotic. In this case, the bill is being put in place in particular to facilitate the export of hemp seeds from this country to the United States, but it will have, of course, a broader application. In my contribution back on 13 May, I indicated that the opposition will be supporting the bill in both this place and the Senate, and we wish all those in the industry who will benefit from this appropriate change all the very best.

When I was interrupted by the adjournment last time, I was focusing on the triple whammy which has been experienced by rural and regional Australia in recent years: drought, bushfire and now, of course, COVID-19. I was particularly focusing on the failure of the government in its much more than six years now to implement a strategic plan for the agriculture sector. I reminded the House that we waited until 2015 for the production of the long-awaited agriculture white paper. I happen to have a copy with me now and I'll display it to members present because many will have forgotten it existed, and it's hardly surprising that they have forgotten that it existed because it hasn't been seen or heard of since. It was a failed white paper, a hotchpotch of ideas which were never implemented. Very little in this document, although it said much, has been implemented by this government. I will say that I think that the country-of-origin labelling was a feature of the report and some work has been done in that area, but other than that, just like the Productivity Commission report into red and green tape in the agriculture sector, nothing has really been acted upon. Having said that, it's pretty hard to act on this report, the ag white paper, because it didn't say very much and it certainly didn't represent a strategic plan for the agriculture sector.

I note here again that this plan—or this report, I should say, because it's not a plan, as I've pointed out—excluded the forestry and fisheries sectors. On its election in 2013, the government collapsed the title of the minister from Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to simply Minister for Agriculture. I was proud to be this country's Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, albeit for a short time. They collapsed the title; that is the government's right. I have no particular concern about that. I thought it was disappointing but I can appreciate governments will want to stamp their own mark or brand on these areas of portfolio responsibility. But I had hoped, like the fisheries and forestry sectors, that the dropping of the name wouldn't mean they'd be forgotten. They were deliberately excluded from this report. I remind members, given that we are talking about drought, bushfire and COVID, that the marine environment is impacted by drought as well. It doesn't seem to follow plainly for many people, but of course the fisheries sector is impacted by drought—in particular, the estuaries. And the forestry sector, already facing huge challenges, particularly with respect to security of supply in this country, has now been further impacted by resource lost due to the bushfires. If ever we needed a plan for the forestry sector, we need one now. We've had plenty of pamphlets and reports over the course of the last seven years, but what we haven't had is action from this government.

In the lead-up to the last election, the Labor Party committed to the so-called hubs process to ensure that we are putting the resources needed—the plantations needed—in the right places in this country. And the government, to its credit, seems to be slowly working its way through a similar process. But the one simple thing the government could do this week, without any cost to the taxpayer, is to remove the ridiculous 'water rule', as we call it, in the forestry sector, which basically prevents those who want to plant forestry plantations from accessing the carbon market in areas where there is significant and necessary rainfall. This is just silly. When I announced on behalf of the Labor Party, pre-election, that we would remove the water rule, Mr Littleproud described it as 'recklessness and false hope'. Well, we know that many opposite understand that the water rule is an unnecessary and unhelpful part of the regulatory framework and should be removed. And it should be removed quickly because, as I said, the forestry sector needs help now, more than ever before, and we will be increasingly dependent on the importation of timber, including for the construction industry. That, of course, is going to lead to the loss of many, many jobs in this country.

The list is very long in terms of the failures. This is a government that talks a lot about agriculture—not so much about fisheries and forestry—but does nothing. The government spent $2.7 million on a report from EY into the research and development system we use in the agriculture sector, only to tell us what we already knew. And what we know is that it has been a fabulous system. It was proudly the product of a Labor government, under John Kerin. We also know that it is 30 years old. It is outdated. It is not fit for purpose in the 21st century. It is in dire need of reform. (Time expired)

See this speech in context