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

What you just heard is what is commonly referred to in this place as a filibuster. We just heard from a member who is not part of this committee—nor am I, I should say—and who has no idea about the committee's work. Nor should he, I suppose, because it didn't do much work. We don't have the chair here—and I will be very careful; I have been around a long time. I don't know why the chair is not here. I know that the deputy chair is not here for good reason—because we're living in the COVID-19 environment. But it is more than passing strange that so few of the participating members of this committee are not here to speak on this report—or, should I say, non-report. I'm here because I saw the outcome of this committee inquiry and I was livid, angry, particularly as the government said, with some fanfare, that it was so keen to shift migrants to regional Australia. This was basically in the pre-COVID context—bushfires; drought; growers can't get pickers; unemployment high; cities overfull; roadblocks in our capital cities. This is a government that says a lot and does absolutely nothing.

The government provided this reference to this committee to have a look at how we might plan—after seven years in office, I might add—to get more migrants into regional Australia, for their benefit, for the benefit of our overcrowded capital cities and for the benefit of our regional communities, so many of which are so under challenge. I am going to be careful not to be too critical of committee members because, while we guard our privilege in this place so ferociously, we know how it works with committees and we know riding instructions do come from ministers of the crown. But how this committee could have come to a halt in the way it has is just inexplicable.

I thought, well, they're going to use COVID-19 as an excuse—can't travel and obviously can't have the same level of interaction with witnesses—but I read the non-report and found that that's not the reason. I wasn't that surprised, because plenty of other committees are still meeting during this COVID crisis. In fact, the parliament is relying on technology to meet. No, the committee tells us that it was because of the 'economic effects of the public health situation potentially changing the needs of regional communities'—that the needs of regional communities are so changed since COVID-19 that we may as well call the inquiry off. It then goes on to say:

The changed economic circumstances mean that an inquiry which sought to encourage more migrants to come to and remain in regional Australia would not be as useful in the present economic environment.

Well, I thought the Prime Minister believed everything was going to go pretty much back to normal after COVID-19, if we ever get to the end, God forbid, of COVID-19. But it now seems that the committee's inquiry had to come to a halt because the world might have changed. Well, I'll tell you what won't have changed, regardless of the longevity of COVID, and that is our desperate growers, struggling to get pickers and other labour in regional New South Wales.

But there's a bigger question here. If the Prime Minister believes the world is going to be so different post COVID-19, where is his plan for what it might look like? We've been waiting seven years for an agriculture plan. The Prime Minister went to the Dubbo Bush Summit last year and announced that he was finally going to develop a plan. We're going to the bush summit again this weekend—this time in Cooma—and he'll probably say the same thing. This government likes to get at least three elections out of one announcement. We need a plan for Australian agriculture. We haven't had one for seven years. The Prime Minister said a year ago that we would have one, and we've not even seen a sign that that plan is under development. The question becomes: did we need an inquiry into the dispersion of migrants into regional Australia in the first place?

I'm indebted to the member for Barker, because he said of the Regional Australia Institute's report that it was a 'serious body of work'—they were the words of the member for Barker—and, yes, it was. I happen to have it with me. I happen to have read the report. I doubt the member for Barker has. The Regional Australia Institute was, of course, an initiative of the former Labor government so that governments could make informed decisions about the future, both economically and socially, of rural and regional Australia. So, why were we having an inquiry? It's all here, and it's all in volumes of literature, going right back to my favourite, AnnaLee Saxenian's seminal book Regional Advantage, which was about the comparison between Route 128 around MIT and what happened in Silicon Valley.

We know what is needed. We know that it's about liveability. People will go to regional Australia if they can get schooling for their kids and they can be assured that there is affordable health care, if it's a vibrant town, with nice parks, affordable housing et cetera. We know that to get that you've got to be able to provide both hard and soft infrastructure—social infrastructure and, of course, physical infrastructure, including connectivity, a la NBN, and connectivity between the regions and capital cities and between regional centres. 'Read the report,' I say to those opposite. 'It's all here.' We didn't need an inquiry. We know what needs to be done in rural and regional Australia.

In the last parliament, the Prime Minister established a select committee into regional Australia. I think it was then called regional development and decentralisation. It travelled the country. It delivered a report. It made recommendations. What do you think happened to those recommendations? Zero.

Then in this parliament the Prime Minister again established the committee and gave it almost identical terms of reference as the last committee in the last parliament. I'm sure the committee is doing its best and is doing good work, but the Prime Minister knows what needs to be done. This has become more urgent than ever before in the COVID and post-COVID periods—and hopefully we get to that period soon.

I find it extraordinary that seven years into office and after all this talk about decentralisation and building our regions we've seen this underspend in infrastructure in the regions. The member for Dobell just gave us a fine example. When compared with what the previous Labor government spent, it turns my mind. There's no comparison between what we spent in rural and regional Australia and what this government has spent over the last seven years. I cannot understand why this government is not engaging more with local government. Every council across this country—all of them, both city and country—has shovel-ready infrastructure projects. They are ready to go. These infrastructure projects will create jobs and provide economic stimulus. But there is no real engagement between this government and our local government authorities. There should be.

This is a government that loves a report, loves an inquiry, loves a committee and loves terms of reference. This government loves talking about and promising to do something about an issue but it never follows through. We see examples day after day. I can think of no greater example than this farce of an inquiry. In the end it was never an inquiry. In the end it made no recommendations. I feel sorry for the 131 people who provided a submission to the inquiry and will get no response.

See this speech in context