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

Thank you very much. I know members opposite, particularly the member for Mackellar, don't like hearing the truth and don't like hearing me talking about their inadequacies in farming over seven years, but, if he had any energy in him at all and did his homework, he'd know I moved a second reading amendment, which I think he might refer to—which might reinforce your very good ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker.

What did Mr Littleproud decide to do pre the election? He decided to have a review. Under this government, we've had so many reviews in the agriculture sector that, if I put the reports in my office, one on one, they would hit the ceiling. Those opposite love a committee, they love a review—they love revisiting these things—but they never do anything. They announce and forget. But how much did this review cost? How much did it cost the taxpayer to arrive at the same conclusions that I'd offered years in advance? Two point seven million dollars went to EY—$2.7 million to tell us that the 30-year-old system had run its course and needed to be fixed. Sadly, it didn't really tell us how it should be fixed, by the way. It was helicopter-high level in its approach; it didn't provide any practical solutions to be immediately embraced by the government. But it got Minister Littleproud through the election. He was having another review. Well, how long ago was the election—16, 17 months? What do you think the minister did in the budget last night? He did not allocate another $2.7 million: 2.7 became 7.2. They flipped the number. If they were going to spend $7.2 million restructuring our research and development capacity in the agriculture sector and they were going to spend it straightaway, maybe you wouldn't mind—at least they would be finally going to do something. But, no; it is $7.2 million over four years. Think about that. If they spend $7.2 million over four years and get the job done in four years, it will have been 11 years—11 years—since the election of the government before they have done anything. Based on experience, it would be a great leap of faith to believe they will do anything in four years, but that's their plan.

Now they've established some entity, AIA or something—I forget what it's called—that is going to work within the council of RDCs to do what I've been calling on the government to do all these years. I don't know what the council of RDCs has been doing or should be doing that is now going to be done by yet another entity, but there will be more money involved, Mr Deputy Speaker Gillespie; you can be sure of that.

We have emerging international competition in grains, from the Black Sea countries, and in red meat, from the South American countries; and freight rates are falling, so they're getting closer to the Asian market. If we're going to lift productivity and improve our profitability and competitiveness, we will need a heavy focus on research and innovation. The minister was talking about that this morning at the public breakfast. But talking about it is not enough. We've been talking about it for too long. It's time for action. We don't want to wait another four years. We don't want to unnecessarily spend another $7.2 million of taxpayers' money.

This morning, the minister was also talking about regulatory regimes. In fact, in one area, he's going to spend $70 million facilitating approvals et cetera for exporters. Great! I'm all for improving access for exporters. This review here in my hand—another review—is the report of the Productivity Commission inquiry into regulation of Australian agriculture, which, again, was announced with great fanfare at the time by this government—a big announcement! Remember, they had 'red-tape reduction day'? Well, this was just one portfolio. This review, and it's almost 700 pages, is a good review. I had a briefing from the authors and I congratulated them on the report, and I looked forward at that time—in 2016, four years ago—to the report being embraced. But, of course, it has largely been gathering dust. Most of the responses from the government basically say, 'It's a matter for the states.' Well, get your terms of reference right, I would say. But, again, if we're going to improve our international competitiveness and, therefore, our profitability, we need to reduce the regulatory burden on business. The minister seems to have put a bit of money into it last night, but I will be very surprised if we get any significant economic outcome from anything that he said last night.

We need to have a serious look at a sector in which, as I said, 80 per cent of the output comes from 20 per cent of the firms, so profitability is isolated amongst the few; our natural resources are not only limited and misallocated but further challenged by a changing climate; our human resources are so low; and, of course, our capital resources are nothing like those needed to provide the infrastructure to lift that productivity and that competitiveness.

We support the bill—no problem with that. But I do hope, still, that the government, after seven years of doing nothing, might start becoming serious—not pitch for votes but become serious—about the structure of the industry, and the role of government in providing guidance to the sector about where it needs to go to arrive at that $100 billion target, and, having set that guidance, providing the support it needs to be successful.

See this speech in context