Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to start by expressing my absolute dismay at the manner in which we have moved through the consideration in detail stage of these bills. Normal practice is that members have an opportunity to talk to the budget. We did not have that opportunity—well, 50 of us did not have that opportunity. There were 50 of us on the sheet—that is one-third of the parliament—who were cut, with no notice given. All that we have is five minutes to speak to a specific issue, a specific area of the budget—in this particular case, agriculture. This is not the first time that this has happened. This happened in December last year, and I thought, 'Well, okay, fair enough. It is coming towards the end of the year. Time is quite tight; we all know that.' However, for the government to do this twice in a row to members—and many of those members are crossbench members—who will not have an opportunity to speak, I think, is abysmal.

In the last parliament, the then shadow minister Manager of Opposition Business in the House argued that similar actions to what we are experiencing now—with regularity—was to trash the norms of the parliament. He said, 'This is not normal. Governments of both persuasions have used their numbers to silence the other side from time to time, but not like this.' He further said, 'This denies members an extension for people who voted for them to talk about important issues and it shows contempt for the parliament and the public.' They were the words of the now Leader of the House. Yet here we are with a different government employing the same tactics. I have to say, I have been here now for seven years. I was never stopped from speaking on the appropriations bills, and to cut 50 of us, I think, is really quite appalling, and it is hypocritical.

Now, onto agriculture. I am pleased to see what the government is doing here with an additional $1 billion over four years, strengthening Australia's biosecurity system, protecting agriculture, fisheries and forestry, but I am concerned this expenditure is offset by a biosecurity protection levy on Australian producers. Quite frankly, they have gone through enough. This levy is set at 10 per cent of the existing industry led agriculture levies. This is an enormous impost on our regions and on the rural sector, which are already struggling with high energy and fuel costs. The sector will have no choice but to pass this on to consumers. So my question to the minister is will this add to further inflationary pressures? And I ask the government: How will inflation be brought under control given these inflationary measures that are contained within?

I would also like to talk about rural roads with my left over time. I have to say, the rural roads network walks hand-in-hand with agriculture. We all know that. If you don't have good roads in the regions you cannot get your product to market. To quote the National Farmers' Federation, 'Repairing our roads means strengthening our connection to markets, making food more available and affordable to Australians. I think it's a missed opportunity to bring down costs in the food supply chain, so my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is: do you see that there is an intrinsic link between the production of agriculture and ensuring that our rural roads are safe, well-maintained and well-funded?

The $250 million of new funding for repair and improvements is so far short of what is required. We know that road accidents, particularly fatalities, are more likely on regional roads than they are on metropolitan roads. That's the way it is. We also know that our rural road network carries on it all the heavy vehicles. That, combined with vulnerable road users, particularly those who are caravaners not used to driving on rural roads, and the fact that we have so many roads that are in such a state of disrepair, will, I think, have a negative impact on agriculture in particular, so I ask the minister: is this an issue that the minister is concerned about? To me, the two are intrinsically linked.

See this speech in context