Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Hansard source

You know you're getting old when you hark back to the good old days, but I was just talking to the member for Gippsland and we recall that, back in the good old days—that's code for 'when the coalition was in government'—ministers came into this consideration-in-detail process and actually answered questions. It wasn't just an opportunity for a set piece by a backbencher or, indeed, for an assistant minister to get up and spruik for five minutes about how good their party was and how bad the other side was.

In this process here, with agriculture, I don't see the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—that would be the member for Ballarat—in the chamber. I appreciate that the member for Eden-Monaro, the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, is here.

This consideration-in-detail process used to be a time when a backbencher would get up and ask a question, in all sincerity, and the minister would then respond, or, if the minister didn't respond there and then, they would take it on notice and respond in writing. But this is just an echo chamber. It is, as the Australian public sometimes argues, just a waste of time. And it's such a shame.

For the Labor members who are delivering these set pieces, there is a formula. The questions are: 'Have you ever visited a farm? Have you eaten food from a farm? Is a merino a sheep or a cow?' If they can answer those questions correctly, they get to come in here and deliver a piece from the Labor dirt unit on how good they are and how bad we are.

That is such a shame, because this could be such a good process. I remember, as Deputy Prime Minister, I used to come in and actually answer questions in this process, or, if I didn't have the time to answer them in the five minutes allotted, I'd take them on notice and I'd respond to the member who'd asked the question. But now, all too often, we've got ministers who just aren't answering the questions and just aren't using this process. It is consideration in detail. I can see you're rolling your eyes, Member for Eden-Monaro, but it's true. You probably weren't here during those times when we did actually answer questions.

Now I will ask a question, Minister, and I hope you might take it to whoever is representing agriculture in this parliament. Last time I looked it was Senator Murray Watt, but there were some rumours earlier in the week that he might be going to take a different portfolio. Will the agriculture minister work with the environment minister to listen to the river communities which will be so adversely affected by water buybacks? I ask that in the context of the budget papers and of having just heard from the member for O'Connor saying that there's no new money in agriculture, except for $107 million to shut down the Western Australian live sheep trade.

But my question is around water buybacks. In the budget papers, it is listed as 'NFP'. I'm assuming that is 'not for publication'. It could be anything, but I'm assuming it's 'not for publication': the amount of money that Labor will spend on buying productive water out of the Murray-Darling Basin to send down to the mouth of the Murray. That's not to grow food, not to grow fibre and not to help those river communities and local economies.

And what happens when you buy productive water out of those productive areas is that the farmer gets his or her money; the market is distorted, because the Commonwealth has come with a very big chequebook; the farmer goes off to the Gold Coast; but the little local cafe or the hairdresser or the garage or, indeed, the school, lose customers and clients, or, in the case of the school, children. And then what happens is that the state government looks at that and says, 'Well, that school is not entitled to however-many full-time equivalents, so we'll cut teacher numbers; we'll cut the administration numbers,' and the school suffers; the river-community town or city suffers. And they are suffering.

The media release from the shadow minister for water, Senator Perin Davey, who does understand agriculture, who does understand farming and who certainly understands river communities, talks about the unknown figures, saying:

We know there is only around $1 billion remaining in the Water for the Environment Special Account—funds set aside to deliver 450 GL over and above the Basin Plan targets.

We also know that based on the most recent Government tender the Government paid over $7,600 per megalitre. So simple maths tells us it will cost at least $3.42 billion to recover that volume.

What we don't know is if the Government has anywhere near that much money set aside. All we see from the Government is secrecy.

And that is so true.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Treasury Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $6,526,395,000

See this speech in context