Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Wide Bay proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The adverse impact of the Government’s policies on rural and regional Australia.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On election night the Prime Minister said he was elected to govern for all Australians, but it has taken less than his first 100 days for us to realise that that was never an honest promise and it has not been delivered on. We heard a lot from Labor during the election campaign about working families, about interest rates, about infrastructure, about skills, about compassion. Voters certainly did not expect to see all those election promises broken in the first 100 days. Slowly but surely Labor’s attack on those who did not vote for it is being revealed. The Rudd government may be in the midst of a media honeymoon, but as I have travelled around local communities, particularly over recent weeks, I have seen that the anger is growing. They are learning that there is a world of difference between Labor’s rhetoric during the election campaign and Labor’s action in government.

The Labor Party went on and on about the previous government’s supposed failures on infrastructure, in spite of all the progress that had been made on AusLink—the enormous boost in road funding, the commitments to rail that had been absent for such a long period of time—and in spite of the fact that we had programs like Roads to Recovery, which made real improvements at the local level. Given the rhetoric, voters did not expect to see road and rail funding being savagely cut by this government.

The government talks about the need for infrastructure and yet, at the first available opportunity, it slashes funding for roads. On the figures released earlier in the week by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Labor may be spending as little as $15 billion on roads and rail between 2009 and 2013. That is less than half what the coalition promised in the last election campaign. We committed to a $31 billion investment in road and rail around Australia, and the party that says it believes in infrastructure has so far committed to only $15 billion.

We have heard of many projects that have been stripped from the list. The people of the Hunter Valley want an answer from the Minister for Defence about why he supported the F3 to Branxton project before the election but suddenly he has forgotten about it since that time. We want to hear from the people who promised that they would be upgrading the Pacific Highway. What has happened to the money for the Pacific Highway? We want to know what is happening to the major highways across the country, where spending is in doubt because this government has failed to guarantee that the money will be provided. Voters did not expect AusLink to be pared back so dramatically. Voters in regional Australia did not expect the inland rail link to be kicked into touch. Voters in regional Australia did not expect that existing transport projects would be delayed for a year or maybe even more because of the new bureaucracy called Infrastructure Australia.

Labor has also made it clear that it intends to move expenditure on infrastructure from regional areas to the cities. The minister for infrastructure has made it quite clear that not enough money is being spent on roads in the cities and too much is being spent in the country, and he intends to relocate those projects to capital cities, particularly Sydney. The Prime Minister himself said, as Leader of the Opposition in February last year, that he would be moving funding away from regional communities, away from states like Tasmania, and spending it in Sydney. This is the Prime Minister who promised to govern for all Australians. Well, if you live in Sydney he will be governing for you, but if you happen to live in a regional area or in an outer state then your interests are likely to be forgotten. He has also axed the $200 million Growing Regions program, a program that was designed to put in place some of the infrastructure that people who live in the fastest growing areas of Australia desperately need—areas on the North Coast of New South Wales, the Sunshine Coast in Queensland and the south-west of Western Australia. These are areas that have grown very, very quickly. They need a bit of extra help. This is the kind of regional development program that was warmly welcomed by the mayors of Australia, and yet this government has axed it.

This is a government that has a plan to beat inflation, we are told—a five-point plan. One of the points of that plan is to build more infrastructure, to get rid of infrastructure bottlenecks. But what has the government done? It has cut funding for roads, it has axed the Growing Regions program and it has initiated no new expenditure on infrastructure anywhere in the country. It will be at least a decade before any Labor programs make any impact at all on inflation. The government is using words but not delivering actions.

That is not the only area where Labor’s words have been different from its actions. Labor constantly repeats that it is dedicated to working families; we hear it so often. And yet the government expresses a deep, continuing lack of interest in the day-to-day costs of working families. The price of petrol has gone up. The price of groceries has gone up. This is the government that said that it would be putting downward pressure on grocery prices and on petrol prices. The promise has proved to be empty: grocery prices go up; fuel prices go up.

One of the very first acts of this government was to actually raise taxes on fuel and on the trucking industry, with new registration fees—up to a 100 per cent increase on the registration costs of the biggest trucks, the trucks that move the food around the country—and a new fuel excise, a new 1.3c a litre penalty, on everything that moves around the country. And this is a government that claims to be compassionate about people and worried about the food basket. And yet it has made a decision which the minister admits will add $17 a year to the food basket of an average Australian family. How is this putting downward pressure on prices? In fact, it is a deliberate act of the government to put up prices to guarantee that struggling families pay more. The rhetoric has been so empty.

That is why we, in the Senate, have acted to block this legislation and we will be moving to disallow the regulation of fuel excise indexation. But I warn Australians that, after 1 July, there will be a different Senate, and it may well pass these tax increases. It may well pass these impositions on the Australian people. It may well deliver the higher grocery prices which we will be able to hold back at least until 1 July.

Let us move on to other areas where the government said it would be compassionate. One of its very first acts affected the people who perhaps need assistance most, the carers of Australia. They were stunned to find that their regular annual bonus was not going to be paid by this government. It was going to take $600 away from carers allowance recipients and carers payment recipients. How is that a government of compassion?

This matter of public importance is particularly about the impact on regional communities. You may not be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker—and certainly members opposite who do not care about regional Australia would not be aware—that there are many more recipients of carers benefits in the regional areas than there are in the cities. For instance, in my own electorate of Wide Bay there were 5,000 people who received carers benefits in 2004. By comparison, in the city electorate of the member for Watson, who is sitting across the table from me, there were only 2½ thousand people receiving carers benefits. You will find that kind of pattern repeated regularly.

The people receiving carer benefits are very strongly represented in regional areas, and that is partly because there is not the level of health services and aged care services in regional areas that there is in the cities. You cannot just call a taxi and have somebody take you to the doctor when you need to go. In fact, there probably is not even a doctor if you live in a regional area. So Labor strips away the kind of benefit that is necessary to help these people in their difficult times.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will be heard in silence from all sides of the chamber.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Another key element of the government’s plan to beat inflation was to address the skills shortage. And—surprise, surprise!—regional people seem to be left off the agenda for addressing the skills shortage. In fact, again, one of the very first acts of this government was to axe the FarmBis program, a program that has been in place for a number of years specifically to address skills in rural and regional areas. The Labor Party think that skilling farmers is not important. They have axed the program. They have also axed the $48 million horticultural and agricultural apprenticeship scheme. It is important to train apprentices, it seems, but not in horticulture and agriculture. Rural areas do not count. Then they have cut the funding for the living away from home allowance for school based apprenticeships—again, something that people who live in rural areas need. City people do not need it, because there is a school next door. It is the country people who have to live away from home and take advantage of these sorts of programs, and they have been axed. The Land newspaper calculated that two-thirds of the budget cuts announced by the finance minister last month targeted the one-third of Australians who live outside the metropolitan areas. Rarely have we seen such a heavy burden inflicted in such a disproportionate way.

If that were not enough, Labor last night moved to raid the coalition government’s $2 billion Communications Fund. This program was established to future-proof the telecommunication needs of rural, regional and remote Australians. Labor have robbed this fund to try and prop up their own broadband scheme, which the private sector has offered to build anyhow without government input. What Labor are doing is taking away the money that was put aside to deliver future technological advances to people who live out of the capital cities and duplicating it for people who live in the capital cities. This is a deliberate move by the Labor government to take $2 billion which was supposed to be spent in regional areas and spend it in the cities. It is pretty obvious where Labor’s priorities are. The areas that have already got the highest speeds of broadband are going to get more competition and duplication. The areas that have poor reception and poor capabilities for receiving broadband have had the money taken from them. Fortunately, again, we have been able to block this legislation in the Senate, and that is what ought to happen, because this has been an appalling attempt to rob people who have been made promises on commitments to the country, and to put that money into other areas. This is a real betrayal by the Labor government.

One of the things that really surprised me last night was to see the two Independent members, the member for New England and the member for Kennedy, both voting in favour of the government’s legislation. Two members who purport to represent regional areas crossed the floor to work with Labor to take $2 billion off their constituents and others. This was a disgraceful betrayal by the Independent members for New England and Kennedy, voting to take money away from their constituents.

The raid on the Communications Fund tells you a lot about the Prime Minister and his election-night promise to govern for all Australians. For the numerous people who watch parliament today, it might be interesting to know a little bit about the people who are on the Rudd government’s Expenditure Review Committee, the so-called razor gang. Of course, none of them live in country areas—that would be too much to ask. The Labor Party is not likely to ever have any senior ministers that come from a country area. But it is also interesting to note that in the 2006 census there were 300,000 people across Australia working in agriculture. If you divide that up, it is roughly the equivalent of Canberra. When you look at the list of 150 electorates across Australia and how many people work in agriculture, fisheries and forestry in those electorates, you get an interesting result. The Prime Minister’s seat of Griffith ranks 121st. It has the 121st highest number of people who work in agriculture, fisheries and forestry. The member for Melbourne’s seat comes in at 113th, just ahead of the Treasurer’s, which comes in at 111th. So none of those are what you would call strong rural electorates with representatives likely to be sympathetic to rural needs when the time comes to consider these important issues.

But perhaps what is most illuminating of the lot is the least agricultural electorate in Australia. Could anybody guess? Lo and behold, it is the electorate of the minister who was chosen to be the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The minister for agriculture has fewer farmers, fewer people involved in agriculture, than any electorate in Australia. This really shows the great sympathy that the Rudd Labor government has for people who live and work in rural and regional areas! They choose the least rural representative in the whole of the country to be minister for agriculture. Is it any wonder he knew nothing about wheat, knows nothing about crop growing, knows nothing about cattle and knows nothing about sheep? To his credit, he is trying to learn, but the reality is there is no fundamental sympathy on the government benches for anyone who lives outside a capital city, and the people of regional Australia need to be aware of the fact that when you elect a Labor government you do not elect a government that governs for all Australians; you elect a government that is city-centric, that is city biased and that will put all of its resources into that part of Australia, while struggling families who live outside the capital cities will go without.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am really glad that this MPI came up today. The Leader of the Nationals has done us all a favour because I have been frustrated for four weeks—

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don’t say you were frustrated!

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I have been—because for weeks and weeks we have been thinking that the moment would surely come when the National Party decided to ask a question about agriculture in question time. We thought it may be in the first week or maybe in the second. When we come back for the May budget sittings, it will be six months since the election and we will have gone for a full six-month period without anybody from the National Party asking a single question about agriculture.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member is not in his seat, and the minister will be heard in silence

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, you might find he is, because I don’t think that seat over there will be his for too much longer! Some of the comments made by the Leader of the National Party go to points which he knows full well are completely misleading. For a start, on the quote that he gave from the Land with respect to two-thirds of budget cuts—he knows full well that that figure includes demand-driven funding. He knows that the only way you can reach that figure is to include demand-driven funding with the same forward projections as the previous government had, and because there were better prospects that people would move into periods of recovery with respect to EC the forward projections went down. He knows exactly that that is why that figure was reached. When he ran that fear campaign we told him that, if he won, the simple result would be that people who were entitled to EC protection might fall for his trick and end up not applying for assistance to which they were completely entitled. If he has the victory of his scare campaign, not one person on the land is going to benefit from it, and some of them will fail to apply for assistance to which he knows they are fully entitled.

But the hypocrisy goes further. We heard the argument about trucking registration fees. Members of the opposition coming out against anything to do with any sort of a user-pays system is hypocrisy. The system was not first proposed by this government; it was proposed in a formal submission by the former Deputy Prime Minister. The idea came from the former Deputy Prime Minister. But their biggest objection is to Infrastructure Australia. Why is it that their objection is so strong to Infrastructure Australia? Why is it that their objection is so strong on infrastructure issues? It is this: they have got so used to the pattern of pork-barrelling that they are frustrated and, if we are going to be in government, they want us to have access to pork-barrelling too. They have got so used to the mindset of ‘that is just what governments do’, that anything that goes to having an independent process—anything that goes to actually having an overarching look at the nation to decide where the priorities ought properly to be—the Nats cannot handle it. Because for the Nats anything that is outside a pork-barrelling framework is completely beyond their comprehension. I saw it in my own area with respect to irrigation. You would think with irrigation that there is a need—and a legitimate need—for government discretionary funding, and we did find $5 million that was promised from the previous government for an irrigation program. If you are going to get money out of the NHT, the Natural Heritage Trust, you would think, ‘Okay, if it is going to be for an irrigation program, maybe it will be in Griffith.’ I am sure that the Leader of the Nationals would think, ‘maybe Griffith’. Or maybe you would think ‘Mildura’. No. It was $5 million for the irrigation of Flemington Racecourse. That is what the previous minister for agriculture had promised. And let us just see if the predictions of what his next job will be turn out to be true. Let us see where those predictions end up landing.

The previous speaker, Mr Truss, made reference to the infrastructure fund, but he made no mention of the concept of broadbanding the nation. There was no mention of the concept of actually making sure that Australians have access to the most high-tech fibre-to-the-node technology. There was nothing about that. But the big gap in the entire presentation we just had was with respect to agriculture. We got a spray at me—and don’t worry, I have got a bit at the end of my speech too; we will get there. We had the concept of the budget cuts—which was misleading—and we got one reference to FarmBis. He wanted to talk about the adverse impact of the government’s policies on rural and regional Australia, and those three sentences made up the entirety of his criticisms of this government’s approach to agriculture.

What the members opposite need to understand—and the member sitting at the table, the member for Groom, absolutely needs to understand—is the real pressure of climate change, because there are real pressures. That is why some of the FarmBis programs which dealt with climate change will be picked up through Australia’s Farming Future in the climate change and adaptation partnerships, worth $60 million. There will be some programs—and in tough budget circumstances this is the case—which do not get picked up. That is true. If the position of the Nationals is that we should not be trying to put downward pressure on inflation then by all means, when it is your next speaker’s turn, stand up and declare it. If the position of the Nationals—as the Leader of the Nationals previously declared when he pointed to the position of the United States and their responses to inflation—is that they do not believe we have an inflation problem, then they should get the next speaker to stand up and declare it. If the Leader of the Nationals does not believe that we need to have a tough budget and does not believe that we need to be more conscious of making sure that we have got a sufficient surplus, he should stand up and say it.

This government knows that there are two key pressures coming down on people working in agriculture. They are the pressures of climate change and the shrinking world and the increasing trade that that brings with it. Climate change adaptation becomes absolutely essential. Climate change adjustment programs have become absolutely essential. We need to make sure that our R&D programs deal with the most urgent challenge facing farmers. Farmers have been off doing it on their own, make no mistake. There is no end of people on the land—because they actually live the climate—who have gone out and involved themselves in adaptation challenges. But they have done so with no help at all from the previous government and with no leadership at all from the previous government.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Truss interjecting

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The interjection is coming from the climate change sceptic of climate change sceptics, the king of climate change sceptics, the former minister and now shadow minister, there at the table. But let us get to the final points that were made by the Leader of the National Party. The Leader of the National Party finished off by saying—as though it was a new revelation—that I come from the city. In my answer to the first question that I had in this place I made that clear. I have got to say: it was my first speech in this place where I made it clear. Since I was a kid, and whenever I have read my address and where I live, it has been pretty clear. It is hardly a revelation.

There is an obsession amongst those opposite, and we saw it in the sorts of TV ads that they ran during the campaign. All they want to look at is what job you did before you got into parliament. There is a simple reason why they are obsessed with that: they are so embarrassed about the lack of work they have done since they got here. We heard that earlier from the maker of the ‘I do not make a lot of contributions in this place’ point of order that we had during—

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know there are more appropriate occasions when one is supposed to raise this, but I have been misrepresented. He knows jolly well that the choice of words might—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mallee will resume his seat.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have always made clear that it is important for me to spend as much time as I can out on the land, meeting on their own land people who work the land. It surprised me from the moment that I got this job, going out and conducting those visits, that a lot of the local media thought this was new. A lot of them were saying, ‘We’re surprised to see a minister for agriculture actually coming out and visiting us.’ I never thought that would be the case.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Truss interjecting

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I agree with the member opposite: I shook my head too. I thought: they could not have been that bad. But the local paper for Griffith—one of the primary agricultural areas for this country, the food bowl of the nation—told me they ran a 5½-year campaign trying to get the previous minister to visit Griffith. Which previous minister would that be? You might be able to work it out when you look at the front page they ran on the Area News: ‘Where’s Warren?’ Work it out for yourselves—and they have got him dressed up just like the Where’s Wally character with a photo of the people of Griffith. The difference of course is that, if you get a Where’s Wally book and you look hard enough—and it can take days—eventually you can find him. For 5½ years the people of Griffith went looking and they never found the member for Wide Bay. They never found the Leader of the Nationals; not one appearance, not once.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should be honest and read what was in the following week.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If he wants me to read more from the paper, I am really happy to:

New South Wales’ most agriculturally dependent economy has failed to capture the attention of federal minister for agriculture, Warren Truss. Mr Truss has not shown his face in the Griffith area—

this was the beginning of their campaign—

for more than 14 months, a community that relies on the farming sector to generate 26 per cent of its wealth. Local agriculture industry leaders are calling on Mr Truss to visit, particularly given his state counterpart, Ian Macdonald—

Labor—

has visited twice in 12 months and has planned another visit for June. The Griffith branch of the New South Wales Farmers Association President, Peter Flanagan, said it is disappointing that Mr Truss hasn’t shown more interest in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area.

The member opposite said that I should have read what came later in the paper. I have to say—and I do not have a copy of it here—I read the editorial in that same addition. We all know the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area is known as the MIA; the headline of the editorial reads ‘MIA in the MIA’, because that was the case for the minister for agriculture.

So I have gone to the trouble of getting him some help—the great website that we all know about, whereis.com. If you leave now, we have got the directions for you to get yourself to Griffith. It will take four hours and 34 minutes. There is a great coffee shop I can recommend you drop into, and they will be there. So I will table the ‘Where’s Warren?’ with the subheading ‘Can you find the elusive minister for agriculture in this picture?’ and I will table the directions from Whereis. It is going to take you 4½ hours—it will be a late dinner but I reckon you will make it. I table these documents.

So the highly misleading points that were made at the beginning of this MPI go to a central core: embarrassment. They know the way that they ran policy in rural and regional areas. They know the way they pork-barrelled. They know the lack of science behind their grants programs. They know the lack of foresight in their ignoring of climate change. We even saw it from the member for Kalgoorlie, not a member of the National Party, the other day when he said, ‘It’s just hot weather,’ with respect to climate change. You get a one-in-3,000-year heatwave and the response from members opposite is: ‘It’s just hot weather.’

There are real challenges out there for people working the land, and climate change issues affect the core business of everybody working in agriculture. They need to be provided with leadership, but leadership that is not going to sit back in the electorate on the front verandah in Wide Bay sipping a cup of tea and saying, ‘Isn’t it good to be in touch?’ as it goes back on its rocking chair. They need people who are willing to go out there, spend their time listening to people on the land on their land—not saying, ‘I’ve grown up in the area therefore I know it all,’ but saying, ‘I’m the minister and I want to hear what your concerns are and I want to listen.’ People are sick and tired of having to deal with people who have spent their lives in agripolitical organisations but who do not have a moment to sit back and listen to the people who work the land to make sure that they have consistency, being willing to say: ‘These are the challenges. Here’s the policy. We’re willing to deliver.’

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say that listening to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, I do not know how much he has been out to regional Australia but he certainly did not listen to anything anyone told him out there. Of the issues that are really coming home in regional Australia at the moment, certainly water is one of them. There are the issues brought up by the Leader of the National Party such as all the money that is being ripped out of regional Australia, not to mention, as you said, Leader, that they tried to remove another $2 billion last night.

We are at a point where water is the issue. Climate change—okay, that is an issue, but water is here and now, and it has been totally ignored by the Minister for Climate Change and Water in the Rudd government. It is the lifeblood of rural and regional Australia. Despite all the grand words, slogans and stunts from the Rudd government prior to the election, our communities have been left totally rudderless in what is going on in the future direction of water management in the country.

Debate interrupted.