Andrew Gee (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

(1) notes that a significant part of rural Australia is currently drought declared;

(2) further notes that farming families and the agriculture sector more widely are a vital part of the Australian economy as well as the Australian psyche;

(3) recognises the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources for their efforts in touring drought declared areas in NSW and Queensland;

(4) congratulates the Government for deciding to extend the Farm Household Allowance from three years to four years; and

(5) acknowledges that this assistance will help the nation's farmers.

This is a vitally important issue to discuss in this chamber and in our national parliament, because it concerns our agricultural sector. Our agricultural sector is extraordinarily resilient. It is one of the foundation stones of our national economy and our national wealth. Farm exports, for example, are expected to reach $47 billion in 2018-19. Cotton exports are forecast to rise by a huge 18 per cent, to $2 billion, thanks to world consumption outpacing world production, lifting prices. Wool exports are expected to increase by nine per cent, to $4.7 billion, as limited growth in the world supply of fine and superfine wool lifts prices. Lamb exports are also forecast to rise, by 10 per cent, to $2.3 billion. The value of beef and veal exports is forecast to increase by two per cent, to $7.8 billion. I note that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics is forecasting a rise in 2018-19 in the total value of farm production, to $61 billion—well above the 10-year average. The point is that agriculture and primary production are fundamental to our economy. Those figures that I've just recounted are made even more extraordinary given the very difficult times that many of our farmers are facing at the moment. So this is an extraordinary story of resilience.

Many farmers in my area are hurting badly because of the drought that is biting across the region. Whilst some areas have had some rain in recent times, many areas, including those regarded as traditionally safe, have simply missed out and they've only had a few mils, even just over the past month. There are heartbreaking stories out there of how our proud farmers are struggling under these awful conditions. As the drought has bitten harder, we, as a nation and also as MPs, need to be ramping up this drought support to support them. If you look at what's happening and the outlook, it's very grim. The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources recently visited Calare and we stood in a field, a paddock, which had a crop in the ground, but the germination was only about 30 per cent; it was very poor. And that's one of the better stories in the area! We met with farmers. We heard their concerns. They asked him to act and to help, and that's what we should be doing—helping the farming sector. It's not just crops. It's those running livestock. All of them have difficult times. As I said, some of the stories are really heartbreaking, simply because it hasn't rained.

A number of us here have been trying to get the drought support ramped up, and that's why I was very pleased to see that the farm household allowance has been extended for another year to support our farmers when they don't have money for food on the table, the day-to-day necessities of life, diesel. When they can't afford it, the farm household allowance is there. It provides around $530 to $580 per fortnight for singles and just under $1,000 a fortnight for couples, but it can help get people through. It comes with counselling as well. You can't underestimate the importance of it. The period in which you can get the allowance has been extended from three years to four years, and that reflects the fact that this drought is really biting. The drought has been going on for seven years in some parts of Queensland, and many people have already accessed the farm household allowance. So that is positive. I noted also that the coalition government recently boosted funding for the Rural Financial Counselling Service to more than $70 million from 1 April 2016 to 30 June 2020. That's an extra $20.4 million. Again, it is really important to support them. Of course, as the season worsens, and it is worsening, there will be a need to ramp up support again, because the reality is that many farmers haven't sown anything. There's nothing in the ground. They haven't turned a wheel. As I mentioned at the outset of this address, those that have put a crop in the ground are seeing some very poor germination—you're seeing some very stressed crops, as we saw with the minister for agriculture. It's vitally important that we get this assistance to farmers and that we ramp it up, because you just get the feeling that things are going to get a whole lot worse.

That's why I was pleased also to see the announcement of the Regional Investment Corporation, or RIC as it's known to its many friends. I note the presence in the chamber of the member for New England. He's the father of the Regional Investment Corporation. That organisation exists to provide support through concessional loans for farmers in drought, and it has a $2 billion loan book. It's really important to have an organisation like that be decentralised to an area like the Central West, where the farmers are, so it can get out amongst the farmers, find out what they need and get the help to where it's needed most. It is disappointing that it was delayed in the Senate for so long by those opposite and by people like the Liberal Democrats and the Australian Conservatives.

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Andrew Gee (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They opposed it. They didn't want this important organisation that supports our farmers to come into existence. It's not just going to support concessional loans—there's $2 billion for that—but there's another $2 billion for federal water infrastructure.

It is really important if you're going to have a facility like this that it's run and administered properly and that it's actually out where the farmers are, where they need the help. Our farmers are doing an extraordinary job in really difficult circumstances. Some are buying fodder in. Some are agisting. Each have their own different strategies to cope with it. One of my constituents, Philip Blowes from Yeoval, for example, has taken a different approach. He's actually growing barley sprouts in a shed not too far away from his house. He grows them on a cycle. They take a few days to mature, and once they get to 10 or 15 centimetres high he takes the sprouts out and feeds the sheep. I've been out with him feeding the sheep. It's a great source of nutrition, it's very effective and it's cheaper than getting fodder in. That's just one example of a resilient farmer, a farmer who has found an innovative way to deal with the drought situation. It's not a new concept, but he's taken it and refined it.

When you look at farmers like that you know that the future of agriculture is bright, but they're still going to need help. We still need to help them get through this so that this sector is vibrant and continues to be the bedrock of the Australian economy. We can't do without agriculture. Once this drought passes we're going to have to rebuild, but, for the moment, it's a question of getting through and helping our farmers get through, and they need all the help that they can get. These measures that have been announced recently are a really good start but, as I have said, this situation looks grim. The season is worsening and, as it worsens, we need to ramp up drought support.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for this motion?

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia's farmers are facing a shocking, terrible and protracted drought, and I join with all members contributing to this debate in expressing my sympathy and support for them, many of whom are now going into their eighth year of drought. These are very difficult times for our farmers and our farming families. But what farmers and farming families need much more than our sympathy or even our empathy, as those in this place who are involved in primary production themselves know, is a coherent, long-term drought policy—a strategy from government which recognises the fact that drought can no longer be treated as an abnormal event which comes along from time to time. The climate is changing—tonight is not the time to have a debate about what's causing the change. Every primary producer I speak to believes that it is changing, and it's changing in a way which will continue to make farming more difficult for both our producers and our growers, and that includes my vignerons, who talk to me about the changing conditions all the time.

This motion does a few things. It tells us that Australia is in drought. I think we knew that. It tells us that farming families make a significant contribution to the economy. I think we knew that. It tells us that the Prime Minister went on a drought tour. We knew that, too, because it met its objectives. It got a pretty good run on the news for a few nights in a row—there were a few selfies and a few smiles for the camera. The drought tour didn't include the Hunter, but the Prime Minister did travel to his ranch in the Upper Hunter to feed his cattle with very expensive and high-quality cottonseed before flying out, at taxpayers' expense, to face the real drought-stricken farmers in western New South Wales and Queensland. But we knew about the tour. We don't think that, after five years, the Prime Minister needed a drought tour to learn that farmers are struggling in drought and that the government needs to do more. The motion, of course, talks about the extension of the farm household allowance. We don't have a problem with that. We'll be supporting it, but we'll be asking some important questions. The member for Calare says that this motion acknowledges that this assistance will help the nation's farmers. Well, it can do no harm.

But the really interesting thing about this motion is that it highlights division—division between, for example, the new Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and other members of the Nationals. I welcome the fact that, during the drought tour, at least the minister for agriculture was prepared to talk about the changing climate, the need to build resilience, the need to encourage adaptation and the need to ensure that farmers have a business model that is sustainable in a changing climate. But when you have a look at the member for Calare's motion, there's nothing about climate, nothing about resilience, nothing about adaptation and nothing about changing business models. Next we'll hear from the member for New England. We're waiting and wondering whether the member for New England is going to be on the minister's side and talk about resilience, adaptation and climate or whether he's going to back in the member for Calare, who did anything but talk about climate, adaptation and resilience. I'll be sticking around to have a bit of a listen. If I was a betting man I'd reckon he'd be with the member for Calare. I don't know whether the minister can count, but this is becoming a very, very interesting dynamic within the coalition.

Back in 2012, something very historic happened. The states and the Commonwealth agreed, with the support of the National Farmers' Federation, the coalition in this parliament and other farm groups, that we needed to revisit the way we treat drought. We entered into an intergovernmental agreement, which started from scratch. The agreement comes to an end on 1 July, which is this week, and in those intervening five years we were supposed to have developed together a coherent drought policy together which recognised changing circumstances. We have not done that; this government has not done that. That is a great disappointment, and it will be an ongoing disappointment to farmers right around the country.

Extending the farm household allowance won't be a bad thing, but it won't change much, and the Regional Investment Corporation is a joke. It's got no site, it's got no CEO, it's got no staff and it's a waste of money—a terrible waste. (Time expired)

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it's really important, having just heard from the Labor Party, that we summarise what they had to say. What they had to say to the people on the land was: 'Tough luck. We've got nothing for you. Tough luck.' They talk about their belief that there's ongoing resilience, that there is something anathema about trying to help people out in a tough situation. Every day the commuters in Sydney are helped out to the extent that we cover about 30 per cent of their costs from the tickets that we sell them, but we believe we should do that to keep cars off the road because we believe it is a public good. Well, it's also a public good to keep farmers on the land. It is definitely a public good to keep farmers on the land.

I'm proud of what our government has done with the Regional Investment Corporation, a multibillion dollar organisation set up to assist people on the land. I think that shows that we actually do have a vision for people on the land—like when we changed the criteria for farm household allowance. When I got the portfolio, there was only, I think, about 350 people who got farm household allowance. By the time we had finished, it was around about 6,000 people that had access to it. That's because we changed the criteria. It's like why the concessional loans were hardly ever given out by the Labor Party. I looked at the figures today and it's getting to about $850 million that we've given out in concessional loans.

Yes, there is always more we can do. I commend the government for extending farm household allowance, because it basically keeps dignity in the house, and it keeps the wolves from the door, by allowing them the money to keep up with the chemist bill, keep up with basic grocery items, and keep dignity in that house. That is what we are supposed to do. I don't quite know what the Labor Party was offering. I've never heard them go to the dispatch box and offer what they are going to give people in a time of drought. I listen to their budget speeches and I can never hear them talk about people on the land. I can never hear what their vision is for people on the land. What I can say is that the extension—and it's an uncapped scheme—to farm household allowance allows further dignity.

But there is more that not only the federal government can do—we should always be driving for what they can do—but also state governments. Freight subsidies have overwhelmingly been something the state governments have been supposed to cover. Freight subsidies are supposed to be covered by state governments. I noted what the New South Wales state government has done. I commend them for their $50,000 seven-year interest-free loan. I did look at the criteria. I do think it's going to be very hard for some people to get eligibility for it. But really their role is in freight subsidies.

Of course, the only thing that fixes droughts in the end is rain. If we say that what we are going to do is devise policies that somehow make it rain in Australia, then I'm going to be the first one to vote for that. By God, I will vote for that one. But I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think there is a policy that makes it rain. I think there is a policy that assists people in drought. And drought deals with the vagaries of the climate, and that's why farming businesses are different. If you had other businesses in town and said, 'This corner shop will work very well when it rains and not very well when it doesn't', I think people would say that is a pretty precarious business. But we need people on the land, because people on the land produce the primary source of wealth, which from that point goes forward and becomes a secondary source of wealth, and then a tertiary form of wealth.

We are a nation that makes so much of our wealth from what goes on the ground and what comes out of the ground. We don’t have Toyotas and we don't have people manufacturing televisions. Overwhelmingly, our primary source of wealth and the big export earners come from what is going on the ground and what comes out of the ground. Therefore, it is in our national interest to keep those people on the land.

I want to make sure that we have a nation where farming families, Australian farming families, are the overwhelming owners of the Australian asset. I don't want to live in a world where it is one big corporate farm owned by somebody overseas. I don't. I want to make sure we keep that national goal. I don't know what economic theorem that says I ascribe to, but I think it ascribes to a theorem and a belief in our country. Just like we need Australian families, mums and dads, who are the overwhelming owners of the suburban house on the suburban street, we must always be prescribing policy that keeps mums and dads as the overwhelming owners of the Australian rural asset. That is probably what drove me into politics, what drove the member for Mallee into politics and what drove the member for McMillan into politics. I don't think that vision is old-fashioned. I think that issue will reside with the coalition as long as we have people who have come from the land.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In parts of my electorate of Paterson, people are struggling. They are struggling to recover from what was, by many accounts, one of the harshest summers in living memory. Vegetable farmers were unable to grow crops due to hot and arid conditions, tanks were bone dry, and salinity levels in the depleted Hunter River and others made irrigation impossible. Beef farmers were forced to handfeed and spend exorbitant amounts of time and money on water cartage to prevent stock deaths due to dehydration. The livelihood of our milk producers was further threatened by the unavailability of water, which made sanitation in their dairies incredibly difficult and, in some instances, impossible. Carefully crafted bloodlines of prize beasts were unceremoniously sent to the slaughterhouses because it was financially impossible for farmers to keep them alive. In Paterson, we may have had some decent rain since the soaring mercury in the summer months, yet we still have many thousands of animals relying on handfeeding, as we know that the winter grass doesn't have the sugar content of the summer grass. The situation is ongoing.

In other parts of the country, there is no respite in sight. In fact, we've seen properties and communities in New South Wales and Queensland that have been paralysed by drought for seven years. Even if this drought breaks tomorrow, we live in an age of uncertainty. The ever-evolving challenge of climate change and the volatility of our weather patterns will ensure many unknowns remain. Even farmers that have seen the vagaries of the weather over many decades have said to me, 'I've never seen it like this, Meryl; I've never seen it like this.' This government hasn't lifted its finger in five years to give them a hand—and the former agriculture minister skulks out of this chamber.

I place on the parliamentary record my anger at the inaction by prime ministers Turnbull and Abbott, and ministers for agriculture and water resources Joyce and now Littleproud, for the unacceptable and indeed unforgiveable amount of time it has taken to act. It really is not good enough. The Turnbull government could have eased the suffering of many, many farming families across our nation years ago, and instead it has stood by and ceremoniously hand-wrung, and not much else. They went on this tour, this selfie tour, of parts of drought affected Australia. They didn't come to my electorate of Paterson. I congratulate them on extending the farm household assistance for another 12 months, but it is a small sticking plaster on a gaping wound that is our farming community, who need something much better.

The scenes the Prime Minister and his entourage witnessed were not new. These aren't new scenes. As my esteemed colleague the member for Hunter pointed out, a listening tour at that point in the drought cycle was just ridiculous. There was nothing new left to learn. We've learnt the lessons. We've known for decades what goes on in drought, but what we don't know is how it has changed and accelerated the way it has. This government has had five years, through the SCoPI process, to supposedly put in place things that will help farmers decide if they can make a living off the land, if they need to be doing other things and retraining, if they can drought-proof their properties over the long term. This government has decided: 'No, no, we haven't done any of that in five years. The big-ticket item is extending the farm household assistance measures for an extra 12 months.' It will be welcome, as the member for New England said, to keep the wolves from the door for another 12 months, but it certainly doesn't help the fact that the wolves have been killing the herd for many years and we've just stood by and let it happen. It is nothing more than an eleventh hour photo opportunity, and really this government should be hanging its head in shame.

The Intergovernmental Agreement on National Drought Program Reform expires on 18 July. I ask you: did this government need to wait until this agreement was expiring to do something? No, it should have been doing something over the last five years. And this mob hold themselves up to our rural and regional communities as some beacon of understanding of farming. I tell you what: my family goes back generations in farming as well, and they can absolutely see that this government has not done the right thing by farmers. You're all talk and no action on farming, and that is the great disgrace. You've had five years to do something meaningful and instead you've stood around and done nothing. You haven't even put the architecture in place to set people up for the next five years.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the next speaker, I issue a general reminder to members, firstly, to address all remarks through the chair and, secondly, to refer to members by their correct titles.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I actually believe in the agricultural industry, and I'm not going to talk it down. I actually see farmers out there making a lot of money. Profit is actually not a 'bad word' in the agricultural sector. I've farmed through droughts. I bought my farm after shearing, having saved a deposit at 22 and borrowed $400,000. It took a bit of convincing for the bank to lend me the money. Can I also point out that I'd saved a heap of money, and, when I bought my first farm, all that money that I saved went in stamp duty to the Victorian government. So, when people talk about farming, it's very easy to be abstract and claim family heritage, but it's a very different thing to live it. It's a very different thing to actually go through a drought.

I do want to say that the first thing you can do to help the farming sector is keep out of their way. Let them run their businesses. Let them expand. Let them do the best they can. Most farmers I talk to would rather the government does very little except build decent roads and create better market opportunities. Do you know that the one thing that has helped our agriculture more than anything is the market opportunities? I'll explain that. Whilst those on the other side might scoff, it would be interesting for them to listen to this. In 1992 we were exporting to 12 countries with sheepmeat. When we couldn't find a market, when things were difficult, we finished up having to shoot sheep. I've done it, and it's very, very disheartening. All through the 'hat-trick drought' years, in 2006, 2007 and 2008, we were still able to sell sheep for very good money, and the reason was that we had opened the market opportunities to 96 countries with sheepmeat. And it is a combination of strong governments on both sides who pushed very hard to try and keep market access open.

I want to touch on this, because this leads into a bit of the discussion going on in Western Australia at the moment, where there are 60,000 sheep sitting in a port. There are some who would seek to ban live exports. In contrast, when I was in Ethiopia three weeks ago, we met with the Ethiopian foreign minister, and we were trying to get airfreight links between the capital of Ethiopia and Perth. People ask, 'How are these two issues related?' I want to run through it because it's very, very relevant. The reason live exports have dropped significantly in Victoria and the other east coast states is that, when you slaughter a sheep now, there is greater utilisation of the carcass. The hearts, the livers and those sorts of things are airfreighted, usually in the body of an Emirates airlines plane, to the Middle East, and, because of that, we're able to get a better market. In contrast, I have been trying to open up market opportunities so we have better airfreight links out of Perth, which could develop the domestic market in Perth. The Labor Party, under Joel, is pushing to put in a complete ban and shut that down.

That is the contrast: opening up those market opportunities made the difference. That is the one thing that helped. More than farm household support, more than any rate subsidy, what helped farmers throughout that dry time was the market opportunities. If I look at the prosperity that is currently being experienced across the Wimmera Mallee, it is because of the free trade agreements with China, with Korea—

An honourable member: It's because we got rain.

Well, it hasn't rained in my patch yet; it's rained in the southern part. But we got Korea, China, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Japan, and those free trade agreements have opened up greater opportunities. So to say the government has done nothing in this space is a very short-term view of what the role of the federal government is, which is to ensure our biosecurity, ensure we minimise the cost of getting our products to the market and ensure we open up market opportunities. In doing those things, you ultimately create wealth for rural communities and wealth for farmers. There are times when you have difficult seasonal conditions, and I think it is fair and reasonable that there should be farm household support. Essentially, a person would normally receive some Centrelink benefits if they were unemployed. In this case, a person has a land asset, but that land asset hasn't earned anything. Even though they've got an asset, they haven't earned anything, so they too are entitled to a Centrelink benefit to keep the groceries on table. It's a very logical thing.

There are things that government should do. We should simmer down a little bit, stop talking down the agricultural industry, stop yelling abuse at one another and think about what actually worked in the droughts and what helped us, which was opening up market opportunities, removing inhibitors of freight and saying that we believed agriculture had a strong future.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call on the next speaker, I once again remind the chamber to refer to members by their correct titles. I indicate that, if it does happen in a future contribution, I will need to ask you to restate it.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence Industry and Support) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the members who have preceded me—the member for Hunter and the member for Paterson—who highlighted exactly what this motion is all about: drought conditions. I fully accept what the member for Mallee has said about market improvements for agriculture. I don't disagree with any of that, but we are talking about drought. When I look at drought policy, I see a landscape of five years of waste and abandonment by the coalition government. We conducted a Productivity Commission study that went to the heart of the problem with the exceptional circumstances regime: the efficiency of providing drought support. This is not something we can turn our back on and say, 'The market will see us through this,' because drought conditions are becoming more severe and more frequent. It's not only that; it's the unpredictability of weather systems.

My family has been dairy farming in my region for 170 years. My great-great-grandfather founded the Bega Cheese co-op and was its first chairman. The Dairy Industry Association was absolutely livid about the decentralisation policy under which the APVMA moved to New England, destroying the agency's capability. We've heard Senate evidence that it has been hindered for at least another seven years while it tries to recover from the loss of 30 per cent of its scientists and most of its staff. It was completely unnecessary sabotage of agriculture in an area where we need research to help adapt to drought conditions and climate change. That's where the effort has to be—in the science and assistance that we apply to this issue—and that is exactly what the Productivity Commission highlighted. They said that exceptional circumstances 'do not help farmers improve their self-reliance, preparedness and climate change management'.

We put in place a COAG process involving the setting up of primary industry standing committees and standing councils. They were dismantled by the coalition, so no progress was made on developing a federation-wide approach to drought policy. It was really unfortunate. We've lost so much time—nearly six years now. This adaptation is the real issue. We've heard talk about the Regional Investment Corporation. We're looking at loans to farmers, which they have to pay back. Building on what the member for Mallee's comments underline, what farmers need is self-sufficiency. We need policy platforms that support that.

We talked about export. Another area the coalition destroyed was our regimes around supporting and getting live export on a more sound footing. Our inspector-general regime was one of those matters that were going to give certainty to the supply chain. That has been dismantled by the member for New England. That has put us back to square one. Every time one of these incidents happens with live exports, butchers tell me that the meat market goes through the floor. People stop eating meat when they see these terrible images. They react terribly to these shocking circumstances. That was another mistake. We've also seen what has been happening with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. There are issues there around water efficiency and how that improves the situation of farmers in drought. There are so many issues that our farmers need to start adopting because of drought conditions, such as drip irrigation and the like.

When we're talking about dealing with this challenge of drought and climate change, one of the most important policy initiatives of the previous government was the carbon farming initiative. This was going to allow farmers to diversify their income base and adopt strategies that address climate change. It was also going to help sequester carbon in the landscape and improve the health of soils. We saw what was possible out of that: the long-term answer to some of the techniques of no-till farming, stubble management and the like; improving hydration of the landscape through some of the natural sequence farming theories; and also the wave of regenerative farming options that we're seeing farmers adopt. In my region, we had a fantastic meeting of farmers at Yass recently. In particular, a wonderful farmer down in the Cooma region, Charles Massey, who has a PhD, presented so many great suggestions for regenerative farming. That's what we need to do: have policy that gets behind our farmers to help them adapt. My Monaro Farming Systems crew worked with CSIRO to have a modelling tool for their properties that gives them the ability to plan over a 50-year cycle, using their grass-grow modelling technique.

Sound policy on dealing with climate change and sound policy to make farmers more efficient will see them through droughts of the future. What we're seeing is this government absolutely turning its back on those critical policy areas.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks, I can understand why you got a little bit confused in calling me—there's no government speaker left to speak on this motion, which they put forward. I want to note that, again, it is the members of the Labor Party who are standing up to speak up for agriculture and for our farmers, particularly on the very important topic of drought declared parts of rural Australia.

I reiterate the comments that my colleagues have made and say how disappointed I am that all the government have done is extend the farm household allowance from three years to four years. That's all the government have done. For all of their whirlwind tours, for all of their listening and for all of their media ops, all they've done is extend the farm household allowance from three years to four years!

In some ways, you kind of expected the government to extend it, because it was so diabolical in the first year. It was such a struggle for farmers who were affected by drought to get access to the allowance that it's really not a surprise. In some ways, maybe the government are making up for the damage they did early on. Why were there problems? The government, on coming to office, cut funding to financial counsellors in the regions. I lost the financial counselling office in my electorate of Bendigo. They did a review and amalgamated, and people lost their jobs—people who had helped farmers access this allowance. We've also seen the government scrap an intergovernmental agreement to look at long-term drought reform, which was created by the Labor government through the COAG process. All the government do is put a bandaid on the problem. Labor sits down with the states, through a coordinated process and says, 'Let's talk about long-term drought reform. Let's work out a plan that has milestones, funding and arrangements in it.'

As I've travelled around the country, I've met lots of farmers in rural and regional Australia. Farmer after farmer has told me that the climate is changing. They've told me they believe in climate change and that they want to work with policymakers, with local, state and federal government representatives on a proper program of reform.

We know our farmers are innovative. Many have jumped in; they are trying to diversify their industries. They're looking at online businesses—if they can get access to the NBN. They are looking at how they can grow and diversify their market so if they don't put a crop into the ground, because of drought, they do have another income. I've met with farmers who've leased part of their land for solar parks or for wind parks—another way in which they're trying to offset the income they will lose as a result of drought.

But what we've seen from the government, for all their talking, is just another bandaid—an extension of the farm household allowance from three years to four years. Of course Labor's going to support that, because it's the very least the government could do. There's no long-term plan on how we're going to transition. There's no commitment whatsoever to restoring the COAG intergovernmental agreement on drought reform. That is something that the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and the Prime Minister could do: reverse the mistakes of their predecessors and restore that process so our farmers and our farming communities can engage with scientists, can engage with the funding and can work on ways to droughtproof for the future.

A couple of speakers have mentioned the Regional Investment Corporation and commented that the previous agriculture minister was its father. Well, he is a very disappointing father when it comes to the Regional Investment Corporation. Many of you will know that last week the Regional Investment Corporation met in a park. They don't even have an office! They didn't even get to meet in a McDonald's, like staff from another diabolical decentralisation project of this government did. They met in a park on a park bench, because they don't have a location. This is an organisation that is supposed to be responsible for funding. It is a corporation. It is taking jobs and money and business from the Bendigo Bank, which is responsible for rural finance in my electorate, and, rather than it happening in Bendigo Bank—an accredited financial institution in this country—it's occurring on a park bench.

To the father of RIC: well done! To this government: well done for again putting at risk our farmers, the farming industry and farm finance! This government needs to do more for our farmers, and it need to do more to tackle the effects of drought and look at long-term drought reform.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As there are no further speakers. the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.