Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the opposition for their attempt to give me 15 minutes tomorrow, and I thank the government for giving me 12 minutes tonight. I remain confused. I can tell you the previous speaker from Victoria—the dairying state—did not know that it was his state that instituted milk marketing and it worked there for nearly 100 years. That's an exaggeration; it was about 70 years. Mr Kennett, the Premier of Victoria, deregulated the milk market into Melbourne, so that all they could get in Victoria was the world price for milk. Did people get cheaper milk in Melbourne? No, of course they didn't. Woolworths and Coles sold it at almost the same price, so they achieved absolutely nothing in terms of consumer benefit, but what happened to the farmers? They went down on their knees. But because they were getting around 40c and New South Wales and Queensland were getting 60c, they said, 'Righto, we want this whole minimum price scheme abolished so we can go across the border and get 60c.' They went across the border and they didn't even get 40c because they were in a deregulated marketplace. And a deregulated marketplace where there are only two buyers—effectively, the two supermarket giants—is what I was taught at university is an oligopoly or a duopoly. It's very, very bad indeed for the sellers, and, of course, it's not very good for the people they sell to either.

So we had Mr McEwen, the founder of the Country Party, establishing the milk marketing scheme for Australia and here is his so-called follower standing in this place and saying, 'It'll never work,' after it worked for 70 years. The only reason it stopped working was that Mr Kennett deregulated the milk market into Melbourne, and it's extraordinary to me that a person out of Victoria would not know this. Then they wanted to come across the border. Of course, having had their own industry destroyed, they wanted to destroy ours. They had the numbers and they voted for deregulation. The rest of us and my area were on 59c the day before deregulation and we were on 41c the day after. We had around 230 or 240 dairy farmers before the deregulation was announced. After the deregulation, within about 10 years, we had 39 farmers. I'll repeat that slowly. We had 240 farmers all making a good living. After deregulation, we had 39 farmers. And a lot of those people exited the industry in the most tragic way possible, of course.

Now, who is to blame for this? Is it the dairy farmers? Have they done anything wrong? Is it the people that were buying the milk—have they done anything wrong? Is it Woolworths and Coles who were trying to maximise profits for their shareholders? No, they've done nothing wrong. So, who's got it wrong? The government of Australia, the government of Victoria and the government of Queensland—they've got it wrong. They were the ones that did it.

The only bad guys in this are the Liberal Party, the Labor Party and, to their eternal shame, the National Party. Jack McEwen would turn in his grave. Doug Anthony, whose daddy did exactly the same with the bananas, would turn in his grave if he thought the party that they created and established was now the party of deregulation, smashing to pieces the great edifices that were built.

I was in a state of shock when the Labor Party moved from the price scheme because they'd been anything but innocent in this deregulation. Whilst Mr McEwen was the father of statutory marketing, Mr Keating was the father of the destruction of statutory marketing and the destruction of agriculture in this nation.

We're here to talk about drought, and there seems to be an element of hypocrisy if you represent anywhere in the Murray-Darling Basin because it's totally represented by the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party who all voted for a 28 per cent reduction in the water. I hope that, if in my area I voted for a 28 per cent reduction in the water in the Mareeba irrigation area, they would tar and feather me, and hang me. I hope that would happen, but it would never happen so long as I've got breath in my soul. I'd never sell my people out and destroy them to please a bunch of ratbag greenies, destroying the people who created this country and the greatness of this country, and who wouldn't know a tree from a billy goat. None of them would know a tree from a billy goat.

So, the Murray-Darling cutbacks: in Victoria they claim, 'Oh, if we reinstituted the Murray scheme, it would only really help those people selling fresh milk in the fresh milk market.' Well, the average Victorian farmer for that 20 per cent that goes into the fresh milk market was worth $140,000 per farmer per year if it was restored—if there was a McEwen or a Doug Anthony out there, it would have been restored. God help the Liberal Party who tried to destroy any of those marketing schemes that saw us get prosperity in the sugar industry, prosperity in the dairy industry, prosperity in the egg industry, and we've watched the complete destruction of agriculture in this country to a point where most of the last 15 years we've been a net importer of fruit and vegetables. You have that galoot who is leading the National Party in this place, wandering around with his hat on saying, 'Oh, we will be the food bowl of Asia.' Listen, imbecile, you will be the begging bowl of Asia. If you can't market aggressively—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy will withdraw that remark.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw that remark, Mr Deputy Speaker. We're talking about drought. I mean, there's one answer to drought—only one answer to drought—and that is to get some water, put it on the ground and grow some grass. I'm going to emphasise here the grazing industry rather than the cropping industry. So, the only answer to drought, which scourged this country as we know for 200 years—and I suspect for 20,000 or 30,000 years—is to put some water on the ground to make grass grow.

The only place we have a reliable water supply is north of the line, and the Prime Minister of Australia said, 'Where is the line?' I said, 'From Tennant Creek through Mount Isa to Charters Towers and Mackay. North of that line your rivers and creeks run every year.' I speak with great authority because my own family has lived on the Cloncurry River, some 400 or 500 kilometres from the sea, for 130 years that I know of. Judging from my dark complexion, I suspect a hell of a lot longer—and I'm very proud of the fact too. It has run every single year in white man's history—400 kilometres—and our annual rainfall is 14 inches in Cloncurry. But, because it all comes within a month or two months, the river runs every year. Every year we get the monsoons. Every year our rivers and creeks run. Every single one of them runs. For a large proportion of my life, I owned 250,000 acres of North Queensland, and with a partner we owned 500,000 acres, and the rivers and creeks ran every single year. So all you have to do is just hold a little bit of that water back—because that's all you can hold back with the vast floods that we have every year—spread it out and grow grass.

For the first time in my life I see—sorry, I take that back because the much-maligned Malcolm Fraser government and the much-maligned Bjelke-Petersen government launched the great and visionary Bradfield Scheme to turn inland Australia into 'a garden of flowers'. That was the expression that John Crew Bradfield used to describe what was going to happen in Central Australia. Please, God, if Hells Gates is built the way it should be built, that's Bradfield stage 1. But today we stand up and say to the government: 'Hold a little bit of that water back.' We're not farmers; we're cattlemen. Cattle walk around on the grass and they eat the grass. That's what we're going to do. If you have a bad drought, it will pay us not to have the cattle walking around and eating the grass. We'll cut the grass and feed it in troughs and we can carry 20 times more cattle. If your cattle or your sheep are hungry, send them up to us in the bad times, because it will pay us to cut the grass and trough-feed the cattle. There is your answer to drought. When it rains back in New South Wales, you take them back home again. So we have the answers. If North Queensland were a separate country, it would be the wettest country on earth—wetter than Brazil or any other country. We have miles of water, but the trouble is we don't have rivers. We have a flood and then we have a series of waterholes. All we're saying is: harvest a little bit of the flood and hold it back.

On the reconstruction board on debt, my son, the member of parliament for North-West Queensland, in the state parliament, headed the committee that went all over the state. I went to four of those meetings. At every meeting, every farmer stood up and said, 'We want no more debt.' I speak with authority because I was the minister responsible for the state bank in Queensland. We borrowed about $700 million. We borrowed it at about two or three per cent and we loaned it to farmers at two or three per cent. It didn't cost anything. We just got the interest from them and paid it to the banks. We borrowed the money; we took the mortgages. This is the critical point: we took the mortgages. We were not prepared to risk the taxpayers' money. We took the mortgages. So, if they went broke, we foreclosed, and we did foreclose on about five per cent of them. We brought the entire sugar industry through. Not only did we not lose money but we made about $200 million profit because, three years later, the price went up, as it always does. It's cyclical as in other industries. We went back to 8½ per cent interest and we made about $200 million out of it. The government will not go to a reconstruction board approach, which puts no government money in jeopardy. The farmer, who might owe a million dollars and pays $80,000 a year in interest and repayments is suddenly paying $10,000, and he can get through. With a family assistance package, the good ones can get through. The bad ones should be out of the industry anyway. That's what happened.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business, that the debate now be adjourned, be agreed to.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Hunter has moved an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Andrew Gee (Calare, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Future Drought Fund Bill 2019. Drought relief and dealing with the devastating effects of drought is the top priority of our electorate of Calare in the Central West of New South Wales. Backing our agricultural sector is vital for Australia's economic future and vital for Australia's food security. This bill is all about backing the future of agriculture in Australia. It will help build resilience in the farming sector. It will help farmers recover from drought but also build preparedness and resilience for future droughts. It will grow to be a $5 billion fund with $100 million drawn down every year.

Because this bill is so important to the future of agriculture in this country, I am astounded that the opposition continues to oppose it. They are playing politics with it. We have heard from the farming organisations, like the NFF, and we have heard from local farmers. They want this bill passed into law, and they want the politics taken out of it. I ask those opposite: haven't you learnt anything from the recent federal election? You can dress it up anyway you like, but at the end of the day you are opposing drought relief for stressed farmers all over New South Wales and all over Australia.

The opposition went to the last poll opposing drought relief for farmers. They opposed decentralisation, like moving the Regional Investment Corporation to Orange; opposed concessional loans to farmers and opposed water infrastructure for farmers. They went along with the ACTU's proposal to scrap, abolish and dismantle the working holiday visa scheme. They tried to steal the retirement savings from retired farmers and retirees all over Australia. All of it was rejected at the polls. This government took this policy to the polls. It was the policy of building this Future Drought Fund to help prepare our farmers and country communities for future drought. There is a mandate for it, and it should be respected by the opposition.

I think the issue here is that those opposite have been playing to the inner Green constituency. They have lost focus on what they are here for and who they are supposed to be representing. They have betrayed working families, they have betrayed farmers, they have betrayed miners and they have betrayed workers, retirees and aspirational investors. In fact, they have offended and betrayed just about everyone in the regions in some way. They insulted country communities by opposing this bill before the election and they insult country communities now by their continued opposition to it and the playing of petty politics. If you want an example of pretty politics, you only have to look at the amendments moved by the member for Hunter. So juvenile are they in nature that it says everything that you need to know about the opposition and the fact that they have learnt nothing from this election. The member for Hunter should know better after what happened in his seat. Those opposite have insulted country communities. They have insulted farming communities, farmers and businesses all over country Australia. They continue to do that now by their opposition to and the playing of petty politics with such an important issue.

In my inaugural speech, I spoke about the great divide between the city and the bush, which exists in so many ways. The opposition continues to feed that great divide and the ignorance of what lies beyond the Great Dividing Range. Their opposition to this bill sends the message that that side of politics doesn't support farmers or drought relief. It sends a terrible message to the rest of Australia, and it feeds the ignorance. It feeds the great divide. It feeds the ignorance that nourishes the vegan activists and the farm invasions.

I remember when this bill came before the House in February that it was the member for Hunter who told farmers all over Australia that they needed to be surfing the currents of activism. Again, that was a betrayal of the people of the bush. That is evidence that those opposite have lost focus of who they are supposed to be representing and what they are supposed to be doing here. People in country Australia want results. They need help. They need relief from this drought. I say to those opposite: stop playing the petty politics, lift the debate and support this bill. Let's do something together.

The sad reality is that there are huge numbers of people who live in cities and have no idea where their food comes from. They think that produce just magically appears on the shelves of supermarkets, and little thought is given to the hard work of those who put it there and make it happen. This is a time when the whole parliament needs to unite on such a vital national issue. We all need to be standing with farmers in a united, national show of support. Yet, when given the opportunity, those opposite insult country communities. Make no mistake, they can rationalise it anyway they want. They can try to dress it up any way they want. But, at the end of the day, they are opposing drought support for drought-stricken farmers and drought-stricken country communities.

There are a huge number of good things happening in country Australia, even though these are very difficult times. There are community groups pulling together. There are people passing the hat around. Just one example is the Rotary Club of Rylstone-Kandos. That club has been taking donations from Rotary Clubs from all over New South Wales. For example, they've taken thousands of dollars from the Rotary Club of Newcastle Enterprise, the club from Walacia-Mulgoa Valley and the Rotary Club of Ku-ring-gai. They've taken community donations. They've raised $12,000 themselves. The Rotary Club of Rylstone-Kandos have worked with the Rotary Club of Mudgee to distribute this aid right across drought-stricken communities in their area. They've helped purchase household items and water deliveries. They've given vouchers to families through the local schools, for groceries and fuel.

I just wanted to acknowledge the Rotary Club of Rylstone-Kandos and community groups all over Australia who are pulling together in a show of community unity. I want to quickly mention the president, Klaus Keck; the vice president, David Fuller; Amanda Roach; Graham Jose; the Treasurer, Gary Oakes; the district governor, David Roach; Greg Bennett; and Wendy Williams. This is not unique. This is what's happening all over country Australia. (Quorum formed) I am glad that episode is being broadcast to the people of Australia, because I want them to know and hear and see the petty politics which is being played with this most vital of national issues. Country Australia is watching. Country Australia is listening. And they've had a gutful of it. This is a time when the nation should be uniting.

I was talking about the resilience of our country communities and how they're coming together. I draw the House's attention to the Lions Clubs of our district in Australia. There is Lions Club district 201N4 and their drought appeal. Anne Jones, the disaster alert chair, has been instrumental in raising money from all over Australia and the world. As of 30 June this year $1.3 million has been raised—they live just outside of Wellington—along with $700,000 worth of household items distributed through the local Lions Clubs. Her husband, Peter Perry, works with her and helps. They've had great support from the Wellington and Geurie Lions Club, including Christine Hardy and Karen McHale. Well done to all Lions involved. It's a great example of our communities pulling together. Compare such great community support—overwhelming community support and a desire to get our country communities through this drought—with the petty party politics which we've seen displayed on this bill in this House tonight. It's appalling. The national drought relief effort stands at over $7 billion. It is the largest drought relief effort in Australia's history. My fear is that this drought is going to continue for some years yet, so we need to prepare ourselves for that possibility and the possibility that the worst is yet to come. The Future Drought Fund is important because it helps prepare for the continuing effects of this drought and also future droughts. Drought support will need to be ramped up as conditions continue to deteriorate.

Again, I call on the opposition to put aside the petty, partisan politics and start backing our farmers and backing the bush. Stop playing the petty procedural games that have dogged this debate all afternoon and into the night. Our country communities want this bill passed. We need relief for farmers. The farmers are saying so and our farmers organisations are saying so, yet those opposite continue to try to block it with this petty, partisan political game playing. They should be better than that. This is a moment when our parliament should be better than that, but they are not rising to the occasion. Instead, we get these nonsensical and juvenile amendments put forward by the member for Hunter after he received a massive slap in the face from his own electorate. We've seen a very clear message sent from country communities and communities all over Australia—city and country—that those policies have been rejected. There is a mandate for this legislation and this fund. I commend it to the House, and I urge all members to get behind it and start supporting country Australia and farmers all over our great nation.

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

I'm pleased to speak on the Future Drought Fund Bill. This bill broadly mirrors the bill which passed the House earlier this year. I supported the bill then and I intend to support the bill again today. However, Centre Alliance has some concerns around the measures contained in this bill and we will reserve our position in the Senate, although I am pleased to continue talks with the minister in good faith while the bill has passage through this House and into the Senate.

Low rainfall and rising temperatures have already crept into my electorate, with dairy farmers struggling to meet the rising cost of water, yet at the same time apple growers in other parts of my electorate are being bombarded with fierce storms and face the prospect of another year, potentially, of damage from those storms. I fear that the drought, the unpredictable storms and the weather that we cannot predict will become the new normal as we march towards a future where climate is changing.

We need a nationally consistent approach to ensure that all primary producers are equipped to deal with the consequences of a changing climate. The government says that this Future Drought Fund is to be a long-term investment intended to build resilience, including preparedness and recovery, in drought-affected communities. It aims to provide support to research, development and innovation projects but will also deliver infrastructure projects and support to improve environmental and natural resource management, and I commend those aims. But to meet these aims, the bill will facilitate the transfer of $3.9 billion from the Building Australia Fund to the proposed Future Drought Fund. The Building Australia Fund provided the government with the opportunity to invest in critical infrastructure across the nation, including sustainable water infrastructure programs to encourage drought-resilient communities across Australia. My concern is that, while well-intentioned, the focus of the Future Drought Fund could perhaps be decidedly narrower, with a disproportionate focus on particular locations or electorates, and I don't think we want to see that.

It is expected that the Future Drought Fund will, under the guidance of the Future Fund Board of Guardians, grow to $5 billion over the next decade while at the same time making annual disbursements of around $100 million, with the first proposed to occur on 1 July 2020. While I commend the qualifications and experience required for the people who will be the part-time members of the Future Fund board, I also think it's really important that the members are geographically diverse across Australia. I do not want to see that board become a board of east coast members. It's important to remember that all parts of Australia experience drought, and all parts of Australia have agriculture as a significant part of their reason for being a state, essentially, including my electorate. I often hear in this place that people feel that New South Wales is the food bowl. Well, can I just say that my electorate of Mayo also considers itself to be a food bowl. We grow a variety of products, a variety of horticulture—

Damian Drum (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A variety of wines.

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

Yes, we do have wines, but we also have apples and cherries and strawberries. We also have a significant dairy industry that needs to be nurtured.

The disbursements will be made in accordance with yet to be published grant guidelines and consistent with amendments moved by the former member for Indi in the last parliament. Detailed information around the recipients and the projects will be published on the department's website. The projects must be consistent with the Drought Resilience Funding Plan. The plan is a high-level framework designed to guide the Future Drought Fund programs, and each plan will be in place for a period of four years.

I welcome this longer-term approach to drought and emergency management. For too long environmental management has been a litany of ad hoc policy decisions, which have served only to compound the challenges facing our farmers. What we need now more than ever is a long-term vision for drought resilience, prudent environmental management and for this government to show leadership and an attempt to tackle the root causes of climate change—something on which we don't yet have consensus across this parliament, which really is quite flabbergasting. Proper, sustained and recurrent funding for community environment groups would be a good start.

I accept that the development of drought resilience funding plans may be a step in the right direction, and I take some comfort from the fact that each Drought Resilience Funding Plan will be subject to an inquiry by the Productivity Commission to determine the effectiveness of each plan. I believe that this review is important. In circumstances where the government has foreshadowed its intention to disburse $100 million in drought projects each financial year, this is a fundamental requirement of good governance. We must ensure that the funds are going to the right people operating the right programs in the right areas.

Finally, I would like to thank the former member for Indi, Ms Cathy McGowan, for her amendments in the last bill, which then became part of the body of this bill. I'd also like to acknowledge the goodwill of government for including the amendments of the former member for Indi into this bill. I must say, when I reflect on her time in this place, she viewed every decision in this place through a regional lens of good governance and transparency in the parliament. The amendments being incorporated into this bill certainly go to the heart of accountable and transparent government and are reflective of the former member's sustained efforts to advance the interests of regional and rural communities across Australia. Thank you.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I get onto my substantive contribution to the debate, I'd just like to raise two matters. The first point is that I'll be moving a second reading amendment to add some words to the amendment moved by the member for Hunter. I raise that at the start because I understand that things are moving very quickly here, and I'm not sure whether copies have been made available yet.

The second point I want to make before I get onto the substance of my contribution is about the process tonight. I would have liked a chance to read this Future Drought Fund Bill before being asked to debate it and, potentially, vote on it. This is a bill talking about spending billions of dollars. For people talking about transparency to require us to now debate it and, potentially, vote on it tonight is appalling. And this bill was introduced into this House incorporating, we're told, some very important amendments. Those amendments, as the member for Mayo has set out, were negotiated by the former member for Indi, and, in general, we think those amendments are pretty good. We want the chance to work out whether or not those amendments are faithfully incorporated in this bill. I want the chance, as a member of parliament who is being asked to authorise the spending of several billion dollars, to go and test this bill—get people to have a look at it, get some input on it and then decide what my contribution is going to be. In that context, even as little as 24 hours would have been helpful. We could have done what usually is done, which is introduce a bill, give people 24 hours to reflect on it and then come back and vote on it if it is that urgent. But we don't have that.

The government and—I must say, with a heavy heart—some members of the crossbench have denied me and other members of the parliament the chance to fully read this bill and understand it. Instead, we're being forced to state a position on spending several billion dollars right here, right now, and that is not the way this place should be run. People who have waved the banner for transparency need to remember what has happened tonight and need to remember the process that has led us here, because now people who I didn't think would force me to have to vote on $5 billion have just joined with the government to force me to do that. I say that with a heavy heart because we should not be here in this situation. The government should not be doing that, and they're the ones who bear the main responsibility.

The way this place works is that conversations take place between people, including on the floor of parliament. Sometimes those conversations are free and frank, and it's good that they take place in a way that allows things to progress, because otherwise this place could get ground down. I haven't betrayed any confidences in my time here and I am not going to start now. But I do think it is important that this place knows that we on the crossbench were all told that this debate was going to finish at 7.30 pm. We were told that we would pull up stumps at 7.30 pm so that everyone could go through the usual processes and have a chance to consider their position on it so that we could come back tomorrow. No sooner were we told that by a very senior member of the government than the opposite happened, and that person knows who they are. That person knows who they are and that they came and told us we were going to pull up stumps at 7.30 pm, at the usual time, with the adjournment, and that's not what's happening. The debate is being pushed on.

There's a lesson in that for everyone here. There's a lesson in that for the crossbench. There's a lesson in that for the opposition. And that is that, when the government tell you that they're going to be fair on process, don't believe them for a second. The government had the opportunity to do that and they blew it. You might think, 'Oh, it doesn't matter; it's just the Greens.' Well, there's another place, called the Senate. Usually in this place, we can have discussions across the aisle, amongst each other, and agree to disagree. When someone tells you a process is going to happen and you're going to get the chance to consider a bill, you can usually take people at their word. Well, in week 2 of this parliament, I have learnt something very, very quickly. Don't take this government at their word when they tell you they are going to give you a chance to look at bills—because this is forcing the parliament to vote on spending $5 billion without the chance for any proper scrutiny at all. That in and of itself is reason for us all to be very, very concerned about what the next three years are going to look like. We should all be very concerned, after this afternoon, about the next three years, because what we have learned is that the government will say and do anything to win support for a particular vote and then renege on it within an hour—renege on it within an hour—to suit their purposes.

Okay, you've won your vote. We're having the debate tonight. But we've learnt the lesson; we've learnt how you're going to operate. And in all the time that I've been here, even under former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, I've not seen practice this sharp. This is the sharpest practice I have seen from a government. It is disappointing that others have got caught up in the wake, but they probably had the right to take the government at its word as well. And I think everyone here has learnt a lesson tonight: that you do not take this government and its senior people at their word when they tell you how things are going to run. This is the sharpest practice I have seen in all my time in this place, and on a bill that is so significant, when you're introducing amendments. This isn't the same bill that we saw before. When you're bringing up an amendment bill, give us the chance to look at it. Give us 24 hours. Give people the chance to go and look at it and work out whether it does what you say it does. Who knows—people might want to vote in favour of it.

For the sake of buying yourself a couple of hours, when we could have had this debate and the vote tomorrow, you have just trashed any goodwill or any standing you had on how this place is going to run. You might have got your little victory tonight, but what you've done is send a very clear message to me, to my party and to everyone who sits on the cross bench that you'll come here and say one thing and then something else will happen an hour later. Noted. I'm not going to say who it was who said that, but they know who they are. Noted.

Onto the substance of the bill and the amendment that I will move—if the government were serious about tackling drought, you would imagine that they would be saying the words 'climate change' over and over again. If this government were serious about making sure, as the member from Mayo said, that what we're seeing now doesn't become the new normal, or even the new baseline good, they would be falling over themselves to stop global warming. We were told very, very clearly at the end of last year that, unless we want to set ourselves on a path where we're going to see a 92 per cent decline in agricultural productivity in the Murray-Darling Basin, we are going to have to get the world two-thirds out of coal-fired power within the next 10 years. The best gift that could be given to farmers is to tackle global warming so that the droughts we're seeing now don't become a regular way of life, all the time—not just things that happen every now and then, as nature changes, but a regular way of life.

The Bureau of Meteorology has said that the drought in the Murray-Darling Basin is now the most severe in 120 years of records. Last week the climatologist at the Bureau of Meteorology, Dr David Jones, said that, while the Federation drought and the World War II drought were similar to this one, this is worse. While the north of the basin is doing it harder than the south, he said: from the general picture across the Murray-Darling Basin for droughts lasting two to three years, this is the most severe we've seen in terms of the rainfall totals and probably also in terms of the general run-off into dams. And this drought is hotter, with temperatures across the Murray-Darling about one degree hotter than during the Federation drought. Australia has warmed by about a degree. The world has warmed by about a degree as a result of global warming. This is what global warming looks like! And that's going to mean more evaporation and more transpiration when it rains, and it's going to mean that plants and animals are going to require more water when it comes.

The bureau and others have identified three key drivers of the severity of the drought, two of which are directly related to climate change: underlying reduction in southern wet season rainfall driven by climate change; underlying temperature increases driven by climate change; and the warm conditions in the far Indian and Pacific oceans resulting in reduced rainfall—the so-called Indian Ocean Dipole and El-Nino-like conditions in the Pacific. But it's also worth noting that, on that third factor, there are predictions from some scientists that El Ninos could become more frequent in a warming world. The picture of the millions of fish killed in the Menindee Lakes is the most graphic example of a complete crisis across the rivers and wetlands and agricultural communities of the Murray-Darling Basin—a crisis that was predictable a decade ago.

As I flagged at the start, Professor Ross Garnaut's climate review warned of the collapse of agriculture in the Murray-Darling because of global warming. It seems we are now well into the beginning of that collapse. Without emergency action to limit global warming, Professor Garnaut's prediction of a 92 per cent loss in irrigated agricultural production by the end of the century will come to pass because there will be an ecological collapse, as predicted. It is happening as they told us it would happen.

What do you do? You come in here and pretend that it doesn't exist. Members from the back bench give their climate-denying speeches. Then you try to take public money away from schools and hospitals to keep open coal-fired power stations. You are not serious about protecting farmers from the drought. You're not serious about looking after regions that are undergoing drought, because if you were you would not wish more droughts on them. But that's what you're doing. As pollution goes up and up, as you pretend that climate change doesn't exist and as you chuck around lumps of coal in parliament, you are wishing more droughts on Australia.

The digging, exporting and burning of coal, oil and gas are the major causes of climate change and, therefore, key drivers of the drought we are experiencing and the worsening droughts that we will face in the future. Every tonne of coal that this government allows to be exported is another farm facing extinction. Whilst the funds in these bills may ameliorate in some way the impacts on farmers for a short amount of time, the reality is that this government is doing much more to cause this crisis than this fund will ever cancel out. You have been put on notice. What it means for farmers and regions if we do not get global warming under control has been put on notice. And what do you do? You come in here and propose to make it worse.

Last year's State of the climate report by the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO states:

Australia's weather and climate continues to change in response to a warming global climate. Australia has warmed by just over 1°C since 1910, with most warming since 1950. This warming has seen an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events and increased the severity of drought conditions during periods of below-average rainfall. Eight of Australia's top ten warmest years on record have occurred since 2005.

…   …   …

The drying in recent decades across southern Australia is the most sustained large-scale change in rainfall since national records began in 1900.

The drying trend has been most evident in the southwestern and southeastern corners of the country. The drying trend is particularly strong between May to July over southwest Western Australia …

You would think that the Minister for the Environment or the Leader of the Nationals would be screaming about climate change from the rooftops, given that their electorates are at the epicentre of this crisis, but instead from them we get denial, we get obfuscation and we get delay.

I move as an amendment to the amendment moved by the member for Hunter:

That all words after "very same" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"communities;

(3) notes that the Bureau of Meteorology has said:

  (a) the current drought in the Murray Darling Basin is the most severe in 120 years of records; and

  (b) that climate change is a significant cause of the severity of the drought; and

(4) calls on the Government to recognise that we are in the middle of a climate crisis, which has implications for droughts in this country".

This amendment does not say that second reading of the bill should be declined. It says that the parliament has an opportunity to send the very clear message. While the government may not want to acknowledge the reality of climate change and drought, this parliament does not need to continue with that delusion.

I say to the government: do not come in here and talk about the hardship of farmers while you are making climate change worse; do not come in here and tell us how tough people are doing it while you are making climate change worse; and do not come in here and tell us about the threats to people's livelihoods while you are making climate change worse. You point the finger at everyone else and you say it's the fault of the few brave people who are standing up and trying to draw attention to it, but this government has the blood of rural and regional Australia on its hands because it is making global warming worse, and that will make droughts like this happen more often, more frequently. This will become the new norm under this government.

John McVeigh (Groom, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne seconded?

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

John McVeigh (Groom, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hunter moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Melbourne has now moved an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'very same' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Melbourne to the amendment moved by the member for Hunter be agreed to.

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

Well, I wasn't going to speak on that, but, after listening to that diatribe, that complete load of rubbish, it obviously requires someone to rebut some of the garbage we've just heard. If the member has the capacity to come in here and move a motion that makes it rain, well he can knock himself out. We'll all vote for it. We'll all vote for a motion to make it rain. If you can move a motion that can tell us, basically a year out, what's going to happen to the weather, move that motion. We'll all vote for that. But you have come in here to do what you always do. You come in here with a mechanism and you afflict on people in rural areas the idea that you will deliver them a climate change policy. Well, a climate change policy does not put food on the table. It does not put food on the table now; it does not look after people now. You would go to my electorate, which is probably the epicentre of the drought, to areas such as Bundarra and Manilla, and you would see people almost living in poverty—there is nothing there—and you would say to them, 'My alternative for you, what the Greens are going to offer you, is the capacity to move a motion to make power dearer.' Basically, that's it: they're going to make power dearer. And, after that, apparently, even though their life is more miserable, they'll feel happy and the weather will stay right where it is.

There is not one thing that this parliament can do to change the weather—not one thing. What it can do is take people who are in a vulnerable position and make them poorer. We've had it in regional areas. The price of power is beyond the capacity of people to pay for it. We have had it in regional areas. We do not have the capacity to take people to a form of dignity that they deserve in their life. The member has offered nothing but a mechanism to garner votes in his inner suburban seat, where they are a thousand miles from the problems that we have been dealing with. We are trying to help people out. We are trying to make sure we give them some form of mitigant, not to the weather but to the poverty and to the pain that they are currently suffering. We are going to make sure, by moving this bill, that we can at least offer them some hope, some prospect, into the long future. We have the capacity to put $100 million on the table, and they can plan. I'll tell you how they can plan. They can plan by building dams and creating water infrastructure, because water infrastructure is the mitigant. Obviously a drought is a time without water, and water gives us the capacity to provide some hope of irrigation.

Also, the Greens Party don't believe in the live cattle industry, don't believe in the live sheep industry, don't believe in the construction of dams and don't believe in a cheap out. What they believe in is affluence. They have the richest constituency in Australia—the affluent and their views—and that is being prescribed for people who are basically trying to make their way through the times. It's not only people on farms but people in towns who just can't afford for this parliament, in this period of time, to not offer them some prospect of hope and some sort of financial life raft to deal with the issues that are before them. We need this to happen.

The Labor Party said at Dubbo that they would not vote against anything that helped in the drought. Then, basically in the next sentence, they put a caveat on that. They put a caveat on the principle. They were going to come back here immediately after the drought summit in Dubbo and play politics. That's what all of this was about. Not once did we hear in question time prior to the election any prospect of them having a drought policy—not once. Not once did they come to the dispatch box. Not once did they go to Sky, the ABC or any media outlet and say, 'This is our drought policy.' Their beliefs are completely disingenuous about looking after regional Australia. They were dealt a savage blow at the last election because they have no view for regional Australia. They were smashed at the last election, especially in Queensland, because they have no view for regional Australia. Now we are seeing that the Labor Party are basically once more back to their old tricks. They're back to their old tricks of disregarding regional Australia and not having any authenticity to drive forward an agenda for regional Australia. They have no views for regional Australia. They're back in the inner suburbs, and the Greens are right there with them. They're their people. St Kilda are their people. That's who they're going to be looking after.

So, we are going to make sure, and the National Party is absolutely proud of the fact, that we drive forward with a tangible outcome that brings real financial benefit—financial benefit by reason of farmhouse allowance, by reason of concessional loans, by reason of the subsidisation of on-farm water infrastructure. These are the things that $100 million a year has been put as a forward proposition, which the Labor Party in the future, if they ever get back into power, if they want to remove it—and I suggest they probably will—will have to legislate to get rid of it.

But we will stand against the Greens. We want to thank Bob Brown. We want to thank him from the depths of our hearts for helping us to win the election. Bob Brown did a great service to our nation. When he decided to go to Central Queensland, he helped the coalition stay in government. He helped remove any prospect of the Labor Party winning the election, so the Greens should be thankful for the work that they've done on behalf of our nation in delivering yet another coalition government to our nation.

We want to thank the left wing of the Labor Party for their tirade against coal because their tirade against coal helped the coalition win the election. We want to thank them for that. And we want to thank GetUp! for concentrating so much on the seat of Warringah. We want to thank them for that because they won Warringah and lost the election. We want to thank them for that. We want to thank this coalition of GetUp!, the Labor Party and the Greens for making sure that we're here for another three years. We want to thank you and, once more, you watch, this bill's going to go through. We want to thank the parliament, and we want to thank the Australian people for making you once again totally and utterly irrelevant.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last Thursday in Dubbo, I was there with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. They had a whole gaggle of ministers there from the federal government. I stood up. There were hundreds of people there. Declared, I offered Labor's support for this drought fund. I offered it. Five hundred people were there, and I said: 'We support it. We'll, support it not just for $100 million; we'll support it at any level you're prepared to put forward. We can bring it forward to the current financial year, not 12 months time. It could be more than $100 million, and we'd vote for it.' That's what I declared in front of 500 people on live national TV, and ever since last Thursday this mob over here have been campaigning for us to reverse that position and vote against the drought fund.

The truth is that they are determined to play politics because they do not have an agenda for the future. They're scared of the present but terrified of the future—terrified of acting in the national interest. I mentioned something when I spoke to that drought summit and I used two words that the Prime Minister didn't use. Guess what they were? Climate change. Because you can't talk about drought in this country without also addressing the long-term impact of climate change. The need for mitigation. The need to make sure that we build resilience in our farms. That we are as strong in this chamber as farmers are on their land. That is what we need in this country.

Yet, what we had from those opposite was a Prime Minister who went along to a drought summit and offered—let's be very clear here; forget about $5 billion. There is nothing in this financial year in this legislation. There is $100 million to be drawn down the following year and $100 million the year after that. So the total funding for drought relief to assist farmers to build resilience, to build infrastructure, over this term of the 46th Parliament is $200 million. This mob give that to mates over a cup of tea when they're getting out their various pork funds that they've established. This mob waste more than that before breakfast. $200 million—that's all they offered.

Here's what I said: 'Don't play politics with this. It is too important. Just stop it. Provide funding with appropriations, as you should, and we'll back it—any level you want, done.' That's what I said—without being given any notice or the courtesy of a discussion with the Prime Minister, who stood up before that meeting and made this grand announcement. Sorry, he did make another one as well: we're going to have a parliamentary committee. But he didn't have anything to say about significant infrastructure funding. He had nothing to say about climate change. He had nothing to say about real assistance with regard to the people who are really doing it tough when it comes to farmers. And then he has the hide and the arrogance that he'll play wedge politics with this.

What has he said this debate is about? Has he said it's about the need of the rural communities? Has he said it's about farmers? No. He has said it's about Labor. That is what he has said and what he has said about every bill he's introducing and debating before the parliament this week—that it is about Labor. Well, I've got news for the Prime Minister. He won the election. He should start acting like the government, instead of like an opposition in exile, scared of governing. That's the way he's behaving at the moment, the immaturity of the way this debate has been conducted. In the 23 years that I have represented Grayndler in this parliament—I've been leader of the House and I've been Manager of Opposition business; I've dealt with the former member for Warringah and others, who like to think of themselves as hard nuts—I've never seen anything like this, whereby they couldn't get their act together to get the legislation through that was announced in October. They couldn't get it through the 45th Parliament—couldn't be bothered even putting it to the Senate. They couldn't be bothered having it amongst the 26 pieces of legislation that we introduced in the last sitting week. But they come in here and say, 'We've got a plan: we'll stop the Labor caucus getting a say in what happens.' Well, congratulations. You've achieved that, because there'll be a vote tonight, even though a minister went up there and said to me and the crossbenchers that the parliament would adjourn at 7.30 so as to allow proper processes. And then they say it's urgent. Not a cent flows before July 2020. I've never seen anything less urgent. What is urgent is the needs of farmers. What isn't urgent is your response to that need. You have failed, and you underline that failure with your arrogance and your contempt for the proper processes of this parliament.

I have respect for this parliament. I have never, ever ratted on a deal that's been done across the chamber. If I give my word, that is it—crossbenchers, the other side, the relationship I had with the former member for Sturt. Some might criticise that, but at the end of the day, if you behave like this it catches up with you. It is the arrogance writ large of a government in search of an agenda, of a Prime Minister who thinks the Australian people all think that everything he says is okay, that it's a free for all. I say to the crossbenchers: think again next time they give you a commitment, next time they tell you that during a debate. This wasn't a commitment a few hours ago. They couldn't last half an hour from when they said it would happen. That's why the position of the government is, quite frankly, untenable. And what's the objective here? We said we'd support the drought fund, and we will.

But we are disappointed with the effort to which the government's gone to abolish the Building Australia Fund. The Building Australia Fund assists people in regional Australia to get goods to market. They make our roads safer. The Pacific Highway will have fewer deaths as a result of the Building Australia Fund. The fact is that they don't like transparency. They just want the National Party ministers to decide what happens with money. They don't want Infrastructure Australia. When you set up Infrastructure Australia, you have to have a fund to fund projects that have been assessed by it, including water infrastructure projects. But, as a result of this, they'll get rid of the Building Australia Fund. They also want to get rid of the Education Investment Fund. They hate transparency and they hate accountability, and that's really what this is about.

This is the fourth time they've linked the abolition of the BAF to legislation. The worst time, perhaps, was linking it to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. One of the ministers spoke about going low in this debate. That's going low: if you support the Building Australia Fund, you don't support people with disabilities. How low is that! If you support the Building Australia Fund or you support drought funding—how pathetic. Here's some maths for the National Party. Even Barnaby should be able to work this out. There's $200 million you're going to get this term for drought funding, but you're removing $3.9 billion from the Building Australia Fund. You don't even have to count all the zeros to know that $3.9 billion out and $200 million in is a pretty bad deal. Even the member for New England should be able to understand that. As a result of this, as I declared last Thursday in front of 500 people, as a Labor Party we won't oppose this legislation because we support the drought fund. That is what we will do.

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

Sit down, you goober.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This man was Deputy Prime Minister. You cheapened the currency, sunshine; I'll tell you that. So, in terms of—

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

Come on, you goober. You've got four minutes left.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've got to worry when you can't make the National Party front bench. In terms of the parliament, we will not be opposing the drought fund. We will be in government once again committed to restructuring Infrastructure Australia and making it a strong body once again by having a genuinely independent board of experts, making sure that it can do its job in driving microeconomic reform and having proper cost-benefit analysis and rigour in terms of infrastructure. We will establish in the future a fund like the Building Australia Fund because we think it is essential that there be a funding component.

Tonight, those opposite show once again that they're the wreckers. When they talk about genuine economic reform, they are in their third term and they are struggling with the question: what are the big reforms that they have made? Yes, they got rid of a climate change policy that we had, but they haven't got one for themselves. On economic policy, yes, some tax cuts have got through, but there's no tax reform. Tax reform is what the Hawke and Keating government did. John Howard's government, to be fair, brought about some tax reform. What they've done is some tax cuts, which is very different from economic reform. On the skills agenda, what have they done? Nothing whatsoever. We've seen a decline in Australia's position. In terms of our engagement with the world, where are we? We're an embarrassment on so many indicators. When it comes to action on drought and water policy, of course we have in this country an absolute crisis going on in the Murray-Darling Basin, and this government thinks that a bill with $100 million 12 months from now is all that they need to do. When it comes to the forward-looking agenda, they simply don't have one. They have arrogance. They have hubris. They don't have an agenda. That is why they try to define everything as being about us. When we raised today, in the first question of parliament, the Prime Minister's comments about the fact that we've supported the unanimous recommendations of the joint committee that looks at national security issues, the Prime Minister dismissed that again. It's all politics.

What Australians have is conflict fatigue. They are looking for solutions, not arguments. This is a government that is obsessed by arguments. It is obsessed by arguments with itself. That is why they are unable to actually move forward with a forward-looking agenda. We, on this side, will continue to hold the government to account, but we will also be developing a forward-looking agenda to meet the challenges that are there, going forward as a nation. One of those challenges is drought. You can't deal with that without dealing with climate change. You can't deal with that without having a sound environmental policy. You can't deal with that without having rigour and transparency around funding mechanisms.

This bill has been improved from the original bill because of the amendments that were moved by the former member for Indi. That's why you have proper parliamentary procedure. It's so you actually have analysis and you improve legislation. That's why this government's position, in ramming this through tonight without proper scrutiny and debate, is such an outrage. I say to the government: its performance on the procedures tonight has brought no credit to it and no credit to this parliament. The government really needs to consider the consequences of the way that it has behaved before this parliament. That is particularly given the context whereby I declared, as Leader of the Labor Party both publicly and in discussions with the government, that we were supportive of the drought fund. Under those circumstances, the government's behaviour is nothing less than bizarre.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I have raised this matter with the government and with the opposition. There it is just a typo change to the amendment that has been circulated. Where it says 'that all of the words after "very same"', that should read as 'that all words after "rural and regional"'. Very briefly, the effect of that is that the proposed amendment that I have moved would add all words after the amendment moved by the member for Hunter. It wouldn't alter the substance of the member for Hunter's amendment. That was the intention of it; it was just a short drafting change. I understand that, with the leave of the House, that change is acceptable to the remainder of the House.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Melbourne to the amendment moved by the member for Hunter be agreed to.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion immediately:

That the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the government has negated the adjournment of the House of Representatives tonight as a cynical tactic to prevent the normal scrutiny and consideration of the bill; and

(b) the refusal of the government to adjourn debate tonight on the Future Drought Fund Bill and the Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill and allow it to continue tomorrow makes no difference to when the drought funds are available, as no funds will commence until at least July 2020; and

(2) therefore, calls on the government to use clause (b) of its own suspension motion and adjourn the House so that these bills can be listed for debate tomorrow.

What we have in front of us is the worst level of arrogance that you can imagine.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Is leave granted?

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is not granted.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will continue my speech, because I didn't seek leave. I didn't seek leave, but it is nice to know that leave is not granted. It is nice to know that the Leader of the House is not quite paying attention tonight. Maybe he should have finished at 7.30. It gets a bit late in the day for him. Even though leave wasn't sought, leave is not granted. Thanks for that! It is good the know that he's the chief parliamentarian in front of us tonight, because he's the person who has shown the least respect for the parliament. Let's not forget that. It is no surprise that he is one of the ones who went home early last term.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: this motion is contrary to the motion that was already passed earlier by this House, which stated in its first clause that the passage of these bills go through all stages today 'without delay at any stage', and this is clearly nothing more than a tactic to delay.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, I call the Manager of Opposition Business.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the Leader of the House, and you, Deputy Speaker Vasta, to the ruling that was made in that chair at 7.30 tonight. In that chair at 7.30 tonight, the chair had the choice to say this suspension that had been carried by the House meant that only ministers could move motions, or it was, in the words of the Leader of the House himself, 'permissive' as a resolution—that it then simply said the bill is allowed to go through all its different stages, but motions are allowed to be moved. If that were not the case, we wouldn't have been able to negate the adjournment, because the adjournment was put to us without being moved by a minister. Keep up, son! Keep up!

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: motions might be moved, but not motions of the type which are antithetical to the original motion, this being a motion which causes delay, and the first motion which was passed by this House said, clearly, 'without delay'.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: the motion to which he's referring, the suspension motion, had a clause (a) and a clause (b). The Leader of the House is right when he says this suspension is not asking for what happens in clause (a), because it's specifically asking the minister to take advantage of clause (b), which was in the motion that he should know. It was moved by the government, and he's meant to be the Leader of the House. With that, I submit it for your ruling, Mr Speaker.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Helpful as always! I did listen to the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business, obviously, when I was in my office, and the reason I'm here is I don't believe it's in order, and I've been—just rest your legs for a sec, Manager of Opposition Business! I don't believe it's in order, and obviously I've been following the debate pretty intently. I saw the substance of the point of order from the Leader of the House. The point I would make is that the earlier motion makes the point, I think, very aptly, that any variation needs to be made by a minister. I do take the point from the Manager of Opposition Business—when he moved an earlier motion, I know he made certain statements then that he thought flowed from that, which I utterly disagree with. So that's where we are. That's why I'm sitting here, telling him rather directly: I don't believe that the motion's in order.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: if I could refer to standing order 47, which deals with motions for the suspension of standing orders, the normal occurrence that we're used to in the House is where suspensions basically only occur between items, because most suspensions are irrelevant to the debate that's in front of us. The suspension that I have moved is different from that and is covered by standing order 47 because it is entirely about the debate that is in front of us. It in no ways varies from the clauses in what was carried by the House. In fact, it specifically asks a minister to act in the precise terms in which that resolution was carried.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the Manager of Opposition Business, and I'm reflecting on what he said and obviously having a very close look again at the motion to see whether there is anything in what he says that would make that argument viable. The overriding point is, notwithstanding—

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

If the member for Hunter can just cease talking loudly for a second; it's just distracting me from dealing with the matter at hand. The motion the Manager of Opposition Business moved seeks to do something other than what has already been passed by the House, by the minister. Notwithstanding the fact that the motion he moved seeks to do something other than what is already passed by the House by the minister, I don't really see the point, because any such motion is only really seeking some variation. That is what it's seeking, and the motion's already been moved and passed by the House, and any such variation can only be moved by a minister.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One issue: I'm trying to get a copy of the earlier resolution which I've now got in front of me. Both clauses (a) and (b) are governed by what comes at the start, which is that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent. And so what that resolution does is any standing order which gets in the way of clause (a), which gets in the way of that process being followed, is therefore suspended. But it does not prevent the House from resolving in different ways to deal with that debate, to discuss the debate, to interpret that debate and then to call on someone to use clause (b). If for example the House had resolved—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I get you to pause there? If necessary, I will hear from—I think you've made the point. I'm not trying to be difficult on this. So much of standing orders as would prevent—that includes the standing order you've already quoted, which is standing order 47. It's every single standing order that will prevent occurring what is in this motion, and to vary that would require a minister to move it. So without going through every historical occasion—and I would be happy to dig them all out—I'm happy to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business for another minute or two, but that really is what's going to be in my ruling unless there's something absolutely astounding that comes forward.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll do my best to astound, Mr Speaker.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that's all right.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the motion that I'd moved as a suspension used the device for suspension to say the debate will now stop, then I hear that argument. But it doesn't do that. It invites a minister to move. It's an invitation for a minister to move. Clause (a) is descriptive in my motion. Clause (b) is descriptive, and that's clearly allowed within the terms and the standing orders and doesn't get in the way of this bill being dealt with tonight. In fact, if this entire suspension is carried, the motion that I've put forward is then moved and carried by the House, the resolution that was moved earlier today still holds. This doesn't get in the way of any of that. It simply means there will have been a resolution of the House asking the minister to do something which the minister is allowed to do in the terms of what was carried.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just say to the Manager of Opposition Business: I've heard that but I still don't believe, having heard impatiently, that gets round the fact that essentially what the motion does in a very common way is enable every standing order that might get in the way of the purpose of the motion to be suspended. That includes standing orders that could delay, obfuscate and the substance of the motion being any variation can only be made by a minister. So, I understand what the Manager of Opposition Business is seeking to do. I know he's seeking to find a way through. I don't see that way through. With respect. I really don't. So, I'm going to rule that that motion is out of order.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now, what I'm going to say to that very clearly is: I'm not going to allow that motion either. The standing orders are very clear on that that once the House has resolved a matter—which it has already because you've already moved that the debate be adjourned and the House has resolved it—you can't in a repetitive fashion move the same motion again. I'm going to call the minister.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are hungry and hopefully we're going to get them home very soon. Can I thank all the members who have contributed to the debate on the Future Drought Fund Bill. These bills will secure ongoing funding for drought-resilience projects for the establishment of a Future Drought Fund. The Future Drought Fund will be managed by the Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019. These bills will secure ongoing funding for drought-resilience projects with the establishment of the Future Drought Fund. The Future Drought Fund will be managed by the Future Drought Board of Guardians who currently manage six other investment funds on behalf of the Commonwealth and have a proven and strong reputation for brilliantly investing money. The government is providing a significant up-front investment of $3.9 billion, which is expected to grow to around $5 billion over the next decade, while at the same time making annual distributions of $100 million from 2020 to 2021.

The annual $100 million disbursement from the Future Drought Fund will fund projects aimed at strengthening the resilience of Australian farmers and farming communities to the impacts of drought. Through grants or other funding arrangements, the Future Drought Fund will support a wide range of drought-resilience measurements, measures that benefit all Australians, such as supporting infrastructure, research and innovation; the adoption of new technology; improved environmental and natural resource management; and farm and community support initiatives.

The Future Drought Fund demonstrates the government's long-term commitment to build drought resilience, including preparedness and recovery across Australia. Transferring the balance of the Building Australia Fund to the Future Drought Fund will have no impact on the funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Thanks to the government's prudent economic and fiscal management, we have fully funded the National Disability Insurance Scheme without utilising the uncommitted funds currently in the Building Australia Fund. We have also committed more than $100 billion over the next 10 years to new and upgraded transport infrastructure projects across Australia, $47 billion of which is planned to be invested over the forward estimates. This means that uncommitted funds in the Building Australia Fund will now be used to enhance future drought resilience preparedness and response across Australia. I once again thank all members for their contribution and I commend the bill to the House.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hunter has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Melbourne has now moved as an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'rural and regional' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question now before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Melbourne to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Hunter be agreed to.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Hunter be agreed to.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.