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

My question is to the Prime Minister. When will the Prime Minister admit that his Future Drought Fund hasn't delivered and will never deliver one cent directly to desperate farming families?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question that has just been posed by the member for Hunter once again demonstrates his complete lack of understanding of the policy issues that that fund is seeking to address. I announced the Future Drought Fund at the drought summit—which he attended, and we were very pleased for him to attend—and he has opposed it from the day I first announced it. On that very day he was speaking against it, and he sought to have it frustrated, even in this place.

The national drought fund, which begins with a $3.9 million investment, will, over the course of the decade, grow to $5 billion and, from 1 July next year, it will draw down $100 million to invest in water infrastructure resilience projects. That's what we said the purpose of the drought fund was. It will draw down on that investment from 1 July next year, as we put the board in place and as we seek their advice.

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

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

Member for Hunter!

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The $300 million we expended just last year on infrastructure and farm household allowance projects and support—

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

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

Member for Hunter!

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He interjects again, Mr Speaker. I've already explained to him once that the Future Drought Fund is not to provide direct financial assistance payments to farmers; it's there to provide direct support for water resilience projects to plan for the future.

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

If the member for Hunter doesn't think it's a good idea to invest in water resilience for the future of Australian agriculture, he should leave the post of spokesperson on agriculture immediately, because he doesn't understand one of the most fundamental elements of agriculture in this country, which is that you have to provide water. When there's a drought, it means there's no water. So therefore you need to provide storage facilities for the—

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

Would the Prime Minister just pause for a second. I'm just going to say to the member for Hunter that I'm not going to keep mentioning his name and asking him to cease interjecting. He's asked the question. I'm pretty tolerant. He can listen to the answer. If he wants to make a speech, he can do it sometime later in the day. The Prime Minister has the call.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If he took the time to actually understand what the Future Drought Fund was for, rather than seeking to play petty politics with this, then he might understand that the fund is there to provide for future water resilience. What we're doing on farm household allowance, what we're doing on rural financial counsellors, what we're doing on support for mental health, what we're doing on everything, whether it's to increase the allowances for silage investments or on-farm water infrastructure projects—which the farmers are actually doing themselves—whether it's the money we're putting into councils to ensure they're keeping local communities supported throughout the drought, or whether it's the more than $50 million we've put directly into charitable organisations like the Salvos and Vinnies, is a comprehensive response. I would simply appeal to the member for Hunter to support the government's initiatives, which are reaching out to farmers, and just stop being such a dill.

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

The member for Higgins. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?

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

The Prime Minister concluded with an unparliamentary term which should be withdrawn.

Government members interjecting—

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

Members on my right! The member for Higgins will resume her seat. It's all right; no-one else is going to get the call. It'll be okay. I have previously said—I say to the Manager of Opposition Business—I would rather the discourse be a bit better, and I think it has been. Terms like that are, of course, littered through the Hansard, but I'm prepared to say now I don't welcome them. I could go through the history of it all, but I'm not going to at this point. I think, really, in terms of the interchange, it's not helpful. I'd rather those terms weren't used, I've got to say. I'd just say to the Prime Minister: if those terms are used, they will be used by both sides of the House.

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

Absolutely!

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

I'm just going to say to members: I'm going to keep a close watch on this. I did very much think about asking the Prime Minister to withdraw. The only reason I didn't is that, of terms that have been used—not so much in questions recently but in adjournment speeches, in 90-second statements and all the rest of it—the term the Prime Minister used, I do have to say, was very much at the lower level of some of the other terms that have been used. And, no, I'm not going to repeat them.

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

I'll debate him on these issues right now. Bring it on!

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

No, you won't; you'll leave under 94(a). It couldn't be more clear.

The member for Hunter then left the chamber.