Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to comment on this issue, with which I have been involved since the start. People in the Senate will be aware that it was my disallowance that went on the Notice Paper straight after the budget. I note with interest that it is Senator Fielding and Senator Colbeck who have taken over my motion, because the one on the books that Senator Colbeck had did not do the job. It did not get it right.

I want to say to the Senate that I find Senator Fielding’s remarks beneath contempt. If you check the record, my colleague Senator Siewert served as chair, and I have served as deputy chair, of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee in the time that I have been in the Senate. Senator Siewert and I have consistently been members of that committee and have served on inquiry after inquiry and moved for inquiry after inquiry, unlike Senator Fielding, who has not moved for any rural and regional inquiries, that I am aware of, and nor is he a regular attendee at the committee or at the hearings. Also, he was not at the hearing last Friday when we heard the evidence in relation to this. I am very happy to debate the issues, but I have to say it is a reflection on the speaker if you cannot deal with the issues and you just contribute what is no more than a bigoted diatribe.

However, I move on to the issue in relation to this motion for disallowance. I want to say that I am totally committed to reform in the primary industry sector, in particular in relation to the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service and the reforms that are on the table. As everyone else has said in here, every single one of the sectors that have come before the committee and made a submission over this time have said that they are committed to reform. The issue that they had was that they wanted the reforms in place before the 40 per cent rebate was taken away. That was their issue. They did not want to have to incur the cost until the reforms were in place. I said that yesterday. I make it very clear that it was in 2001 that the rebate was introduced, under the Howard government. But I also want to say that in December 2002 the Howard government adopted a formal cost recovery policy aimed at improving the consistency, transparency and accountability of their cost recovery arrangements. It was the Howard government that did nothing to facilitate reform. They paid the rebate and they said the reform was necessary, but they also indicated that the rebate would run out. It was moved by the Howard government for one more period of time but the expectation was that it would run out. It was due to run out this year.

The Rudd government came back and said, ‘We will put $39.3 million on the table to facilitate the reform process and the agricultural sector will go to 100 per cent cost recovery for the department.’ In other words, they will pay 100 per cent. I did not believe that was fair because I did not think there was enough time to transition and because there is a global economic crisis. There is a high dollar. Every industry group that came before us said: ‘Look, we’re concerned about this. We actually want the reforms but we are concerned about the money.’ I went through all the evidence and I heard Senator Colbeck say several times that they need more money on the table. I believe that $20 million was the figure that Senator Colbeck referred to. But I want to put on the record in this Senate that it was not the Liberal Party and it was not the National Party that went to the minister and said, ‘I believe we need to have this much money and this is our proposal.’

I have done it twice. I went to the minister when I first moved this and said, ‘I would like to have a work plan on the table by 1 August which will do these things for the horticulture sector,’ because that was the sector that was most divided at the time. The minister agreed. I have to say that on 1 August there was a work plan on the table for the horticulture sector, as had been agreed. After the hearing last week, I was deeply disturbed by the fact that this was going ahead without money on the table for the farmers, so I went to the minister yesterday. I have to say that I am the only one who actually sat down and said, ‘I want $20 million, Minister, because these people need the rebate paid for the next 12 months, while the reform agenda is implemented.’ The minister already had $39 million on the table. He agreed to put $20 million on top of that so that the rebates and fees will be paid, the 40 per cent will be paid, for the next 12 months, until the end of the financial year. The farmers all know now that they will get the reform agenda, the work plans and the whole system that they are working on in place and they will get their rebate of fees and charges until the end of the financial year.