Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Road Safety) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to this debate on the Future Drought Fund Bill 2019, but there are a few things we need to sort out. From the nonsense we've heard in some of the speeches here, it is as though, with the greatest respect to my colleagues across the chamber here, some of them have this stupid belief that only they care about the bush, our food producers and our rural communities, which is quite disingenuous. I have to say this clearly: for the last 14 years I have spent all my time on the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. As every senator in this place knows, I have devoted every single minute and hour I could to travelling this country to improve legislation and the lot of our rural communities and our rural families—not only farmers but also those who live in rural Australia. So it is disingenuous to hear some of the stupid remarks, especially from some of the older, more experienced senators who can't help themselves but to go the low road. I thought we'd lost the senators who go the low road when previous Senator Macdonald from Queensland left here—thank goodness!—a couple of months ago; unfortunately there are a few still around.

But let's get back to this. You have to pick up on what Senator Patrick and others have said. You have to clearly understand what is being proposed here. Every single legislator in this place and in the other place wants to do the best for our rural communities, our farmers and everyone who relies on them. We know that. But, for crying out loud, I couldn't imagine the squealing, the screeching and the howls of anger that would have come from that side if Labor were proposing to raid a $3.9 billion fund set up to deliver rural and regional infrastructure projects.

For all those out there listening I want to send a special message, particularly to the members of the Nats in the coalition. The Nats in the coalition have always been referred to as the doormats. I haven't heard that doormat comment for many years but I have noticed, as I have traversed the hallways here on route to other senators' offices, to the minister's office and to Senate committee rooms, that there is a new poster hitting the windows. The Nats always prided themselves with a green and yellow square bit of cardboard that said 'The Nationals delivering for the country' or whatever it was—'Country Nats' or something like that. Now we have a hybrid. We have a blue and white one—not the yellow and green one, not the colours of the National Party but the colours of the other partners in the coalition, the senior partners—saying 'Regional Liberals'.

Let's come back to the Nats. Just really concentrate on what you have been lassoed into here. While we are all trying to get as much assistance to drought-affected regions, families and communities throughout Australia, you are lining up, like a bunch of ducks heading off to duck season, behind the senior partners of the coalition to champion raiding a $3.9 billion fund which gives rural and regional Australia much-needed infrastructure projects. At this stage, from what we can find out, the $3.9 billion from that fund is not going into the pockets of farmers. It's not going into the bank accounts of those that rely on farming communities for their business to succeed as well in their community, whether they be the local garage in rural Australia, the local Mitre 10, the local cattle carter, stock carter, grain carter. There is no money. I can't find one single cent that is going into the pocket of the stock feeder, who supplies the feed, because obviously they're not doing all that well either.

But before we even start going down that path, we're told that the $100 million could be provided to farmers, not today, not tomorrow, not next month or in three months time or six months time or, crikey, maybe not even in 10 or 11 months. Are you listening, all you Nationals out there? But don't worry; the Libs have got your back! Nats, did you actually sit in your party room and decide, once you got through the 'Let's all go down together, brothers and sisters, because it's in the best interests of our farmers that they're going to get only $100 million, maybe,' to blindly follow what the Country Liberals or the rural Liberals—I don't know how many of them there are—and the city-centric Liberals, 'because they have it all worked out'?

Seriously, put your hands on your hearts and report back to your community and say: 'We might be able to get a couple of pesos here or a few rupiah there.' I don't know what that's going to be. Food tokens to go to Coles or the local IGA? I've got no idea. I'm hoping someone on that side will jump up and say: 'Sterlie, you've got it all wrong mate. We've got it all worked out. We know exactly how much is going to go into each farming family's pocket'—bank account, marmalade jar or old Arnott's bickie tin buried down the backyard. I don't know how you are going to do it. Do you know why? Because you don't know how you're going to do it. I think these are fair questions.

You see, we on this side will do everything to work with you to support those poor devils who are affected by drought. But let's not just stop at the farmers. Come up and tell us. I'm dying to hear from the minister to break it all down—when the money is going to be delivered and where it is going to be delivered. And how do we work out what is in drought and what isn't in drought? I ask this question seriously. This is not a new argument that I have had to have while sitting on the Rural, Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. You are relying on different shires to come forth. And then you've got to say who is really in drought, who has been in drought longer, and who hasn't been in drought very long. And how do you break up who gets what amount? Does every farming family? You can add the grain carter, the livestock carter and the owners of the local Tyrepower and supermarket, which are hurting too. Are you going to tell me they are going to get some assistance as well? And are you going to talk to us at any stage about your plans to droughtproof Australia? We haven't even gone down that path yet.

Nats, if you are out there listening: for six years you and your mates the Liberals—the senior partners in the coalition—have been in government. For six years that fund has been sitting there with $3.9 billion in it and nothing has come forward to fix up any regional and rural infrastructure. Do it! But don't raid another rural and regional bucket of money. When all is said and done, we have some of the best food and fibre products in the world. There is absolutely no argument about that. We have some of the most efficient ports; we can get the products on ships and trains and get it moving. But, lo and behold, the majority of freight in this nation is carried on trucks. You are denying rural and regional Australia the infrastructure projects. Not only are you raiding their fund, but you have done five-eighths of nothing to fix anything or build anything. You are having your tummies tickled, Nats. The senior partners in the coalition, the Libs, are rolling over at the drop of a hat because your leadership, through Minister McCormack—I don't know, who is the leader? Is it still Mr Joyce? I don't know. I can understand why Mr McCormack would have one eye on Mr Joyce and one eye on his own backyard—which you should do—but it is more than just his seat.

There are so many questions that need to be asked. But there are no answers—nothing. But this is typical of this place in the 14 years that I have been here. Isn't it amazing: for every single problem, there is a perfect zero on the end of every costing. I don't even know how you get $100 million. Why isn't it $200 million? Why isn't it $3.9 billion? Why isn't it $16 billion? You tell me. What will $100 million do? The silence is deafening.

And I am really looking forward to when we get into committee. All I can work out so far—I'm told that the Regional Investment Corporation will be tasked with advising the government. I wouldn't have my heart set on that being the most efficient place. Let's go back a few steps. That was set up by the previous Minister for Agriculture, Minister Joyce, who was a senator for a couple of years. I don't think that was a great recommendation. I think that was set up after the Nats lost the seat of Orange for the first time in 69 years.

But let's not also forget that we had a drought envoy. When Mr Joyce fell from grace and moved aside, he couldn't wait to resign his post 'in the best interests of the nation'. Ha-ha, that was tongue in cheek—he got booted out! He was then set up as the drought envoy. What did the drought envoy do? The drought envoy was around for 12 months. There weren't any proposals that we needed to put X amount of dollars into farmers' pockets. Is it farmers' pockets? I don't know what it is. Are you going to transport water? What are you going to do? Are you going to bring in stock? I shouldn't be the one having to ask these questions. The ones who should be asking these questions are the doormats in the coalition. I haven't called you doormats for years, but, based on the way you are carrying on here, 'doormats' is a nice word; I could think of other things.

Labor has always supported rural and farming communities. There is no argument that the Greens support rural, regional and farming communities. I've worked very closely with Senator Rice on the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. Senator Rice and I don't have all that much in common, but one thing I can tell you is that she has carried the—what do you call it?

Senator Rice interjecting—

What do you have? You've got a few things—transport and farming. You've got a few things, Senator Rice. You've got everything, Senator Rice. I don't know what the rest of the Greens do. You're the one who is always out there working. I've never once heard her condemn farming communities or Australia's food producers or fibre producers—not once. We know that One Nation will get up and bang on about farmers at the drop of a hat, absolutely. And I say to Senator Patrick and Senator Griff: I've got the greatest of respect for Centre Alliance, but you're getting blindsided as well as the doormats. Support our farming communities but don't raid another bucket. Why raid a bucket that's there to deliver infrastructure for rural and regional Australia?

Do you know what the next cry will be? I will tell you what the next cry will be. The Nats will have a little huddle and they will all squeeze into their telephone box on the other side of the building and then the penny might actually drop and one of them will go: 'Oops; what about the projects in Ballarat, Bendigo and Geelong linking the railways?' Another one was improving the Pacific Highway—and we all know that the road deaths on the Pacific Highway are nothing to brag about. How long will it take you to wake up to the fact you've been done over again? What we seriously should be doing, if we can get to the stage where you can explain your $100 million—where, when, how, who and all that—is going even further. This is a $100 million bandaid for maybe 11 months or maybe longer. I can't believe I'm saying this. This is like a bad dream. I hope I'm going to wake up and find out that it was just a shocking dream. But, unfortunately, it's not.

I've gone on enough about the Nats, but not one of them has come down here to defend their position. Is it because you're that thick? No, I don't think it is because you're that thick—some may be but the majority isn't—I just think you're blindsided. If you spent a little bit more time thinking in the best interests of rural and regional Australia than about your own career advancements, maybe that would help—I don't know. I've got no fear or favour on this side, none at all. I'll say it as it is, because I'm the one that ends up in the rural communities. Whether I'm looking into prawns, biosecurity or transport—every darn thing; the whole lot—I get out there and meet the people in the bush, and I hear the same arguments. Someone—I don't know who it was—said earlier: 'Those poor devils in the bush continue to keep voting for the Nats even though they are doing nothing for them.' Maybe they need the 'regional Liberals'. Maybe that is what they need. They need a good 'regional Liberal' to stiffen them up, put a backbone in them and give them a good decent whack. Maybe that's what they need. It's absolutely incredible!

I'll go back to some other examples of what the Labor Party has done in supporting rural and regional Australia and farmers. There is no secret that, whether it be the Abbott government, the Turnbull government or the Morrison government, we have backed rural and regional Australia. We backed them with the additional supplementary farm household allowance payments of up to $12,000. There was no argument about that. We did it straightaway for eligible FHA recipients. We agreed and supported the extension of the allowance from three years to four years. I remember the drama we went through with that and the many rounds of Senate estimates where we had to keep asking the department: 'Who's put their hand up? How many people?' My goodness! Senator Brockman, you know all about that, mate. You had a headful of hair before we started that questioning. Now look what's happened. I'm lucky I don't pull mine out.