Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

FUTURE DROUGHT FUND BILL 2019

The Liberal-National Government is focused on helping farmers and communities prepare for inevitable future droughts.

The Future Drought Fund is a long-term investment to build drought resilience, including preparedness and recovery in our most drought affected communities. It will enable farmers and their communities to fulfil their potential as productive and profitable contributors to the Australian economy by improving the performance of the agriculture sector.

Healthy farming landscapes with innovative farming techniques will contribute to a drought resilient and sustainable agriculture sector. The Future Drought Fund will be available to support research, development and innovation. It will also support the delivery of infrastructure projects, promote the adoption of technology and deliver improved environmental and natural resource management to enhance sustainable agricultural practices. The Future Drought Fund will provide farm and community support to bolster drought resilience across Australia's rural and regional communities.

This Bill establishes the Future Drought Fund and provides an initial credit of $3.9 billion. The Government intends to grow the Fund until it reaches $5 billion, while at the same time drawing down $100 million per year from 1 July 2020 to build drought resilience across Australia. Once established, the Future Drought Fund will provide a new, secure, predictable revenue stream to build drought resilience across Australia.

This funding is additional to the funding already made available by the Liberal-National Government to assist farmers during an existing drought and will not replace existing funding.

The Bill contains a robust and transparent governance framework, which has been augmented by amendments made by the previous Parliament in the House of Representatives, and I thank the current and former members of the House of Representatives crossbench for working productively with the Government on these. The governance framework is similar to the frameworks of other funds, such as the Medical Research Future Fund.

The Future Drought Fund will be managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians, which has a proven track record of managing investment portfolios on behalf of the Government and maximising returns over the long-term.

The Bill requires the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance to issue directions setting out the Government's expectations as to how the Fund will be managed and invested by the Board, including setting a benchmark return for earnings. In setting the benchmark rate of return, the Government will consider the objectives to grow the fund to around $5 billion and make annual payments to the Agriculture Future Drought Resilience Special Account of $100 million per year to build drought resilience.

The Government will develop and publish the Drought Resilience Funding Plan to ensure that a coherent and consistent approach is undertaken when considering and providing funding for drought resilience projects. The draft Funding Plan will be informed by expert advice from the Future Drought Fund Consultative Committee, which will be established by this Bill. The Consultative Committee will consist of a diverse range of experts in fields such as the agriculture industry, drought resilience and rural and regional development. The Funding Plan will also be informed through public consultation over a period of at least 6 weeks.

The Funding Plan will be reviewed every four years to ensure that emerging priorities are appropriately captured and the Fund remains future-focussed. To help inform these reviews, the Productivity Commission will conduct an assessment of the effectiveness of each Funding Plan before it expires, including having regard to the economic, social and environmental outcomes. The Productivity Commission will make recommendations and the report will be tabled in each House of the Parliament.

In developing the Funding Plan, the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management (Minister for Drought) will have regard to the National Drought Agreement and any successive agreements, as well as any related Government drought policies and strategies.

The Funding Plan will inform the design of the programs, which will be considered through future Budget processes. The Consultative Committee will provide advice to the Minister for Drought on whether the proposed design of a program for arrangements or grants is consistent with the Funding Plan.

To further ensure consistency with the Funding Plan, the Minister for Drought is required to seek advice from the Regional Investment Corporation Board before entering into any grants or funding arrangements. The Regional Investment Corporation Board is a skills-based independent expert board with the knowledge and experience needed to oversee significant government investments in farm businesses and water infrastructure. All funding decisions will comply with the Commonwealth's established rules and guidelines on grants and procurements. Detailed information on grants and arrangements under the Future Drought Fund will be published on the Agriculture Department's website.

Drought is a constant factor in Australian agriculture and the establishment of the Future Drought Fund will provide a new, secure, predictable funding stream for drought resilience into the future to ensure the potential of this vibrant industry is realised through drought resilience planning.

The Government has been absolutely clear that use of the dormant Building Australia Fund to deliver the Future Drought Fund will have absolutely no impact on the funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which is fully funded through the Liberal-National Government's responsible economic and fiscal management that has delivered a strong and improving budget position, and a credible path back to surplus in 2019-20. Sustained responsible economic and fiscal management has ensured that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded, without the need to increase the Medicare levy or proceed with the previous Building Australia Fund measure.

It is why we are now in a position to guarantee Australians with a disability, and their families and carers, that all planned expenditure on the National Disability Insurance Scheme will be met in this year's Budget and beyond.

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.

Helping our farming communities face the challenges of drought is a key focus of this Government and because we have fully funded the NDIS and made substantial infrastructure commitments, we are in a position to build a sustainable source of funding for drought resilience, preparedness and recovery across Australia.

FUTURE DROUGHT FUND (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2019

The Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019 facilitates the establishment of the Future Drought Fund through amendments to related legislation.

The consequential amendments to these acts enable the effective operation of the Future Drought Fund at commencement, including the abolition of the Building Australia Fund.

Commencement and further details can be found in the explanatory memorandum.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak today on these two bills, the Future Drought Fund Bill 2019 and the Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019. Labor have made it clear that we are not going to stand in the way of a drought fund. This is a position we've made clear in the House, but there are some criticisms I'd like to make in this speech this afternoon. I'll touch on a couple of points.

The first one is around the proper process for these bills. We do believe that this legislation is being rushed through without proper process. The debacle—

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But you voted for the bills!

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I just make my comments. I listened to yours. In the debacle that occurred in the House last night, every attempt was made by the Labor Party to ensure there was a proper process and proper passage of this legislation, including allowing the opportunity for individual parties to go through their own processes. It has long been the convention in this place that, when you introduce a bill into the parliament, debate on the bill is then adjourned and then there are processes that parties go through in their own organisations and then there are processes that follow in this parliament to have a bill dealt with appropriately.

We have placed on the record our concerns that that process has been abused and that those conventions have been thrown out. The only reason for this, it seems, is so that the government can play some political game, the politics of wedge. That is the only the reason this has been rammed through; there are no other logical reasons. This bill was not introduced with the other legislation that was introduced in the first sitting week along with other bills that the government identified as priorities. This bill was not a part of that. There was no mention of it. The earliest opportunity that money could flow from these bills is 1 July 2020. So, in that sense, the urgency around these funds flowing is not there either.

The substance of the bill is another area that Labor has raised concerns about. This is not a $5 billion fund going to farmers, as the government would like the headlines to read. This is a fund that's being established from $3.9 billion, which is held in the Building Australia Fund, which was a fund established to ensure that there were proper processes around the allocation of infrastructure funding to align with Infrastructure Australia and to ensure, in the national interest, that our infrastructure funding was aligned with those priorities. We are concerned about the abolition of the Building Australia Fund. It was an important microeconomic reform, in terms of the ability to work in the national interest, as opposed to the examples we've seen in working in the National Party's interest. Again, we would be monitoring this drought fund for evidence of that.

In terms of the urgency, what we've seen from this government—particularly in this Prime Minister's rather bullying and arrogant style, which is fast becoming the standard operating procedure of this government since the 18 May election—is that it is essentially looking at how it can prioritise legislation based on fights that they can pick with Labor. We've seen this from so many, including the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Prime Minister and other senior ministers, who are constantly out and about, going, 'This legislation is a test for Labor'. It is not: 'This legislation is seeking to support farmers, seeking to ensure we have appropriate resourcing going into drought remediation and research'. It is: 'This legislation is a test for Labor'. That's why this legislation has been rammed through over the last two days. In terms of the money that's allocated, not one cent of this fund will flow until 1 July 2020, at the earliest. And it's not a $5 billion fund; only $200 million is allocated for this parliamentary term.

We think it is juvenile and arrogant of this government to use this bill to play parliamentary games. There are only so many games they can play. Yesterday in this place, they ran out of work on the first real sitting day of the first sitting week since re-election. This third-term government, seemingly without an agenda, is dusting off legislation that they seemingly didn't prioritise in the last term. It was originally drafted and could have passed during the last parliament. The government is dusting off this legislation in an attempt to play a game and set a test for the opposition.

This government needs to start governing and it needs to start governing in the national interest. I think that's what the people of Australia want. They are sick of the conflict and the argument and the games that get played here in Canberra. It brings my home town into disrepute, I can tell you that. What they want to see is a government that's focused on the issues that matter to them, and those issues are significant and the drought is one of those significant issues. It is the worst drought in 120 years. When you travel around this country, you see the effects of it everywhere. The fact that the government would try and take a bill that, on the substance of the issue, a fund for drought remediation, should be something that has the unanimous support of this parliament and then use it in a way to try and wedge Labor is, I think, evidence of the fact that the government was not ready to be the government and is still scrambling around, looking at what its actual agenda will be over the next three years.

Labor's not going to play the game. We are prepared to stand up, move amendments, explain our position, argue for good process, argue to ensure that the national interest is being met and argue to make sure that the priorities facing this country are being dealt with. But we're not going to get suckered into the game the government is trying to play with us. We will not stand in the way of this fund, but we don't believe it's going to do the things the government is arguing it will do. We don't know why the government doesn't have a drought envoy anymore. We don't know why it doesn't have a drought strategy. We don't know why it's making this fund wait a year for any application to be considered under the arrangements. We don't think it's enough.

The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear: come and talk to us about an appropriation to actually support farmers and deal with the worst effects of the drought that is ravaging this country. Come and talk to us. At this stage, this is the best we've got to offer. We won't stand in the way of this bill, but we are going to make it clear that we don't think this is the proper way to deal with legislation. We don't think it treats the parliament respectfully and we don't think it treats the conventions of this place and the other place as they should be treated—that is, as the parliament has operated for some time now.

In the other place, Labor suggested a 24-hour delay to allow its processes to occur and to allow for proper consideration of the bills. But the government wouldn't even allow that to happen. Faced with the majority they've got in the House, and the fact that they are emboldened after the election, the thought that they could deny Labor caucus members the opportunity to discuss this bill obviously really excited them, and that's the path that they took yesterday. They wouldn't allow our caucus members to go through our own democratic processes and have that discussion. At the same time that the government was ramming this bill through in the other place, we were left with a farcical situation in this parliament—this chamber actually running out of business and having to revert back to the Governor-General's address-in-reply.

The fund isn't urgent. I mentioned the comments the Leader of the Labor Party made last week, when he made it clear that we will support drought assistance:

We'll support it not just for $100 million; we'll support it at every 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.

But the government is not telling the truth when it comes to the facts about the fund. It continues to call it the $5 billion Future Drought Fund. The $5 billion won't be available for farmers. It's $100 million a year, $200 million over the life of this parliament, and the fund doesn't reach that $5 billion level until the end of the decade.

In terms of the urgency of this bill, the government had this bill before the election but it didn't even put it before the Senate. Why wasn't it urgent then? The weather and the drought situation haven't dramatically changed in the last six months. Australia has been suffering through this drought for many years now.

In terms of support, we have played an important role in supporting government action to help farmers make their operations more resilient in the face of drought. We have supported all of the recent and immediate drought measures put forward by the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments, including: an additional supplementary farm household allowance payment of up to $12,000 for eligible FHA recipients; increasing the FHA extension from three years to four years; increasing the farm asset threshold from $2.6 million to $5 million; and increasing the farm management deposit scheme to $800,000.

I don't think it's fair for those opposite—as they've been attempting to do—to play politics with this, ask Labor which side it's on and use all that poisonous divisive language that Australians are so sick of. When they look at the voting record, when they look at our position on this bill today, they cannot run any narrative about Labor not being on the side of farmers. Our voting record proves it. This is the pragmatic position we have taken on this bill today. Despite the attempts by the government to wind Labor up, we will not play that game. We are making our decisions on what's in the national interest and, in this instance, not standing in the way of this fund—despite our concerns about it—is the right thing to do.

In terms of the Building Australia Fund, the Future Drought Fund Bill not only sets up the new fund but also abolishes the Building Australia Fund and transfers the current uncommitted amount of funding, $3.95 billion, as in the 2019-20 portfolio budget statements, into the new fund. One of the arguments made by the government is that nothing has been drawn out of the BAF since 2012-13 and that it's been making small amounts of interest revenue. Let's have a look at that.

Instead of attempting to abolish the BAF on a number of occasions for asset recycling, and, most shamefully, attempting to paint Labor as being against the NDIS—those being just two of the examples—a serious government would not have let the BAF sit idle all this time. The Building Australia Fund actually assists people in regional Australia to get goods to markets, to make our roads safer and to build important infrastructure. This government has neglected that and is not talking about that side of the story at all.

Importantly, the Building Australia Fund was not a political slush fund. And that's exactly what the government's problem has been with it. It was a major economic reform. It was sensible. It was a transparent means of allocating scarce resources to achieve maximum benefit to the community. It wasn't to allow individual politicians to lobby hard and to get pet projects or special projects in their electorate that didn't necessarily align with the priorities of Infrastructure Australia, who'd go through a rigorous and detailed analysis of the benefits and costs of each project. If, in the future, we were elected and had the honour of forming government, we would re-establish a fund like the Building Australia Fund because we do think it's important that there be a funding component that's linked to the work that Infrastructure Australia does, and we do believe that the Australian people, when they have a look at it, will support independent, at-arms-length decisions made about nation-building infrastructure in this country.

To sum up: Labor supports the bill. We don't want to be painted as a party that opposes support for farmers. As I've explained in my speech, our voting record, the work that the shadow minister for agriculture has done and the comments that the Labor leader has made have made it very clear that we want more assistance for farmers; we want more effort from the government into looking at drought remediation and at things like climate change and the impact that that is having on the agricultural industry and farming in this country. We think a lot more can be done. We don't think this is the sole answer. But if this fund dishes out $200 million—hopefully, to very worthy projects that will have gone through a process that will have been improved through the efforts of the member for Indi—then that will be a good outcome.

But, as to the way that this has been handled by the government this week—without an agenda or any program, without any ideas on what they stand for, who they are and what they're going to do for the next three years—they have dusted off this bill and gone: 'You know what? This could be fun in the chamber this week. We could really try and put pressure on people if we bring this in and then ram it through the House and then put pressure on people not to support any delays in the Senate. That really could be fun.' That's the only reason we are standing here talking about this bill today—because it wasn't introduced by the government; it wasn't mentioned as a priority bill; it didn't get a mention in the first sitting week; it is not going to come into effect for another 11 to 12 months; no-one will see a cent of this—not one cent—next week, the week after nor the week after that; not for 11 or 12 months will any of this money flow.

We do object to the closing of the Building Australia Fund. We do think the reform that was put in place by the previous Labor government to separate infrastructure funding decisions from parliamentarians and to have a better process for aligning a funding source with the decisions of Infrastructure Australia is a much better way to go when you're looking at the long-term infrastructure needs of this country, not short-term pork-barrelling interests. That is the difference. That's what we are walking away from with this bill today. We object to that. I will be moving a second reading amendment. It will in fact be identical to the amendment we moved in the House to make sure that our objections are recorded and clear and that we will, in government, seek to reintroduce this style of fund with this approach in order to make sure that the process for allocating infrastructure is very clean and clear.

Don't believe the government's rhetoric for a minute. This is not a $5 billion fund; it is $100 million going out to projects yet to be determined in a years time and only $200 million over the next couple of years. We think more needs to be done. When it becomes clear that this is the government's answer to some of these major issues, I think most farmers and most farming communities who are living through this drought will be deeply disappointed. I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

“, but the Senate:

(a) condemns the Government for its failure over six years to develop and implement a comprehensive and effective policy to assist rural and regional communities facing severe drought conditions; and

(b) notes that the inferior response contained in the bill requires the abolition of the Building Australia Fund, which could be used to build road, rail, and other vital infrastructure—including water infrastructure—in these very same rural and regional communities.”

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The problem of drought is not going to go away. It's no longer a rare or unpredictable occurrence, like tropical cyclones or tornados. It's a harsh ongoing way of life for many Australian farmers, and we need to deal with it. But we simply cannot ignore the elephant in the room. We cannot deal with the problem of drought without dealing with our climate crisis. If we ignore climate change and only throw money at drought we might as well be putting a bandaid on a bullet wound.

The No. 1 thing that we need to do to support farmers and communities that are struggling with drought is to tackle our climate crisis; otherwise, droughts are going to keep on getting worse and worse and communities will suffer more and more as our climate gets hotter and dryer. You only need to look at the news just in the last week. We've heard that the Murray Darling Basin has had half its normal rainfall this year and the Murray Darling is experiencing the worst drought on record. Across Australia, the first half of this year was the second warmest on record and we've had the second driest conditions in the 120 years that we've been keeping records. There's even evidence that Australia hasn't been as dry as it is right now for two to three million years. We are still on track for four degrees of warming. If that happens, the climate of our wheat-growing areas will become like the climate of the central deserts—and no drought fund can deal with that. That's what we're on track for by 2070, when these kids that are in the gallery today will only be as old as most of us in here are now. You cannot be bequeathing them that type of future.

Australia's domestic carbon pollution is the highest per person of any country in the world. When you add in the pollution that comes from our exports of coal, gas and oil, we're responsible for one tonne out of every 25 tonnes of carbon pollution into the atmosphere that's being released across the globe, despite being less than half a per cent of the world's population. In the carbon pollution stakes, Australia is a massive player. We really do punch above our weight, and we need to equally pay a big role in tackling our climate crisis.

The importance of doing this is underlined by the fact that, sadly, we know that we are already in this climate crisis. Hotter and dryer conditions are already baked in. We're dealing with the consequent drought crisis that we have to be tackling, which shows that we must be investing in projects that support farmers in building resilience to face this climate crisis, that build agricultural systems, that work to regenerate our land and our soils, and that reduce rather than increase the water that's being taken from our rivers, our streams and our groundwater. What this means is not building big new dams to prop up unsustainable agribusiness. It means not delivering for the corporate vested interests that are sucking our rivers dry rather than delivering for struggling farmers who really need our help.

This bill, as it currently stands, is not what Australia needs. It's been rammed through. It's been used as a political football. But I'm not going to dwell on this, because the issue of drought is too important for us to be dwelling on the politics of how this is being misused at the moment. So I'm going to focus on what needs to happen to improve this bill and on the amendments that the Greens are going to move to this bill, which will make it a bill that can be supported and that will deliver for the struggling farmers of Australia. The problems with this bill start with the deep lack of accountability of the drought minister and the fact that the whole bill and the whole fund that is being invested in is leaving the door open to money actually being invested in fossil fuels, the sector that contributes to drought. There are huge changes that are needed.

There are four issues that the Greens seek to amend, and we look forward to the amendments being supported across this parliament. I'm particularly looking forward to the support of the Labor Party, because many of the issues are those that Senator Gallagher just outlined about the Labor Party's concerns about the bill. Firstly, we must significantly increase the parliamentary oversight of the drought minister. This bill gives far too much leeway to the minister and his National Party mates to pick and choose which projects get funded. Secondly, we must ensure the integrity of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and of our national water laws. Thirdly, we have to make sure that this bill doesn't rip $3.9 billion out of the Building Australia Fund. Our cities and regions are already experiencing chronic underinvestment in transport infrastructure. Instead, the Greens are proposing that the moneys for this fund should come from the billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks that we give to the fossil fuel industry every year. They are the ones who should be paying to clean up their own mess. Finally, it needs to be crystal clear that the investment vehicle for this fund must not invest in fossil fuels. It would be the peak of cynicism to have a drought fund that's designed to help our regions adapt to the impacts of climate change simultaneously investing in the very industries that are causing that climate crisis.

Cathy McGowan's amendments from the last parliament did improve this bill and the transparency and accountability of the remit of the minister, but they don't go far enough. As the bill currently sits, we've got a Future Drought Fund Consultative Committee which must provide advice on the Drought Resilience Funding Plan, and the minister must have regard to that advice. But, when it comes to advice on the design of grants or payments for individual projects, there is nothing. There's no need whatsoever for the minister to listen to the committee. The minister must ask for advice from the committee, but there's no requirement for the minister actually to listen to that advice. They can pick and choose whatever projects they like, as long as it can be argued that overall they comply with that drought resistance plan. So our first suite of amendments is building on and strengthening it to ensure that the minister actually must have regard to the advice of the committee on whether each individual grant or arrangement complies with the plan, as it would provide one further check on the minister's discretion.

Let's go to the consultative committee. We're setting up a consultative committee, but who do you think gets to pick the members of the consultative committee? Why, it's the minister. There needs to at least be some degree of proper community oversight over this committee. That's why the Greens would require, first of all, a public call for nominations to the committee, inviting the public to nominate people and then requiring the minister to take notice of the submissions that they receive. Then we would require the minister to publish written notice of their intent to nominate a member of that committee. There should be a submission period in relation to that nomination, and the final decision by the minister must have regard to those submissions.

When you look at other bodies that distribute money on this sort of scale, such as the Regional Investment Corporation, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, it's not the minister for energy or the minister for industry running around selecting individual projects to fund. By leaving these decisions directly in the hands of the minister, there is a much higher threshold of accountability that's required. That's why we think that each arrangement or grant should be disallowable by the parliament. We simply cannot afford to have a drought minister pork-barrelling projects across the country with such minimal oversight. Drought mitigation and resilience is too serious an issue for that. We're not saying that parliament should be disallowing hundreds of projects, but it does mean that in any egregious breach of good governance or in cases of clear corruption, which we have seen plenty of evidence of, there need to be safeguards in the public interest.

Our second suite of amendments relates to preventing the Future Drought Fund from ripping billions of dollars out of our infrastructure budget. Yes, Minister Littleproud was correct in saying that the Building Australia Fund hasn't been used to fund projects for half a decade; but that's entirely the fault of the government. The government have chosen to work around the Building Australia Fund because that money actually requires a degree of oversight by Infrastructure Australia of where the money goes, and they don't want that oversight—another example of the Nationals trying to work around good governance and good process to deliver money for their pet projects. But we don't even need to make this compromise. You don't need to raid the infrastructure budget to pay for this drought fund. There are billions and billions of dollars on the table ready to be taken from the very companies who are causing the climate crisis and the water crisis and the drought crisis, and that is the fossil fuel industry.

The Greens propose that we can raise $4.9 billion over the next two years merely by applying a flat 10 per cent royalty on projects that are subject to the petroleum resource rent tax. This would mean that multinational oil and gas companies like Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell would be funding drought resilience, not the taxpayer—and they should. It is the climate pollution spewing out of their operations that is causing and exacerbating drought. Right now the petroleum resource rent tax is the most rorted tax in the country. There are over $300 billion of tax credits ready to offset future payments, and they are growing at a higher rate than the bond rate. In its current form, the PRRT is absolutely useless. We are simply letting these giant oil and gas companies dig up and burn our resources for free. If you did fix the PRRT, this 10 per cent royalty would be offset against their liabilities under the PRRT and basically act as a floor. If they are making profits out of digging up our oil and gas, then 10 per cent of those profits should be taxed and go to pay for drought resilience. It's a policy that the Greens took to the election. But, even without changes to the way that the PRRT is calculated, this royalty would at least provide a baseline of revenue for the Commonwealth.

I will be moving amendments to keep the Building Australia Fund intact. And, yes, we understand the constitutional limitations of the Senate, so our initiative with regard to the PRRT is in the form of a second reading amendment. I foreshadow that I will move my second reading amendment that has been distributed in the chamber, calling on the government to properly tax those oil and gas super-majors to pay for the climate chaos that they are creating.

Our third suite of amendments relates to our grave concerns that this money is going to be used to build giant new dams up and down the Murray-Darling Basin—

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that mean that downstream communities in Wilcannia, Menindee, Mildura, Wentworth and Renmark, at the Murray mouth and all along the Coorong, will see their situation worsen. There simply is not enough water in the basin for further extraction. But we know that the Nationals don't care. In fact, I just heard Senator McKenzie saying 'hear, hear'. We know that they see their role as facilitating the rorting, facilitating the gross corruption of the Basin Plan, and supporting upstream irrigation.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. Resume your seat for a moment, Senator Rice. Senator McKenzie, do you have a point of order?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rice thinks she can come into this place and—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you have a point of order, Senator McKenzie?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do. I think she just disparaged the entire National Party and, as National Party deputy leader, I think we are not—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order, Senator McKenzie. Please resume your seat. Senator Rice, you have the call.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And they are supporting upstream irrigation by big agribusiness. We want some security that this funding isn't about helping out big corporate irrigators but is about delivering real water efficiency and real land rehabilitation, so we'll be moving amendments to ensure that the drought minister is properly consulting with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and that the arrangements and grants from this fund are properly compliant with the Water Act.

Finally, we need to be very clear about what this proposed $3.9 billion is for. Yes, there's $100 million going to drought resilience, but that $3.9 billion will be invested in a suite of securities and financial assets. It would be so deeply cynical and ironic if that $3.9 billion, which is designed to generate a self-sustaining $100 million a year drought resilience fund, was in turn investing in the very companies and body corporates that produce the fossil fuels that create drought. The Greens have previously called for divestment from fossil fuels and the tobacco and arms industries across all of the Commonwealth's financial investments, but this is such a clear-cut starting place. How can you not support the concept? It would just be astounding if this Senate thought it appropriate for the Future Drought Fund to invest in fossil fuel companies. To supplement this we believe the investment mandate of the Future Drought Fund should be a disallowable instrument. We must counteract this trend that we're seeing—that is, more and more use of delegated instruments and taking power away from this parliament and putting it in the hands of the minister.

These amendments are sensible; they follow the principles of accountability of the executive to parliament and proper community consultation. They make it clear that you don't need to lay waste to our infrastructure portfolio to fund drought relief. They ensure that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is protected from further wrecking by the National Party, and they make clear the principle that the very fund designed to ensure drought resilience should not be investing in the companies that are causing the climate crisis.

We hope that Labor support these commonsense amendments. But it's hard to hold much hope in them any more when they seem to be rolling over for the government at every opportunity. I mean, they said they were against the government's tax cuts and then they voted for them. They said that Australia needs to act on climate change, yet they voted with the government on a motion supporting opening up the Galilee Basin. Labor says that Newstart payments are too low, yet they voted against the Greens' motion to raise the rate of Newstart by $75 a week. Labor said they were against this bill but then they voted with the government in the House, and we just heard Senator Gallagher saying that Labor are not going to stand in the way. What has happened to Labor's principles? Where is their backbone? What is the point? Labor, it's not your job to facilitate the government's agenda. Yes, you lost the election, but millions of Australians voted for you to represent them. Millions of people voted for you in what is now obviously the vain hope that you would actually do something, that you would actually stand up and stand by your principles. Labor, you said that you weren't happy with the bill and that you didn't want the funding to come from the Building Australia Fund, so let's work together. Support these Greens' amendments to fix the big problems with this bill and to get that money to the farmers who need it.

I say: yes, let's create a national drought fund but not a giant slush fund for the drought minister and the Nationals to continue to prop up their mates in big agribusiness, not if it means ripping out nearly $4 billion from our national infrastructure budget, not if it means ripping up the Water Act and the Murray Darling Basin Plan and building giant new dams for the upstream cotton industry and not if it means creating a new investment stream for coal and oil and gas companies. We can do this; we can create a proper drought fund with proper oversight, and we can make the fossil fuel industry pay for it. Our amendments are sensible. They make important and nuance changes to the bill, and I call on the Senate to support the Greens in holding this government to account and ensuring that we don't exacerbate this truly awful drought blighting our country by once again handing the National Party a blank cheque.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again we've been subjected to Senator Rice, on behalf of the Greens, deriding regional Australians, deriding our primary producers, our farmers, our fishers and our foresters, deriding people who are doing it tough in a drought. We are the nation of droughts and flooding rains. That is not just a part of our present and our future but it has always been a part of our past. The Australian Greens come in here as the ultimate hypocrites. They say they support farmers and farming, but the reality is they do not want to see us farming in this country. It is members of the Greens who promote civil disobedience as animal activists rush in to terrorise, intimidate, harass and steal from our primary producers. That is the reality of the Australian Greens and the view they hold of Australian farming families and their communities. The National Party have been in this place for 100 years, standing up for farmers and regional communities, not for some private slush fund, Senator Rice—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President. We fundamentally understand and know that our nation's entire wealth generation comes from regional Australia, from the blood, sweat and tears of our pioneers in the past and from the innovation and the hard work of our farmers going into the future. That's why we as a government are very proud to continue to support our farmers and communities to prepare for future droughts.

Those opposite—and we heard it with Senator Gallagher's contribution—complain about not knowing that the Future Drought Fund Bill 2019 was going to be debated this week. I don't know why they didn't hear that at the Bush Summit last weekend in Dubbo. I don't know why they hadn't heard. Maybe they don't read regional newspapers. But blind Freddy knew that this bill was going to be debated this week. I would have thought that any political party that was seeking to form government at this point in our nation's present would have a plan on how to deal with the drought, not just in the present—as we are doing, and I'll run through those initiatives—but onwards into the future, because this won't be the last time our farmers, our communities and our nation experience drought conditions. We need to have a plan to ensure we build resilience going forward.

We have a variable climate, and it continues to change. We'll continue to support our farmers to produce the best clean, green product but also prepare for ongoing droughts and climate contingencies. The politics being played by the ALP in the other place last night was absolutely farcical. At the Bush Summit run by The Daily Tele in Dubbo last week, you would have heard the Leader of the Opposition talk a big game about supporting regional communities and drought-affected farmers and then say he was going to take the politics out of it. Well, all I've seen in the other place for the last two days, on issues that affect drought-affected farmers, is politics being played. There was vote after vote last night, as Tony Burke threw a tantrum around us trying to move this bill forward.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd ask you to refer to the member in the other place by his right title.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, a lot of politics has been played and—

Opposition senators interjecting—

I'm sorry I haven't memorised the electorates of every MP in the country.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle, you have a point of order?

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, the point of order is that you asked the minister to refer to those in the other house by their titles, and she ignored you. It's pretty simple.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle, I thought Senator McKenzie made a very gracious save, and I don't think she needs any of your assistance.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So the opposition choose to play politics with drought and drought-affected farmers because of their inability to make decisions and their lack of understanding and appreciation of the issues affecting regional Australia, whereas we, on the other hand, have a suite of measures already that we've been delivering in government and that we will continue to deliver not just for the present but, as I said, to build the resilience in our regional communities and our primary producers to deal with the next drought.

Since we were last here, I've travelled the country, meeting farmers, agribusiness owners, workers and families from rural and regional Australia, many of whom are suffering from the impacts of the drought. From Bowen to Dubbo, Mildura to Port Lincoln and right across the country, the message remains the same. Many of our regional communities are doing it really tough right now. For many, this drought is the worst they have ever experienced. It's long monotonous days of feeding cattle and sheep, of wondering how the next household bill or farm bill is going to get paid, of watching the horizon and the BOM radar results for a speck of cloud and pleasing data, and of praying for rain.

Our farmers are resilient. They're tough. They're used to the good and bad, but this drought has been tough and is testing even the best farmers out there. From day one, our government has prioritised backing our farmers. They not only feed and clothe our nation but help drive our nation's wealth, as they export 70 per cent of what they produce. The lifestyles of those living in the city are actually only possible because of the hard work of our primary producers.

We know as a government that, when regional Australia is strong and prosperous, our whole nation's economy is strong. Already as a government, we've provided $6.3 billion to farmers experiencing drought. Our support and assistance measures cover a range of areas, including financial assistance, investment in infrastructure, rural and regional mental health initiatives, combating pests and weeds, making information easier to access and improving existing services such as the farm household allowance and the Rural Financial Counselling Service.

But we're not only supporting our farmers now. We've always said we will support our farmers and their communities and hence our nation's future prosperity into the future, and that's exactly what this bill does. It is our government's commitment to supporting our agricultural sector into the future. The Future Drought Fund is a long-term investment to build drought resilience, including preparedness and recovery in our most drought-affected communities. It will enable farmers and their communities to fulfil their potential as productive and profitable contributors to the Australian economy by improving the performance of the overall agricultural sector. The Future Drought Fund will support research, development and innovation. We know that healthy farming landscapes created through innovative farming techniques will contribute to a drought-resilient and sustainable agricultural sector.

From the stump-jump plough to precision direct cropping, our farmers have always led the world in innovation. This fund will ensure the next innovations come sooner to help our farmers to continue to adjust. It will also support the delivery of infrastructure projects, promote the adoption of technology and deliver improved environmental and natural resource management to enhance sustainable agricultural practices. The Future Drought Fund will also provide farm and community support to bolster drought resilience across rural and regional communities. And, once established, the Future Drought Fund will provide a new, secure and predictable revenue stream to build drought resilience across Australia. This funding is additional to the funding already made available by the Liberal-National government to assist farmers during the existing drought and will not replace existing funding measures.

The Future Drought Fund will be managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians, and these guys have a proven track record of managing investment portfolios on behalf of the government and of maximising returns over the long term. In setting the benchmark rate of return, the government will consider the objectives to grow the fund to around $5 billion and make annual payments of $100 million to the Agriculture Future Drought Resilience Special Account to build drought resilience.

Drought is a constant factor in our agricultural system. The establishment of the Future Drought Fund will provide new, secure and predictable funding streams for drought resilience into the future to ensure the potential of this vibrant industry is realised through resilience planning. Drought has been on our government's agenda from day one. Helping our farming communities face the challenges is a key focus of our government. We won't be playing politics on drought. We'll continue to back our regions, back our regional communities and farmers and fight for the issues they care about.

We've heard a lot of talk in some of the contributions about slush funds. I'm sure that, if the Greens held a regional seat—or, indeed, if the Labor Party had seats that were dependent on agriculture—they wouldn't be viewing this money as slush funding; they would be viewing this money as building the future capacity and resilience of those communities and providing more local jobs into regional communities of growing agriculture. For Nationals MPs and regional Liberal MPs, drought programs and future resilience are key not for a slush fund but in building and seeking to secure a safe, prosperous regional Australia and agriculture industry not just for them and their local communities but indeed for our entire nation. I support the bill.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the short time I have before question time I will also begin my contribution in which I rise to speak on the Future Drought Fund Bill 2019 and the Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019 and support the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher. I want to make clear that Labor supports all and any actions being taken to support drought-affected farmers and communities. In fact we have supported all recent and immediate drought measures put forward by first the Abbott government, then the Turnbull government and more recently the Morrison government, but these bills are not putting forward any real solutions. The government has had plenty of opportunities to bring forward real funding to support farmers and their communities. Indeed Labor have said time and again that we will support a special appropriation for drought support. We actually want to see this government provide some real funding for drought support.

But after six years of wasted opportunities this government is only making our farmers and our rural and regional communities wait even longer for investments. Despite all the bravado that these bills must be passed this week, guess when the money is actually going to flow from this fund? It will be at least a year. Not one cent can flow until 1 July 2020 at the earliest. This urgent fund to relieve droughts across Australia is so urgent that at the very earliest funds won't flow from it for at least 12 months—not next week, not next month, nor even January next year. So much for being an urgent drought package—the glacial pace with which this government moves.

Only on 1 July next year when we finally get around to the point that funds can actually be distributed from this drought fund, which we have been hearing over and over again is a $5 billion drought fund, guess how much money will be provided from this allegedly $5 billion drought fund? It will be only $100 million per year first for the 2020-21 financial year and then only another $100 million available for the following financial year. That's it: a $5 billion urgent drought fund that won't kick in for at least 12 months and even then will provide only $100 million a year—all this rush for $200 million over two years.

If the Morrison government were serious about assisting our farmers, real money would be on the table right now and real projects would be underway. That's what Labor would like to see happen. As the shadow minister for northern Australia and the shadow minister for natural disaster and emergency management, in addition to being a Queensland senator, I know well the effects of drought and have been devastated at what can only be described as the lack of action from this government over the past six years. Under a mirage of appearing to finally do something on the drought, this government is now rushing through these bills that will abolish the $3.9 billion Building Australia Fund, which is actually designed to build infrastructure in rural and regional communities, including those that are affected by drought, as well as in our cities and has been in place for many years since the last federal Labor government established it.

That Building Australia Fund set up by Labor, which is now being raided by the government because it's not prepared to make a special allocation to support farmers and rural communities, has built infrastructure like the Ipswich Motorway in Queensland, the Hunter Expressway in New South Wales, the Pacific Highway Kempsey bypass in New South Wales and the Regional Rail Express in Victoria and has fixed NBN blackspots throughout regional Australia. They are the kinds of projects that have previously been funded through the Building Australia Fund under the last Labor federal government. The Building Australia Fund is a $3.9 billion fund that this government has failed to draw on, failed to access and failed to utilise, even though it can support projects in drought affected communities across—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Watt, you will be in continuation and I believe you have the call.