Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Agriculture (Senator McKenzie) to questions without notice asked by Senators McCarthy, Sterle and Bilyk today.

I rise to take note of the answers given by Senator McKenzie to the questions asked by Senators McCarthy, Sterle and Bilyk. There's not much I want to remember about the federal election campaign, but there's one thing I do remember, and that is that Senator McKenzie demanded the agriculture portfolio. She actually went in there and said, 'I want the agriculture portfolio.' You would have to ask yourself why. Why did she want that portfolio? If you look at three significant issues that are confronting rural and regional Australia—and these have an impact on all Australians—on every issue the minister has either gone missing in action, mismanaged or failed to deliver. Let's look at those three issues. The dairy code of conduct: leaving dairy farmers hanging now for so long as they are doing it tough. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan: yesterday a target of protesting farmers in this place and around parliament. The drought response: always responding and never putting forward a cohesive plan for those communities impacted.

Let's go through each of those issues in a bit more detail. On dairy, the minister has overseen a complete market failure. They're not my words; they're the words of Senator McDonald, her own National Party colleague. Yesterday, what we saw in this place was the government refusing to allow debate on a bill that would secure milk prices and save the industry. The government would not even let us debate that issue. As we know, they have been keen to shut down debates on a number of issues over the last week.

In regard to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, we know the minister was sidelined in the meeting between irrigators, impacted communities and businesspeople—a meeting once again organised by one of her own National Party colleagues, Senator Davey. Mr Littleproud was invited and Minister Ley was invited but the agriculture minister was not invited to that meeting yesterday that had those impacted irrigators, communities and businesspeople.

And we know that the response on drought has been flat footed. We know that the National Party and the minister have been ignored by the Prime Minister consistently on this issue. The minister is always on the back foot, so never putting forward a cohesive plan to deal with drought and look after these communities so that they know they have a long-term plan. Always playing catch up. Then, when the Prime Minister did make a piecemeal announcement, the National Party and this minister were sidelined.

There are so many issues to confront for regional and rural Australia. On every occasion this minister is not delivering. So damaging has this minister's performance been that it is causing divisions within the National Party itself. We know the position of the member for Lyne, Dr Gillespie. He warned that if the minister's draft code dudded farmers he would refuse to rule out a leadership tilt as a result. Her own colleagues are targeting this minister in terms of her performance when it comes to dairy. We also know that the minister's performance is causing colleagues to turn on each other—we know this from the question time question put by Senator Bilyk to the minister in regard to a row between the member for Capricornia and the member for Wide Bay over the minister's performance. So even her own colleagues are turning on each other over the minister's performance, refusing to rule out a challenge to her position, because they know that the performance of this minister is having an impact in communities in rural and regional Australia.

Minister McKenzie's performance post election is: dairy code dysfunction, chaos in the handling of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and flat-footed on drought response for those communities impacted. At the centre is National Party infighting over the minister's performance, so much so that even Queensland's National Party colleagues are turning on each other because of this performance. This minister is responsible for a policy failure on dairy, a policy failure on the Murray-Darling Basin and a policy failure when it comes to drought response in this country for so many communities that have been impacted so devastatingly by the drought, and is standing by as rural and regional Australians are suffering. The minister is responsible for these issues that are so important to these communities, yet the minister is standing by and becoming a target of criticism for her own colleagues. The National Party members are turning on each other. Instead of fighting for those people who are suffering, those communities who are suffering and those people who voted for them at the election, they're actually getting stuck into each other—so bad is the performance by the minister. Not only do those dairy farmers in Queensland deserve so much better but also rural and regional Australia deserves so much better from this minister and this government.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you wanted an example of why the Labor Party are in opposition, we saw it in today's question time. We saw it in that performance from Senator Chisholm, talking about their performance in Queensland, which we will come back to, and we see it in the pathetic attacks on Senator McKenzie in this place. Senator Bilyk asked about bullying in one of her questions. What I have seen over a period of time from the Labor Party is that every time we have a high-performing senior female cabinet colleague the Labor Party seeks to bully them. We're seeing it again with Senator McKenzie. We see it with Senator Watt all the time. We heard it from Senator Chisholm. We used to get it ad nauseam from Senator Cameron. Every time there was a female colleague, particularly people like Minister Cash, you would have the disgraceful bullying attacks coming from Senator Cameron.

Let's be clear: this pile on is not based on any substance. I listened very closely to these questions. Issues around the dairy industry are very important, as is getting these things right, but the questions didn't go to that. They went to tidbits of gossip that are being published by unnamed sources in such and such a paper, in such and such a publication, asking about absolutely nothing. This is what the Labor Party have resorted to. They're not prepared to actually sit and debate the issues.

Senator McKenzie is going through the process of getting this right. Do you know what? A reform like this is not easy. You are dealing with disparate interests in different parts of the country. If it were that easy, it would have happened a long time ago. She is getting on with the job of taking on that difficult reform. Instead of engaging in that discussion, we have the politics of smear and bullying from the Labor Party which we have seen so often. I'm reminded again of Senator Cameron, when he would come into this place and say to Senator Cormann, 'Why do you need to hold Minister Cash's hand?' I remember Senator Cameron coming into this place and calling female colleagues 'silly school girls' when he didn't like what they were saying. This has been the modus operandi of the Labor Party, right up to the last election. They have been at it for the whole six years they have been in opposition. They have been at it for the six months since they were consigned to opposition again. If you want to get to the why, it is because they don't want to address the substance.

There are a lot of important issues to be talking about in this place, and the Labor Party have failed to address them. That is why they go to the politics of fear and smear. They are walking away from their attack on Minister Taylor. After having a fruitless go at Minister McKenzie, they come right at the end. I wonder why they're walking away from that attack. I put it to senators: why? It might be because, far from it being Minister Taylor's credibility that's now on the line, it's now shadow Attorney-General Dreyfus's credibility that is on the line.

Senator Walsh interjecting—

You may laugh, Senator, but when you've got a record of that many vexatious referrals to the police, that much wasting of the resources of police on your baseless political attacks, who is going to hold you to account? If the police were to come back and say, 'Nothing to see here,' as they have every other time that Minister Dreyfus has actually referred someone, wouldn't it be time that shadow Attorney-General Dreyfus resigned? How many more times can he get it wrong?

They don't want to talk about that anymore because that attack isn't working. They're very comfortable in the bullying, gossipy, aggressive attacks on Minister McKenzie, which are getting nowhere near the substance. I'll tell you this, Deputy President: they don't want to talk about the facts because when it comes to policy, we know where they stand. When it comes to the economy, they know they don't have a leg to stand on. What was their economic policy, and what is still their economic policy? It's $387 billion of extra taxes. The politics of envy. The politics of class warfare. They talked about the NDIS in their questions. Let's look at their record. They weren't able to deliver the NDIS. They didn't have the money. They left a funding gap. They couldn't list drugs on the PBS anymore because they couldn't manage the budget and couldn't manage the economy.

When your record is as bad as the modern ALP, I would suggest it is time to change tack. Senators opposite, the bullying and smearing and politics of fear may suit your personalities but it does nothing to benefit debate in this country and nothing to bring you back into government. (Time expired)

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has been asked important questions that go to her capacity and her performance in her portfolio. She's been asked about delays to her long-awaited dairy code. She's been asked why her backbench is taking matters into their own hands and going straight to industry themselves in search for solutions. She's been asked how her dairy code has 'dudded' farmers—that's a quote from her own side, not from the Australian Labor Party—and how her dairy code has caused leadership rumblings in her own party. She's been asked today why meetings about solutions for farmers are being held by the Nationals without the Minister for Agriculture even being invited. She's been asked today about growing tensions in her own party room about her leadership.

These are questions that result from her performance in this portfolio, a critical portfolio for Australian farmers and, of course, for many communities. At a time when hundreds of dairy farmers are being forced to leave the land, these questions raise really serious issues about the minister's capacity to come up with solutions. They raise serious issues about her capacity to manage her portfolio and they raise serious issues around this minister's leadership. What we've heard from the minister today in answer to our questions are statements along the lines that she supports dairy farmers and that she acknowledges that dairy farmers are doing it tough. She says that she is confident in her ability to deliver, but the question is: is her party confident in her ability to deliver? Are Australian dairy farmers confident in this minister's ability to deliver? Is the community confident in her ability to deliver?

Today Senator McKenzie's answers are really all just words. This minister is all delay and no action. Now we're seeing a revolt in the Nationals, in her own party, against her performance in this portfolio. When you listen to the comments made by Senator Seselja today as well, even he has failed to back her in. All he could do today, in his efforts, was attack the record of the Australian Labor Party, but what we're asking about today is Senator McKenzie's record. We're asking about her record, her accountability to the Australian people and her accountability to Australian dairy farmers.

It seems that, yet again, the junior partner of the coalition is in quite some strife. We know that this government is used to airing their dirty laundry publicly when it comes to their leaders, and they're not shy about kicking them out either. But the fact that we have yet another member of the National's leadership team with a question mark over her leadership is absolutely unbelievable. Let's face it, after her answers to our questions we are no closer to finding out whether she actually does have the true confidence of her colleagues and her party room. It certainly doesn't look like she does from the commentary of her own party over the last few weeks.

Over the last few weeks we've seen, time and time again, examples of Nationals senators and MPs publicly calling the minister out. They've been calling her out on her record, going behind her back, bypassing her and even refusing to rule out a challenge to her leadership position. That is where we are with the Nationals today. If this is the level of confidence in the minister from her own party, how can the parliament and the public be confident in her ability to do her job?

We are really yet to see any meaningful action on the crisis facing dairy farmers today from this minister. This is an industry that is in crisis, and what they don't need is a minister in crisis, they don't need a National Party in crisis and they don't need a government in crisis. (Time expired)

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that the Labor Party has sunk to new lows following the election. I know they're struggling to get back in the game but, really, outsourcing their agricultural policy to One Nation? That is just quite extraordinary. We had Senator Chisholm stand up and describe how they were supporting the proposal put forward yesterday in this place—the dairy bill put forward by the One Nation party. I find that just so extraordinary, because it just shows how little knowledge the Labor Party actually has of the bush and of agriculture.

That policy would be absolutely disastrous. Floor prices, as I have spoken about in this place before, are a disaster for agriculture. They have been repeated disasters across wool, sheepmeat in Western Australia and the wheat market. Various other forms of price control and controlled marketing have been an absolute disaster for the Australian agricultural sector repeatedly and over generations. The wool reserve price scheme, which collapsed in the early nineties, led to 10 to 15 years of struggle for that industry. Only in the last six or seven years has it found its feet after a period of stagnation. Floor prices have disastrous outcomes.

Let's have a look at the bill that One Nation has put forward and which Labor is enthusiastically supporting. Think about that again, those opposite, and those listening here today: you're enthusiastically supporting a rural policy put forward by One Nation. It makes it an offence for processors to purchase milk at a price below a determined base price. This is going to be a deterrent for processors to buy milk from farmers in regions with a higher farmgate price. Think about that for a moment: why are you going to buy milk from farmers in places like Queensland, where Senator McGrath comes from, my home state of Western Australia or northern New South Wales if they have a floor price which is too high? You would go for the cheapest source of production, which, in Australia, is the Victorian farmers, who largely supply an international market.

The proposed bill therefore incentivises the purchase of milk away from those higher-cost producers in Queensland, northern New South Wales and Western Australia. That makes it even more difficult for those places to compete. This bill will destroy the fresh milk market in places like Queensland, northern New South Wales and Western Australia—my home state. Farmers will be left with milk in vats because their milk will not be nationally competitive.

Minister McKenzie is doing an absolutely outstanding job. The dairy code of conduct is a very important reform, but it is something that this government, and Minister McKenzie, is absolutely determined to get right. She wants the whole industry on board, understanding what the code is going to do and how it will operate, and to make sure that the dairy code of conduct is fit for purpose. That means significant amounts of consultation, which is what Minister McKenzie has been doing.

Those opposite also want to attack the government over the response to drought. It is a comprehensive response, and it should be acknowledged and talked about as a positive that we do have the resources to be able to respond to difficult circumstances, to be able to help those farmers in need and to be able to make it the highest priority of government, as this government has done, particularly since coming back into government. What have we done? In our latest announcements we have committed over $709 million to support farmers. There is $50 million to extend the Drought Communities Program to even more councils, $10 million to keep kids in schools and $5 million for child care. There are drought loans of up to $2 million with no repayments or interest for the first two years, a new small-business drought loan, $200 million extra in the Building Better Regions Fund and $138.9 million in Roads to Recovery for drought affected areas. We've committed an additional $355 million to step up our drought response. Our latest announcement triples this to more than $1 billion since the election, as well as more than $1 billion in new interest-free loans to help see people through the hard times. This government is acting. This government cares about the bush. (Time expired)

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of answers to questions from Senators McCarthy, Sterle and Bilyk, but before I do I can't help but call out the appalling hypocrisy of senators on the other side, particularly Senator Seselja, who accused members on this side of sexism. Are their memories so short? I remember the Gillard prime ministership. I remember the 'Ditch the witch' posters out the front of Parliament House which senators and members stood in front of. I remember the way our first female Prime Minister was treated. I remember the way other Labor women members of parliament have been treated. Instead of defending the minister in question, Senator McKenzie, defending her performance and her record on these issues and defending her policy failures, they have the audacity to come after Labor senators on the issue of sexism—the audacity! I remember, we remember, the public remembers how you treated our first female Prime Minister.

Now to the issue, and the issue is Minister McKenzie and the performance of a minister in the portfolio of agriculture, which is a portfolio she wanted and a portfolio that seems to be run by backbenchers. That's what the questions today were about. They were questions on backbenchers being better advocates for the dairy industry to the CEOs of Coles and Woolworths than is the minister. They were questions about backbenchers organising policy meetings which the minister wasn't invited to. Actually, we had the extraordinary revelation that there are lots of meetings that the minister isn't invited to. I wonder how many others in her portfolio she is ignored on and separated from? Backbenchers are running the portfolio.

When we asked questions about the leadership within the Nationals, questions about internal instability and questions about debates over policy we got deflect, deflect, deflect. Then, when we came in here to debate this issue further, we got that extraordinary display from Senator Seselja. We got not a defence of the minister; not a defence of policy failures; not a defence of whatever's going on in the National Party; and not an admission that backbenchers, not the executive, are running the show but an attack on this side, because they can only talk about this side. When you don't have anything to talk about yourself, when you don't have your own policies, when you don't have your own views, when you can't control your backbench, when your leadership is in trouble, when your position is in trouble, you go after us. As you keep reminding us, day in, day out, we're not the government; you are. You're the government. These are your responsibilities to own up to. This is your portfolio to take control over—to take control off the backbench and give it to the executive—but you don't. You just focus on us. You focus on One Nation. The Nationals are meant to be standing up for rural and regional South Australians. That's what they tell us every day. That's their constituency—rural and regional South Australians. Where are they on dairy? I know where the backbench is actually—they're doing a pretty reasonable job. Where's the minister? What's she doing?

How are the Nationals going in South Australia? That's where it's heading. If you can't get control over this, if you can't get control over the policy, if you can't show leadership, if all you can do is focus on us, if all you can do is stoop so low as to launch those extraordinary attacks on Labor senators, given the track record of your side on these issues—what hopelessness is that? How hopeless for the people who depend on the Nationals. How hopeless for our dairy farmers. How hopeless for people in rural and regional Australia. How hopeless is it that backbenchers are running the show. The backbenchers are advocating more than the minister, and we're asking: where is she? What's she doing about it? And all you will do is focus on us. Focus on the policy.

Question agreed to.