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

The member for Warringah and those like him are conservative. It is easy for conservatives to believe that things as they are okay and are not in need of change, because usually those people are in relatively privileged positions and do not need things to change. But many people in our communities do not enjoy privileged positions—indeed, many people in our communities live under the most difficult circumstances—and, for them, change is important. The hope of a better life is something that they need, and they need their politicians to be talking in a progressive way. They need their politicians to be thinking about how we might do things better, not just how we want things to stay the same.

But there is another dichotomy out there in the marketplace that I would like to reflect on, and that is the divide between conflict and cooperation. I consider myself a vocal champion of those who live outside our capital cities. I consider myself a voice for those who work the land. I believe in the private sector as the main driver of economic wealth and job creation in this country. But that does not make me anti-capital city. It does not make me anti-milk processor or anti-meat processor, and I am certainly not anti-public service. They too play an important role in our economy and therefore our community.

Strong regional economies need strong capital cities. Strong capital cities need strong regional economies. It is pretty simple. Everyone in this place should understand that or can surely appreciate that. To be strong, farmers need businesses which add value to their product—again, abattoirs or meat processors, for example—and the private sector and a stable economy require a predictable, steady regulatory regime and therefore a strong public sector. Returning to the land, farmers need a healthy environment and the environment relies on good farming methods to be healthy. The interdependence is obvious and should be very clear to all in this place.

It appeared to me that, at the turn of the century, the consensus was building—that we had learnt the lessons from political conflict; that as political leaders we had learnt the value of consensus. Economic liberalism seemed to enjoy almost universal support. Protectionism appeared consigned to the dustbin of history. The health of our environment seemed front and centre in every debate. And there appeared to be a more enlightened conversation about the environment and how a sustainable environment is critical to a sustainable economy and therefore crucial to sustainable communities. But, by 2009, that emerging consensus on the key issues in our communities was breaking down. Again, I return to the member for Warringah—not in such happy terms on this occasion—and when I believe the breakdown began in earnest. Sadly, the consensus remains under attack under the Turnbull government, particularly under the failed leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister. I say that genuinely reluctantly.

It seems to me that the Deputy Prime Minister wants a war with everyone. Those who worry about our environment, including those who want to ensure farm profitability is sustainable, are front and centre. Again, our farmers can be great custodians of our land, but with limited natural resources in this country we need to ensure that those resources are allocated efficiently and used in the most sustainable and efficient way possible. The Deputy Prime Minister likes to joke about snails and frogs—species that make vital contributions to our ecology. They are not a joke. These are very serious issues. Our biodiversity is very serious and critical to our economy and, therefore, to our communities. Of course, those who add value to our agricultural products are also important to our economy. We should not be promoting a war between them and our farmers and producers. We need to be adding value along the value chain and making sure that whole value chain is as efficient as is possible. There is a role for politicians in that process.

With respect to our public servants, we need to respect them, not sack them, when they stand up to the minister of the day. We need to respect their work and all that they do in our economy in an administrative sense. They are a critical cog in the wheel. We need to respect our capital cities and the role they play in our economy. Where would our regions be without strong capital cities? Where would our democracy be without a strong Canberra? It is the place of democracy and the place where our public servants give us effective and loyal advice. It is a one-stop shop where a farmer from Western Australia can visit and see a minister, a shadow minister, some backbenchers, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, the National Farmers' Federation, the Cattle Council or whoever they might be looking for—the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, I might add.

Canberra is a function of decentralisation itself. The founding fathers very wisely found a spot where, in our capital city, no state would dominate, but democracy would be independent of those capital cities and those who run the country would be together, advising government when they were needing that advice or when they were seeking that advice. That is the Australian settlement. That is the way Canberra has worked for many years—since 1927, when the parliament first arrived here. That is how Canberra should continue to work.

Obviously, I have segued into the debate about decentralisation. Decentralisation can be a good thing, but our model should not be built on conflict. If a government agency can do its work just as effectively in a regional centre, there might be an argument for it doing so, but it is not just an end in itself. It cannot be done if the relocation is in any way a threat to the capacity of that organisation to do its work. That is the key to the current debate about the relocation of the APVMA and it is the key to the debate about decentralisation more generally. The government does not have a plan for decentralisation; the Deputy Prime Minister only has a plan to pork barrel, to boondoggle and to create the fiction that he can create jobs in the regions by relocating public service entities which remain unnamed, other than a couple that have been subject to debate.

This is a flawed philosophy, if it can be called that, and it is a disappointing one. It is not the political leadership our regions are crying out for. It is the role of our political leaders to provide leadership—to lead, not just for some of us but for all of us—not just those of us who live in the regions but those of us who live in the capital cities too and those who live in rural and remote Australia: all of us. Certainly, it is not for our politicians to take action for some at the expense of others, which has become the modus operandi of this Deputy Prime Minister.

We need to celebrate our regions, certainly. We need to talk them up. They are doing well. Of course, they can always do better and each and every one of us should do everything we can in this place to ensure that they always do. That is the nature of the progressive approach to politics. That is what I was talking about earlier: we can always do better. We do not want conflict and we do not want war. We cannot grow our regional economies by putting them at war with those who live in our capital cities. We are not independent of one another; we are one economy and we are one community. We need to lead in this place, to ensure that everything that we do in our regions is also of benefit to our capital cities and that everything we do in our capital cities is always also of benefit to our regions.

It is for our politicians—all of us in this place—to show that leadership: to show guidance and, where necessary, to educate people, because we are in a privileged position in this place. We have a wealth of information available to us as politicians. We have an education far better than any university can provide, by virtue of the privilege of sitting in this House or in the other place. From time to time, it is incumbent upon us to use the information we have available to us to bring people with us—to start again to rebuild that consensus.

But, sadly, the Deputy Prime Minister is determined on another course—to divide and conquer: to offset regions against cities and vice versa. He talks about our communities and our country as if they were two different places. Well, they are not two different places. Our environment, for example, is critical to both places, and it is wrong for the Deputy Prime Minister to constantly and regularly ridicule those who have concerns for our environment. And I am not just talking about greenies marching in the streets; I am talking about this country's scientists, who understand the importance of our biodiversity, the importance of protecting our environment and the importance of that to the sustainable profitability of our agriculture sector.

See this speech in context