Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I really wish that that was true in relation to regions in my part of the world, but we're yet to see it. Perhaps, as I go on, you will see how the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is an example of those opposite being full of talk, but, at the end of the day, having a serious problem with transparency, and pretending that they're actually doing something to help people on the land. I want to put on the record from the start how important our farmers are. They are economic drivers in our regions. Of course they're essential to our country; that's why we support them. But they deserve better than they're getting from those opposite.

The previous speaker, the member for Corangamite, was talking about the fact that her region has not been forgotten by the current federal government. I guess that's part of the problem, because that's the pork-barrelling that we're getting used to seeing, and it's not good for our country. It's not good for the economic development of our country for someone to just decide to move government agencies to areas where you have, say, the Deputy Prime Minister. We all want to see federal investment in regional areas of our country. That's why it would have been good to see something come out of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund by now. It was announced two years ago, and still not a dollar has been spent. Those opposite want to give away perhaps a billion dollars to a coal company called Adani, but, as far as helping people in the regions of the north, there is nothing—zero, zilch. This Regional Investment Corporation exercise looks like another run of that.

I don't know what it is with this government and transparency. What is it with this government establishing boards and organisations that are effectively able to operate opaquely and without any real oversight? How come we're seeing, yet again, an organisation being set up that will not be subject to reasonable scrutiny? How is it that the government can keep setting up organisations, stacking them with their mates and having those organisations operate in the shadows, without any credible form of oversight at all?

As mentioned, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility has had some difficulties in actually helping businesses—small businesses, medium businesses, even big businesses—thus far. We're not happy with the $5 billion NAIF—it is yet another blatant exercise in pork barrelling.

Of course we're for regional development and regional investment—that's why we wanted to see something come out of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. It's a national imperative but it's also really important that the communities in our part of the world, the regions of the north, see some investment from the federal government. Developing the north is not a new idea, but it's certainly one whose time has come. Agricultural businesses across the north could really do with a helping hand from the federal government but they're yet to really see any assistance. I reflected just the other day on the absolute shambles that was the handling of the backpacker tax by the exact people opposite who now want to set up another corporation that's going to pretend to assist.

If anything like this new corporation is going to be set up, it needs to be done in a way that's transparent. Obviously it needs to be done in a timely manner, to minimise the amount of money spent on administration of that fund—unfortunately, the only money spent on the NAIF is for the executive and board; as I said, not a dollar has come into the territory or across the north—and, perhaps more importantly, it needs to be done in manner that actually works and is actually taken up by the producers. They're the people that the previous speaker, the member for Corangamite, said they were supportive of, but there is no evidence of actions or outcomes matching the rhetoric. As I said, we're not seeing that with the NAIF at all. We're not really seeing it in this bill, either, and it's not really what we've been seeing from this government. This entire bill has been drafted with no cost-benefit analysis whatsoever. That's disgraceful, but no-one knows if this bill will actually deliver on the claims the government has made. No-one knows if we'll fast track the construction of dams and priority water infrastructure; no-one knows if it will stimulate investment and economic growth and increase agricultural productivity in rural and regional communities. But that hasn't stopped this government from banging the drum, as they did with the $5 billion NAIF, that this corporation will bring productivity, investment and economic growth. I query why they think this is going to happen, and I query where the government has got the information from that it is going to bring economic growth.

Maybe that's what will happen where the corporation will be established, Orange—and we see the government establishing yet another government agency in a government electorate. First it was Armidale in New England and now it's Orange. I like Orange. It's a nice place if you like the cold. It gets bitterly cold in Orange, but it's a nice place with good people. But, as the member for Bendigo said, you've got to worry about the rationale. So first there is no cost-benefit analysis and then there is no real rationale for locating it in the city of Orange. There was no transparent or fair process undertaken to determine where to base this corporation so, unfortunately, just as we saw with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority that was moved to the current Deputy Prime Minister's electorate, we have seen no rationale whatsoever. It's even worse because what it is proposed that this corporation does is exactly what all the states and territories are already doing. What's the point of doing something that is already being done by state governments? We heard before that it would be happening more speedily than what the states and territories are doing. But I can tell you that, if the NAIF is anything to go by, I currently have a bit more confidence in the states and territories working with the regions than I have in the current federal government in actually getting some support out the door for our regions.

There are proponents across the north of Australia that are keen for this concessional loan assistance so that they can drive their regional productivity and have successful businesses that do well and bring prosperity to our country. I'm just saying that it's an example of where it's not happening. The Northern Territory government, for example, is running the Drought Concessional Loans Scheme, which already provides concessional loan support to farmers in the Territory. So it's already doing that. What my concern is, and the concern of many on this side, is that those opposite want to set up a process that is duplicating what is already being done to provide a veneer of them actually doing something productive to help out farmers and others on the land. So I don't think that anybody will be taking this up.

It's supposed to be a loan scheme of last resort, but at the same time the farm business will need to be deemed a viable operation. Whether a farm business is determined as being viable has been a major issue for the states and territories when developing their guidelines for concessional loans. This will still be a problem with the new concessional loans scheme. It just looks like a policy for appearances. I remember well when the NAIF was launched and deliberately deceptive statements went out on all media across the north of Australia: $5 billion for the north. It's the appearance of things. What I'm concerned about is that those opposite are not fair dinkum. There has failed to be a consistent, coherent rationale for the establishment of this corporation. There have been mixed messages about the policy objectives of the establishment of this corporation.

Further, the concessional loans are only for a period of 10 years. What happens to these farmers after the 10-year period? Where do they go after that? Will they need to go back to their old banks and ask if they can go back on the books? The government is claiming that the loans offered will not be the same as those currently being offered through state and territory governments, but it has completely failed to explain the differences. The government has not undertaken any genuine consultation about the functions and responsibilities of this corporation. The NAIF was launched two years ago, and the only thing we have seen come out of it is the wages of the executives, with no real output. I fail to see why this new Regional Investment Corporation set up by the government will be any different. The board of this corporation have extended powers and even less oversight. That's a concern, because when you're talking about millions or billions of dollars of taxpayers' funds there needs to be sufficient oversight and transparency. But the government has completely failed to ensure safeguards from political influence. This is very concerning and adds to the worries we have about the effectiveness of this scheme.

I am not convinced that this agency will be any better at delivering for Australians than the NAIF currently is. It needs a review and it needs to be assessed again. This fund is supposed to provide emergency relief to farmers, but if it's administered the same way the NAIF has been, as we fear it will be, in a year's time all those farmers will still be waiting. This government has shown how incompetent it is in delivering these funding agencies. We know that from our own experiences in the north. It's also shown how opaque and how far removed it has made these agencies from proper scrutiny. It's shown it can't be trusted to establish these agencies.

As I mentioned at the outset, people on this side support working people in our regions in producing for our country. One example is the agricultural output of the rural area just outside Darwin, which is incredible. They're producing more than the Ord River system is producing at this point in time. We're fair dinkum about supporting people on the land. We want to make sure the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility works. Should we come into government at the next election, we'll be working with the NAIF to get it working properly, to make sure there's proper oversight and to ensure that it's not just jobs for the boys but that it is actually helping proponents on the land.

Our concern with this bill is that, again, we have a suggestion of a corporation which appears to be helping people in the regions but which seems to be another exercise in creating agencies to go into electorates held by those opposite. That's not a way to develop our regions. It seems that this bill is designed to come up with an organisation that duplicates what states and territories are doing and that doesn't have proper oversight, and, for that reason, we're not supportive.

See this speech in context