John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Hansard source

I have a couple of questions relating to departmental issues, which I will put on the record now. Then I will speak to the next series of questions. As far as the departmental issues are concerned, question on notice No. 139 in October 2012 and No. 124 in February 2013, were the coalition asked what nil meant to the annual rental of leased properties. The response was that annual rent is nil as the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is charged a licence fee, not rent, for some properties. That is a ludicrous answer and very technically a semantic play on words because the real question is: what is it actually costing the department, whether it be rent, a licence fee, whatever it might be to site itself in properties around Australia? That is really the question I am asking of the minister or his representative. What is it actually costing and can you now provide details of rent payments, licence fees and any other moneys paid for the lease of properties by DAFF?

My other questions are: what role has DAFF had in investigating the level of animal welfare issues that are associated with the Queensland cattle crisis? And what contact has DAFF or the minister had with the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities to look at cattle being allowed into national parks?

The Minister for the Environment, Water, Population and Communities, representing Senator Ludwig, made mention of the fact that recently, at a meeting with his state counterparts, an MOU was discussed regarding drought issues. And, yes, quite rightly, as the minister said, the old program of drought relief was changed in the way that he described. But the only other hard fact in that whole MOU—there was a heap of ideas and touchy-feely stuff and various things but only one hard fact—was that the government would not be the lender of last resort. That is fine, except at the same meeting it was discussed how the states and the Commonwealth would combine to make a reality the loans that the Commonwealth wants to make to agriculture around Australia.

My questions regarding those loans—they are totally at odds with that MOU statement, however we will take that one on notice ourselves—are: what are the trigger events that will make those loans a reality in the six states and one territory involved? With $60 million, or $30 million a year for two years, why would the Northern Territory, with something under 500 farmers in the whole Territory, have available to it the same amount of loans as New South Wales, shall we say, with somewhere between 35,000 and 40,000 farmers? Why should Tasmania, which is quite obviously the smallest state in Australia, have the same amount available to it as WA, which is quite obviously the biggest state in Australia? That is one question I would like answered: what was the idea behind that particular part of the policy or the loan?

I believe the interest rate has been set but not agreed to yet, at 4½ per cent. Knowing that the Commonwealth will probably borrow, at three per cent or a little more, the money that is going to them on loan, is there a policy about the Commonwealth covering every single cost—in other words, charging 1½ per cent or thereabouts more than the money will cost it? Is there going to be a reckoning on how that will be accounted, and have we got an agreement with any of the states as yet?

See this speech in context