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

No, all he wanted to do was play the game, play to his base, and keep things going just the way they were—and in many cases just keep farmers poor, basically. He had no interest in lifting their sustainable profitability. He comes in here every day and claims credit for the free trade agreements, which, of course, are a matter for the trade minister. But he never talks about the non-trade barriers, the protocols, that still exist for so many growers and producers in this country. They are not getting access to those markets, because of non-tariff barriers and the failure of this government, of which he is a part, to put in place the protocols that are required for that market access.

There is another point here. It goes again to the unnecessary delay of the government's own bill. The intergovernmental agreement on drought is about to come to an end; the minister abolished the COAG committee which was charged with further progressing drought policy in this country; and, of course, farm household allowance, the ultimate safety net for farmers in drought or facing other problems, which is effectively Newstart with a more generous assets test, under this government is now only available to farmers for three years—and guess what? Many farmers on farm household allowance are coming to the end of their three years.

So what do they now face? What help do they now hope to have from a government in this very dry period? I think that, if he were at the dispatch box, the member for New England would say: these new loans that are going to be administered by the RIC. Well, I question whether that is going to be of sufficient assistance to farmers at all. But let's hope, if we take it as written, that it may assist some. Let's hope that this delay between December and February won't deny farmers the opportunity to apply for those loans on 1 July because the department hasn't been able to implement the program because the former minister refused to put his ego and his aspirations for further pork-barrelling behind him and just allow these amendments to go through last year. That's what he should have done. That would have been the right thing to do by the agriculture sector and the broader economy. But, of course, he refused to do it. He wanted to hold all the power. He wanted to pull all the strings. He wanted, at the click of a finger, to send some money here, there or elsewhere in the name of political expediency.

It wasn't about what was right for farmers generally or for the sector generally. It wasn't about productivity, sustainable profitability or dealing with the challenges as well as the opportunities that farmers face in this country. The minister can't even articulate what these loans are going to be, what their real purpose is and what the criteria are. These, of course, are still up in the air. We don't know. He'd say it's a matter for the board, but he also wanted to ensure that he could change whatever they said.

I am very pleased that the government has backed down. I'm glad we've got a new minister who, from time to time in recent weeks, has talked some common sense and has indicated that he might be up for a discussion about the big issues that are facing the agriculture sector and about how we make the most of the opportunities ahead of the sector in the face of growing global food demand. I look forward to doing what I hoped to do five years ago and maybe work with him in a bipartisan manner so that we can ensure that Australia's farmers are able to make the best of those opportunities.

We still think the RIC's a terrible pork barrel and a shocking boondoggle. We remain opposed to it, but the Senate's made its decision. It has passed the bill—33 to 31, by the way, on the third reading. If one senator had voted differently, it would have been a tie. I think that again reflects, in large part, the Senate's will and views. That doesn't happen on a bill like this if the bill before the Senate isn't very flawed, and this bill is a flawed bill.

Question agreed to.

See this speech in context