Damian Drum (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

This totally disingenuous policy was put forward by the Labor Party, turning their backs on our farmers. They're also making out that because this money is not arriving now, this money is not arriving next month, we're doing nothing for our drought-affected farmers. Yes, we are, with our farm household allowance, with our low-interest concessional loans, with the encouragement into the farm management deposits scheme. There are a whole raft of initiatives from this government that assist drought-affected farmers. And, yes, we need to do more, but we need to do more in their favour, not make their lives worse, which is where the Labor Party ended up going.

This $3.9 million Future Drought Fund is to generate $100 million for each and every year that the fund exists. That's what we're doing for the long term. Yes, we have our immediate plans that are ready to go right now. So, when our farmers are in trouble and they need assistance, we've got our farm household allowance and we've got low-interest loans. Together, they can total over $50,000 per annum. What we're trying to do is keep that in place but also build on resilience for the future. How do you do that? What are the types of projects that we might do into the future that are going to build on this resilience within the agricultural sector?

Well, right now, many of the horticulturalists around the Goulburn Valley are talking about a netting program to be able to shield their fruit from the extreme heat throughout the summer. This has been seen to increase the production of fruit and protect it from hail, birds and insects, but it also increases productivity and uses less water. We also see virtual fencing programs. Yes, they cost money, but they mean that farmers can effectively chew down their pastures at a rate that suits them, rather than losing those pastures in one great go.

Greater carbon levels need to be held in soils, as reported by Major General the Hon. Michael Jeffery, and we are investing $2 million to make sure of that. These carbon projects also cost money to get up and running, but they can be great earners for our farmers as well. As I say, many of our farmers are in fact early adopters when it comes to many of these programs. So, while we are helping our farmers right now, this $100 million will be built on each and every year into the future—therefore, building greater sustainability and greater resilience—putting in place some real changes that mean we're going to be able to take that industry considerably further forward.

It's also really interesting and worth looking at what some of the early adopters among our farmers, who are some of the best environmentalists in Australia, are actually doing with their farms. They are using great amounts of compost—again, to retain more moisture, more water, within the soil. No-till farming, or zero tillage, has now revolutionised the whole cropping industry, again making sure crop production increases, but using less water. We're also seeing on-farm efficiency programs—spending millions of dollars increasing productivity and decreasing water use. That's happened throughout the Goulburn Valley, and water efficiency programs will continue to spread right through New South Wales.

Science has played a big role in agriculture—using less water, learning how to stress your plants and then hit them with a quick rush on laser-graded paddocks, There are many more water-efficiency programs out there, but all of them cost money. They are expensive, and they're going to need some assistance from government into the future.

The dairy industry is moving heavily into corn and maize as a way of turning dry matter into milk productivity. This is something that, again, is going to see the average dairy farmer becoming able to stay in the water market beyond the term of maybe $180 per megalitre up towards $220 and way beyond that. If you have a barn-style concrete feed pad and you're looking at moving into maize and corn, you may be able to stay in the market and pay up to $400 a megalitre for water if you can generate your feed systems in a way that is going to take advantage of this.

Again, these barn-style feed pads and these rotary dairies are incredibly expensive. The early adapters are going to move into this space. Some of the bigger family and corporate farms are going to need some assistance from government. This is where this fund, into the future, is going to be able to play a major role in assisting these farmers to be those early adapters and to be those farmers who move into a new way of milk production or horticulture, with increased productivity and less water reliance. They will be able to pay more and be able to complete with some of the commodities that, at the moment, can pay $500 and $600 per megalitre for their water.

Farmers might not be perfect; but when they were kneeling at the altar we didn't come up behind them, take a knife to their throats and effectively try to finish them off the way that the Labor Party has threatened to do. In the lead-up to the last election, the Labor Party threatened to bring back buybacks. We all know that that is the most inefficient, lazy, dangerous and detrimental water policy program you could ever have. The Labor Party were going right down the path of water buybacks. The Labor Party were going to push ahead with the $450, taking more water out of agriculture to go into the environment. This was right at the time when the dairy industry and the horticultural industry were crying out for some of that environmental water to maybe be lent back to agricultural in dry days, in the way of the original Murray-Darling Basin Plan that was put forward by John Howard. It never got designed in that manner. Unfortunately, we now have environment being the biggest holder of water. They have no capacity and no want to actually assist with helping our agricultural sector through this drought. That is because they have their own objectives that they want to meet.

See this speech in context