Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting for Fisheries and Forestry) | Hansard source

I agree with the statement the member for Hunter made—that we should listen to our farmers. So to the member for Hunter: listen up. My family and I farm, as does the member for Grey. In my case, we're livestock producers, so, when the beginning of a motion acknowledges the significant contribution Australian livestock producers make to regional economies, you've got me interested.

There is a special kind of torment that comes with a farmer knowing that there is a wild dog predating on their livestock. They go to bed at night praying that that dog isn't going to come back, because the scene isn't a dead lamb here or a dead ewe over there; it is a massacre. I've seen it—and not much curdles my blood, but it does. Not one ewe, not one lamb—we're talking about entire flocks, because, when a wild dog gets that taste, it doesn't stop. It's not killing because it needs to eat; it's killing for fun. And, quite frankly, the scene doesn't bear thinking about. That's why our nation has always given a particularly important role to the National Wild Dog Action Plan. Farmers are sitting at home worried about their livestock—livestock they care about; livestock they've spent a small fortune acquiring or breeding, but also a small fortune supporting, whether through treatments or other things.

So, when I hear those opposite say, 'We don't want to hear any more speeches about how important this is,' I couldn't agree more. But then I think to myself, 'Hang on—between the saying and the doing is an ocean.' On the one hand, we hear these lovely speeches. I heard one from the member from Hunter. I heard one from the member for Forde. They're people who are trotted out in this place to pretend like those opposite have an affinity with rural and regional producers, because, whilst they live in rural communities—or have, in the case of the member for Forde—they haven't been producers. The truth is that I then think to myself, 'Hang on—250 grand?' With respect, there are departments in this government's orbit that spend more in petty cash. To think that this is now at a point where this funding is uncertain—I can't understand. This is an economy that contributes $302 million annually. Those opposite are very quick to drape themselves in the imagery of rural Australia. But you have to actually back it up with actions, not just words.

So I'm going to suggest, contrary to what those opposite have suggested, that the current government is biased against agriculture. And how do I say that? As a former barrister, I need to be able to prove things. Let me start with banning live sheep exports. That wasn't a pro-farmer move, I think. I could then back it up by saying 'water buybacks in the Murray-Darling basin'. That's not a pro-farmer move, quite frankly. I could keep going, if you like.

Sorry, Member for Grey? We're freelancing here! What's your suggestion?

See this speech in context