Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hunter proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s failures on agriculture

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I call the member for Hunter and now understand why he wasn't interjecting, which is very unusual.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you are so right, Mr Speaker! In beginning my contribution to this debate, I'm going to ask my colleagues to do something for me, and I warn them in advance that it is a big ask. I want them to imagine for a moment that they are the current Prime Minister's agriculture minister. I know that's a little bit confusing because, at the moment, they have two trying to clean up the mess. But imagine you are the member for Cook's agricultural minister, and you're lining up for an interview. The journalist asks you what should be a pretty basic question. She asks, first of all, 'What is the fairest way to measure how successful the government has been in agriculture over the course of the last six years? And how would you measure the performance of your government against those criteria?'

In those circumstances, you might think that the minister's hard drive is running over and thinking about productivity in the sector over the last six years. But as the minister, you're immediately saying to yourself, 'No, I can't go there because productivity has been flatlining in the agriculture sector for all of that period of time.' Then you think to yourself: maybe I can talk about farm profitability. But, no, then you remember reading the latest ABARES report, which tells you that net farm incomes are down 15 per cent this year, so you're not going to go to profitability. Maybe you can talk about grains production. No, you're not going to go there. Maybe you might want to talk about slaughter numbers—no. You might want to talk about the herd size in Australia, now the lowest in more than 20 years, but, no, you're not going to go there either—the value of production, the output of the industry.

The Prime Minister was in Dubbo last week. He said he supports the NFF and its ambitions to grow the sector to $100 billion annually. The problem is that in the last three years it's gone from $67 billion to $65 billion to $64 billion. The sector is going backwards not forwards. This government took it there and it has no plan to turn those numbers around.

In the absence of an opportunity to talk about how it's going, you might think that maybe we can talk about forecasts. Maybe you could argue that all the hard work is about to bear fruit, excuse the pun, and talk about where things are heading. But, of course, that becomes a bit problematic too, because all the forecasts are looking pretty much the same. Poor production is forecast for seven per cent. Slaughter numbers, as I mentioned, are forecast to fall nine per cent. ABARES is predicting that export earnings in the whole sector will fall five per cent over the next 12 months.

I'm a pretty fair person, and I accept that much of this can be attributed to drought. Our food and fibre producers are in the grip of probably the worst drought in the history of the nation, certainly the worst drought in some areas in this country. It's seven years in the making. It's dryer and hotter.

I will park that aside for a moment and return to that, because one of the ministers seems very interested in that subject. If you're the minister you may want to talk about the achievements of the government in the agricultural sector, some of the initiatives the government has taken in this space. Then, of course, you're asking yourself, 'Can I really talk about the centrepiece, the 2015 white paper?' I don't think so—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Paterson says, 'gone'. Yes, no-one on that side. We waited two years for it. It was the centrepiece of their agricultural policy in the lead-up to the 2013 election, the agricultural white paper. Remember I used to have the weekly media release? Another week has passed and we still don't have an agricultural white paper. It left as slowly as it came. Let me talk about some of those.

You might want to ask yourself how the dairy code of conduct is going? It was recommended by the ACCC, I think, in late 2018. Our farmers are now being told that they don't get a code of conduct until July 2020. By the way, going back to the numbers, I asked people in the agricultural sector how the dairy farmers are going on the watch of this government. I will ask them whether they believe this government has done anything meaningful to help them. Of course, the answer will be no.

If you were the minister would you talk about the wheat port code? Of course you wouldn't. Guess what? No-one talks about it anymore, because it only covers one exporter. This government introduced a wheat port code that now only covers one exporter.

Maybe the minister might be thinking about the agriculture visa. Do we remember the agriculture visa? Minister, your Prime Minister talked about it pretty regularly. He was going to have one. Then he wasn't going to be have one. Then he was going to have one again. Of course, we have not heard anything of it, certainly not post the election.

Back to visas, what about the deal they did with Nick Xenophon to get the backpacker tax through? Remember the backpacker tax? Instead of helping the workforce issue in the horticulture industry they made it worse. They did a deal with then Senator Nick Xenophon. What was the deal? They were going to continue to pay people an unemployment benefit while they picked. Remember that? How long did that last? I don't think any minister would be using that as an example of some of the success stories of this government. How many dams did the member for New England build in the end? I said, at this despatch box in 2013, that he will never build a dam. No, he never did. We're still cleaning up his mess.

What about the white paper's rebate to help farmers secure multi-peril crop insurance? Where is that now? I remember it well. They spent more on marketing the program to farmers than they handed out in rebates. It was so successful! You'll be interested in this, Deputy Speaker Hogan: what about the money to produce more co-ops? Everyone loves a co-op in rural and regional Australian, don't they? They love a co-op. The white paper was going to give us co-ops everywhere—a co-op here, a co-op there and a co-op everywhere. Of course, no-one ever talks about that program any more. The list goes on and on.

What represents one of the most important entities in the agricultural sector? It's APVMA. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority ensures that the chemicals our farmers use are safe for both them and their workers and for the food that we consume. Our veterinarians rely on the APVMA to make sure they have access to the right drugs for both our primary production animals and our companion animals. How is that going these days? Not very well. That is because the member for New England decided to put himself ahead of the farming community by pork-barrelling that authority all the way to New England. The only reason it still has a heartbeat at all is that the government—having realised it was such a mess—now has more than 50 scientists and regulatory lawyers working here in Canberra, contrary to their own policy rule. The CEO of the APVMA was forced to get legal advice to tell him that he can continue to employ people in Canberra.

I won't even start on the farm household allowance, because I have ran out of time. But there will be a bill later, and there will be plenty of time for me to talk. Minister, we will be talking about the way you allowed the boss of your department—now Bridget McKenzie's department—to be sacked because Barnaby Joyce mislead this chamber to cover for his own incompetencies. This is a government full of people who talk about our farmers, but on a regular basis they put their own political interests ahead of the interests of our farmers. There's plenty of evidence of it. When we get to the farm household allowance bill, I'll be talking more about them. We want to hear more policy from this government and less political spin.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's amazing how you can get a new lease of life after a near-death political experience. You get this courage, you come out from under your rock and you decide that you are going to stand up and stand be for something after six years of doing nothing but being a lapdog to the policies of a Labor Party that that doesn't care about regional and rural Australia. Lo and behold, he has found a voice! It is a big voice! It took a near-death experience, and the National Party is coming for you. Let me tell you, we came very, very close. The Nats are coming because we have a delivery. Let me tell you, it's because we believe in agriculture and we believe in what agriculture stands for.

Let me tell you about what agriculture has done. We have gone from a $34 billion industry to an over $60 billion industry in eight years. Let me tell you why we do get ups and downs. It's a thing called the weather. Those opposite don't understand that. We are on a trajectory to get to a $100 billion industry by 2030. That is because of the environment that we put around the agricultural sector. We put a big framework around that yesterday. We put in place a future drought fund that will go to $5 billion, paying $100 million a year. Those opposite had to be brought kicking and screaming to this.

In October they decided to politicise the misery of Australian farmers and voted no. That is the most disgraceful act I've ever seen in this parliament. To politicise their misery is absolutely disgraceful. It wasn't until you were towelled up on 18 May and you had an epiphany, underneath that rock you've been hiding under, that you had to come out and you had to finally be part of the conversation.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McEwen on a point of order?

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister should address his comments through the chair.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good point. The minister will direct his comments to the chair.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will. Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you'd know, I'd never pass that upon you, but the member for Hunter obviously has a long and proud record of doing nothing. So, let me say: we do have a proud record of putting the environment—and the drought has been one of the biggest challenges we've faced, yet he turned his back on it. The member for Hunter did nothing and in fact tried to stop us, and there was not one question, in question time, since I was ag minister, for the 16 months I was there—not one question from him. But let me say that we've also done a lot of reform over the last 16 months that I was ag minister to help take this industry to over $60 billion.

Let me go back to one of the sectors the member for Hunter quite proudly talked about, around dairy, and the cruel hoax he put on dairy farmers during the election campaign—to politicise their misery by telling them they were going to get a floor price. But he wasn't going to give them that. He was going to give them a review by the ACCC to look into it. Well, let me tell you—and how you can save the taxpayer a couple of million bucks—we got a report from the ACCC on 30 April the previous year. It said to put a dairy code of conduct, not a floor price. It was reckless—a reckless, cruel hoax that he was promising and touting to dairy farmers around this country. It was a disgraceful act preying on their misery.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hunter on a point of order?

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is misleading the House and he should be forced to authenticate that statement, because it is untrue. He's misrepresented the—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I give the minister the call.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is why he's getting riled up—because he knows he went too far. He started by saying he'd promise a review, and then he sat at the kitchen table—he tucked his legs underneath that farm table out there—

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

They did, because you promised them something you could never deliver. That's why people hate politicians—because they go on and tell them what they want to hear. You've got to have the courage, you've got to have the ticker to stand in front of them and tell them the truth. That's why we've acted, and we're putting in place a dairy code of conduct—exactly what the ACCC said. It's coming in next year. This is why it's dangerous that someone from that side could ever be ag minister—because there are contracts in place; there are intricacies to this market that you do not play with, and you do not undertake actions that are rash, that would actually have perverse outcomes. You didn't even think about that, nor care. It was all about trying to make a cheap point—preying on these people's misery, a cruel hoax that you knew you could never deliver. And the ACCC, in that report on 30 April, had already said that the only way to deliver this was through a mandatory code of conduct. Lo and behold, we're delivering it, and it will come in in a responsible and methodical way that will deliver.

But then we went further. We went to put in place a market platform that gives greater market opportunities for our farmers. We announced this during the election campaign. It would have been great if the opposition spokesman had been able to see that—and for many other commodities. Let me explain it to you in simplistic terms. I want to keep it with you, because you weren't here. The member for Hunter was hidden under that rock, so he probably didn't hear a lot that was happening during the campaign. The member for Hunter was hiding. He was in exile all right. Let me tell you what happened. It's like with many other commodities, like cotton, like grains: you're able to hedge a product. These are the types of things that give a market opportunity.

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

Yes, you were hidden under that rock; you were hidden, my friend. But we made sure that we gave them real options—sensible policy that would be long-lasting and sustainable, not just to get us through an election cycle. That's what real leadership is: to stand up and be honest, and to back your farmers with something that's real. But let me go further on what we've been able to achieve in the last 16 months: the Craik review into biosecurity—an extra $313 million into biosecurity. We are delivering all 42 recommendations, lock, stock and barrel. If we do not undertake serious measures around biosecurity, I can assure you that we will lose our clean green image.

Let me make sure that we understand how important that is to us all—I'm losing my breath; I've got so much to talk about here—but let me just go back. While he has got this new-found courage, it's funny that when we were talking about milk—and I will go back to milk for a minute, because it is important—I do recall the member for Hunter standing here chastising me about attacking supermarkets for not giving dairy farmers an extra 10c. He absolutely lost it over the fact that I would have the temerity to go out there and attack supermarkets. I stand by farmers, not big corporates. The member for Hunter was tucked underneath the board tables of Coles and Woolworths—he was hidden with them—and I went and had conversations. Let me tell you, it took courage to stand up to those supermarkets and have the conversation. And do you know what? We broke the back of $1-a-litre milk because I had the courage to stand up to them. We had the courage on this side, and we've made sure that that's now giving real returns.

But we've gone further. We want to talk about the APVMA. We believe in decentralisation. This side believes in regional and rural Australia. It believes that they can do it just as well as people in Canberra or anywhere else. If we empower them and undertake to invest in them, lo and behold, business will follow. When we took over, the APVMA was getting 34 per cent of applications done on time. The APVMA's performance is now at over 70 per cent, and we have decentralised to Armidale. I was in Armidale and I sat there. I actually went there to listen rather than to stand in Canberra in the bubble—as you're slowly learning after the election. I listened to the people who have moved there. In fact, I met one of the senior scientists, who was in Geneva before coming to Armidale. She made the comment to me that if this had not been decentralised to Armidale and had stayed in Canberra she would not have come back to Australia to work for the APVMA. She believed in the lifestyle and she also believed in the strategy of being close to a university. This is about making sure we get results. This is a strategic move that has delivered.

Let me tell you also about ag visas. We have changed around the policies in respect of bringing in foreign workers to help us get the food off those vines and off those trees when we need to. But do you know what? The responsibility of the Australian government is first and foremost to keep its people safe. You make sure that if you make any changes to the visa system you do it in a sensible and methodical way where you do not put Australian security at risk. The Prime Minister made it very clear at the NFF council meeting when he said that we would work towards it but we would have to do it in a sensible, methodical way. That is why we take the advice of specialists in intelligence and in defence who can tell us how we can do this. This is the reality of good government. It's not about trying to politicise for a cheap, tawdry point. These are achievements.

One of my greatest achievements as the agriculture minister over 16 months, of which I'm proud, is that I took female government board representation from 37 per cent to 47 per cent. I was able to right the wrong of the past, and it's one of my greatest achievements. I can be proud of it. (Time expired)

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The story of agriculture over the last six years has been a terrible indictment of the government, and I'm pleased to support the member for Hunter, our shadow minister for agriculture, who, with me, has been working with our farmers, as have many of the other members who have regional electorates. But before I refer to some of these terrible failings, I would like to comment on the answers from the member for Hume in response to the questions today from the member for Griffith. He made the claim that I wasn't responding to the farmers of the Monaro. The interesting thing was that he claimed he was representing his constituents. Of course, the Monaro is not in Hume. Funnily enough, the name refers to the fact that it's in my electorate of Eden-Monaro. So his interest in farmers is curiously specific and limited to the farmers of the Monaro.

I've had journalists come to me and ask me about the story affecting the member, and I've refused to talk to them because I make it a practice to never impugn the integrity of members in this place—or outside this place. But he got up in here today and slagged me off, saying that I wasn't representing the farmers of the Monaro. Let me tell you that no farmer in Monaro, no constituent, has raised this issue with my office. I went back and checked through all the records. I have had representations from constituents about the story affecting the member for Hume. And I'll leave it at that. But for him to attack me on this issue—he evidenced the fact that he was looking at an issue that didn't represent the interests of his constituents but the farmers in my electorate. I leave others to draw conclusions from that. His answers were very revealing.

Beyond that, we've seen other issues of self-interest emerge in this whole story. The shadow minister for agriculture, quite rightly, talked about the APVMA saga—a terrible saga, for many reasons—but where was it relocated to? Can we remember where it was relocated to? It was relocated to Armidale, in the electorate of New England, the Minister for Agriculture's electorate. There are a few things that occurred as a result of that. This organisation was critical to our farmers, and this action of decentralisation, so-called, wrecked it. They lost 30 per cent of their scientists straight off the bat.

The reason that organisation was here was that it was close to the CSIRO and other tertiary research institutions. It was also a convenient place for peak organisations of our farmers to conveniently visit and be here in the centralised location of the organisations relevant to their interests and needs. That's what the peak organisations representing the farmers have said. That's what the dairy farmers' association and the MLA have said, that this decentralisation does not make sense. And it doesn't create new jobs in the regions. It's been taking jobs from this region to another region. It's stealing from Peter to pay Paul. The ACT is the Bush Capital. It was created to be that, and it supports the whole of southern New South Wales and the farmers that exist in this region. So this was a short-sighted issue.

It reflects the other damage that the minister created in relation to water policy: the Murray-Darling Basin—we're seeing all that come back to haunt us—the interventions he made in the work we were doing on droughts, in terms of the COAG committee process and looking to move beyond the exceptional circumstances regime, which was not serving the interests of our farmers, and dealing with the more exigent circumstances of drought our farmers are facing. He killed that off and replaced it with nothing. Then we had no answer to the droughts that have been affecting us lately.

He also took away the measures we put in place to assist with our live export problems. As could well have been predicted, it came back again to bite us, in relation to the live sheep trade. Every time there is an instance like this it erodes the market for our producers, our meat producers. Butchers are telling me that every time one of these videos appears people stop buying their meat. It affects the market, and it affects the image of this country as a clean, green, healthy animal-welfare exporting nation. So the damage he did by taking away those reform measures came back to bite him as well.

There were so many things. The backpacker tax was mentioned. That skills deficit in the bush is still a huge issue, and that really poor policy impacted my fruitgrowers in Eden-Monaro, my wine growers. Even today, the RAI have reported that there are 44,600 vacancies in rural and regional Australia. There is a massive skills deficit that is only being exacerbated by the policies of this government towards our TAFEs, which people in country areas know is vitally important, and which you've got to start putting some effort back into.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to talk on this particular MPI. I'm looking around to see if there are any other dairy farmers in this parliament. I don't think there are. I'd be very interested to see the—

Ms Claydon interjecting—

Sorry?

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It wasn't me!

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That probably explains the contempt with which we're held as dairy farmers, and particularly as farmers. Where is there a farmer on that side that's going to speak today on this MPI? Where is the farmer?

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All my family are dairy farmers. They've been doing it for 100 years.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where is the farmer? When we're talking about—

Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—

Where is the farmer? You talk a lot about agriculture but where is the farmer? Here we are, listening to an MPI, and I've been very interested to hear the comments about live export. The opposition have said they were going to completely shut the live sheep trade. In Western Australia, the damage that that would have done would have been to the multimillions of dollars that that industry is worth to Western Australia. What's worse is that what's not well understood on the other side is the effect it has on small, regional communities. This would be exacerbated right across Western Australia in the areas where the sheep are produced. Someone like the livestock transporter frequently was the only person in a small community who was driving that local economy. The fuel supplier, the local store, the employment and the mechanic are all part of that supply chain and value chain. That was at risk. The farmers were at risk from their climate change policies—that open-ended, not costed climate change policy.

I'm proud to be a farmer. I'll stand up in this place and anywhere else and defend our farmers and be proud of them. I'm also proud to be a dairy farmer. That's in spite of perhaps what's said, at times, about dairy farmers.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

David Littleproud killed the industry anyway.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, member for Hunter—who's still here—it was a really poor approach that Labor took in the run to the election around the dairy industry. It was simply opportunistic. For those of us who understand the industry, we saw it for exactly what it was—and opportunism is its name. It certainly didn't help the industry one little bit.

I'm pleased that our farm production is up 25 per cent since 2017. That's up since we've been in government. I'm equally pleased to see the amount of fabulous produce that our farmers send around the world. During the global financial crisis, it was our agricultural sector that underpinned our terms of trade and that did the job for Australia. Yes, we are frequently those who do our job quietly. We just get on with it in rural and regional Australia. We actually have a range of policies that actually support rural and regional Australians.

I would talk about our free trade agreements as well. They have been very, very beneficial to our rural and regional exporters, particularly our farming sector. We've seen our Regional Investment Corporation out there. It's also open for business as well. I'm particularly proud this week about the future drought fund. For those of us who live and work in rural and regional Australia—

Mr Gosling interjecting—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Solomon will remove himself under 94(a). He is in the wrong seat and singing out.

The member for Solomon then left the chamber.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For those members of this place who actually understand what it means to be a farmer, they understand what it is to not be able to feed or provide water for your animals. We place so much value and put so much of our time, effort and passion into the breeding programs that we have. They know how much effort we put into our animals. To me, the drought fund was one of the very good decisions that we've made as a government. I was disappointed to see the politics played yesterday over this particular drought fund. To me, it was an absolute no-brainer.

I'm really pleased, as well, with our vegan laws for those who seek to publish material over a carriage service with the intention to incite trespass on agricultural land. Our Australian farmers have a right to feel safe in their businesses and in their homes.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are going to be very few speakers on a whole bunch of topics if you can't stand and speak in this place and represent your constituencies unless you're actually somebody from that background. I'm supposing that the person opposite will never speak on industrial relations, because she's never represented a worker. I'm guessing that there's a whole bunch of people who've never worked in hospitality who will never speak about penalty rates and who will never, in their lives, speak about aged care, because they've never lived in aged care themselves or represented workers? That's not how our democracy works. The job of elected representatives is to represent all of their constituents, regardless of their industry. We're not in an exclusive club that says that only farmers can speak for farmers and only retail workers can speak for retail workers. Basic 101: you're an elected representative to represent your constituents in this place, and that is what we're doing.

What we are calling the government to account on today is their absolute failure in agriculture. It's not just about our farmers; it's about our farmworkers, the workers in the supply chain and the small businesses in the agricultural supply chain. Our farmers are integral. They are the people who manage the farms that produce the produce that underlies a lot of the Australian economy. We do need them, but we can't focus just on them.

Today, whilst those in this place are ranting and raving, the NUW released a report. They surveyed just under 700 farmworkers. Their findings are alarming, yet no-one on the government side has even looked at it. Today's report looked at farmworkers—the people working in horticulture who are picking our fruit and vegetables and packing our fruit and vegetables that are sold in Coles and Safeway as we speak. The report found that these workers are being paid on average about $15 an hour. That's well below the minimum wage. But that's the average. Some people are actually being paid less than that. In some cases people are being paid $1 or $2 an hour in our country on this government's watch. Some 68 per cent of the farmworkers said that they were being paid cash. They know it is wrong, but that is how the contractors, subcontractors and, in some cases, farmers were choosing to pay them.

This is the most alarming. For all the government's talk about being tough, standing up, making sure we're safe, protecting our borders and making sure that people are on the right visas, 67 per cent of workers confessed to being on the wrong visa—not having the appropriate work rights in this country to pick our fruit and vegetables. This is on this government's watch. They are forcing vulnerable people, who have come to this country, to work in a black economy on our farms. This is underpinning our agricultural industry.

This government is failing. They've danced around an agricultural visa. They've danced around changes to backpacker visas. They've danced around changes to improve the integrity of the seasonal worker visas and of the Pacific Islander visas. But to this date they have not stopped the systemic wage theft, they have not stopped the exploitation, they have not stopped the hot housing—10 people living in a caravan and being forced to work long hours on our farms—and they have not stopped the physical and sexual assault of young vulnerable workers on our farms in Australia. It's nothing short of modern slavery standards.

We hear a lot of talk in this place about agriculture but there is no real road map of how we are going to improve productivity. I've focused a lot on farmworkers in this, but there are a number of other areas where this government is failing. If you have 100 per cent turnover of your workforce every picking season, your productivity is going to be low—fact. There is a real lack of training and a real lack of planning when it comes to our workforce.

Let's look at the agricultural industry and how it underpins food manufacturing jobs. This government doesn't talk about manufacturing or the fact that 25 per cent of all the manufacturing jobs are actually food manufacturing jobs. Let's talk about SunRice. If we don't grow rice, we won't have jobs at SunRice. That is hundreds of jobs. If we lose milk and don't have dairy, we will lose manufacturing jobs. When it comes to agriculture this government has no concrete plan to roll out to secure the industry and to secure the jobs.

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

It is an absolute joke that we have the Labor Party talking about failures in agriculture. It is just an absolute joke. I said yesterday in this House in relation to agriculture that you have to be very careful when you listen to the Labor Party talk because they say one thing but they had actioned themselves to do, if they were elected on 18 May, something totally different. Now we have the member for Bendigo raising the issue of illegal workers throughout the agricultural workforce. It's a great fear of mine that she's 100 per cent right. But what the two parties are going to do about this is totally different.

We have to understand that there could be thousands of people who have come out here on a legal visa and are currently fulfilling a crucial part of our workforce. A crucial part of our work is being done by people who have possibly stayed too long. We don't know the extent of this problem, but what are we going to do about it? What the Victorian Labor Party is going to do about it is smash them overnight by introducing legislation to fine people $500,000. What we actually have to do is put some thought into how we fix this problem of labour without smashing our agricultural industries. You can't do one without the other, unless you're the Labor Party, who have no idea and don't care about the consequences of these types of labour force amendments.

What we have to acknowledge is that the picture of agriculture is actually reasonably rosy, if you have water. Right around my patch—around northern Victoria and the Goulburn Valley—everyone wants to talk about the drought at the moment. To help people understand what's going on, we've had 11 weeks of good rain, but that's not going to fix the drought in our area because the price of water is still $600 a megalitre and the price of grain is over $500 a tonne, so all the pressure points that are associated with the drought are still in place. But we just need another good 10 weeks of rain and we'll be through the rough part of it. Many of the dairy farmers throughout the Goulburn Valley—which represents far more dairy farmers in any one patch than anywhere else in Australia—will get through this if we can support them, and that's what we've been doing. With the farm household allowance, we've been there to support them. With the low-interest concessional loans, we've been there to support them. We've been there to help the grain growers through this.

This side of the parliament is working hand in glove with our farmers on a whole raft of actions, and then there are a whole range of policies and actions on the side of Labor who want to take more water out of active and productive agriculture. They want to take more water away from our farmers. It's in their policies. Two weeks before the election, they produced one of the most damning policy papers that you could ever read. The member for Bendigo actually had to come across to the Goulburn Valley and try and defend it, and she was totally unable to defend the document in a debate with the Minister for Agriculture. She had no idea about the water policies that the member for Watson had put in place for the Labor Party. To take more water out of agriculture and force the price of water even higher, to put out there a policy paper that is all about the health of fish within the Murray-Darling Basin, but being totally—

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

It was a 24-page water policy that didn't mention farming or farmers once, and I don't think it mentioned agriculture. This is what the Labor Party do. And now they come into this House and they want to be taken seriously as a party that has an idea, an understanding, about what the levers are that give farmers and the agricultural sector an opportunity to make money for themselves. We all know that, in the regional parts of Australia, all you need to add is water. And if we can add water, we have the best science and the best farmers, whether it be in horticulture—citrus and almonds, which are the high-commodity areas—or in the dairy industry, which is our traditional area. It's the National Party and the coalition that are going to support our farmers.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The assistant minister on a point of order.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member needs to address the Prime Minister by his correct title.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She did.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, she didn't.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She said he became the Prime Minister.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McEwen will be silent. I ask the member, if she did do that, to correct that and continue.

John McVeigh (Groom, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to rise and speak on this motion, which, by its very nature, invites the obvious compare and contrast, and I intend to do just that. We can talk about facts and we can talk about the record. Let's just focus on that first. Australia's total farm production is estimated, as others have said, at $60 billion in the past year—up 25 per cent since we came to office. The value of agricultural exports was estimated at $50 billion—up almost 30 per cent since we came to office. In the past 12 months this government has continued to invest in a range of incentives to support our very important agricultural industries. They've invested an extra $300 million in a biosecurity system. Agricultural exports are continuing to be supported, in terms of their growth, with an extra $50 million in the last 12 months. They've invested $10 million in areas of digital transformation for agriculture, including, as referred to earlier, APVMA, significantly improving their processes and turnarounds to support farmers through this government's initiatives. In the 2018-19 budget, expenditure on Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio responsibilities were estimated to be $2.32 billion. That's an increase of $1.53 since we came to power, such is the significance of our investment.

I refer to a whole range of very significant initiatives, in particular, the Agricultural competitiveness white paper, which has beendiscussed already. The Regional Investment Corporation was established in Orange as part of our decentralisation strategy to support the Commonwealth Farm Business Concessional Loans Scheme and farmers in need, such as the National Drought Agreement, which our Prime Minister has played such a key role in. In particular, one that excites me is the innovation policy paper Agricultural Innovation—A National Approach to Grow Australia's Future, released by the previous Minister for Agriculture earlier this year.

In my maiden speech in this House I spoke about the importance of the agricultural supply chains in our country—the value chains. Many refer to them as paddock-to-plate initiatives. I refer to them as life in regional Australia and how regional Australia lifts more than its fair share to support our great country. We consider the whole supply chain—and I fear those opposite don't do this enough as it's too big a picture for them. Just today we heard the environment minister in question time talking about Landcare and healthy soils and the science minister talking about technologies that continue to support agriculture and manufacturing. It's part of our DNA right across the board.

On animal welfare, who is it who has been stepping up in terms of live exports and the challenges that have to be faced? It's the coalition. Food labelling and the importance of consumers not only here but around the world understanding the country of origin for our excellent agricultural products has been discussed. Drought and the response to the significant challenges faced around the country has been discussed. It's our Prime Minister and it's our ministers—it's our leadership—who have stood up. As I mentioned, for research and development corporations, the focus is on innovation. There's infrastructure to get our products to market, to port and to those export markets overseas that we're trying to grow. Agriculture food processing and all of those industries in the supply chains to which I refer are largely small and family businesses. It's for them we've been providing tax relief, because we understand how that whole value chain works.

Our government is getting behind manufacturing—for example, meat processors. In my home state of Queensland that is the biggest manufacturing industry in the state. And there's security for our farmers and our processing facilities to get those activists out of their faces to let them get on with their jobs. It's our side of politics that secured the free trade agreements that mean so much to the future of agriculture in our country. What has the opposition done? Nothing. They're kicking and screaming against support of our drought initiatives. For infrastructure, in Queensland's case, our state colleagues will not step up and participate in Inland Rail or water infrastructure at Rookwood Weir and Emu Swamp Dam. The examples go on and on. For example, we've seen Labor attacking owner drivers. They just don't get it.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments have been in power for six years. In those six years we have seen nothing but abject failure for farmers across the nation. No matter where you look the National Party, the fringe dwellers of the parliament—remember the National Party can't even garner five per cent of the vote nationally—do not represent people. The only people they represent are the likes of Rinehart and corporate farmers. When it comes to family farms, family farmers know the one thing that can be guaranteed is the National Party selling them out in the blink of an eye.

We've seen that even this week, as farmers struggle through drought, needing help and support now. This lazy mob opposite have gone out and put a bill in that does not send any money or support to farmers for 12 more months. At the same time, in the house of snooze over there, one of the Queensland senators got up and said that the Victorian government must end its ban on fracking. Farmers who are struggling to pay to put food on the table and to pay their bills are being forced by this government to comply with the desires of multinational gas companies. They don't want to see the continuation of farming. They want those farmers to sell out. That way, they can get the gas from underground.

Now, if you cared about farmers—if you actually cared about regional communities—you would be out there supporting the Andrews government in ensuring that farming land stays for farmers, not for gas companies. But no: this government, this coalition, come in here and for six years have done nothing but short-change farmers and rural and regional communities. We saw that when SPC was in trouble. The only level of government that did not want to support SPC, a national brand, was this federal government. They walked right away. It was up to the state Labor government to step in and keep that business afloat.

You heard earlier one of the incoherent rants from opposite about water. Well, let's talk about water. Six years of this government has seen the death and the destruction of the Murray-Darling Basin—Murray cod of over 100 years of age, floating up rivers because this government has been asleep. You sit there and ask, 'What is going on?' For 100 years these fish have lived in these rivers. They've survived every drought and everything that's been thrown at them, but now they can't, because this mob have failed them—and failed them miserably.

We heard about the APVMA. If you ever want to see brilliance in National Party politicians, look at the member for New England, who took away our central organisation, and for 12 months they had to work out of a McDonald's in Armidale because they had no ability to do their job. We've seen the issue we have with bees in Australia—another problem that's happened on this government's watch because they're asleep at the wheel. While standing up and fighting hard to get tax cuts for people earning over $200,000 a year, they've decided to sell the family farmers down the street.

They do not care. They have never, ever come in here and actually stood up for farmers. The National Party like to pretend they're tigers out in the country, when they get up here, get straight on the lap of the Liberals and do nothing. We saw that with the Building Australia Fund. Last night, as I said, we saw them bring a bill into this place and ram it through without proper consultation, without proper debate, to greater fund help to farmers—not this year, when they need it, not when they're struggling after many years of drought, but off in the never-never. But what they're doing is raiding $3.9 billion out of the infrastructure fund that means rural communities like the ones I represent can't get roads done, can't get rail transport done, can't get support, because they're taking it to try to pork barrel the Nats.

Farmers are the ones who suffer because the National Party are not the country party anymore. That's long gone. That's dead and buried. All they are is city-based MPs, sitting there putting on an Akubra and pretending they represent the bush. But they don't. We saw today the minister for emissions increase openly stand in this parliament and not tell the truth about farmers in the area that the member for Eden-Monaro represents. (Time expired)

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's often very little that we agree on in this place, particularly during matters of public importance. But I think one thing we need to agree on is that elections are effectively opportunities for the citizenry of Australia to pass their judgement on the relative performance of governments. Now, news flash for those opposite: we had one of those occasions on 18 May this year, and the people of Australia passed their judgement.

Effectively, the member for Hunter and those opposite's thesis on this matter of public importance is consistent with what I heard directly after the election—that is, the people of Australia got it wrong. I had hoped that they had come to their senses at least one or two days after the election. I understand the pain, when you've taken out a mortgage on a new flat in Canberra based on your new purported ministerial salary, that you're struggling with the hangover from the pre-election victory celebrations that were to no end. But, surely, in the middle of July, you shouldn't come into the House of Representatives and suggest that the people of Australia got it wrong. And what you definitely shouldn't do, in the middle of a drought—which is gripping rural, regional and remote Australia—is come in here and say that the farmers of Australia got it wrong. They didn't get it wrong. They know who stands up for them.

You heard the member for Groom indicate that total farm production, in the years since we came to government, has gone up 25 per cent to $59.5 billion. That didn't happen solely because of the actions of this place. That happened because of hundreds of thousands of farmers around the country and the support. But it was supported by the work of this place. In particular, I want to draw the House's attention to the free trade agreements we established in the course of the last two terms. What they're doing is opening up markets. What they're doing is giving farmers in my electorate the opportunity to take agricultural outputs from a certain value to another value. It's providing export parity. It's doing all of those things.

Those opposite want to say, 'Hang on a minute. In the last 12 months, total farm agricultural output has gone down.' News flash: there's a drought on. Do you know what happens during droughts? Maybe those opposite don't. There are very few of them that live in rural and regional Australia. When there's drought it's not as easy to produce what you produce when you have average rainfall or above average rainfall. No wonder the wool clips are down. There have been lots of sheep that have had their heads cut off, because they're in drought. There's no livestock out there.

It's one thing to look at the outcome of the 18 May election. I note that those opposite achieved, I think, close to a historically low primary vote, but I want to reflect on the electoral success or otherwise of the member for Hunter. He is, effectively, the agricultural spokesperson for those opposite. To his credit, he's someone who does represent a rural and regional electorate. Regarding my colleagues on this side, I've really struggled to find anyone who went backwards. Most of them achieved a higher primary vote than they did in 2016, and many of them had strong swings to them. That's the people of their electorate voting for their strong performance.

I wish the member for Hunter was here. A quick review of the AEC website shows close to a 9.5 per cent swing against the member for Hunter—yet he comes in here and has the audacity to say that his opposite number has underperformed. The people of Hunter think differently. It was a 9.5 per cent two-party preferred swing. It was close to a 14 per cent reduction in the primary vote. That speaks volumes. What it says to those opposite is: the people of Australia cast their judgement on you. The people of rural, regional and remote Australia, I hasten to say, were even harsher than the rest of Australia were on average. Accept their verdict, get on with working with us collaboratively, stop playing the politics that we saw last night, stop getting on with those parlour games, because the people of South Australia and regional Australia, and the rest of Australia, will continue to punish you for it if you don't.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for discussion has concluded.