Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (15:18): 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— Ms Swanson: Gone! Mr FITZGIBBON: 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.