I rise to actually speak about the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 and to
give some context about why we are debating this bill today. Listening to the member for Murray, he basically
went around the world—I would say more of a eulogy to the Deputy Prime Minister—and spoke about the
wondrous greatness of the man that is Barnaby Joyce. Listening to him very carefully and sitting through that
speech, I noticed one thing: he listed a great list of achievements, but the one achievement the people of Australia
and the people of New England would like to know about their member is: is he able to sit in this House? Is he
legitimate? Can he serve as the agriculture and water minister? Can he serve in the cabinet? Can he serve as a
local member? That's the question. He is so—
A government member interjecting—
Mr DICK: I'll get to you in a second. Listening to the member for Murray, he spoke about everything except
the sheer and utter incompetence of the Deputy Prime Minister—the potentially invalid Deputy Prime Minister.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ): I direct the member for Oxley back to the legislation—the substance
of the legislation he's actually debating.
Mr DICK: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I think it is important to note that the former speaker spoke on everything
other than this bill. You may have missed that—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That doesn't give you the opportunity to stray from the substance of the
legislation.
Mr DICK: Indeed, we need consistent rules across both sides of the chamber. You're correct, Mr Deputy Speaker.
And if there was ever a case of pork-barrelling to the electorate, this bill is nothing more than a pork barrel. We
know that this government works from inept policy to inept policy. We know that the Deputy Prime Minister
can't think of anything better than wasting taxpayers' dollars in what can only be described as a senseless move
to set up the Regional Investment Corporation—we didn't hear about that from the member for Murray or any of
those opposite—at a cost to taxpayers of $81.4 million over the forward estimates. We know the Deputy Prime
Minister has a lot on his plate, but reading this bill and going through what it's going to mean, the purpose of this
bill is to establish an organisation to do something that the states and the Northern Territory are already doing. The
RIC will administer farm business loans, as we heard, and, on behalf of the Commonwealth, administer grants of
financial assistance to the states and the Northern Territory for water infrastructure projects, concessional loans,
from 1 July 2018. But the loans have already been delivered by the state and Northern Territory governments
and will continue to be administered by the states and the Northern Territory.
So this can hardly be true, when, as a result of all of this, taxpayers are going to be sent a bill of $81.4 million.
Further to this, the Regional Investment Corporation, put forward by the potentially invalid Deputy Prime
Minister and invalid government, has been developed with no cost-benefit analysis as to whether the corporation
will actually deliver on any of the claims—a great idea apparently by this Deputy Prime Minister, backed in by
members of the government more desperate to prop up the problems of the Deputy Prime Minister than actually
talk about the bill, but without any cost-benefit analysis put forward by the government.
We know they have some form in this area, because there's been no transparent or fair process undertaken by
the government in determining where to locate the Regional Investment Corporation. The bill was referred to
the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, and they tabled their findings only
a matter of days ago. The committee recommended the bill be passed in its current form, yet the government
has already made amendments to its own bill. We know there's a lot of confusion on that side of the parliament,
whether it be about legitimacy to serve in the parliament, about turning up to vote or about seconding and
moving the wrong motions. A Senate standing committee recommends passing the bill in its current form, yet
the government is making amendments.
The Deputy Prime Minister, we know, has been declared a New Zealand citizen, yet the Prime Minister says
he can stay, when we know the other senior minister responsible for this has had to stand down. It hasn't been
a great week or month for the National Party. Where's the consistency there? The government knows that the
corporation is going to be established in the member for Calare's electorate. We know this isn't a coincidence,
but we know that the government is claiming that the establishment of the RIC is 'the logical step in meeting
the government's commitment to agriculture, as set out in the landmark Agricultural Competitiveness White
Paper, in excess of $4 billion.'
This statement is exaggerated and gives the impression that somehow the government has provided meaningful
investment in agriculture. It has not. In fact the bulk of the $4 billion is made up of concessional loans that farmers
are currently not taking up. We know this is because of the design of the program, with the government failing to
properly consult or understand if their new drought loan scheme would be attractive to drought-affected farmers.
The RIC will face the same difficulties. Its role will be to provide loans to farm businesses subject to the applicant
meeting certain criteria which will be centred on the viability of the farm business. It's important to understand
that the RIC will be bank 'of last resort', but the farm businesses will need to be assessed as being viable. Whether
a farm business is determined as being viable has been a major issue for the states when developing the guidelines
for concessional loans, with no signs that this will be resolved under the new proposed RIC. On top of all of this,
the government has not taken any genuine consultation about the functions and responsibilities of the RIC, and
is establishing the RIC in Orange with no cost-benefit analysis about the outgoing costs either.
What's more, the government has chosen to establish the RIC in Orange using the same type of government
policy order that was used when the then Deputy Prime Minister announced the decision—and who can forget
this one—to move the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority from Canberra to the northern
New South Wales town of Armidale, in the Deputy Prime Minister's electorate of New England, by 2019. As
reported by the independent government news website, the APVMA relocation, which involved about 190 staff,
mostly highly specialised, failed a government-commissioned cost-benefit analysis.
We get lots of lectures from those opposite about reining in expenditure of taxpayers' dollars, and about
government efficiency, but when the rubber hits the road, time and time again they've just been found nothing
more than professional pork barrels. We know that that decision led to many staff walking out the door, including
the chief executive and some of our top regulatory scientists and lawyers. The government also conducted its
own $272,000 cost-benefit analysis, which found there were no material economic advantages to support the
relocation. Think about this: they are making decisions in their own interests, not making decisions in the national
interest.
Further to this, Ernst and Young established the move would cost at least $23.19 million. This includes
redundancies for 85 per cent of the APVMA staff the report identified as unwilling to move to Armidale. The
plan to move the agricultural chemicals regulator exposed the government, we know, to further ridicule after it
was revealed that the Canberra based public servants were working out of Armidale's McDonald's, using the free
wi-fi because they had nowhere else to work. That came out at a February Senate estimates hearing.
Mr Taylor: What's this got to do with the legislation?
Mr DICK: I'm speaking to the amendments. Perhaps you could help the assistant minister, Mr Deputy Speaker
Irons, just to keep up with the process of the parliament. It might be useful. He is in charge of something; I
would hope that he could understand how the parliament works. But, then again, he was one of the rogue 15 who
refused to turn up to vote yesterday, when the government again lost another—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I draw the member back to the substance of the amendment and the legislation.
Mr DICK: I will take the interjection each time they raise it, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Mallee of
the National Party defended that decision by saying:
I guess much public policy is constructed in coffee shops around Canberra by public departments.
It's good to know that the government is happy not only to slug the taxpayer with expensive and unneeded
relocation costs, much like in the bill that is before the House, but to leave public department workers with
nowhere to work.
Who could forget the government document that was leaked to Fairfax in April which gives the APVMA staff
suggested scripted replies to recite if they were asked about the relocation? Do you remember that one? They were
for use during 'barbecue conversations' and 'other social settings'. The guideline came from the chief operating
officer, under a section headed 'Script and Standard Words', a series of bullet points offering conversation
suggestions to use for 'all audiences'. One piece of barbecue banter included:
It's no secret the agency is changing—and that doesn't have to be a bad thing.
Employees unsure if they will make the move are advised to say:
I'm listening to what our executive have to say about the transition, but for the moment I'm getting on with the job.
What episode of Utopia did this government rip that out of? Talk about unwilling to listen, talk about unwilling
to govern—now they're just simply willing to pork barrel.
On top of that, we've seen a Senate committee report, The operation, effectiveness, and consequences of the
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Location of Corporate Commonwealth Entities) Order
- 2016. We note the terms of reference for this report noted the committee would focus on the policy of relocating
Commonwealth corporate entities with agriculture policies or regulatory responsibilities. In the report handed
down on 9 June, the recommendations included:
The committee recommends that the move of the APVMA be paused until the APVMA concludes its review
of its business model.
And it recommended that:
… the Finance Minister apply greater scrutiny to future requests or orders to be made under the Public
Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 with a specific focus on consideration being given to
the following:
the financial and governance implications on an agency from an order under the Public Governance, Performance
and Accountability Act 2013; and
a cost-benefit analysis.
They're a bit anti a cost-benefit analysis on the other side. They don't like the taxpayer getting value for money.
Mr Taylor: How did your cost-benefit go for the NBN?
Mr DICK: I will take the interjection from the genius at the despatch box, the member for Hume. We're now
getting lectures about how great the NBN is and how much the government is to be congratulated. I have heard it
all. I have heard the minister and future leader ranting and raving about how the regional communities which she
allegedly represents have never been so lucky as under the NBN and that they should be grateful for an inferior
service, delays and inferior delivery—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the member to come back to the subject of the legislation or I will sit him
down.
Mr DICK: I was just taking the interjections from the minister at the table, but I'll continue. Thank you for your
protection. The committee recommended:
a cost-benefit analysis. In the event that a cost-benefit analysis does not identify a net benefit from the proposed
order, the Finance Minister should require the relevant minister to explain the grounds on which the order should
be made.
So I ask—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—the assistant minister at the table: where's the cost-benefit analysis
for this bill? If he would like to jump up now and table it, I will yield the balance of my time to the government.
If he can jump up now and provide that, I will remain silent.
Mr Taylor: It's not a project. It's not a project; it's a policy.
Mr DICK: He's just yelling out now, 'It doesn't exist and we don't have to provide one. We don't have to answer
to regional Australia.' I say government should answer when legislation and proposals are put on the table. He
claims that the government knows best. Well, we on this side know from listening to our communities, from
listening to regional and remote Australia, that they are being badly let down by this government. They are being
badly neglected by a government and, let's face it, by a Deputy Prime Minister that we don't even know should
even be in this parliament.
Mr Taylor: The guardians of rural Australia!
Mr DICK: The assistant minister is still interjecting, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons—defying you, defying everyone
else. But, then, we know arrogance is a sign of this government. From listening to them today and listening to
them speaking about this bill—not providing evidence about what the benefits are, certainly not providing a costbenefit
analysis—we know that, when it comes to delivering for regional and rural Australians, they talk big,
they talk a big game, but they deliver very, very little.
We know, when it comes to delivering for those on the ground, including my own home state, this government
simply cannot be trusted—a bit like a Deputy Prime Minister unable to fill in basic forms, and no-one is able to
determine whether he should be the responsible minister. It will be interesting to note whether he comes into this
parliament and actually makes announcements. We know he's gone into some sort of witness protection program.
But we know that this bill is nothing more than the pork barrel that the government has been continuing on, and
we will continue to expose that every single time.
