Looming fight over drought funding misses the point of the Bush Summit

Yesterday’s historic Bush Summit in Dubbo saw a range or proposals to combat drought — and now those fine ideas must be converted into meaningful policies, writes Anna Caldwell.

• The road to recovery for the bush
• Building a $100b industry by 2030
• Push for drought insurance program
• Barwick brothers shoot the breeze with PM

It is impossible in Sydney to have a genuinely meaningful conversation about drought.

None of us in the city truly knows the backbreaking, life-wrecking agony of the drought’s dead hand without talking to men and women who collapse in tears when they discuss trying to keep their farms.

The horrors of life on dry land are a world away from the plush parliamentary chambers in Canberra.

That’s why it is crucial that the fly-in visits of some of the nation’s most powerful voices to Dubbo yesterday for The Daily Telegraph’s Bush Summit become more than just voices.

Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese and Prime Minister Scott Morrison. Picture: John Tiedemann

As Scott Morrison, Anthony ­Albanese and John Barilaro pledged that the bush would be front and ­centre of their minds, we must apply pressure to convert this into meaningful outcomes.

Men and women on the land need so much more than just sound bites and pats on the back.

MORE OPINION

PM: Contact between cities and bush is crucial for a shared future

Further regulation won’t fix building blunders

There’s a lot to like about Instagram hiding likes

Crucially, as hundreds of people descended on Dubbo for the talks, we were breaking down the idea that the bush and the city are two separate places. The struggles of the bush aren’t felt in suburbs. But they belong to all of us.

Mr Morrison will return to parliament this week armed with legislation for a multibillion-dollar future drought fund.

This will see the PM light a match on another parliamentary showdown on people’s livelihoods, just weeks after the tax cut debate did the same.

Labor said before the election it would not support this drought package because it is funded by money ­already in the Building Australia Fund — an infrastructure fund quarantined for nation-building projects.

Albanese could have changed position on this. But he has chosen not to. He confirmed yesterday in Dubbo he absolutely will not support Morrison’s drought fund if the PM was financing it by taking money from the Building Australia Fund.

The Labor leader laid down the gauntlet, saying he will support “any amount” of money for drought — but not when it’s simply repurposed.

Warialda farming family Sam Barwick, his wife Amanda and their sons Harry, 12, Hugo, 6, and Max, 10, travelled five hours to attend The Daily Telegraph Bush Summit. Picture: Jonathan Ng

“Labor will support any funding for drought in terms of any level of cash the government wants to inject in communities,” he said. “Provide funding with the appropriations that you should and we’ll back it. Any level you want — done.”

He told me after his speech that he believed the drought was “important in and of itself”.

“We will support any increase in drought funding that the government proposes,” he said. “It stands on its own merits.

“However, we won’t support abolishing the Building Australia Fund. It will damage long-term infrastructure policy.”

Mr Albanese is an infrastructure geek. It’s his passion and his area of expertise and few have the nous he does on big infrastructure policy.

It should be no surprise then that the Labor leader would oppose taking money from an infrastructure fund he authentically believes in.

As he put it: “I want more money for Brigitte McKenzie’s portfolio but I don’t want it at the expense of ­Michael McCormack.”

It is a reasonable point to make.

But there is no doubt Labor runs the risks here of being cast as being against the farmer.

At the end of the day, the Labor leader is opposing money being earmarked by the government for drought.

Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese at the Bush Summit. Picture: Jonathan Ng

The Prime Minister yesterday threatened to again make Labor irrelevant, just as the government did with the messy tax cuts showdown.

“If Labor doesn’t support it then we will work with the crossbench as we did on income tax cuts where they were opposed leading up to the vote and we ensured they were able to be passed,” the PM said.

He also dismissed Albanese’s concerns, saying there was not a single project in the government’s $100 billion infrastructure plan that would be affected by repurposing the Building Australia Fund.

“There is not one piece of pavement, there is not one dam, there is not one railway sleeper that is being taken away from our infrastructure program by going ahead with the ­Future Drought Fund,” he said.

So saddle up. We all know what a bruising debate tax cuts became for Albanese and Labor.

And Labor may now face the same over drought measures.

The drought fund was slated to spend $100 million a year — dividends from $3.9 billion set aside by the government. It is due to grow to $5 billion by 2028. These are big figures and desperately needed sugar hits for an industry that is on its knees.

Following Mr Morrison’s address at the summit yesterday, a solitary farmer took to his feet, offered the ­opportunity to ask the first question from the floor.

His words were striking. “Mr Prime Minister, I think with respect, you’ve missed the urgency of the point. We’re here today. There are farming communities in trouble today. We need help today. We do want subsidies. We do need assistance.”

He was met with applause.

Urgency and desperation were ­recurring themes in that room. ­Urgency and desperation for action.

A messy parliamentary fight over funding in Canberra next week will rightly go down like a lead balloon in the bush.

Both sides of parliament should keep that in mind as they nut out ­desperately needed solutions.