Rural and Environment

Although 30 per cent of Australia’s people live in the country they do not enjoy that same level of funding and services from government. The policies of the major political parties in recent years have, in fact, been anti- country because privatisation, economic rationalism and national competition policy benefit those who live in metropolitan cities.

These are considered more economically viable because it is cheaper to deliver services to large populations gathered in smaller spaces. On the other hand the nation as a whole faces serious environmental issues such as land degradation, salinity, pollution and water rights. The burning question is who should pay for this remediation and in my view the hard pressed farmers and rural communities should not have to foot the bill.

The debacles over proper consultation on Native Vegetation and Private Forestry legislation are an example of how metro-centred government think on these issues. After strong community outrage the government had to begin the consultation process again and to redraft the private forestry code. Native Vegetation legislation and water issues continue to be a local issue of great importance and

I continue to press the government to work with rural communities rather than impose heavy handed and unworkable regulations.

I also believe National Competition Policy has been a disaster for those who live in rural communities. There must be a comprehensive review which takes into consideration factors such as distance, smaller populations and social equity.

Country people must have access to a fair share of government and private sector services and this includes upgrading the communications systems to ensure mobile phone systems and internet connections operate in even the most remote regions at a high level.