Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

Hundreds, was it? He wrote to them and said that Labor supports the single desk. He then went on to argue conclusively why the single desk should stay and how it was delivering enormous benefits to farmers. But, of course, when he gets into government, as Labor has done in every state, the single desk goes out the door quite quickly. That is why farmers are a bit suspicious when they hear the minister say that the Rudd Labor government commits to helping drought affected farmers in the future. If that promise was written by the same pen that made the promises about single-desk marketing, you can understand why many people have doubts about the reliability of that promise.

The minister then went on to outline the elements of the proposed review into exceptional circumstances support. There are three elements of that review, as he said. Firstly, there is an examination of issues associated with climate—and I note that he has asked the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO to undertake that review. It is interesting, as a side point, that the government in the last budget slashed $60 million from the funding of the CSIRO and $5 million from the Bureau of Meteorology; so they may not be in the best of moods when it comes to responding to the government’s request to assess climate issues of this nature. I note that the cuts to the CSIRO in particular have led to another round of cuts to country based research facilities. I think it is deplorable that there are these kinds of budget cuts and that the CSIRO is now moving so far away from its original direction in supporting research in agricultural areas.

Then there is the assessment of social impacts, led by a committee of people who, without exception, have good experience in rural and regional areas. I am sure that they will provide an interesting social dimension to the activities.

The third part of the assessment, which worries me the most, is the referral to the Productivity Commission of measures associated with supporting farmers and communities through drought times. This is really putting the blowtorch to exceptional circumstances assistance. We all know the record of the Productivity Commission. It is very economically dry and I cannot recall a recent time when it has actually recommended assistance, particularly to a farm based industry. I was personally appalled at its recommendations in the pig industry inquiry, which we commissioned, which were delivered to the minister shortly after the change of government. Here is an industry in desperate trouble and the Productivity Commission came back saying: ‘Things are fine. They don’t need any help.’ If that is a reflection of the mood and attitude that it is going to take into this inquiry, I think farmers have a sound reason to be concerned.

I know that even the Labor Party in government choose which particular industries shall be subject to the venom of the Productivity Commission. When it came to a review of the car industry, they were not game to let the Productivity Commission loose. The Productivity Commission demonstrated clearly why they were not trusted with the review into the motor industry when they made it abundantly clear that they thought that all assistance for the motor industry should cease forthwith and that it was a waste of taxpayers’ money. So I have concerns about the approach that the Productivity Commission will take to this review. I do not have a problem with thorough, proper and scientific analysis, but I am afraid that the Productivity Commission take a predetermined position into many of these inquiries, and most industries that have been subjected to a Productivity Commission review do not feel at the end of that review that they have had a fair go. I ask the minister to consider very carefully whether the Productivity Commission is the right body to be undertaking a review of this nature and to also take into account in assessing the findings the Productivity Commission’s history and attitude towards these sorts of reviews.

The member for Maranoa, who was in here a little while ago, has brought to my attention some issues associated with the new transitional income support program. Let me say that, in principle, I think it is a pretty good idea to provide some kind of interim support for people who have lost their declaration to help them move towards a more normal income stream. It is confirmed in the minister’s statement—and the examples in the field are already coming through—that the criteria for this transitional income support program are different to the criteria that applied to the income support during times of drought assistance. It seems that many, if not most, farmers will not qualify for this new program. I notice that the budget for it is quite small, so the government has an expectation that not a lot of farmers will actually qualify for this program. I think we all need—and I particularly counsel those who are advocating the merits of this proposal—to alert farmers to the fact that only a small number of them will actually qualify for this program. I appreciate that it is likely to be the most needy, but nonetheless those who think that their income support is just going to continue for another year may find themselves mistaken because many will not qualify for this particular measure.

In relation to the review, as I said, the opposition believes that it is quite appropriate to undertake a thorough review, particularly now this program has been going for quite some time and has used more than $2 billion of taxpayers’ funding. If there is to be a food supply crisis, as we hear about in the press from time to time, this will be a particularly high priority because we do need to make sure that our industry is capable of providing food and fibre in good years and in bad to meet not only the needs of Australians but also our obligation to supply food and fibre to other parts of the world. It is an important part of our export income, but we are relied upon also by other countries.

The minister particularly made reference to the issue of the problems of people living just outside a declared EC area—the so-called ‘lines on maps’ issue. We sought to mitigate those problems by allowing buffer zones, and I think that worked well. But then eventually you get to a stage where there is a line on the buffer zone as well. However, the idea of moving to a needs based assessment from a geographical assessment also has problems. The previous government considered it and we would have done it if we thought we could make it work. The problem is that most farmers do not have sufficient records to be able to establish on their own property that they meet the one in 25 years test. They have never been obliged to keep rainfall records and farms change hands, so this may well be a problematic area also. If an individual farmer facing serious difficulties because of drought has to go through a complicated assessment process and fill out hundreds of pages of forms, that places additional stress on them at a time when they do not need that stress. Therefore, the geographical assessment also has some merit. I am not saying it is perfect—it clearly is not—but I think we need to look very closely at whether that should be tossed out, because it had some benefits too.

There will be a lot of key issues to be considered in the review. I appreciate that the minister is going into this with a constructive attitude, and he can be assured that the opposition will also be constructive. (Time expired)

See this speech in context