Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today in an environment where there will be negativity from this side of the parliament about the current government’s contribution to rural and regional Australia, and there will be defences from the government’s side about the wonderful job that the current government is doing for rural and regional Australia. The reality is that there are arguments that are positive on both sides as far as rural and regional Australia is concerned. But the Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 2009 is about an extension of the National Rural Advisory Council, which is responsible for giving the minister sound advice about the conditions in drought declared areas throughout Australia.

I am pleased to see the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is here. I have to say, Minister, despite what my parliamentary colleagues on this side of the House might say, I appreciate the responses that I get from you when I raise very serious concerns about the people I represent in my rural electorate of Hume. Why do I say that? I say that because I can go back into history and talk about the weaknesses of the National Rural Advisory Council. The weaknesses are there on record. I am going to quote some of them. But the reason I raise the issue of your responses to me is that, to be quite frank with you, in the past I have had some very poor reactions from ministers for agriculture in a previous government that I was a member of. I go back, as an example, to 5 April 2005. I raised a very serious issue about the lack of correct decision making being undertaken by the NRAC about the problems of exceptional circumstances funding in the area of the cherry growers of Young. I wrote to the then minister, Warren Truss, at the time, outlining and questioning the decision made by the NRAC to cut out exceptional circumstances for farmers in that area. I produced all of the evidence that illustrated the facts behind the decision that should not have been made in the negative as far as exceptional circumstances funding was concerned. I will quote the pertinent paragraphs in my letter, so that the minister is aware, and the House is aware, of why I am raising this concern today:

Minister it is obvious the NRAC has not fulfilled its obligation to accurately report the facts which I might add can only be obtained by procedures which include an on ground inspection process and receipt of up to date accurate and current information from State agencies such as the NSW DPI.

Feeding suspect information to a Minister of the Crown which then results in the Minister making a decision to withdraw Exceptional Circumstances assistance to producers in severe trauma as a result of an ongoing long term drought is reprehensible in the extreme.

It also gives the impression that Members of Government funded committees such as NRAC have become complacent in the role taxpayers would expect them to play out as a group employed to accurately advise an Agriculture Minister on critical issues like Drought Assistance to producers such as the Cherry & Stonefruit growers of Young.

I might add, Minister, that I never got a response from that agriculture minister on my concerns. He bypassed me and went straight to members of his own party who happened to be cherry growers and gave them the information. So you can understand why I get a little bit emotional about some of these issues.

Do you think that that solved the problem? Despite the fact that I pointed out to a then minister for agriculture the weaknesses in the system, I was forced to again write, not to the agriculture minister of the day in 2006 but to the former Prime Minister, on 7 August 2006. I once again, in my sheer frustration, outlined to him the weaknesses in the system, because the NRAC once again refused exceptional circumstances to a group of people who were in dire straits as far as drought was concerned. At the invitation of these people I spent two days out there in the field. I looked at the properties myself. I was absolutely disgusted to hear what had occurred which forced the minister of the day to then say, ‘No, we are removing exceptional circumstances from this area.’

Let me read again, from a letter that I wrote to the then Prime Minister. I addressed it to one of his very capable staff, to make sure that it got to the Prime Minister. I said in part:

These procedures are being inappropriately used, are driven by out of date data and are thereby causing unnecessary mental health and financial pain to farmers affected by severe drought conditions.

It would appear that despite concerns I raised in correspondence to former Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Minister Warren Truss last year which he did not respond to (copy attached), the National Rural Advisory Committee is still not reporting the facts based on procedures such as on ground inspection and use of up to date accurate and current information from State agencies such as Rural Land Protection Boards … and NSW Department of Primary Industries.

I went on—and I think it is very important that I make these points, Minister:

This shoddy and unprofessional facade of a “genuine” NRAC inspection occurred between the hours of 10.00am and approximately 2.30pm (4½ hours) because the NRAC representatives had to catch a flight at around 3.30pm that day.

It was obvious to me when I learnt of this disgraceful visit that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry went into this EC Drought Review process with a predetermined outcome of terminating EC assistance.

I went on to explain it, and I enclosed all of the facts—facts that came from people who were involved at the ground level from various government agencies. I went on to say:

People with any appreciation of farming know that drought can affect a property in one of three ways:

• A fodder drought
• A water drought
• A cash drought
• Or a combination of any of the above. Braidwood—

the area was Braidwood, and I understand, Minister Burke, that you were out there recently; good on you for going out there—

producers were experiencing all of the three!!!

The decision to discontinue EC assistance was premature and cruel. All of the depressing conditions being experienced by Braidwood producers went unheeded in the decision making process and was compounded by key people such as the Goulburn Branch of the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, the Drought Support Officer and the Rural Financial Counsellor not being present at the NRAC meeting to give vital accurate information on just how bad the drought conditions were.

          …            …            …

In conclusion, the fact that the former Minister Truss not only ignored the warning in my correspondence to him of April 5th 2005 and also did not reply to me, is an indictment of his arrogance or indeed his inability to recognise deficiencies in a process under his control and his failure to be professional enough to accept a genuine criticism of an obvious problem within the system which he had carriage of.

Thankfully, the Prime Minister read what I gave him, looked at the evidence that I had presented and attached to the letter and acted upon it, and they got their EC assistance.

But, as you know, Minister, it does not end there. On 20 February I wrote to you raising the problems associated with the possibility of the decision to extend EC payments excluding the Tuena, Bigga, Peelwood and surrounding areas. To your credit, you responded to me on 4 May, saying:

I have received a letter from the Hon. Ian Macdonald MLC, the NSW Minister for Primary Industries, requesting a review of the recent decision to cease the EC declaration in the Central Tablelands area. Included in the request was additional data concerning seasonal conditions in the area.

And you put out a press release to this effect on 8 April 2009. I not only made representations to you; I made representations to the state minister as well, and, to his credit, he also responded to me. In between all of this happening, we had certain people from a certain political party on my side of politics out there running around making mileage out of what they were doing, when they were doing absolutely bugger-all as far as my constituents were concerned. I condemn that sort of deceptive behaviour from politicians. When the New South Wales Minister, Ian Macdonald, responded to me—he wrote on 4 May; I received it on 8 May—he said, in the second last paragraph:

In a number of areas, including the parts of the Upper Lachlan Shire you have identified, I have requested that EC assistance be extended for a full 12 months.

On 8 April 2009, Minister Burke announced that he has asked the National Rural Advisory Council to consider my request.

I wrote to you again, Minister, on 22 May, and I said, amongst other things:

I refer to your decision to accept the advice of the National Rural Advisory Council (NRAC) not to extend Exceptional Circumstances (EC) assistance for 10 regions in New South Wales. Areas of the Hume electorate affected include the Bigga, Tuena and Peelwood districts that overlap the EC area of the Central Tablelands.

I also wrote about how the NRAC makes its decisions, without having been to the areas to look at the problems. Part of the problem is that the NRAC is made up of interstate people that have no idea of the conditions in one state or indeed in a section of the state within which they might be farmers.

Minister Burke, I understand why you are extending the terms of these NRAC people; it is a demanding situation and they need to have some continuity of tenure in their advisory positions to you as the minister. Minister—and I have invited you, as you know, to come to the electorate and look at some of these areas—please do not take what the NRAC tells you as gospel, because, sadly, as elected members of the committee they are taking the money from the taxpayer, through you, and they are not doing their bloody job—pardon the expression, but they are not doing their job in all the circumstances. I think that the response from the state minister for agriculture to me and to you saying that the matters that I raised have some validity is an indication of what I am talking about.

I am not here to play politics with you, Minister. I respect you as a minister of the Crown. You have come from an urban area into this portfolio, but I have had feedback from farmers in my electorate who have an association with you, and they speak very highly of you. I did not want to play politics with this; I want to continue the working relationship I have got with you because I think that is in the best interests of my constituency. I get angry when, despite the urgency of some of these problems within the agricultural sector, some ministers for agriculture tend to play politics, even with their own coalition partners. That makes me angry—because it is not me that suffers as a result; they can deprive me of an opportunity to achieve for my constituency, but the bottom line is that they have deprived people that are in need and that are suffering.

Minister, you know that my wife and I, on her initiative, have been delivering drought parcels and pamper packs to people on the land for the last six years. They are in their seventh year of drought, some of them. We delivered something like 740 drought parcels over the December period. It just breaks my heart when I have to look into the faces of the men and women who are really struggling and who depend on the EC assistance to help get them on their feet. A lot of people do not understand that, when people are eligible for exceptional circumstances assistance, they are eligible for a number of reasons: (a) they are not getting an income; (b) they are trying, in many instances, to raise a family; (c) they are isolated and cannot go and find part-time work because they are too far away; and (d) they do not have the money to pay for things such as petrol.

The first thing they do when the pressure comes down on them is give away what we all refer to as non-essential items; they give away the small luxury items that make women feel good. Minister, we have rural women in this country who give away what they term non-essential items, such as face cream, perfume and stuff, and who are trying to carry the burden of the pressures of depression coming from their husbands. If we do not prop those women up and give them something to look at we will lose their support. All of us males know the wonderful support we get from our wives. But let me tell you, in a drought situation these women carry the burden on behalf of their husbands, who, in many instances—and I have had experience of this—have got their rifles and gone out and shot themselves or hung themselves from trees because they can no longer cope. That is why I get emotional about the issue. I do not care what the politics of the day are. Ministers of the Crown in this place have an obligation to look after all Australians. It does not matter what electorate it is or what political party holds that electorate; if there is a need in the electorate it needs to be looked after.

Minister, I compliment you on extending the NRAC time frame to a third term. I think that is going to be beneficial. But sit down with these people and tell them that when they come to give you advice you expect them to give you professional advice based on the conditions on the ground and how they are affecting people. If they do not give that to you and something crops up as a result of that bad advice, that then flows back to impact on you in a negative way. You are the one who wears the outcome, not the people giving you the advice. Minister, I commend you on this bill and I thank you most sincerely from the bottom of my heart for the open and frank way in which you respond to the representations that I make to you on behalf of the rural people who are struggling out there. We need to make sure that all of the assistance that we as a nation can give them is given to them so that they can survive and continue to produce the agricultural products that they do so well, despite all of these pressures on them.

See this speech in context