Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Despite the descent into political posturing in this debate, in speaking to the member for Murray's motion I first of all acknowledge where she is coming from in putting this motion forward. I acknowledge that her experience as a local member has been very different from mine over the last 10 years as so much of Australia, particularly her part, has been gripped by the worst drought in living memory. Although farmers in Central Queensland have certainly faced their own share of hardship and stress in that time, I can only imagine the journey that members from southern states have travelled with their communities as year after year the rains have failed to arrive in areas much harder hit, and with much more of a reliance on agriculture, than those in my electorate. I understand that members have stood alongside farmers and farming communities as they have confronted day-to-day hardship and even harder questions about the long-term viability of their farms and what their future might look like if farming were no longer possible for them and their families. There is no doubt that the effects of drought are still being felt in many communities and members from those regions are obliged, as they have been since 2002, to be strong advocates for farmers in communities still needing support. To that extent I support those members, like the member for Murray, in raising issues of concern to people in their electorates.

I cannot, however, support this motion in the terms in which it has been presented to the parliament tonight. The motion reflects the strong emotions associated with the very difficult circumstances farmers have been living through and the tough decisions many have found themselves faced with. But emotion and certainly not politics should not blind us to the facts about drought policy and the facts about these exit grants in particular. As much as we empathise with communities that are finding their feet after so many difficult years, we should not ignore the deficiencies and perverse outcomes obvious to all in previous drought policy and programs. And we should not be deterred from the work that is being done towards a drought policy that is more than an emergency response that only helps farmers once drought has taken hold and they reach crisis point, and even then only helps some farmers if they are on the right side of the exceptional circumstances line. With support from farming groups and states, our new drought policy is designed to give farmers what they need to strengthen their business, build their skills, manage risk and plan for their future. It is this work—the product of exhaustive study and of consultation with those with most at stake in the future of Australian agriculture—that so clearly contradicts the suggestion implicit in this motion that somehow the government is unsympathetic to the plight of drought-affected farmers and communities. In fact, trials are underway in Western Australia of a range of measures that are all about supporting farmers, their families and rural communities in preparing for the future challenges of climate variability and extremes. Support for farmers will be there to manage risk and prepare for drought on an ongoing basis, rather than continuing a crisis-driven system that farmers themselves recognise as unfair and as one that penalised best practice.

Also contrary to the implication in the motion that the government has somehow walked away from helping farmers is the fact that, in the last year alone, exceptional circumstances assistance was almost $400 million. That included exceptional circumstances relief payments to over 12,000 households and exceptional circumstances interest rate subsidies to over 5,000 businesses.

The exit grants that are the subject of this motion have also been part of that package of assistance measures for eligible farmers in areas still under EC declarations. When additional funding was announced in this budget, it was quite clear that the exit grants program was capped, and was only available until all funding was taken up and no later than 30 June 2012. Consequently, the program was closed when it was fully subscribed. Under any such program, the number of people assisted is determined by the funding envelope, and that number is the same regardless of the time frame over which it is allocated. There is no suggestion that funding to this program has been reduced. It was always that amount of money.

Far from neglecting the needs of farmers, the government has in fact lifted the total funding for exit grants from $9 million to $14 million. All farmers who met the guidelines at time of closure, including having lodged their applications, will be paid. Those who had sold and settled their properties at time of closure but had not lodged an application are being actively assisted with preparing applications by rural financial counsellors, and are being assisted with lodging those applications by the department of agriculture. Any person who believes they have been adversely affected by the closure of the program is entitled to seek a review or appeal, and the government is helping people with act of grace applications.

The member for Mallee asserted in his speech that he had not received a reply to his communication requesting this act of grace process, but in fact the minister wrote a letter to the member for Mallee, signed on 14 November, and even offered very active assistance from his department with act of grace applications.

This government's drought policy review showed the way forward for Australian agriculture, but the opposition pretends that we can meet future challenges with outdated policies. Australian farmers know better than that and they deserve better than that.

See this speech in context