Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This motion is about the great distress and hardship that is now afflicting some farming families who have been caught up in a backflip, a change of mind, in relation to Exceptional Circumstances Exit Grants. We hope through this motion that the government will change its mind and put less than $5 million into making good on what, we believe, was a commitment that will give some farm families a chance to restructure their lives.

The recent eight-plus years of drought extracted an enormous human and financial toll over much of south-eastern Australia. In northern Victoria over half of the dairy farms were driven out of business. Equity in farm properties was eaten away and in quite a few cases the level is beyond recovery. The exceptional circumstances payments literally put food on the table for farm families who could not generate income from their properties and their hard work. The EC interest rate subsidies meant that more farms could remain in business while we all waited for the rains. Over $2.74 billion was committed to EC support in the last four years of that drought. That investment helped keep farm families on the land so they would still be there to claw their way back with the return of better seasons. That is what they are now doing. For some the drought was too long and they needed to think about the unthinkable—the sale of their farm. Hence, there were available Exceptional Circumstances Exit Grants designed to help the farmer driven off the land to re-establish in another industry. In all, some 504 exit grants were made, while nearly 33,000 families were helped to stay on the land with the equivalent of Newstart allowance for household support through exceptional circumstances grants.

The $600 million in EC support per year over the last four years pales into insignificance when you look at what that sector is now contributing, with the rains returned. In fact, it was a great investment in the future economy. ABS data shows that, in 2009-10, agriculture alone contributed $39.6 billion to the economy in that one year when the drought broke. Estimates for 2010-11 are that gross production value will be $40.1 billion. So the EC payments were a comparatively small but very sound investment in a hardworking and enormously contributing sector. EC exit grants were a vital part of that investment, making sure that farm families defeated by the drought were supported into new employment. While by 2011 it had rained in most areas—flooded, in fact, in some—incomes were not always restored, equity was depleted and some farm families still, tragically, needed to exit the industry to survive financially.

On 10 May this year the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Minister Ludwig, delivered his 2011-12 budget overview. In the accompanying facts sheet, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry identified the extension of the EC exit grants to 30 June 2012, with their three components: the exit grants up to $150,000; the advice and retraining grants up to $10,000; and the relocation grants up to $10,000 per client. Revised exceptional circumstances exit package policy guidelines were duly released in July 2011 in support of this decision. On the front page in bold lettering it said:

These guidelines apply to the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012.

It stated that the Australian government had allocated $9.6 million for the EC exit package for 2011-12 and the program would close on 30 June 2012 or earlier if funds were expended before that date. In fact, 21 times in the 21-page policy document it says that the closing date is the middle of next year, June 2012. But we could not believe it when on 10 August, only six weeks after that policy document was released, while agriculture minister Ludwig remained deathly silent, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry slipped a statement onto their website. In a stunning reversal of policy, the website stated that exceptional circumstances exit grants were fully subscribed. Centrelink was told to close the books because the government had run out of money for the program. As you can imagine, this was a sickening blow for those who had decided to sell their properties at what was, usually, a hugely discounted rate only because there was the expectation after they spoke to Centrelink that they would be eligible for the $150,000 exit grant plus the retraining money if they sold the farm.

A lot of people do not understand that in country areas selling your farm is not just like selling a suburban home or some other business, because, too often, there are intergenerational families under consideration in farm families. Family farms are often brothers working together or their grandparents and sons, and indeed grandsons, working the same property. The expectation is that the farm is also your home. It is also where people go to school. They belong to small communities. They go to the Country Fire Authority and keep it going. They go to their sporting clubs in those small local communities. So a decision to sell your family farm is a life-changing decision for anyone to make and it is a decision that often leaves families in enormous distress. There is a lot of family marital breakdown associated with selling the family farm. The decision is not taken lightly.

Unfortunately, these people took counsel from Centrelink, who said: 'Yes, while you're not going to make anything out of selling your farm—your debt is too great—with your $150,000 exit grant, with that little amount of money, you can put a deposit on a new house somewhere else. You can have some training with the $10,000 that goes with this grant. You can start a new life.' They had sold their farms before 10 August—as you know, the state declares it a sale of the farm when you have exchanged contracts and a deposit has been paid. So you can imagine the shock to numbers of my constituents, as well as those of the member for Mallee, when Centrelink said to them: 'No, until you actually get the full cheque in the mail'—in other words, settlement in 60 days, 90 days or whatever is agreed—'we are not going to deem that as you having sold your farm, so you are not going to get the $150,000, because, sorry, we have run out of money.'

I have farm families now whose lives are ruined. There is one family who had sold their livestock, their household goods, their water and their plant and equipment. They had put a small deposit on a small, modest home in Bendigo. Their three children were told they would have to leave their beloved school. That farm family could only survive—and indeed was only making the decision to move off that farm—with the $150,000 EC exit grant. They received a phone call from Centrelink saying, 'We know, we understand, the trauma that this entails, but we cannot pay you that cheque.' This is the sort of thing that is occurring in case after case across the electorate of Murray and also in my neighbour's, and the member for Mallee will soon speak to his situation.

We are begging the minister for agriculture, in conjunction with the minister for finance and with this government, to look at act of grace payments for these people. They acted in good faith. They took an incredibly traumatic and distressing decision on the basis that the government would support them into a new life. It is not a decision they would have taken or could have taken without the expectation of this grant.

How come—six weeks after the announcement of a 12-month extension of a budget, with $9.6 million committed to that extension—someone did not know that, in fact, the funds had run out? Where did the funds go to? We are looking at less than $5 million to solve this problem, yet, just today, this government announced $50 million for the state governments to be coerced into going along with the new environmental forum—$50 million. We could have had $5 million of that, thank you very much, and saved these people's futures. We are not just talking about the mothers and fathers but their children as well, who are now traumatised, with no income and with no alternative but to wonder what their future will hold.

This motion is deadly serious. It is about a malfunction of a government agency under the guidance of this government. This motion talks about a lack of caring and a lack of understanding of consequences. It also talks about, I think, some extraordinary mismanagement of budget. Centrelink must have been keeping the minister informed about how many grants had been committed to. It takes between four and six months to work through one of these grants, from the time that you agree to sell your property, to selling your property if you are lucky, to selling all the other parts of your property and then, finally, waiting for the settlement. In six weeks, I cannot understand how you could have committed the whole of the next year's budget; that just seems amazing to me. There are a lot of questions that the minister needs to ask his department and Centrelink.

Meanwhile, let us have those act of grace payments out there in the communities before too much more emotional and financial trauma occurs with these families. It is not too late now, but it is beginning to be too late for some of these farm families. They need a future. It is not their fault it did not rain for seven years. They kept working through that time. They invested all that they had emotionally, physically and psychologically. They agreed to move on through great family distress in making that decision. This government has let them down. This government needs to make it good.

See this speech in context