Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I can assure the member for Ballarat that McCain's potato chips have lots of fans, not the least of whom is me! That's not because I'm an avid consumer—although I am—but, as I can assure the member for Ballarat, lots of potatoes grown in the seat of Barker head across the Victorian border. Thankfully, that remained open to heavy-vehicle freight throughout the various lockdowns so that the McCain factory could continue to supply hot chips to Australians all over. So if her constituents are experiencing problems with the production of potatoes, I can assure her that I have farmers who are ready, willing and able to double down and produce yet more South Australian potatoes for chipping at the McCain's factory. Indeed, some of those producers even produce in and around powerlines in relation to those very commodities. So I wish her well, but I want to make sure that anyone who is listening to the broadcast isn't in fear that we're in some risk of a shortage of potato chips around the country at any stage. That would be a calamity!

I rise to speak on the Farm Household Support Amendment (Debt Waiver) Bill 2021, which relates to the waiver and reconciliation of debts. Something that those listening to the debate in the chamber would no doubt be aware of is that, from an economic perspective, this country is roaring back. But we need to pause for a minute because, as difficult as the recovery from the recession that has been induced by the one-in-100-year global pandemic is, in my electorate there were real issues which preceded pandemic. These were real issues preceding anyone ever being introduced to the concept of COVID-19, or any of us having really deeply thought that a global pandemic would wave its way onto our continent.

Those real issues were precipitated by a prolonged drought. I know that I speak for lots of members of this place when I say that those difficulties preceded the bushfire season that was so calamitous, as well as, obviously, the pandemic. These changes go back to those difficulties. The farm household allowance, for those who might not be familiar with it, is a payment that's made to farmers who lose their income on account of drought, or flood or unreasonable fluctuations in commodity prices. This is the concept, and it might be foreign to some, that a farmer invests a million dollars—and this is not uncommon in my electorate, given the scale of farming operations today—in seed and inputs. That farmer drills that million dollars directly into the soil. Then it's a matter of sitting and waiting.

Of course, farmers are waiting for the rain. Some of them have described it to me as being a bit like taking a million dollars to the casino and putting it on black. Of course it's not; these are determined farmers who are at the innovative cutting edge. But the reality is that 'if it don't rain, it don't grow'. I've been with farmers when they've done that not once but twice. Imagine that? Imagine having the guts to take a million dollars worth of seed and inputs and drill them straight into the ground, only to see them fail? Two and three seasons ago the headers didn't leave the sheds: nothing grew. Imagine having the resilience and courage to take another million dollars worth of seed and other inputs and drill those into the ground again 12 months later? Of course a lot of these costs are fixed—they come along whether you reap a crop or you don't.

I've sat with farmers on this. I'll never forget a discussion I had with one farmer, who told me: 'Tony, I'm about to go back to the bank for the third time. It's been two years and our financial position has worsened by greater than $2 million on account of two complete crop failures, and I'm about to do it again.' Aside from sitting with this person and thinking, 'You are incredibly brave,' the little Tony in my head—perhaps the rational one—was saying, 'You're perhaps crazy brave, but you are incredibly brave.' Then imagine me sitting there with that particular producer and that particular producer telling me that they'd had a discussion with the bank, and this was it: if it didn't rain, the bank would have to take the necessary action. Thankfully, it did rain. Those in this chamber may well know that we had a stunning season. I was pleased to visit that very same crop, during a crop competition, and I was so relieved. The resilience was measured by the smiles on these farmers' faces. The farm household allowance was the reason that that farming family could retain dignity over that 36-month period. The school fees got paid. There was food on the table. They had dignity.

From time to time—and we saw it during the global recession—for reasons that are outside of their control, businesses suffer economic loss. In some cases, during this pandemic, it lasted for three months. In some cases, for businesses in my electorate, it might have lasted six months. For some businesses it continues. I acknowledge that. But, for the overwhelming majority of them, they saw this as a relatively short-term but very stressful interruption to their otherwise successful businesses. My farming enterprises face this from time to time. Most recently, on account of the drought, they faced it for 36 months straight. The necessary expansion to farm household allowance is taking place during this period. Of course, members in this place know that any farming enterprise can access the farm household allowance for four years in any 10. Through the most recent dry period, the prolonged drought, it was increased from two years to four. Both sides of this place should acknowledge that that has been a good thing, and it was done with the bipartisan support of my friends opposite.

The reality is that, in order to have this system, there needs to be business income reconciliation. Farmers are expected to estimate what their likely income will be at the beginning of a financial year. That triggers the farm household allowance. Of course, if circumstances change, then there is potential for a debt to be raised. Perhaps, in certain circumstances, that's fine, but what we've got here is a situation where we've changed the rules. We've gone from three years in every 10 to four years in every 10, having done that to take account of the very difficult position that farmers in the prolonged drought found themselves in. It would have been unconscionable to do anything other than have another look at the debt waiver provisions.

What does this bill do? It waives new business income reconciliation debts. It removes the requirement to recredit days of payment where a business income reconciliation debt was incurred. It allows a small number of farm household allowance recipients with existing BIR debts to repay these debts using the remaining FHA days. It maintains the time limit for payment to four years. That's very important. Nothing in this bill extends that four-in-10 rule. It provides refunds to FHA recipients who incurred part-day debts where that person was still entitled to some payment. Finally, it ensures that FHA recipients can still receive a top-up payment where eligible.

At its heart, the farm household allowance is about making sure we don't lose a generation of Australian farmers. I'm not someone who comes into this place and says that farmers aren't dealt a particularly attractive hand by the parliament. I think farmers have been dealt a particularly attractive hand. No other business can income-average over 10 years. No other business has access to provisions like the farm household allowance. Indeed, no Australian individual has access to that outside of the farming network. This is a provision which effectively says that we'll provide you with income support, notwithstanding we haven't asked you to sell your investment asset—in this case, the farm.

No other Australian can expect the kinds of advantages that come with term investments linked to farming enterprises. These are particularly beneficial provisions. But they're established for a reason, and they have bipartisan support for a reason—that is, because this place knows, as do Australians, that farmers go out and face the kind of risk profile that I described earlier in my contribution. If we don't provide these kinds of safety measures, then we're not going have a generation of Australian farmers who will survive the vicissitudes of drought. So we need provisions like this. We need to remain flexible and cognisant of the real meteorological reality out there.

This is the same kind of thinking that has allowed the Morrison government to lead 24 million Australians through the recovery. It's the kind of thinking that says you've got to apply a practical, pragmatic lens to the situation that you find. That situation, 18 months ago, was a one-in-100-year pandemic event. We had run strong budgets to that point and we had the fiscal firepower to lean in. Just as we lean in for farmers in relation to FHA, we leant in particularly for the business sector and their employees through the JobKeeper scheme. That is why, in my respectful submission, we are sitting at an unemployment rate in this country of 5.1 per cent, and it is projected to go even lower.

There are employment challenges in my electorate today—absolutely there are. But they're not the ones I thought we'd experience 18 months ago. In my darker moments, 18 months ago, in quarantine at home, I thought to myself, 'How is our nation going to cope with an unemployment rate rising through 12 to 15 per cent?' That was worse than the projections, but I had a really pessimistic view; those on this side of the House who know me well know that I am the coalition pessimist! Thankfully, in this case, I wasn't proven right. It's not a product exclusively of decisions that have been made in this place; I give credit to the Australian people for where we've come to. They have shown the kind of resilience and can-do attitude that we know is quintessentially Australian. They couldn't have done any of that if we weren't prepared to effectively leverage the nation's books and debt position in favour of ensuring the economy didn't fall off a cliff.

As I said, in my electorate we face employment problems. But those employment problems aren't the 12 to 15 per cent unemployment rate I thought they'd be 18 months or so ago; they're now the strongest structural shortage in the labour market that I've ever seen in my lifetime. I'd hasten to suggest it's probably as short as it's ever been, except for the period directly after World War II. Of course, that was a point, I'm particularly keen to point out, when the Australian people turned effectively to continental Europe and said, 'If you have young, strong prospective Australians, send them to us.' My father was in that cohort. I'm incredibly proud of everything he has done. I think we're quickly coming to the point when we'll need to consider, post pandemic, something akin to that open stance in relation to unskilled labour into this country. Of course it's unlikely in 2022 to be an invitation to Europe, or at least one that wouldn't be necessarily openly accepted in that way, but I think we need to turn our attention to inviting prospective Australians, unskilled or otherwise, from other areas of our globe, including South-East Asia and the Pacific. That's how we'll solve the structural problem I have in my electorate. It's something we need to consider seriously.

See this speech in context