John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill before the House that we are now debating amends section 7 of the Rural Adjustment Act 1992 to allow for the appointment of members to the National Rural Advisory Council, which is termed NRAC, for three terms. The proposed amendment will remove the current provision that a person might be reappointed as a member on one occasion only. The Rural Adjustment Act 1992 specifies that NRAC’s main role is to provide advice on rural adjustment and regional issues, including whether areas should be assessed as being in drought exceptional circumstances. This bill will ensure that current or previous members who have served two terms will, in the future, be able to serve an additional term.

The work of NRAC is difficult, it is harrowing. The decision on whether or not to extend drought EC can be the difference between survival and ruin for a lot of farmers. I acknowledge Mr Keith Perrett, who has been the NRAC chair for some time now, and I thank him and his fellow NRAC members. It is not a happy job. I have done a couple of tours with them in a previous life as a representative of farmers. It is hard work and you are well aware that the decisions that you will recommend—not make, but recommend—to the federal minister can have long-term consequences.

My electorate of Calare has, over the past eight years, probably been the most drought affected electorate in Australia. I think Bourke was the first area to become EC declared in this current drought. That was in June 2002, and the drought had obviously been in force for some time before that. In later years the Riverina, Farrer, Mallee and Hume—even though it is a bit further east—have all been in the thick of it and still are in a lot of those areas, particularly in the Mallee, in the west of my electorate and in the south of New South Wales. South-west Queensland has also had an awful flogging. In the past three or four years in particular we have seen something that we have not seen before: irrigation water has failed in a lot of those areas. At one stage—I think it was in early 2007—the then Howard government included all forms of agriculture so that irrigation did not have to be specifically included in drought. I will speak about that again a little later.

I am not suggesting for one second that ours was a perfect system, but everybody has got used to it and they know what it is. I will go back to my electorate and use it as an example to explain one of the big problems with handling drought. Recently a lot of areas—16 around Australia, but particularly a lot of areas in my electorate—lost exceptional circumstances assistance for two reasons: one reason being that the rules changed. The rules that used to exist meant that farmers had a breathing space between better seasons coming and losing EC. That was because, as the Deputy Speaker would be well aware, rain does not mean water. Sorry, I was referring to Deputy Speaker Schultz, who was previously in the chair.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It had changed.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I did not realise that it had changed. In the seat of Hume, obviously, drought has been a very big issue. As a matter of fact, in Page the drought has been an issue too at various times.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point is that there was a time when NRAC’s guidelines, or the guidelines on drought, meant that there had to be a 12-month recovery period after the rain so that people had a chance to get their finances back in order. I think when a drought has been going as long as this one has, the guideline should be reintroduced, because without doubt there is absolutely no way any government can come up with a drought program which takes into account that a drought might go for eight years, as this one has in a lot of areas.

I will talk about this again later, too: for the Productivity Commission to make the report and the comments it did after a drought of this length of period was beyond belief. However, I mentioned two areas where I believe things have gone wrong. I was talking about my own electorate. The first is that we are not taking into account the fact that it does not rain money; it rains opportunity. Whereas a lot of areas are looking a lot better, particularly in my own region, nobody has made any money out of how it looks; they make money out of taking advantage of the time to bring stock in to fatten and sell or to put in a crop. That has certainly not happened yet, particularly the cropping. By and large, the croppers have been much worse off over the past few years. Stock people seem to have had more opportunity to get through the period. I am not suggesting they have got fat—they certainly have not—but they probably have not been as financially devastated as the broad-acre croppers and as the irrigators have been in more recent times.

I think there has been a failure—and once again I refer to my own area, in places like Molong, out at Nyngan or wherever it might be—because they have simply taken huge tracts of land out of drought but have not looked at individual places within the areas of those PP boards. One of the problems in New South Wales is that they are enlarging the boards. I hope that does not mean that NRAC will look at even bigger areas rather than looking at what is going on within those boundaries.

I have heard the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry make assurances, over time, about the government’s claim that it is not going to abolish EC drought support. We spoke about this a couple of nights ago when we were looking at particular portfolios during, I guess, the House of Representatives’ equivalent of the Senate estimates—although it was not quite as gruelling for the ministers concerned and we do not get a go at the bureaucracy, unfortunately. That would be interesting; I would like to do that. The advisors do not look as amused at the thought!

I will come back to the issue brought up by the member for Riverina the other night. I take the minister at face value on his comments about the relief payment and the fact that there is no suggestion that they are going to walk away from dealing with the social side of drought. I certainly hope not, although I must say that the transition payments for areas that lose EC are extremely hard to get—much harder than it was to get the relief payment. I noticed that when the minister talked about not walking away from drought he did not talk about the period after 2009-10, when there is no forward estimates on drought. I can accept the fact that that might be true; I still have enormous issues with the fact that page 60 of the agricultural budget papers specifically states that the reduction in expenses is due to the cessation not of drought, which would be understandable and hopeful, but of drought programs.

I have never heard the minister mention the interest rate subsidy when he talks about continuation of drought programs. If he makes a statement that he will continue the interest rate subsidy past 2009-10 then I would love to hear it. I think that 21 March 2010 is the latest time for which the current interest rate subsidy is in place in particular areas. I notice, too, that the minister said the other day, ‘Don’t get excited about us not having any drought funding in the forward estimates—it doesn’t mean we are not going to fund drought,’ yet the same minister made the point on AQIS that because it wasn’t in the forward estimates he assumed that the coalition was going to cease the funding of AQIS. That argument is hung on a bit of a nail there; perhaps the minister can explain the difference. As he well knows—and he has explained this himself, in defending AQIS—you do not always make provision for funding; a lot of it is discretionary, as indeed was our intention to fund AQIS. Perhaps the minister might be good enough to talk us through that a little later.

Given the minister’s record of slashing and burning lapsing programs for agriculture—and AQIS is a pretty good example of that—I think he has to accept that farmers have every reason to be particularly nervous and concerned about whether they will ever see new drought programs under a Labor government. The simple fact is that I wonder whether the government has any money, given the cash splashes that have gone into providing more programs. I will state right here and now that I have absolutely no problem with the idea of a drought review—I think it is necessary—because there is no perfect system. But everyone is used to this system and I have never been in favour of changing horses mid-stream, and I do not think the minister is, either. I would hope not.

Let us just talk about the Productivity Commission report for a while. It was interesting to note that, despite having had that report since—I think I am right in saying—February, the minister for agriculture chose to put it out for public discussion on the Tuesday morning of the budget, when I am sure he expected it to be the headline everywhere the next day. It was probably coincidence, and I am sure he will tell us if it was. That Productivity Commission report is the most ruthless thing that I have ever seen in any industry in my time not just as a member of this House but as an agripolitician representing farmers and other people. I have never seen anything quite so ruthless and quite so determined not to see any view but that of Treasury as this report.

Let us remember that the Productivity Commission is a creature of Treasury. When the minister said, ‘This is an unbiased review and we’re looking at the facts,’ I thought of the car industry. The government obviously wanted to help the car industry and to be seen to do so. They did not get the Productivity Commission or Treasury as their boss of an inquiry into the state of the car industry. They got one of their mates, a one-time Premier of Victoria, Madam Deputy Speaker, whom you probably know, to head up the inquiry. That was ex-premier, Steve Bracks. And, surprisingly, he came down with a report that said, ‘Yes, the car industry needs government to take a hand’ and, consequently, about $4 billion was targeted in that direction. But when it comes to drought and agriculture, which does not seem to get a lot of sympathy from the government, the government does not get a former farmer or anyone who is sympathetic to what is involved in a drought to head an inquiry.

I am the first to admit that there are some farmers who do not believe in assistance for anything, and in some cases they are right. But we are talking about a drought that has gone on for eight years. So what do we do? We get Treasury to make a report. Treasury are not famous for wanting to hand out money, as I think even the minister would agree. They are not known for wanting to give presents. They only do it when the Rudd government decides to do a splash. The report says things like: ‘Farmers have to realise that there are rates and taxes and every business should make provision for them.’ Why would a farmer, after eight years of drought, assume that he would not have water and that the New South Wales government would charge him for it? Let us get real here. The Victorian government, to be fair to them, does help its farmers a little bit with water rates. But New South Wales is still charging farmers the full cost of water delivery and licensing for something that they cannot deliver. The Productivity Commission said: ‘Farmers should have thought of that. They should have made provision for that eight years before.’ Obviously, they did not have much money then.

The Productivity Commission want everything terminated. They are a little bit careful about the social side of things, because they are well aware that their government believes in a lot of it. Thank heaven they are not totally walking away from the social side of drought. But the social side of drought does not just include farmers; it includes the towns. It includes everybody who works on agriculture or processes it, and that does mean the towns. It very much means the towns in the same way that to walk away from EC payments does not take into account the fact that it does not rain money, it rains opportunity. In fact, when it does rain, it actually means that your expenses go up, because you then have to buy all that stuff you did not buy in the drought. If you are a fattening station, you have to go and buy stock and then fatten them, drench them and do all the other things that in a drought you would close down. You just hope you can find the interest payments somewhere—that is another point.

I think that the minister is well aware of how the Productivity Commission report was received. I would like to hear him say, as I am sure agriculture would, that the report’s recommendation for the cessation of drought programs was a mistake and that it should not have been made. A few nights ago, the minister said that the government continues to fund drought, but I got the impression that he was talking about the social side of drought rather than the hard core side of it. Relief payments might help the farming family but they do nothing for the towns or the businesses who have to be paid for super, fuel et cetera, whereas the interest payments do. That is a social side of drought, too. It supports the towns that are involved.

There is another issue in the current situation which has changed drastically over the past few years. When we were in government, we changed the rules four, if not five, times because the drought kept getting worse as it went on. I will say here and now that there is absolutely no way that a government can come up with a program—and I totally concede this in any forum—that takes into account a drought that lasts as long as this one has, and they would be very foolish to do so. I have spoken about my horror and, I think, a lot of other people’s horror about the Productivity Commission handing down this report after a drought of such duration. It shows their total lack of understanding. Obviously, they had their riding instructions and were sticking to them.

Water: when we put all forms of agriculture, whatever it was—horticulture, broadacre—under EC it took away the issue of irrigation, which at one stage was treated differently. After a few years of drought we did bring in a system of EC for irrigation whereby irrigators could apply separately. Once we made it a level playing field in that sense irrigation was able to be part of normal EC. Even if broadacre, dryland agriculture has had rain—and I am not conceding they have made money; I am conceding that in areas they have had rain—irrigation has not. Irrigation is now going to be stuck out there without water. You only have to look at the dairy industry along the Murray. Gippsland might be fine but the dairy industry in the Mallee and along the Murrumbidgee, the Lachlan, the Macquarie and in that area is still totally devastated. It is in enormous trouble.

We changed the rules not because EC was necessarily totally wrong originally but because drought two years on is one thing but all that time is another. We changed it to take into account the severity and the length of the drought. Irrigation is getting worse, not better, and yet it is being wiped with everything else. In areas that are being taken out of drought, where there is irrigation they are losing EC along with the dryland. Even if the dryland has had rain and is able to take advantage of that for sowing crops, fattening stock or getting store stock ready to sell, irrigation does not have that opportunity because it has no water. I think the government and the minister, if he is fair dinkum, should look at those areas where EC is presumed not to be necessary for dryland—it is certainly still necessary for irrigation and I believe that should be looked at.

Minister Burke looks anxious to speak and I am sure he is going to reassure us on all those issues so I am not going to speak all morning. The issues on EC are far from over—it does not rain money; it rains opportunity. The government is not taking that into account. That is not NRAC’s fault. As I said earlier, before the minister was here, I thank NRAC for their job. It is not a pleasant one. I do wonder if we are extending the term that people can serve on NRAC because they intend to do as the budget papers say and cease drought programs and they do not want to have new people coming in who are not used to it. I do not actually have a problem with the people who do it. We probably appointed most of them, if not all.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All!

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought that might be correct. As I said earlier, I think Keith Perrett has done a good job—being chairman of that body is probably a pretty thankless job. I hope the reason for extending the term of service is not because you intend for it not to exist any more.

The interest rate subsidy, as I said before, has a very big social component—if not for the farmers concerned then for the towns that depend on the money that the farmers spend. I am well aware that the small business side has not been taken up to a big extent partly because they have a totally different structure from farming. It has not been taken up to a large extent by the town small businesses.

Minister Burke, I think you have been too frightened to change it in case you make a mistake. We changed it a lot to take into account the changes and the length of the drought. You should too—come to us for advice on what to do and how to change it, if you want. I am well aware that you are much more fascinated by the National Party than you are by agriculture. That is fine—we are quite happy for you to concentrate on us; you won’t be concentrating on your politics! This is an extraordinarily serious issue. To simply assume that if you do what we did you will keep it out of trouble is not true. Some areas now have gone even longer into drought. I never dreamt I would see a drought this long in my lifetime; I never want to see another one. Irrigation is something the government should think about. The irrigators have not had water even if the dryland people have.

Chris Trevor (Flynn, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to speak on the Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 2009. This bill amends section 7 of the Rural Adjustment Act 1992 to allow for the appointment of National Rural Advisory Council, NRAC, members for three terms. The proposed amendment will remove the current provision that a person may, on one occasion only, be reappointed as a member. The Rural Adjustment Act 1992 specifies that NRAC’s main role is to provide advice on rural adjustment and regional issues, including whether areas should be assessed as being in exceptional circumstances, EC. The bill will ensure that current or previous members who have developed considerable expertise in undertaking EC assessments through membership for two terms can serve an additional, third, term and continue to contribute to NRAC.

The National Rural Advisory Council is a skills-based independent advisory council to the Australian government Minister for Agriculture, Fisheriesand Forestry. NRAC was established in December 1999 as a statutory consultative body following legislative changes to the Rural Adjustment Act 1992. It replaced the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council and expanded the range of roles and functions of the original council. NRAC advises the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on rural issues, including EC applications and extensions to EC declarations.

Currently NRAC consists of a chairperson and not more than seven other members. The members are appointed by the minister on a part-time basis. At least one member is appointed to represent the states, at least one member is an officer of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry who is appointed to represent the Commonwealth, one member is appointed to represent the National Farmers Federation and the other members are appointed because of their expertise in economics, finance and administration, banking, sustainable agriculture, regional adjustment, regional development and farm management or training.

Four of the eight current members’ second terms expire on 30 June this year and, without the proposed amendment, those members will be unable to serve a third term. The amendment will mean that current members, who have developed considerable expertise in undertaking EC assessments, can continue to make significant contributions to NRAC by serving a third term.

A streamlined review process was introduced by the Australian government to make it easier for farmers who have not experienced a break in the drought to have their EC declarations assessed for a possible extension. Under the review process, NRAC reviews EC declared areas before their expiry date to assess whether an extension to the declaration is warranted. As part of the review, NRAC assesses information from a number of sources, including the National Agricultural Monitoring System, analysis provided by the Bureau of Rural Sciences and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, state and local governments and local producers. Additionally, NRAC may undertake an inspection tour of the area. I implore members to continue to undertake an inspection tour of all areas under consideration.

If NRAC assesses an area as no longer being in exceptional circumstances and the minister accepts advice not to extend the declaration, assistance ceases on the date the declaration ends. If NRAC supports extending the declaration and the minister agrees, assistance continues until the new declaration end date. Exceptional circumstances assistance is the Australian government’s main mechanism for providing assistance to eligible farmers and small business operators who are experiencing a severe downturn in income due to rare and severe climatic or other events. The rationale for providing EC assistance is to ensure that eligible farmers and small business operators with long-term prospects of viability are not forced to leave the land or the business due to short-term adverse events which are beyond their ability to manage.

Australian farmers have, to a large extent, been successful in managing the inevitable booms and busts that occur in agriculture. It is a way of life for them. They work very hard and are an extremely resilient bunch of Australians. They have done this by developing flexible farm management practices and plans which minimise the risk to their farm business of changes in prices, seasonal conditions and personal circumstances. They have also achieved this through other means such as using investment opportunities, savings strategies and private insurance where it is available.

Australian state and territory government rural policy encourages continued improvements in efficiency and competitiveness in all rural industries. The role of government is therefore to assist farmers enhance their skills in key areas of risk management, business planning and natural resource management. Agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries are a vital component of the economic security of my electorate of Flynn. Compared to other electorates, Flynn is ranked 10th in the proportion of people employed in these sectors—some 14 per cent. In comparison to other electorates, Flynn was ranked eighth in the total number of people employed in the agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries, with the beef industry being the largest. Over 4,700 people are employed in this industry. There are over 6,700 businesses in Flynn in the agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries, which is equal to 43 per cent of all businesses in my electorate. In comparison to other electorates, Flynn is ranked fifth in the number of businesses in these industries.

My electorate of Flynn has a diverse range of agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries, including but not limited to beef, sheep, sugar cane, fruit and vegetable growing, sawmilling, pig farming, cotton growing, grape growing, fishing, logging, dairy farming and nut growing, to name a few. Agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries are a vital component of my electorate, with a total gross value of over $1.6 billion, which is 18 per cent of the entire gross value for Queensland.

My electorate of Flynn is known as the industrial hub of Australia because of our coalmines, aluminium plants, power stations, deep-sea ports and many other associated industries, including the proposed LNG industry for Gladstone. Only a few hours ago, Australian oil and gas company Santos and its Malaysian joint venture partner Petronas announced the first binding sales contract for Queensland to produce liquefied natural gas. This announcement is a significant step in the development of the project, which is set to inject up to 6,000 much-needed jobs into regional Australia. I congratulate Santos and its partners. This news today means that Australia is set to become a significant exporter of cleaner energy to fuel economic growth in Asia, while creating thousands of jobs here at home, in particular in my electorate of Flynn.

In addition, and getting back to the point, the electorate of Flynn also contributes enormously to the Australian economy through the agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries. These industries are a vital component of the economic prosperity of my electorate. They are the lifeblood of many rural and regional towns and communities in Flynn, creating wealth and employment for these areas. They keep the local corner store open, they keep the local hardware store open, they keep the local school open and the local clothing store open. Australia was built on the back of these industries.

Unlike many other industries, family businesses in the agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries are often handed down through generations. To the people involved in these industries—and there are thousands of them—it is not just a job; it is a family tradition, a way of life, a certain culture, a certain existence. To these many hardworking people the weather can be both cruel and kind. Often their livelihoods depend on: ‘Will it rain; won’t it?’, ‘Will it hail; won’t it?’, ‘Will there be a bushfire or won’t there?’ or ‘Will it flood or won’t it?’

The Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 2009, which will allow for the reappointment of National Rural Advisory Council members for two subsequent terms after their initial term, is an important and integral component of the agricultural, fisheries and forestry industries in my electorate. Passage of this bill will ensure that members who have developed considerable expertise can continue to make significant contributions to NRAC and to the government. May their decisions be just and equitable, fair and reasonable, and in the best interests of farmers in my electorate, many of whom continue to do it extremely tough, especially in the Burnett area. As I have said before, I implore them to continue to visit all areas before recommendations are made. Farmers are our lifeblood and the heart and soul of this nation. I commend this bill to the House.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure whether some of the terms the honourable member for Hume used in his contribution were parliamentary, but they were certainly very Aussie! I understand the sentiment with which they were expressed.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I caught the last part of the member for Hume’s contribution. I know he spoke from the heart on the difficulties that people in regional Australia—including regional Victoria—experience. I acknowledge his contribution. Whilst the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is here, I would also like to put on record my thanks for the recent Landcare announcements. The announcement about the coordinator positions has been well received within my electorate. I would also like to acknowledge Martin Breen, the adviser in this area. I wish him all the best in his exciting new career ahead.

I am pleased to rise today to speak on the Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 2009. This is a bill that is important to Australia and, of course, my electorate of Corangamite. As most members would know, this bill is about the Rural Adjustment Act 1992, which covers the critical issue of addressing change in the farming sector. Whilst the amendments proposed in this bill are technical in nature, ensuring continuous governance, the bill gives me a chance to talk about the fantastic contribution made by the farming sector in my electorate and the challenges that it faces.

This bill makes a relatively minor amendment from a legislative point of view. Basically, it amends section 7 of the Rural Adjustment Act 1992 to allow the members of the National Rural Advisory Council, the NRAC, to be appointed for two subsequent terms after their initial term. There is no financial impact resulting from this bill. The bill needs to be passed in the winter sitting in order for the four current NRAC members whose second terms cease on 30 June 2009 to be reappointed for a third term. If this legislation is not progressed in the winter sitting, the remaining members of the NRAC will be required to take on additional responsibilities and will have an unacceptable workload as a consequence, or new members will need to be selected to replace the existing notionally retiring members.

The National Rural Advisory Council is a skills based, independent advisory council to the Australian government. It was established in December 1999 as a statutory consultative body, following legislative changes to the Rural Adjustment Act 1992. It replaced the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council and expanded the range of roles and functions of the original council. The NRAC advises the minister for agriculture on rural issues such as exceptional circumstances, or EC, applications and extends the EC declarations where required. When the Australian government receives an EC application, the minister may refer it to the NRAC for assessment if he agrees that a prima facie case has been established.

In doing assessments, the NRAC must look at a wide range of issues and data. It looks, for example, at the National Agricultural Monitoring System and at analyses provided by the Bureau of Rural Sciences, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, state and local governments and local producers. Additionally, the NRAC may undertake an inspection tour of an area to witness firsthand the devastation that drought might be causing. If the NRAC assesses an area as no longer being subject to exceptional circumstances and the minister accepts the advice not to extend the declaration, assistance ceases on the date the declaration ends. If the NRAC supports extending the declaration and the minister agrees, assistance continues until the new declaration date ends.

So you can see that the NRAC representatives are very powerful people who represent the interests of the communities and the government. They can hold people’s futures in their hands by making a simple declaration or by ending such a declaration. It is a job that has enormous responsibilities and requires enormous amounts of experience, so it is very important that there is continuity of service on this body and a higher level of experienced management in place. It really is important for my own electorate but also for people right across the country that the skills and knowledge of the current NRAC members are continued.

Corangamite, like most farming areas today, is facing some very real challenges. To show how important farming is to Corangamite, I will run through some of the recent ABARE figures. Milk is one of south-west Victoria’s most important agricultural products in value terms. Milk accounts for about 30 per cent or nearly $690 million of the $2.1 billion total value of agricultural production in the region. Cattle trail by only a marginal amount, with 17 per cent of total production, while sheep and lambs contribute 15 per cent to the total value of agricultural production within my seat. Wool accounts for about 14 per cent and vegetable production around three per cent. Pasture and hay production account for just over six per cent of the total value of agricultural production and barley, canola and other oil seeds each account for around two per cent, as measured in 2004-05. There are about 7,900 farms in south-west Victoria. Most farms in the south-west Victorian region are small or medium in size, and over half the farms produce less than $150,000 in agricultural outputs, as measured in that 2004-05 financial year. In 2007 around 294,000 people were employed in south-west Victoria, with 27,000 people—or eight per cent of the workforce—employed in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sector.

As you can see, this is a very important industry to my region and, I know, a very important industry to the whole of south-west Victoria and the whole of Australia. It provides us with employment, it provides us with food and it provides us with exports that we desperately need. Climate change is now having a real impact. A number of areas across south-west Victoria have been drought declared. A number of areas have been drought declared for quite some time, and almost all of these areas have been affected by climate change to one degree or another. Farmers are very familiar with El Nino and La Nina events and with how they can greatly affect seasons and rainfall. We all know that it will just get harder for the farmer to respond to climate change. All the science tells us this. On top of climate change challenges, farmers have to deal with the real impacts of worldwide markets. These can have a very big impact upon their small businesses. For example, the dairy price index of international dairy product prices recently fell by 58 per cent from its peak in 2007. Prices appear to have bottomed out in the first quarter of 2007 and to have recovered a bit. Production prices in the Oceania region this year were about half of what they were in previous years, I understand. Of course, dairy is not the only farming sector that is subject to quite volatile variations. Most other sectors are too.

The point is that it is very important to have experienced people in charge of schemes such as the Rural Adjustment Scheme so farmers can get help when they need it. The Rural Adjustment Act 1992 specifies that the NRAC’s main role is to provide advice on rural adjustment and regional issues, including on whether areas should be assessed as being in exceptional circumstances. Four of the eight currently serving NRAC members cease their second terms on 30 June 2009. Without this legislative amendment being passed they will not be eligible to serve for a third term. Passage of this bill will ensure that the current and past members, who have developed considerable expertise in undertaking EC assessments, can continue to make significant contributions to the NRAC. What we are doing here is a very sensible thing—that is, making sure we have the right people in place to make these very important judgements on behalf of the government or for the government. I support the intent of this bill, and I commend it to the House.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 2009. I come to this place and this bill with a background knowledge and a responsibility to represent my constituency. With my background—having been brought up on the land and having run my business on the land—I think I have a fair understanding of life on the land and life in small rural communities. I understand how the exceptional circumstances drought and business support has been essential to the survival of many families and many small businesses during this exceptionally long drought. I know that, when rain comes in an area, it does not fall universally. We have noticed, particularly in Queensland—and it is on the record—that a lot of the rainfall events we have had have been almost tropical downpours but they have fallen in one spot and not always spread to the same intensity across a large area. That has created a lot of difficulties in the assessment of seasonal conditions for the people on the National Rural Advisory Council.

I note that this bill will allow those board members to be reappointed. I want to put on record my personal thanks to those who serve on this board. It is a most difficult job. In fact, I know one member of the board very well because he has lived in my electorate—I think he lives just outside Maranoa now. They put their heart and soul into the job. Given that it is a difficult job, and sometimes they stand almost as judge and jury, I think people may from time to time be a bit too willing to criticise a decision when these people make those decisions with the best of intentions and the best knowledge that they have in the time that is available.

I acknowledge the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who is at the table. I thank him and particularly his advisor Martin Breen, who I have only just learned during this debate will not be remaining in the minister’s office. Martin was able to give me a briefing before the recent announcement to extend or end EC assistance in parts of my electorate of Maranoa and many parts of Queensland, and you might say he sought some guidance from me. Given that Maranoa is an electorate three times the size of the state of Victoria, boundaries can often be difficult. Trying to gain an understanding of where the boundaries fall in and out of EC areas where assistance will be ending creates challenges. I have written to the minister about some of those decisions, particularly in relation to the northern Darling Downs region around Bell, Cooranga north through Jandowae and up through to the south Burnett around Blackbutt and Cooyar—just to name a few—and an area just north of Roma in the Bymount east region. Why did I write to the minister? People from these areas contacted my office when they heard that they were going to be excluded from exceptional circumstances and yet very near to them other people would remain eligible. It indicated to me the difficulty the NRAC committee have had in assessing areas but also the fact that it is impossible for the committee to travel every road and visit every nook and cranny of an area. Sometimes some of the information they have to use relates to rainfall that has occurred in a region when the rainfall recording station may be 40, 50 or 60 kilometres from some of these farms that are going to be excluded—in fact, they were excluded on the 15th of this month.

I have spoken to you, Minister, and Martin Breen in your office. We need the minister in Queensland to request an extension of these areas. I urge you and your office to get onto the minister in Queensland. I know they have had a difficult budget, and I will not bring that into the debate now, but I urge him to request of your office to consider extending these areas that I have described—and I describe them in good faith, not in a political sense but in a genuine attempt to help people because that is what the exceptional circumstances scheme is all about.

I took the time to drive through these areas from where I had received these telephone calls—so I am coming to this issue having driven through the region. It is amazing; you drive through an area and it looks beautifully green and there are some crops, but you go another 20 kilometres along the road and there is drought. I have spoken to a few people. They say, ‘Go up Cooyar Creek a bit further and you will find it is devastated.’ There is no water in the dams—isn’t that an indication that those heavy rainfall events have not occurred? The dams did not capture any water because there was no water. I know it is very patchy and very difficult, but I urge the minister to get on to the minister in Queensland and hurry him up because we are dealing with people—farming families. Having driven the area, I had a few calls from farmers. The men out there are always very stoic. They just appreciate a call back from me after having spoken to my office. They say, ‘I think I’ll be all right, but I’m worried about the women.’ It is not that they are worried about the women; it is the women who are worried about the men.

In my electorate is Aussie Helpers, a voluntary organisation which has been working tirelessly for the last six or seven years and maybe even longer. It is based in Dalby and Charleville and does a magnificent job. I want to acknowledge the work of communities as well, right across Australia. They distribute not only goods from the local community but also hay and other support that has come from other parts of Australia. I acknowledge the great work of the Country Women’s Association. The emergency relief money to be distributed to areas that has been provided by our government—I am sure it will continue; I hope it does, Minister—to the Country Women’s Association is important. The Country Women’s Association is one of the great organisations in this country. Its people do their work quietly without fanfare. They do not seek recognition. It is based in nearly all rural communities. The women in these organisations have been able to distribute some additional support. The member for Hume spoke of the additional goods, clothing and personal effects that might help to make a difference in a family. I just want to acknowledge the great work of the Country Women’s Association. It is a great organisation and I commend each and every one of them. Minister, we must make sure that this parliament appropriates money to keep them doing the job that they do across Australia. Sometimes it means that a power bill is paid or a telephone account is paid so that a family remain connected through the telephone.

I also want to acknowledge the work that Woolworths have done in supporting our farmers. In fact, I went into our local supermarket on the day when, across Australia, they raised something like $7 million which was then distributed through the Country Women’s Association to the needy families out there. It was a great initiative. It came from the profits of the trade of that day. Thank you, Woolworths. It was great to be there. From my point of view, to be at the checkout and see the skills of those who check out the grocery lines is just amazing. I was there fiddling and trying to press the buttons—’Yes, that looks like an apple’—we would weigh them, put them in the bag and make sure that we do not put the ice-cream on top of the hot chook, and things like that. They are very skilled people. They whisk it through and I fiddle with the first two or three items. I saw it on the day when Woolworths were conducting a campaign across Australia, with the profits of that day from each state helping farmers in drought relief.

I make no apology for the support that we appropriate for our farming communities in exceptional drought. They are the people who feed our nation. Minister Burke, from time to time we have been on the same podium. I remember last year at Millmerran when you spoke very kindly and generously about the very special place that farmers have in our lives and in this nation. I and many people were pleased to hear you say that and to see the approach that you are taking with this portfolio. Farmers are a very special breed. I think they do it out of love and, of course, to make money, which is more challenging every year. They do not play on a level playing field when it comes to the international stage, as you would be aware. So I make no apology for the support that we must continue to put behind our farmers. For instance, look at what we give the motor vehicle industry in Australia. It is important that we have a motor vehicle industry in Australia. When Australia had its own car, the Holden, we all rejoiced in that. We put something like $6 billion into the manufacture of Australian-made vehicles every year. I do not think it is too much to ask that we continue to support those farmers in need. I would hope that the parliament would always see that there is a need to support those who, through no fault of their own, have to deal with seasonal vagaries from day to day.

The other things about not extending the exceptional circumstances support are that they would lose not only the health card and some income support but also the additional support that can flow through youth allowance. There would not be an income or asset test applied. They are always worried about how their children will gain access to further education, because they want to make sure that they are not lost in this exceptional drought as the generation of young people who lost the opportunity for further education because their parents were not able to afford to send them away. Youth allowance is available without an income or assets test. There is also the assistance for isolated children to gain access to education. There is a basic allowance for assistance for geographically isolated children to gain access to primary and secondary education, and there is additional support available from the federal government—I think I am right here—for families, without an income or assets test, because they are in receipt of exceptional circumstances support. So, when they lose exceptional circumstances status, it is not just the income support or business support; there are other elements of support for families that are absolutely essential.

Minister Burke, I would ask you to get on to the minister in Queensland. I had my state colleagues make sure that they contacted the minister. This is not a political issue; this is about families out there, who I feel very strongly for, and those small and maybe very patchy areas—it would have been very difficult for the NRAC committee to have identified them without perhaps walking the entire length and breadth of my electorate, which they are not able to do. But, based on calls to my office, there are people out there who are extremely worried as we go into winter. They have done all that they can to keep their enterprises going. The season is not with them. They have appreciated all the support they have received, including business support, the health card, assistance for their children and income support. In the overall scheme of the federal budget, it is a very small amount of money.

As I said earlier, I make no apologies for supporting the need for this parliament to support the people who feed our nation and provide valuable underpinning of the economies of many regional communities and enormous overseas export wealth. Minister, I leave it with you. Once again, I thank Martin Breen for the way we have been able to work together. There are the areas that I have written to you about that really need that extension, in some form or another, to receive that additional support, even for six months until the end of the year to see whether they get a continuation of support. The calls we get, even from Centrelink, sometimes worry me. Centrelink is probably, on a day-to-day basis, closer to this than you, Minister, your office or me. The alerts that they give me from time to time worry me. It is about continuing to support families in particular areas. There may be only 40 to 50 families but they are 40 to 50 families that deserve our support.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 2009. I commend and congratulate the member for Maranoa, who is my neighbour in terms of our electorates. His electorate is to the west of mine and the farmers in his electorate feel the same as the farmers in my electorate. My electorate is classified by the Australian Electoral Commission as rural, and so it is. Sixty per cent of the city of Ipswich is rural and I have 70 per cent of the city of Ipswich in my electorate, including all the rural parts. In my electorate I also have the Fassifern Valley, the old Boonah Shire, as well as all the Lockyer Valley. So, geographically, 95 per cent of my electorate in south-east Queensland is rural. I know that the farmers in my electorate feel exactly the same way as the farmers in Maranoa. They do it tough. It is tough for them to make a living. They find tremendous challenges in terms of the provision of health care, giving their kids a good education, getting income support and getting access to markets. The Lockyer Valley alone contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to the Queensland economy. It has been of tremendous benefit to Queensland’s past, present and future.

The reality is that the farmers have had the benefit of exceptional circumstances assistance in the Lockyer Valley—which, of course, has been classified as ‘Southern South-East Revised (Lockyer Valley)’. They received assistance from 15 June 2008 to 15 June 2009.

Minister, I have always found this classification by NRAC puzzling. It really puzzles me, and I have raised this with your office before. The whole of Ipswich and all of the Lockyer Valley were covered by the exceptional circumstances declaration but, for some inexplicable reason, the moment you hit Harrisville, it stopped. South of Harrisville there was no exceptional circumstances assistance.

I spoke to John Brent, who is the Mayor of the Scenic Rim Regional Council. I think the member for Maranoa would have met John Brent on many occasions. He is a well-known LNP figure in Queensland. I get on very well with John, and so does the member for Forde. John and I have both puzzled on numerous occasions why areas like Kalbar, Boonah, Aratula and other areas were not part of the classification.

This weekend I will be opening the Kalbar Show. I will do the Ipswich Home Show as well for three days, but I will be there at the Kalbar Show. I guarantee you that, at the mobile office I do on Saturday at the Kalbar Show, farmers and their families will come up to me and talk to me about the challenges they face in relation to drought, health, education and income and interest assistance. They do it hard. It is a tough life, working seven days a week with their hands.

Concerning my electorate, my family on my father’s side were German farmers from the Lockyer Valley. On my mother’s side, they were railway workers from Ipswich. So I am as local as you are going to get in my electorate. But the farmers in the Lockyer Valley have been of tremendous help to South-East Queensland. Beetroot, lettuce, cabbage—you name it, they grow it. With the climate change challenges, wheat has increasingly become a crop grown in that area.

Recently, I launched the Queensland Farmers Federation report on the climate change challenges that Queensland will face. I launched it in Forest Hill, the home of Linton Brimblecombe, who is a well-known—and I will get this straight for the member for Maranoa—LNP personality in the Lockyer Valley. He and Mel and Linton’s family have been farming for generations in that valley. His father, Alan, has been a pillar of the Uniting Church in Laidley and so have Linton and the whole family. I have talked to Linton and other farmers in that area. They appreciate the exceptional circumstances funding they get and have received over the years, but farmers in the Fassifern area are really mystified about why they did not receive that kind of assistance in the last few years.

We have recently been blessed with a lot of rain in South-East Queensland. It has created some challenges for us. It has caused us some issues. There have been people injured. There has been loss of property, damage done to businesses and, sadly, at the end of last year the loss of the life of a woman in the Lockyer Valley. But the blessing that we received is that the dam levels, which were hovering between 15 to 18 per cent in South-East Queensland, have gone up to about 70 per cent.

That does not mean that the each and every day challenge for farmers to earn an income has gone away. A lot of people running businesses still have prohibitive debt levels. They still often have their partner or spouse working in towns like Gatton, Laidley, Ipswich or Toowoomba just to be able to afford to meet what are often called ‘basic living expenses’. To give their children the kind of life that they expect and they deserve, they need assistance.

Those children receive good assistance through their schools, great schools like Lockyer District High, Laidley State High and the other many schools in the Lockyer Valley. We are providing a lot of assistance through Building the Education Revolution. In fact, in excess of $90 million has been allocated to the schools in Ipswich, the Lockyer Valley and the Fassifern Valley in my electorate. The farmers welcome this.

They also received the one-off payments. There were 119 farming families who received those one-off payments in the last few months. They also received benefits in the Nation Building and Jobs Plan—the nation building for recovery activities that this government is committed to. But they have also suffered and struggled, and NRAC has not always been as kind as they ought to have been to the farmers in my electorate. Those farmers really think at times, ‘What is this all about?’ because, for them, drought and difficulty are not rare and severe events outside of what a farmer could expect to manage. For them, it is a fact of life. It is what they have put up with for year after year.

I know what an EC declaration is. I know that these impacts are supposed to have been so severe and prolonged that they are likely to occur only once every 20 or 25 years. But let me tell you that, for these farmers, it is not their experience. I know that the state government of Queensland has worked with the federal government and, before making an application for EC, they worked to provide substantial new assistance. I know that the state government has declared drought in EC application areas. I know that is what needs to be done.

But I really wonder whether NRAC always gives the kind of skills advice that the minister needs to get. I know there are some experts on the panel; there is a person from the National Farmers Federation. I know people are appointed because of their expertise in economics, financial administration, banking, sustainable agriculture, regional adjustment, regional development, farm management or training. But if you go and talk to the farmers in my area they often wonder about that as well. I know that in this legislation we are allowing for the reappointment of people for an additional term or terms. Four of the eight current serving NRAC members cease their second term as of 30 June 2009 and, without this legislation, their terms would expire and they would not be eligible for another term. But, fair dinkum, Minister, we need to have people on that NRAC board who are more sympathetic to farming communities in South-East Queensland as well as elsewhere, because drought is not something that happens occasionally; it happens almost every year for these farmers. I know we have to have this amending legislation we are debating today because otherwise members could not be reappointed and we would have a disaster in terms of the advice that the minister gets. But we need to have a look at the personnel we have put on NRAC because farmers need to have confidence that the people on NRAC are sympathetic not just to their lives but to their lifestyles and their needs.

I know the federal government are doing a lot to help the farmers in my electorate. We have invested a record $24 billion in rural and regional Australia and we are thereby building stronger communities and helping them adjust to the worst global recession we have seen since the Great Depression. I welcome, Minister, the fact that we have provided such support to primary producers. There is the $715 million for ongoing drought support and the $1.7 billion to support local communities. Farmers in my electorate also very much appreciate the fact that we have put $8 million into the Warrego Highway upgrade, and they can see that being done just west of Ipswich and across Ipswich. They appreciate the fact that we have put about $800,000 into the Minden Crossing, a terrible crossing that is actually just past my electorate, in the electorate of Dickson. They also appreciate the fact that we are spending $884 million on the Ipswich Motorway upgrade, which is supporting up to 4,000 jobs locally in South-East Queensland. How do they get their produce from the Lockyer Valley, from west of Ipswich and often from the electorate of the member for Maranoa? The Warrego Highway and the Cunningham Highway connect to the Ipswich Motorway, and that is how the farmers get their produce to the markets in Rocklea and elsewhere, so fixing up the Ipswich Motorway is crucial.

Recently I had a meeting with the Mayor of the Lockyer Valley Regional Council, Steve Jones, another prominent conservative politician in South-East Queensland. The Lockyer Valley, as I said, is not entirely in my electorate, but he was commending us for the fact that we are doing work on the Warrego Highway after many years of neglect and fixing up the Ipswich Motorway. I just cannot understand why those opposite voted repeatedly against doing up the Ipswich Motorway. They did not fix it in the 11½ half years they were in office and they have again voted against it in this place. So I want to let the farmers in the Lockyer Valley and the Fassifern Valley, not just the urban dwellers in Ipswich, know that when it comes to regional infrastructure and road funding and the kind of assistance they need to get their produce to the markets it is the Rudd Labor government that is helping them. It is not just supporting jobs in Ipswich but supporting farmers to get their produce through to Ipswich; and not just the farmers in horticulture but also the beef farmers. I have a number of beef farmers in my electorate. How do they get their beef to the abattoir? I have the biggest meatworks in the country in my electorate, at Dinmore. They kill 18½ thousand beasts every week. I started my working life as a cleaner in the meatworks there. My father worked there, my uncle worked there and my three cousins worked there. Making sure that regional roads are efficient, effective and not subject to obstacles is crucial.

I am pleased, Minister, that we have provided that funding for road infrastructure in my electorate. North of Aratula, the Cunningham Highway goes into the electorate of the member for Maranoa. The farmers in the Fassifern Valley have been arguing and advocating for years that the Cunningham Highway north of Aratula should be fixed, and the Rudd Labor government actually provided millions of dollars recently to ensure that Main Roads Queensland can get that fixed. So 22 kilometres of road north of Aratula will be fixed. It has been a national disgrace under the coalition government for years. I have doorknocked that whole area and spoken to businesses there and they know how important this road funding is. It is important, Minister, that you know how important road funding is for the farmers in my electorate as well as across the country.

But when it comes to the challenge of climate change and those issues, it is very important for the minister to know that there needs to be more sympathy shown to farming communities. There has simply not been enough when it comes to exceptional circumstances funding. It is important for the minister to know that there are many people on this side of the House, like me and the member for Leichhardt and the member for Dawson and the member for Flynn, who represent farming communities. They speak to us at our mobile offices, at our country shows, in our constituencies and electorate officers about the challenges of exceptional circumstances funding. So I would urge you to have a good look at this, Minister, and at the composition of NRAC in the future. We think it is important that when you are making changes in your current portfolio and looking at reappointing people, you should be looking at personnel on that panel who have the necessary kind of expertise to advise on the needs of farming communities. They need to listen to what farming communities have to say and it is important that those communities are not forgotten, not just on roads, health or education but on the challenges of drought and the problems of financial impoverishment that drought causes to those communities. In the circumstances, it is extremely important that this legislation goes through but also that you listen to those farming communities because they need to be represented, they need a stake at the table in NRAC in the future, and I commend you, Minister, for doing that. This bill needs to be passed, but there need to be changes on the board. Only when we get some changes on the board will the farming communities across South-East Queensland get the kind of sympathy that they deserve. I commend this bill to the House and suggest that in future, Minister, changes be made to the composition and personnel you put on the board.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.