Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know from people speaking out in the media, dairy farmers in particular, how distressed they are that it has taken the government so long to correct the issues with the farm household allowance. As I said in my contribution before question time, we have known about this issue since 2014 yet it has taken over three years for this government to put this bill before the House to try and resolve the situation. Even as late as last year, in October, South Australian dairy farmers spoke out about their long wait for assistance.

In an article in the news, these dairy farmers spoke about their demoralising process of asking the federal government for help. Hoping to get urgent financial relief but then waiting for up to six months for money to come through from the federal government was hard. They said that money available under the farm household allowance scheme is 'delayed by too much paperwork and not enough resources' helping to process approvals.

Complaints about Centrelink are not new. Chronic understaffing by this government has created a problem for many seeking help or access to allowances that they are entitled to. I know that in my area it is not just our dairy farmers and farmers that have had delays. There are people waiting for their aged-care packages that have been delayed, some by as much as nine months.

This is something that the government refuse to address. They refuse to work with the staff of Centrelink. They sacked a group of people working for DHS. They have not replaced them. As a result of their inability to staff Centrelink properly and to have people with appropriate training, we have seen delay after delay, not just for our farmers seeking the farm household allowance but for people seeking aged-care support, people seeking Centrelink support and people in the most recent scandal that the government have still not addressed, the debt recovery system.

In fact, in an audit report in 2015, the National Audit Office said that almost a quarter of all calls made to Centrelink went unanswered. This is a report made in 2015. The average wait time has increased by 17 minutes. Yet we have not seen any action from the government to increase staffing levels or to resolve the ongoing EBA negotiations with their front-line Centrelink team. You would think they would be embarrassed about the fact that almost a quarter of calls to Centrelink went unanswered, but they are not. Instead, they blame the people making the phone calls, or they blame the hardworking, overworked Centrelink staff.

This also gives me a chance to address something that the minister raised yesterday in this House, where he tried to suggest to the House that I had released information about constituents in my electorate to the media without their consent. This is wrong. Like many here on this side of the House, I have been inundated with phone calls from constituents who have received debt recovery letters from this government through its robo-debt collection scheme. Many of them, angry about their treatment on receiving this letter, have not only sought my support but also spoken publicly about their experiences.

Three individuals gave my office their consent for their details to be passed on to local media outlets. We asked them if they would be comfortable, if they would be happy, for us to pass their details on. All three of them said yes because they believed it was important that their story get out there and that they challenge the government. Like the farmers in South Australia have, these three constituents in my electorate said: 'I want to speak up. I want people to know my story. This government needs to change its tune.'

They are people like Robert Baker in Kangaroo Flat, who received a debt notice for $2,558, only for it to be reduced to $600 because the tax office had wrongly classified his employer as two employers instead of one. He is still pursuing Centrelink for $1,200 because he hired an accountant to help to try to correct a mistake that Centrelink had made.

There is also Robyn, who lives in Flora Hill, who was sent a debt notice by this government for $1,300 for the period 2010-11. She rang Centrelink several times, attempting to connect. When she finally got through, she was then told by staff that they did not understand what was going on with her case. They then rang back to say that a mistake had been made and she did not have to pay the debt. This was weeks after, causing much distress for Robyn.

Colleen from Newstead is another one who spoke up. She was sent a debt notice for $2,500, only to discover through challenging it, through working with my office, that she only owes $422.

All three acknowledge that Centrelink staff are working hard and it is not their fault. It is bad government rules. It is the government sitting back and delaying—delaying constantly to address the process problems that they have. This is a problem throughout regional Australia, whether it be people with debt recovery notices, many of them incorrect, or people with their aged-care packages or family tax benefits or childcare subsidies that they are entitled to, or our farmers.

Lots of people have a frustrating experience with Centrelink, and it is in the government's power to do something about it. Increase the trained staff in Centrelink. Hire more people. You will create jobs at the same time as helping to solve a problem that we have in Centrelink. Work with the Centrelink team to ensure that people's claims are processed on time and in an efficient manner.

I would like to finish with a few of the comments that were made by farmers and dairy farmers in central and northern Victoria. Whilst they acknowledge that some of them will need this allowance from time to time, they are frustrated that it appears to be the only thing that the government is really doing to help them. What they say in Gunbower and what they say in Cohuna is that they want this government to focus on water policy and pricing. What they say is that they want this government to focus on mobile phone coverage and the need for long-day childcare facilities. What they say they want this government to focus on is infrastructure like roads, schools and medical facilities. These are the issues that these farmers raise when I chat to them. They expect the government to be there to provide a strong social welfare net, but they are disappointed that they have to rely on it because this government has failed these towns and failed these communities in so many ways.

Whilst Labor accept the amendments in this bill, we say they are three years too late. We also use this opportunity to call on the government to properly fund and resource Centrelink so those in need get the help they need on time and efficiently.

Andrew Gee (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017, which amends the Farm Household Support Act 2014. I commend the Deputy Prime Minister on this bill, which will make a real difference to the lives of people living on the land who are experiencing financial hardship. We need to support farmers. More than 307,000 people are employed in agriculture, the biggest employer in rural and regional communities. Australian farmers produce enough food to feed 80 million people. Not only do they provide 93 per cent of the domestic food supply, they also support an export market valued at more than $41 billion per annum.

As this House has heard, the farm household allowance program gives farmers and their partners a maximum of three years income support to meet basic household needs while they make decisions about the future of their farm businesses and take action to improve their circumstances. Prior to the coalition government's introduction of the farm household allowance in 2014 there was no support payment generally available to farmers in hardship outside exceptional circumstances, and exceptional circumstances was abolished by the previous Labor government, leaving no support for farmers facing temporary hardship. That was an appalling state of affairs, a shameful episode which has fortunately been addressed by the Liberals and Nationals. This bill is part of the continued improvement of this badly needed assistance. What we want from the opposition is a positive contribution to policy debate on agriculture. I take note of the contributions earlier by the member for Hunter and the member for Bendigo. They were very negative. I think that is a disappointment to farmers. What can I say about the member for Hunter? He seems like a decent guy. He has a few issues with telephones, as we heard in the House today, but he is overwhelmingly a decent guy. What he has to do is make a positive contribution to agriculture in this country. I think we saw that with the backpacker tax, when farmers were overwhelmingly disappointed at the negative way in which that negotiation was approached by the member for Hunter. My message to the member for Hunter is very simple. If you are going to wear the RMs you have got to back it up with some very positive contributions to agricultural policy debate.

As at 3 February 2017, more than 7,000 claims for farm household allowance have been granted, which highlights the demand for this program. The need is indisputable. On average, the government is paying out $1.16 million per week in farm household allowance to farm families. The Liberals and Nationals have listened to the concerns of farmers, and the government is moving to make improvements to the delivery of the farm household allowance payment, making it easier for those who are experiencing what is often debilitating hardship.

When the farm household allowance program commenced in 2014, eligible farmers had applied to them the same waiting periods as those of other government income support programs. There were good reasons for doing that, but the reality is that that has proved impractical for farmers hit by hardship, and it is often livelihood threatening hardship that they are faced with. If a farmer qualifies for the allowance then it means the hardship is real and they should not be required to wait additional time. The Farm Household Support Amendment Bill will amend the Farm Household Support Act to ensure that recipients of the allowance are not required to serve an ordinary waiting period or liquid assets waiting period before they can commence receiving the allowance itself. Forcing eligible farmers who have been found to be in need of support is unduly bureaucratic and ignores the often harsh reality of living life on the land. The effect of a longer waiting time can reduce the ability of farmers to support the operation of their businesses. When they need help they need it quickly, and you can bet that if a farmer is making an application for support it is a decision not taken lightly. The need is real and urgent. Farmers are, by their very nature, self-reliant and resilient people. The farm household allowance is time limited, so removing the waiting period will bring no extra burden to the budget. This measure is about cutting red tape and removing another hoop that needs to be jumped through before assistance is delivered.

Another way the government is improving this program to benefit agriculture and our nation is in the treatment of assets. Currently there are certain assets used by farmers in the operation of their businesses which are not actually counted as farm assets for the purpose of allowance assessment. They have to be assessed as non-farm assets which have stricter asset limits. It sounds incongruous, it sounds unduly bureaucratic, and it is. It can also prevent assistance getting through to farmers when it is needed. These assets include water rights and shares in marketing cooperatives, and this bill rightfully places them back in the category of farm assets. The proposed changes are common-sense reforms which will be welcomed by farmers across central western New South Wales and across Australia.

The seat of Calare has a large and proud farming history. It is Australia's food basket. The lamb and beef on your dinner table or the wine that you enjoy with it may well have come from the Calare electorate. The apples, cherries, flour or canola oil that you buy in the supermarket could also have been made or produced in the central west. I would like to take the opportunity today to mention just a few of those farmers from Calare who work day in, day out to put food on our table. Take, for example, Mitchell Clapham: in partnership with his wife Daryl he runs a mixed grazing operation on two properties covering 1,200 hectares south-east of Mudgee. Their business includes fine wool and beef production, and Mitch has maintained an active interest in rural issues, serving with the New South Wales Farmers Association at a branch and district level. He is a tireless advocate for farmers in central western New South Wales.

Tim and Sophie Hansen run Mandagery Creek Australian Farmed Venison, near Orange, which was established in 2002. Venison is not a usual choice of livestock. Tim's father Andrew first stocked deer to get rid of blackberries. Today their red venison is sold and stocked right around Australia, with Sophie promoting the product and educating the domestic market through her blog Local is Lovely. Members of this House will note that Sophie was recently recognised for this work when she was named Australia's Rural Woman of the Year for 2016. Our communities are very proud of Sophie.

Bernard and Fiona Hall are second-generation apple and cherry growers from Orange. Bernard and Fiona, along with their three children, live and work on Caernarvon. They grow galas, red delicious, Fuji, pink lady and Granny Smith apples, along with kordia and sweetheart cherries. Bernard and his brother, Tim, learnt the ropes while working his father's orchard, Bonny Glen, which is also situated on the outskirts of Orange.

Another great example is MSM Milling, which began in 1991 when Peter and Bob Smith started a small canola seed crushing operation on the family farm at Cudal. A new, fully integrated seed crushing and oil refining plant was established on a greenfield site at Manildra, starting its operation in 2007. In 2011 the business commissioned a new on-site packaging facility and began distributing to the food service market, offering canola oil and other oil types and blends. Their most recent product, Auzure, is MSM Milling's retail brand of canola oil, and they now export to many countries right around the world, including our northern neighbours in the Pacific region.

John and Margie Lowe run Lowther Park near Lithgow and has been a part of the Lowe family since the 1920s, when it belonged to John Lowe's grandfather, Eric Thompson. Today, John, Margie and their two sons Charlie and William, along with John's mother, Audrey, all work together to run their property, running sheep and cattle over the 2000 acres. John and Margie are also on numerous committees and put their spare time into make a difference for future generations of country people. I note that Margie had a big hand in overseeing the show girl competition at their recent local show at Rydal.

Dan and Steve Owens are fourth-generation farmers running Nanena at The Lagoon, near Bathurst. Their father, John Owens, is a well-known local resident who in 1986 was named the Bathurst Region Farmer of the Year. Their farm is 6,000 acres where they farm angus cattle and merino sheep, while John Owens farms out of Boonah on the Gormans Hill Road.

The Peffer Pastoral Co was started in 1955 by the late Ivo Peffer and his wife, Marie. They started with six chooks on a patch of farmland which is now suburban western Sydney. Running a wide range of farming activities, they are also well known now for Canobolas Eggs, which is situated just out of Molong on a property called Vale Head. Canobolas Eggs was conceived by the Peffer family when the egg industry was deregulated in the early 1990s and under Ivo's guidance sons Graeme and Colin Peffer decided to launch a new brand when many in the industry were encouraging small producers to maintain the status quo of industry-wide egg marketing. Today a third generation of Peffers have joined the business: Rob and Josh. Rob received a Nuffield scholarship in 2015, studying world's best practice in noncage egg production systems.

They are certainly doers and great primary producers in central western New South Wales, as are the Webb family, who have been in the Tarana district between Bathurst and Lithgow for almost 175 years. They run both Wonga and Eastwood near Rylstone in a family partnership, producing fine wool merinos, beef and cattle, and some lamb at Tarana. Bruce Webb works on Wonga, while his sons Robert and Hugh have off-farm business interests, including managing large land holdings for absentee owners and running the National Asset Protection Agency, which provides a range of services for bushfire mitigation and protection

Twenty-seven-year-old Stuart Tait manages 1,600 hectares of land in conjunction with his parents, John and Jo. Their primary enterprise is producing certified grass fed Angus beef cattle for the domestic and export markets, with their secondary enterprise being dryland cropping to produce cereal grains and oilseeds. It is a business which has been operating for 36 years. A career in agriculture was always firmly in Stuart's mind after growing up on the family farm; however, it wasn't until he finished school at Kinross Wolaroi School in Orange and spent time working overseas that this goal was cemented. Having recently returned home to work full time and continue expanding the family business, Stuart recently received a 2017 Nuffield scholarship. He will investigate integrated beef and cropping systems, encompassing all facets of a farming operation combining beef cattle and broad acre cropping, including dual-purpose grazing crops, soil and nutrient management, productivity optimisation and grazing management. Stuart also recently established and chairs a farm discussion group for young farmers in the Mandurama-Blayney district. After just four months, the group already has membership of over 20 farmers and industry professionals. Well done on that initiative.

Of course, I would also like to mention Chris and Anne Barnes of Capertee, who are making a wonderful contribution to primary production in their district, and also Floyd Legge, who the chair of the Molong branch of the NSW Farmers. Floyd and his mother, Jessie, run a highly successful stud sheep operation, Ridgehaven, near Cudal.

These are just a handful of growers from my electorate of Calare contributing to this vital part of the Australian economy. Our farmers are the bedrock of our country communities, and this legislation makes an important contribution to supporting them when they need help the most. I certainly commend it to the House, and I commend the Deputy Prime Minister for his tireless work on behalf of country people. They know he is always out there working for them and looking after them, and they appreciate it just as they are really going to appreciate the passing of the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with unusual pleasure that I rise to contribute to the debate today on the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017. I do this in recognition of and noting that the Deputy Prime Minister has brought this bill forward. He knows like we do on this side that, if you have a problem at Centrelink, the Minister for Human Services is not the one to fix it, so he's clearly stepped in!

I also want to congratulate the member for Indi for her tireless advocacy on this issue. I have heard her, particularly over the Christmas period, speak several times on the ABC in relation to farmers getting quicker access to the farm household support that is available through Centrelink. She has done it in the context of the situation for dairy farmers in her electorate, and her advocacy has been very important, I know, to bringing this bill in front of the House this afternoon.

For the past two months, I as the shadow minister for human services have raised issues to do with Centrelink, and I will come to those in a moment. I do want to focus on this bill to begin with. These changes are a start and they do go some way towards fixing the problem of access to the allowance for farm businesses. Waiving the ordinary waiting period and the liquid assets waiting period will take 13 weeks off the standard waiting time for farmers in need of assistance. That is incredibly important because the situation as it stands right now and prior to this bill being enacted is that farmers were applying, particularly as a family, for farm household support, but they were having to wait for a period where it became just impossible for those farmers, and dealing with Centrelink in terms of trying to access this support was absolutely impossible. So it is welcome, and Labor does welcome it. As previous speakers have indicated, Labor will be supporting this bill. Waiving the ordinary waiting period, as I said, is important, and changing the asset test is also very important.

The asset test will be changed by the definition of 'assets', to ensure that owning water rights, for example, does not preclude those struggling from receiving assistance. I am sure that this House and those in the gallery understand that it is not very helpful having water rights included in the assets test if there are other issues to do with the carrying out of that farming operation that are making it impossible to make ends meet. Let's be clear what the farm household allowance is. It is not some sort of overlaying of money that farmers can access because they feel like it. Farmers access this when things are absolutely desperate. One of the great attributes of our farming community is that they are proud. They have, as the previous speaker just said, for many generations often held that farm holding and do not want to ask for help. So for farmers to put up their hands, to go to Centrelink, to say 'we need this support' is a very big thing indeed. Then having the indignity of having to wait for 13 weeks or more and having the indignity of being treated as a 'leaner' by the instrumentalities involved is not the way farmers should be treated, and that is how they have been treated up until the enactment of this bill. So I hope the enactment of this bill does take away those attitudes and does take away the stress and the stupidity of the waiting time. When people go to Centrelink for help they go when they are desperate. They go when there is no other option. They do not need the indignity of having to wait for hours and hours for assistance, and then days and days and weeks and weeks and months and months for that assistance to come through. That was the actual situation here.

Since the farm household support payment was established, more than 7,000 claims have been approved. Feedback from the community has been clear. Farmers and their families are struggling to access the system. When they do so through Centrelink, they can find themselves on the phone for hours, fighting against a sometimes confusing bureaucracy to try and access the help. When they do complete the application process, many have found that they are not eligible on the basis of assets they own, which they could not possibly sell without endangering the longer term viability of their farming operation. I think that point is extraordinarily important. You cannot sell off assets that have been hard fought for and hard won, that make up a farming operation. You cannot sell those assets just to meet some sort of criteria that makes no sense in the first place.

But let me say at the outset, as the shadow minister for agriculture has already told you, Labor will not oppose these changes. We will make the lives of those struggling on the land slightly easier if they require assistance, as will the passing of this piece of legislation. But I do not want the House to misunderstand Labor's position here. When it comes to Centrelink, the Turnbull government is failing our community, and it is failing hardworking farmers. Tinkering around the edges of this system will not fix the underlying issues with this program. Those issues are related to the chronic under-resourcing and undervaluing of Centrelink as an institution and in particular Centrelink staff, as the previous member from this side of the House just outlined.

I speak to Centrelink staff. They all tell you they want to help the people who contact them. They want to do their jobs. But in many instances it is made almost impossible. They are totally overstretched and unsupported by the government. The government makes poor policy decisions, and it is Centrelink employees who have to bear the brunt. I have already articulated the enormous waiting times and the confusing nonsensical bureaucracy that is in place. There have been 5,000 job cuts over the past five years from Centrelink; 35 million unanswered phone calls; robo-debt; a pay freeze; month-long waits for age pension applications—in fact, I had a person contact me just the other day who had applied months and months ago for an age pension application and has heard nothing; not to mention a minister who is intent on attacking staff and misrepresenting Centrelink clients at every turn.

The real problems at Centrelink will not be solved by these amendments. They will only be solved when the government finally starts valuing this department. The Turnbull government has bought into its own rhetoric. It does not believe in our welfare safety net. To those opposite it is nothing but an unnecessary nuisance. I do want to speak about that. The welfare safety net in Australia is something we should be proud of. Many countries, including many First World nations like America, do not have a welfare safety net. It is something that is a right. It is not something that is a gift to the Australian people or Australian individuals. The welfare safety net is a right and it is a well-earned right for the people of Australia. They have spent so long demonising those who cannot find a job, those who need support while caring for a loved one or those receiving a disability support allowance, they are starting to believe it is okay to treat people poorly.

In the eyes of those opposite we are all 'lifters' or 'leaners' and anyone who receives a Centrelink payment is a 'leaner'. Despite the best efforts of the Deputy Prime Minister, those receiving the farm household allowance are viewed through exactly the same prism by the Turnbull government.

I note at this point the comments of Senator McKenzie from the other place on this matter. She says farmers have told her:

… about unsatisfactory service from Department of Human Services and Centrelink with staff unable to provide accurate or consistent information about farm household assistance resulting in excessive waiting times for benefits …

This bill proposes nothing that would solve those issues. They are the result of a neglected agency. While I am happy that these amendments make some positive changes, they will not do anything to help the thousands of people who need the Department of Human Services every year. In fact, while this bill does fix some problems with the program, it does not do anything to provide extra support or adequate resourcing within the Department of Human Services. It does nothing to solve the problems identified by those opposite. For three years the government has denied any problems at all with this program. Now it proposes minor amendments which do not even tackle the bulk of the issues raised. The government knows the issue here: they need to provide more resources to Centrelink.

As I said earlier, farmers hate to ask for help. It is almost cultural. When they need it, when they are driven to a point where they have to ask for it, they are desperate. It is not fair to subject them to incredibly callous treatment. They have hours on the phone or at a service centre, not to mention endless paperwork and an online system which is extremely difficult to use. These are the experiences of many who interact with the Centrelink system, including farmers and those in our rural communities. It is damaging not just because it means people have to spend hours unproductively waiting on hold. It is also damaging because it subjects those already under incredible stress to even more anxiety.

The Deputy Prime Minister knows well that farmers experiencing hardship have terrible mental health outcomes, and we have heard of the level of suicide that exists in many cases with farmers who have reached the end of their tether. It is a tragedy. As the previous speaker from the government, the member from Calare, said, farmers often go back several generations. They provide part of the identity for Australia. We hear and we have learned in our schools that Australia was built on the back of the sheep.

My own personal story is that whilst I might now be the member for Barton I grew up in a very small country town called Whitton. It had about 200 people. It was a tiny little place in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area in the Riverina part of southern New South Wales. The farmers around there were sharefarmers or irrigators, and many of the people who lived in the town were the labour that worked on those farms. My great-uncle, who raised me, was a station hand for many years on Kooba station, which was one of the very big landholdings back in the day where I grew up. I picked fruit. I sorted tomatoes at night. I played in the rice stubble and the flood irrigation areas. I worked closely with the Isolated Children's Parents' Association as an educator. I understand rural life because the first 16 years of my life were spent in very rural communities in those places.

The problem with the system is not just the waiting times or eligibility criteria. More than that, it is about the difficulty of getting access to the system in the first place. Last year we heard reports of some farmers waiting six months to receive assistance. Nothing in the legislation before the House will remedy that. This is supposed to be a crisis payment. It is supposed to help farmers keep food on their tables, and it is failing to do so. If the Deputy Prime Minister really cares about this issue, once we have finished this debate he will walk over to the Minister for Human Services, who has just joined us in the chamber, and tell him to fix his broken system.

Whether we are talking about the farm household allowance or any of the other payments available through Centrelink, people deserve to be treated with empathy and respect. They deserve to maintain their dignity. I, along with my colleagues, support this legislation, but I call on this House and those opposite to take real action to ensure we support appropriately those who need it. In the case of this legislation, it is farmers who are doing it hard, and in some sectors of the rural community, particularly the dairy industry, they are doing it very, very hard.

Farmers and their livelihoods and their presence are important to the way in which we see ourselves as Australians. They deserve our help. They deserve our support. I am pleased about this legislation, but I want this system to be fixed. I want Centrelink and the way in which it is being managed, the way in which it is being resourced and the way in which it is carrying out its duties to respect the right of Australian people to have a social welfare safety net.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017. The farm household allowance was introduced back in 2014 in response to the national review of drought policy. In essence, it provides a payment for farmers in very difficult times. In terms of its value, it is a payment which is the equivalent of a Newstart payment. It can apply for up to three years, and it is there for farmers to help them deal with unforeseen events such as a drought or a natural disaster so they can get through it and, hopefully, get back on their feet.

At the moment, about 4,780 farmers are receiving the farm household allowance. Overall, the allowance aims to get them through that difficult time till they can get back on their feet—perhaps the drought breaks; perhaps the harvest comes back in—and they no longer need that assistance. The allowance itself is governed by policy from the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. Clearly, the Deputy Prime Minister is in charge of that policy, but it is administered by my department, the Department of Human Services. Consequently, there is an interaction between the two departments.

This bill is the Deputy Prime Minister's bill and it deals with some policy issues. I would like to just touch on those but also touch on some of the administrative matters, some of which the shadow minister has raised herself. We have been hearing some of the frustrations that farmers have been experiencing for some time in relation to getting fast access to the farm household allowance. Late last year, there were a number of round tables with farmers and with other stakeholders across Victoria to understand more deeply exactly what their concerns were and to help us identify how we might be able to deliver these payments more expediently, more efficiently and more quickly for the farmers in need. Those workshops were led by Senator Bridget McKenzie, and I certainly commend the work that she did. They also involved very good work from the member for Corangamite, Sarah Henderson, as well as the member for Wannon, Dan Tehan, amongst other members who have taken a very strong interest in this matter. Officials from both my department and the Department of Agriculture attended those series of round tables.

Throughout those round tables, we got some very frank feedback from people, and one of the more important pieces of feedback was the time that it took for the farm household allowance applications to be properly addressed and dealt with. Farmers do have more complex financial arrangements than many other people do. They have more complex asset structures—perhaps they have trusts or other arrangements—which sometimes mean that it does take more time to get that information together. But, nevertheless, on many occasions it was taking up to four months for a farmer's application to be properly assessed, for all the information to be provided and for it to be going backwards and forwards between my department and the farmer before their payment was provided to them. That, in some respects, goes against the whole spirit of what we were trying to achieve with this allowance, which is that we get money, cash support, to the farmer when they need it.

Consequently, off the back of those round tables, we have made two important decisions. The first important decision, which was made by the Deputy Prime Minister, was to make some policy changes, and that is what this bill represents. There are very important policy changes contained in this bill. Perhaps, most importantly, farm household recipients will no longer be required to serve the ordinary waiting period or face the liquid assets waiting period once their payment has been granted. This means they will be able to get their payment straightaway, as soon as the farm household allowance has been granted. There are also some changes to the water assets test. The allowable threshold for non-farm assets is currently $1.1 million, and that threshold is now going to be $2.5 million. These are some of the important measures contained within this bill, which of course we fully support.

I would like to touch on some of the administrative changes which we have also made, taking into account the feedback that we received from those round tables and from the farmers directly. We have made some very significant administrative changes to the way the farm household allowance is processed. We currently have a trial in place. That trial applies across the country and to every single new application for farm household allowance. In essence, the aim of that trial is to reduce the time that it takes to process the farm household allowance from what has been taking up to four months to 28 days for the more simple cases and within six weeks for the more complex ones. So this is quite a stark change in terms of the time frame from being something like four months on many occasions to being four weeks for the more simple cases and six weeks for the more complex cases. That trial is underway. So far it seems to be on track, but we will obviously carefully monitor the results of that trial. We will learn from it. And if it proves to be successful then, of course, that trial will continue and become a mainstream effort.

In essence, the pilot includes a number of significant changes to enable us to achieve those targets. First of all, we have established a new dedicated farm household allowance team to deliver the program from the first inquiry through to the final payment. Essentially what that means is that the farmer will often have an individual person whom they are dealing with, whom they can constantly deal with. There will be much more telephone communication between that individual customer service officer and the farmer. On most occasions, it will be with exactly the same person. If it cannot be with exactly the same person then there will be a warm handover to another case officer so that the farmer does not have to repeat the same story, time and time again. That is going to be absolutely critical. Also, there is going to be significantly increased outbound telephone contact with the applicant to assist them with each step of the process.

As I said, farmers often have very complex financial arrangements. In the past, the time delays have been due to information having to go backwards and forwards between the farmer and the department. The farmer would provide information and if that information was not correct then a letter might be sent out to say, 'You haven't provided all the information.' Time would elapse to get that letter back, it would be reassessed and then a further letter might go out. This process will be expedited largely through having dedicated officers who will be connected with the farmer, who can jump on the phone and walk them through that, and therefore get the information more quickly.

The combination of the policy changes which were announced in this bill, in concert with the administrative changes, which I have been overseeing and are being piloted at the moment across the nation, mean that it should be a much better experience for the farmers. It means that the farmers should be able to get their emergency payments, which is what a farm household allowance is, quickly, expediently and when they need it, which is often when there is a crisis going on. I think those policy changes are good. They should be commended, and I hope we get bipartisan support for them. I think the administrative changes are also very good. I hope that we also get support from the opposition for those administrative changes.

Justine Keay (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill with a little bit of apprehension. Of course, Labor will be supporting these measures, but, as the member for Barton mentioned, this is just tinkering around the edge. As someone who comes from a regional electorate with many dairy farms—in fact, the largest dairy farm in the Southern Hemisphere, a Van Diemen's Land Company farm, is in my electorate—I have spoken to a number of dairy farmers who have attempted to access this payment but have met barriers to doing so in a way that meets their financial commitments, particularly when their milk cheques are not coming through.

The farm household allowance is like many things coming from this government. It has all the best intentions but fails in its delivery. Despite not admitting that there was anything wrong with the allowance, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, the member for New England, has finally woken up and has made some welcome changes to the eligibility criteria for this scheme. However, the minister knows that farmers have struggled to get any assistance under this program for a very long time.

Labor supports amendments to the Farm Household Support Act that will make it easier for farmers to access the support they need when they need it. The removal of waiting periods before payments can be received is a welcome change. However, the debacle of this scheme, the long delays for farmers in obtaining support, the onerous process that farmers need to go through in order to just make an application and the delays in processing these claims have plagued this minister for years. Now he finally decides to act—many months after the dairy crisis hit my electorate as well as many other areas in the country. The minister mentioned the trial; the trial is welcome but a little bit too late, particularly when farmers in my electorate have been struggling, in the current economic climate, with the dairy crisis for many, many months and have been asking for support from this government to fix these delays for just as long.

I go to a story outside my electorate, in South Australia, as this is something that occurs nationwide. This is from October, when dairy farmers who were hoping to get urgent financial relief from the federal government were waiting up to six months for anything to come through—six months. The minister said, 'We will put some new resources into Centrelink,' and obviously that was welcome, but it did not make a dent. Six months on, and this is from a farmer in South Australia, 'They sent us a letter saying that we had been rejected simply because we had not given them, Centrelink, the information they had asked for, which we had.' This is what the member for Barton was talking about. This amendment does not go to the crux of the actual issue here, and it has been completely ignored by the government. These changes will assist, but they are not the final solution to the problems with this allowance.

As I have previously highlighted, what the member for New England seems to have forgotten are the many farmers who have been facing numerous hurdles and incredible amounts of delays in accessing what was supposed to be urgent assistance. While farmers were struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table, the government, in its wisdom, asked them to spend numerous and onerous hours filling in paperwork to apply for help. After facing this hurdle, their application was then thrown into the abyss of Centrelink's off-the-shelf IT system, which was never designed to process their application.

An example from my electorate is that someone's application was held up for more than three months because of this glitch. It was not until my office intervened that this matter was resolved, and it should not have been that hard. While the payment was finally resolved, about $4,000 of back pay was then held up because the flawed system had assigned incorrect banking details to the client.

Despite numerous calls from around the country for improvements to both the application process and Centrelink's flawed IT system, the member for New England was nowhere to be found. However, after many months of silence, he finally resurfaced by responding to a letter from me about the delays in the farm household allowance. Not surprisingly, he admitted in his response that he knew there had been problems all along. I quote from his letter:

I acknowledge the FHA—

the farm household allowance—

assessments are detailed and can take some time before they are approved, resulting in a delay in the period from first applying to when funds are made available …

He went on to briefly touch on the pain, stress and anguish caused by these delays, and again I quote:

I appreciate that waiting for applications to be assessed can be stressful …

'Stressful' is one word for it. Unwarranted anguish, fear, anxiety are others, and I could go on. You just need to go and speak to a dairy farmer who has been experiencing the challenges of their industry to know exactly what their emotions are.

What the member for New England did admit was that there was a problem, and he knew it was hurting. But he just was not prepared to look further to do anything about it for many, many months—in fact, years. Despite a promise to bring additional dairy liaison officers into the field and new Centrelink workers to process claims, this has made little difference, as I highlighted earlier about farmers in South Australia. No surprises there. The member for New England, the minister for agriculture, the minister responsible for this scheme and a member who allegedly stands up for farmers knew the system was flawed, but that is where it ended—not only that but he has completely ignored my invitation to come to Tasmania to hear firsthand how this policy and other policies were affecting farmers. It is really not that hard to jump on a plane and come to Tasmania. But perhaps the member for New England is not welcome.

At the recent Senate inquiry hearing into the dairy industry held in Burnie, in my electorate, it was revealed to those present, when they asked if the member for New England had come to speak to the farmers, that he was not allowed to come to Tasmania by the Tasmanian state branch of the Liberal Party. It is absolutely extraordinary that a minister of the Commonwealth is not allowed to come to a state.

Ms Henderson interjecting —

Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can laugh over there, Member for Corangamite; it was actually a member of the Liberal Party who said it. What value do the Liberal Party place on the need of Tasmanian farmers to have access to the minister for agriculture? Very little, it seems—politics before people. Will the minister come and speak with Tasmanian farmers, or is he banned from visiting the state as long as there are Liberal state and federal governments?

If that is so, then clearly there is a problem in the coalition's ranks. It may be Nationals by name, but clearly not by nature. On the flipside, the member for Hunter, together with the Country Caucus of the Labor Party, has visited my electorate, meeting with farmers and processors in recent months and spending the time speaking with them about their concerns.

Agriculture, forestry and fishing accounts for almost 10 per cent of Tasmania's GDP, which compares to around 2 per cent nationally. That is how important agriculture is to my state; it is the state's largest sector. Dairy, and the state's share of national milk production, has also grown steadily over the past 10 years. Agriculture, forestry and fishing represents 7.8 per cent of the workforce in the North-West of Tasmania, compared with 5.5 per cent for the state. And yet, the Minister for Agriculture is nowhere to be seen. I do not believe that he actually knows where Tasmania is; I never hear him mention it. Unsurprisingly, his Tasmanian Liberal Senate coalition colleagues have not joined with me to get him to Tasmania, and perhaps my earlier remarks explain why.

Tasmania unfortunately is not alone in lengthy waits to access the Farm Household Allowance scheme. Whether in South Australia, Victoria or other parts of the country, there are numerous stories of farmers forced to wait for more than three months for an allowance intended to help them and their families who are experiencing financial hardship. And in Tasmania there were the floods in June, as well as the severe and debilitating hits of fluctuating commodity prices and months of inaction from the federal government. Farming families were desperate and forced to rely on food vouchers or the help of others in the community to make ends meet. There were calls left, right and centre from Latrobe through to Circular Head for some help. This comes from a very proud bunch of people, who do avoid asking for help.

Even Victorian National Senator Bridget McKenzie has admitted that there are issues with the allowance application process and that it was not fit for purpose. The Senator wrote in an article in Farm Online:

I think there's some streamlining that can be done to ensure we have a system that is fit for purpose.

Senator McKenzie has also commented that the Farm Household Allowance application process is 'incredibly frustrating', citing examples during the roundtable discussions of farmers dealing with complex ICT systems.

I have had dairy farmers tell me of needing to obtain advice from accountants at a cost of hundreds of dollars, just to satisfy the application process. Here is another example of where this system fails: in my electorate a local agribusiness consultant was forced to withdraw his services to local farming families due to nonpayment by Centrelink. Mr Perez had been working for people in my electorate to process their claims for the Farm Household Allowance. He acted on behalf of Centrelink for two years, and for the period from August until towards the end of last year Centrelink had not paid him for his work. He had been authorised by Centrelink to be the case officer involved, but the processing delays left him with no choice other than to stop supporting local farmers. In fact, the government seems unable to cope with the simplest processing. Farmers already face lengthy delays in receiving the Farm Household Allowance and those delays are compounded by Centrelink consultants withdrawing their services through nonpayment. The incompetence of this minister and this government is absolutely disgraceful.

While it is welcoming to hear that the government is trying to address some of the shortfalls and issues with the Farm Household Allowance scheme, its processing of applications and ultimately getting help to farmers, I fear, may be too little too late for some. How many farmers have walked away because the system was too hard? How many hours, days and weeks of anguish have been caused by these delays? I am really not sure why it takes the government so long to admit it has got something incredibly wrong.

This was again demonstrated when the government attempted to push a 19 per cent backpacker tax through the Senate. On and on went the delays, with the government unwilling to accept responsibility for the disaster in Tasmania's horticulture industry. The government in its infinite wisdom was almost going to let the debate stall, leaving backpackers paying 32.5 per cent. However, in the dying days of the last sitting weeks of parliament, the government found an ally, the Greens.

There are several other examples of this government's inaction and of this minister's lazy approach to agriculture. Without going into too much detail, this government can easily be tagged as a total fizzer when it comes to supporting the agricultural sector and farmers. There are many failures at Centrelink, a problem mainly caused by the government's cuts. I acknowledge the work that Centrelink staff do in what must be extraordinary and unprecedented times. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people across the country are hit with accusations that they owe money, thanks to an ill-designed and incompetent system with little oversight. We hear examples of that all the time. It sounds to me like this government never learns by its mistakes.

Clearly the minister is not serious about his job or regional and rural communities or the agriculture sector, and certainly not household assistance for farmers. Earlier today the member for Hunter talked about a number of areas in which this minister has failed. For instance, he changed the Hansard around an issue in 2014. The secretary of his department obviously could not deal with the minister's behaviour and so he resigned. He wrote to the minister:

I am writing to advise you that I no longer have confidence in my capacity to resolve matters relating to integrity with you.

That was Paul Grimes, the previous secretary of the department. It is quite clear that this minister has lost any credibility in this portfolio area. The APVMA is another example that the member for Hunter pointed to of the clear failure of this minister and this government to get anything right.

While these changes are welcome, I simply hope that they are not too late for the farmers of this country.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my great pleasure to rise and speak on the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017. What a disappointing contribution from the member for Braddon. Her slur on the minister for agriculture is absolutely disgraceful when you contrast the very important record that the coalition has in standing up for farmers. Look at what we have seen from those opposite. The dairy industry will never forget the carbon tax that imposed a penalty of, on average, $7,000 a year. Do Labor members understand how much hardship that caused the farmers? I have to say, being the member for Corangamite and having a very proud dairy industry right across Victoria, there has been no greater advocate for farmers than the coalition. We continue that proud record.

This bill is all about getting out into the community and listening. The bill amends the Farm Household Support Act 2014 and the farm household allowance by removing the ordinary waiting period and also the liquid assets waiting period so that there is better treatment of some assets of farmers. It seeks to streamline access to the farm household allowance for farmers and their partners experiencing financial hardship. This is before the parliament today because, in contrast to those opposite who have shown no regard for the absolute hardship that their policies have imposed on farmers, we went out into the community and we listened. These measures are an important part of the government's commitment to continuously improve delivery of the farm household allowance to better meet the needs of farmers who can benefit from this form of assistance.

It continues the incredibly important work that we have done for farmers across the country. Let me remind members that, when we came to office in 2013, the coalition inherited an empty cupboard on drought policy. Labor abolished the longstanding exceptional circumstances drought support policy. Labor cut the agriculture department's budget in half. Labor abolished Land and Water Australia and threatened the longstanding policy to match farmers' R&D levies. Farmers will well recall former agriculture minister Tony Burke asking the Productivity Commission to review the rural R&D system. In contrast, the coalition has confirmed that the farmers' R&D funds should be prioritised by the levy payers towards projects with the intention of boosting farm gate returns. We have strengthened the rural R&D system with a $190 million rural R&D for-profit initiative. We have established a $2.5 billion Farm Business Concessional Loans program over 10 years. This is providing concessional loans at a 2.47 per cent variable interest rate for 10 years, with interest-only terms for the first five years. One thousand, one hundred and sixty-nine farm businesses have successfully been approved for $622 million in concessional loans, and over 7,000 farmers and their partners have been granted the farm household allowance since 1 July 2014. Currently, there are some 4,800 farmers and their partners receiving FHA payments. We are incredibly proud of the way we are standing up for farmers.

I want to reflect on the work in terms of the dairy rescue package that was announced last year: a $555 million Dairy Recovery Concessional Loans package. We announced $2 million to establish a commodity milk price index; $900,000 for an additional nine rural financial counsellors in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and New South Wales; $900,000 for Dairy Australia's Tactics for Tight Times program; the fast-tracking of the farm household allowance; and, of course, the very important work on the ground provided by the Department of Human Services.

I do have to say that, as part of the listening in dairy communities throughout Australia and particularly, of course, in Victoria, being a very important dairy region, we, as members of the government, have been very active in getting out, listening and calling for action. I have not just been a long-term advocate for the dairy industry but have also spoken out very strongly on the conduct of both Murray-Goulburn and Fonterra in imposing clawback payments on farmers last year. It was an absolute disgrace. In May, I called for an ACCC inquiry into the dairy industry. I held a large meeting of dairy farmers in Alvie. I also called on Murray-Goulburn and Fonterra to explain to the Prime Minister when they met him why they imposed those clawback payments. In my view, it amounted to corporate thuggery. There is no doubt that these processes misled dairy farmers and the market about profit projections. I am very pleased that the ACCC is not just conducting a review of the industry but also investigating the conduct of Murray-Goulburn.

The minister for agriculture, the member for New England, has been a wonderful advocate for farmers. I have to reflect on this again: the contribution of the member for Braddon was really disappointing. There is no greater fighter for farmers on our side than the member for New England. The member for New England has been a very, very strong voice. In contrast to the member for Hunter—who barely ever gets up in question time and asks the member for New England a question about farming, which is pretty disappointing—we have, in our minister for agriculture, an incredibly strong voice.

Let us just reflect on some of the other ways in which we have stood up for farmers. There were the three free trade agreements—landmark free trade agreements—which opened up new markets in South Korea, Japan and China. These agreements are not just important for all businesses but are particularly important for the likes of Bulla dairy in my electorate, which has opened up new markets, with new confidence, in places like China. Over the last few days, we have just improved our trade deal with Indonesia during President Widodo's visit, and there was a commitment to increase our trade connections, and now there have been important announcements made to support farmers in the way in which we trade with this very important partner, Indonesia.

I have mentioned the issue of the carbon tax, and it seems that Labor has not learnt its lesson. It imposed, on average, a carbon tax on dairy farmers which caused an enormous burden on their business—electricity, of course, being a very significant input into the business of dairy farmers. But Labor has not learnt its lesson. We now see this 50 per cent renewable energy target which, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, would cost $48 billion—the equivalent of $2,000 for every Australian. Just imagine what that is going to do to our farmers, particularly to our dairy farmers. We are already seeing a very significant increase in electricity prices, including because of Hazelwood's closure, and, unlike members opposite, we are absolutely determined to do everything we can for energy security and for the security of our farmers.

But it does not stop there. One of the hallmark coalition policies is our commitment to mobile communications. This is incredibly important for all businesses, all families and all young people living in rural and regional Australia, but particularly for our farmers. Again, what a shame on Labor that not one cent was invested in mobile phone communications, in fixing those black spots. Mobile communications are so critical for our farmers.

In Corangamite, we have announced funding for 18 new base stations. Carlisle River will be the very first tower to be turned on, and hopefully more towers will be turned on very, very soon. In the middle of the Otways, a beautiful, magnificent dairy farming area, the people of Carlisle River now have a new base station. For the first time, by way of mobile, they are connected to the outside world. So we are really, really proud of our commitment to better mobile communications.

Another very significant investment in rural and regional Australia is the rollout of the NBN. The NBN is being rolled out in spades across my electorate and across the country. It was an utter failure when Labor ran the NBN. We now have the Sky Muster connected. Over 3½ thousand premises are eligible for service in Corangamite, and there are fixed wireless facilities across many parts of my electorate that previously did not have a voice under the Labor Party. Places like Barongarook, Beeac, Beech Forest, Cape Clear, Cororooke, Cressy East, Dereel, Forrest and Gellibrand—all of these communities across Corangamite and communities right across Australia are being connected to the NBN because we care about people living in the country, we care about their businesses and we care about farmers.

There is no doubt that our dairy farmers have had it very, very tough. There is no doubt that many have faced very, very difficult times. And there is no doubt that some of these factors are, of course, beyond the control of any particular person or organisation. But there are many, many other areas, in terms of the financial hardship placed on farmers, where dramatic action was required, and we did act, and we are very, very proud of the dairy crisis package that we put into place. I say again, and I say very loudly in this parliament: we will not tolerate the likes of Murray Goulburn and Fonterra doing what they did to our farmers. The retrospective clawbacks—

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What are you going to do about it?

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Kennedy, I see, is on the speakers list; he will have his turn.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the member for Kennedy's interjection. He asks: what are we going to do about it? Well, I say that we actually already have very strong laws under Australian competition law, to prevent and prohibit misleading or deceptive conduct. I am very pleased to learn that the ACCC is investigating what I say are misleading claims that were made by Murray Goulburn. They misled farmers. They misled the market. And I am extremely pleased to learn that, not only is there an inquiry into the dairy industry across the board, looking at a whole range of issues, but also the ACCC is specifically investigating the conduct of Murray Goulburn and the way in which it clawed back that money from farmers, because it was an absolute disgrace. So I am very hopeful that this actually is a contravention of our law. We have very strong laws in this country to prohibit companies from misleading and deceiving; we have very strong laws to prevent that, whether it is farmers or consumers or small businesses being ripped off because of the deceptive conduct of others. And I am very hopeful that the ACCC will find that Murray Goulburn, at the very least, engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, and my view is that there should be penalties applied to Murray Goulburn whereby Murray Goulburn is required to pay back the money that they improperly took from our farmers. I am very proud to stand up for our farmers. I commend this bill to the House. And we will keep on fighting for our wonderful farmers.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Corangamite can be excused, as she has not been here a long time. If she had been here she would have witnessed the complete destruction of the wool industry caused by the deregulation by Mr Keating. Since the Liberals are the great advocates of deregulation, they are probably upset because they were not there to do it. But these are the wonders of the free trade that you talk about, Member for Corangamite. We had 176 million head of sheep and we have seen all bar 30 per cent of them vanish after you deregulated the wool industry. You participated in it; you are up to your eyeballs in it. The next industry to be deregulated was the maize industry. We do not have a maize industry. In the centre of my electorate, the Atherton Tableland, the symbol for the shire council are the silos. Well, they are not there anymore. There is no maize industry anymore. If you go up the road, there is the Mareeba City Council, the second biggest city in my electorate. The symbol for their shire is the tobacco leaf. You deregulated the tobacco industry—nothing to do with people not smoking—and it is gone. You then deregulated the sugar industry and we are closing a sugar mill every two years. So these are your great free trade agreements.

I represent the great industries of Australia. I do not represent the grain industry, but I represent the others. I do not represent wool anymore, because there isn't any wool in the northern half of Queensland. The presidents of the wool council and the wool board in Australia both came from the Kennedy electorate. We were the heartland of the wool industry. I doubt whether there are 5,000 sheep left in the Kennedy electorate out of maybe one million at one stage—it may have been five million at one stage. You can sheet home the destruction of those industries to the deregulation policies of the Liberal and Australian Labor Party.

Is the member for Corangamite so naive as to believe that you are going to get a decent amount of money for your milk when there are only two buyers of milk in Australia—Woolworths and Coles. If you are right, I will sue the University of Queensland for what they taught me in economics when I was there—because, when you have two buyers, that is called oligopoly, and you are going to get screwed to death. That is exactly what happened to the dairy industry of Australia. It was destroyed by the deregulators, who left us to the tender mercies of the only two buyers of food in this country—Woolworths and Coles. And who can blame them? They are not there to be Santa Claus; they are there to maximise profits. If they can pay us 42c a litre, when the day before deregulation we were getting 59c a litre, where are all your laws? 'Oh, we have great laws protecting us in this country.' Well, where are they when we can be taken in one day from 59c a litre down to 42c a litre?

The member for Corangamite represents the dairy industry. Quite frankly, it is to the shame of the people of Victoria that they are still electing LNP members to this place. But they are not, of course, because one of the biggest electorates in Victoria now belongs to the centrist parties. One of the biggest electorates in Queensland now belongs to centrist parties. How many more are you going to lose before you wake up to yourself, I do not know. But you have lost three to the crossbenches now. We held four at one period of time and we hold three at the present moment. I do not doubt for a moment that, in three years time, we will hold six or seven seats on the crossbenches.

Why are they leaving you? Thirty per cent of the Australian population is saying, 'We hate you and we're not going to vote for you in the next election.' But neither side of this House has the slightest interest in changing direction. Are they going to stop Woolworths and Coles? Are they going to reintroduce arbitration for the wool industry, the sugar industry or any of these great giant Australian industries? No, of course they are not. They are wedded and in love with their ideology. They do not listen to the people in pain. They believe in their 'towering ideological purity'.

I failed my first exam ever in economics—it was the first exam I had ever failed in my life—and I said to Mr Gunton, 'I thought it was a good paper.' He said, 'It was, Katter,' and I said, 'Well, I would hate to see if I did a bad one.' I had got an F for it. He said, 'No, it was a brilliant paper. Supply and demand determine price, but only in the presence of the 23 factors that you need for supply and demand to determine price'—the first one being an infinite number of buyers and sellers and freedom of movement from the buyer to the seller. We have two buyers in the wool industry and we still have 6,000 or 7,000 sellers—and similarly in the dairy industry.

The president of our party is a dairy farmer—one of the biggest dairy farmers in Queensland—from the Gympie area. They had about 600 farmers and they now have about 60. I represent probably the most concentrated and biggest area in Australia, the Atherton Tablelands—where it is green all year round and has a temperate climate all year round. We had 240 farmers before they started the move towards deregulation and we now have 36 farmers. Would to heaven Mr Gunton had taught some of our lawyers in here, or if their mummies and daddies had had them play Monopoly, and then you would know that, when you have a monopoly in a certain industry you can charge six or seven times what you charged before. The problem is that they did law and not economics or they had numbskulls for lecturers and their mummies and their daddies never had them play monopoly.

As I understand it, this debate on the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017 is about the farm support scheme. It is a great tragedy that we have to have such a scheme. I want to single out the people that I believe were responsible for the scheme. Johnny Gambino is the president of the rural action council in Mareeba and a great man in every sense of the word. He was one of the three or four pioneers that went into large-scale mango farming. Until he and two or three others came along, it was just a backyard occupation where you would put a few hundred mango trees in and get a bit of pocket money for your kids at Christmas time. I most certainly did that; we had a small orchard. When John Gambino came along, they started putting in 1,000 to 3,000 trees, and he was one of the three, or maybe four, pioneers of that industry. He started rural action to fight off the free market coming in with water in the region, and they fought a terrific fight. They have been a great band of fighters and leaders of rural action throughout Australia, not just in their own area.

They developed what was called the Emerald Creek Declaration. One of the clauses in the Emerald Creek Declaration said that household sustenance payments must be made where a farmer's income does not meet welfare payment levels. I did not think we could ever get that, and I must single out Bernie O'Shea, the secretary of the committee. He said, 'We are determined to get it.' There were other changes that they wanted which I will not go into today, but the Emerald Creek Declaration is a very wonderful document. Bernie O'Shea built one of our major facilities in the city of Mareeba. We did not have any sophisticated dining places to go to and he and a few others built the Rugby League club in Mareeba. It set a standard, and there are a number of other places in town now. There are a number of very nice places where you can go out for dinner in Mareeba, and we have him to thank for that. More importantly, he organised the demonstrations in which John Howard very kindly came over to us demonstrators and said, 'Want do you want?' They said, 'If you're going to deregulate us, Mr Prime Minister, at the very least give us a package the same as the dairy farmers got.' He said, 'We can have a look at that.' To the shame of the National Party, their leader, Mark Vaile, came up to the same group and said, 'What do you want?' We said the same thing and he said to Bernie O'Shea, 'Oh, no, Bernie, we believe in free markets,' and he walked off. The once great National Party ran this country after the war. The great Jack McEwen, when asked, 'Is it true that the Country Party wagged the Liberal dog?' said, 'Yes'—that is all he said. That tells you an awful lot about that very great Australian.

I thank John Howard for the $90 million package that we secured that day, standing out there in the hot sun. Instead of taking an antagonistic attitude, it was an enlightened attitude by the Prime Minister. I wish he was enlightened enough—because I like the man and respect him—to see that, when you deregulate an industry, you place those people at the mercies of the market forces, and the market forces are controlled by very few people. In the wool industry, throughout most of my lifetime probably six traders have accounted for 70 or 80 per cent of the marketplace. So, if you want to sell on the open market, you will be taken to the cleaners on a magnificent scale. Wool had carried this country for 100 years. In the year when Mr Keating, that great genius, the world's greatest Treasurer—everyone laughs because it is a joke—decided to deregulate the wool industry, it was bigger than coal. It was the major export earning item for this country. How or why you would fool around with a success story of that magnitude and destroy your country's mainstay economic earner is beyond my comprehension. That anyone could ever say a favourable word about that man is, again, beyond my comprehension. He destroyed the mainstay of the economy of this nation. Seventy-two per cent of our sheep herd has gone. Within three years, the price had dropped 30 or 40 per cent. The industry was no longer viable. He completely destroyed it. For 20 years, under the wool scheme we had had a solid prosperity and a solid growth—not a spectacular growth. It was not a big growth; it was a very small growth of about 2½ per cent in sheep numbers each year.

That is what we want. We do not want ups and downs. We cannot ride the ups and downs because you sold all the banks—the reconstruction banks, the Commonwealth Development Bank, the ag bank, the AIDC, the primary industries bank. You sold them all to QIDC in Queensland. Between the LNP mainly, in this case, but the ALP as well, you sold all the banks, so we cannot ride the rollercoaster anymore. We got interest rates of 2½ per cent when we had to ride the down rollercoaster. When we rode the up rollercoaster, it did not go very high because tax took it off us. The up rollercoaster was always truncated; the down was increased by the banks putting penalty rates upon us. So the down cycle was always exaggerated and the up cycle was always truncated. Under the enlightened leadership for 100 years in this country, we had reconstruction banks. They served other purposes. The Commonwealth Development Bank served many other purposes, but one of its many purposes was as a reconstruction board. We see a number of dreadful calamities when people decide that they do not want to be in this world anymore, particularly in my own industry, the cattle industry of North Queensland, and decide to end it all. That would not have occurred if we had had a reconstruction board.

I name the people responsible for this: Wayne Swan, whom I pay very great tribute to; Johnny Gambino, the president; Bernie O'Shea, the secretary; Scotty Dixon, one of the greatest fighters I have ever run into; Makse Shroij, the solidest bloke that you would ever meet in a day's ride; Joe Moro, a great bloke; Vincie Mete; Ned Bruschetto; Evan McGrath; Emidio 'Horse' Nicolosi; Peter Henderson; and Johnny Myrteza. These are the blokes who put it up. They fought for us and we thank very much Wayne Swan for delivering it to us. When we go down, at least we can buy some food to feed our families with. We thank very much the people responsible.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017. From the outset, I would like to recognise the work of the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister for agriculture in his efforts to provide a fairer system of assistance for Australian farmers by way of this household allowance payment. The farm household allowance is a payment to help farmers and their families who are doing it tough. It is a helping hand—no more, no less. In my electorate of Gippsland, there would not be a farmer who hopes they ever have to receive this payment. They get into farming to make a profit through their hard work, through their ingenuity and through their determination and resilience. They expect to turn their land into profit, and they hope they never have to receive farm household assistance.

More broadly, farming is one of the mainstay industries in Gippsland. It has been part of our traditional strength. The diversity of our farming sector has been critical to the prosperity of my region, and it is certainly going to play an important role in the future. It is in this vein that I would like to reflect for a moment on the Gippsland dairy sector. Obviously, it has a very strong history, and I would like to note for the record that it has a very strong future as well. In saying that, the member for Wannon is joining me in the chamber. We both claim to have Australia's most important dairy production region. We had an argument about it once, and then we found out that we actually both have 23 per cent of Australia's dairy production, so no-one won the argument! Opposite me is the member for Eden-Monaro, who is trying to lay claim to the title because of the Bega Valley.

Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—

I will accept his interjection. The Bega Valley is another productive dairy region, but not verging on the quantity of production from the electorate of Wannon or Gippsland. But it has been a tough time for dairy farmers across Australia, whether they be in the Bega Valley, in the Western District or in Gippsland. The retrospective cut in milk prices was devastating for families in my community. It created an enormous amount of uncertainty, and it led to a great deal of unrest, both social and economic, in Gippsland as people tried to work their way through the difficult circumstances they were faced with. I appreciate the feedback that I received from farmers in my community—feedback that I took directly to the minister. When Senator McKenzie visited my region, when she came to Morwell, it was an opportunity for farmers to attend that forum and provide direct feedback to her. They were able to point out some of the issues in relation to the farm household allowance system and the way it was applied and the complexity of how it was applied to farmers right across Australia.

I would like to reflect for a moment on the opportunities that still present themselves for the dairy sector in Gippsland. We have an extraordinary opportunity to capitalise on our fertile soils, on our reliable water supplies throughout the Macalister Irrigation District and on the presence of Murray Goulburn in Maffra in my electorate, one of those plants that is critical to the future success of the Gippsland region. In that same vein, I acknowledge the great diversity of the Gippsland agricultural sector, whether it be beef production, wool and lamb production or horticulture in all its forms around the Mitchell River and the Macalister River flats near Sale.

One of the things that the farming sector across Gippsland shares is a need for improved connectivity. Connectivity is a word that we are going to hear a lot more about in regional Australia in the years ahead as we talk about the way we link our regions, whether it is through our road and rail links or our telecommunication links. It is about connectivity across our communities and connectivity into markets, between our major regional towns and into our capital cities. It is going to be critical for us to capitalise on the free trade agreements that this government has been able to negotiate with important Asian markets to our north. We need the opportunity to get our products to market in the most efficient way possible.

We also need to see investment in our water infrastructure as we look to grow our capacity to produce the food that those Asian markets are certainly searching for. So I am very pleased that in the last election campaign we were able to make some very significant announcements in Gippsland which will not only add to the connectivity of my region and improve the efficiency of the agricultural sector but also provide more opportunities for Gippslanders to get out, do their work and travel throughout the community in a safe way.

In that vein, one of the best announcements during the campaign was one in relation to road funding. We will see record spending on roads in Gippsland as a direct result of our negotiation with the Victorian state government. There will be $345 million contributed by the federal government to the program. It will be matched by the Victorian state government. That will mean roads in Gippsland, roads in the seat of Wannon and roads right throughout regional Victoria will benefit. In my electorate, the Great Alpine Road linking Bairnsdale and Bruthen through the Tambo Valley to towns like Ensay, Swifts Creek, Omeo and Benambra, will see major improvements. We have allocated money for that, which will improve safety on an important link. It is important from an agriculture perspective, but it also opens up our community to tourism opportunities. On that point, when we talk about the agricultural sector, we need to recognise the real opportunities for agri-tourism as more and more of our farming sector are seeing opportunities to diversify their income base and reach out into tourism opportunities in regional Australia.

Another major project announced during the campaign which will improve connectivity for the agricultural sector is the upgrades to the Princes Highway East. This is a section of road which is not on the national network, but I was able to secure $25 million of federal funding, to be matched by the state government, on this important link between Gippsland and the seat of Eden-Monaro. The member for Eden-Monaro, who is in the chamber, is also a strong supporter of improving this link between our two communities. It will improve safety on this stretch of road which not only is an important tourism link but also is important for moving our products to and from Melbourne and Sydney, and into the Canberra market as well. Funding in the order of $50 million will be spent on that road in the years ahead.

Additional funding of $5 million each from the state and federal governments will go on the Monaro Highway, another important transport link from Canberra to Bombala and Cooma. These are all important examples of how we need to improve the connectivity of our region to capitalise on the free trade agreements, to get our products to market as quickly and as efficiently as we possibly can and to take our quality Gippsland products to the world.

I mentioned the importance of water infrastructure. We are seeing in relation to the dairy industry in particular the MID 2030 plan. I was very pleased to welcome the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources to my community where he made the very important announcement that the federal government will provide $20 million to invest in water security for the MID, the Macalister irrigation district. We have a comparatively small but very reliable dam. It fills and spills very quickly. We have ageing infrastructure attached to that dam at Glenmaggie. Maximising the use of the existing water entitlements through improved channel technology, working with the dairy farmers and the horticultural sector on research to help them reduce their nutrient use and reduce the amount of run-off into the streams and flowing through to the Gippsland Lakes and water re-use facilities on individual farms—all of these things are examples of the farming sector being prepared to work with the best researchers to understand how technology can be applied to their farms, how it can reduce their costs, how they can adapt it to their situation and help them become more productive and also better custodians of the land they farm on and better custodians of the environment. I am very proud of the role my farmers play in the community not just in producing world-class food but also as custodians of the land they work and have worked for generations.

In the same vein, I would like to mention another water project which has great potential for Gippsland at the Lindenow flats on the Mitchell River. That is a very fertile horticultural area and one where further investment in water security would allow for greater growth and opportunities for the farms that are already there but also open up new land to irrigate agriculture. I am very keen to work with the landowners and the state government on projects that can see us improve the reliability of supply for those irrigators so that they can continue to service right up and down the east coast of Australia as they do today. That is an important project and one which unfortunately has stagnated under the current state government in Victoria. But I remain hopeful that they will see the opportunities to work with the farming sector and invest in this great industry in Gippsland.

Just returning more specifically to the bill before the House, it is important to note that farmers will be eligible for this payment if they contribute a significant part of their labour and capital to their farm enterprise and if they meet an income and asset test and comply with initial obligation requirements. If they are found eligible, farmers can then access up to three years of income support. As I said at the outset, no farmer in Gippsland and no farmer in Australia wants to get themselves into a position where they have to rely on farm household support, but it is important to have that safety net there and that helping hand in tough times. This legislation is ensuring the delivery is more efficient and addresses the needs of farmers if they experience those tough times. The changes include the fact that the ordinary waiting period will be waived and also the liquid assets waiting periods will be removed. This will mean that unnecessary waiting periods for access to the farm household allowance will no longer apply to farmers who apply for this form of assistance.

The farm household allowance has been a successful measure in assisting farmers who are experiencing economic hardship. Over 7,000 farmers and their partners have been provided with access to the farm household allowance, and more than 4,700 around Australia are currently receiving the allowance. The government—and I again commend the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and also my colleague in the Senate Bridget McKenzie—has listened to the concerns expressed and raised within rural communities over the past 12 months about the lengthy and complex application process and has taken steps to address these concerns. As a part of this process, there was extensive negotiation with individual farmers but also with key agricultural stakeholders, including the National Farmers' Federation, Australian Dairy Farmers and United Dairyfarmers of Victoria. They advised the government about the delivery of this household allowance. I thank them for the manner in which they engaged with the government in this regard.

As a member of the Nationals—and I note the presence in the chamber of another member of the Nationals, the member for Riverina, Michael McCormack—I know we are very keen to be delivering policies that assist communities right around regional Australia to have safe, stronger, better regional communities that allow everyone the chance to get ahead. We are working on a daily basis with our communities to get a fair share of government investment in the key infrastructure we need to connect our rural and regional communities. We understand the importance of providing opportunities, particularly opportunities for young people in those regional communities. These are people who choose to live outside our capital cities and people who go to work every day on the land and provide the food and fibre that we need in our country towns and in our cities. They are the unsung champions and heroes of our nation. We base a lot of our national culture around those people—the farming communities living in those rural and remote areas of the nation. They do not ask for much, but they do expect a fair go and a fair share. I am very proud to be part of a government which is committed to delivering that fair go and fair share for regional Australia.

We want to invest in those regional communities. We want to see more people having the opportunity to live outside our capital cities, whether that be in my seat of Gippsland or in the seats of Wannon, Eden-Monaro or Riverina. We understand that the people who have been brought up in those rural and regional towns want to see a future in those communities for their children. They want to see governments, whether they be at a local, state or federal level, that are investing in the services and infrastructure they need. We as members of this place have this rare opportunity to stand up and advocate on their behalf. I am very proud to be part of a party that is determined to deliver policies that achieve those outcomes for rural and regional people. In that spirit, I commend the bill to the House and congratulate the minister again for the work he is doing in standing up for rural and regional communities.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017 and add to the contributions from many of my colleagues, including the member for Gippsland, who just spoke, and the members for Murray, Mallee, Calare and others. It is an important bill. It seeks to change the definition of 'assets' so that farmers who would otherwise have been ineligible for the farm household allowance support are now able to access it. That is so important for the farmers I represent. It is so important for the farmers that the member for Gippsland represents as well as those salt-of-the-earth cockies who the member for Eden-Monaro, my neighbouring colleague, represents and those who the minister at the table represents in that fine Victorian seat of Wannon.

As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017 will amend the Farm Household Support Act 2014 to ensure that recipients of farm household allowance are not required to serve an ordinary waiting period or liquid assets waiting period before they can begin receiving the FHA. It also clarifies the asset test treatment of certain assets necessary for the operation of the farm enterprise. As the member for Gippsland just enunciated, we want to give farmers a hand up, not a handout. And that is what farmers want, as well. Those people who continue to produce food and fibre are doing it very well. Even in times of drought, they act for and on our behalf, and keep this nation fed and clothed. Full marks to them.

The FHA program gives farmers and their partners a maximum of three years' income support to meet basic household needs while they make decisions about the future of their farm business and take action to improve their circumstances. It is tough. Farming is very tough. And I would know. My father was a farmer. His father before him was and, indeed, so was his before him. All farmed in the Junee-Marrar areas of the Riverina. I represent a large part of New South Wales. It covers not just the Riverina but also now the Central West—those great areas of Parkes, Forbes and Cowra. They are great wheatgrowing areas, and great cattle- and sheep-producing areas. I am not unfamiliar with the difficulties faced by farmers and the despair they find themselves in during difficult times. That could be, as I mentioned before, times of drought. It could be times of floods. Certainly, Forbes suffered from some dreadful floods in recent months. As well as pestilence, fires, floods—all those things really greatly affect the farmer income. I know that during those times the farmers certainly need every bit of help. As I said, farmers work the land. They care for their animals. They put food on our tables. It is vital that the government provide support and assistance to help those out who look after and provide for us. I am the first to rebuke anyone who criticises farmers for complaining about the lack of rain, the price of grain or for choosing to live where they do, often under very dire and very trying circumstances.

Farmers are not guaranteed a fixed income. They are price takers not price makers. At the moment, prices are good. I commend the seasons for that. The seasons have been kind to us in recent years. But I also absolutely pay credit to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Nationals, for the work that he has done in setting the policy parameters and policy settings to ensure that farmers have the very best opportunity. Certainly, with this legislation, as well, I pay credit to Senator Anne Ruston for her work and the chair of the coalition's backbench committee, indeed, the member for Barker. I was in the member for Barker's electorate just last week, in fact, on my small business roadshow. I took the chance to talk to many of his small business owners, including farmers. Not everybody always recognises that farmers are small businesses, but they are. I know the hard work that the member for Barker is putting into his electorate to make sure that farmers have a voice in this place, that farmers get the very best representation and that the work they do does not go unrecognised in the South Australian electorate that he represents so very fiercely and so very well.

There are many impacts by so many factors on farmers and their way of life, whether that be changes to market forces, the increase in the value of the dollar, the drops in the price of wool, grain, livestock and land. Fortunately, we have seen the good times in recent times. That is not so much for the price of wheat at the moment. It would be better if it were a lot higher. But the effects to farmers and their families is detrimental. And that is why this legislation is so important.

I have always valued the principle of giving someone a hand up rather than a handout, whether this be for the socially disadvantaged, those lacking in skills and knowledge or those struggling financially. It also applies to farmers. Farmers are not asking the government to give them a welfare handout—they are not—but a hand up so to: help them out and support them with their basic household needs while they get their affairs in order in those tough times—as I mentioned before, fires, floods and droughts, and all those sorts of things; to make the necessary business decisions that they need to in order to get back on their feet; and to, essentially, improve their long-term financial viability situation.

The farm household allowance is delivered by the Department of Human Services. I commend the minister for the work that he has done as well in this regard. It is paid fortnightly at a rate equivalent to Newstart allowance or youth allowance for those under 22 years. A healthcare card is provided to recipients. Support is also provided through a dedicated case manager—and they are so important—to help recipients assess their situation and develop a plan for the future. I know that with this particular bill the coalition has fully consulted with key stakeholders—with, as the member for Gippsland mentioned before, the National Farmers' Federation and others. I know that the chairman, Fiona Simson, is fully cognisant of what this bill entails.

These amendments to the Farm Household Support Act have been introduced to clarify the definition of farm assets used in the running of farm businesses—they are complicated and complex matters—such as water assets and shares in a farming cooperative when assessing eligibility. The amendments address the issue of such assets necessary for the operation of the farm enterprise, falling within the definition of non-farm assets, which has stricter asset limits and which can prevent some of the rightfully eligible farm businesses from receiving payments. Changing the definition of 'assets' means more farm businesses in my electorate of Riverina and the Central West will be eligible to receive assistance, with farm assets such water being treated in the same vein as other assets needed to run a farm business, including land and machinery.

Before the coalition introduced the farm household allowance in 2014 there was no support payment generally available to farmers in hardship outside of the very worthwhile, very good and very necessary exceptional circumstances drought program. It was abolished by the former Labor administration, which gave farmers hard times. It left farmers on their own.

More than 7,000 claims have been granted nationally since the FHA was introduced, giving farmers access to one-on-one case support—I mentioned how crucially important that is—activity supplements and income support. I am very pleased to stand here in support of this amendment. I am very glad it will ensure that recipients of the farm household allowance are not required, once assessed as eligible, to serve a liquid assets waiting period before they can start to receive the farm household allowance. I am hopeful, in fact I am confident, that this amendment will make things easier for farmers and their families in my electorate, whether they are in Peak Hill or Mangoplah, West Wyalong or Young. It is important that we as a government continue to stand up for the regions and those who live and work in them.

I would like to put on record some of the statistics so far. As I mentioned, there have been more than 7,000 claims. In fact, as at 24 February 7,133 farmers and partners received grants. The current number of people receiving payments at the same date is 4,794 farmers and partners. Total payments made in this period, covering 1 March 2014 to 31 January this year, including the interim farm household allowance, is $162.3 million. I would argue that that is an investment. It is an investment in our future and our farmers, and therefore it is an investment in our regions. The amount of support over three years is up to $74,474.40 for a couple and up to $41,238.60 for a single.

These measures are part of the government's commitment to continuously improve delivery of the FHA to better meet the needs of farmers who can benefit from this form of assistance. Farmers can know with confidence that this coalition government recognises their work and their importance and acknowledges what they do on behalf of this nation. The new concessional loan scheme supports farm businesses dealing with and recovering from drought. We put that in place.

The agricultural white paper is a $4 billion investment in our farmers. We are helping farm businesses to achieve better farm gate returns. We so often hear our policies mocked and knocked by those opposite in question time. When the member for New England, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, when he gets up and extols the virtues and importance of increased, record prices of grain, beef, cotton and all the other commodities that he talks about so often in question time, I wish sometimes that those opposite, particularly those from the city electorates—I know the member for Eden-Monaro gets it—but particularly some of those opposite from city seats whose RM Williams boots, if indeed they ever wear them, have never seen a bit of farm dust or bulldust. They talk bit about it sometimes, but their boots have never seen it. They need to sometimes get out of the bubble that is this place and their city electorates and understand and recognise the important role our farmers play and give the agriculture minister a bit more credit when he gets to his feet and extols the virtues of the record prices that have been achieved in recent times. I appreciate that the member opposite, the member for Eden-Monaro, is nodding his head. He understands and appreciates it too.

Growing markets—the fact that we have been able to broker trade agreements with Japan, South Korea and China is so critically important. I know that the Prime Minister met the Indonesian President on the weekend. Hopefully, through the trade minister, we will be able to broker a deal with our biggest neighbour very soon. I know that the member for Moncrieff is also in very detailed talks with India at the moment. That is ongoing and that is fantastic. Growing markets enable us to be able to sell our goods and our farm products even further afield.

The member for Gippsland, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, spoke about the importance of the $50 billion rollout of infrastructure. That is a record amount spent by the Liberal National coalition government, and not just in city areas—also in regional electorates. It is so important to get those road networks and the inland rail built and all those things that are going to be able to get our farmers produce to markets quicker to help farmers.

We are removing technical barriers to trade. We are supporting innovative agriculture. I know the Prime Minister talks often about innovation, but there is no better area to talk about innovation than in farming. Our farmers are the most innovative in the world. They are the very best in the world at their craft. They always have been, they are at the moment and they always will be. We are providing a better tax system for farmers. I am glad that the instant asset write-off is in. As the small business minister I know how important that is. On skills and labour, I am glad we got the backpacker tax situation sorted. That was important. The WET rebate was important. We certainly helped the Australian Grape and Wine Authority promoting Australian wine overseas. They produce the finest wine in parts of the Riverina and the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area that I once represented very proudly.

Getting back to this important bill, the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017 is important. It gives help to those salt-of-the-earth people who we know, we love, we respect and we want to continue for them to do what they do for our outstanding country. We understand and acknowledge the important contribution they make, and this bill does just that.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on this important bill, the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017. Before I go to the substance of my contribution and final remarks on this bill, I would like to reflect on a saying, which is that empty vessels make the most noise. In this House there is probably no greater example of that than the member for Bendigo. As much as it pains me to have to do so, I will have to correct the record with regard to some claims made by the member for Bendigo.

The member for Bendigo made assertions that the Bendigo office of the Rural Financial Counselling Service was shut because they complained about the introduction of the farm household allowance. The member for Bendigo is wrong and needs to be corrected. The government undertook a public tender process for the delivery of our RFCS services over the next four years, commencing on 1 April 2016. The outcome of that process was the Sunraysia or Victoria North West RFCS was awarded the contract to deliver this service in the Bendigo area. There were no disruptions to this important service. Our farmers and our rural communities still continue to benefit from the services that are provided. In fact, the member may wish to visit 62b Breen Street in Bendigo to familiarise herself with her local RFCS provider.

Returning to the substance of the bill. This bill demonstrates the government's responsiveness to the needs of the farm community and rural and regional Australia, and demonstrates its willingness to streamline the assessment of the farm household allowance applications where appropriate and possible. The circumstances of farmers and their partners are unique. It is not always possible for farmers experiencing hardship to draw down on their assets to support themselves given the illiquid nature of farm assets and their day-to-day operational requirements. The farm household allowance program provides up to three years of income support to eligible farmers and their partners while they take steps to improve their long-term financial situation. As part of the program, recipients are supported to undertake a farm financial assessment, and they have access to $1,500 in funding to do so, and a financial improvement agreement, or FIA, which is a plan to work towards improving their self-reliance. Under the FIA, a recipient can access an activity supplement of up to $4,000—$3,000 over three years and an additional $1,000 in the final year of payment—to pay for eligible professional support, advice or training.

Support is also provided through dedicated farm household case officers, who work with recipients to assess their individual situation and identify activities to improve their long-term situation. While on payment, farmers and their partners also have access to a healthcare card, pharmaceutical allowance, rental assistance, telephone allowance, the energy supplement and the remote area allowance. Recipients must also identify objectives and undertake activities designed to move them forward to a more financially sustainable future. If it is not possible for recipients to achieve financial sustainability, notwithstanding the support offered through the program, it also provides support for recipients to consider an alternative in employment or transitioning away from farming with dignity, however difficult that decision may be.

Unlike previous schemes requiring drought conditions to trigger, farmers experiencing hardship in a range of circumstances are able to access the farm household allowance program. The government has introduced a number of other measures to specifically assist those experiencing drought conditions. For example, the recently opened drought assistance concessional loan scheme provides loans aiming to assist drought affected farm businesses manage and recover from drought with an aim to return them to viability in the long term. Loans of up to 50 per cent of eligible farm business debt up to a maximum of $1 million are available, and that is a significant amount of assistance.

The bill continues the improvement of the farm household allowance program. By improving the legislation, farm household allowance applicants and recipients will benefit because we are clarifying the eligibility test to apply for this support and removing unnecessary waiting periods. Importantly, the bill clarifies the treatment of assets necessary for the operation of the farm enterprise under the act and includes them within the farm assets test. It removes the requirement for successful farm household allowance recipients to serve an ordinary waiting period or a liquid assets waiting period before they receive payment.

The bill addresses the community concerns relating to the time taken to process applications for the farm household allowance and the treatment of water assets and shares in marketing cooperatives as non-farm assets rather than as farm assets necessary for the operation of the farm enterprise. Simultaneously, my colleague Minister Tudge has announced that the Department of Human Services has commenced an eight-week pilot whereby a new dedicated team within DHS manages new farm household allowance applications, increases outbound telephone contact with applicants to assist them through the application process, and provides streamlined processes to aim to finalise simple cases within four weeks and complex cases within six weeks. There will be minimal cost to the government. The bill streamlines government administration and improves government efficiency. There will be no cost generated to the government in removing the requirement of successful applicants to serve an ordinary waiting period or liquid assets waiting period.

I thank the members for their contributions to this debate in the House. I would also like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the huge amount of effort that he has put in to deliver improvements to this program so that they better meet the needs of those on the land who are struggling. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.