Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start my contribution today with a riddle: how many National and LNP members does it take to announce a website? In an event we just saw in the House of Representatives courtyard, there were at least 10 LNP and National members launching a website. That is how seriously they take issues in rural and regional Australia and the issues that are key and core to the matter before the House in this bill, the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017.

I would also point out to the House that we just voted on an omnibus bill that has a childcare component, which is very, very bad news for regional communities, making it impossible for people living in regional communities to secure child care. To partly offset that shameless act, the member for Indi moved an amendment in the consideration-in-detail stage of the bill which would at least partly offset the pain that will cause for rural and regional Australia. She started by insisting that the government develop a regional plan for child care, in the hope that we will overcome the pain caused by what the government just passed some time in the future. That was a very reasonable thing to request. That was one of the most reasonable amendments I have seen in this place in many, many years.

How could one oppose the idea of the government developing a plan to ensure that those living in rural and regional Australia can access child care? You would think no-one would be capable of opposing an amendment asking for such a strategic plan, but that is exactly what members opposite just did. That is exactly what every member of the Nationals and every member of the LNP representing rural seats in Queensland just did. That is inexplicable and it is a disgrace. They should hang their heads in shame. It surprised me greatly, because the media conference we just saw, where Barnaby Joyce and his colleagues launched a website, was about trying to stop the fracturing in the LNP in Queensland.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. He needs to return to the bill and I would ask that you direct him to do so.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please continue.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I always love points of order, because you know that you are hitting the mark. The member who took the point of order is one of those Nats representing a rural seat who just voted against a plan to bolster child care in rural and regional communities. That is why he jumped to his feet. It was not because I was out of order, because it is pretty hard not to be relevant to this bill when you are talking about the interests of rural and regional Australia. Some of the beneficiaries of the farm household allowance will be the same people who will not be able to access child care, because of what those opposite just passed in that omnibus bill and because of their failure to reject the idea of having a plan to do something about child care in rural and regional Australia.

Mr Husic interjecting—

I do thank the member for Chifley, sitting opposite. It is nice to hear a chorus of support from the government benches. I appreciate it very, very much. Maybe there is hope for decent services in rural and regional Australia, with such a chorus of support coming from the government benches.

I notice that we do have some people in the galleries. This bill is about addressing some of the failings in farm household support. Farm household support is, if you like, an unemployment benefit for farmers doing it tough, farmers who find themselves in a situation, whether it be because of drought or some other influence upon them, where they find it necessary, very reluctantly always, to turn to the government temporarily, at least, for support. We do not call it Newstart as it applies to farmers; we call it farm household allowance. Over many decades, we have had a welfare payment for farmers doing it tough. It has had various names but, under the current act, it is called farm household allowance.

I want to say something about the history of drought policy in this country. Prior to around 2009, we had a drought policy as governments—plural. It existed under both coalition and Labor governments. It was commonly known, or at least highlighted by its key elements, as exceptional circumstances. A Productivity Commission report in around 2009 suggested that the drought support system was broken, that it was not giving farmers the support they required, that it was not doing enough to help farmers transition into a more resilient enterprise and that it was not lifting productivity. In fact, 70 per cent of farmers did not rely upon it, but it was proving to be of no real benefit in making sure that people made that transition. Sadly, at the height of the millennium drought, it was costing taxpayers a billion dollars. So it was a very, very expensive support package, and the Productivity Commission, every state government in the country, the federal government, the National Farmers Federation and many others at the time agreed that something dramatic had to be done and that it was time to revisit and reform drought policy in this country.

The result of that was that the states agreed with the Commonwealth to transition to something new. The first thing they had to do, of course, was make sure that there was continuity in the welfare payment and make sure that, as we moved from the old system to a new model, people would be in a position to access appropriate support during times of drought. First of all, we had what was called the interim farm household allowance support, which was put in place just prior to the 2013 election, I think. It was there to serve until the new payment was put in place on a permanent basis. I should have said when I was talking about support for farmers that there is one big difference between Newstart payments, for example, and the farm household allowance, and that is that the asset and income tests are different. The means testing is much different because, obviously, farmers often sit on a high value of on-farm assets and, ordinarily, with Newstart farmers would be immediately knocked out of any potential for securing the payment. So the farm household allowance has a much different means testing arrangement to accommodate for that very important difference between them and most people who would be seeking assistance through Centrelink.

The great tragedy about that history is that the continuity in the welfare payment was only the first step to developing a new drought plan. There was every intention that the Standing Council on Primary Industries, which was the COAG committee made up of Commonwealth and state ag ministers, would continue to develop the next phase of the process to determine what the broader drought policy would look like. Sadly, five minutes after its election in 2013, the Abbott government abolished SCoPI. It abolished the COAG committee designed to look at agriculture issues including drought. Even more sadly, 3½ years after the initial election of this government, we still do not have a drought policy. Yes, we have a farm household allowance and, yes, we have a thing the minister calls concessional loans. That is big money in the budget, but, of course, it is something that costs the government very little and is a program which is proving only marginally beneficial to a small number of farmers. At times when interest rates are so low and given that they are so hard to access, most farmers just come to the conclusion that concessional loans simply are not worth the effort. So 3½ years, or longer than that, since we started the process of moving from the old system to a new and, hopefully, better system we have nothing, basically. The scientists and the Bureau of Meteorology continue to tell us that a changing climate is getting worse and it is going to be more difficult for farmers in the future than it has been in the past, and we need, as a parliament, to get cracking to determine how we are going to deal with those issues.

I have said many times, and I do not mind saying it again, that it is a fact that around 80 per cent of the farm output in this country comes from 30 per cent of the firms and that the smallest 50 per cent represent only seven per cent of output. They are 2009 figures, I should say, but I have seen no indication that those figures would have changed in proportionate terms by very much since then. As the Productivity Commission says, the bottom 25 per cent of broadacre farms have not made a profit in 30 years. I would have thought that is an outcome that the minister would be turning his attention to and developing a strategic plan for agriculture to determine what are the faults there and what his government should be doing about it. We thought we would have a strategic plan—or we hoped we would have a strategic plan—in the form of the agricultural white paper, but, of course, it could hardly be described as a plan. It was not a plan; it was a cobbled together range of thought bubbles but not a strategic plan in any sense of the word, in my view. It is not too late for the minister to start having a serious conversation about what incentives, reforms and guidance should come from government to ensure that we make the most of the significant opportunities available to our farm sector, both in the domestic market and, of course, in those burgeoning export markets, particularly the emerging middle classes in Asia. That is what we need to be talking about.

This bill, as I said, seeks to address the deficiencies in the farm household allowance, deficiencies that were obvious from day one. I remind the House that it was the farm household allowance that got the minister for agriculture in a bit of trouble in this place because it was the minister's attempt to respond to my question about the failings of drought policy and the farm household allowance which caused him to doctor the Hansard. In his attempt to embellish the effectiveness of the farm household allowance, he completely misled the House, kept it quiet and doctored his Hansard. The rest is history and a very senior, professional and highly regarded public servant lost his job as a result of that very sad saga. I am talking, of course, about Dr Grimes, who was the departmental head at that time. Dr Grimes's crime was to take the minister on, to question his integrity and to ask him to, please, out of respect for his department, do the right thing, fess up in the parliament, correct his Hansard and take responsibility. But the minister decided he would not be taking any responsibility; rather, he moved the secretary of his department on. That is a sad and tragic event in the history of the department of agriculture in this country.

But the point is, of course, that we have been telling the minister since at least the last quarter of 2014 that farmers were hurting, that they were unable to get access to the farm household allowance. They could not jump through the myriad complexities and application processes, and they could not get anyone to support them at Centrelink. But the minister's response was to say, 'No, it's all great,' and to mislead the House. That was his response.

So after all these years—three years later—the minister has decided that there is something wrong with the farm household allowance. He has finally conceded that the farm household allowance is broken and is in need of repair. This bill in itself is a belated admission that the minister got the original moral thinking wrong, that he was wrong to reject my expressions of concern in 2014 and thereafter and that he should have fixed this three years ago. That is what the minister should have done. We should not be debating this bill today. We should have been debating a bill to fix the farm household allowance three years ago.

But that poses the question: does this bill fix the problem? The bill does no harm, but sadly it does not fix the problem. What does the bill do? The bill removes the ordinary waiting period for those making an application. In other words, currently if you apply to Centrelink for the farm household allowance and you secure approval for the farm household allowance, you wait a week before you qualify. This bill removes the one-week waiting period. That seems like a reasonable thing—I am not unhappy about it; I am pleased the one-week waiting period will be removed—but the Centrelink problem has not been fixed, and the complexities of the form have not been fixed. Now people will be waiting 13, 14, 15 or 16 weeks while they try to get through the Centrelink process—a process which is growing worse by the day as this government continues to cut resources from Centrelink. I do not need to share any of those stories with the House. Every member in this place will in recent times have had experience with a constituent who cannot talk to a person in Centrelink. They walk in and are told either to use the phone or the computer in the corner or to go home and use the phone or the computer there. That is the level of service they receive at Centrelink.

Senator Bridget McKenzie had a bit of a road tour, a roadshow, where she consulted people about the problems they were having with the farm household allowance. She hailed those roundtables as a great success. She finally delivered a report to the parliament, but only because the member for Indi insisted on one—a very clever move from the member for Indi, I must say. I had not contemplated the idea that Senator McKenzie did not produce a report—I suspect she did not—but I think one was written the night after she was asked the question. We now know that Bridget McKenzie produced a report, but none of the key issues Senator McKenzie raised in her report has been addressed by this bill, and certainly this bill in no way fixes the Centrelink problems. The one-week waiting period will be removed, but the 13-, 14-, 15- or 16-week wait at Centrelink will not be removed. That is hardly a solution to the Centrelink problem—a problem which grows worse by the day. We will be supporting the bill. It does not go anywhere near far enough, but it certainly does no harm. It will make things a tiny bit better, hopefully, for some farmers experiencing hardship.

The other provision we are supportive of is a redefinition of some off-farm assets as on-farm assets—things like water allocations and interests in cooperatives—so that those assets do not count against a farmer when facing the assets test. That seems like a reasonable thing to do. I am not exactly sure how co-op interests have been valued in the past, on what basis that has been done, but obviously this can only be beneficial to those making an application. Certainly, it will not be sufficient to address the key issues.

I know the minister will come in here and say that he has a pilot project going on with the Minister for Human Services and that they are going to fix all these Centrelink problems sometime in the future. Well, I will not hold my breath. I am hopeful; I live in hope. But that in turn is an admission that, after 3½ years, the problem is still not fixed and will not be fixed anytime soon because I assume the pilot project will go on for some period of time. There will be an assessment of it, and at some point in the future something might be done about the processes, including Centrelink. But farmers have been desperate now for 3½ years and remain desperate on a daily basis. They will not take too much solace or encouragement from the pilot project being led by, as I understand it, Minister Tudge. We will be supporting the bill, but on behalf of farmers we remain very disappointed.

We are concerned about another matter. While the government are reducing the official waiting time for farmers, they are increasing the waiting time for other welfare recipients. We on this side think farmers are pretty special people. They produce our food and are a very important part of our economy and our regional communities. But why are we reducing the waiting time for one group of people in our society while, at the same time, increasing it for others? Why do unemployed youth or pensioners have to wait weeks, when farmers will not face any waiting period? This is not an expression of regret about farmers having their waiting period reduced—in fact, abolished; it is an expression of concern about the inconsistencies of the government. It raises questions about their priorities. Indeed, it raises questions about their moral thinking. Why do people who might have a disability, for example, have to wait, but farmers do not? The minister needs to help us fully understand the logic of that, the rationale, and where that fits into his moral compass. Is he saying, 'We don't really support people who find themselves unemployed because they are dole bludgers'? Is that the difference? Is it that farmers are great people—and they are—but if you are a dole bludger you will wait? That is what shines through for me in this bill and that provision. The minister needs to come in here and help us reconcile that.

There is a concern of an even higher order. I go back to what I was saying about the lack of a drought policy. What I did not say about the farm household allowance is that it is for three years. It is not necessarily for three concurrent years. People can go on the farm household allowance for a period to get through a tough patch and then go off it in the hope of living under more profitable arrangements on their farm enterprise. If they find the going tough again, they can go back on it. But, in aggregate, they can be on the payment for only three years. There will be, I suspect, some people who will have been on it continuously for three years by the time we get to the end of this calendar year, if not earlier. So the question is: in the absence of the development of any other drought policy in 3½ years, what is going to happen to those people? What is going to happen to those farmers in three, six or 12 months when Centrelink rings up and says: 'That's it. There is no more farm household allowance for you. You're on your own.' The farmers will ask: 'Can we get some other form of payment? Can we get Newstart, for example?' No, they will not be able to get Newstart because their assets will be too great and they will never pass the means test. So these people are just about to fall off a cliff. They are going to find themselves in big trouble. When the minister returns to the dispatch box to close debate on this bill, he needs to tell the House what is going to happen to the farmers who are about to reach the end of their eligibility for the farm household allowance.

I hope he is not going to say that they can go and get a concessional loan. Surely not. Surely the minister is not going to stand here and say: 'Oh, well. They can go and get a concessional loan. We've got lots of money on the table for those.' Yes, they do. The minister—although I have not heard him say it lately—likes to talk about the capital value of the loan. I do not remember the figure exactly, but he said something like, 'We've put a billion dollars on the table for concessional loans.' Yes, but that is not the cost to the budget. The government's borrowing costs are almost zero by rate. The cost to the government is the administration involved in delivering the loans where they are delivered. This is pretty rare, and there is a very small interest rate. It is not giving billions of dollars to farmers in concessional loans. He is offering them, but very few are taking them up. He is using the same strategy in northern Australia—'We've got money on the table for dams and infrastructure. As long as someone matches the funding, we'll give it away. We'll give it away, but we want it back. And we want it back with interest.'

This is the folly of the policy approach of this government. They give false hope by putting these so-called benefits out there. People listening on the radio or watching on television hear about them and think, 'Those are good things they are doing for the people who will be the recipients of those programs.' But because they are not people who are ever going to seek to be the recipients they do not hear the real story. The real story is that the money never gets given out because the conditions attached to the loans are too onerous and too hard to meet. So the minister needs to talk far less about what he might do and what he is offering and start talking about what he is prepared to do for farmers and, more particularly, going back to an earlier part of my contribution, what he is going to do about a strategic plan for agriculture in this country.

I started on the press conference that was largely—for me, at least—about the relocation of the APVMA. The minister can start there. He can drop this dumb idea. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority have no interface with farmers. They are in charge of making sure the chemicals and veterinary medicines that multinational companies want to put into the Australian system, whether they be a shot for a horse or a spray for a crop, are safe and efficient and are not going to be detrimental to human health. Every time that we eat something that has been grown in Australia and will have been subject to crop protection we rely on the APVMA to make sure that that crop protection, as important as it is, is in no way detrimental to our health.

Farmers rely on the productivity level and profitability level of the APVMA to deliver to them the latest and best proper protections and animal medicines in a timely manner. If they cannot rely on the APVMA to do that then—guess what?—productivity and profitability further decline. The APVMA plays a role in the export market. If we cannot get data out of the APVMA, exports go down the tube. Every person in this country with a pet relies on the APVMA to ensure the medicines they give to their loved pet is safe and beneficial and not harmful to their pet.

A very good start would be to dump the pork barrel. We know the minister struggles in Armidale. We know Tony Windsor beats him there every time.

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

He smashed him!

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He smashed him, did he? Check the polling figures in Armidale, Minister. Yes, the minister is strong in Tamworth, but he is weak in Armidale. So he is going to use $26 million of taxpayers' money to move an agency to Armidale so he can secure his seat. That is what this is all about. He does not mind destroying the authority along the way, to the great detriment of farmers and others in this country.

The minister can also not just talk about exports but do something about them. He can turn his mind to what is happening in the meat-processing industry in this country where hundreds of people are losing their jobs because this minister has no plan. He talks about free trade agreements, but we cannot get protocols. Horticulture, in particular, cannot get access to those new markets. It is all right to have an FTA, but you have to have protocols. There is an enormous range of technical barriers still yet to be overcome, but you never hear the minister talk about that. This is a minister that talks a lot. He loves the spin. He sees everything through the political prism. He sees everything through his own political ambition. The minister at the table, Mr Chester, knows that better than anyone in this chamber; he is a victim of it. He sees everything through his own political ambition. There is never any substance. It is all spin, no substance.

The loser, of course, is the Australian agricultural sector. As a consequence, the key losers are every person living in this country who are not realising the dream to be the provider of high-quality, safe, green food in Asia. This minister has no plan and has no strategy. He is all spin, no substance. We are all the losers.

Damian Drum (Murray, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following that 30 minutes is going to be rather difficult because I am not quite sure what to pay any credibility to and what to just dismiss as absolute rubbish. But, certainly, the concept of the Labor Party assuming government in this place is, when it comes to agriculture, too scary to even contemplate. To think that we could have as minister the shadow minister for agriculture, who only short couple of months ago was standing at the dispatch box and laughing about the predicament that was the backpacker tax.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Created by you!

Damian Drum (Murray, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is someone who thought it was just a bit of a joke. I know that I had about 200 orchardists from the Goulburn Valley that—

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you take responsibility?

Damian Drum (Murray, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

told me that they had tried to contact the shadow minister's office to try to get him to see sense. They were either hung up on their phones or they were laughed at like the shadow minister—

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Hunter has the call.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have two points of order. If the member wants to make an accusation of that nature, he needs to do so by a substantive motion. The second point of order is: if he is going to make an accusation like that—which I very much doubt is true—he needs to somehow authenticate it. He just cannot make it up. He cannot say people were ringing my office without response without being able to justify that remark in some way. I suggest it is not true.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Hunter and I call the member for Murray.

Damian Drum (Murray, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The truth is sometimes hard to hear, shadow minister.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where's your proof?

Damian Drum (Murray, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, effectively, this is what happened. You are complicit in your actions to people who previously used to have some regard for you and your stance on agriculture. However, any credibility that you may have had has now been lost due to your stance and your behaviour throughout the backpacker tax debate in this House. It was quite disgraceful. The fact that you thought that such an important issue was such a joke—

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I call the member for Murray back to the—

Damian Drum (Murray, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you will stand condemned for that.

The scariness of Labor and agriculture does not just end with the backpacker tax and their behaviour but moves on to water. Certainly, there is a certain shadow minister for water in this House who seems to think that we can still take even more water away from productive agriculture and send it down the river for environmental purposes for South Australia's benefit. When we are trying to look after communities and when we are trying to do the best we can for productive agriculture—and I see the shadow minister has had enough; out he goes. That would be right. I hope he is going to see Mr Burke and have a talk about water, but he is probably not. He will probably just go and have a gag about the backpacker tax. This is an incredibly important issue for the seat of Murray and the people who are in agriculture right on the Murray-Darling Basin.

Reports have recently been done in relation to the damage that has been caused by taking water away from communities. I know that the review that took place in the northern parts of the Murray-Darling Basin shows there has been considerable damage to those communities around St George, Dirranbandi and other areas in the north. That is why they have had to change their targets for recovery in those areas. These reviews are still yet to be done in the southern part of the basin. But, nevertheless, the thought that the Labor Party in this place still thinks that you can take an additional 450 gigalitres of water away from productive agriculture to, effectively, keep the Murray Mouth open and to keep lakes at the bottom end of the Murray River system freshwater when naturally they are estuarine lakes, seemingly beggars believe.

This particular bill, the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017, is dealing mainly with farmer household allowance and the support that this government is providing for farmers. At the moment, the major concern is within the dairy industry. It must be also noted that when the dairy industry was plunged into the crisis that it was through the advice being given to the farmers and the clawback provisions that took place in May of last year, the Minister for Agriculture Barnaby Joyce was very quick to act—getting into the heart of the dairy regions and putting forward a $550 million package, a support package, a rescue package, to help those farming businesses that needed some assistance and trying to help, in the best way possible, by offering up farmer household allowance and low-interest concessional loans.

I know the shadow minister, again, starts laughing and mocking the concept of low-interest loans. But if you have a 2.47 per cent opportunity to borrow money at, that is something that is very, very serious. Many of our farmers are laden with debt. The ability to switch your loans over to 2.47 per cent has the capacity to save many farmers in the tune of $30,000 to $40,000 per annum. This, coupled with farmer household allowance, which can bring in to a couple in the tune of around $25,000 per annum, is a sizeable support package for a farming business that is doing it very tough due to world commodity prices being very, very low. They are not as low as they were previously under the Labor government, I might add. In 2009, the price started at $3.60 and ended up at $4.49. Those prices were still considerably lower than what they are today and what they were during the middle of the crisis that we have now.

Whilst we do have a crisis now and we have a government that is prepared to accept that we have a crisis in the dairy industry—that is why we are putting these packages together—the crisis is not as bad as it was under Labor, when they did absolutely nothing to support the industry. Here we have another clear example that the Labor opposition are quite happy to stand up here today and take a mocking view of what the government is doing to try to assist farming businesses, dairy farming businesses in particular, while we go through this downturn in the world price of milk. By the way, it is just starting to work its way back up slightly. We now have a price to Murray Goulburn providers of around $4.95, Fonterra at $5.20 and ACM at around $5.30.

So there is a bit of light at the end of the tunnel, and we certainly hope that those businesses that have decided to hang tough and keep their herds together and keep their staff on board are going to be able to make profits either now or very shortly into the future. But we have been through a very tough patch. We have been through a situation where many farmers have been getting up at 4.30 in the morning to milk their cows, repeating that at night, just so they can keep their herds together, even though they know they are making a loss. It is heartbreaking and demoralising, and we need to make sure that we have a government that understands this and is prepared to offer the assistance that we have.

One of the issues that were highlighted during the round tables that the member for Hunter spoke about, headed up by Bridget McKenzie, was timeliness—the time that it took to get hold of the farmer household allowance. Yes, there were some delays and yes, we have acted. Again, one of the key provisions in this bill is the streamlining of the application process to enable people to get farmer household allowance with a shorter application time and a shorter waiting time.

One of the other main provisions in this bill, again mocked by the member for Hunter, is the concept that to have an asset such as water, which is a key ingredient for dairy farmers, can hardly be considered an off-farm asset. It is very much a necessary part of the farming business. Therefore, we have brought that particular asset, whether it be $400,000 or $800,000 or $1.5 million worth of water—that is now treated in the same way as is farm equipment and other cooperative bonds and so forth. They are a necessary part of doing business in the dairy industry. Now farmers that have those assets are going to find themselves eligible to find their way to receive farmer household allowance.

It is also worthwhile looking at some of the statistics in Victoria, where the main cohort of farmers who have been in need of farmer household assistance are located. We now have a situation where over 1,650 farmers are receiving farmer household allowance. This has grown steadily over the last three to four months, where it was identified that many farmers needed assistance either with financial planners or financial counsellors to help them get through the paperwork. This is the Australian taxpayers' money that we are making available on a three-year basis to enable farmers to get through a tough patch and find some off-farm income. Ultimately we are trying to give these farmers, who are doing it tough through no fault of their own, through the world drop in milk prices, an opportunity to put food on the table as an emergency act, so they can send the kids to school, provide those children with food, allow the basic bills to be paid and put a business case around their farming business to ensure that there is a bright outcome at the end of the day.

It is not a lifetime on security, which I think was what the member for Hunter might have been angling at, that we need to get rid of the three-year—I do not know where in the world his thought processes are coming from when he wanted to be critical of having a three-year time line on this support package. It just seems to be that whatever the government is doing he is going to oppose and mock it. But we saw how serious the member for Hunter was when it came to an area such as the backpacker tax, when his behaviour was so disgraceful. There was a real opportunity for him to stand tall and to assist farmers, and he just took them as collateral damage to cause the government some embarrassment on the day.

What we have here is an opportunity to look back at where we have come from. Initially the farmer household allowance was very difficult to get hold of. We were talking about the number of Victorian farmers that were able to access it. They were less than 100 initially. Now we have worked through this. The roundtables that Senator McKenzie held were incredibly well attended. We had an opportunity to take the departments and bureaucrats out of Centrelink, the dairy industry representatives, the peak associations—we took them to the communities. We had meetings at Tangambalanga, in the Gippsland area, around Camperdown and at Congupna, my home town. The concept of taking these roundtables to the people, rather than having them drive into the nearest regional city, was something that we thought was important part of showing the people that we are prepared to listen and we are prepared to listen in their patch.

One area, by the way, where we have not been able to help with the assistance package is the cohort of predominantly New Zealand nationals who are out here, many of them in a share farming capacity. They are ineligible for the farmer household allowance and low interest loans. We have offered assistance for those who wish to become nationalised Australians, but certainly we need to keep those farmers in our thoughts as well. Because of their nationality they are ineligible for these assistance packages.

What we have done in this area has been decisive and it has been responsive. It was in May last year that Murray Goulburn announced that they had been overpaying their providers and were going to, all of a sudden, not only start to dramatically drop the price of milk that they were paying their farmers but they were also then going to try to claw that money back. It was only within a matter of days that Barnaby Joyce was in Shepparton and was talking to the peak associations—was talking to the VFF, was talking to Dairy Australia—and the farmers represented under those umbrella groups. He was outlining the support packages he was going to put in place. When that was difficult to assess, he put in place a series of round tables to find out exactly where farmers needed additional help. Now that that has happened, we see the introduction of this bill. We will see more and more assistance and more streamlining for people having access to the farm household allowance.

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017, and I acknowledge the comments of the member for Murray and the member for Hunter. I say to the minister: thank you for what you have done, but it is not nearly enough. I pick up the point that the member for Murray made about Senator McKenzie's visit. It is true; it is absolutely true that the senator came to Indi, to Murray, to Gippsland and to Corangamite. She did listen, that is true; however, where we have a massive failure is with the action taken from the listening. It is really fantastic the government comes and listens, but if it fails to take action on what our farmers are saying it is for nought. I have Senator McKenzie's report here, which I acknowledge. There are nine recommendations and areas for action; however, in this particular piece of legislation—which is great to see—before the House only two get addressed. So there is a long, long way to go. I have to say to the minister: consultation is important, but if you fail to act you lose the trust of the people you have been consulting with.

Let us leave that aside, because part of the discussion I want to have today is about the fact the crisis has not gone away and there is still a lot to be done. I am really pleased that the member for Murray acknowledges that the government sees there is a crisis. That is good. The second thing I would like to talk about in my speech today is what is happening in northeast Victoria with a fantastic, innovative, local grassroots model of how communities are getting together to actually take action on their behalf.

But first I need to talk about some of the indicators that the crisis has not gone away, that we are not debating in isolation here. In my own area, the charitable donations and money in terms of food vouchers—$45,000—is almost gone. There is nothing left in the local kitty to give out to farmers. There are a number of reasons for this. Farmers are either not getting farm household allowance, which the member for Hunter talked about, or, if they do get the allowance, for many of them it is very, very low. Businesses in the area are also struggling: they are not getting paid because the dairy farmers cannot pay their bills. There is a lot of financial pain and there are mental health issues, and increasingly people are not in a fit state to make good business decisions. There is underlying anger; people are in shock and they are struggling. There is a whole lot of evidence that it has not gone away. There are real problems that were identified in Senator McKenzie's good report and the government needs to take action urgently on it. That report is before the House; it does not need any more words from me.

I would now like to particularly focus my comments on some of the fantastic work that is happening in northeast Victoria. At this point I would like to acknowledge some of the members in the public gallery today. It is great to have you here. Thanks for making the effort to come to Canberra. What I want to talk about is northeast Victoria and the Alpine Valleys. The Alpine Valleys are the Kiewa Valley, the Mitta Valley and the Murray Valley, and a bit of the Ovens and King valleys. This community have got together and they have formed a grassroots community group called the Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project. They have done some really strategic thinking about global impacts on dairying and how they can work locally. I am very proud to be their representative and to bring to the House a model of how we can manage and work with the crisis we are facing, and I call on the government to see, in partnership with this community group, if we can replicate it in other areas of the dairy industry and agricultural industries. This model has got huge potential to get grassroots communities, local government authorities, state governments and industry to all work together. I am a really big advocate for that and I would like to bring it to the attention of the minister at the table, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, and say: can we think about how this model can be duplicated in other communities?

In acknowledging the work of this committee, and I am going to talk about it in some detail, I would like to put in Hansard the tremendous leadership role of the Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project in their community and to say thank you to Stuart. And in talking about Stuart, I also acknowledge the role of Sarah and all of the partners. We all know these things do not happen—there is no such thing as 'a farmer'; there are farming families and farming businesses. So I acknowledge you—Lauren, Scott, Pat, Patten and Lachie—and all of your families. I also acknowledge the members of the steering committee: the North East CMA; the local processor Murray Goulburn; the North East Local Learning and Employment Network; Murray Dairy, which is the Commonwealth government and local research and development team; Rural Financial Counselling Service; the local governments of Indigo, Wangaratta, Towong, and Alpine, who form the steering committee; and the education services and providers who are also there. The steering committee is wide-reaching and it covers off most of the service providers and the farmers in the Alpine Valleys.

The AVDPP was established in 2011 and it is a unique model. It began as a grassroots movement driven by farmers, and is now actively supported by all of those people on the steering committee. The project's aim is to provide strong, consistent and cohesive messages about how we can work together to grow and develop dairying in northeast Victoria. It decided to take a leadership role. It set clear goals. It has a comprehensive strategic plan to actually grow milk production 80 per cent by 2025, and that would actually mean growing the local industry by 400 million litres in the Alpine Valleys by 2025. Recent Dairy Australia figures indicate milk production in the region has already increased by 30 per cent in the last 10 years, despite the drought, so there is so huge potential to grow it more.

The Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project model has proven a powerful tool in creating change and has delivered several high-quality projects to date which focus on education, farm succession planning and transition, and planning for growth. It has grown to be a well respected voice for the dairy industry in north-east Victoria. We are seeing great change happen across all levels of government because of this community leadership.

I would like to read into the Hansard and bring to the attention of the government some of the priority areas that the Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project members are working in and are considering for the future. They are looking for a medium- to long-term planning approach so, as we move through this discussion of farm household support, we have actually got to think about the medium and long term. We have got to talk about water security. We need to talk about supporting farm succession and transition. We need to talk about agriculture in schools. We need to talk about place based ownership and solutions. The logic of one size fitting everybody just does not work in rural and regional Australia. As we heard in the discussion about child care, we have got to be able to have place based solutions that respond to local needs.

We really need to keep up with technology and innovation. There has been a resounding call from me, as the member for Indi, that we have got to do better with NBN. We have got to do better with mobile phones because these dairy businesses are hugely technologically connected. Moving your electric fences and doing all the work that comes with it relies on technology that relies on mobile phone connectivity. I will talk in another time and place about how disappointed I am that the mobile phone project ended, that there is no money for round 4.

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

You got the lot.

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, we did well in Indi, didn't we? But there is no round 4. I have to say to the minister, there are still 150 identified black spots in Indi. We need more in the budget.

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

We will get you more in the budget.

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that. I look for to working with you on that. Mobile phone technology is really important.

Another issue is positive messaging about the industry. We hear about the crisis and the demise but in fact the industry has got a fantastic future. And we need to talk more about the business skills. As we move, develop and grow, how do we actually get the business skills to our farming families? That includes working with farmers as employers. They are some of the issues that the Alpine Valleys farmers are working on.

I want to move on to an amazing thing that this community did in addressing the crisis that we are facing in the dairy industry. Last Wednesday, a community meeting was called and 100 farming people turned up to that meeting including service providers and local government representatives. I was delighted to welcome the member for Mayo, representing the Nick Xenophon Team, who came and spoke about the Nick Xenophon Team's agricultural policy. I have to say how well she was received. Thank you, member for Mayo, for coming, and we really look forward to working with you as you develop your agricultural policies. There is a lot in what you have got to offer us.

As a result of that meeting, I was asked to bring a number of issues to Canberra. The representatives wanted a clear vision of how community groups like the Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project can actually work with government. They said, 'But, Cathy, where do we fit? Where is government going to work with us? What is the connectivity here between a community group that has got all the industry together in a region and the Commonwealth government?' They were so right because there is no connectivity. What do they do? How can they have input into the industry when there is no place for them? They need a clear vision for links between government, industry and community groups.

The representatives also asked for a strategic approach for all levels of education. They see that educating not only farmers but the workforce is going to be key for the future. The Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project, I have to commend them. They have done a fantastic job working with Tallangatta high school not only in getting educational programs out onto the farms but also in building with the careers teacher an understanding of all the other fantastic jobs that go with agriculture—the science, the marketing, the manufacturing, the distribution, the education, the international trade—that we can offer in rural and regional Australia if and when we have a growing agricultural sector.

Education is really important as is investment in the next generation. There is no shortage of young people who want to come to agriculture and be involved in the industry but the how is a real challenge. So one of the projects that the Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathway Project is working on is farm succession and transition. How can you provide security for the older farmers who want to stay a little bit in agriculture through maybe share farming, helping with the financing, so we get the new generation coming in and get the transfer of skill and knowledge and all that wonderful culture of our community passed on to a new generation. The Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathway Project is actively working there.

I want to put some data on the table about how important the dairy industry is already in my electorate and what enormous potential it has to grow. In Indi, just in the north-east, 80 per cent of the arable land is used by the dairy industry. It is 30 per cent of the farm gate income, which is huge. We have got over 750 effective full-time local jobs working on farm, in manufacturing and in the service industry. That is not inconsiderable, 750 jobs. We estimate that is over $380 million into the supply chain so this is a really significant industry.

While we are going through change, there is opportunity. It does not have to be the end. I really support this debate today to say, okay, the farm household allowance is a stopgap measure to provide a safety net but where is the plan? Where do we want the dairy industry to grow to? That is the main thing I want to talk about today. The Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project have got a plan to lift performance of all farmers up to the top 25 per cent. They are really focusing on people, engagement, knowledge transfer and new skills. They are implementing their workforce strategy, bringing kids out of school and talking about where the jobs are. They are actually working on farm succession and transition and have a target of 50 per cent of farm family businesses having a strategy in place. What an innovation that is: actually working with your farmers—and that is all your farmers, your young farmers and your oldies—to have a transition scheme in place now so that you can bring people with you; you can have the change; and you can grow your industry.

And they are really actively working on the schools engagement process. I am a great fan, clearly, of education and how important it is. It needs to happen at schools. It needs to happen in vocational education and training. And we need then to work with our universities to make sure that we have the degree courses and the pathways through. I am delighted to say that we do have that in Indi. We have great work happening with La Trobe University and CSU. It is good to have you there.

But finally my comments are these. We have an opportunity with the dairy industry. Sure, it is going through a crisis, but we will move through that. With the right partnership and the right vision from government about how we can work together, we can really grow this industry.

In closing: representatives from this community meeting will be in parliament in the week of 20 March. I look forward to bringing them to Canberra, introducing them to the relevant ministers and their staff and talking about how we can take this fantastic model and grow it in my electorate but also take it to those other electorates throughout Australia that need a bit of a road map about how they can move from crisis to growth. The Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project is doing the work. It is growing businesses, and it is growing leaders.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to talk about the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017, but I want to start off with a little tact, and that is to say that farmers do not want support. Farmers do not want support.

Ms McGowan interjecting—

Hold on. If you talk to the average farmer, you will find that, when they set out, they do not set out to be reliant upon the government. They do not set out to try to seek support. What they set out to do is something that is unique, and that is to turn water, sunshine, soil and effort into profitability.

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

Into wine!

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some of that profitability is in wine, as I hear the member for Gippsland say. Some of it is in grain. Some of it is in sheepmeat. Some of it is in wool. Some of it is in so many different agricultural products that we are blessed with a very, very rich agricultural land.

I can talk a little bit about this because I am a farmer—I am still a farmer—and have at times applied for farmer support. I want to give a bit of an overview of the journey through that. But really what creates opportunity is doing two things—that is, increasing profit and decreasing cost. If you can address those two things, that is the first step. Farmer support is the ambulance at the bottom of the hill. What we want is the fence at the top of the hill. We want people to be able to make a profit from going about their farming activities.

When I was 16 we had some old wethers. Wethers, for those who do not know, are male sheep that have had an operation and are used for producing wool. We could not get 20c a head for those wethers. As a 16-year-old, I and my mate had to line up and shoot those sheep. We had to shoot those sheep and put them in a hole. My dad could not bring himself to do it. In those days, we were exporting sheepmeat to 12 countries around the world. Not last year but the year before, when it was a drought, and just recently, last year, on my farm, I was able to sell old sheep with no teeth—no teeth because they are old; their teeth had fallen out, but they were very old—and I got $135 a head. We now export sheepmeat to 96 countries around the world.

There are some, particularly in the Pauline Hanson's One Nation party in the Senate, who will tell us that trade does not equal wealth. Well, I want to tell you that, when it comes to agricultural products, trade equals wealth. The thing you can do to help farmers, who do not really want support, is increase their opportunity for profit and decrease their costs. Across the Wimmera and Mallee, which are the area that I represent, arguably the best part of Victoria, certainly the best part of Australia, a lot better than Gippsland—

Mr Chester interjecting—

Gippsland is too hilly, too wet and too cold, whereas the Wimmera and Mallee, of course, have the mix of the Grampians in the south and also the lovely warm weather in the north. They have been huge beneficiaries of the free trade agreements. We have seen table grapes go from 12 shipping containers to 34 shipping containers a year and now all the way up to nearly 1,000 shipping containers, with $190,000 worth of table grapes in a shipping container. We have seen citrus that is now very profitable as we are benefiting from the counterseasonal horticulture. We have seen prime lamb prices now at record levels, up to $8 a kilogram. I sold mine the other day for $6.20, and I am giving Barnaby a hard go. He is the agriculture minister; he should have got me $8! But we are seeing huge profitability.

At the same time, though, we are seeing our costs increase, and that is the challenge for us. We need to make sure that, wherever possible, we can reduce the costs of doing business. One of the things that are a cost particularly on the agricultural sector is electricity. There is a debate going on in this place about the reliability of electricity. You can only have an abattoir that can work effectively if you have a good power supply. I saw this when I was in Argentina, a competitor country for us for meatworks. As the slaughter works were going through, every now and then they would shut down. The power would shut down. Making sure that we can increase profits and decrease costs is essential.

But can I also say that there will always be farmers who exit the industry. Ever since the country was set up in soldier-settler properties, those properties have been consolidating and getting bigger. That is the challenge for us. There are some people who you will not help. But the other thing you have to remember is that the one thing that makes farmers profitable is their pride and their stubbornness. I think it is a great attribute of the Australian people but is also a challenge when we deal with issues of mental health across the farm sector. I was Vice President of the Victorian Farmers Federation through Black Saturday and then president through the floods, so I have seen what stress people can go through.

When we are working through the issue of the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill and how we actually implement this, it needs to be said that, when farmers go in to Centrelink, it is very confronting for them. They are proud people, and they feel at times somewhat of a failure for going in and applying for farm household allowance. I know this because in 2002 I was—let me think for a moment and work it out: I bought my farm in 1998, when I was 22, so that would make me 26 in 2002—in debt to my eyeballs with a working wife. The drought of 2002 was nothing like we have seen recently. I think 2002 was marginally less bad then 1982, but it was certainly a bad drought. I went into Centrelink. I felt very uncomfortable going into Centrelink. I had to come up with $90,000—I think off the top of my head—and I had no income. It was a bit of a challenge as to how I was going to keep the bank off my back. To Centrelink's credit they established that I was a farmer. They took me off to a separate area and said, 'Here's the paperwork. We can assist you going through the paperwork.' We did that, and I filled out the paperwork as well as I could. I did not get an accountant to fill out the paperwork. I did not have any money to pay an accountant. They assured me that it all looked pretty good and pretty proper. My wife was an occupational therapist. She was working, earning about $31,000 a year. I remember that because it was very pertinent, because at the time, because my wife was working, I was ineligible for anything. We were sent two letters saying we were ineligible because of that and because we were unviable. That was my interaction with the federal government. I took that letter and got a nail and an old grinder spanner, for anyone who has been to a shearing shed, and I nailed the letter to the shearing shed. I said, 'I'll prove to you who's unviable,' and went shearing, went working in a shearing shed, went rouseabouting—whatever I could. We managed to renegotiate with the bank and to find some money to scrape together for an interest-only payment and, lo and behold, I am still here and still have a profitable farm. I was viable.

Farmers do not seek out support, but there is value in having a system where we say to the farmers who are doing their best to turn water, sunshine, soil and effort into profitability that we are walking the journey with them. Of course, farm household assistance in the context of the budget that you lay out as a farmer is not a lot of money. It does not even touch the sides, but it does give some reassurance to some of those people who are hardworking Australians that we believe in what they are doing. We cannot turn our back on people. There does need to be a farm household support package.

These amendments are good. My office deals with a lot of desperate people who come in at times. We have been finding that the farm household support package has been a bit of a dogs breakfast. It has not changed that much from when I applied for it in 2002, in that people would go through all the paperwork and there was a long lag time with assessment. They would not feel that they had a government that was walking the journey with them. These amendments, frankly, should be supported by every side of the parliament. I hope that these amendments are not partisan, because they are simply about making it quicker for a person who is eligible to access assistance. When you are walking that journey you do not always think clearly, I have to say. It is confronting to have to bury your pride a little bit and go and talk to Centrelink. But if there is a lag time and it is so long and then it is just a complete balls up in trying to fill it in, that does not send a very good message. These amendments will make it a lot quicker.

Australia has never been very good at developing a proper drought policy. If you look at the history of the Commonwealth, you will see that for 117 droughts have come and droughts have gone, but we have not developed a very good drought policy. I think we still do not have one, but I believe there are a few things we should look at very seriously. I believe the purpose of seasonal insurance is something that has not been given enough emphasis, but there are packages that are starting to be developed. For example, on your farm business you might write out cheques for $250,000 to $300,000 to put a crop in. There you go, you have just laid $300,000 on the gambling table. The packages that are being developed are along the lines of your having to pay for an outlay like that about $10,000 in additional insurance premiums. If the season was a decile 1 year—a year when you do not get even your input cost back—you would get that $300,000 back. You are not hedging your profit; you are simply hedging your input cost. That is something that we need to provide some more support towards as we think through what is a good drought assistance package for Australia.

Our government has increased farm management deposits from $400,000 to $800,000. That has been a welcome increase because for some farmers that is not even the trading outlay for a 12-month period. I guess where we want to land ultimately is that if a farmer is thinking through their business schedule they should put some money aside as an insurance package so that they can get their input cost in a bad season and they should have some farm management deposits, which would allow that farmer to cover the interest component for 12 months in a drought year. Then, what I think would be a very worthwhile response, we could look at paying half the shire rates of landholders who are actively farming. It is equitable, it is simple to administer and it has been done before. Ultimately, if you want to instil an example of working with the farm sector, you would just go: 'Right, your farm rates bill this year is $10,000—that is what it normally is. We recognise that you're in a roaring drought. We're going to give you a farm rates bill of $5,000.' So effectively the federal government would be subsidising the local councils. It would keep the money in the local districts. It is a very simple way of doing that. It requires fewer bureaucrats in Canberra to administer it. The only thing you would have to make sure of is that the rates burden is also being passed on to lessors of ground, so the person who is actively farming receives the benefit. But I think, ultimately, you would do something towards helping the farm sector set up for the future.

Farmers do not want support. They do not actively seek support. They actively seek the opportunity to create profit from their hard work, from the soil, from the water, from the sunshine. We are very blessed to have Australian farmers. We stand beside them when they have got difficult times. But, ultimately, the decisions we set up in here should be more about creating opportunities and reducing costs than focusing just on farm household support.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on and support the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017. I must note that it is pleasing to see the government working to address the issues that many have raised with me in relation to the farm household allowance. The complexity of the scheme has been a thorn in the side of farmers in my electorate and across the country.

The future of agriculture is something that is of particular interest and concern to me. My electorate is mostly rural and contains what I believe is the best agricultural produce in Australia. As I have often said in this House, we have apples, pears, cherries, strawberries and also beef, sheep and a range of crops. We certainly consider ourselves the food bowl of South Australia. I have seven different wine regions in my electorate as well—and they are farmers too—and a large dairy industry with 93 dairy farmers within the borders of my electorate.

As has been discussed many times in this place, by 2050 world population is expected to reach 10 billion people. That will provide a great challenge to our farmers, particularly as Australia's population is expected to be around 50 million, but I believe it also provides tremendous opportunity for the agricultural sector. But there is no doubt it is a sector with a number of challenges and that it is also in transition.

I have spoken at length about the future I see for Australian agriculture and how, if we put the right measures in place now, we will all benefit tremendously in the future. One of those benefits is supporting our farmers, because we really are on the verge of a great dining boom. For the last two decades, the Australian agricultural industry has been overshadowed by mining, yet the most recent statistics show more than 300,000 people are employed in agriculture, forestry and fishing nationwide compared to 230,000 people employed in mining. For too long, I believe, our farmers have been a forgotten driver of our economy and somewhat of an afterthought when we have times of great adversity. I think it is fair to say that governments of all persuasions have often been slow to act. It is time that this parliament and our nation paid better attention to farmers.

This bill begins to address the issues that have plagued the farm household allowance program. Farmers that I have spoken to talk about the complexity of applying for support and the lost productivity on account of having to be filling in applications and stressing about them rather than working the land. I applaud the government for recognising some of the flaws of the scheme.

This bill helps existing farmers by removing the waiting periods that apply to farm household allowance and ensures that anyone who is deemed eligible can access the payment immediately instead of waiting, in some cases, up to 14 weeks for payment. Farmers are not unemployed jobseekers. They are often employers themselves, and these are commonsense changes that will support the industry. It is completely reasonable that those who are deemed eligible and therefore deemed as being in hardship can access support immediately.

This bill also makes commonsense changes to the assets test to include water rights and shares in marketing cooperatives as farm assets rather than nonfarm assets. This is a sensible change and will bring more clarity to applicants who to this point have been very confused—and quite rightly so—over the distinction between farm and nonfarm assets.

Last week, at the invitation of the member for Indi, I visited Wodonga in Victoria. Whilst there I addressed a meeting of local dairy farmers and spoke at length about the challenges facing the industry. One of the topics for discussion was the complexity of the application for farm household allowance. Again, I am so pleased to see that the government has taken steps to address these concerns, but there are many other concerns that I believe this parliament should also be considering.

Along with my colleague Senator Nick Xenophon, I have approached the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce, regarding the application of the farm household allowance in relation to aquaculture. As it stands, wild-catch fishers are not eligible to receive support and some have seen significant depletion of fish stocks due to issues beyond their control. You could almost say it is a drought of the sea. Yet owners of oyster farms and tuna pens are eligible. I see this as a gross inequity. Support for the industry means support for the whole industry, and wild-catch fishers are certainly not immune to the pressures of the environment in which they work.

For example, the Lower Lakes and Coorong fishers have been challenged by significant increase in numbers in native long-nosed fur seals in the waters off the bottom of my electorate. This causes indiscriminate damage to the fish that are caught in nets and the nets themselves. This has resulted in serious ongoing costs to fishers, their businesses and their households, and yet, because they operate without a right or interest in land, they do not receive the same support as other fishers or, indeed, land based primary producers.

In a broader sense, I will continue to encourage the government to address emerging and ongoing issues that farmers face. After speaking extensively with farmers in my own electorate and now with farmers in Victoria, it is clear that there are many issues that cross state lines.

Farming is undergoing somewhat of a transition, as I said earlier, with the average age of a farmer now 54 years, and that is only increasing. There is no point of a boom in agriculture if there is no-one around on the farm to work. We need to put strategies in place to entice younger generations into the industry, and I believe this starts in the schoolyard.

My attention has been drawn to a program currently operating out of Mansfield Secondary College in Victoria that allows year 9 and 10 students to obtain vocational qualifications in agriculture by pairing them with local farmers who are providing mentoring to them. The students spend one day per week on a farm doing practical work and study geography and agscience in schools. Not only does this greatly beneficial for the students; but the farmers who have been involved so far are delighted with the program. It is great to see young hands on a farm, and it has wide-reaching benefits, including strengthening of ties in rural community ties and showing students that there is a viable career to be pursued in agriculture. Programs such as these, I believe, should be supported by the parliament and by the government, so that we can build the next generation. If we create the conditions that enable success, Australian farmers will thrive under their own steam, just like they always have.

I think many here are aware of the number of issues facing dairy farmers in particular. Since the deregulation of Australia's dairy industry in 1999, the number of dairy farmers has decreased and the volume of production has decreased from more than 11 billion litres in 2002 to nine billion litres in 2010. This is despite Australia's population growing. I want to see the dairy industry growing and thriving, not shrinking. I fear that the ongoing supermarket price war will have a deep impact on the industry. I meet with dairy farmers who are up at dawn for the first milking, and when the sun goes down they are still milking. They are often the farmers who are seeking this farm household assistance. It is just not right. My colleague Senator Xenophon is currently involved in the Senate Standing Committee on Economics inquiry into the dairy industry, and we all are awaiting their final report on 30 March.

As I said earlier, dairy is a significant industry in my electorate. Just like what we are doing here, the government recognised that the industry needed support and implemented the dairy concessional loans scheme. But, while these are federally funded, they are managed by the states, and this has led to inconsistency in application and process. In my state, the dairy concessional loans have been underutilised. I believe this is, in part, due to the state government refusing to consider water allocations and livestock as part of the land value when assessing eligibility. This is quite different to the Tasmanian government's administration of the same scheme, in which both water rights and livestock are assessed. This means that a farm's asset pool—means they have a much greater chance of being able to apply for the concessions loan scheme. I am advocating for these to be added as part of a federal government directive to the states to allow greater access to the loan scheme. We are also advocating strongly for dairy farmers who are outside of Fonterra and Murray Goulburn contracts to also have access to assistance as low farmgate prices are affecting every farmer, not just those connected with Murray Goulburn or Fonterra.

I think it is important to remember that farmers are not looking for a handout. That is certainly not what this bill does. All of the farmers I speak to pride themselves on not leaning on government subsidies like their Japanese, US and European counterparts do. At the same time, it is our responsibility as elected representatives to ensure that we do all we can to support industries in time of need. These measures do that, and I commend the government for introducing them.

John McVeigh (Groom, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017. Before I speak on that, though, I just wanted to remind the House of the background to the act that these amendments apply to. Before the coalition introduced the farm household allowance through the Farm Household Support Act 2014, the House should remember that there was no payment generally available to farmers in hardship outside of what was known as 'exceptional circumstances'. Exceptional circumstances declarations were abolished by the former Labor government such that farmers throughout Australia had no trigger upon which to seek support whilst their families and their businesses were in temporary hardship.

Successive reviews of policy over the years recommended that the government establish a hardship payment that is available at all times, not just during drought. These include the 2009 Productivity Commission report on government drought support, the 2011 review of the Western Australia drought pilot and the 2013 intergovernmental agreement on national drought program reform, a process in which I participated, formerly having agriculture responsibilities in Queensland. In that role at the time, I knew full well—when our state was dealing with unprecedented drought on top of a significant bushfire season in North Queensland across some of the extensive pastoral holdings, leading up into the cape for example, and of course the continued backlash from the former Labor government's decision about the live cattle export trade to Indonesia—that our state LNP government at the time stood up to support farmers, with an unprecedented package for those needing assistance, given all of those circumstances. I remember quite well when the bill that is the basis of these amendments was debated in this House in 2014. On behalf of Queensland farmers at the time and graziers, and those even in my own region of the Darling Downs, I thanked the coalition government then and I do so again now as a member of that coalition government.

The farm household allowance is not just about drought. It recognises farm families can experience difficulty in different ways and at different times. The allowance is delivered by the Department of Human Services and is paid fortnightly at a rate equivalent to Newstart allowance or youth allowance for those under 22 years of age. A healthcare card is provided to recipients and support is also provided through a dedicated case manager to help recipients assess their situation and, most importantly, to develop a plan for the future. Eligible farmers and their partners are able to access up to three years of payment. That is designed to give farm families time to get back on their feet and have the opportunity to take steps to improve their circumstances—as I said, based on a plan for the future.

Here we are now at a stage where, based on ongoing consultation regarding farm household allowance, the government has continued to listen to the concerns of farmers and is, therefore, introducing these amendments. They are about, as we have heard, improving the delivery of the payments to make it easier for those who are experiencing hardship, whilst appropriately maintaining a robust application and assessment process.

The amendments will more precisely define the farm assets used in the running of these farm businesses that are under pressure—such as water assets and shares in farming cooperatives—when assessing eligibility. When determining the eligibility, they will be properly treated in the same light as land, equipment and machinery that are simply needed to run a farm business. As we have heard, they remove the requirement to serve an ordinary liquid assets waiting period before people can receive payment. Therefore, those in need will now be able to receive payments at the earliest possible opportunity.

I certainly am pleased that thus far the Farm Household Support Scheme has provided support to a significant number of farmers, farm families and their partners right across the country. In my own state of Queensland, very recent statistics indicate that 2,014 farming operations have been granted the assistance of a farm household allowance under the Farm Household Support Scheme during the life of the scheme. That is about 30 per cent of those granted across the nation. I am advised that, at present, we have 1,293 farming families in Queensland receiving assistance. That is about 25 per cent of the national figure. That is particularly important. That ongoing assistance right across the country is very much appreciated, certainly in my region.

I noted earlier that the member for Hunter suggested in his speech that farmers do not want assistance or loans. We certainly know that farmers would prefer not to have to seek assistance or be offered assistance from the government, but the circumstances that prevail in some of our farming operations and businesses across the nation—and they are the lifeblood of our nation, the lifeblood of our international trade, as current statistics prove—are such that assistance does need to be provided to support them, to support regional communities and to support our economy. I remind the member for Hunter that we have delivered $622 million in approved loans to 1,161 farmers. Prior to our coming to office, only eight loans had been granted under Labor.

On the other side of the coin, in terms of future development for agriculture, he also suggested, especially in his reference to horticulture, that we have no plans to open trade. I think I can fairly say that no more ridiculous statement has been made in this House, because the simple facts are that we have delivered three key free trade agreements. We have ensured that new import protocols enabling nectarines to be imported into China from Australia are in place. New protocols for table grapes in 2014 resulted in a 244 per cent increase in exports to Japan in the 2015 year, and new protocols in September 2016 for melons and pumpkins imported into Japan benefit 380 rockmelon, watermelon and honeydew melon growers and about 800 pumpkin growers. We are seeing similar protocols being achieved for horticulture, particularly citrus, imported into Korea.

The comments from the member for Hunter are typical of those opposite who do not understand what it is like to be under pressure in regional communities throughout our country. They do not understand, as this side of the House does, what it is like to stand with farmers who suffer from bushfires—as I did in North Queensland a few years ago—and to stand with them on their drought-affected properties and their flooded properties. These are farmers who say, 'We don't want to put our hand out. We just want to remain productive. But please keep us going such that we can support our families, our towns, our communities, our states and the national economy.'

When the coalition government came to power in 2013 there was simply an empty cupboard on drought policy. Labor had abolished the longstanding exceptional circumstances drought support policy. Not only that, it had effectively cut the department of agriculture's budget in half. They abolished Land & Water Australia, for example, and threatened the longstanding policy of matching farmers' research and development levies to support our research and development corporations. People should remember that it was Labor who asked the Productivity Commission to review the rural research and development system in our country. Clearly, they wanted to access those taxpayer funds contributed by producers so they could go towards their other priorities, which certainly would not have considered farmers or regional Australia.

By contrast, the coalition government has confirmed that farmers' research and development funds will be prioritised. The funds of those levy payers will be prioritised towards projects with the intention of boosting farmgate returns. We have strengthened the R&D system, and here I refer, amongst other things, to the $190 million Rural Research and Development for Profit initiative.

It is particularly important to reflect on the fact that during this debate many speakers have mentioned that farmers are not looking for assistance. They do not want to have to put their hand out, but because we, as a community and as a nation, depend on them and depend on their productivity going forward, we recognise—and they ultimately recognise—that we need to keep those businesses going, hence my reference to R&D support for agriculture from the coalition government. That is the important other side of the coin, if you like. Sure, we need to step up and provide support when support is necessary in times of drought, flood and other circumstances that from time to time provide great crisis conditions throughout regional Australia in this great country. But, at the same time, we must continue to drive productivity.

I have stood with farmers, I have stood with graziers—and I can refer to many examples in Central Queensland—who, with tears in their eyes, with their teenage children home from school because they cannot afford the expense of keeping them at school in their senior years because they cannot afford to employ anyone else to assist them on the farm, have said to me: 'John, we don't want to ask but we do need some help. Help us through and, most particularly, please continue to focus on productivity in agriculture throughout Australia, with research and development, be it in our cotton industry, our horticulture industry or our grains and beef industries, particularly in the north, where this government is so focused on the development of Northern Australia, such that we can continue to support the economy of Australia as it drives trade and as it drives relationships with those countries who are demanding our product. Please continue those trade relationships as well.' That is what they have said to me. That is what farmers, graziers, horticultural producers and dairy farmers all across this country who encounter difficult circumstances from time to time are saying to our government, and that is why our government is standing up and continuing to deliver for them.

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

I, like the other people on the Labor side, on this side of the House, am here to say that we do support the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017 that is before us today, but I want to point out that it has been a long time coming. We knew that this was an issue, that farmers were struggling to have access to farm household assistance. We knew that they were having issues with this back in 2014. We asked several questions of the minister back in 2014. But rather than addressing the concerns that farmers were raising, that rural financial counselling services were raising and that organisations were raising back in 2014, what the minister did back then was embellish his answer in question time and then try and change Hansard. We all remember Hansardgate. What this minister was trying to do was cover up what was actually going on in this sector.

The fact is that we have a broader problem with Centrelink. The fact is that we have a broader problem with staffing levels within Centrelink, and yet the government has chosen to ignore them since they were first raised. Back in 2014, when this side raised those questions, the minister dismissed them and did nothing until this moment. I cannot believe it has taken three years for this issue to finally be addressed in the House, through amendments to the legislation, to make it easier for our farmers to access this assistance. What was happening then in my part of the world was that our rural financial counselling service was one of the organisations raising concerns about the blow-out in time lines and that farmers were struggling to get support under this system. Rather than listening and taking on board those legitimate concerns, what people might remember is that the minister at the time had a review of financial counselling services. As a result of that review, we lost our rural financial counselling service based in Bendigo. So the people who raised the issue on behalf of the farmers—because the farmers were struggling to get access to their allowance—are no longer in a job. This government reviewed financial counselling services and then, all of a sudden, the service that raised this issue was no longer in service. So, in our part of the world, we are very concerned about the support and the counselling services that people in our region are now receiving, because this government has restructured and reorganised financial counselling services. Rather than admitting that there were problems back in 2014, that was the kind of trick that this government got up to. It is sad to see that it has taken so long for the government to acknowledge that there are faults in this program.

I have had the great opportunity and privilege of meeting a number of our dairy farmers just to the north of the Bendigo area, in regional Victoria. We do not distinguish ourselves based upon artificial electoral boundaries; that is something which we may organise ourselves on, but it is not how our communities organise. I have had the opportunity to meet with dairy farmers in the Gunbower area and with people in the dairy industry around Cohuna. What they say to me loudly and clearly is very similar to what the member for Hunter said, and that is that they do not want loans. Sure, at the moment, they may need to seek loans, but they actually do not want them. They want a sustainable dairy industry. They want this place and this government to get behind them and to help them, not to take three years to make amendments to legislation. Some of them now say they do not need help, but there is a new set of farmers that do need help.

Just how long were some of the wait times that farmers had been experiencing? When I spoke to people in the Murray Valley area in Gunbower, some of them were waiting five to six months to receive assistance. As the member for Mallee said, these are proud people. These are people who have worked really hard. They are proud people, and so for them to walk through that Centrelink door is a hard thing to do—absolutely. And they should not have to wait such a long time to receive support and assistance from their government. I also want to say that any worker who has to fall back onto our safety net is a proud person. For any worker to lose their job, to have a cut-back in hours or to be made redundant, it is very hard to walk through the Centrelink door that first time. Some of the comments from our farmers about how demoralising it has been, how heartbreaking it has been and how hard it has been are the same comments being made by other people who find themselves having to fall back on our safety net.

I am disappointed that this government does not treat workers who have been made redundant or workers who have had their hours cut with the same level of respect and compassion with which they treat our farmers. I call on the government to treat all people requiring the support of Centrelink with the same dignity and respect that they are calling for for our farmers. It does not matter whether you are a retrenched manufacturing worker or a farmer who has been crippled by Murray Goulburn milk prices, you deserve the same dignity and respect. You deserve to have the Centrelink phone call that you make answered in a timely fashion. You deserve to have your Centrelink form processed in a timely fashion and not have to wait five to six months like our farmers and like other people seeking assistance have had to do.

This is a bill that does support our farmers and our farming community—great people who have worked really hard and continue to work hard who do need the support of our social welfare system through moments of hardship, whether it be drought or whether it be a crisis like Murray Goulburn, as we have seen just to the north of the Bendigo electorate—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Bendigo will be given an opportunity to complete her contribution then.