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

I will go through the issues that were raised in the order in which they were raised. Given the sensitivity of some of the issues, I do not want to scan over them, so I may have to request a second or third call to be able to work through all the issues. I first of all want to thank all members for their questions and their contributions, particularly for the sensitivity with which the EC issues were raised. Governments of each side have provided assistance to people very genuinely in need and often in some of the most desperate times of their lives. The way that sensitivity was shown on each side of the House is certainly appreciated.

The member for Hinkler raised EC extension issues, particularly with respect to the Burnett addendum. The best way to answer the member for Hinkler’s question is to explain in more detail than I have had the opportunity to do so in this place up until now the precise process that was followed in making those exceptional circumstances determinations. In all cases, the initial assessments made by the National Rural Advisory Committee were made under the current boundaries—that is, the boundaries by area which had previously been the subject of determinations by the previous government, based on applications made to them by the state governments.

When the NRAC advice came back to me, there were two areas which were flagged by them. These were areas where they believed that the state governments in New South Wales and in Queensland may be invited to put forward new boundaries on a more restrictive basis. Given that NRAC determined the boundaries as they were, on balance they did not feel they could remain in EC, so they had to reject them. But they said to flag up in lights that should there be a resubmission by the state governments, they would be willing to have another look at it. The areas that NRAC flagged were the Ashy Downs area in Queensland and the Bourke-Brewarrina area in New South Wales. In advance of making the announcements, I provided advice to the opposition and to the different farming organisations in Queensland and in New South Wales. Following discussions with AgForce and the Queensland Farmers Federation, it was put in fairly strong terms that the Queensland government might be encouraged to also resubmit for the areas surrounding the Lockyer Valley and to have another look at the Burnett addendum. Even though those areas had not been flagged in the first instance by NRAC, they formed the basis of a new submission which came to us from the Queensland government. I referred that to NRAC for advice. NRAC, while they had flagged that there were two areas that they thought might be subject to new boundaries, they were presented with four. In each case, those new boundaries were boundaries that were put forward by the Queensland and New South Wales governments following initial rejection under the old boundaries. On looking at those four new boundaries once they had been provided, NRAC, within a 24-hour period, had been able to hold a meeting by teleconference and recommend that all four new boundaries be accepted for exceptional circumstances. An announcement was made within a very short space of time—I think maybe just over 24 hours—by me that the extensions had been made. That was the order of events.

It is easy for me to misrepresent the Queensland position and say the boundaries that they submitted cut out areas and, therefore, try to blame the states. The truth is that under the old boundaries NRAC had determined that, on balance, they could not be extended for EC and so the Queensland government had to put forward as best it could a new pitch for fresh boundaries with respect to the Burnett addendum. That is why we have ended up where we have. (Extension of time granted)

I think the problems which the member for Hinkler has referred to are real and they go to the fact that EC, as it currently is, and for the bipartisan support that it enjoys, is a system which is not entirely needs based. It is region based in the first instance and then needs based within that. That does create some of the problems to which the member refers. The fact that that is the technical way the system works provides no comfort at all to families who in a purely needs based system would have relief. The transitional income support payment goes a small part of the way there, but it goes nowhere near full EC relief. Certainly I hope that is one of the issues that the reviews currently underway will have a look at. I take in good faith and accept that, under the current regional based system, there will be people who would qualify under a purely needs based system who simply do not when lines are drawn on a map. Therefore, on the question that the member for Hinkler asked as to whether there is a belief that the drought has broken, the NRAC decisions are not whether or not the drought has broken; the NRAC decisions are whether or not they are now looking at a one in 20- to 25-year event and whether or not the recovery has begun. Within that framework, the determinations were made as recommendations to me. On each of the two rounds, I accepted all of NRAC’s recommendations.

The Leader of the Nationals asked further questions concerning EC declarations and made the point, which I take in good faith, that earlier would have been better. There is no doubt that is true. You want to give people as much notice as you possibly can. As I said in the chamber a couple of weeks ago, there is always a tension between having the assessment as early as possible and presuming that normal weather patterns will follow and having the assessments done later to make sure that they are accurate. The latter runs the risk of not giving people enough notice. I have been in correspondence with the Prime Minister, trying to work through ways that we can bring forward the dates. We are working through that, but we do not want a situation where the advice from Centrelink does not turn out to be the advice that people end up having to deal with.

The Centrelink delivery issues which have been raised in terms of delays on the $20,000 grants in irrigation areas is something that I will certainly refer to that agency, which has administration of it, rather than my own department. On the issue of SeaNet, as the Leader of the Nationals is aware, under Caring for our Country we are trying to move to a system where there are funding rounds for which people bid. We are close to announcing quite a large funding round. I have no doubt that SeaNet will be one of the groups wanting to participate in that. The process that we are going through is to have, as much as possible, a competitive tendering process which will hopefully then provide a better way of dealing with some of the issues that were raised by the Australian National Audit Office.

See this speech in context