Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I listened very closely and with interest to the member for Farrer’s speech on the Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 2009. She voiced some concerns about water, government buybacks et cetera which many people in the north of the state would share. I urge her to keep an eye on the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the way in which its board views the mandatory content provisions when they are developing the Murray-Darling Basin plan. Those provisions—and I think there are five pages of them in the act—were put in place by the former government. They do provide a number of guidelines for the planning process. They are ‘mandatory content’ and are not to be varied. I ask all people on the Murray-Darling to keep a very close eye on that because a number of areas in that planning process could have quite dramatic impacts on the farm sector, particularly the irrigation sector, if they are not adhered to in the appropriate fashion. The government may attempt to change some of those provisions or suggest to the authority or to the board that they go lightly on some of the mandatory content and not so lightly on others. It is something we all need to bear in mind.

We are debating today essentially the rural adjustment program and the reappointment of the National Rural Advisory Council committee. That has been in place for some time. This bill allows those people who have served an initial term to serve up to two terms longer in that role. Obviously, I and other speakers are supportive of that, but it does give all of us the opportunity to talk about what is happening in drought funding and drought policy. NRAC was set up by the previous government and has carried on during this government’s term under the same guidelines. This is one of the first changes we have seen and it is a positive change in my view.

NRAC has had oversight of drought policy. Drought policy has really been driven over the last decade or longer now by what has been called ‘exceptional circumstances’—exceptional events in terms of climate and how they trigger certain assistance from the government. The member for Goldstein, who has just left the chamber, would well remember when he was with the National Farmers Federation back in the 1980s that, prior to exceptional circumstances, drought was considered under natural disaster auspices. Given that the government is reviewing drought policy generally, it should have a close look at the previous natural disaster policies because there may be something to be learnt from the past.

I have argued from time to time that exceptional drought—not just a dry spell—should be considered in a similar fashion to other natural disasters, such as the Darwin cyclone, the incident that occurred in North Queensland, the Newcastle earthquake, the Sydney hailstorm and the Wollongong mudslide, where there were all sorts of arguments with insurance companies. In those natural disasters governments of different persuasions have come in to assist people, as they should. What we have tended to do with drought policy is say that a one-in-25-year or a one-in-50-year drought is just a business risk that you have to accept and take on board.

I have raised from time to time a solution to that. A hailstorm is a natural disaster, and there was assistance for those people. Cyclones are no different to droughts in that they occur occasionally. There might only be one in 100 years, but people have not put aside money to make sure that they can replace the building they are in. The insurance companies create havoc and a whole range of other things happen at those times. We need to view natural disasters in a slightly different way and establish a national natural disaster fund. If all taxpayers set aside a sum of money, when a natural disaster did strike—whether it be in the city or the country, or whether it be a massive cyclone event or a mudslide at Coffs Harbour or Wollongong—we would have a fund that was depoliticised to the extent that it was triggered under certain circumstances.

An extreme drought—and in my view it would probably be more extreme than that which triggers exceptional circumstances—would trigger some assistance, as would an extreme hail event across Sydney that caused massive amounts of damage. A dollar a week from every Australian raises a billion dollars in a year. I am not suggesting that we are going to take a dollar a week from every child, but it highlights the capacity to raise a lot of money with very little coming from each individual. We could set aside $2 billion or have a fund for which the amount paid in was reduced when it reached a certain level—there is a word for that which I cannot think of.

If we carried out a survey of the insurance companies and looked at what natural disasters have cost the nation—bearing in mind that they cost the individuals who are impacted on much more significantly than they cost the nation, but anyone of us can be in a situation in which an unfortunate event occurs—we would find that there have been only two years since the early 1970s in which natural disasters have cost more than $1 billion. That is the information that I have been able to obtain. Most times, on average natural disasters cost the nation somewhere between $200 million and $300 million—20c to 30c a week from every Australian would cover such events through a depoliticised national natural disaster fund.

With climate change and a whole range of things, such as the tightening of the insurance markets and global economic markets, I suggest we look closely at how we are going to fund these events—not only in terms of droughts—into the future and how we are going to decouple them from the political process. There have been a number of circumstances in which an election has been around the corner, a disaster has occurred and government aid has gone in because it is a marginal seat, whereas for a similar disaster somewhere else people have been left to themselves to argue with the insurance companies. It is something we should have a close look at.

Within the electorate of New England, the drought has ebbed and flowed, as it has in most electorates. We have been relatively well off in recent years. I say that knowing full well that the areas around Bundarra and Dundee, which I am sure the press gallery—and it is good to see so many of them here—are well aware of, are still in my view suffering from the impacts of drought. I have been in contact with the minister and I appreciate what he has done. NRAC, the advisory council, has reviewed those circumstances and given a negative recommendation to the minister. But I put on record that there are areas within regions that are still subject to drought even though the majority of some of those regions are in a relatively good position.

That highlights one of the underlying problems with this. If an area applies for exceptional circumstances, for instance, and there are sub-areas within it that have had relatively good rainfall and pasture growth or cropping events, they can rule each other out. Occasionally, making applications for quite large areas has been to the detriment of the smaller areas within them which have been greatly impacted and are still in drought.

I give credit to Keith Perrett, who is not in my electorate but not far from it. I know Keith quite well. He has been the chairman of NRAC, which is not an easy job, but is one that he and his board have done within the guidelines that were set up by the previous government and carried on by the present government, given some of the blemishes in those guidelines and the criticisms from time to time that come from people within the various areas who believe they should still be accessing exceptional circumstances payments.

I also pay credit to an adviser of mine, a chap called Spot Cunningham, who is an expert on land use and drought, and an Indigenous associate of his, Terry Doolan. Terry is well versed in some of the Indigenous practices in land use that were carried on before white man arrived. I spent some time with Terry in the electorate of the member for Parkes.

See this speech in context