House debates

Monday, 21 November 2011

Bills

Police Overseas Service (Territories of Papua and New Guinea) Medal Bill 2011; First Reading

6:43 pm

Photo of Dick AdamsDick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity that Dr Stone has provided to speak about the Exceptional Circumstances Exit Grants program, as my state, as well as many others, of course, has been through some most devastating drought periods in recent years. Fortunately, that has been relieved to a certain extent in Tasmania and, I believe, in other parts of the country as well. And, of course, we have seen flooding in some areas in the last year or two. But I do understand that there are some cases of people who took it very hard during that period and have had to continue to make decisions about their farming future. Firstly, I would like to say that the Gillard government has stood by rural and regional Australia throughout the drought and that it will continue to support rural and regional Australia. As most people have now gathered, improved seasonal conditions have brought relief to farmers and to rural Australia. The area of agricultural land declared under exceptional circumstances fell from 26.1 per cent of Australia in June 2010 to only 0.3 per cent in June 2011, which is a great relief to many people on the land.

ABARES is forecasting a strong outlook in 2011-12, with positive crop and export forecasts. This includes positive projections for grain, rice, cotton, livestock, fisheries and forestry. However, the government knows that some people are still doing it tough after years of drought and has provided assistance to manage the transition, and there always is the transition period. The government has provided EC exit grants. These were set up at a capped amount, and many were taken up. Funding of $9.6 million was allocated in this year's federal budget, and additional funding was provided, taking the total amount available to around $14 million. As at 30 September 2011, 504 farmers have received EC exit grants since the program commenced in 2007, and a number of applications are still being assessed and finalised.

This program was designed to assist those in severe financial difficulties whose farms were located in an exceptional circumstances declared area and who had decided to leave the land. Just as this government stood by farmers during the drought, it will continue to stand by them as it works to reform drought assistance. The Gillard government has provided significant support for farmers in exceptional circumstances declared areas. Last year, expenditure on EC assistance was almost $400 million, and this included exceptional circumstances relief payments to over 12,000 households and an exceptional circumstances interest rate subsidy to over 5,000 businesses.

EC grants are just one assistance program; there are other forms of assistance available to farmers experiencing hardship. They include transitional and income support, which is available to eligible farmers, regardless of location or industry, who are in need short-term income support to assist in the recovery from drought and to help them to manage the impacts of changing climate.

Closing the program when the funds were fully subscribed has not reduced the number of people assisted. Any person who believes they have been adversely affected by the closure of the EC exit grant program is entitled to seek a review or to appeal, and this can be done through Centrelink standing practices. Additionally, redress can be sought through an act of grace claim. Under the act of grace rules, each case will be considered on its merits and the government is encouraging people to apply so that their case can be assessed.

The honourable member for Murray might note that, in 2008, the Productivity Commission report on government drought support clearly stated that exit grants are inefficient and should be used only sparingly. In fact, it recommended that exit grants be terminated through transitional arrangements. That is why the government has been trialling drought reform measures in Western Australia, a key part of which is an exit grant system that is designed to move farmers from a crisis-management approach to risk management and to increase skills and training. The national review of drought policy found that the current system of exceptional circumstances does not represent best practice when it comes to helping farmers manage the risks associated with drought and climate variability.

Once again, the task of preparing the Australian farm sector for the future is left to a Labor government, after 11 years of inaction and inefficient programs from the coalition. If the coalition had their way, farmers and primary producers would be locked into a cycle of debt from which they could not escape. There has to be more than handouts when those on the land are facing exceptional circumstances. There must be a means by which farmers and land managers can be assisted to adjust to changes in weather patterns, which are likely to continue through ongoing climate change. The do-nothing attitude of the coalition when it comes to drought assistance and helping to find better models with which to support Australian farmers is simply galling to me. The other side never gets on a positive foot; they always oppose and are negative. They are always saying that there is no future, that the government is always doing it wrong and that we can never achieve anything et cetera. That is not true. We do need to change and look at the risk management processes and get away from just piling on the debt or looking for total handouts when it comes to drought. We need to find a way to support enterprises that are productive and that can deal with changing weather conditions.

Rural and regional Australia can see through the cheap tricks that the Liberals are playing with drought policy. When it comes to reforming drought assistance and boosting our agriculture productivity, it is Labor that is doing all the heavy lifting. And it is Labor members, through their committee work, who get in with the minister and make things happen in a positive way for rural Australia, because we look at the rural industries as industry and we work towards making them better industries in the interests of Australia.

I know that the member for Murray is really interested in the plight of her farmers. I would not deny that; I know that she is very passionate about that and would endeavour to do what she can to further assist them. As I said, there are circumstances that can be followed. I would also say to the member for Mallee that he should follow that course where he can for his constituents who might need the assistance. I believe that we can assist many through the process if they are on the edge, but we cannot continue to have a total process. We must endeavour to learn from the Western Australian pilot program. We must endeavour to train people to get enterprises onto the front foot, to understand risk, to understand how to change and drought-proof a property and how to deal with a lack of rain, as this country has ever since it has been settled by white people. We need to go that way and not hang on to some of the old ways of yesterday.

The government is working by helping the rural industries transition to other land uses and occupations, and there are avenues to assist individuals who are not coping and who need extra assistance; the opportunities are there. But if people need to move on they need to move on and decisions have to be made. It is not an easy decision. It is never an easy decision. I have had some in my electorate who went through difficult times. With a change in pricing of produce and properties not big enough to make things pay, people have to make a hard decision. So I cannot and will not support this motion but I am glad I have had the opportunity to speak about it.

Comments

No comments