Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

The opposition has supported every proposition the government has put forward in this place in order to assist our drought affected farmers in this most difficult time. I refer members to my second reading contribution where I outlined what I believe are the deficiencies in the government's approach and what Labor's alternative approaches would be. Suffice to say that I believe that the government has been a little late to the party on drought assistance and has been somewhat less strategic in its response.

In the second reading amendment just defeated by the government members, including members of the National Party, I did two things. The second proposition was just a general criticism of the government's approach to drought assistance, but the first was an invitation to the government to allow eligible farmers to secure the up-to-$12,000 payment in the first tranche. That is, rather than having the payment happen in two tranches, over the last quarter of this year and the first quarter of next year, we don't see any reason why drought affected farmers facing dramatic cash flow problems and growing debt shouldn't be able to access the full payment up front.

A number of things have made me somewhat curious about these changes to the farm household allowance. They remain a little bit of a mystery to members of the opposition. The first is the very amount. How were the $12,000, $6,000 and $3,000 amounts arrived at? What assessments did the government undertake to determine they are the most appropriate amounts to go to farmers? More important is the logic behind the split. Why is it $6,000 over two tranches rather than $12,000 up front? Then there is the timing of the applications. I would ask the minister, if he can, to provide responses to those questions. I would also ask him how many farmers are currently the recipients of farm household allowance. I understand it's in order of 1,700 or so farmers. More particularly, what is the fiscal impact of the amendment that he's moved this morning? We have another example now of the government moving amendments to its own legislation, five minutes after that legislation was introduced. I further ask him: what is the actual impact of the amendment that has been put forward today in terms of the recipients securing the payment?

There are those who will be now able to apply because of the increase in assets test. The original application date—the date the application opened—was 1 November. The first question to the minister is: why was it 1 November in the first place? Why will it now be 1 September? The opposition has no difficulty in allowing farmers easier access to the payments. In fact, that has been our criticism for four years: the difficulties farmers face in securing income support. But why is it now 1 September when it was originally 1 December? Why was it 1 December? Are there any impediments, notwithstanding the new application date, in delivering those payments to farmers? In other words, will the move from 1 December to 1 September ensure farmers get the payment any earlier?

See this speech in context