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

The Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2019 will amend the Farm Household Support Act 2014 to maintain the farm assets value limit at $5 million. It will also amend the treatment of income from business, such as allowable deductions that can be claimed against related income—that is, either income from the farm enterprise or income from a business other than the farm enterprise and income earned by the farm household allowance. The farm assets value limit was set at $5 million until 30 June 2019 and this bill will put it in place infinitem.

I move:

That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

'whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House criticises the Government’s lack of action to assist drought-affected farmers including those who have experienced difficulty accessing the Farm Household Allowance since the scheme’s commencement in July 2014'.

This bill is the most recent example, despite what the minister was just saying at the close of question time, of this government's clumsy and protracted and inadequate approach to drought policy. The debate today follows the Prime Minister's less than inspiring address—nor was it encouraging—at the recent Bush Summit in Dubbo. There he did his best on the spin but all he could promise was yet another parliamentary inquiry. Sadly, it is the same inquiry we had last year—and the government still hasn't responded to the recommendations of that inquiry.

To be fair, there was one announcement which I did welcome. Major General Michael Jeffery was first appointed to the position of Soils Advocate by Julia Gillard in 2012. On the occasion of that announcement, in a keynote address to the National Farmers' Federation congress, Prime Minister Gillard expressed her concern about the deteriorating state of our soils and her determination to give policy priority to productivity-enhancing soil rejuvenation. Michael Jeffery has done a very fine job over the last six years. His comprehension of the challenges that we face is considerable. His various reports have been weighty, helpful and impressive.

Sadly, though, the government has continued to give no more than lip service to the work of Major General Jeffrey. The Michael Jeffery story is, I would argue, emblematic of the 'all-talk and do-nothing' nature of this government. We've had the drought envoy. We've had the drought coordinator. We've had the drought task force. We've had a drought summit. We've had a drought committee. And now we're going to have another committee. Part of this bill relates to a recent independent review of farm household allowance. The Prime Minister, in Dubbo, was still talking about what his government might do about that review sometime in the future. This is six years after the 2013 election and this is the government's third term in office.

The reality is that, after all that time, the Morrison government still has no strategic overarching plan for drought policy in this country. And yet it was gifted such a wonderful opportunity to have such an architecture. May 2013 was a historic month. The Commonwealth, the states, the country's farm groups and both the major political parties all agreed to effectively tear up all of the existing—and failing—drought support arrangements and start the process again. This miraculous consensus was put in place after a 2008 Productivity Commission review into the effectiveness of drought support in this country—and very expensive drought support it was.

The intergovernmental agreement signed that month heralded a new era of optimism among politicians and farmers alike. For the first time, an emphasis was to be placed on the management of our natural resource base, drought resilience, preparation and long-term sustainable profitability. It was also agreed to continue to have an income-support system for farmers in need—not just those affected by drought, but farming families who had hit upon hard times regardless of the cause. That payment, the farm household allowance, is the subject of this bill.

Sadly, though, having secured that historic agreement and a united determination to progress a new framework for drought policy, the Standing Council on Primary Industries was abolished. The then minister, the member for New England, abolished the very committee, the COAG committee, which was charged with progressing the reforms necessary to put in place an architecture to replace all of those programs which had been agreed should go, all of those programs under the program commonly known as exceptional circumstances.

So, sadly, the drought reform program was almost dead before it was born, because the member for New England pulled the rug out from under the very platform designed to give effect to those reform. By October 2014, in the face of worsening drought, it had become clear that the farm household allowance was not delivering for farmers. The reality is that, other than some hype over some concessional loans, which of course cost the government next to nothing and which are not always a helpful option for farmers, the farm household allowance was about the only thing that the government had going for it back in October 2014.

But there began one of the many scandals of this government's time in office. The member for New England was asked a question on that day about the effectiveness of the government's drought assistance package, and Minister Joyce told the House this about the farm household allowance:

… it is not the case that you apply for the money and then you have to wait for your application to be approved … You actually get the money straight away.

Of course, that was patently wrong, and we knew it was wrong at the time. So, we checked the Hansardand we discovered that what was in the Hansard did not reflect what the member for New England told the House in question time on that day. The great sadness about that, of course, is that not only had he sought to outrageously doctor the Hansardbut it demonstrated that he was completely out of touch with what was affecting farmers so much—that is, how much difficulty they were having accessing this household support payment.

To make that saga even sadder, the whole incident of what became known as 'Hansard-gate' cost the head of the member for New England's department his job. His crime was to stand up for his professional public service. His concern was that his public servants were being dragged into Hansard-gate. I quote from Dr Grimes's letter to the then minister dated 2 March 2015:

I am writing to advise you that I no longer have confidence in my capacity to resolve matters relating to integrity with you. This follows the sequence of events before and following the alterations to Hansard that were made in October 2014.

As I said, what had concerned Dr Grimes most of all was the way in which the minister's failure to take responsibility for the Hansard changes—and, indeed, the cover-up of the matter—had caused his staff to be drawn into the scandal.

See this speech in context