Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I have to say that was a very disappointing presentation by Senator Stephens. I think—and I think Senator McKenzie sees this too—that she misrepresented the situation in her contribution. I was present when Senator McKenzie was asking questions at both the DAFF estimates and the Treasury estimates as part of this process, and Senator McKenzie, along with the rest of us, has cause to be concerned about the way the government has approached this particular measure.

Let's take the way that the measure was started. On 27 April, Minister Ludwig writes to the states, without any prior consultation, and tells them in the letter that they will be responsible for administering the loans, for applicant assessment costs, application processing costs and delivery of the loans. No consultation and no discussion—'You're paying the bill.' That is the way that this government has approached this process. We start asking questions at DAFF estimates, some time later, about this particular measure, and Minister Ludwig says, 'But I've written to the states again to tell them what the details of the loans, the conditions of the loans, were.' So we ask when he wrote to the states. The answer is 'last Friday'. He is trying to blame the states for slowing the process down, which happened because they did not understand the terms and conditions of the loans, they did not know the interest rates, until that letter went to them, on 24 May—almost a month after his initial letter went out to the states advising them of the package that was going to be launched. So a month later he writes to them and tells them that the rate will be 4.5 per cent and that, at the end of five years, it will revert to commercial rates. So they are not 4.5 per cent across the life of the loan; we accept that 4.5 per cent is a good deal for farmers, but the rates are 4.5 per cent for a period of time, five years, then they revert to commercial rates.

You talk to the banks and they had no idea this was coming. How did these loans interact with their existing loans? Were they on top of existing debt? Did they replace existing debt? The banks did not know that. Senator Stephens talks about the rural financial counsellors. I was talking to rural financial counsellors only weeks prior to this announcement: they did not even know if their funding was going to be continued, let alone if there would be new rural financial counsellors. They found that out when Senator Ludwig's press release came out to advise them of this magnificent new package. There was no consultation with any of the stakeholders in this process, yet now the minister expects the states to pick up the bill when they find out that the Commonwealth is making $6.3 million a year on the interest rate. Don't you think it is reasonable that they might ask a question about that?

Minister Ludwig, Senator Stephens and, I am sure, others on the other side will try and blame all the Liberal states. How come none of the Labor states have signed up? What about the Tasmanian government? They have not signed up. What about the South Australian government? They have not signed up. I have a joint statement from New South Wales, the Northern Territory, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia: 'The Commonwealth should not profit from farm loans'—and yet we know that it is.

We asked at estimates about the numbers in the budget and we were told as part of that process that they were effectively the opportunity cost of the loans. The numbers in the budget, we were told at estimates, were the opportunity cost of the loans. Yet we now find out that the Commonwealth is making $6.3 million a year on the interest rate. So how is the calculation of the interest rate of the opportunity cost made? The officer quite correctly said, 'I'm not an accountant, but I'm happy to provide the details.' We have not received any of that back yet from the government. We have not received any answers to questions on notice from estimates yet, so we do not have that information. We do not know how the calculation of the opportunity cost has been made in the budget. I would seriously love to see the answer.

As Senator McKenzie quite rightly said, this is indicative of the way that this government has treated agriculture. The budget for the portfolio used to be $3.8 billion; it is now only $1.6 billion. This portfolio has been hollowed out. I put on the record that part of that was EC payments, but this issue is indicative of how the government continues to treat agriculture and the states. (Time expired)