Mr WINDSOR (3:35 PM) —I thank the House for that unanimous vote of support for this particular matter of public importance. At the outset, I recognise the member for Hunter. I believe his MPI was as important as this MPI and suggest to the House that the member for Hunter speak second on this side of the House. I also thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I wrote to both of them recently, recognising the importance of the drought and intimating that I would be raising this matter of public importance. I do thank them for their support in relation to this MPI, as I do recognise you, as well, Mr Speaker.

The drought is obviously something that people living in inland Australia are very much aware of and something I think people living in urban Australia are becoming increasing aware of. We heard today the Treasurer talking about the economic impacts of the drought and the impact it will have on the GDP and the wellbeing of the nation itself. So I think it is becoming better recognised as a very severe problem. We are, in my view, on the verge in certain parts of Australia of entering possibly the worst drought in living memory. As such, one of the things that I will be doing today—and I hope I am supported by both sides of the parliament—is calling for greater assistance from this government and the various state governments where it can be recognised that this extreme climatic event that we are experiencing at the moment is having an impact on the wellbeing of not only individual farmers within those areas but also the communities from which they come.

The situation as I see it, particularly in the north-west and New England—and I think the members in those areas and further west would be very much aware of the situation—is that there were certain expectations that people in those areas had. Firstly, they geared themselves to feeding strategies and cash flow strategies which were designed, hopefully, to have a spring rain outcome. Essentially that has not happened in those particular areas and they have reached a crisis point in relation to the strategies that they adopt for the future. In particular, what do they do with the livestock? Do they sell the livestock? Do they feed the livestock? If they do decide to feed the livestock, it means engaging with the financial fraternity once again to design a future strategy, and there are certain uneasy feelings being expressed there as well: when will the drought break; how do you develop a strategy that will last for another six months; what will be the price of various grains and drought fodder that you will need to acquire to engage in that particular strategy? And there are a whole range of other things, not the least of which, and very importantly—and I am sure the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry would be fully aware of this—is the personal stress that is being incurred by individuals who are trying to come to grips with their feeding strategies and their financial strategies for the coming months.

It is on that particular issue that I would like to concentrate today. I believe that, at both a state and federal level, far more can be done—rather than continually hiding behind guidelines that were set up some eight years ago. This is fast becoming the worst drought in living memory in a lot of areas of Australia. I have absolutely no doubt that, if it develops in more electorates across Australia, it will be more pre-eminent in the minds of many more politicians, but I think it is time that at the federal level we attempt to engage with some degree of flexibility in terms of the policy, rather than this argy-bargy we have seen even as recently as today. I think it is probably even happening in the state parliament now, where the federal minister will get the blame for everything, and no doubt the federal minister will blame the state people for a degree of the particular problems.

As I said, the strategies that people are adopting are really about whether they feed, whether they shoot and what they do with their cattle. One of the very significant differences with this particular drought is that in a lot of situations there is nowhere to go. In the Narrabri area, where a meeting was recently held—which the minister is aware of—the stock routes have been closed, there is no agistment and there is no feed. So there has to be a total feed program developed to get the core herds through this particular circumstance. I am led to believe that, in relation to federal assistance within New South Wales—and I am sure the minister will bring the parliament up to date on this—as of Friday, three people in the Brewarrina-Bourke area had received some $7,000 of federal assistance through exceptional circumstances. I was told yesterday that that had increased to something like $20,000. So as at this particular moment there has not been much support from the federal government.

I am sure the minister will tell us—and I agree with him to a certain extent—that he is restricted by the guidelines that were set up in 1994 and that, until certain rainfall events and income events occur, the guidelines cannot be triggered and therefore there is little that can be done until the states react to those guidelines and put in applications for exceptional circumstances. The states are saying that it is useless putting in an exceptional circumstance claim when they know they would possibly be outside the guidelines. So it is a real catch-22. I think, Minister, what the people are saying is that, in those particular areas, this is an exceptional drought in anybody's criteria and they are crying for help. The meeting that was held in Narrabri on Friday was attended by 300 people from not only the electorate of Gwydir but also many of the communities in my electorate—Bingara, Barraba, Tamworth, Nundle, Manilla—and there were also people from the Northern Tablelands area as well. They were very stressed in relation to the concerns they have as to what they do with their livestock and what they do with their family arrangements. I think they are looking for some degree of leadership in relation to coming out the other end of this particular crisis. This crisis is not restricted to that area; it is many parts of Australia—and, if it does not rain soon, it will be growing at an exponential rate.

There were a number of resolutions passed at the Narrabri meeting, but I will not read them all out. They essentially asked for help from the federal government. They asked that the minister expedite the exceptional circumstance provisions in the north-west and New England area where it could be shown that there was an extreme climatic event occurring. They asked that, because of the circumstances—closed stock routes, no feed, escalating feed prices and those sorts of issues—the federal government move at a faster pace and put in place interim arrangements to make sure that people can actually get food on the table and design strategies for the future. I know—and I am sure the minister will reflect on this—that because of the rainfall event in November 12 months ago the EC provisions are somewhat restrained in the way in which they can be applied at this time. Minister, I would suggest that, given the very extreme circumstances that these people are facing, we should remove the bureaucratic red tape of one month. As the minister would understand, within a month, the original guidelines of the 1994 arrangement would be able to go ahead and there will be an application coming through. Essentially, the resolutions that were passed were about asking for help. They were not necessarily critical of any government. I think they were disappointed in all levels of government in relation to the care and concern that is not—in the view of those at the meeting—being reflected with respect to this particular issue.

So that is the question to the federal minister, and hopefully it is being put in the state parliament as well. They believe that a certain degree of flexibility can be exhibited. There has been some degree of flexibility on other occasions when there have been natural disasters. I know the minister will probably say that the natural disaster of a flood is seen in a different context and that the Deputy Prime Minister was able to recognise cash grants and business assistance in another context under `natural disaster'. Maybe therein lies some degree of the solution. The package that we have at the moment is not working effectively and, in my view, it should be revisited. We should set up a national disaster fund that covers not only drought but also things like the Newcastle earthquake, the Sydney hailstorm, the Wollongong mudslide and various disasters of that nature.

We have done some modelling which suggests—and I am oversimplifying it—that a dollar a week from every Australian would raise a billion dollars in a year. A billion dollars in a year would cover any of those national disasters since 1974—other than possibly one, depending on how you cost them out. National disasters may not occur for many years in Australia; in the years they do occur the costs are in the $50 million to $100 million category. So, with a little bit of thinking outside the square, I think we can make quite dramatic decisions.

No-one in this parliament argued terribly much against the rescue package for the housing industry, which was having a bit of a rough trot, according to some, with the goods and services tax. The Commonwealth government has spent $1.8 billion on the housing industry. No-one was arguing against the $7,000 first home buyer's grant; up until last Friday the Commonwealth government had spent $7,000 on the farmers of New South Wales. We assist some industries; there is no philosophical objection to assistance, as some people would suggest this government or this parliament has. The government does assist when it would reflect on votes, and I suggest that, accordingly, it should assist very soon to help the people who are suffering.

Other suggestions were made at the Narrabri meeting. One was that unemployment benefits be transferred into various businesses where skill loss was going to occur. In a sense, that would be revenue neutral to the government, but could keep the skill levels up, keep families together while they are experiencing the drought and keep those very important service businesses together. I know there are difficulties—and the minister will probably explain them—with coordination. However, it is fairly difficult out there at the moment, and I suggest that the government look very closely at that. In its first year there have been problems in relation to income tax provisions with accessing money in the Income Equalisation Deposit Scheme, which is a good scheme the government put in place. I think there are a number of ways you could equalise the impact on cash flow over a number of years with the IED Scheme.

I conclude with a quote from 1994 in relation to the livestock industry:

The current Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, said that in relation to a debate in this place. I agree with him wholeheartedly and suggest that he act on his own words. There is a lot of concern and stress out there in his electorate. I am disappointed that he is not here today to listen to this issue. He was not in his electorate to listen to this issue the other day. But there are things that he and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who is at the table today, can do to assist these people. I urge the minister to expedite federal assistance and stop the arguments between state and federal governments. Move into those arguments at another time, but stop talking about another EC arrangement that could exist in the future. I personally believe it is a good idea, but it is not there now, and we should act upon the EC arrangements that are currently in place.