Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR (2:20 PM) —My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister confirm that the centrepiece of the drought package announced today is an increase in interest rate subsidies from 50 to 80 per cent for eligible farmers? Will the minister now admit that this measure merely reverses a policy announced by the Deputy Prime Minister back on 14 December 1997 to progressively reduce interest rate subsidies available to drought affected farmers from 100 per cent down to 50 per cent? If the minister now believes that an increased interest rate subsidy—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That question clearly contains debate. The standing orders do not permit debate in question time. The question is out of order, and I ask you to ask him to desist from debate.

The SPEAKER —The member for Corio is introducing more than the material necessary to illustrate his question. I ask him to conclude his question.

Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR —If the minister now believes that an increased interest rate subsidy is warranted to assist farmers facing drought, and given that many farmers in New South Wales are now in their fourth year of drought—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You clearly said to the member for Corio that he was to get to the point of his question. He merely continued to read the diatribe, which is debate, and he defied your ruling. He is out of order.

The SPEAKER —The member for Corio was asked to conclude his question, and I believe he has almost come to his conclusion.

Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR —Mr Speaker, can I continue, please?

The SPEAKER —I would ask you to conclude the question.

Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR —If the minister now believes that an increased interest rate subsidy is warranted to assist farmers facing drought, and given that many farmers in New South Wales are now in their fourth year of drought, why did the government act to reduce the subsidy back in 1997? Isn’t it just another case of all spin and no spend?

The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will ignore the last part of that question.

Mr TRUSS (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) —Mr Speaker, it is easy to ignore the last part because the first part had enough infertile material in it to have an effective response. As I mentioned in my first comment, the reality is that this is the worst drought in our nation’s history. It is appropriate, therefore, that additional measures apply in situations that go beyond previous experience. We are facing a drought that, as the honourable member said in his question, has gone on in some places for up to four years. Surely the responses that might have been appropriate in a more normal drought are inadequate in circumstances where there has been a drought for three or four years.

When the drought policy was adjusted in 1997, this government reintroduced the Farm Management Deposit Scheme, which Labor had gutted in office and made it an ineffective mechanism for farmers to put money aside in their good years to help them through the bad. We restored and rebuilt that scheme in such a way that farmers are able to use it now to help them through much of these tough times.

Let me also make one other comment. I note that the Leader of the Opposition has discovered over the last couple of days that there is a drought. He has given us the latest Labor Party response to the drought: he has formed a frontbench committee to liaise with the backbench committee on the drought. I am sure the farmers feel much more relaxed knowing that a frontbench Labor committee will negotiate with the backbench committee. Between them, they will not be able to find anybody who has ever been in a drought—who knows anything about it—and I think they would be far better off responding positively to the way in which this government has seen the need, provided real assistance to farmers and helped them through these really tough times.