Senator WOODLEY(1.11 p.m.) —The Democrats support the Farm Household Support Amendment (Restart and Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 1997 . I want to make a number of points. If it were not for the start-up date and the need to put in place the measures contained in this bill, we would have spent more time discussing it. We would probably have suggested to government some further improvements. Those improvements go not only to the detail of the bill but also to the philosophy behind it. It is in terms of that philosophy that I want to put some points on the record today.

We use words like `adjustment' as though they were benign terms to describe something which, for many farmers, is in fact a very stressful experience. For them, adjustment means actually getting out of farming. Sometimes I think we put a lot of pressure on farmers by referring to them as `non-viable' or `uncompetitive' or `inefficient' or `not good enough', as though the whole predicament was solely their own doing, and we fail to admit that at times it is government policy or the lack of government policy which has contributed very significantly to the situation in which farmers find themselves.

I believe that is policy of all of the major parties. I do not leave the Democrats out of that, as we seek also to struggle to understand the situation of agriculture not only in Australia but also in a global sense, for there are massive changes that have been and are taking place in global farming. I do not believe that they are all positive. In fact, I think that globalisation and competition policy, which we often laud as the answer to all of our problems, is really proving—to me, at least, and I think to many other people—to be simply not working. We keep on projecting globalisation and competition policy as though we were all playing on a level playing field. I know that the rhetoric says we agree there isn't one. Nevertheless, the policies remain in place which project a level playing field as though it were reality.

So we continue to reduce tariffs in many of our primary industries, despite the fact that in many other countries tariffs—

Senator Murray —And non-tariff barriers.

Senator WOODLEY —And non-tariff barriers as well—are still in place, and we expect to compete with those countries. We know the problems that farmers have with low commodity process, and I could go on.

Another major factor in the whole problem of agriculture is the dominant paradigm, a paradigm of extension and competition adopted by government and even by industry bodies purporting to represent all farmers. And yet each year we have a new batch of farmers fitting into the following categories: 10 per cent prosper; 40 per cent manage to keep afloat; 30 per cent struggle like mad to stay afloat; and 20 per cent go under. What we do not acknowledge is that every time we take the 20 per cent off the bottom we actual ly then spread the 100 per cent out again and so we have a new 20 per cent at the bottom. Of course, the 10 per cent at the top today will eventually be split up into the categories and they themselves will be dropping off the bottom, if we continue the way we are going.

We know that farmers have lower access to business improvement management and technology compared to city business counterparts. That is a reason for our government to continue fostering their extension activities. Government sponsored agriculture extension is notorious for looking after the top 50 per cent and leaving the rest behind. But we know from Australian commercial and corporate contact extension programs that this need not be the case. When appropriate agricultural extension is directed to all farmers, there is measurable improvement in uptake of technology and financial position among most farmers.

Indeed, looking after the top 10 per cent of farmers in some ways is not efficient. These master business people will thrive regardless, and often in spite of government extension intervention. They are the ones who already have well-honed research, technical, financial and management skills. What is required is equity of access, and we know from research that it is not adequate to say, `Well, here we are. Come and see us.' Nor is it adequate to run standard government extension programs without also providing individualised business improvement programs.

We would have improved the Farm Household Support Amendment (Restart and Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 1997 in a number of ways. We put these on the record as something that we would like to pursue in the future. When we talk about adjustment and restarting, we would like to see governments taking account of the possibility of restarting not just off the farm but restarting on the farm as well. We believe that, unless governments do begin to take account of the possibility of some farmers restarting on farm, we will continue the failure which has been part of the experience of so many farmers in the last few years. This means that government has to accept best practice in business improvement programs. Government should genuinely provide access to financial counselling, technical-management extension advice—

Senator Boswell —That is exactly what this bill provides for. That is what we are doing.

Senator WOODLEY —Just wait till I get to the end, Senator Boswell. You delay me. I am trying to get through this as quickly as I can. I do not want to hold you up. Government should provide access to family-partnership counselling, career counselling, collegiate ongoing mentoring from farmers and ex-farmers, access to the property management planning, and one- or two-year monitored and reviewed action plans.

Now, to answer your question, Senator Boswell: what we would like to see is that this is available not just to the very viable farmers, who are the ones who usually access it, but we would like to see equity in that to enable some of those farmers who would perhaps be dropping off to have the opportunity to restart, because we believe that not enough account is being taken of that.

We believe that as long as government and peak industry body policy continues to have a vision only for the need to restart off the farm then we will continue to lose those we regard as non-viable. But as I said before, that will continue to eat up not only those who are non-viable today but some who will fall into the bottom category in the future.

We need to use sensible definitions of `farmer' and take into account that farmers can be women, second families, couples on the farm, young people, single people, and relatives not in the immediate family. I do not get the impression that government appreciates the diversity of labour situations on farming small businesses in Australia.

Senator Boswell —Oh, come on! That is absolute nonsense.

Senator WOODLEY —What did you say?

Senator Ian Campbell —I said it is crap.

Senator WOODLEY —So it is crap or it is nonsense.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy) —Order! Senator Woodley, it would be more appropriate if you directed your remarks through the chair.

Senator WOODLEY —It is the government's time that is being wasted, Mr Acting Deputy President. It is no problem to me. I am happy to take my full time. I need to point out that in using the word `crap' I was simply repeating a word that was directed at me. It was not my wish to use that word.

Senator Ian Campbell —Don't complain if native title does not come on next week. It is in your hands.

Senator WOODLEY —What was that, Senator Campbell?

Senator Ian Campbell —It is your responsibility.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Campbell, it would be appreciated if you could conduct yourself in an orderly manner. Senator Woodley, could you continue with your speech, please.

Senator WOODLEY —I certainly will. I am being provoked but I will try not to be. I believe that there are a number of other things that we need to do in order to improve this bill and that I hope will be part of the continuing debate, because I know that Senator Boswell certainly wants the best for farmers in Australia, as I do, even though we do not always agree about how that can be achieved. There is no doubt that that is his intention.

I think we do need a clearer definition of `exceptional circumstances', and I hope we might develop this through consultation with farmers, rural counsellors and the various farming bodies. I would hope that we could enable exceptional circumstances to continue until a social security income test demonstrates that farmers are able to stand on their own, in cases where farmers are individually drought declared by their state or territory.

We need to ensure that professionals with extensive rural knowledge and experience are the ones to conduct the viability, income and asset tests. Unless there are going to be huge numbers of DSS centrepoint staff undertaking extensive tertiary training et cetera, then I do not believe they have the expertise to do this and we ought to use the people who are on the ground and who know.

I believe we should include disease eradication program participants as being eligible for the restart scheme. Many of these people discover that they have an eradication program all of a sudden put on their farm. This often has a devastating impact on their financial and psychological states. I also believe the DSS review of estimated incomes should be conducted in March of the year when DSS payments are received. Often when farmers have to repay lump sums this can be very damaging to their cash flow.

We need a genuine proactive public education process to ensure farmers know what government programs are available. The existing processes do not work in many places. I will not spend the time of the Senate, but we had a lot of contact with farm counsellors who were saying that people just do not know what is available. We need to do more work in that area.

Finally—and I have not used up all my time—I think we need both in government and in the Department of Social Security to keep a level head on the subject of rorting. Recent press releases show that the problem in rural Australia is that most eligible farmers do not access government programs of this kind. They either do not know of the programs, do not know of the eligibility requirements or do not want to be part of restrictive, privacy-invading government programs.

I commend the bill to the Senate. Those are the issues that the Democrats would like to put on the table for further debate around the issue of support for farm families. We trust that the positive aspects of this bill will be taken up.