Senator IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government) (8:51 PM) —There are a couple of points on this. I did not quite understand Senator Woodley's point that if we moved an amendment that took up the government members' proposal then he would not proceed with his request, but otherwise he would. Senator Woodley, your request, reducing the $100,000 to $80,000, still covers what you want, does it not? You do not need me to move an amendment—not that we would anyhow because we do not agree with that. But I was not absolutely certain on the point you made. I note that Senator Harris has said that his request (4) covers that, and I assume that that is covered by the wording of Senator Woodley's request, but in both cases the government opposes this request.

This whole legislation was about targeting those little people or those in real need, and that is why we have capped it at $60,000. You have to draw the line somewhere. My advice is that above $60,000 there are people who are not as deserving of this assistance as others. We wanted to direct the available money to those who were in real need, and that is why we think the cap should be $60,000. There is a limited amount set aside for this in this legislation. If you increase the $60,000 to $80,000, it means that somewhere along the line someone else is going to miss out, unless you increase the amount that the government have set aside for this.

If you increase the amount the government have set aside—and I am advised that we have not been able to do any costings on the increase from $60,000 to $80,000—it would be substantial; it would add to the quantum and time line of the levy. In either case, the government believe that that would not be supported by consumers or processors, and we think it is important to build on goodwill and to have the whole community wanting to support those farmers who are severely affected by the deregulation. They are the ones we want to target. They are the ones we think the public as a whole—consumers, processors, everyone—want to target. If you go beyond that, you are going to start favouring people who, I am advised, do not need the extent of that support. The government maintain their position on $60,000 and will be opposing very vigorously any increase of that cap from $60,000 to any amount over and above that.