Senator O'BRIEN (12:45 PM) —The Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2003 amends the Farm Household Support Act 1992 to extend the application period for the Farm Help program from November 2003 to 30 June 2004 and, therefore, extend the payment period. The bill makes other administrative changes to the operation of the program. Farm Help Supporting Families through Change is part of the Agriculture Advancing Australia package of programs. It commenced in July 2000 as a successor to the Farm Family Restart Scheme. Labor supported the passage of the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2000 and it will support the passage of this bill.

Farm Help provides financial support to low-income farm families who cannot borrow against their assets while they actively consider their future in farming. This financial support includes 12 months of income support at the same rate as the Newstart allowance, financial assistance for business advice, and a re-establishment grant of up to $45,000 and additional retraining funding for farmers who decide to sell their farm and leave farming. Under the terms of the bill, the closing date for applications for income support will be extended from 30 November 2003 to 30 June 2004. Income support payments will then be payable until 30 June 2005. Amendments to the Farm Help Re-establishment Grant Scheme 1997 instrument, established under the act, will extend the closing date for applications for the re-establishment grant to 30 June 2004.

My office made contact with Mr Truss's office three weeks ago and sought advice on the progress of drafting with respect to this and related instrument changes, including changes that will combine existing professional advice and retraining grants. Given that the interim extension of the program was first announced in May 2003, it seems to me that the government has had plenty of time to get its act together, including drafting appropriate instrument changes. I would be grateful if Senator Troeth would provide the Senate with an update.

The administrative changes to Farm Help introduced by this bill are designed to improve the program's efficiency and effectiveness. Many farmers will welcome the extension of validity for certificates of inability to obtain finance. The bill removes the requirement that farmers obtain a new certificate every six months to remain on the program. A certificate will remain valid for 13 months as long as a farmer's application is lodged with Centrelink within one month of receiving the certificate. That means that the certificate will effectively cover the full 12 months for which income assistance is available under the program.

Another change related to the certificate of inability to obtain finance is the new requirement to be imposed on program applicants requiring them to obtain a certificate from their primary lender. This is intended to ensure that the certificate is issued on the basis of the farmer's current financial circumstances and, in the circumstances, makes good sense. Another change that makes sense is the requirement that all farmers joining the program prepare an activity plan. The extension of the Farm Help program will give farmers continued access to Farm Help assistance while the government considers new arrangements for Farm Help type assistance.

When this bill was debated in the Main Committee of the other place, my colleague Sid Sidebottom, the member for Braddon and the shadow parliamentary secretary for primary industries, asked the minister to advise details of his progress in designing a successor program. The minister quite unreasonably and arrogantly refused to provide such advice. He instead encouraged the opposition to wait until next year's budget for an announcement.

Support for farmers in transition is not a matter about which Labor thinks governments and oppositions should play politics. All of us in this place should have a genuine interest in supporting farmers through change, particularly in these difficult times for farming. Given the fact that this bill gives effect to a mere interim extension to Farm Help, it is, in my view, appropriate for the government to identify whether its funding priorities allow for a successor program. Seven months in the tumultuous world of Minister Truss's office may seem like a lifetime, but a seven-month extension to this program gives farm families little certainty.

A number of the administrative changes contained in the bill directly implement recommendations of an Australian National Audit Office report presented to the parliament earlier this year. Mr Sidebottom asked the minister a number of other questions related to his progress in implementing administrative improvements that are not part of this bill. I regret that the minister saw fit to provide no useful advice to the other place.

Two weeks ago my office advised the minister's office that I would seek advice from Senator Troeth on a number of matters during this debate. Consistent with that advice to the minister's office, subsequently re-affirmed to the office of his parliamentary secretary, I ask Senator Troeth to advise the Senate what progress the government has made on developing a performance measure for payment correctness, acting to prevent the duplication of financial support for advisory services to primary producers and developing performance information for industry adjustment. The minister told the other place that his department was working with Centrelink on these issues. That is good, but what progress has the government made? What improved measures have the minister and his colleague Senator Patterson implemented?

Mr Sidebottom also sought an assurance from the minister that the proposed amendments would impose no additional costs on the Commonwealth, consistent with the financial impact statement in the explanatory memorandum tabled by the very same minister at the conclusion of his second reading speech. Mr Truss appeared bamboozled by the request, so I ask the parliamentary secretary the same question: can she provide the Senate with an assurance that the administrative changes to the program will not cost the Commonwealth any more? Mr Truss told the other place:

The `costs et cetera' are not outlined in the financial impact statement beyond the declaration that the amendments will impose no additional costs and the overall cost of the Farm Help program in 2003-04 will be met from existing budgeted expenditure levels.

The cost of extending the availability of assistance under Farm Help is not outlined in the explanatory memorandum or in the department's portfolio budget statement. The PBS for 2003-04 merely provides that funding for the extension has been allocated to the contingency reserve. Labor has been most cooperative in facilitating the passage of this bill through the parliament. I have no desire to delay its passage, but I do seek advice on the costs of the program in 2003-04 and 2004-05.

In May Labor sought advice in estimates as to why program funding was allocated to the contingency reserve. No satisfactory answer was provided by Mr Truss's department. Accordingly, I ask the same question of Senator Troeth today. I trust the parliamentary secretary has been equipped with the advice that she needs to facilitate a speedy passage of the bill and, perhaps more importantly, meet a minimum standard of accountability to the parliament. On the expectation that Senator Troeth will provide satisfactory answers to Labor's questions about the bill, I am pleased to indicate our support for the bill, as well as for the minor technical amendments circulated by the government. If those answers are given, we would not require a committee stage. But in the absence of those answers, we may well require a committee stage.