Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Farm Relief Measures Bill: Parliament of Australia

Download PDFDownload PDF

Farm Relief Measures Bill - Parliament of


Bidgee/wikimedia, CC BY-SA 3.0

Posted 04/12/2019 by Michael Klapdor

On 27 November 2019, the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural

Disaster and Emergency Management, David Littleproud, introduced the

Farm Household

Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2019

(the Bill) to the House of

Representatives. The Bill proposes the following amendments to the

Farm Household Support

Act 2014

and the

Farm Household Support Minister’s Rule 2014


Schedule 1: change the income test for the

Farm Household Allowance

(FHA) so that part-

rate payments will not be calculated. The income test will be ‘sudden-death’: farmers and

their partners will either be eligible for FHA under the income test and receive the

maximum payment rate or they will be ineligible under the income test and not receive any


Schedule 2: combine the FHA farm assets test and non-farm assets test into one assets

test with a value limit of $5.5 million. This limit will not be indexed. The

current tests


different value limits for assets related to the farm business and non-farm assets. The

Schedule will also clarify the assessment of water entitlements to ensure they are not

double-counted under the assets test.

Schedule 3: remove the requirement for

farm financial assessments

(which must be

undertaken after a claim is made for the FHA) to be conducted by a person prescribed by

the Minister’s Rule. The

Minister stated

that the intent is to ‘make it easier for farmers to

access the right person to conduct the assessment’. The person undertaking the

assessment will still be required to have no interest in the farm or any related assets and

must have appropriate qualifications or expertise. However, the requirement they be part of

professional body whose members provide financial advice will be removed.

Schedule 4: increase the maximum FHA activity supplement from $4,000 to $10,000 and

expand the scope of costs the supplement can be used for to include travel and

accommodation associated with approved activities. The supplement can currently be

used to fund approved activities including training or professional advice.

The measures are to commence on the earlier of a day to be fixed by proclamation, or six months

after Royal Assent.


Explanatory Memorandum

states that the measures will have a financial impact of

approximately $30 million through to June 2023 but this impact has not been fully costed as it

does not include service delivery costs or the impact of changes in tax revenue (p. 4).

Bill follows Relief Measures No. 1 legislation

The Bill follows on from the

Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Act (No. 1)



Relief Measures No. 1 Act


which passed both Houses

on 12 November 2019. The

Relief Measures No. 1 Act


increased the maximum time a person is able to access the FHA from four years over a

lifetime to four years in each specified ten year period

changed the allowable deduction regime to provide for up to $100,000 in losses from a

farm enterprise and farm-related businesses to be deducted from the amount of income

assessed under the FHA income test

introduced a one-off lump sum ‘relief payment’ for those who exhausted their four year

maximum FHA period by 1 July 2020—the payment is worth $7,500 for a single recipient

or $6,500 for a member of a couple ($13,000 for a couple combined) and

provided for the Minister for Agriculture to prescribe further lump sum payments—including

the amount of the payment and the eligibility conditions—through the Minister’s Rule.

These measures were

announced by Minister for Agriculture Bridget McKenzie

as the next

instalment of the Government’s response to

Rebuilding the FHA: a better way forward for

supporting farmers in financial hardship

(the 2019 Independent Review into the FHA program),

following on from changes introduced in July 2019 (this

Bills Digest

provides a short history of

changes to the FHA program since it was introduced in 2014).

Implementation of Independent Review’s


Minister Littleproud

stated in his second reading speech

that the Bill ‘supports the Government's

Drought Response, Resilience and Preparedness Plan and further implements the

recommendations made by the review

Rebuilding the FHA …

’ The Review did not specifically

recommend the measures proposed in the Bill (though it did suggest the activity supplement

cover the costs of travel), reflecting that the

Government in its response

agreed with ‘the intent’ of

the Report, rather than the Panel’s specific recommendations.

The Independent Review raised a number of issues with the income test, particularly the way in

which income is assessed and how the income test could act as a disincentive for FHA

recipients to earn additional income. However, it did not propose removing part-rates or

imposing a ‘sudden-death’ income test. In regards to means tests, the Review noted:

setting any threshold, similar to lines on maps under the exceptional circumstances

framework, will always draw a line where some people will be eligible and others will

not. People who fall near the upper bounds of eligibility thresholds will always face

disincentives to make improvements such as take on an extra day of paid work (p.


The Independent Review proposed maintaining the temporary increase in the farm assets test

threshold at $5 million (which was implemented by the

Farm Household Support Amendment

Act 2019

) but it did not recommend a combined farm and non-farm assets test.

The Review

heard evidence farmers’ accountants (who meet the requirements under the

Minister’s Rule) usually conducted the farm financial assessments (FFAs) but that these

accountants ‘may not be sufficiently experienced or knowledgeable in agriculture to be providing

advice on the outlook or future operations of a farm business’ (pp 30-31). The Review actually

proposed removing the requirement that FHA recipients undergo a FFA and to instead require

regular meetings with rural financial counsellors and to work through a ‘viability assessment’

after receiving the FHA for 12-18 months (pp. 33-36).

The Review also heard evidence that there was low uptake of the FHA activity supplement and

that travel and accommodation costs were barriers to recipients accessing training (p. 30). The

Review stated that the supplement should be allowed to cover the costs of travel but

recommended that activities should be optional rather than mandatory under the FHA mutual

obligation requirements (pp. 36-37).

Key issues

The Bill proposes amendments which will be beneficial to the farmers who can receive the FHA.

However, the measures are likely to create some inequitable outcomes: for example, FHA

recipients with no other sources of income will receive exactly the same payment rate as those

who are able to generate income. Further, some farmers with significant non-farm assets will be

eligible for the FHA (and receive the same rate) as those with few non-farm assets.

The ‘sudden death’ income test will mean that those just under the threshold receive the full rate

of FHA while those just over the threshold miss out on the entire FHA. In his

second reading


, the Minister explained that the new income test would be an ‘all-or-nothing approach to

fortnightly FHA payments’ that would be beneficial as payment rates would no longer fluctuate.

The Minister stated that farmers and their families would ‘no longer be distracted from improving

their financial situation by different FHA payment amounts each time they're paid’. However,

those close to the income test cut-off points will have a much larger disincentive to improve their

financial situation than under the current income test.

It is unclear what will be considered as an appropriate qualification or level of expertise for those

undertaking FFAs. The

FHA Guidelines

describe the FFA as a ‘comprehensive assessment of

the financial position of a farm enterprise and the person for whom the assessment is conducted’

(p. 56). The

Explanatory Memorandum

states that the proposed amendment will mean FHA

recipients ‘are able to choose the most suitable person’ to undertake the FFA and gives the

example of rural financial counsellors and farm consultants (pp. 3, 10). The lack of detail as to

what level of expertise is expected of these assessors raises the potential that the standard of

these assessments, which government contributes up to $1,500 towards, may vary significantly.