Question regarding proposed changes to the state's drought package, specifically the $8,000 cash payment to farmers, and the Minister's response outlining a plan for broader consultation and a shift towards long-term strategies.

AnsweredQoN 895Legislative Council
Asked
16 October 2007
Portfolio
Agriculture and Food

QuestionView source ↗

DROUGHT - CASH PAYMENTS TO FARMERS
In last Friday’s The Geraldton Guardian the minister was quoted as saying that he wanted to cut the $8 000 drought cash payment to farmers and pool the money for industry; that he would have the state government money worth $7.5 million this year spent on strategies to guarantee farmers long-term futures; that he backed the Australian Agricultural Contracts Ltd grain company production proposition based on the outcomes suggested by AACL; and that he wanted to propose changes to how the state’s drought package is brought out, but he wanted them to be supported.  What changes is the minister proposing; and, if it is premature to discuss them now, when can we expect these changes to be announced and what consultation will take place? Hon KIM CHANCE

AnswerView source ↗

I am happy to discuss them now, and that is precisely why I was able to speak to the reporter from The Geraldton Guardian in those terms, which was effectively a recital of what I had said to the representatives of the 10 shire councils from the north eastern wheatbelt with whom I had just met.  It is very important to understand that what I want to do here is to try to bring everyone along with me.  I am not proposing that the government simply change direction and then go out and sell the idea.  I am proposing to talk to a range of people - local government, farmer representatives, bankers and businesses - about the direction they think we need to take as a state specifically to find some way to assist farmers deal with both drought and the potential for climate change.  I will not go through those issues now, as I think the member understands that it is a matter for us to discuss outside the chamber.  I had this discussion also with the federal minister, as it is only fair that the federal minister knows what the state has on its mind.  I indicated to Hon Peter McGauran that the commonwealth is now heading for something like $3 billion worth of expenditure on drought nationwide over the past five years.  Although we all can be happy about the fact that that $3 billion has undoubtedly helped keep affected communities together, I am afraid that when we ask ourselves the next question - but what has it done in the long term? - we get a fairly negative answer.  I believe the commonwealth does not have much choice in this matter, notwithstanding the drought round table in Canberra that I attended with farm leaders three years ago that strongly recommended a change to long-term preparation rather than assistance.  I believe the role of the commonwealth will always be that of the call of last resort, and I cannot see how the commonwealth can get out of that.  However, I believe the state has options.  I truly believe that the $8 000 cash component of the state drought package is probably not all that relevant.  It might have been a little helpful; it might have helped to pay the rates; but I think we can spend the money better.  However, I want to discuss that with opposition members and with a range of people around what we can do to form a more effective process in the longer term; and I believe we do have some exciting options to look at. The PRESIDENT :  Hon Nigel Hallett. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE :  I thought the President looked at me! The PRESIDENT :  I can discern the difference in appearance between Hon Murray Criddle and Hon Nigel Hallett! Hon NIGEL HALLETT :  Thank you, Mr President.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I am happy to discuss them now, and that is precisely why I was able to speak to the reporter from The Geraldton Guardian in those terms, which was effectively a recital of what I had said to the representatives of the 10 shire councils from the north eastern wheatbelt with whom I had just met.  It is very important to understand that what I want to do here is to try to bring everyone along with me.  I am not proposing that the government simply change direction and then go out and sell the idea.  I am proposing to talk to a range of people - local government, farmer representatives, bankers and businesses - about the direction they think we need to take as a state specifically to find some way to assist farmers deal with both drought and the potential for climate change.  I will not go through those issues now, as I think the member understands that it is a matter for us to discuss outside the chamber.  I had this discussion also with the federal minister, as it is only fair that the federal minister knows what the state has on its mind.  I indicated to Hon Peter McGauran that the commonwealth is now heading for something like $3 billion worth of expenditure on drought nationwide over the past five years.  Although we all can be happy about the fact that that $3 billion has undoubtedly helped keep affected communities together, I am afraid that when we ask ourselves the next question - but what has it done in the long term? - we get a fairly negative answer.  I believe the commonwealth does not have much choice in this matter, notwithstanding the drought round table in Canberra that I attended with farm leaders three years ago that strongly recommended a change to long-term preparation rather than assistance.  I believe the role of the commonwealth will always be that of the call of last resort, and I cannot see how the commonwealth can get out of that.  However, I believe the state has options.  I truly believe that the $8 000 cash component of the state drought package is probably not all that relevant.  It might have been a little helpful; it might have helped to pay the rates; but I think we can spend the money better.  However, I want to discuss that with opposition members and with a range of people around what we can do to form a more effective process in the longer term; and I believe we do have some exciting options to look at. The PRESIDENT :  Hon Nigel Hallett. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE :  I thought the President looked at me! The PRESIDENT :  I can discern the difference in appearance between Hon Murray Criddle and Hon Nigel Hallett! Hon NIGEL HALLETT :  Thank you, Mr President.
I am happy to discuss them now, and that is precisely why I was able to speak to the reporter from The Geraldton Guardian in those terms, which was effectively a recital of what I had said to the representatives of the 10 shire councils from the north eastern wheatbelt with whom I had just met.  It is very important to understand that what I want to do here is to try to bring everyone along with me.  I am not proposing that the government simply change direction and then go out and sell the idea.  I am proposing to talk to a range of people - local government, farmer representatives, bankers and businesses - about the direction they think we need to take as a state specifically to find some way to assist farmers deal with both drought and the potential for climate change.  I will not go through those issues now, as I think the member understands that it is a matter for us to discuss outside the chamber.  I had this discussion also with the federal minister, as it is only fair that the federal minister knows what the state has on its mind.  I indicated to Hon Peter McGauran that the commonwealth is now heading for something like $3 billion worth of expenditure on drought nationwide over the past five years.  Although we all can be happy about the fact that that $3 billion has undoubtedly helped keep affected communities together, I am afraid that when we ask ourselves the next question - but what has it done in the long term? - we get a fairly negative answer.  I believe the commonwealth does not have much choice in this matter, notwithstanding the drought round table in Canberra that I attended with farm leaders three years ago that strongly recommended a change to long-term preparation rather than assistance.  I believe the role of the commonwealth will always be that of the call of last resort, and I cannot see how the commonwealth can get out of that.  However, I believe the state has options.  I truly believe that the $8 000 cash component of the state drought package is probably not all that relevant.  It might have been a little helpful; it might have helped to pay the rates; but I think we can spend the money better.  However, I want to discuss that with opposition members and with a range of people around what we can do to form a more effective process in the longer term; and I believe we do have some exciting options to look at. The PRESIDENT :  Hon Nigel Hallett. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE :  I thought the President looked at me! The PRESIDENT :  I can discern the difference in appearance between Hon Murray Criddle and Hon Nigel Hallett! Hon NIGEL HALLETT :  Thank you, Mr President.
The PRESIDENT :  Hon Nigel Hallett. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE :  I thought the President looked at me! The PRESIDENT :  I can discern the difference in appearance between Hon Murray Criddle and Hon Nigel Hallett! Hon NIGEL HALLETT :  Thank you, Mr President.
Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE :  I thought the President looked at me! The PRESIDENT :  I can discern the difference in appearance between Hon Murray Criddle and Hon Nigel Hallett! Hon NIGEL HALLETT :  Thank you, Mr President.
The PRESIDENT :  I can discern the difference in appearance between Hon Murray Criddle and Hon Nigel Hallett! Hon NIGEL HALLETT :  Thank you, Mr President.
Hon NIGEL HALLETT :  Thank you, Mr President.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more