House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Rural Community RURAL COMMUNITY The Hon. G.M. GUNN House of Assembly Stuart The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (15:27): The rural community is suffering in a number of ways. Commercial organisations which deal with them should be a little more sensitive and understanding and not put on them extra stress, or act unreasonably, unwisely or unfairly. One fertiliser company, namely Incitec Pivot, has acted, in my view, in an unconscionable and unreasonable manner. I do not like naming them, but fertiliser companies have not endeared themselves to the rural community across Australia. My understanding is that they are currently being investigated by a Senate standing committee, along with other organisations, because there is a view that they have predatory pricing mechanisms in place. The charge levelled upon rural industry was, in the view of many people, excessive. In relation to the case of a farmer at Cowell, I am raising this issue today because I want it to be a warning to other organisations which may have similar ideas. They have every right to expect to be reasonably paid for services they provide, but they also have a responsibility to give people adequate time and take into account the services they provide. My understanding is that the farmer from Cowell owed approximately $85,000 for fertiliser. He had negotiations and faced difficulties due to the poor seasonal conditions. He did offer to make a payment of approximately $80,000, which was declined. The fertiliser company, Incitec Pivot, took action and put him into bankruptcy. They were unsecured creditors which meant, of course, that, the moment that was done, the bank involved had to step in because it was the secured creditor. Thanks to this particular action, the gentleman suffered a heart attack because of the stress they had put on him, and they ought to be very proud about that. These people can really hold their head high. In addition to that, the person had an opportunity, I understand, for very good employment overseas but, because he was declared bankrupt, his passport was withdrawn. This was an unnecessary course of action by this company. I would not have raised this in the house today, but I want to call on the Minister for Consumer Affairs and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to have a thorough investigation put in place, and I am happy to pass on the name of the person involved. Many of these people are in a very difficult situation and, at the end of the day, many of them stand to lose everything after two or three generations of farming. In some cases, their parents could have their own homes, which may be in the local township, called into question because of guarantees that were given. If this is the sort of society we are going to build, let us all understand clearly, and I say to this company: one unreasonable act always generates another. This company has got a mention in this house today because I am very unhappy about the way this particular person has been handled—and I am not the only one who holds that view. I know that throughout the community there are other organisations that are owed a lot of money, and that is fine. What we have to be careful about in this particular case is that, because they took this action, this person could have been denied the ability to get an exit grant, which I think is something like $150,000—it is like a redundancy, and that in itself is a scandal. Bearing in mind how some of the CEOs look after themselves, you would think that they would have a little compassion and a little understanding for people who are in a very necessitous set of circumstances. As someone who has a heart for the rural sector and who believes we need a sound agricultural sector, I ask the minister to act. Time expired.