Farm Debt Mediation Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 July 2016.)

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (11:24): I rise to make a few comments on the Farm Debt Mediation Bill and highlight to the house and to the people of South Australia that we have a problem in this state: it is not just power; it is actually how our farmers are treated in regional areas. Of course, what is quite amazing is the number of loans that have been administered by the state government. The complexity, and the way in which it has been done, has added unnecessary burden and certainly unnecessary grief to farmers, who, because of the very nature of needing to apply for these loans, are in a state of distress and high anxiety.

Six loans were administered, and the total value of those loans was $3.7 million. What I found unbelievable, when some authorities came to speak to me about this, was the cost the South Australian government department puts on administering those loans. I could not believe that the total cost to administer six successful applications was $2.5 million. The total loan amount is about $3.7 million, but the cost to administer only six successful applicants was around $2.5 million.

You do sit there and wonder. I go and talk to farmers, and they know about this, and they just shake their head and say, 'What is going on in the state of South Australia?' How can it be so expensive to do business, so bureaucratic that in a state of need the state government and the government department seem to put up every roadblock known to mankind to make it as difficult as possible to access the assistance? The government is quite easy and quite happy to come out and announce that it is here to support farmers, that it will do everything it can and that farmers can count on this government, yet in reality we see that it is all but that. Words are very cheap but actions speak very loudly.

We have seen the same issue with the dairy concessional loans. Farmers are saying to me, 'The minister gets out there and pretends to be the friend of the farmer, here to support us,' yet in South Australia they cannot use stock or water as an asset to apply for these loans. Mount Gambier is 20 kilometres from the Victorian border, but their Victorian colleagues in the farming industry can use water as an asset. It is a no-brainer that water is a fully tradable asset they can use to apply for dairy concessional loans and be successful.

I spoke with my federal colleague about the farm debt mediation loans scheme, and he told me that the net benefit over 10 years is going to be around $900,000. That is the net benefit to the six successful applicants on the ground. At a cost of $2.5 million, it is quite staggering in terms of the cost to administer those loans. I said to him, 'Why don't you cut the South Australian government out and just direct fund? Have the application sent through federally and then assess it so that we have a consistent approach, a fair approach, to administering these federal government loans.' What the South Australian government probably has not realised is that it is federal money. All it is being asked to do is administer it in a fair and equitable way—and they cannot even get that right.

I am certainly encouraging my federal colleague to look at direct funding so that South Australian farmers will get a fair go and will not be disadvantaged by a government that is so out of touch with the people of rural South Australia that it is making it difficult for them to apply for things they desperately need. I did a bit more research, wondering why only six loans were approved, because this is a very serious issue for farmers in my area. I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.