Ms BADGER (Lyons) – Deputy speaker, I thank the minister’s office and both departments that worked on this bill for their efforts and for the albeit very late briefing that they organised yesterday afternoon.
Unquestionably, our farmers and primary producers are absolutely critical to Tasmania and they are facing a challenging time. As Ms Dow has just pointed out, we are in a serious drought. We are also in a cost-of-living crisis and are still seeing some ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic being felt. Then there is the climate crisis, which will exponentially continue to exacerbate natural disasters in both their impacts and frequency. The impacts this will have on our agricultural industry moving forward are enormous.
Farm debt mediation is on the rise nationally and for our Tasmanian farmers and agricultural sector. They are people with large assets and increasingly variable income, so financial assistance is being sought more frequently. It is time that Tasmania had a debt mediation option as do other states across Australia. Having the Tasmanian model based on the New South Wales legislation is a good idea, and I concur that that consistency between jurisdictions will be welcomed. We know statistically that the New South Wales blueprint is achieving the desired outcomes, with about a 90 per cent success rate. That is promising for Tasmania moving forward as well.
I also note for the record that it is good for lenders to have this as an option, not just for our farmers. We know many primary production operations of all scales are supported on some level by a form of lending, so to give that sector confidence in finding solutions for the clients and themselves is good.
I want to speak on the submissions. The Greens point out the inconsistency from some bodies in their lobbying for the legislation and regulatory change of late. A number of submissions which were received through the proper process in this case were unlike those in the residential regulation change for onsite farm workers, who are now set to have less housing stability under the amendments than primary production workers in other states. Why cannot those workers go to the government website and see who did or did not advocate for their housing rights? Why must they go to the individual bodies’ websites or wait for the Premier to answer questions in parliament to see who is lobbying behind the scenes against their renters’ rights? Both farmers and farm workers deserve to be spoken for or against, but through the proper process. It cannot be one way for some and another for others.
The Greens also point out the inconsistency of the government’s decisions based on the consultation feedback. In this case they chose, quite rightly, to put in place a process to help prevent farm owners from losing their property, but in the case of on-farm tenants, they have chosen to let tenants be immediately thrown out with no notice and no safety net. Despite the Premier’s promise to lead a government with heart, time and time again they have shown they only have heart for a select cohort.
The Greens have concerns around the costs estimated for mediation here in Tasmania. The $3000 estimate proposed in the consultation paper may be cheaper than legal fees as an alternative avenue but, when compared to other states, this is still a substantial sum. I understand from the briefing that the Tasmanian bill is just drafting that of the New South Wales model, so similar with the fifty‑fifty shared basis, but Victoria’s present cost for mediation per session is just $195.
The Australian Bank Association points out in their submission that consideration should be given to potential financial support options or government subsidisation of farmers in some circumstances. Further to that point, Rural Business Tasmania points to the Victorian model in its submissions. It says:
As a significant number of Tasmanian lenders would need to negotiate with Victorian or Melbourne-based credit control debt departments, it is suggested that a cost closer to that of the Victorian model should be adopted.
It also goes on to point out:
If the borrower is already under significant financial pressures but need to engage costly legal or specialist support and then contribute approximately $3000, this may seem an insurmountable road to resolution, particularly when also considering the emotional and time resources that will be extended in an already stressful situation.
We do not want the $3000 cost to be a barrier or to prohibit farmers from taking up this important service. Nor should this service, which is there for farmers and families when they are most in need, be inequitable when compared to other jurisdictions. It would not be hugely expensive to have government hardship grants in place or even capping the costs of the farmers’ contributions, which I believe they do in New Zealand. It is estimated that only 8 to 17 debt mediations would occur through the scheme each financial year in Tasmania, so it is not a big ask in terms of the budget.
I have some questions for the minister based on that. Will you put in place a similar framework of either government contributions or grants to assist with the mediation costs for already struggling farmers? I have been waiting since the last‑minute briefing yesterday to receive some communication on that matter, and an answer. I will presume the answer is ‘no’, but I will be delighted to be proved wrong.
If you are not implementing a subsidising scheme of some description, will you guarantee a review of the costs for mediation in 18 or 24 months to assess whether the $3000 figure is an impediment to farmers taking up mediation? Not assessing these costs for already struggling farmers, as other states have, would be a political choice.
Honourable Speaker, in the face of climate change and rapidly altering weather, which is becoming harder to predict and will inevitably impact our farmers, this mediation scheme is a welcome addition to helping people when they need it most, provided it is done properly. The Greens will support the bill.
