Farmers’ live export win will limit the power of emotional lobbying
ROBERT GOTTLIEBSEN 8:28AM JUNE 3, 2020
The campaign against live animal exports was an emotional one. Picture: Chanel Kinniburgh
The “farmers’ case” is much bigger than simply a substantial government payout to the rural communities who suffered at the hands of the Gillard government. The Federal Court decision has the potential to change the way federal and state governments, local regulators and even the Australian Taxation Office make decisions. Accordingly we are looking at a precedent that has widespread implications for wide areas of the community.
When the National Farmers Federation decided to help fund a test case to determine whether the Gillard government’s action in banning live cattle exports was legal, it knew it was a long shot.
No one had ever before successfully prosecuted a case which challenged the basis of cabinet authority in Australia.
But farmers also knew that if they succeeded, it would rewrite the way many government organisations make decisions in Australia. It would also reduce some of the risks in farming and a lot of other industries.
Moreover, the facts in this case were so clear-cut and the government’s actions so obviously irresponsible that it was a perfect set of circumstances to run a test case. It was not surprising that the Federal Court backed the farmers.
In essence the Gillard government responded to a highly emotional television broadcast and then a volley of social and another media pressure. Fact checking and alternative strategies and rural community impact were not an important part of the Gillard government decision making process. It was all about political pressure by groups who wanted to ban live animal exports. All of us can reel off strings of environmental and climate decisions that have been made in exactly the same way in recent years.
I emphasise that the fact that decisions are made as a result of political pressure does not make the decisions wrong. But, in future, if the “farmers’ case” survives any appeal, then such decisions must made in accordance with the law rather than simply political pressure and the need to retain or win key parliamentary seats.
Property nimbys
The property industry around the nation will recognise that what happened in the “farmers’ case” is not that different from what happens every day in real estate. There are a series of clearly set out rules as to what can be built and what can’t be built and restrictions on design and so on.
All too often these rules are thrown out the window as the pressure from various lobby groups who don’t want a project to go ahead builds up. Often, the end result is long delay which help make dwellings in Australia unaffordable to many.
The role of pressure groups extends way beyond the environment and property.
Pressure groups use all sorts of techniques to encourage decisions that accord with their point of view. As a result of the farmers’ case precedent the state and local government bodies subject to that pressure now carry much higher risk in succumbing to it. They can be prosecuted and must pay damages. In some cases, there might even be personal liability to members of the approval bodies. In essence the “farmers’ case” precedent reduces the power of community in the process but increases certainty and the ramifications keep spreading.
Tax cowboys
Another example is the ATO, which in a variety of areas sets its own rules. There are a string of cases in the pipeline where the ATO has behaved badly in pursuing its own social objectives, which did not necessarily accord with the thrust or detail of parliamentary law. The ATO relies on the fact that its small enterprise victims do not have the money to take the case to court. The farmers’ case may help funding.
A good example of the cavalier attitude that exists in the ATO culture is the so called “robodebt” scandal that involved linking taxable income with social services. It clearly did not work, and the government now faces not only returning the money but paying damages as well.
It sounded like a good idea but as in the farmers’ case, not enough work was done to look at the outcomes involved in aligning taxable income to social service data.
The government has also been sold the idea that payments to independent schools should be related to the taxable income of parents. Just like the robo idea, in theory, it makes perfect sense but whether the taxable income is suitable for this purpose will not be determined for years to come.
Meanwhile the way the ATO has administered the complex JobKeeper scheme – apart from the bad form wording – has been remarkable and the community has to hope that this is the start of a new era that began before the farmers’ case.
The above are just a few of the areas where authorities will need to re-look at what they’ve been doing in the light of a farmers’ case.
But it’s bad news for the high-profile lobbyists who pursue their agendas in aggressive and sometimes ruthless ways.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busine ... 884f1e155b
