Consensus that multi-peril crop insurance needs a rebrand, and better support from all corners

The June NSW roundtable on farm income protection at Parliament House also heard it should never be seen as a silver bullet for drought support for Australian farmers, but one tool in the toolbox of whole farm management.

It should also be marketed more effectively, and broadened from cropping to include other commodities such as livestock and horticulture. 

The forum, hosted by Labor’s Ag spokesman Mick Veitch, brought together farmer and finance groups to look at the barriers preventing farm income protection from taking off in Australia like it has in parts of North America and Europe. 

Related reading

The insurance is designed to help farmers ride-out harsh situations – from drought years or increased climate pressure, to illness and sickness – giving them peace of mind and allowing them to invest in their business, and their local communities.

Despite discussions on farm income protection stretching back decades, it has not penetrated the market in Australia.

Poor understanding, poor marketing, poor uptake, high costs, and a lack of willingness from government to offer subsidies or tax breaks have created a loop that has seen everyone at a stand-still. 

The lack of a national or multi-jurisdictional scheme means insurers are unable to share the risk around. 

NSW Farmers representatives at the forum called on state government to reconsider the 2016 IPART recommendation that temporary subsidies be considered to help with the initial uptake of farm income protection. 

Former Ausure broker Wayne Brown said any discussion going forward should include everyone from insurance providers to brokers, farmers, banks, and distribtors of fertiliser and product.

”It has been incorrectly named, presented and distributed (so far) - we’ve done a poor job at selling it to farmers,” he said.

While others suggested understanding on both sides of the desk has been low, Ardlethan cropper Andrew Hawthorne said producers needed to change their attitude a little bit too.

“It should be looked at as a profit driver for business. Not a cost saver,” he said.

“We’re talking $25 to $30 a hectare. I can then go out every year, with best practice, using fertiliser and the rest, and go hard knowing I’m going to get a better yield.

If we have drought, I know I will have my costs covered. If not, fantastic, my yield is higher.”