Comments by Senator Barnaby Joyce.

Labor Party fails to deliver lower living costs..

Whilst the rolling Greek tragedy that is the Labor Party continues, the price of utilities continues to take away the spare cash of many Australian families. The Labor Party went to the election saying that they would ease the squeeze and assist with the cost of living but this is another promise which they have never delivered. In fact they were increasing the debt and increasing pressure on interest rates while they made life harder not easier for people. Australians are quickly coming to the conclusion that life under Labor is an erratic roller coaster which the wheels will fly off at any moment. 

After promising to reduce the cost of living, since Labor was elected:

Electricity prices have gone up 34%

Water prices have gone up 29%

Gas prices have gone up 26%

Overall, utility bills have gone up 31%

To compare Labor against the Coalition on an annual basis (and correcting for inflation)

Electricity prices are going up 9.3% a year under Labor.They went up 0.5% a year under the Coalition

. 

Water prices are going up 7.6% a year under Labor. They went up 1.2% a year under the Coalition

Gas prices are going up 6.5% a year under Labor. They went up 1.3% a year under the Coalition.

Overall, utility prices are going up 8.2% a year under Labor. They went up 0.8% a year under the Coalition.

Australia can't afford another three years of Labor.

$500,000 Estate claim highlights need for succession plans-for family farming businesses.

A recent Queensland Supreme Court case highlights the need for early consideration of succession plans for family farming businesses, particularly where children are employed in the business and have contributed to its development.

In the case of O'Donnell v Gillespie the deceased (“Father”) was a retired farmer with 7 children.  His estate at the date of his death was worth $9.3 million.  The Father's eldest son (“the Son”) received nothing under the will and applied to the Court for provision out of the estate. 

The Son went to work on his father's farms after finishing school in 1970.  Over the years the Father told the Son that he would one day inherit the farms or at least part of them.  The Son worked on the farms until 1995.  At that time there was a disagreement between the Father and Son as to the way in which the farms should be managed, the extent to which the Son was to have a management role and the Father’s refusal to sell some of the farm to the Son.

After this dispute the Son's relationship with his parents wholly broke down and he had very little contact with them again until his Father died in 2007. 

During the period of the Son's employment with his Father he was for the first 15 or so years modestly, but adequately, remunerated.  It was likely that his wage was more than the award wage however no more than other unrelated employees of the Father.  In the later years of his employment with his Father the Son was well remunerated. 

The Court was not persuaded that this was a case where a son had long undertaken work for well less than a proper remuneration upon the expectation that the farm or some of it would be left to him.    The Court was satisfied that the Son played a major part in maintaining and developing the farms and that contribution was certainly relevant in the assessment of whether provision should have been made for the Son in the Father's will. 

The Court also considered the Son's financial position, the size and nature of the estate, the totality of the relationship between the Son and the deceased and the relationship between the deceased and other persons who had legitimate claims on his estate.

The Court found that the Son was not in need of provision from the estate in the sense that he and his wife were unable to support themselves.  They were each employed and able to meet their expenses.  The net assets of the Son and his wife were about $1.4 million. 

Notwithstanding that at some stage during the Son's employment with his father he grew cannabis on the farms and was estranged from his parents for the 12 years prior to his father's death, the Court found that adequate provision was not made for the Son's proper maintenance and support. 

The principal reasons for that conclusion were that the Son's circumstances could not rule out a real risk he would be forced to resort to his savings to continue to support his family and that ultimately he would be deprived of economic independence coupled with his substantial contribution to the estate upon the expectation that some of it would be left to him.

The Court awarded the Son $500,000.

This case emphasises the need for succession planning from the very earliest days of a child's involvement in a family business.

Adequate remuneration while working in a family business will not disentitle a child to provision out of their parent's estate to recognise a child's contribution to developing the family assets.

A well prepared succession plan, setting out the intended contributions of the Son to the family farms and the intended timing of transfer of property to him in recognition of his contributions, would likely have prevented the estrangement and the resultant costly legal claim.  The costs awarded against the estate in this case were over $200,000.

Fox and Thomas tailor family succession plans to provide security and peace of mind to farming families, allowing them to focus on their true passion, the land, knowing that they have planned for their future.

MX 285 - 24 tonne Parkes chaser bin (with operator)and a Roadtrain

With 36x6 tippers fitted with rollover tarps is available for work during the up coming harvest. The equipment is available for work in all areas.

4x Trucks with "New Trailers"

Available for harvest season