Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007 represents the Howard government’s response to the wheat industry crisis generated by the involvement of Australia’s single-desk marketer, AWB, in the wheat for weapons scandal. Like its recent initiatives on climate change and broadband, the Howard government has been forced into this legislative action because of its own incompetence and neglect. The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007 proposes six key changes to the Wheat Marketing Act 1989. It extends the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry temporary veto powers over non-AWB International Ltd bulk exports until 30 June 2008; it includes the power for the minister to change the company that manages the single-desk from 1 March 2008; it provides powers for the regulator to obtain information, particularly from other wheat exporters and their associates; it includes the power for the minister to direct the regulator to investigate matters relating to its function and pass this information on to other law enforcement and regulatory bodies as necessary; it introduces the Uhrig reforms to the industry regulator; and it deregulates wheat exports in bags and containers, but with the addition of a quality assurance requirement to safeguard the reputation of Australian wheat.

The Labor Party’s position on this legislation is that we support the bill in principle. I wish to place on the public record my personal support for the second reading amendment proposed by the member for Hotham—a person on this side of the House still held in very high regard by wheat farmers and wheat industry representatives throughout Australia. That amendment states:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“the House:

(1)

notes:

(a)

the proposed legislative measures in the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill arise directly from the Australian Wheat Board’s role in the now infamous ‘Wheat for Weapons Scandal’;

(b)

the Government should be held accountable for the fact that it:

(i)

failed to act on at least 34 substantial warnings about the role of the AWB in the scandal;

(ii)

failed to utilise the clear mechanism available to insist that the AWB reveal all information in its possession regarding its role in the AWB scandal;

(iii)

failed to adopt practical and sensible measures to oversee the role of the AWB during the period of the ‘Wheat for Weapons Scandal’;

(c)

the Government limited the terms of reference of the Cole Inquiry to such an extent that it was unable to meaningfully evaluate the culpability of the Government in the ‘Wheat for Weapons Scandal’; and

(2)

calls on the Government to split the bill so as to separate:

(a)

the provisions relating to the extension of the temporary veto power of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry over non-AWB (International) Ltd bulk exports, from

(b)

the remaining provisions of the bill, which should be referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for inquiry and report”.

I commend the contributions of the members for Hotham and Wills—the members from this side of the House who preceded me in this debate.

Nobody in this parliament ought to be under any illusion as to the importance of the matters that we are debating in this bill here today. Thousands of wheat farmers and wheat-farming families across the length and breadth of this great nation depend for their living on this great Australian agricultural industry. The very existence of many rural communities depends on the economic viability of the farms and farm enterprises that make up this great Australian industry. Their economic viability depends heavily on the efficiency of the marketing arrangements for wheat and the prices that they are able to extract from a global marketplace that all acknowledge is, in many instances, corrupted by European and American producers who are heavily dependent on government subsidies and support for their existence.

It is in this context and against the backdrop of this government’s negligence and incompetence throughout the AWB wheat for weapons scandal that this parliament is now considering new legislation relating to marketing arrangements for wheat. There is a very good reason why Labor is proposing to split the legislation and to refer the details of the proposed marketing arrangements to a committee of this parliament for further consideration and scrutiny. It is simply because the government has not adequately consulted the industry about its plans. We all know the history of this. On 22 May, the Prime Minister announced the government’s plans for future wheat export marketing arrangements. This particular bill was introduced into the House on 14 June, without any consultation with growers or traders—with the government knowing that there is a wide divergence of views within the producer and marketing communities on how arrangements ought to be structured for this industry’s future. Until last Thursday, grower groups had not seen the detailed legislation, and they have not had a proper opportunity to consider the impact and the details of the changes that are inherent in this legislation.

In Labor’s second reading amendment, we are providing—and we will do the same in the Senate—the opportunity for the industry to consider in detail this legislation and its impact. We on this side of the House believe in consultation with the industry on these matters. I am pleased that Labor’s proposal to split the bill has been welcomed by key players in the grain industry, including the Grains Council of Australia and the PGA in Western Australia. It is simply not enough for the government to argue that it has already undertaken sufficient consultation with industry players through the Ralph Wheat Export Marketing Consultation Committee. The fact is that nobody has yet seen the report on the deliberations and recommendations of that committee. Furthermore, there has been no formal opportunity for industry players, who hold quite divergent views on the future of wheat marketing, to comment in detail on significant elements of the government’s legislation; hence our proposal to split the bill.

A cursory scan of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s second reading speech provides ample clues to the quite decrepit state this government is in after 11 long years in office. In his second reading speech to this House, the minister demonstrates the paralysis of government that inevitably comes from being duplicitous, incompetent and in power too long. I notice that my coalition colleague from South Australia is here—a wheat farmer from the Eyre Peninsula—

See this speech in context