Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I listened with interest to the member for Grey and I congratulate the government on the decision to move in the way they have. As some members would be aware, I was recently critical of the process the government put in place when it was determined that a consultant group was to travel around Australia and consult with growers. I went to two of those meetings, one in Gunnedah and one in Moree, and it is on the record that I was a little disappointed with the way in which those two meetings were handled. I followed the meetings held in other parts of Australia with some degree of interest as well.

At that particular time I was critical of the Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister for undertakings he gave in Victoria last year that, if there were to be any substantive changes in wheat export arrangements for Australian wheat growers, he would poll the wheat industry to find out what the growers themselves wanted for their future. He subsequently wrote a nice little letter to all wheat growers saying that the government was carrying out reviews, but the letter failed to poll their particular views on those matters. I thought that was disappointing because the rhetoric inside and outside this place at the time was that everybody was concerned about the wheat growers and that they were of paramount importance to this particular issue. In my view, the only way to find that out was to ask them, but it was deemed that that was not the appropriate process. In fact, last year—it may have been earlier this year—I moved an amendment to the legislation that a poll take place, not to bind the government but to be used as an indicator of growers’ views.

The group that travelled around Australia under the chairmanship of John Ralph suggested three broad proposals ranging from what we have now—or what we did have before the minister’s use of veto powers—a single desk arrangement, through to a multilayered marketing arrangement where there is more than one export operator operating under certain rules and regulations as determined by the government of the day, right through to a fully deregulated export environment. With those three broad criteria in mind, I wrote to all wheat growers as I thought it was a crucial question that they be involved in. It was the future of their industry that we were talking about.

In its infancy, the Wheat Board was driven by one of my constituents, Mr Don Barwick, a man who passed away only a few years back. He was one of the frontrunners in the late forties and early fifties who were behind the wheat-marketing arrangements that were put in place. He was also involved in many other programs and projects in the agricultural sector.

The poll that I conducted in the letter I wrote to wheat growers was asking them, as individuals, to respond to the three broad agenda items that the Ralph inquiry was putting to them by way of substantive meetings—from a single desk arrangement to a multilayered marketing arrangement right through to the fully deregulated option. I will spend a moment reflecting on some of the answers to the inquiry I made of wheat growers. I received a total of 3,372 responses from all states. I will go through a couple of the outcomes because I think they reflect in a positive way on the decision that the government has made and, in the main, back up that decision-making process. I gave copies of the documents and responses to the Prime Minister and the minister for agriculture and others, particularly some within the National Party, who were interested. I congratulate some of the members of the National Party for sticking to their guns on this issue and standing up for the wheat growers. I know they had difficulties with some members within their coalition, but I think the outcome was worth fighting for. The totality of the responses vindicates the decision that they argued for in the coalition rooms and the government’s final commitment. I am fully aware that there are some problems that will need to be addressed regarding the veto arrangements and timescales et cetera.

As I said, I will go through some of the responses that were given on the three broad arrangements that were put: 82.6 per cent, or 2,786 wheat growers, supported a single desk structure for the marketing of Australia’s bulk export wheat—the key words there are ‘single desk’, ‘structure’ and ‘bulk’; 11.2 per cent, or 377 wheat growers, supported a regulated wheat-marketing system where there is more than one marketer of export wheat—that is, a multiple licensing arrangement—but not full deregulation; and 6.2 per cent, or 210 wheat growers out of the 3,372 who responded, supported full deregulation of export wheat marketing.

At first blush, the government has put in place something that is very close to what wheat growers wanted. The growers wanted a single desk structure. I think we are all aware that the structure is going to change—as it should, in my view—because of various management problems that occurred during the Iraqi fiasco. The concept of a single desk structure for the marketing of Australia’s bulk wheat is reflected in the legislative arrangements.

A number of people, in debating this matter, have said that only the farmers with small tonnages really needed the protection of a single desk and that those with bigger tonnages were more than happy to take on the world in a fully deregulated arrangement. In the survey that I sent to growers, I asked them what their tonnage arrangements were—how big they were in terms of the wheat industry and what sort of structure they preferred. It is interesting to note that, of those with tonnages ranging from nought to 500 tonnes—those who would be considered to be at the smaller end of the wheat-growing industry—727, or 84.7 per cent, of the smaller growers wanted a single desk structure. Of those with tonnages ranging from 501 to 1,000 tonnes, 85 per cent wanted a single desk structure. Of those with tonnages ranging from 1,001 to 5,000 tonnes—those who would be considered to be growers with reasonably hefty wheat tonnages—81.3 per cent wanted a single desk structure for the marketing of Australia’s bulk export wheat. That figure was very similar to the total average figure of 82.6 per cent. Of the growers with tonnages over 5,000 tonnes, 68.1 per cent wanted a single desk structure for the marketing of export wheat.

There is absolutely no doubt that the majority of wheat growers across the board wanted a single desk structure. Some people have suggested that Western Australia does not have the marketing outlets that the eastern states have. In fact, it was made very plain at the Moree meeting in particular that a lot of wheat growers do not access the export wheat market because they can access domestic marketing arrangements. So the export market is not as important for them as it is for growers in Western Australia or even South Australia.

On a state-by-state breakdown, of the New South Wales and ACT wheat growers who responded, 84 per cent, in round figures, wanted a single desk; in Victoria, the figure was 87 per cent; in Tasmania, it was 100 per cent. However, I make it clear that only four wheat growers from Tasmania responded; I do not think that any export wheat comes out of Tasmania.

See this speech in context