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

The member for Hume mentions Queensland. Eighty-three per cent of those who responded wanted a single desk. Of those who responded from South Australia and the Northern Territory, 79 per cent wanted a single desk structure. It is very interesting to note that in Western Australia, which is the state that is most reliant on global markets, 80 per cent wanted a single desk structure, while 6.7 per cent wanted full deregulation. Interestingly enough, in the over 5,000 tonnes range, 17 per cent wanted full deregulation. So the numbers in favour of full deregulation were reasonably small.

Another significant indicator that came out of the survey—and I think the government has picked up on this as well—was the preferred structure that wheat growers wanted. One of the options put to them was for AWB International Ltd to hold the single desk marketing arrangements as part of AWB Ltd, and 23.7 per cent wanted that to happen. Being a wheat grower myself, I was interested in that response. Sixty-two per cent, or 1,700 wheat growers, wanted to separate AWB International Ltd and AWB Ltd, with the objective of creating a grower owned single desk manager—AWB International Ltd—to market Australia’s bulk wheat internationally and a purely commercial agribusiness company, AWB Ltd. In fact, they wanted a differentiation between the marketing arrangements of the Wheat Board and the other commercial arrangements such as the selling of dog biscuits, fertiliser et cetera, that they had entered into. So 62 per cent were essentially saying they wanted a single desk marketer, but they wanted it structured so that its core business was the marketing of Australia’s bulk export wheat. They did not want it to be involved in other activities, such as the selling of dog biscuits et cetera.

That is essentially what the government has delivered on, but the Western Australian figures are interesting in this regard. Bearing in mind that I have just outlined that 62 per cent in total wanted a demerger arrangement, 70 per cent of Western Australians wanted that particular arrangement, compared to only 57 per cent in New South Wales, 58 per cent in Queensland, 63 per cent in Victoria and 61 per cent in South Australia and the Northern Territory. Some 14.1 per cent of respondents wanted to reissue the single desk licence to a new, grower owned operation.

There are a couple of other interesting findings, which I think the government picked up on as well. I found it quite interesting, as a wheat grower, given that the majority of growers had made a decision that they would like a single desk structure and that they would prefer a demerged structure, or a variation on that theme, to see what they wanted in terms of bagged and containerised wheat. It was a vexed issue for many wheat growers that the existing Australian Wheat Board had not marketed smaller quantities of wheat into some of the niche markets very professionally. I would agree. When growers were asked, ‘Should containerised and bagged wheat be exempt from any veto?’—and bear in mind that 82 per cent wanted a single desk—only 31 per cent said yes. Only 35 per cent said no and 33 per cent were not particularly concerned either way. Only a third of wheat growers actually wanted the veto powers, or a single desk structure, imposed on those niche markets of bagged and containerised wheat. That is a very significant response from the wheat industry. I am pleased to see that the government has picked up on that in the legislation. The bagged and containerised wheat arrangements will be treated somewhat differently to other arrangements.

The legislation will change the role of the Wheat Export Authority, and it will be renamed the Export Wheat Commission. There are some concerns that the member for Hotham and some members of the government have raised. I know there are concerns in the wheat industry about the specific powers that the commission will have other than the gathering of information. Some of that may be clarified over time, but this is something that must be looked at fairly closely. I know the Labor Party have been arguing that the bill should be split to let the minister have the veto powers for another 12 months and put a bit more effort and time into the new structure. I can see some logic in that, but I will be supporting the legislation. I think, in the main, the government has attempted to put in place something that the majority of wheat growers want.

I have been very disappointed—as I think many people have been, on both sides of this debate—in the leadership shown within the agricultural sector. The National Farmers Federation once again has been found wanting in this debate. The Grains Council has been almost absent—it did not seem to have a view; then it had a view that was different to that of some of its members. It has almost become a joke in terms of displaying leadership in the grains sector. I think the Prime Minister has laid it on the line that, if the industry cannot get its act together, all bets are off. I challenge the industry. The growers have displayed what they want. It is time that the leaders in this industry overcame some of their little state boundary skirmishes and petty agripolitics and started to address the future of this industry.

I was critical of the Ralph report at the time, but it came up with the right recommendations, almost duplicating the survey that I have just gone through for the parliament. It is time that the leaders of the grains sector—the National Farmers Federation, the Grains Council and others, including state based bodies—played a greater role in the future— (Time expired)

See this speech in context