Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To briefly conclude my earlier remarks, I was referring to Public Service standards and to ministerial responsibility. Caroline Overington’s book The Foundations of Governance in the Australian Public Service, states on page 261:

Under normal, or at least, the historical rules of ministerial accountability, Downer would have been booted off the front bench. It was Howard not Cole who decided for him to keep his job.

She goes on to say:

If the buck didn’t stop with Downer, where did it stop? Why didn’t he resign? There is only one possible answer; Downer cared more about his own job than he cared about the integrity of his office. He somehow managed to convince himself that the doctrine of ministerial responsibility did not apply.

And so in January 2007, almost a year to the day after the Cole inquiry began, there he was in Manhattan. Photographs captured the moment: he was wearing a tux and grinning like a loon, hamming it up with the Wiggles.

That was on page 168. In fact the principle of ministerial responsibility requires the Minister for Foreign Affairs to have made inquiries, when public servants in his department became aware of the Wheat Board scandal, as to why they did not communicate that information to the highest level. He certainly needs to comprehensively review procedures in the department to make sure that vital information is not blocked, that ministers are not protected or quarantined from controversial information and that all information is fed to the minister. At the end of the day, under the principles of ministerial responsibility, it is the minister who should and must take responsibility for this grave scandal, which has blighted the international reputation of Australia and harmed the interests of Australian wheat growers.

Barry Wakelin (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to speak on the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007 and to address a few of the previous remarks, which are more political in nature than the practical delivery of a wheat marketing system. I doubt whether there has been an issue documented more in the popular media almost in our living memory. I do not propose to revisit that issue, other than simply to make the observation that, for the overwhelming majority of Australians, wheat industry issues are but of passing interest—other than to wheat growers, wheat marketers or people who have a particular direct interest in that industry. The only comments I could usefully make this morning are that it was caught up in a particular market; that over 2,000 companies were investigated, as I understand; and that this Australian government undertook to look at it thoroughly through the Cole commission.

To come to the legislation, there has been a very large amount of industry consultation. The Ralph committee—prominent businessman Mr John Ralph; Roger Corbett, another very prominent businessman; the respected farm leader Peter Corish; and Mike Carroll, a very respected banker with experience in agribusiness—did a magnificent job in going all over Australia and listening to the wheat industry and to wheat growers. They came back with some fairly clear impressions about the way ahead. I believe that is reflected in this legislation.

There are new export monopoly arrangements. The Wheat Export Authority will be a stronger entity. The powers and functions are much more specific and the governance of that organisation will, I am sure, give significant reassurance to the industry. The deregulation of bagged and container wheat exports is something which I am sure most sections of the industry will welcome. It is a welcome step forward.

Quality assurance is well covered. The government focused on the quality assurance matters, not to dictate the quality of wheat that can be exported but rather to make sure that exporters are meeting the specifications of their contract with customers. That is quite important. There is a great concern out there that, as we vary the single desk arrangements, quality will slip and the reputation of Australian wheat with our customers may suffer. This legislation thoroughly addresses that concern through this quality assurance scheme.

Commissioner Cole had some very pertinent words to say about the single desk which I think all of us should contemplate and respect—that is, whenever the parliament grants a monopoly, there is a very special responsibility to respect that monopoly. We should never forget that. With the Wheat Export Commission the government has undertaken to bring a balance between the domestic wheat market and the export wheat market, and that is very much welcomed. I particularly welcome the fact that one nominee from the Grains Council of Australia will come from the eastern states—that is, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland or Tasmania—and that another member of the GCA will be a resident of either South Australia or Western Australia. What we are endeavouring to do here is strike a balance between the key export regions of Australia. On average something like 65 per cent of Australia’s wheat exports over the last decade has come out of South Australia and Western Australia. It is very important that we respect the various components of the wheat industry and the great reliance of South Australia, particularly western South Australia, and the majority of Western Australia on wheat exports.

It is quite important to respect the diversity of opinion in this debate, particularly the significant interest groups including the pastoralists, the PGA of Western Australia and the grains organisation of South Australia. By a majority view, but by no means a unanimous view, South Australians believe that we need to move to a licensed marketing system and ultimately to full deregulation. That is not a view shared in every state of the Commonwealth but certainly it is a view shared in Western Australia by the PGA. I do not intend to revisit that debate because it is not particularly useful to do so.

The wheat industry is in a dynamic period, coming out of what the AWB will be able to provide in medium-term marketing and what the single desk will look like post 1 March 2008. As an aside, most farmers would be pleased just to have a crop this year. But if we do have a reasonable crop, and given the challenges of maximising the export price and our opportunities in a very competitive export market, it is essential that this legislation in all its various components supports the wheat industry, which the parliament has had involvement in since 1915. Wheat is the only commodity in Australia, as I understand it, which has a single desk marketing strategy. There are some serious questions about the future. I do not know if any of us could have predicted the circumstances that have led to this legislation, including the Iraqi situation, the outcome of the Cole commission and the opportunism of our political opponents. It has been quite a circus. In most cases it has simply meant more pain for grain, particularly more pain for grain growers. I think we can now look forward in a positive manner.

The opportunities in this debate are endless for the Labor Party, but that does not help us to respect those who endeavour to toil honestly to produce an export product. If you attempted to predict where this industry was going two years ago—before the Cole commission, the drought and now the new marketing arrangements in this bill—I do not whether anyone would have been able to run a very accurate book on it. Nevertheless that is where we are at. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has done an outstanding job in bringing this together. The consultation and the effort by the executive of this government have been remarkable. The Prime Minister and senior cabinet ministers have put a lot of time into understanding the needs of this industry which have set it on a firm base and will allow it to serve this country well in the future. The industry will continue to generate export income and opportunities for regional Australia, and Australia will benefit from the economic opportunities that the wheat industry offers this nation.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you had done something about AWB, there would be less damage.

Barry Wakelin (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If only the Labor Party knew something about wheat, I would be much happier. I ask my friend opposite to give us something positive. Let us see whether you can get a better deal for wheat growers. I think you would get a fairly swift response from the wheat industry. I thank all those who have put in such a magnificent effort to bring this marketing bill forward. We have exciting times ahead. I look forward to those opportunities and I believe this bill will serve us well.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not much comes out of New South Wales and Queensland either.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to 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)

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk on the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007. The agricultural industry in Australia once maintained a reputation as a proponent of fair trade in an uncompromised export market. This reputation was achieved through transparency and accountability, two notable characteristics which serve as the basis of a free market economy. A fair export wheat market export system for growers should encompass these same principles and characteristics. In light of increasingly unsettling revelations about the AWB, it appears a fair export system for export wheat growers cannot be achieved through the retention of the single desk.

For many of Australia’s wheat farmers, the findings of the Cole commission of inquiry into the disgraceful corporate behaviour of AWB Ltd will have considerable, far-ranging ramifications for the marketing of Australian wheat. The reputation of Australia’s wheat market has been tarnished by the corruption mastered by AWB through its sale of wheat with kickbacks to Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. The scandal has resulted in the loss of substantial overseas markets for Australian export wheat growers.

As if this were not enough to keep our wheat farmers awake at night, the ongoing drought has tested the resilience of many farming families and is already pushing many to the limit. To then encourage farmers to participate in a market with a significant lack of economic competition, dominated by a single seller, with the continuation of a structure which has already been discredited worldwide, is unfair, if not morally wrong.

The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007 retains Australia’s single desk for export wheat. The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007 also purports to heed the calls of growers for the retention of the single desk. However, for many wheat growers, particularly those in Western and South Australia, where the majority of international export wheat is grown, the dissemination of the single desk is a welcome change from days gone by.

In the past 30 years we have seen a substantial shift in Australian grain exports, moving from a wheat monoculture to rotations with other crops and pastures. None of these other commodities, such as barley, canola or sorghum, have the oppressive effect of a single desk stifling their market. It is quite ironic that many of Australia’s wheat growers also successfully grow canola and barley for export without a single desk. It has been argued that, as Australia’s dominant crop, wheat merits some sort of special treatment. Clearly, there is no justifiable basis for this argument; beef is the dominant livestock produced in Australia and it does not rate exceptional treatment. After the formation of the Federation of Australia in 1901 large-scale broadacre cropping was promoted, and Australia’s wheat belt doubled in size. With the onset of World War II, the Australian Wheat Board, AWB, was established. Its purpose was to stabilise prices and meet wartime demand. However, it was allowed to retain monopoly control over the international market.

Monopolies are often characterised by a lack of economic competition for the good that is provided and a lack of viable substitute goods. Surely the Australian wheat export industry is mature enough now not to return to the social agrarian policies of the 1950s and 1960s. The lack of competition has the potential to foster inefficiency, a lack of innovation from within the industry as well as substandard management. If the Cole inquiry into AWB has not produced enough evidence of substandard management, the recent revelations by the very active and dedicated federal member for Indi, Mrs Sophie Mirabella, about the treatment of one of her constituents by AWB indicate the extent of its collusion and corruption. The issue was raised after a Springhurst businessman accused the AWB of trying to steal his company and breach international trading laws. Ian Metherall revolutionised how farmers store grain in Australia by importing IpesaSilo grain storage bags, which allow farmers to store tonnes of grain on their farms. Mr Metherall has described how AWB requested that he enter into a joint venture with them, only to find that the contracts they had drawn up would have done away with his control of the business. He also claimed that AWB owed his company hundreds of thousands of dollars after a deal with AWB India went awry. He claimed that his company sent machinery and bags to India after AWB agreed that its foreign market rights and commissions would be respected. He then described how AWB requested via email that he alter an invoice and change the amount if he wanted payment for the transaction. ‘I said I wouldn’t change it, because I knew it broke international law,’ Mr Metherall said. Ian Metherall has described the culture of AWB as ‘ethically bankrupt’. ‘I’ve always asked: are they there to grow it or control it?’ Mr Metherall said. ‘It is a bigger picture we are looking at—a war over control of the grain.’

The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007 provides for the deregulation of wheat exports in bags and containers, but with the addition of a quality assurance requirement to safeguard the reputation of Australian wheat. The deregulation of wheat exports in bags and containers will give greater certainty and opportunity to the development of niche and new market opportunities. The behaviour of AWB has put into question the reliability of the Australian wheat export industry as a whole and has forced us to question how well suited a single desk is to represent and market nearly all of Australia’s wheat overseas—this is not to mention the high costs associated with running a single desk. It is estimated that to run a single desk you need capital of about $600 million to $1,000 million. I will be interested to see how that money is going to be raised by 1 March next year.

AWB was charging wheat growers about $300 million a year to run its organisation, and now Australian export wheat farmers have nothing but a poor reputation to show for it. The single desk structure means that farmers are forced to take what they are given for their produce and allows no room for individual farmers to go outside the structure and find buyers that the single desk does not deal with. Competition should be encouraged as a way to make the industry more efficient and cost-effective. The findings of the Ralph inquiry suggest that many growers wish to retain a single desk. However, not every farmer agrees with this position. Why should these growers be forced to sell their wheat to a national pool if they do not want to? Talk about agrarian socialism in the extreme!

Much of the wheat grown in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria is consumed in Australia, while most Western Australian and South Australian wheat is exported. Interestingly, the most pressure to retain the single desk is coming from growers in NSW and Queensland, the majority of whom do not export wheat. The principles of a free market economy do not coincide with a situation in which a market is dominated by a single seller, as is the case with the retention of the single desk in Australia, which protects vested interests at the expense of Australia’s broader economic interests. If Australia seeks to be a nation that is committed to free market principles, why make wheat an exception to the rule? I will leave the community to think about that. No other industry forces its sellers to go through a single exporter. There is no rational argument to support the continuation of a single desk. Cattle producers, dairy farmers and horticulturalists receive no special treatment. The Iraqi kickbacks scandal has left a black mark on AWB’s reputation throughout the world. Why, then, should individual farmers be expected to pay the price for a company in disrepute? Australia’s export wheat industry has been discredited by the organisation that presented its face and image, and because of this Australian growers will continue to suffer as other countries continue to avoid Australian wheat.

The one-size-fits-all approach of the single desk militates against excellence. People who produce good wheat are not rewarded and those who produce poor quality product are not penalised. In the age of competition policy, there is no place for the single desk. Farmers should have the right to export wheat wherever they want and to choose who should sell it on their behalf. However, if the government is to proceed with the creation of a new entity which holds the single desk, then the government must, at the very least, be satisfied, firstly, that this entity is a completely separate legal entity from AWB Ltd and, secondly, that it reflects the government’s clear intention that any behaviour which undermines the interests of Australian export wheat growers and damages Australia’s trading reputation will not be tolerated—and I would hope that the government has got the message that the days of appointing political apparatchiks, who have caused significant problems with the export wheat industry, are over and it looks for somebody who is at arm’s length from the political arena. Thirdly, the government must be satisfied that the views of growers will continue to be represented, with the minister appointing at least one commissioner based on strong skills, knowledge and standing in export wheat production. Finally, it must be satisfied as to the financial viability and capacity of any new entity proposed to be the single desk holder. A government grant of a monopoly power confers on the recipient a great privilege and power. It therefore carries with it a corresponding responsibility to maintain a culture of ethical dealing.

In closing, let me say that I am very pleased that the due diligence of the member for O’Connor has once again resulted in some sensible amendments to the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007, which some people on this side of the House do not like. But those amendments make the bill more open and transparent and make people more accountable. I had reservations about supporting this bill, but I will follow the long-held historical tradition of abiding with the majority rule within the government. I can say this: I will be watching what happens between now and 1 March 2008 with a great deal of interest. You can rest assured that I will bring to account those who need to be brought to account for the way in which they play their role in this process. I will expose, where it needs to be exposed, any assistance that comes from AWB, whether or not it is intended to directly or indirectly influence any new company that is formed by 1 March next year.

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I rise to support the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007. In listening to the debate that has emanated from this chamber I have been staggered to hear some of the untruths and false claims made in many of the speeches from those on the opposing side of the House, commencing last evening with one of the first speakers, the member for Hotham. It is no secret that drought has claimed many victims in my electorate of Riverina and right across Australia. What angered me most during this very volatile time of drought was what happened when the current Leader of the Opposition made an obvious and deliberate decision to challenge the member for Brand and chose to lay his credentials on the table for his party colleagues to judge his performance—and perhaps the differences between what lengths he and the member for Brand were prepared to go to in order to lead the opposition.

What the current Leader of the Opposition must have been thinking when he was in his former portfolio as shadow for foreign affairs and sitting on that bench behind the member for Brand, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, was, ‘How can I do this to the best effect? This is a case of war, and in war there are obviously going to be some deaths and many casualties’. I am sure that this was how the member for Griffith and Leader of the Opposition was thinking: ‘Who could we dispense with in the field?’ The phrase ‘in the field’ would have struck him. He would have thought: ‘Of course! “In the field” means farmers. We haven’t anything in common with farmers; we’re not interested in what happens with country people. We have limited representation in rural and regional areas. I think that we can dispense with those pesky critters out there—farmers—and particularly with wheat farmers. There seems to be a bit of an issue around this AWB thing. It seems to have a hint of sensationalism; not only that, there are a lot of people on the world stage watching. The Americans are watching and the Canadians are watching. There are quite a few in the international scene watching this issue.’ It was an aspiring leader’s dream come true.

The poor old member for Brand thought that the aggressive and sensationalist questioning tactics of his trusted foreign affairs spokesman would help him. And haven’t we all heard him shrieking things like ‘Saddam’s bagman’ across the chamber at the Minister for Foreign Affairs? That most insulting of displays came from the now Leader of the Opposition in his quest to lead his party and to bring about the undoing of the member for Brand as the leader. We saw his true colours, his nasty retorts and his accusations. His position was one of judge, jury and executioner of all those in the AWB and beyond. Basically, his tactics in the House were puzzling. Then, eventually, we came to the point—

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought we were addressing the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007, not engaging in some personal denigration of the Leader of the Opposition. I ask you to draw the speaker back to the matter of the bill.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to the member for Cowan that I will listen very carefully.

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the preamble to my discussion on the bill. All of the opposition speakers have taken the chamber through history and denigrated every Nationals leader and minister responsible for agriculture to have been in this House, so I remind the member for Cowan that what is good for one is good for all.

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I again rise on a point of order. I think the member speaking is defying the chair. I once again ask you to draw the member to the bill.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the member was quite in order.

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move to the substantive issue of what happened with farming and the farming process that took place in my electorate in respect of the single desk. We have an organisation that is substantially required to put in place security for our farmers. That is what the National Party and this government have been doing. We have been trying to minimise the damage that has been created by the House of Representatives over a long period of time for reasons known only to many of the members who spoke so viciously and determinedly without thought to the desperate situation in rural and regional areas. We have stood fierce and determined to support the thousands of growers across Australia who were calling on us to ensure that the single desk was retained and that they would have access to pooling and the benefit of having security for their crops into the future.

The Nationals have been united and steadfast, and I am very proud to know that we have delivered what is here in the House today—that is, a view and a plan to enable a grower-owned and controlled single desk to be retained. The legislation that we are looking at today enables the minister’s powers of veto to be extended. That is because the growers’ demands and calls have been heard by this coalition government. They provided us with a position. On 4 May, the Western Australian Farmers Federation, the New South Wales Farmers Association, the Victorian Farmers Federation and AgForce Queensland wrote to the Prime Minister outlining the consensus that they had reached in order to go forward, to try and overcome the damage that had been done in the past by many and to deliver the best outcomes for the growers and for all parties who had been involved in the debate surrounding the single desk for wheat exports.

The four organisations remain committed to the retention of the single desk marketing system for wheat exports from Australia, and they require a resolution of the issue so that growers can be sure of a marketing system in place for this coming season. Part of the process that we speak of in the House today is accommodating that. The plan was supported collectively by those four organisations, which represent the vast majority of grain producers and grain production in Australia. They took a consensus view that they needed to retain a single desk. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, for whom I have the greatest respect and regard, has been able to deliver, due to his tenacious, committed and dedicated attention to working his way through and negotiating with all parties on a very emotive issue. He has done an excellent job in coming to a position that sees all of the areas represented by the four peak bodies addressed and delivered on—that is, an opportunity for a new and wholly owned and controlled wheat export entity.

That entity will hold a single desk export licence for bulk wheat and will be a not-for-profit, autonomous entity that will be totally demerged from AWB Ltd. It will have a mandate to maximise the returns to growers and there will be a system of full contestability of ancillary services that will reduce all costs to growers. There will be complete transparency through a strengthened wheat export authority with greater powers of audit. It will enable the bagged and containerised wheat industry to be traded outside of the single desk. Personally, I am hesitant and cautious about that. I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, but I register my caution and my hesitancy in this area. If this body is successful in being assembled by March, it will be answerable to wheat growers and will control pooled services. It will also, very importantly, continue to maintain existing markets and to develop new markets through what I refer to as ‘industry good functions’.

This is what the four farming associations had asked for, and they have been given an opportunity to complete this and to put it in place. I congratulate those growers across my electorate of Riverina, who were absolutely unwavering when they faced the issues that had little to do with them and much more to do with leadership challenges at many times—though not at all times—in this House. I am proud of the way in which 450 growers in Narrandera, who were facing the most difficult times of their lives, rallied on 20 December to voice their unanimity in wanting a single desk retained.

I extend my great thanks to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Peter McGauran—for whom we all have great fondness and affection—for the way in which he has handled this whole thing with such integrity. I also thank the Leader of The Nationals, the Hon. Mark Vaile, and the Prime Minister for the way in which they have managed this whole process through the coalition in this House. We will all be watching with a great deal of interest to see how this whole thing progresses.

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the tradition of the former members for Mallee, it is important that I make remarks with regard to the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007. As the second-largest constituency in the country in terms of numbers of wheat growers—I think perhaps behind the constituency of the member for O’Connor, and I am not quite sure about the Barker electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Secker—this has been a very long process for my growers. Like the member for Riverina, I would like to focus my remarks on the growers’ perspective. I think the reality of the situation that this legislation reinforces has been sadly overlooked.

There are some who argue that it is quite an oxymoron or a bizarre situation that, if wheat growers in Australia want to sell their wheat in an export market, they are required by law to send it to only one provider. That is true. For those who believe in a free market—particularly those who have little understanding of the long traditions of the way that wheat has been marketed in Australia for the last 60-odd years—this seems odd. Since the publication of the Volcker report, in which AWB Ltd and more than 2,000 other companies around the world were identified in the sense that serious questions were being asked about facilitation payments and where they went, this has been a very tortuous process for my growers.

My growers are well accustomed to the member for Mallee spending time with them. It is quite common to have the member for Mallee stop beside the road and do a few rounds on the tractor or a few rounds in the header, just to stay in touch. One thing that I have known right through this process instinctively—without even asking and having it formalised—is that, right or wrong, there is a very strong level of support amongst growers for retaining their orderly marketing arrangements. That is not to say that there is not a discussion. When John Ralph’s report was made public via the government, it did not surprise me that the figures from my own constituency reflected strong support of 80 per cent for the retention of the single desk and that 20 per cent had a different view. That was not news to me, but I suppose we needed to work through a formal process to collect that data and information.

I was very concerned after a month or two of the activities of Terry Cole QC’s inquiry that the most serious element of all was being ignored—not just in the silly nonsense of the discussion that went on and the questions asked at question time in this chamber but as reported by the national media. The one single ingredient and opinion that was being left out of the discussion was the attitude and view of growers. At the suggestion of a number of my growers who were expressing some concern at the future of their orderly marketing arrangements, I organised a rally in Warracknabeal. In the short space of three days, there were 250 apologies from wheat growers and 700 attended. I invited members of the press gallery, who make reports and observations that influence opinion, to come down and listen to the attitudes of growers. I was roundly condemned for holding that rally. I was accused of sensationalism and so forth, but all I wanted to achieve was to allow the growers to get their perspective into the national discussion. I am proud of the fact that that was achieved. Since then, the Cole commission report has come out and there has been a tremendous amount of discussion. Far too much ridiculous politicking has gone on—even in the debate on this bill—and it ignores the fact that the orderly marketing arrangements which this chamber institutionalises do not belong to individual members of the chamber or to the government, which has the jurisdiction and custodianship of what happens in the chamber. They belong to growers, and they say—whether they are right or wrong—that they need their orderly marketing arrangements in place.

I am quite keen to see this legislation processed expediently in this chamber today and through the other place so that we can get supported legislation out there to enable an environment where growers and their industry associations can now do what they clearly must do, and that is deliver an organisation that does not have the conflict of interest that our current arrangements have had in a commercial sense or a pecuniary sense—a grower owned not-for-profit entity that, through supported law and legislation, automatically gives to the producers of the commodity any benefits that it receives from having a single desk. Wheat is one of the remaining commodities that this nation produces. People say, ‘Why is wheat any different to any of the other commodities produced around the nation?’ Wheat is still a staple and is an important commodity in the food chain. Regardless of the ideological positions held on this, at the end of the day, those of us who believe in and support democracy realise that this is about growers and what they want.

In my concluding remarks I would like to thank the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who is at the table, for steadfastly listening to the concerns of my growers. I am quite keen to ensure that there will be a good dialogue in the ongoing process that must occur between now and March next year for growers to deliver what this legislation proposes. The minister’s second reading speech sets out the principles of what needs to be delivered. I thank my growers for the robust way in which they have made their opinions known to me. With the introduction of this legislation, I hope they can now be confident that not only have their aspirations been recognised here but also those aspirations have been advocated for and delivered on. But it is now over to the growers to ensure that they get motivated through their industry bodies and grower groups so that, well and truly before March next year, they have a properly prepared business case and an entity available for the government to go on from and make its subsequent decisions—which will clearly require more legislation to reinforce.

I repeat my thanks to the minister and I thank all government members who have contributed. I am ignoring the silly, churlish remarks made by opposition speakers, who clearly—by their remarks—have absolutely no understanding of the importance of this issue to my wheat growers. As an outcomes focused person, I am looking forward to the continuation of the journey towards orderly marketing arrangements for wheat and I look forward and am confident that growers and industry bodies will deliver. I commend this bill to the House.

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the government members who have contributed to this debate on the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007. I may not agree with all of the sentiments or views expressed but, nonetheless, I respect their involvement, their knowledge and, in the case of some of them, their hands-on experience of the wheat industry—all of which stands in stark contrast to the contributions of the members of the Labor Party opposite, who all took the opportunity, in shrill and exaggerated tones, to attack the government and specific ministers regarding the AWB oil for food scandal. We had a replay today of the Cole commission, which exonerated government ministers without qualification. That is the measure of the Labor Party’s knowledge of and contribution to this great economic and social debate for rural and regional Australia.

Moreover, not once during this debate was there a statement by a member of the Labor Party that they will adhere to a single desk. No-one in the Labor Party is supporting the single desk. I wonder when those involved in this debate and reporting it outside of the chamber will focus on that issue. The Labor Party is not committed to a single desk. My challenge to the Leader of the Opposition is to put on the record his support for a grower owned and controlled entity assuming the single desk operations after 1 March next year. I think the silence will be deafening. I am happy to be proved wrong, but I have trawled through the transcripts and statements of shadow ministers and leaders of the Labor Party and have not found anywhere a commitment to the single desk. I conclude therefore that a Labor Party in government will not support a single desk.

The growers of Australia and the rural communities that depend on the grain industry have a stark choice to make at the next federal election. The coalition government is introducing legislation for a single desk through the 2007-08 harvest and providing growers with the opportunity to assume it into the future. The Labor Party is playing political games—attempting to split the bill, attempting to delay it and prevaricating on anything—to mask its own total absence of a stated position. The only conclusion anybody can draw is that the Labor Party in government will not support a single desk. The Labor Party needs to be flushed out on this issue. Who in the opposition will support a single desk the way the government has and the way that growers have demanded?

Despite all the issues impacting on wheat producers over the last few years, growers never wavered in their call for the wheat single desk to be retained. An overwhelming majority of 70 per cent or more was found by the Ralph committee to be in support of a single desk, and the government responded to that. Every contribution made on this issue, in all of its complexity and sensitivities, inside this chamber and outside, has to keep coming back to that point. The growers want a single desk, and the government has accommodated them.

The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill before the House has delivered this, with changes to provide growers with greater control of their industry and greater certainty for the future. The extension of the temporary veto power for the minister to approve or reject bulk export applications until 30 June 2008 recognises the reality that only AWBI is in a position to manage the 2007-08 harvest. However, the government has put in place a system which will prevent the veto ever returning to AWBI or any other AWB Ltd company.

The bill also provides the minister with the power to change the operator of the single desk between 1 March 2008 and 30 June 2008. This limited time frame will allow the transfer of the single desk to another entity while at the same time providing the industry with certainty about the future, long-term operator of the single desk. The government is giving growers until 1 March 2008 to establish a new company to take over management of the single desk. They will have to demonstrate that the new company is completely, legally separate from AWBI. They will also have to demonstrate that the new company has the necessary financial and managerial capabilities to assume control of the single desk before the minister can consider designating it as the new single desk holder. There will be no extension beyond 1 March 2008. As the Prime Minister said on 22 May, if growers are not able to establish a new entity by 1 March 2008 then the government will propose other wheat marketing arrangements.

The government has also decided to deregulate the export of wheat in bags and containers. This will provide growers with the ability to search out niche and new markets, and to further develop those markets that provide high-value returns. By making it a requirement for exporters to comply with a quality assurance scheme, the government is also securing the reputation of Australia as a reliable supplier of quality wheat.

The government has also considered the other side of the wheat export equation by addressing concerns with the industry regulator. By providing the Wheat Export Authority with strengthened powers to request information it has reduced any possible impediment to the authority fulfilling its monitoring and reporting functions.

The bill also provides the minister with the power to direct the WEA to investigate and report on matters relating to the operation of the Wheat Marketing Act. Any information uncovered that requires further investigation can be provided to the appropriate authorities.

Further changes to the WEA have also been made to implement the government’s broader policy on governance arrangements in response to the Uhrig review. However, the interests of growers will be protected in these changes as it will be a requirement for the minister to appoint at least one commissioner of the new Export Wheat Commission based on their skills in export wheat production and at least one other based on their skills in grain production.

The amendments contained in the bill are measured and have been made in the best interests of growers. Most importantly, they deliver on the key message the government has repeatedly heard from growers: ‘Keep our single desk in place.’ The government has honoured the requirements, the demands and the wishes of growers far and wide. The Labor Party has not. The one thing that the people of rural Australia abhor more than political prevarication is political cowardice. The Labor Party does not have the fortitude to stand and declare a position on an issue that has raged for 18 months. The Labor Party has not considered the findings of the Ralph commission, which canvassed at more than 28 meetings far and wide the views of growers in an unprecedented consultation period by government on a major political issue. The future of wheat marketing arrangements, together with the debate surrounding the future of the floor price for wool in the early 1990s, stands as the greatest agricultural debate since the Second World War. Yet the Labor Party is totally absent from it and, instead, in this chamber, and no doubt in the Senate, seeks to cynically exploit the issue for some hoped—for political gain. I do not see the politics of using the wheat growers of Australia, who have been suffering a long-term drought and who are still experiencing a degree of uncertainty as to future arrangements, in this way. It is deeply disappointing to me that legislators, who have taken an oath of office, would seek to use grain growers for political purposes in this way.

In drawing my remarks to a close, I strongly recommend the bill to the House. I have the faintest of hopes that the Senate will support it as well. The Labor Party will not. No doubt they will divide on the bill and delay its consideration—all against the backdrop of having failed to enunciate and declare their own position. I would like Labor Party members to go out into rural communities, stand before an audience of grain growers and find some reason to justify their absence of a policy. The reason cannot be time—we have all had 18 months to wrestle with this issue. Admittedly, it is complex; it is difficult. There is a variety of views, as is evidenced even in the contributions of government members. But that is no excuse for avoiding the crunch point, which has come now: does the Labor Party support a single desk or not? The government does; the Labor Party does not. In the interests of grain growers, I hope and pray that the government is returned at the next election.

Government Members:

Hear, hear!

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hotham has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.