Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I indicate to the chamber the Democrats’ support for the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2006. I would also like to put on record and signal to the government the Democrats’ willingness to support further changes to the current single desk arrangements. As Senator O’Brien has just outlined, a range of different views and ideas have been put forward, most significantly from different parts of the wheat growing industry, and they will need to be considered. Also, it would be best for them to be considered a little bit further removed from the current upheaval flowing on from the Cole commission of inquiry and further action flowing out of it. The level of damage that has been done to the industry and export opportunities is obviously enormous. Precisely how enormous that is and how it presents itself will still need to be seen. In that sense, taking a bit of time to look at all the alternatives is very wise.

The simple fact is that the Democrats are prepared to support the change. We believe that change has to be made in consultation with wheat growers. Of course, there are a variety of views about that, but we believe that the future of the wheat export industry is too important to just be sorted out in the backrooms, with coalition members reaching an arrangement that has as much to do with maintaining some sort of harmony within the coalition as it does with what is in the best interests of wheat growers. There is no need for the government to have to try and do distorted deals with one or two National Party MPs to get an outcome when, clearly, others in this chamber—certainly the Democrats and, I suspect, others—are willing to work to support change. We should do that openly and with the involvement of all political parties and all people at community level rather than just have party-political deal making.

We are at this point, with this change before us today, because of the monumental failure of governance and the dereliction of duty of a number of senior members of the government. It is a clear example of hubris and arrogance, not just because many warnings were ignored by senior government ministers but also—and in some ways I find this even worse—because of their total failure to take any responsibility.

It is one thing, for all sorts of reasons, to make mistakes along the way, not notice what is going on, fail to take account of warnings and not have proper structures in place to ensure accountability; it is another thing, when all of that finally comes to light, to take absolutely no responsibility at all for the debacle and for the damage that has happened. I think this issue has focused too much on examining how much political damage might be done and how many political hits might be landed on the government or on individual ministers. There has been a continual focus on the soap opera aspect of politics. That might be exciting for those of us who live in the bubble of Parliament House, but the real issue is the damage that has been done to Australian wheat growers, to the Australian wheat market, to the reputation of Australia in general, and, I might add, to corporate culture and the notion of responsibility and accountability in corporate dealings.

Frankly, people had clear, direct responsibility under law—such as the federal government had and ministers had—for ensuring that we abided by the UN oil for food program and that we did not breach those sanctions. The people who had that responsibility and failed just went, ‘Oh well, it wasn’t my fault and I’m not going to make any changes at all as a consequence of all that has come out.’ What sort of message does that send to our corporate community? We are passing more and more laws through this place and putting higher and higher accountability standards upon them—and that is something in the main that the Democrats strongly support; indeed we have put forward some of those measures. But you cannot impose more and more accountability requirements on the corporate sector, and the not-for-profit sector for that matter, and have zero accountability at government level. The disconnect has become enormous. The hypocrisy is too much. Unless we seek to address that then it is not surprising that we will have ongoing problems in other sectors—whether it is the non-government sector, the corporate-for-profit sector or other areas of endeavour—where people will think: ‘Oh well, nobody takes responsibility at the leadership level in the government. We’ll see what we can get away with as well. We’ll just try to bluster our way through if we get caught and hope for the best.’

It is a seriously damaging attitude and a clear hallmark of a government with immense arrogance. The government now believe that the natural state of being is for them to be in government. They completely confuse self-interest with national interest. This sort of debacle is the consequence. But it is not the political damage or otherwise that I am concerned about. I am concerned about the damage to hard-working Australians, to Australia’s reputation and to those important standards of proper accountability. Contrast that with what has actually happened within AWB. They have had a complete shake-up and a change of management. That organisation has had a major upheaval—as it should have, of course. Along with a change of management there needs to be a change of culture, and that is why the signals that the government and the ministers send about this are equally as important. Clearly there is a lot of overlap between the cultural problems within AWB in the way it did business and the cultural problems within senior levels of government. In addition to that, we need more transparency into the future about the nature of export contracts. I am not suggesting that every contract should be made public or anything like that, but I think an extra level of oversight of all the variations that occur and the way that the trade operates into the future would be desirable.

There are many views amongst growers about what the best way forward is from here. A number of them are still suggesting that the existing single desk arrangement should remain, that this legislation should just be a temporary measure and that it should all revert back to the way it was afterwards. That is not a view I share and it is not a view the Democrats share. We believe there should be change. We are completely open as to the nature of that change and how quickly it should be put in place. Indeed, at this stage, we believe that it is best to remain open about it. I am highly sceptical that a single desk type arrangement actually delivered the best prices for growers in general. I think the introduction of a degree of competition in various ways will deliver better results for many growers. That is a view that I will continue to put in the ongoing debate. I am not here to try to impose my view as to what the next step forward should be, other than to say that it should not be a step backwards to the past. I accept that the existing single desk arrangement delivered more certainty for a lot of growers and often that is worth the trade-off. Having greater certainty about income flow is more valuable, in some circumstances, than the uncertainty of possibly higher or lower prices or sales not coming through once the crop is harvested. That certainty is now lost as well because of the damage that has been done by the previous AWB management and by the coalition government’s negligence.

We have reached a stage where it is time for change, but there is still a lot more consultation required to determine what that change is. I would urge the government to include all political parties in that consultation rather than have a backroom arm wrestle amongst the various competing factions and groups within the Liberal and National parties. Also, with regard to this specific legislation and the specific measure before us, I would urge the government to hand over the veto power to the agriculture minister. That step is not only welcome; it was specifically suggested by the Democrats. Of course there are specific difficulties in Western Australia at the moment. I believe this legislation will provide a mechanism to address that—although it obviously depends on what the minister does. In the current environment, I think the principle contained within the legislation is a sound one, and that is why the Democrats suggested it earlier. We are pleased that the government has acted on that.

I hope they also listen further to some of the other suggestions that the Democrats and others put forward as to where we go from here. In addition to ensuring best return for wheat growers, it is also important to ensure that that market operates in a way which is sufficiently transparent and accountable. There are obviously some reputations that need to be rebuilt here, not just AWB’s but Australia’s as a nation in export circles. I fully accept that some of that damage will be deliberately exaggerated by competitors seeking to harm our trading opportunities and boost their own. I fully accept that there is a lot of hypocrisy and there are double standards in the area of global trade, not just in wheat but in plenty of other areas as well.

But that should not be an excuse for inappropriate conduct and illegal conduct in particular. The Democrats have had before this chamber for a number of years now—perhaps six or seven years—the Corporate Code of Conduct Bill, which sought, and still seeks, to put in place mechanisms of corporate behaviour in the international arena. That is a measure which I believe is still merited and this sort of example is the reason why it is merited. We do need to lift standards more widely internationally. I am certainly not suggesting that Australian companies are worse than others. Indeed, I am sure in many cases we are better than others, but we do need to ensure proper standards of corporate behaviour wherever the company might be operating. The suggestion that what is appropriate corporate activity within Australia somehow does not apply once you leave our shores is not only an unacceptable one but also an unwise one in the long term in many cases. I think that this episode provides a reminder of why that general principle is important, and it is one that the Democrats will continue to push.

There is obviously a lot more that could be said about the government’s failure in this regard, and the responsibility they should take and must take for the situation that has now been reached and the damage that has been done. I do not want to expand on it any further. I think that I have made enough of a point with regard to that. Also, for the sake of wheat growers in particular, I think it is important that we focus attention on where we go from here and what is best for that important domestic and export industry.

Whilst it is appropriate that we do continue to point to the failings of the government, that should not be the focus of this whole debate. Ordinary wheat growers have already suffered enough damage—collateral damage, if you like—from political infighting and political negligence. We all need to try to make sure that they remain the main focus of debate around this issue. It is still important to point to the failings of government, not for partisan political purposes but as a reminder that we do need to take responsibility when we make mistakes. It is certainly a principle that I have tried to follow in the approach that I have taken in political life—a willingness to accept mistakes and take responsibility for that. It is not just because it is a nice sounding principle and a good thing to teach your kids; it actually leads to better governance, and better governance is in the interests of the entire Australian community. It means that fewer innocent people end up getting hurt and getting caught out as collateral damage in these sorts of debacles.