Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I am very happy, because it is not me that is saying that; it is grower organisations around the country—who have had a limited chance to look at it—who are saying that. Frankly, if you think they are going to be conned by this sort of bluster in the chamber, you are absolutely wrong, Senator Johnston. Let’s be absolutely honest about this: this process is all about getting this legislation out of the way to resolve disputes in the Liberal Party and the National Party in party rooms to get through to the next election. That is all this is about. There is nothing in the government’s proposal which has any real support from growers. They have not been given a chance to give it support because they have not been given a chance to understand it. What did the Prime Minister say? In the House of Representatives on 22 May he said:

... only a small minority of that 70 per cent favoured the single desk remaining in the hands of AWB. That is a conclusion that the government completely shares and endorses.

Then they put this piece of legislation up that will achieve just that. Despite the Tuckey amendment in the House of Representatives, which prevents the AWB regaining the veto power, the key point is: AWB can still be the single-desk holder. It can still be the company which has the exemption from export controls conferred upon it by section 57(1A). The only difference is that it will not have the veto power.

But of course it is possible that some other company may take control of the single desk. This legislation also indicates that that company would have the veto power. This legislation provides no guarantees or protections to ensure that the new entity, the designated company, would not simply behave in the same corrupt manner as AWB did. Talk about slipshod legislation! Here we have a government that allowed the wheat industry—and I am not blaming growers or their representatives for this—to get into a situation where it became the focus of Australia’s greatest trade scandal, and the first piece of legislation that the government puts through fails the test of proper accountability, scrutiny and transparency. It sets up a model which can visit upon this country similar or the same arrangements for the future, and it does that by ramming the legislation through the parliament, denying a Senate committee the opportunity to look at it and guaranteeing that it will be passed today—and then, hopefully, the focus will go off the government.

We will be moving amendments to this legislation. I want to make sure that the Acting Deputy President is aware that we require this debate to go into committee. I also have a contingent notice of motion, which needs to be dealt with during the second reading debate on this matter, which goes to the question of splitting the bill. As I said, we are quite happy to pass legislation which deals with a provision preventing the veto power reverting to AWB. We have been prepared to give that expedited passage. We are not happy with the rest of this legislation and, therefore, we believe that it ought to be split. In any case, because we have been denied a committee reference on this matter, we will be taking time to obtain absolute clarification on the meaning of the bill and any provisions that we have concerns about.

In terms of other contributions, during the committee stage of this debate we will be taking the time to elaborate on some of the matters that I have raised in my second reading contribution. The fact is that this is an appalling piece of legislation in the way that it has been drafted, it has been handled appalling by the government and it is a travesty being foisted upon wheat growers and the Australian community.