Senate debates

Monday, 16 June 2008

Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008; Wheat Export Marketing (Repeal and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008

Second Reading

8:45 pm

Photo of Judith AdamsJudith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I probably have! I now want to speak briefly about these regulations in the bill which I cannot support and I call on the government to amend. The most important change must deal with the access to the export accreditation scheme. The new marketing act will only allow companies and cooperatives to export wheat; individuals are still restricted from exporting their own wheat. It must be done through a company or cooperative. The Liberal Party wants this restriction to be lifted. The new bill must allow individuals to be exempt from accreditation if they wish to directly bulk export their wheat to an international purchaser. Such growers do not require a middleman to sell their crop. Nor should they have to resort to the use of bags and containers if they prefer to bulk export. It is crucial that individuals be exempt from accreditation costs. The bill requires grain traders to pay $12,100 to be accredited to export wheat under the deregulated market. Exporters who are accredited are then free to export any tonnage of wheat to any country in the world during the next three years for that fee. This fee must be lifted from individuals who wish to export their own grain. They need an incentive to pursue their chances in the deregulated market and should not be punished.

I also call on the government to amend the provisions that relate to bulk-handling companies. As outlined by the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Brendan Nelson, these companies face a dramatic change of regulation after October 2009. Prior to this date, accredited exporters who are also providing port terminals only have to publish a statement on their website explaining the terms and conditions under which they will allow other exporters access to their facilities. The government has failed to specify the type of information that must be contained in this statement. For example, access to the whole up-country infrastructure, such as grain receival and accumulation services, is currently left undefined. This has to change.

Bulk-handling companies who own the up-country infrastructure must state that they are willing to provide access to their up-country infrastructure, as well as to ports and the shipping stem. If this is done, the Liberal Party does not understand why the regulations have to change from October 2009. Bulk-handling companies are allowed to operate entirely under their own terms for more than a year—to be precise, for 16 months. If there are no problems reported either on the access to the up-country infrastructure or on the access to ports or shipping stems, why should they have heavy-handed and costly regulation imposed upon them? Let me highlight this point to you further. From October 2009, the current bill requires accredited exporters to have a formal access undertaking accepted by the ACCC, making it a very costly— (Time expired)

Comments

No comments