Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Hansard source

It is just the Liberal Party. I did not want to suggest that the National Party are supporting the amendments, given that you have different positions.

Firstly, in respect of the first amendment as to the objects, I indicate the government will be supporting it. The use of ‘interests’ rather than ‘needs’ is a more positive expression of intent to improve the situation of growers. The use of ‘needs’ implies a basic level, whereas ‘interests’ is broader and more proactive. It is a bit like the use of personal needs versus personal wants. We will be supporting the first amendment.

My next comments go to amendments (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6), which we will not be supporting. They go to definitions—‘individual wheat producer permitted to export’, ‘grain receivals’, and ‘individual wheat producer permitted to export’. The government has consulted extensively on the legislation, including those handful of growers who are large enough to be able to supply a hold in a bulk export ship. The government has been assured by those growers that the particular amendment that the Liberal Party has presented is not necessary. The government accepts that growers who are large enough to participate in the bulk export market prefer to operate as companies for risk management purposes. The legislation as it currently reads does not prevent individuals from applying for accreditation. The government is also concerned that allowing individuals to escape the accreditation provisions would create a major compliance difficulty for Wheat Exports Australia. The WEA would have to put in place a rigorous compliance and monitoring regime to assure itself that a grower is exporting his own wheat and not that of any other individuals. This compliance problem would create additional costs which would be passed back to growers. Whilst the government is sympathetic to the argument, the government does not support this particular amendment, on the basis that individuals are not prevented from exporting. In practical terms very few if any growers will be affected. Those that are required to seek accreditation are not concerned about that, and the cost of compliance would be a burden passed back to other growers through the accreditation schemes.

Amendment (7) goes to the operation of state and territory laws. ‘Transport WA’ might be the correct title to give to amendment (7). The government will be supporting it.

Amendments (8) and (9) go to the Productivity Commission review. The government will be supporting them, but I will put on the record some remarks about amendments (8) and (9). The start date of January 2010, as proposed, will mean that only one crop will have been marketed since the new laws will have taken effect and only two crops will have actually been harvested, as crops are harvested from October to January each year. This will mean that the review will not be able to make judgements about the effectiveness of the ACCC access test provisions which commence in October 2009. The Productivity Commission could make some observations about storage and handling, but they would be unable to make firm judgements about the full effect of the legislation in relation to marketing of the crop. Therefore having the review too early will deny the Productivity Commission the benefit of being able to make proper judgements and in all likelihood will only result in the need for another review.

The Liberal opposition have argued that the January 2010 start date is necessary to ensure a ‘fair dinkum’ review. But the effect of the amendments is actually that it would ensure that the review would not be ‘fair dinkum’, for the reasons that I have already stated. The government would consider a review with a start date which allowed the Productivity Commission the benefit of being able to consider the effect of at least one season of marketing a crop, and therefore a start date of July 2010 and an end date of January 2011 would be acceptable. Having considered the issue, to those comments I add that we will support the amendments.

They are all the amendments we have before us. An issue has been raised by Senator Joyce. Firstly, I have to make the point that this is a matter on which, I understand, the Australian Wheat Board has been making representations to some members of parliament very recently. It is a matter that has come to the government’s attention only very recently and it has been considered. The government does not believe that the change that is being suggested by the AWB, as suggested by Senator Joyce, is warranted. The issue that has been raised by the AWB is a commercial matter between the joint venture partners. It is unreasonable to assume that a joint venture partner who relies heavily on access to a port terminal facility would have no control over its operation. Therefore the Labor government believes it should be resolved between the partners themselves. It is not up to the government to intervene by legislation in what we see as a commercial issue. To allow an accredited exporter with a significant interest in a port terminal facility an exemption from the access test would undermine the integrity of the scheme; therefore there is no amendment before the committee and the government has not proposed an amendment. But I have made those comments in response to the issue raised by and the comments made by Senator Joyce.