Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens support the motion to have the Wheat Marketing Amendment bill 2007 referred to committee. We believe it is essential that sections of this bill are referred. We believe that substantive sections of it need to be thoroughly reviewed. We believe there is unnecessary haste to force this bill through this place. While we acknowledge that there are areas that need to be dealt with more urgently, we believe that those should be dealt with first and the rest of it thoroughly reviewed and considered. That allows not only the Senate but also the community the time to adequately consider this bill. Because it is a major issue to the community, the Greens believe that there needs to be adequate time given.

We saw the debacle that occurred with our last system for marketing wheat. We need to make sure that we get it right this time to support our farmers and give them security and also to ensure our place internationally so that our name is not dragged through the mud of the international wheat scene again. We find the urgency quite worrying. This bill is being rushed through the parliament with what I believe to be indecent haste. It is obviously politically motivated. There has been a very strong debate within the coalition. I would suggest that there was some consultation carried out with the community by members of the coalition. That was obviously done in private. We believe that this debate needs to be fully aired so that we can have a public debate about the future of our wheat marketing because it is of such crucial importance to our farmers, our community and our regional centres. We are talking about the future of regional Australia when we talk about the future of our marketing system.

This debate is being rushed through so that the government can shut down debate on this issue in the run-up to the election not only within the coalition but within the community. The only urgent part is dealing with the veto. That could be dealt with while the rest of it is subjected to the proper scrutiny of a full inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. I am a member of that committee. I know that we go through things with a fine tooth comb and I believe that is the appropriate way to look at this bill.

We saw the complete disaster of the previous arrangement. We certainly do not think that we should be exposing Australia and our farmers to that particular debacle again, because we do not believe the marketing of our wheat will survive another scandal like that. The way this bill is being rushed through means that it deliberately avoids scrutiny. Pushing it through will not enable us to have a full and complete debate on it and analysis of it. This bill has major ramifications for our future and the way that we sell wheat and we should have the opportunity to carefully consider it, to look at whether the appropriate approach is being taken and also to look for any loopholes.

We see loopholes coming up all the time. In fact, we were just debating some this morning on the safety net legislation. We had an inquiry into that, limited though it was, and the government introduced amendments to address some of the issues that came up during the inquiry. I strongly suspect that there may be the same sorts of loopholes written into this legislation, particularly as it has been so rushed and had such little time for outside scrutiny. I know that the coalition has had some consultation with some stakeholders on the bill, but this does not allow adequate time for people to do a proper, full, detailed analysis in public of the provisions of the bill. We believe, as I said, that the community needs to be able to have that debate in public.

The bill provides for the government to designate a company to hold the single desk and export privileges and make significant amendments to the Wheat Export Authority. What happens next year if farmers cannot put together an appropriate body is of concern to us. The failure of oversight is one of the biggest lessons to be learnt from the bribery scandal. We need to ensure that the oversight provisions are up to scratch and meet the accountability needs and that adequate safeguards are put in place. These are the sorts of issues that the community wants to look at and to be able to comment on.

The Greens can see no reason why the bill should not be referred to committee to allow the committee to look at it, to receive submissions and to look at these very significant issues. We strongly believe that, to maintain faith with the farmers of this country and the community, we should be referring this to committee. We will be supporting this motion. We are very deeply concerned, as I have said in this place before, about the contempt that is being shown to the community and to farmers by the fact that this is being rushed through in this manner.

Amendments to bills that are made on the run when further consultation is carried out before the bill comes before us is of concern. This is essentially what is happening here, which indicates to me that there are still issues that need to be looked at in this bill and that we should be allowed time to adequately consider them without the bill being rushed through at a minute to midnight, which is virtually what we will be doing tomorrow. At a minute to midnight we will be looking at this bill. Everyone is dead on their feet already, so not only are we not even referring it to committee but we are dealing with it at the very last minute. That is not the appropriate way to legislate for the future of wheat marketing in this country. Doing this as the Senate is rising for the winter session, when we have been dealing with very intense issues for some considerable period, does not enable a fully considered debate. We certainly support this motion.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, can I say that it was a delight to be able to welcome Senator Cormann into the chamber. In relation to the motion that is before us, the government will oppose this motion to refer the legislation to a committee. As I have previously stated, the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007 provides extended certainty to the wheat-growing sector. I trust that Senator Siewert was not seeking to be too provocative to those of us on this side of the chamber with the suggestion that the Greens were championing the cause of the farming community. That is a very difficult one for us to swallow but I will leave it there.

The bill really deals with administrative issues and I am not going to go any further into the facts of this again. I have already put the government’s position on the record in relation to a previous debate, and once again I can indicate that the government opposes the motion.

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

Isn’t it amazing? We are talking about a piece of legislation, the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007, dealing with an industry that is worth billions of export dollars to Australia. It was introduced last week into the House of Representatives. It has not been shared, prior to introduction, in any form with the grower communities. All we hear is, ‘It’s just a technical matter and we’re not going to support a reference to a committee.’

We gave the government every opportunity to deal with the only matter that it considered was urgent, when this bill was exempted from the cut-off. On page 31 of today’s Notice Paper, there is a contingent notice of motion of mine. That would enable the splitting of this bill so that the urgent matters could be passed and these other matters could be the subject of an inquiry for report in the next sittings in August. It would allow an inquiry to take place expeditiously over the break. There has been no indication from the government that they have given any consideration to that whatsoever.

There has been no indication from those senators who have been vocal in their criticism of the positions taken by the minister in relation to the single desk. There is a complete picture of unity on the government’s side, and that is what this is all about. The government and the coalition party room want this legislation out of the way and the problem put to one side until after the next election. We know there is not real unanimity in the coalition party room. Indeed, the grower community is not united as to the future for export wheat marketing, but the only thing this legislation is intended to do is to put the problem to bed until after the election. It is remarkable that, with all of the issues which are being raised by grower representatives and other parties to the industry, this government is prepared to rush the legislation through with a minimum of scrutiny and a minimum of an opportunity for the parliament to look at it.

We really believe that it is responsible for us to propose that this legislation be referred to a committee—a committee on which the government has a controlling majority. It is not a committee that is going to be hijacked by the opposition or the minor parties; it is a committee on which the government has a majority. It is a committee which, frankly, has a history of handing down unanimous reports. More often than not it has handed down unanimous reports. The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee has, on a variety of occasions, looked at the situation of the wheat industry and legislation of this type, but the minister has obviously extracted concessions from his party room, and senators are apparently not prepared to challenge the view of the minister in relation to the passage of this legislation, for the reasons that I have outlined.

If this motion is not carried then of course there will need to be an extensive committee stage of this legislation, and the opposition will be insisting on answers to questions about the construction of the legislation and its impact. We will not accept a deferral of those matters to some other time. I put the government on notice that they will need to have material available to be able to answer questions about the impact of the legislation, if we come to that point. That, frankly, is an inadequate way of dealing with the legislation and the suggested problems that exist with it.

In relation to the comments from Senator Murray, I privately clarified his statement. He expressed to me the view that he had the impression that the government were going to vote down this reference and therefore perhaps some other course of action might be open. He was well aware of our contingent notice of motion which would allow the splitting of the bill. I took it that he thought that was a preferable course of action. As I understand it, the alternative position that he put was on the basis that he was aware that the government were committed to a course of action, irrespective of the arguments put, to have this bill not referred to a committee.

I say again that this is a bill which deals with an industry which involves billions of export dollars and thousands of farming families’ livelihoods, but this government are so arrogant that they are content that it be rushed through the parliament—with a week from its introduction until its passage—with no real scrutiny through proper processes, and with a behind-closed-doors process negotiating some amendments, the impact of which will probably only become clear some time down the track. They ask growers to believe that they have acted in their interest. Frankly, that is a laughable proposition. It is laughable to suggest that this parliament’s conducting itself in this way will be in the interests of the community or the growers or, indeed, the probity of the parliament.

I suggest that it would be best for those coalition senators who support this bill to hang their heads in shame. I understand why they would vote for it. I understand that it is about party unity. But I suggest that it is much more important that legislation which affects growers be conducted in a way that allows growers to have a real say, a considered say, in the outcomes of it. This legislation, frankly, might be with us for some time. One does not know the intention of the government after the election. One does not know whether the Prime Minister is suggesting deregulation to one group of coalition party room members and something quite different to another group of coalition party room members. Perhaps that is academic anyway. Perhaps we will never know. But it is an incredible shame that the government is intent upon preventing appropriate scrutiny of legislation when it concerns such an important sector of the economy and when it can have such a great impact on this industry and, indeed, on Australia’s international trading reputation.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator O’Brien’s) be agreed to.