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

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 7294 revised 2 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "3", substitute "4".

(3) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 National wheat industry advisory taskforce to be established

The Minister must cause to be established a wheat industry advisory taskforce by no later than 5 February 2013.

I will try and move through these amendments quickly, because I know we have a short amount of time. These amendments relate to the wheat industry advisory task force. As I articulated in my speech on the second reading , the Greens have spent a lot of time consulting and talking to people about the bill. We indicated during my speech on the second reading that without these amendments the Greens would not be supporting the bill. We recognise there are still some issues that need to be resolved in the full deregulation of this market. There are still issues around access to stocks information, there are still issues around wheat quality and there are other issues around the efficiency and effectiveness of the market.

We then decided it would be a good idea if there were an expert body established—an advisory task force—to specifically look at these issues. These are the issues that were identified in the dissenting report that was put in to the inquiry on this bill. The letters that I tabled in the chamber yesterday—a series of three letters—clearly articulate the purpose of this advisory group and the way they will report the issues around independence, transparency and all those sorts of things. What I want to do, though, is ask a question of the minister on this. I realise that advisers are not here yet.

Senator Wong interjecting—

The CHAIRMAN: Just a moment. People cannot speak without getting permission from the chair. That is the first issue. Secondly, Senator Siewert was just ensuring, Minister, that you were listening.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She asked me a question.

The CHAIRMAN: But Senator Siewert has not concluded. You have concluded?

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

No, sorry.

The CHAIRMAN: I did not think you had.

I was going to ask a question, but I realised—and I was not trying to be rude—that there was no point in me asking the question without actually having someone able to hear. I also appreciate that the advisers are not here yet. My question relates to the independence of this task force. I understand that, through the correspondence, the minister has agreed to the points that we have been discussing. However, I want to clarify and make absolutely sure that it is the government's understanding that this advisory body will be as independent as possible both from the minister and from DAFF.

The CHAIRMAN: Do you want to take further questions first, Minister? Senator Nash was going to get to her feet. It might assist you with the advisers on the way.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just going to, perhaps, assist. I wonder if this would be possible, given that I think Senator Ludwig is on his way and we are still waiting for the departmental advisers. If the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry would like to make sure their advisers are here fairly shortly, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation would really appreciate that.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would help in the next budget round too, for them!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought I should get that on the Hansard. But I might—through you, Mr Chairman—suggest that, if we could put a number of questions on notice, I am sure the minister, who is arriving now, will be able to respond.

The CHAIRMAN: I will call Senator Nash while Senator Ludwig is moving to his seat.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I am happy to assist, but I note that we are, I think—and I seek your guidance—only allotted till 4.15 pm for the consideration in committee, and any delay caused by the lack of officials really causes some great consternation given that we only have 25 minutes here. So I also will be brief. With regard to this amendment and the wheat advisory body, I would ask the minister about the make-up of the body, the process by which the body will be appointed and the date by which that advice is due to come back to government, because I do not have much confidence in the government getting even this right.

We have seen through the process of the legislation that we have before us that on the code development committee, which was the development committee for the voluntary code, the owners and users of the ports had seven positions while the producers only had two. It was completely inappropriately weighted in my view.

The voluntary code simply will not work. I know we are coming to the mandatory code issue later, but I will take the opportunity now as I am sure we will run out of time before we get to the voluntary code. To have the whole premise of the WEA being disbanded and that, at the end of the day, it would be overseen by a voluntary code is simply stupid and shows that the government does not understand the operation of the industry and how this is all working.

The Greens are also moving some amendments, and I agree they are a slight improvement on the dog's breakfast piece of legislation we have in front of us. The Greens signed up with the coalition to a lengthy dissenting report when this legislation came to the committee. That dissenting report had a very comprehensive set of recommendations that went with it. We were tremendously pleased on this side when we saw that the Greens were going to do that, but now we see the Greens rolling over to do the bidding of their government partners, the Labor Party, on the back of a couple of small amendments. If the Greens had truly believed and insisted on those recommendations that they had signed up to in the dissenting report, they would have voted with the coalition against this legislation so we could have done it properly. It is extremely disappointing to see that.

We will have the ACCC overseeing this, and I simply do not have the confidence that the ACCC will be able to oversee this in an appropriate manner. The government has made a complete mess of this. There was a simple way forward to reconfigure the WEA to be able to do all those industry-good functions—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bring back WEA!

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Methinks thou dost protest a bit too much, Minister Ludwig. You just do not understand this. We have here a government that is quite happy to listen to the large bulk handlers and the big end of town and not listen for one moment to those producers, those people in the industry, who actually understand the ramifications of this. That is simply unacceptable and reprehensible. The government is going with the big end of town. A Labor government is doing this when we have producers out there who in no way, shape or form made any kind of abrogation about getting out their message that they know these industry-good functions need to be performed. The government simply has not listened. So we have a government that has absolutely pandered to the big end of town and the Greens that have rolled over to support that government, and the people who are going to lose out are those hardworking grain producers out in our rural communities who deserve much better than this.

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

I have been so controlled over how the coalition has handled this debate—and I am not going to waste too much time—but Senator Nash has no understanding of the industry in, for example, WA and what has been going on with the farcical situation with the coalition there. She embarrasses herself. We have spoken to all the players in this. We know we have worked very hard to try to come up with a solution that moves us forward, because the coalition's solution is no solution and entrenches the industry in a mire.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The senator is misrepresenting me. If she had heard the beginning of my speech, she would know that I acknowledge the differences in Western Australia.

The CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. That is debating the matter. Senator Siewert, you have the call.

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

Instead of sitting on our hands and watching the industry stagnate for two years, we have sought to find a solution. I do not usually take offense and raise the matter in this chamber when they continually attack us. They have an obsession with us—and that is fine because they are obviously worried about us. But, when they seek to denigrate the work that the industry has put in to try to find a solution here, that is when it presses my buttons. When she says we have rolled over when we have worked to try to find a solution, yes, I take offense. If you call me soft-skinned or thin-skinned, yes, I am on this one. Senator Nash may like to know that the very producers and organisations she has been talking about have contacted us and said they like the letters and the response that we have had from the government.

So let's get serious and talk about the real issues instead of trying to denigrate the work that has been done in this chamber, the very serious work that, I must say, has been put in on all sides of the chamber. There are other coalition members who do take this issues seriously and have been looking to find a solution so that we can move this industry forward and take a serious opportunity to look at the real issues to find a way forward with those sticking points that have been there for a long time and need to be resolved if we are really going to see this industry overcome the barriers to it proceeding effectively and efficiently.

Senator Ludwig, before you came into the chamber I was seeking your assurance that the wheat industry advisory task force would be as independent as possible from both the minister and the department.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Siewert for her contribution. Yes, the purpose of the task force is to do the work that is set out. It is important that its work is supported by the secretariat of DAFF, but DAFF certainly has no intention to deliver the work or drive the outcome. What I want—and I suspect it is the same as you—is for that task force to do the work. I am not going to cavil with it and neither is the department. I can make that very plain. This is critical work that needs to be done.

You are right that Senator Nash, unfortunately, misses the point completely. I am not going to get into the negative arguments that she wants to run and which are personal denigrations as well. This industry needs this work done. It needs the work of the task force, and this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to use the funds from the WEA to progress this debate further.

Where we have landed in the last short while is that the industry, which has effectively been saying this for a year, want the outcome that we have now got—in fact, so much so that it has been working on the voluntary code. Should the amendments pass, it will be a mandatory code. I think that is a sensible solution for the industry. We do need the facts on the table, and that is what the task force will do.

As to the make-up of the task force, we will consult with industry to ensure that we get the best possible people on the task force to be able to provide those outcomes. It is critically important that we look at opportunities from industry to put forward drivers who can contribute to the outcomes of the task force. In terms of the timing, clearly I will have to wait for the legislation to pass and it to be established to manage some of that. But I can broadly say that we will ensure that the task force is up and running as soon as practicable. Of course, we have to go through a consultation process with industry to get their input on who the people will be on the task force and, of course, consultation with those people who are appointed to the task force. That will obviously depend on the legislation passing, and it will depend on how long it takes industry to respond. I would imagine that will occur in a relatively short period of time.

This is one of those areas where industry, if you look across it, has unfortunately been significantly divide. The division between WA and the eastern seaboard is just so stark. The WA industry has embraced competition since 2008 and it has continued to prosper and thrive within a competitive environment. On the eastern seaboard, there are two different markets but the majority of the eastern seaboard has a range of market opportunities from domestic through to export. To put it mildly, I think they have embraced competition and continue to strive and achieve. They have, though, in this respect, not moved on from a regulated market in part. I think this gives the industry a great opportunity to look at some of the issues that they say trouble them and to drive the change that is so desperately needed. This industry has all the elements of a great industry, and this change will ensure that it can continue to prosper.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (3) and (1) moved by Senator Siewert by leave on sheet 7294 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (3) and (1) on sheet 7328 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "3", substitute "4".

(3)   Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 National wheat industry advisory body to be established

  (1) The Minister must cause to be established a wheat industry advisory body by no later than 31 January 2013.

  (2) The wheat industry advisory body must consist of the following members, appointed by the Minister:

     (a) an independent Chair;

     (b) at least 9 skills-based members appointed from the production, bulk handling and non-handling export sectors of the industry;

     (c) 2 non-voting observer members.

(3) The wheat industry advisory body is to administer the Wheat Industry Special Account.

(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 2 and 3), omit "to wheat exporters of access to port terminal services by the providers of port terminal services", substitute "of an efficient and profitable wheat export marketing industry that supports the competitiveness of all sectors of the wheat export supply chain".

(5) Schedule 1, item 29, page 13 (after line 14), after paragraph 12(2) (b), insert:

(ba) requires major providers of receival, storage and handling services to publish timely, aggregated grain stocks information describing tonnes of stacked grades on a port zone basis; and

(bb) requires wheat export cargoes to comply with a nominated Australian wheat varietal classification grade; and

(6) Schedule 1, item 29, page 13 (line 19), omit "voluntary".

(7) Schedule 1, item 29, page 13 (line 19), at the end of subsection 12(2), add:

; and (e) requires the code to be reviewed no later than 2 years after it commences.

(8) Schedule 2, item 15, page 23 (line 6), omit paragraph 60(b), substitute:

(b) the wheat industry advisory body established under section 4 of the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Act 2012 has approved the funding.

Time is short so I will be very brief. These amendments are very similar to those just passed by the Australian Greens. The only difference is that they are somewhat more prescriptive in terms of the advisory board, and that is a fundamental difference. I think that fairly characterises it. So I will not be seeking to divide. If I could get an indication as to what the positions are, we can then just get on with it.

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

I just want to let Senator Xenophon know that we will not be supporting these amendments. We have dealt with these issues in the correspondence with the minister, which we have tabled. This task force was specifically set up so that it could be flexible, and I think these amendments tie it down too much. We want a degree of flexibility because if other issues come up we want the body to be able to deal with them in a more flexible manner. We also are concerned about it being too heavily prescriptive about the make-up of the body. We do address those issues in the minister's agreement to the make-up of the body and what the organisation will do. That is in the correspondence, which, as I said, has been tabled. The minister has agreed to the way that the body will operate, and we have just had a discussion about that. So we will not be supporting these amendments.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government, likewise, will not be supporting the amendments moved by Senator Xenophon. Can I say, Senator Xenophon, that I do understand what you are trying to achieve. We are not actually that far apart, in truth. It is about making sure that we do set up a task force. It will effectively be me who establishes it, and I intend to ask for stakeholder input into its make-up so that I can then appoint them to the board. Whether that can occur by 31 January will depend on the passage of this legislation, the ability to be able to consult with industry and for industry to provide the input into that and then to be able to do the machinery matters.

I certainly hope that it can meet your expectation. I think it would also be the Greens' expectation that we do it as quickly as possible. We may even do it before that date. So you would actually be a drag on the system. You would be taking too long for me. Hopefully, we can move very quickly. There is a lot of work that we want them to do. You have structured it in a way that the minister appoints an independent chair. You state:

The wheat industry advisory body must consist of the following members, appointed by the Minister:

     (a) an independent Chair;

     (b) at least 9 skills-based members appointed …

I think it is a little prescriptive. What I want to ensure is that from industry consultation we can get a task force that represents industry, that can move it forward, that can do the work that we want it to do and that has the skills base.

I think we are also very close if we talk about making sure that they have a skills based membership and that they have skills from across the industry. All of that is essential for it to work and become effective. Although I understand your reasons for putting them forward, we are not too far apart in truth and in principle, and for those reasons I cannot support the amendments. I think you could confidently predict that the outcomes will look very similar.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Question negatived.

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

I move Greens amendment (2) on sheet 7294, revised 2:

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item, substitute:

This amendment is essentially about changing what was to be a voluntary industry code to a mandatory industry code, as I articulated in my second reading contribution. There is, I think, very substantial agreement in this chamber that a voluntary code was inadequate. The only way the Greens can support this bill is to ensure that this code is mandatory.

As you will see from the documentation that has been circulated in the chamber, there has been some agreement reached already in the voluntary code, including some of the stocks information and access to that information. The minister has confirmed that that process will be maintained in the mandatory code or in some other vehicle if that proves unworkable—because I understand there are some issues there.

As I understand it, there has been some agreement already reached through the discussions—despite the flawed processes Senator Nash articulated—about access to stocks information. That will be maintained and will be either in the mandatory code or some other vehicle. We encourage the Senate to support this amendment, because I understand there is a fairly strong consensus in the place that such a code should be mandatory.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government accepts the amendment. We looked very hard and wanted to see how we would progress with a voluntary code. The voluntary code committee has been meeting for some time. I can say that the representations from a range of industry people really accord with your view and so it did not take much for me to be persuaded by you to adopt a mandatory code.

It is one of those areas where I was probably disappointed that the industry could not come to me with a united way forward. I think you have also heard the criticisms that the industry have reflected about how a voluntary code would operate, and I accept that, if we move to a mandatory code, it will give business certainty and grain growers certainty about how it will operate and the detail that they can operate within it.

I do not share Senator Nash's view about the ACCC. The ACCC are there to manage a range of competition rules—and they will, in this instance, do the work that they do well. Of course, it is always interesting, Senator Siewert, when people want a different type of body than the ACCC. They come up with things like an ombudsman with teeth—which would really fly in the face of what a true ombudsman does—or they come up with another regulatory scheme. Well, in that instance, they really want to go back to a reregulated market. They hark back for quota systems, they hark back for pooling, they hark back for all of those regulatory regimes that actually showed that they did not work. They were very uncompetitive. They led to very negative outcomes and they created bodies that led us into 'oil for food' scandals that we so well know.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very quickly, I indicate that I support Senator Siewert's amendment. It is identical to an amendment that I have put up.

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

You put up one identical to mine.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If Senator Siewert wants me to say I put up an identical one and that makes her happy, I will say that. We are on the same page. In fact, we are directly on the same page, so far be it from me to aggravate Senator Siewert this afternoon. I do have one question on this because I do have another amendment that we may not get to. Is the minister of the view that this amendment will ensure that the entire supply chain will be covered by the code of conduct?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a port access code of conduct. It is designed for port access. This is a port access regime. One of the challenges has been that there is a range of industry issues that have arisen, one of them significantly at the port access arrangements. This is designed to deal with the port access arrangements. The task force is designed to deal with other parts of the supply chain. The way the industry works, you can deal with port access. There is a range of bulk handlers in the marketplace at various ports, so it is easy to identify where they are.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Noting that we are very quickly going to run out of time, I just want to put on the record one particular question. It is about one of the future amendments that will come up when we start rolling through this process. I am indicating support for Senator Siewert's amendment—and Senator Xenophon's amendment in this case, and you can sort out the order. Minister, your letter to Senator Siewert says, 'I would see it appropriate to review the code two years after its introduction in 2014. The final form of this review will be determined closer to the date.' I really just want to get on record that that is the time frame, that it will be done at that two-year time frame. Can you confirm that for the chamber, please?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will be two years from the introduction of the code. Is that sufficient?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Question agreed to.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw the identical amendment, and move amendment (7) on sheet 7328:

(7) Schedule 1, item 29, page 13 (line 19), at the end of subsection 12(2), add:

; and (e) requires the code to be reviewed no later than 2 years after it commences.

This amendment requires a review of the code no later than two years after commencement.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Senator Xenophon's amendment (7), on sheet 7328, be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The time allotted for the remaining stages of the bill has expired. The question now is that amendment (4) on sheet 7294 revised, circulated by the Australian Greens, which is identical to Senator Xenophon's amendment (6), on sheet 7328, be agreed to:

Schedule 1, item 29, page 13 (line 19), omit "voluntary".

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question now is that amendments (5) and (8) on sheet 7328, circulated by Senator Xenophon, be agreed to:

(5) Schedule 1, item 29, page 13 (after line 14), after paragraph 12(2) (b), insert:

(ba) requires major providers of receival, storage and handling services to publish timely, aggregated grain stocks information describing tonnes of stacked grades on a port zone basis; and

(bb) requires wheat export cargoes to comply with a nominated Australian wheat varietal classification grade; and

(8) Schedule 2, item 15, page 23 (line 6), omit paragraph 60(b), substitute:

(b) the wheat industry advisory body established under section 4 of the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Act 2012 has approved the funding.

Question negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.