Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Hansard source

It is now 605 days since the Howard government broke its promise to Australian fruit and vegetable growers on the introduction of a mandatory retail grocery code of conduct. Those of us who have followed this issue know the history of it very well. In July 2004, the Labor Party announced its policy, which was then followed by a commitment. It shamed the coalition into a making a commitment on the mandatory code, and that was given by none other than the then Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Gwydir, on 1 October 2004. He said the coalition:

... will impose a mandatory Code of Conduct on the horticultural industry.

The code will give producers a fairer deal on their terms of trade and on resolving disputes with produce buyers, which are in many instances large supermarket chains.

A cast-iron commitment was given by the National Party on behalf of the Howard government. Now we have had a broken promise for 605 days. Actually, it is 705 days since that commitment was given. The then Deputy Prime Minister said that within 100 days legislation on this matter would be brought into this House to mandate the code.

The coalition could not deliver on their promise in 100 days. You could not deliver in 200 days. You could not deliver on your promise to introduce a mandatory code of conduct in 300 days. You could not deliver within 400 days. You could not deliver within 500 days. You could not deliver within 600 days. It has been 705 days since that commitment was given, and you have broken the promise every day since.

We have an election in Queensland at this point in time, and the fruit and vegetable industry in that state is worth hundreds of millions to the Queensland economy. The growers know who the promise-breakers are in Queensland. They are the National Party and the then Deputy Prime Minister who made this commitment, and one after the other they lined up to tick off on it.

If the then Deputy Prime Minister made the commitment in a press release, why isn’t it on the National Party website? He has removed it. Shame, shame, shame! You do not get it more deceitful than this. A press release with a promise has been removed from the website. Let us go through the National Party members in Queensland. In the seat of Dawson, there are banana growers and there are fruit and vegetable growers who put their trust in the member for Dawson, De-Anne Kelly. She said that this is a great win ‘for my fruit and vegetable growers’. She said:

... a mandatory Code ... will be legislated within the first one hundred days of a re-elected Coalition government.

A commitment and a betrayal—that is what this is. It is a betrayal of those growers who put their faith and their vote in the coalition government. Then we had Senator Ron Boswell. Fair dinkum! Senator Boswell fluffs around Queensland like a teddy bear echoing these sorts of commitments. When is Senator Boswell going to deliver? His promise, like the Deputy Prime Minister’s, is not worth the paper it is written on. Then we had the former agriculture minister, Warren Truss. He was on the same kick. He gave the commitment. He said:

Therefore, I can confirm today that a re-elected Coalition Government would, within the first 100 days of the new Government, propose legislation to give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission powers to enforce a Horticultural Code of Conduct.

This was a commitment that has been broken every day for the last 705 days. I say this to fruit and vegetable growers in Queensland, I say it to the banana growers and I say it to every farmer up in Queensland: the then Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, a National Party member, gave you a commitment and he has broken it. The senator from Queensland gave you a commitment and he has broken it. The member for Dawson has given a commitment and she has broken it. Of course, we have the current minister in the cart too, with a broken promise again. (Time expired)

See this speech in context