Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Desperate Housewives, yes. The last thing in the world we want is another channel representing another advertising stream that runs the same sort of rubbish. Yes, they have got plenty of that; certain people enjoy it. But for goodness sake!

As the member for Canning is well aware, there is a significant debate going on in the coalition about wheat marketing. You might wonder what in the hell that has got to do with this. Those who use the internet as a means of communication can, with the appropriate skills, access the website for the Chicago Board of Trade. They have discovered that in fact the price that someone could afford to pay them for their wheat in this era of drought, if they have that thing, is about $40 per tonne more than the monopoly marketing system is offering. And if you are down to a third—or luckily a half—of your ordinary production, 40 bucks a tonne means a lot.

Of course, that is a contradiction to the argument that this process always delivers better returns. But the point I make in this debate is that if everybody can turn on channel 3, or whatever it is going to be called, the datacasting channel under these new arrangements, and get that information on their television screens—and of course you can, particularly if the broadcaster is prepared to provide it—then everybody knows about it and they become a much more informed body.

I note today that the Canadian government has just issued an order upon its monopoly wheat marketer to stop it spending money on promoting itself and its benefits—in other words, the government wants an open debate. It is a pity we have not had one here yet. I say to the members of the opposition present that it is about time your representatives asked our ministers a few questions about the $40 differential. This has nothing to do with the philosophy of a single desk. How is it that the perfect system is going to cost one grower, a very big grower in my electorate, $1 million? That will not make him want to approach it. The point I am making is that, if this legislation—

See this speech in context