Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The key words in this matter of public importance are ‘fairness for all, not just some’ and the need for ‘a strong economy’. Most of us would agree that in certain areas the government has worked well in terms of a strong economy. I would like to relate those words specifically to the wheat industry, particularly to a question I asked of the Deputy Prime Minister today and more importantly to the answer that was given. At the heart of this matter, for the future of the wheat industry we require fairness for all and not just for some. Obviously, the wheat industry is a very important part of not only the agriculture sector but also our economy. Even though many people downplay the contribution that agriculture makes to the prosperity of this nation, it is still a very important ingredient in our national economy and is very important if we are to maintain a strong economy.

In relating the MPI to the wheat industry, I was extremely disappointed in the answer that the Deputy Prime Minister gave to the House today. He said this morning at a press conference that we must remember that the wheat growers themselves are the important ingredient—‘Let’s not forget the wheat growers’—and I agree with him on that particular issue. In March this year in Warracknabeal, Victoria, at a rally about the future of the single desk and the wheat industry, the Deputy Prime Minister gave a commitment to the wheat growers present—and I agreed with him and praised him in the House at the time. He said to the people who attended that rally that, if any changes were to take place in the export marketing arrangements, there would be a poll of registered wheat growers.

Michael Thomson from the Land has been one of the few people pursuing that issue, and I congratulate him on it, because I think he has picked up on wheat growers wanting to be part of the process. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister in their press conference before question time today highlighted the changes in the veto arrangements and, essentially, the transfer of control of the industry to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for a six-month period whilst the future of the Wheat Board and the single desk arrangement is determined. I think I heard the voice of Michael Thomson—that lone voice in the agricultural press—asking the question again about a poll of growers on the future of their industry. The Prime Minister virtually denounced the concept and said, ‘We don’t run the place by poll; we don’t take advice from people; we are a government that makes decisions for those people.’ I think that again goes to the point of fairness for all and not just for some. Who are all those people that the Prime Minister will be making those decisions for, when he has not in fact asked the growers what their views are on the various options?

There will be a number of options and there should be a number of options. I agreed with the Prime Minister in question time today when he said—and I do not want to verbal  him—that people who believe there will not be any changes in the Australian Wheat Board are living in fairyland. Obviously there will be, but the people who should be privy to those changes and part of the decision-making process are the wheat growers.

The Deputy Prime Minister has gone off on a convoluted path by suggesting that he will consult with the peak bodies in the wheat industry—those that supposedly represent the wheat grower. I presume that those peak bodies that he and the government will take advice from will be the National Farmers Federation and the Grains Council of Australia. If you consider their track record of recent years and how they represent country people on particular issues then this should be of concern to their constituents. You have only to look at the contribution the former President of the National Farmers Federation, Peter Corish, made on Telstra when it was obvious that his constituent base was not in favour of the sale. When ethanol was being debated, the Grains Council of Australia were more concerned about the motorists of Australia having choice than about the constituents—the growers—that they were supposed to represent. As a grower, I would be greatly concerned if those two organisations represented the industry that the government and the Deputy Prime Minister are going to listen to when making determinations.

I believe the suggestion that I made in question time today—and it does not remove the right of government to make decisions—increases the opportunity for the government to make the correct decision that puts in place a system that best represents the growers. When the various options from the industry groups and individuals—whether they be part of the growing sector or part of the marketing sector—are proposed to the government, those options should be sent in writing to each grower and those growers should be polled on their views on the future of their industry so that they can have a one-to-one contribution. Many of those people are not members of the National Farmers Federation or its constituent bodies, they have no relationship to the Grains Council of Australia and they are not going to be considered if the Deputy Prime Minister goes back on his word, as he gave it in Victoria, and says: ‘We will just listen to the industry groups. We will consult with industry groups.’ I think that is a massive cop-out and a quite pathetic backdown from the Deputy Prime Minister. Why shouldn’t the wheat growers have their say?

The New South Wales Farmers Association yesterday sent an open letter to all members of parliament. Jock Laurie, the president, said:

The Association has publicly welcomed recent comments by Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile that the grain industry will be consulted, and we encourage the Federal Government to include the grain producing public—

the grain-producing public?—

in its definition of the grain industry throughout this decision making process.

I suggest to Jock Laurie that he is halfway there. But if these people are representing the growers—the grain-producing public—I would say that, rather than encouraging the government, they should be demanding that government consult with the individual growers. The Wheat Marketing Act was constructed for the growers. In any changes that are contemplated—and, as I said, I would not remove the right of government to make a decision that is contrary to what growers are saying—I would suggest that government consult with those people about the future of their industry so that we do not get a situation developing where it is fairness for some and not for all. If the National Farmers Federation, the Grains Council of Australia and the New South Wales Farmers Association are to be seen as the arbiters of grower opinion, I think a much fairer way and a much more productive way would be for the parliament to obtain the view of growers so that the cabinet can make a decision based on what the wheat growers want for their future.

I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to show some spine on this issue—not to be big in the country when he is in Victoria and then, when he returns to Canberra, be just a puppet for the Liberal Party. Let us stand up for the people whom we as country members are supposed to be representing and let them have a true say in determining the future of their industry. (Time expired)

See this speech in context