John Anderson (Gwydir, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I seek to make a few points. I support the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2006. I wish it were not necessary, but it is in the current circumstances. At the outset, I acknowledge my interest, as a wheat grower, in this whole debate. The Australian wheat industry is a very high-quality industry, and it would be not be such if it were not for the fact that its marketing arrangements are also very good. It is very easy indeed in the current circumstances to rush around saying: ‘The skies are falling in,’ and, ‘It’s a corrupt organisation and it’s this, that and the other.’

The reality is that Australian wheat is very highly regarded. It is in great demand. There is an enormous disaggregation of wheat types, of quality, of standards and of reflected payments for those standards right through from the different types and styles of wheat through to the Golden Rewards program and what have you. The industry has matured into, I believe, the world’s best. I make the point that that has been made possible in large part because of the performance of the AWB, and the Wheat Board before it, over a very long period of time. In short, I do not accept the arguments that it has stifled innovation and held the industry back. I think the evidence for that is to be found in its recognition globally as an outstanding industry which provides a very high-quality product that, in turn, is able to extract a premium.

As part of that debate, I would also point out that I suspect there is no more competent or capable trading desk in this country than the AWB’s. Given that nobody could have possibly foreseen what was going to happen to the spot price for wheat, the reality is that, in its hedging and preparation for the future, the AWB probably did a pretty good job. I suspect it does a better job year in, year out than almost any other hedger of any agricultural product in the country, and we ought not to destroy it because in one year spot prices reached unprecedented highs. It also ought to be noted that, as CBH’s offers have come down, AWB’s estimated pool returns have gone up. If you add Golden Reward price increases, the reality is that they are probably pretty much lineball at the moment. Those are factors that the minister will have to take into account when he takes up the veto power and seeks to use it to bang heads together to extract a bit of common sense in the current very difficult circumstances.

Let me make a couple of other comments. There are many things I would like to say, but I will not. I will keep myself as brief as I can tonight. I have publicly indicated my very strong support for the single desk. I would like to note that, even with the most cautious of deregulation or playing with a veto, if we are not very careful it will result in the effective dismantling of the single desk. That is something that growers are becoming increasingly aware of, and I would countenance that very careful note be taken in this House and beyond. There are many who say that the single desk ought to go. I am aware that, if there is any electorate in Australia where there would be a substantial body of wheat growers who would like to see change, it is probably in the northern end of Gwydir. But, having said that, there is no doubt whatsoever that the clear majority of growers want it retained and, at the very least, would say we would be mad to give it up until we see some decent trade reform in the rest of the world.

I want to say very clearly and without equivocation that there are friends in America who are saying that they want examinations of how much damage might have been done to their wheat growers by the behaviour of the AWB. Hang on a minute: perhaps it is time that our minister ensured that we had some pretty good armoury ready to defend ourselves with. Remember that the World Bank, no less—an authority in its estimates of the impact of American and European protectionism on agriculture—put a figure of some $30 billion a year lost to Australian farmers as a result of the corruption of global marketing and production and trade in agricultural products. So let us be very careful indeed if we are to have a discussion about who has damaged whom in global trade.

No-one defends the actions of those who behave corruptly but I would again say: let us keep some perspective about this. Any business structure is capable of being corrupted by people who do the wrong thing. The simple reality is that mankind has not devised a corruption-proof legal entity, company entity, political entity or private entity. It does not exist. We are always heavily dependent upon people with appropriate law qualifications and appropriation actions and goodwill on the part of people who are involved in any sphere of human activity.

Nobody condones what has happened, but we need to be very careful lest we do great damage to Australia’s wheat growers at a time when, to put it bluntly, it is not only the drought and the behaviour of the AWB that have made their lives much more difficult but also the governmental practices of many other countries in the world. We ought to remember that we owe it to our wheat farmers to point that out vigorously every time they and we are attacked. We have at great cost gone out and exposed ourselves to the world—made ourselves vulnerable—through an in-depth investigation of the AWB. It has emerged that a number of people have behaved highly inappropriately—or at least the charge can be made and is likely to be made to that effect—but we need to keep this very unfortunate incident in some perspective lest we find that the cure is worse than the disease, for wheat growers at least.

Let me say that I understand—I really do!—the immediate attraction of a poll, but the minister is in a very difficult position. This will not be easy for the minister; I know, I have been one. When it comes to industry consultations, you will have information coming at you from everywhere. I remember in the days when we were talking about the Garnaut report into the wool industry, I personally conducted 23 meetings around rural and regional Australia so that people could approach me directly with their views. And it was an exhausting exercise. I am not going to put the wood on you to do the same thing, but I am going to say that it is very important indeed—

See this speech in context