Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill and I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Since the government earlier this week—indeed, only 48 hours ago—announced its intention to introduce amendments to the Wheat Marketing Act, there has been a great deal of public commentary. Indeed, those with a direct or even an indirect interest in the issue of wheat marketing could not fail to understand both the content and the importance of the bill that is now before the House. This would especially be the case following its introduction in the Senate yesterday, where there has been an informed and relatively lengthy debate on the bill that is before the House. Many of the issues of vital public concern, especially to wheat growers, have been well canvassed and publicised. In other words, the House is considering the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill with a degree of background, public discussion and debate that is somewhat unusual.

For that reason, and given the time constraints, I will curtail the second reading speech that I would have presented under normal circumstances, especially given that it would reflect, in almost exact detail, the second reading speech already delivered by my representative minister in the Senate.

I will highlight a couple of key points. The changes are not intended to pre-empt or predetermine any long-term policy considerations by the government, nor does the government intend to hold the veto in the long term. The movement of the veto does not represent a change to the Australian government’s single desk policy. Instead, the vesting of the veto transfer from AWBI to the minister is in response to the particular set of circumstances that confront the wheat industry and therefore the government. These are temporary measures and will allow the government to undertake thorough consultation with a range of stakeholders, particularly with growers, in relation to wheat marketing arrangements for the long term.

These temporary arrangements are also intended to address the uncertainty caused by the ongoing debate as to short-term, medium-term and long-term arrangements for wheat marketing. This has to take place, naturally, with regard to the consideration of the long-term wheat marketing arrangements, in light of the Cole inquiry.

The government will honour its previously expressed commitments to consult thoroughly and widely with wheat growers, whose interests above all else are paramount in this debate. It may well be that a number of different agendas by individuals or organisations or even political parties can be identified and speculated upon. But no-one should lose sight of the fact that it is wheat growers’ interests and the national interest which are the dominant interests at stake here. The minister’s decision in exercising or declining to exercise a veto will be based on the broad consideration of the public interest, and naturally having in mind obligations under the World Trade Organisation, the WTO, in exercising these powers.

I will draw my remarks to a close to allow as many members as time will permit to contribute to the debate. This is of incredible economic and even social importance to wheat growers and their families as well as rural communities and even the national economy. Wheat is one of the great agricultural industries and export earners for this nation. The Australian government’s principal concern is for the industry and for individual as well as collective Australian wheat growers. To this end, we are committed to working with the Australian wheat industry to secure the best outcome for Australian wheat growers. I commend the bill to the House.

Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately.

See this speech in context