Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

And he is still at it. I hope he comes in; I hope he attacks again. This is a government that has overseen a shambles and is now a shambles itself in trying to arrive at a solution. The credibility of the National Party among its core constituency is at stake in this issue. The government cannot make up its mind about what to do with the single desk in the wake of the wheat for weapons scandal, so instead of decisive action we now have this stopgap measure. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry spoke for about two or three minutes before scurrying out of the chamber. The person in charge of this issue—the future of the Australian wheat industry—is not even in this chamber for the short time it is taking to rush this legislation through. Why is he not here? He is ashamed. But worse, he will not take responsibility and he will not face the music.

This legislation transfers the single desk to the minister. The government will do a bit of consulting and hope that the way forward will become apparent during the next few months—a government without integrity, a government without a clue. The proposal is to transfer responsibility for the single desk to a National Party minister—one of the clutch, the ongoing succession of this brilliant band of duds. This person is now being charged by the government and left with the authority through this legislation to look after the industry over the next six months. It does not inspire confidence and nor should it. The government have known for at least 12 months what the problem is and they have done nothing. The truth is that the Wheat Board, as it is currently structured, cannot be allowed to manage the legislated monopoly.

We on this side of the chamber have great misgivings about the process the government is putting in place. Transferring the single desk power to a National Party minister raises real concerns, but even more worrying is what is not in the bill. Where are we headed from here? What is the government’s solution? What form will the consultation process that the government has talked about actually take? How can we be sure that all parties with a stake in the future shape of the wheat marketing authority will be involved? Vague statements and poor processes are not good enough. That is why Labor is proposing an amendment. I know that the member for New England is proposing an amendment too; I tried to talk to him about it before coming here. As I understand it, his amendment is in the form of leaving it to the growers to have a referendum of sorts. I might be misrepresenting that position and, if I do, I apologise. But our preference is really to give some teeth to the issues that the review process should consider. We need to assess these issues in the context of what has happened with the Cole inquiry. We have to pose the tough questions to get the answers that are needed to help guide us because we have no guidance from the government. The amendment effectively sets out what those issues should be.

The effect of this amendment would be to set in place a rigorous process that would ensure that all aspects of export wheat marketing are subject to an independent inquiry. For the sake of the growers and for the nation it is essential that we get the structure of Australia’s wheat marketing arrangements right this time. The National Party’s record on these matters gives us no confidence—and I have gone through that litany of mistakes—that they will be capable of delivering arrangements that will stand the test of time. Their division and their inability to deal with this issue properly and come up with a lasting solution demands a rigorous independent inquiry.

The amendment we are proposing is similar to one we put before the House previously. Back in 2003, when the government was tinkering with the Wheat Marketing Act, we proposed this very course of action. I just wish the government had listened to us then. We hear the Prime Minister, whenever he gets into a crisis, talk about embracing bipartisanship. Why didn’t they embrace it on this occasion and work with us to try to find a solution? We have some experience on this side of the House. We have known how to run successful operations in the primary industries portfolio. Personally, I have a great deal of experience with it. Why not draw on that experience instead of allowing this shambolic exercise to have occurred? It is a sensible approach; it was rejected then.

The wheat industry still provides the backbone of the economies of many communities around this country. Many regions are built around it. We have a responsibility to do the right thing in terms of fostering that industry. It is not only good for the communities; it is good for the nation as a whole. Wheat remains a significant export earner for this nation. In most years—although this is a tragic one because of the drought—more than $5 billion in export earnings is gained from the wheat industry. Obviously the drought is having an impact this year, and many communities in the wheat belts are going to suffer significantly.

The single desk has been central to our wheat marketing arrangements since 1939. Labor has always been a strong supporter of it. We went to the last election with a commitment to maintain the single desk as long as it was delivering a benefit to the growers and to the nation. We stand by that commitment. But, in the wake of the wheat for weapons scandal, it has become clear that the arrangements as they are cannot remain.

The Grains Council of Australia has recognised this and has produced a set of principles against which any future model for export wheat marketing arrangements can be judged. While Labor does not necessarily endorse all of these principles, each is worthy of consideration. The principles are:

1.

Ownership and control by growers of the core element of the wheat export system,

2.

Security of payment to pool participants,

3.

Maximisation of net returns to pool participants through the development of efficiencies in the supply chain and through the development of an advantageous market position for Australian wheat and,

4.

Having the highest levels of governance and transparency to ensure that the system is providing the best possible service and returns to pool participants.

5.

The ownership of the ‘single desk franchise’ (the general exemption under the Wheat Marketing Act) should be separated from any organisation providing commercial services to the single desk.

That was a fatal flaw in the current structure. The final principle is:

Any contractual arrangements for the provision of services between the single desk owner and a commercial service provider should be both transparent and contestable.

We are dealing with what has been the greatest scandal in this country’s history—a scandal of mammoth proportions and a scandal that has major ramifications for the future of the wheat industry. We have to get it right for the future because we have got it so wrong under this government in the past. That is why the amendment that we are proposing seeks to put the rigour into the assessment that the government is failing to do itself. I urge the House to embrace the amendment and to use the period from now and over the six months during which this veto power is being transferred to the minister to actually get the system right. I foreshadow that I will be moving an amendment on behalf of the Labor Party during the consideration in detail stage.

See this speech in context