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

I hope that the member for Hotham will remain here for a moment because I, too, have a long memory. Of course, the reason we have this disaster on our hands today is that the Labor Party, I think back between 1984 and 1989, actually did a deal with the Grains Council by which the government no longer had a responsibility to underwrite wheat sales under the export monopoly but agreed to let a group of agripoliticians impose a two per cent farm-gate levy on wheat growers that became known as the Wheat Industry Fund. Whether intentionally or not, the member for Hotham approved it and told people that that was a fund supposed to offer restructuring for wheat growers when in fact, from the day it commenced collecting revenue, it was designed to allow the Grains Council people to get $220,000 a year as chairmen of a corporate entity that was to be funded by that tax. What is more, at times it represented 25 per cent of the disposal income of wheat growers in my electorate. So for the Labor Party to say that they have not had a finger in this pie is untrue, but I will accept that the scandal that was exposed by the Cole inquiry started in 1999, after this government moved away from a government controlled export monopoly to one controlled by a corporate entity.

Back in 1998 when clause 57(3C)—a clause that was in the original act that removed this veto entirely; it did not transfer it—was removed from the act, so the act now goes from 57(3A), 57(3B) to 57(3D), not one person in the Labor Party spoke about drawing the last pair of teeth from the chihuahua. Let me say that. Nobody over there spoke against it. I did. In fact, I threatened to sit in splendid isolation on the other side of the floor, opposing that removal. This chamber passed that section that said that the veto provisions would cease to exist on 1 July 2004. When it was brought back to this House, nobody opposed it bar me. So we do not want too much proselytising or pontificating from the Labor Party.

But on the other hand, because we are containing ourselves, I reject their proposed amendment to the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2006 on the grounds that I have had enough of the past. Yes, I want an inquiry that will identify the road to the future, and I have worked assiduously for a year to modify the existing legislation to achieve that outcome. So rather than giving us that lengthy speech today, having been in possession of that legislation amendment, the member for Hotham might have told this House that they would support that as a principle which does one thing and one thing only: it returns the control of the export monopoly to the government authority and gives it the power, through the export licensing system, of making people behave. It removes the exemption that AWB has from the licensing system. It removes the exemption that AWB has from the Trade Practices Act.

If ever a piece of legislation was written to encourage corruption and exploitation, this stands as the best example that ever existed. The legislation that we propose cleans those matters up, but does not cease the regulatory arrangements. I hope the opposition, if they are consistent with the rhetoric of the member for Hotham, would see that as a sensible proposal.

But what does this legislation do? Firstly, it transfers the veto power to the minister so that people, particularly in Western Australia, can get a fair price for their wheat. What else is proposed by the government? An appropriate consultation process. I have heard some horrifying rumours as to who might conduct that process. They are the people who should be giving evidence to the process, not deciding the outcomes from within. I am supported by one of my long-term adversaries, the Grains Council of Australia—the GCA—in that proposition. They have written to me and said, under the heading ‘Consultation Mechanism’:

An independent Task Group of three persons be established to drive the consultation process.

The Task Group to be chaired by an independent eminent person, preferably with a strong business background but not necessarily involved—

and I would say not by any means involved—

in agriculture.

They also believe:

The Task Group should be convened by the Prime Minister and report directly to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s office should provide the Task Group with sufficient support and funding to meet the proposed timeline.

Now who could criticise that? Anybody who decides that there has got to be some sort of mates arrangement for those who would assess the consultation they received has my total opposition. The whole process has got to be that those, including myself and others, who wish to put a view, put a view. The people who assess that view must be independent of all of the prejudice, all of the myths and all of those situations that surround wheat marketing today.

I want to put on the record to the minister—he is present in the chamber—that there are a number of us who would not tolerate anybody with a specific interest. I may as well argue that I did the consultation—I could give you the answer now, but that is not what we are proposing. Let everybody have a say, and let some people of integrity and people with experience come to that conclusion. That is most important.

In closing, let me say why the experiment of farmer ownership failed. It failed in the first instance because we created legislation that was in conflict with company law. As the directors of AWB have now told the Prime Minister, you cannot have a corporate entity and give it a responsibility to its customers; its responsibility is to its shareholders. If we are going to have a system of regulation, the regulator has got to be a government statutory authority with, in my view, a simple task: to control the export of wheat to maximise the financial return to growers. That would be a contestable issue. Of course, were it misapplied or dishonestly applied, the aggrieved parties from whatever direction could go to the judiciary through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or whatever.

The other thing that is absolutely necessary is transparency. We are still arguing the case as to who should compensate growers who, by their own choice, have locked themselves into the AWB—gifted their wheat, as has been their practice. Nobody seems to think that the body to fix that is AWB Ltd. In the last 10 days, GrainCorp announced that this season it will lose $20 million and its shareholders will bear the pain. But AWB says that, notwithstanding how little wheat there is around, its shareholders are entitled to nearly $40 million for administration of half a million tonnes of wheat that, by its own admission, has been sold already. What do they need the money for? They have sold it, and they have sold it at a discount. That is why they are in trouble.

The reality is that, if there is a problem for those growers, the simple solution is that AWB Ltd could say, ‘Look, we don’t want the $30 or $40 million; we’ll carry the cost of administration against our own profits that we distribute to shareholders.’ And/or they could release those people who have delivered of their obligation, and tell them they can take their wheat to someone else who is paying a better price. But to suggest that, for instance, the people who cautiously did not deliver their wheat to AWB should pay some sort of cross-subsidy to those who did is bizarre. Any other payment is a direct subsidy for the shareholders of AWB, of which less than 40 per cent today are farmers.

Would anybody stand in this place and suggest that the shareholders of HIH should be bailed out by the companies that took over their insurance liabilities? Who would do that? Why do we have a system that gives no more security to people who deliver to that company than to those people who had contributed over years with the aspiration of having a superannuation policy with HIH? The company went broke and they got nothing.

I will conclude my remarks because of the shortness of time and to give other members a say, but I want it understood that we are now aiming for the future. We have taken an interim measure. I do not want inquiries or dredging exercises into the past; I want the consultation process to be conducted as requested by the Grains Council of Australia and to be absolutely independent.

See this speech in context