Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Before I begin my contribution, I want to make the point that the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2006 is a crucial piece of legislation that impacts on a major export industry in this country. I do not think that any of us should be forced in any way into truncating our comments during this debate, although I will keep mine as short as possible. It is an issue that warrants a close examination by this parliament before it is subjected to a vote, and that includes the amendments that have been foreshadowed.

I want to place on record some of the concerns I have received from growers within and outside my electorate about the likely impact on selling wheat of the demise of the single desk. I know this legislation is being presented as an interim and temporary measure, vesting the power of veto with the minister, but it is regarded as the thin end of the wedge by many growers for the government’s eventual capitulation to those forces in the wheat trade, especially large global operators with their economies of scale, that can gazump our markets so effectively and that would want to destroy the combined clout that Australian growers obtained through the single desk.

The word I get from growers is that the predators want a share of the 16 per cent of the world market Australia enjoys—a market maximised by AWB International. The marketing advantages of the single seller have enabled Australia to maintain that market share. Wheat growers own all of AWBI and the majority regard that as their most important guarantee of a guaranteed price in a corrupted marketplace. AWB no doubt added to that corruption with the help of a see-no-evil government, but that is no reason to throw away our marketing advantage. That is what I am hearing from growers. I am advised that any alternative single marketing arrangement to that which currently exists would be instantly and successfully challenged at the WTO.

The minister says this bill introduces temporary measures to address the immediate concerns of Australian wheat growers. It provides for the temporary transfer of veto power for bulk wheat exports from AWB International to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry until 30 June 2007. The minister in the other place said during his second reading speech that the bill is designed to:

... address current concerns in the industry about the wheat marketing arrangements, particularly in Western Australia where there is not the same range of domestic marketing options as there is in the eastern states.

However, these conditions existed long before the Cole inquiry. There are many growers highly suspicious of the catalyst the Cole inquiry has given for the break-up of the single desk, albeit through this temporary arrangement involving the minister holding the veto for six months. The minister in the other place said these temporary measures would 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.

The Deputy Prime Minister seemed to avoid consultation with growers when he answered a question in this House from my colleague the member for New England during the week. The honourable member will be introducing an amendment to this legislation to absolutely ensure that growers are not only consulted but listened to and that their views are taken into account by way of a vote on their feelings about any change to the single desk. I would expect every member to support that amendment, particularly those National Party members who claim to be supportive of retaining the single desk.

We are told that under this legislation the minister will have power to make a decision on bulk wheat exports based on the public interest. This is a vague term indeed, and most growers doubt that, with the door now open to the dismantling of the single desk, this power will mean anything other than the interests of non-pool sellers. Let the National Farmers Federation and the New South Wales Farmers Association swing in behind their members and not buckle to the demands of the local and international operators like Cargill or those other opportunistic players in the market. Eighty per cent of growers want the market advantage of the single desk. It is the envy of our competitors, and that is why they want it dismantled.

I have an open mind on just how a single desk should be structured. The previous speaker gave some indication of his views on an authority that should be put in place to handle wheat sales. Perhaps a stand-alone authority is the sort of structure that is required. But I know one thing: the removal of AWB’s veto suits this government down to the ground, despite the protestations of most growers. This is a free-market issue for the government, not a fair market one. It has already conveniently pleaded ignorance of corruption in the Iraq market and no doubt is about to surrender the advantage of critical mass through a common pool and single desk to a free market that is corrupted by the enormous subsidies available to our competitors, particularly the US, who have the temerity to challenge our attempt to maximise returns to growers.

The alleged commitment of this government to the single desk has always bemused me and many growers. How does it fit in with the red-hot free-market instincts of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister? It did not and was an irritation that the government knew it could not get rid of until—surprise!—a scandal came along that has allowed the government to get off the hook. That is what this eventually is all about. The Prime Minister said:

You couldn’t get a proper outcome while the veto lay with AWBI because AWBI was not only, how shall we put it, a player, but was also the holder of the veto.

By this logic, why did AWB International ever hold the veto power?

See this speech in context