Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

It is a non-core code. It is a promise which has been breached. The Horticulture Australia Council said that it was always the intent to include retailers and buyers’ agents in the code, but they mysteriously disappeared when the code came out just before Christmas last year.

The minister ignores the issues raised by the honourable members for Kennedy and Calare and by the opposition and says, ‘Well, you haven’t read it,’ or ‘You don’t understand it.’ What he does not acknowledge is that he himself tried to squib on the commitment. I would also like to pay tribute to the member for Corio, the former spokesman in this area, who came into this House and argued strongly for the mandatory code and who, together with the honourable members for Kennedy and Calare and the honourable member for Lyons, forced the government into this backdown.

We cannot support a motion to disallow this regulation. The honourable member for Kennedy referred to the code as ‘some advance’, and we agree with him that it is some advance. We know that, if this code were disallowed without a suitable replacement code, the government would throw the farmers to the wolves. The government would leave them hanging and say, ‘The parliament has disallowed the code; they obviously don’t want a code.’

We have a different approach. We will go to the next election with the same commitment that we had last time—a proper mandatory code; a code which protects farmers. No doubt, when in government, if we are honoured with that mandate, we would consult widely, including with the members for Kennedy, Calare and New England and with interested peak body groups. We will vote differently from the members who sit in the crossbenches today—not out of a different motivation, not out of a different sentiment, but out of a conclusion that scrapping this regulation will leave farmers exposed, because this government will leave them hanging. The government will not respond to the parliament and will not allow a better code to come into force. We agree that the code is flawed, but we agree that it is some advance and that it is better than nothing.

I am sure that, should the Labor Party be elected later in the year, we would have fruitful discussions with members on the crossbenches and we would consult with them closely. I know that the honourable member for Lyons will be pushing very strongly, should we be in government, for the code to be beefed up and protected, as would the honourable member for Franklin and other honourable members on this side. We acknowledge the motivations of the members who have spoken and we agree with the sentiment. We will be voting against the motion today but, should we be elected later in the year, we will be revisiting this issue.

See this speech in context