Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As a representative of the good state of Tasmania, as someone with a strong relationship with the state’s first-class horticultural industry and as a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion moved by the member for Kennedy. My colleague the member for Prospect has indicated Labor’s support for this endeavour and why we cannot support the member for Kennedy’s disallowance motion. We do not believe that the mandatory horticulture code of conduct put in place by the government is adequate. It is plainly not and it fails to live up to what was promised by the coalition government in the 2004 election. But we believe the code is better than no code at all and gives some opportunities to those growers.

It should not be forgotten by Australia’s 20,000 fruit and vegetable growers that the Howard government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to honour that agreement to introduce a mandatory code for their industry. Labor committed to a mandatory code well before the 2004 election. We put it on the board, nailed it up there and said: ‘This is what we will go to an election with. This is our policy. Put it out there.’ The government followed suit and promised to introduce a mandatory code within 100 days of its return to office.

The then Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the National Party, made the promise on 1 October 2004. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has come into the House now and said that this was not really the promise. The press release says:

A re-elected Coalition Government will impose a mandatory Code of Conduct on the horticultural industry.

He cannot deny that. It is there in writing in a public document. To try to fudge that is quite dishonest on the part of the minister. At the end of that press release, he says:

… a re-elected Coalition Government will, within its first hundred days, propose legislation to give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission the power to enforce a Horticultural Code of Conduct.

The government made the commitment, and they broke that promise to the 20,000 Australian farmers in that position. It was not a real promise. The first 100 days went by. We waited; we were ticking them off on the calendar after the election. We were crossing them off. A hundred days went by and nothing had happened. The government continued to twist and turn until they were forced to act under pressure from the industry and the Labor Party. Where are the National Party members of parliament tonight? They are not here. Where is the member for Braddon in Tasmania? He should be hanging from the rafters at the Yolla hall screaming. His area of Braddon grows vegetables and bulbs. He should be here putting pressure on his minister to do the right thing by the people he represents. The member for Braddon is lost when he should be in here arguing a point of view.

It was not until December 2006—26 months after the election—that regulations for a mandatory code were made. They do not commence until 14 May this year—more than two years and seven months after the National Party made their 100-day pledge. It is a broken promise and, when they get there, it is not the real McCoy. Nevertheless, we take the view that the code set to come into force in May is better than no code at all. There are some opportunities to prevent people being ripped off, as has been occurring in the past. A successful disallowance motion would not assist growers who have waited for more than two years for the Howard government to honour its 100-day election pledge.

Labor’s position today should not be construed as a big tick for the current code. It is not. We do not think it is adequate. We do not think it is up to it. I note the comments made in the debate by the member for Kennedy. Labor have been made directly aware of the growers’ concerns about the buyers’ agents—who represent retailers, including the two big supermarkets—being excluded from the code. The two big supermarkets in Australia have too much power when it comes to buying from little people, whether it is manufacturers, food processors or growers of fresh food. They have too much power and our agencies should have operated more to protect the small people of this country. The ACCC has failed to do that on several occasions. I also think it failed dismally when it let the retailing of petrol become locked into supermarkets as well. I understand that growers and their representatives were led to believe that transactions with those agents would fall into the scope of the code. They have been sorely disappointed again—another disappointment and another sell-out by this government.

Labor enjoys a good working relationship with the horticulture sector. I am the chair of the regional committee of the Labor Party, and my colleagues from Tasmania—Harry Quick, with the apple industry in the southern areas of Huon and the channel area, and Senator Kerry O’Brien—meet regularly with growers; we know their needs. I believe that we know their needs a lot better than those on the other side of this House.

We will continue to talk to them about the code. When we win the next election we will certainly be having major discussions with them about the code. We will continue to work with the industry to ensure that the code provides the intended fairness for this sector so that people can get a fair go, a fair opportunity. Disallowing the regulations will not represent a step forward for Australia’s fruit and vegetable growers, including the Tasmanian growers that I represent in this place. So I cannot support the member for Kennedy’s disallowance motion, but I do congratulate him for having it on the Notice Paper, because it has given us an opportunity to point out again that this government is really a fraud. It is committing fraud on many people in regional Australia. Disallowance would represent a step back, and we want to go forward. On that basis, I cannot lend my support to the motion.

See this speech in context