Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

Today we have seen another abuse of the ministerial statements process. We listened to ministers give long and, in many instances today, interesting ministerial statements during question time. But now, when it comes to the actual time for ministerial statements, we have a comment by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry which contains nothing new. It is the kind of speech that should have been made at the time of second reading or, alternatively, in one of his partisan press releases. Ministerial statements are supposed to be considered contributions to matters of substance, and they should be factual. Unfortunately, this statement failed on both counts.

The minister acknowledges that he does not know much about farming, and I give him credit for making that acknowledgement. But, unfortunately, it seems he knows so little about it that he is not even aware that the text prepared for him contains fundamental factual flaws. I hope he will take the time between now and when the bill comes into the parliament to better understand the industry and to make sure that the legislation he is proposing to introduce into parliament will in fact be in the interests of Australian wheat growers and the nation as a whole and not just following some dodgy ideological cause.

Can I go through some of the statements made by the minister and point out their flaws. Early in his statement he said:

The arrangement put in place in 1999 by the previous government—the granting of a legislative monopoly to a private corporation, AWB Ltd—was always destined to fail ...

He then went on to comment about some members of the former government who had some reservations about the arrangements. I had some myself. However, what he failed to acknowledge was that Labor voted for the bill. So, if it was destined to fail, why in fact was it supported by Labor at that time? There is a clear demonstration of inconsistency here by the minister and his party.

Then he went on to make the comment that AWB Ltd did not live up to its obligations as the manager of the single desk. Of course that is true. All growers are very disappointed about the revelations about the organisation’s work in Iraq. The behaviour of certain of its staff in relation to those sales is unacceptable. It also, however, has to be acknowledged that the AWB was recognised around the world as a very effective sales organisation. It competed against, and made sales of Australian wheat against, the subsidised suppliers from countries around the world. It was also very effective in being able to put Australian wheat into the marketplace, even against the corruption that was occurring in the market and the badmouthing of Australian wheat, particularly by certain US suppliers. It has been successful in a whole range of its activities, and that also needs to be acknowledged. Let me say that it was acknowledged by the minister’s predecessors: Labor’s spokesman on agriculture, Gavan O’Connor, frequently lauded the achievements of the AWB, and Senator O’Brien frequently spoke about the achievements of the AWB and chided the government for daring to in any way interfere with its activities. So the reality is that Labor was a public supporter of the AWB during all of its period as a manager of the single desk.

The minister then went on to question whether or not the AWB had actually, through the single desk, extracted on the world market a price premium that was passed on to growers. Unfortunately, he has been listening to a few too many Treasury commentators. I have listened to them as well. Let me tell him that not one of them grows any wheat, and they have not got a clue. The reality is that every review that was conducted into the single desk found that there were benefits to wheat growers from the operation of the single desk. There were differences in the range of how much the benefit would be, and those ranges went from $4 or $5 to as high as $70 in one case. I think both of the extremities are discountable. But every single review found that there were advantages to Australian wheat growers from the operation of the single desk.

You do not just have to rely on me to make that comment. In fact, I would like to refer to an authority that might be near to the heart of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and that is a man called Kevin Rudd. Kevin Rudd wrote to many farmers within the last 12 months as Leader of the Opposition, and he said:

A study by Econtech of the premium attributed to the single desk indicates that on the benchmark of Australian premium white grade of wheat, the single desk captures a premium of between $15 and $30 a tonne. The total annual value to Australian growers of this premium on Australian premium white is $80 million. On all grades the average premium attributed to the single desk is $13 a tonne and the total annual value of the premium on all grades—

Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.

I will conclude that quote from the now Prime Minister:

On all grades the average premium attributed to the single desk is $13 a tonne and the total annual value of the premium on all grades is $200 million.

Kevin Rudd said when he was Leader of the Opposition that this single desk was delivering premiums to Australian wheat growers. Frankly, he was quoting the expert research and the economic analysis. What he was saying was right then and it is right today. Therefore what the minister said in his statement is a complete reversal of Labor’s view on this issue over many years and in fact clearly does not recognise the work and the studies that have been done in relation to this issue.

Let us move on to his example of how the single desk was detracting from growers’ returns, the wheat commission estimate that growers were $14 million worse off because of the absence of competition in shipping. The single desk does not do the shipping. The single desk has nothing to do with the shipping. It is true that a lack of competition in shipping may make it a little less competitive. It is also true that the lack of competition in handling may make it a little less competitive, and that is in fact the issue that was being raised in these reports: the lack of competition at the handling level was raising farmers’ costs. But the reforms that the government is proposing to make through its legislation will do nothing to address any of those issues; in fact it will make them worse because we will have the monopoly state handling authorities referred to by the minister in his comments actually marketing as well as handling. It is hard to believe how you could put a regulatory system in place which will give a fair go to those organisations that do not own the handling system, that do not control the stocks, that do not understand the issues that are involved. You are relying on an ACCC that actually approved the amalgamation of the east coast handling authorities. If that is their view of competition reform, one wonders how they could manage this issue.

Then we go on to the need for legislative change, and the minister made the point that it is important for farmers to have a probity test. This minister’s first attempt at a probity test was to grant a permit for 300,000 tonnes of Australian wheat to Iraq to a company called Glencorp. Glencorp had to pay restitution to the United Nations for corruptly abusing the oil for food program. This is a company that abused the oil for food program. It was named by the CIA as having paid bribes to the Saddam Hussein regime. It has frequently been accused of breaking UN sanctions in relation to oil supplies. This is the company that this minister gave a permit to.

See this speech in context