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

Of course you should have refused the permit. If you believe in probity, you have set the test exceptionally low. You gave your very first permit—and the only substantial one—to a company that has been guilty of frequent corruption. So that clearly demonstrates that when it comes to probity the Labor Party cannot be counted on for any kind of standard— ask the people of Wollongong if you have got any doubt.

Then we move on to the minister’s statements later in relation to the bodies that allegedly support his legislation. It is true that a number of farmers are resigned to the fact that their long-loved single desk is to be abolished by this government. That does not mean they are pleased about it; they are angry about it across the country. But they know that this power-hungry government is determined to implement this legislation—not because the minister believes that it is good but because he inherited it as an election promise by his dud predecessor. His predecessor as spokesman for agriculture was such a failure that he was relegated to the back bench and the current minister was put into this position, so he inherited the policy. He has never been able to make any kind of independent determination, and he has admitted as much to the grower groups that have come to see him. He said to them, to discount their concerns: ‘This is the policy. You’re stuck with it.’ The minister may not think it is any good—although I acknowledge he did not say that—but, whether or not he thinks it is any good, this is the policy and everyone is stuck with it.

Perhaps he should also have tabled the statement from WEMA the other day. This is the Wheat Export Marketing Alliance, the body that was set up to put in place new arrangements to market wheat in Australia. It met with Minister Burke in Canberra on 4 March. It took him until just eight or 10 days ago to meet the body charged with setting up the new infrastructure for the wheat industry. It took him to just 10 days ago to even meet it. The NFF and a whole stack of other organisations have found this same locked door when it comes to access to this minister, but here he is dealing with important wheat legislation, about to distribute a draft bill, and he did not even bother to consult in advance with the very organisation that has spent months trying to put together an alternative to the current arrangements. Let me quote one paragraph from this statement:

Unfortunately the Minister and his advisers merely confirmed our long held view that the Government had sold out to the big end of town in a well scripted plan that will see many small to medium sized wheat producers put under enormous financial pressure.

So much for the Labor cliche of looking after working families.

And that reflects the tone of the press statement. So the reality is that wheat growers are not happy with the proposals being put forward by the minister. The Prime Minister acknowledged as much yesterday. He said that he knows that there will be some wheat growers against it. Let me say to you: virtually all wheat growers are against the legislation that you are putting forward. It is true that some would favour total deregulation; others want a return to the old arrangements. But there are few who consider that the arrangements being put in place by this government are an appropriate response to the issues facing the wheat industry in the years ahead.

I welcome the fact that the minister has granted a couple of extra weeks for the Senate inquiry, and I thank him for that response because there are a lot of issues to be raised. I want this Senate committee and the minister to consider a number of very serious issues before he brings the legislation to parliament. How will the new legislation ensure that returns to growers are maximised in every season? How will the premiums for quality Australian wheat be preserved and returned to growers? Have we, in fact, traded off these premiums to overseas multinational grain traders and taken them away from Australian farmers? How will Australian wheat stocks be managed and moved on time to port when there are many buyers and many exporters? How will the profits from blending be distributed? How will the industry-good functions, formerly required of the single-desk manager, be continued? How will the multitude of licensed exporters be able to compete effectively against subsidised US and EU growers, especially to single-desk buyers?

Bear in mind that most of the buyers around the world are single-desk buyers. We will have multiple sellers, many of them foreign owned, selling Australian wheat to single-desk buyers. How do you expect to retain the premiums for Australian wheat in those sorts of circumstances? Who will be the buyer of last resort? Who will fund the crop carryovers that occur every year? Around a third of the crop is generally carried over. Who is going to fund that? Which growers are going to be held responsible? How can Australia, in the absence of a national pool, sign long-term contracts that can be honoured and maintained? Are we going to throw away our best markets because we have become an unreliable supplier? Are the new arrangements compliant with Australia’s WTO and FTA negotiations?

These are critical issues. They all need to be addressed and, frankly, they have not yet been addressed by the government. They are not covered adequately in this statement or in any of the comments that have been made before. I want the premiums for growing quality Australian wheat to go to Australian farmers and the Australian economy; I do not want them distributed to multinational grain buyers around the world. (Time expired)

See this speech in context