Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly, I congratulate the member for Kennedy and agree with the member for Canberra in appreciating the passion he has displayed on this issue. The member for Canberra mentioned at the end of her speech something to do with primary production and those who produce the food. The Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs and many others have talked about the consumer of the food. One of the underlying problems in the area of competition is that the argument is about the consumer, not about whether the food can be produced at a competitive price. It is very much aimed at the consumer.

Members might remember that, when Telstra was sold, competition was going to deliver into the smaller ends of the market—that competition would provide. Public ownership was not required; competition would provide in rural areas. That is not happening. The weakness of the ACCC, in my view, and the problem with national competition policy and the way those words are thrown around is that competition does not provide in the smaller markets because of the size of Australia. Competition did not provide when our region wanted a gas pipeline because there was only one person that wanted to provide it. There were no competitors. Telstra tells us now that some parts of the market are not viable, so it will not provide a service. Competition was going to provide. It is all very well for the current government to blame it on the former government and say, ‘They said that, they did that; therefore nothing happens.’ Competition was the way in which that was driven.

One of the things that I think the government needs to look at very closely is the confidence people have in some of these so-called independent bodies. In rural Australia there is very little confidence, whether it be in the horticultural area, the grain production area or the fuel production area. The minister himself talked about collusion in the fuel area. Of course there is collusion in the fuel area. Has the ACCC been able to prove that? Has it been able to do that within its ambit? Everybody including the minister says that there is a degree of collusion.

But, when agriculture wants to value add to a product, in a sense, by moving into the biofuels area, this government is very quiet and the previous government was very quiet. They are very quiet on access to the marketplace and those who control the bowsers. The fuel companies just turn their backs and do not allow entry into the marketplace. That is where competition should start. Instead of farmers being captive in the way that they are now, not only domestically but globally, farmers should be able to move into value-adding markets. What saved the sugar industry on the sugar coast had nothing to do with the ACCC and nothing to do with domestic arrangements; it had a lot to do with Brazil moving into biofuels. The same is happening with biofuels in the grains sector. Biofuels are helping to drive up prices and at least give some profit margin to the farm sector.

What is the government doing? Very little. It supports renewable fuels but does not do a lot about them. Let us hope the wind and the sun can assist them. The government does not do much to encourage biofuels. It runs off this other gambit, saying, ‘We’ve got to be the food bowl for the world; there are millions of starving people who have to be fed by our farmers.’ There are 100 million acres in the Sudan. It can produce six times that which Australia can produce. Sudan has magnificent soils, yet its people are starving. And we are withdrawing support in terms of teaching them how to grow food using the new technological systems that can help them solve their problems.

Then we move into the carbon debate. We are still going to shuffle all this food all over the world, bring other fossil fuels back and have all these carbon footprints. This is the hypocrisy of policy that is going on at the moment—and I am not just saying that in terms of the current government. There are mixed messages out there. Do we want food? Do we want people to make a profit from growing food? Or do we want the consumer to have the food for nothing so that ‘grocery watch’ will work? Do we want a smaller carbon footprint? If so, why would we be sending this food overseas when we can produce our own energy from it which is renewable and has a smaller carbon footprint? No wonder the farm sector and others are confused about the emissions trading arrangements. And then we return to a very simplistic debate about ‘competition will provide’. It has not provided for the little people in the past and it will not now. (Time expired)

See this speech in context