Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Resources) Share this | Hansard source

I suspected that the minister would. I respect the minister. We have a very good working relationship, and the opposition certainly wants to work with him on this issue. But we understand that procedural issues like this go well beyond the remit of the minister responsible for the bill, and it is obvious to me that there is a broader tactical issue at hand here, particularly given—and I correct the minister—that we were given other information about when this debate would take place this morning. It was wrong of the minister—and I do understand that he probably didn't understand the situation—to be critical of the Manager of Opposition Business for not being in here. We were clearly told—and we checked this only 10 minutes ago—that this debate would not take place until much later this morning. So, it was wrong for the minister to be critical of the Manager of Opposition Business. And I thank the member for Watson for his contribution in my absence, because he encapsulated the issue very, very well.

I only rise to speak as the agricultural spokesperson to reinforce our determination on every occasion to facilitate the interests of the agriculture sector and in particular the export sector. It is very topical at the moment, with the threat of tariffs on our barley producers and of course the suspension, or cancellation—or however it might be described—of the licences for our meat processors and their export markets into China, our largest trading partner. So, let me make it clear that we support the bill that's being debated in this House today. We will support every measure that further facilitates export opportunities for Australia's growers and producers, and indeed manufacturers. It's often said, and it is true, that our growers and producers are the most efficient in the world, and they earn for us much of the foreign exchange that we rely upon in this country to build national wealth and to maintain our living standards.

I am a great supporter, as are many, many of my colleagues on this side, of medicinal hemp and hemp products generally. Hemp is an outstanding and environmentally friendly crop, and medicinal hemp is so important to so many Australians and people around the world. We understand that these measures are important to ensure that the trade with the United States continues. But this issue has been going on for a number of years now. Up until now it has been dealt with by way of side letters—in other words, up until now the United States has been satisfied to accept a letter guaranteeing that the phytosanitary certificates are valid, notwithstanding the fact that the Export Control Act in its definition of goods prohibited the export of narcotic goods. They've been accepting those side letters for a long time now, as I understand it and as I am advised by both the minister and the department. But for some reason, I expect legitimately, there is growing concern that there's not sufficient security around the side letter as a guarantor of the phytosanitary standards of the product. They want that fixed, and the only way to fix that is of course to amend the Export Control Act to remove the ban on narcotics in the definition of goods under that act.

We understand that absolutely. That's why we will be supporting this bill. But I think it was only a week ago, or maybe a little bit more, that the Manager of Opposition Business contacted me to advise me that the Attorney-General and Leader of the House had asked that we consider facilitating this bill in all its stages through the House and indeed the parliament. As the Manager of Opposition Business has indicated, we are always up for that—somewhat reluctantly, because when the government of the day does this we have to circumvent many of our own internal processes. Those opposite should understand this, because many of them have been on the opposition benches in the past. Like those who sit opposite, we do have a shadow cabinet, and in their case a cabinet. We do have caucus committees. We do have the caucus itself, and processes to go through. When we're asked to facilitate bills like this then obviously we often have to circumvent those processes, and of course it denies us the same length of opportunity to further canvass, research and discuss the matters that are coming before the House.

So whenever we do this, we do it with reluctance, but we always do it, under the guise of cooperation and to take the opportunity to act in the national interest and in this case in the interests of our growers, and we don't hesitate. But on this occasion, in the week that has passed since the Manager of Opposition Business contacted me, despite asking on a number of occasions I have received no compelling case or no persuasive reason that this bill—given that this matter has been going on for a number of years—needs passage through this parliament this week.

The minister had an opportunity again today to provide those persuasive reasons. He's not done so. He could have been more specific about the business interests at hand here. He could have been more specific about volume of export, value of export and where the key export markets are within the United States. I've had some insight into that personally. But remember, this is the people's House, and others will be voting on these bills. Others will be voting for or against the facilitation of these bills, and members of this place—including those who sit on the government benches—are entitled to know more about what they are voting on. I had a briefing with the department. I always have the greatest respect for our departmental officers, and I always respect the confidential nature of those briefings, and I'm not going to share any of it here today. But it was clear to me that those departmental officers were a little reluctant to share information about this bill and the reason for the need for the parliament to facilitate it. Certainly, both the minister and the Leader of the House have not been very forthcoming in better explaining why it is that this is so necessary this week.

So let me be clear: we want to do everything we can to support our growers. We want to do everything we can to support this industry. If the government tells us very, very clearly and gives us an explanation as to why this bill needs to go through the parliament this week, we will support the facilitation of this bill through this parliament this week. But the government, despite all our requests has failed to do so. It has failed to do so on an issue that's been with us since—I just can't think which—2018 or 2019. I think it's 2018. It's been with us for all of that time. I'm told that the US authorities gave a warning when we first started exporting this product that, while they would accept the side letter as a guarantor of the phytosanitary strengths of the product, that the side letter can't be forever and that they would need further assurances and guarantees. That means, of course, that this legislation would need to be amended. So the government have had two or three years to do that but, mysteriously, suddenly, it now has to be done this week, at a time when the parliament's time is so precious and at a time when we're dealing with an international pandemic—the biggest economic challenge this country has ever faced. This is a time when we really need to be dealing with those issues very regularly. It's a time when our major trading partner is starting to cut off our exports to their market, and the government wants to take up our time and the parliament's time. They want us to circumvent our political processes in this place but they're not prepared to tell us why. It's not good enough to say, 'Well we need to do this because we need to provide the guarantees our international customers are looking for.' That's fine, we understand that. But why, after all this time, this week? Why do we have to go through this extraordinary process of suspending standing orders and facilitating all the stages of this bill through this House. We just don't understand why that is the case.

There is still an opportunity for the minister to jump to his feet and provide us with the answers to those questions. There is a precedent here: while we're always prepared to facilitate bills when there is a good reason to, we don't like it because it sets a precedent—it gets too easy for the government to start governing in that way on a regular basis. There has to be a good reason and we've not been given that reason. So there is an opportunity for the minister to provide those persuasive answers, and we stand ready to hear them and to facilitate this bill if he's capable of doing so.

See this speech in context