David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received letters from the honourable member for New England and the honourable member for Perth proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d) I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important—that is, that proposed by the honourable member for member for New England, namely:

The future of the Australian Wheat Industry

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

This is a very important matter of public importance because it reflects on the future of one of Australia’s proudest and most important export industries. I know that everybody in this House is aware of the events of recent months. I do not want this motion to be too much about the past—the motion actually is about the future of the wheat industry—but obviously there has to be some degree of reflection on what has happened and also on the outcome of the Cole inquiry, because that very inquiry and the events that occurred in the Middle East could have, and probably will have, a dramatic impact on the shape of the wheat industry into the future.

Commissioner Cole made the comment that the dealings of the AWB in the oil for food program have cast a shadow over the reputation and credibility of the wheat industry. I think all farmers would agree with that. There are probably only three or four people in the parliament who are actually wheat growers and I happen to be one of those people. I was also on the Grains Council of Australia in the late 1980s and early 1990s, so I have had some involvement in the very issue that we are talking about. I think the most important thing all of us should reflect on is that the people who are going to be affected by decisions made in this place are the wheat growers of Australia. We want to keep them foremost in our minds when we are deliberating about their future. I think everybody understands the problems that have occurred in relation to drought et cetera, and the very futures of these people hang in the balance.

The Cole inquiry came up with two things, in my view. It really put the Australian Wheat Board in a very bad light both domestically and internationally. It did so in an environment where various ministers within the government, particularly the former Minister for Trade, had been working with some degree of diligence to try to achieve better outcomes internationally in terms of free trade. The dealings of the AWB have ruined that credible attempt to try to gain a better foothold for trade internationally. Domestically, I think wheat growers have lost trust in those directors, those people on the board who were there to actually administrate on their behalf to try to gain the best price for wheat internationally.

I am aware that Senator Joyce, in another place, made a comment some months ago that I believe should have been sanctioned at the time. He said that that is the way you do business in these places—that you have to take along bribe money to do business with people in the Middle East. People such as the former chairman of the Wheat Board, Clinton Condon, would not agree with that. They did not carry out this sort of activity to maintain an interest in the Middle East, in Iraq, and they particularly did not do it in a climate where the oil for food program existed, where there was obvious conflict, where there was a madman in charge of a country and where there were supposed weapons of mass destruction. They did not do it in a climate where that sort of activity was being perpetrated.

The activities of those people within the AWB have been absolutely disgraceful and unforgivable. In saying that, I think there are going to be very real problems of re-establishing the AWB in some guise of its former self that will have any credibility internationally or domestically. I would also reflect on what I believe, even though it does not show up in the Cole report, was the absolute incompetence of some people in government departments that, in my view, has aided and abetted this process. Even though Commissioner Cole was unable to find absolute proof that people did not know what was happening, I think the public is fully aware that there were people who did know. Whether they passed on the message to their superiors or through the ministerial wagon is another question, but I think the general public understands that people did know and that, at the very least, some of the senior bureaucrats were incompetent in administering the oil for food arrangements and the licences to sell grain into Iraq.

My view is that, given the damage done by the AWB executives to the credibility of the wheat industry, we do have to look at future arrangements to be put in place so that the industry can move forward with some degree of credibility. In saying that, I gave a doorstop interview this morning in which I gave my support to the arrangements being discussed by the member for O’Connor. I have looked at them closely and have held discussions with him and others, and with people in my electorate, about some of the issues raised in the last few days since the report of the Cole inquiry came down. It seems to me untenable if the arrangements we have had in place are carried into the future; a new arrangement should be put in place that will have some credibility.

I am not saying that the proposed private member’s bill by the member for O’Connor ought to be the absolute option accepted, but I think the parliament needs to have a serious look at it. Essentially, it transfers responsibility from the Wheat Board to the Wheat Export Authority or an authority of that nature, and the single desk would be virtually controlled by that authority. If there were to be any other export licences, they would be issued through that authority. The proposal also gives the parliament some degree of say as well.

I think some very important points have been made which are not all that dissimilar to the current structure within the Wheat Board. I think the Wheat Export Authority was a bit tardy in its work in the last few years too. We have an authority that has control over the single desk and the ability to on-licence potential exporters if it sees that the maximising of returns to growers is an objective that can be sensibly done through that arrangement. I think we really have to have a serious look at that. Some of the basic structure of the current Wheat Board would still be maintained but in my view sets it aside so that it can move forward.

As a grain grower I think the Australian Wheat Board made an error, and maybe the corporate experience has failed generally. I think what we are trying to do today in the splitting off option and the return to the past is more of a grasp for survival rather than a meaningful attempt to address the loss of credibility internationally. I think that, when AWB moved to a situation where it was essentially shareholder driven and started to move into areas that were not necessarily about the sale of grain domestically and internationally, it started to move away from the greater body of wheat growers.

Another issue that needs to be looked at, particularly in terms of the deliberations of the member for O’Connor, is the special place of Western Australia in relation to export grain. I do not think it is any secret that Western Australia has been fortunate enough to produce quite a lot of grain in recent years, and most of it is required to go overseas. That may change in the future, with the increase in biofuels and ethanol et cetera, but it most probably will not in the short term at least. The Western Australians do need to have a real say and participation in the future of this great industry. I think it is only a matter of time, and it may require a change of government—who knows—before very little grain will be exported, from the Eastern States in particular, and most of it will be used in other forms of value adding, particularly for ethanol but also for the feedlot industry. But, in the determinations, I think the Western Australians should be listened to as much as possible.

I raised an issue some months ago which was very much in terms of the future of the Australian Wheat Board, but at that time I was unable to get a real response from the Leader of the National Party. One of the things that I want to raise today, particularly as there are so few wheat growers in either the House of Representatives or the Senate, is that if meaningful change is proposed, such as that by the member for O’Connor—and no doubt there will be other options—those options be put to a poll of registered wheat growers. It should not be decided by the National Farmers Federation or the Grains Council of Australia, because I do not think they have the right to make such decisions anymore.

I think they really have opted out of that favoured position of being the spokespeople for grain growers—for instance, the Grains Council of Australia opposed a mandate on ethanol, which is completely contrary to interests of growers, on the basis that motorists should have choice. So I think that is an example of how the Grains Council does not necessarily represent the people who are driving the tractors. There is an assumption among some in this place that some members of the farming community might not have the capacity to make decisions on the future of their industry. They should be the ones who actually do make the decision on the various options that are and will be proposed for its future, because I do not believe there is any way that this industry will move forward in the same guise as it is now: with the Australian Wheat Board as the vested power for the export of grain internationally. I think that situation would be untenable. We will have a situation where maybe a dozen people will be before the courts. We will have some international ramifications probably in America and in other parts of the world because of the conduct of the Australian Wheat Board and the Australian government in relation to the food for oil program, so it would be untenable to go forward with the way it is now. The options of the member for O’Connor and others have to be considered, but in the light that the wheat growers should make the decision about the future of this industry.

The report of the Cole inquiry highlighted a number of things, some of which are of a political nature. It highlighted the way in which the wheat industry moved through the 1970s and 1980s and then changed gear in a corporate experience that did not advance the intellectual capacity of those who were driving it. The change of climate took place in a legislative sense, but it did not take place in a mental sense in the administration of the operation. In fact, what actually happened to growers was that they were not the prime target of the board; the survival of the executives and the shareholders of the board became the major focus for the board going forward.

In conclusion I would suggest that whether the government knew or did not know or whether the directors of the board knew or did not know about the failure of the Wheat Board and the quite blatant arrangements that some members of the Wheat Board executive put in place is almost irrelevant in terms of the future. What is relevant is that the damage has been done to the reputation of a once great body that is seen as the representative of wheat growers across this nation. As we move forward, the focus has to be on what the wheat farmers of this nation want, not on what the political operatives within this place think they can do in making life difficult for one another. It is time for all of us to have a good think about how we can make the farmers’ lives better in terms of the export of their grain. (Time expired)

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is more than a worthwhile debate for the parliament to occupy its time with; it is a necessary debate. I thank the honourable member for New England for submitting this matter of public importance and, in doing so, displacing the Labor Party’s own submitted matter for debate, which I understand was on Work Choices or industrial relations—not on the Cole inquiry or the wheat industry but instead on industrial relations. This matter of public importance, the future of the Australian wheat industry, needs to be addressed.

Taking up from the contribution of the member for New England, I wish to put this debate on the way forward for this great primary industry in more of a context following the Cole inquiry. Bear in mind that the failures at AWB were of ethics. As Cole reports in his prologue on page xii:

The conduct of AWB and its officers was due to a failure in corporate culture.

The single desk was not to blame for the failures at AWB. Therefore, in considering future arrangements, great care has to be taken so as not to inadvertently punish the innocent. Any response that is disproportionate and imposes costs on wheat growers is holding them liable for and even guilty of offences they had no knowledge of, let alone participation in. The failure was of corporate governance within AWB, and that is the problem that needs to be addressed. AWB has a number of internal reforms well underway, so much so that the 12 persons named for further investigation by Commissioner Cole are no longer employees of the organisation. Failures of corporate governance were also at the heart of the Bond, Skase and HIH collapses. Any government response has to address the causes of the problem, and that is being undertaken, obviously, by investigative bodies.

While some people are arguing that the export monopoly contributed to the arrogant corporate culture that led to the payment of bribes, at best, in my view, it was a minor part. Volcker, on behalf of the United Nations, identified thousands of companies that paid the same fees to Iraq, and those companies did not have export monopolies. So it can hardly be said that the mere holding of an export monopoly is the cause of the problem. Revelations by the Cole inquiry have understandably and naturally increased calls from parts of industry for changes to the single desk arrangements. The member for New England has canvassed these and outlined in general terms his current thinking on the issue. The Cole inquiry report also highlighted the problems of oversighting a monopoly exporter.

As the Prime Minister announced, the report of the inquiry has clear implications for the operation of the single desk system for wheat exports and, in particular, for the role of AWBL and AWBI and the WEA in relation to wheat marketing. Indeed, all through the past 12 to 18 months, I and members of the government have consistently said that, on the receipt of the Cole commission’s report, we would consider the marketing and oversight of the single desk arrangements. However, the Prime Minister at the same time has emphasised that, in formulating its response, the government’s dominant concern will be for the interests of the Australian wheat growers. For that reason, the Deputy Prime Minister has stated that there will be consultation with growers.

The reason for consultation with growers is obviously the importance of the industry to individuals, to farm families and to local and regional economies as well as the national economy. This is a giant export earner for all Australians. But we are also considering changes to essentially a 65-year-old system against a backdrop of the worst drought in 100 years, which has decimated the winter harvest. Production of the three major winter crops of wheat, barley and canola in 2006-07 is forecast to decline to around 13½ million tonnes, which is down 63 per cent from last season’s harvest of 36½ million tonnes for those three crops. A harvest of this size would be the smallest for these crops since the drought of 1994-95, when 12 million tonnes were harvested. Wheat, especially, is forecast to be 9.5 million tonnes in the coming financial year, down 15½ million tonnes or 62 per cent from last season. The weight of responsibility not only on all members of the House and the government but also on industry leaders is heavy. We must get this right, and there is no particular repository of wisdom on this issue. But we must involve and consult wheat growers collectively to draw on their experience and their views.

The government also holds serious concerns about the potential for an improved situation for farmers during the current summer cropping period. The continued dry and hot conditions, coupled with unprecedented low irrigation entitlements, are making growing conditions over summer very difficult across the country. I should say, however, that improved management practices and the development of improved grain varieties over the past 20 years mean that farmers are generally able to achieve relatively better production outcomes from limited rainfall, which is a testimony not only to their human spirit and resilience but also to their skill and innovation. Practices such as direct drilling have improved soil structure and stability and, more importantly, have improved the ability of growers to conserve limited soil moisture. Many of these productivity improvements have also been due to the research and development in which the industry so heavily invests, principally through the Grains Research and Development Corporation. The GRDC is funded by growers and government in a partnership that accumulates about $120 million a year for investment in research and development.

It hardly needs to be said that wheat is the largest broadacre crop grown in Australia. Over the past three years, wheat comprised around 56 per cent of total grains and oilseeds production. In dollar terms, the average annual gross value of wheat is just over $5 billion. It is well ahead of barley, which is $1½ billion, and canola, which is half a billion dollars. That gives you some idea of the size and reach of this industry in both economic and, by extension, human terms. Of Australia’s total production, Western Australia accounts for around 40 per cent and New South Wales, 30 per cent. South Australia is the third-largest producer at 13 per cent; Victoria, 11 per cent; and Queensland, five per cent. Interestingly, Australia is not a major wheat producer but it is a major wheat exporter. Five countries, including Australia, account for about 80 per cent of world wheat exports. The United States accounts for a third of total exports; Australia and Canada, 15 per cent each; the European Union, 10 per cent; and Argentina, 10 per cent.

We do, as the member for New England stressed, have to be extremely mindful of the particular circumstance of Western Australia, where its industry is predominantly—bordering on exclusively—export orientated. There the great debate is whether or not to keep the single desk. The single desk has the veto attached to it and is not held by a third party such as the Wheat Export Authority or a similar entity and it brings about longer term price stability compared to particularly higher prices somewhere through the cycle. In other words, I am far from convinced that the majority of Western Australian farmers would opt for a different system and the uncertainties it may bring to the one which they generally understand at present. However, I am advised by my Western Australian colleagues that, on the whole, Western Australian farmers do want the opportunity of selling on a competitive basis, and that will be part of the consultation and the debate.

Today’s question time was remarkable from a couple of aspects. One of them was the disintegration of the Labor Party’s tactics and the disarray within their ranks which saw one shadow minister in a fit of temper derail question time and curtail their capacity and opportunity to ask questions of government ministers. It was quite extraordinary that one person at the dispatch box, without consultation or reference to his leaders or to the other tactical geniuses within the Labor Party, would be able to proceed on that basis. Even more important was the fact that, after the third question to the foreign minister about the Cole commission, the Labor Party moved to an environmental question and thereafter to Work Choice questions.

After the biggest scandal—allegedly—that the Leader of the Opposition has seen in his 26 years in parliament, the opposition has asked a sum total of 13 questions—10 yesterday, Tuesday; and three today, Wednesday. For more than 12 months there has been the blustering, the accusations and the farrago of slurs against government ministers, including the Prime Minister. And what has it come to? It has come to 13 questions in the parliament following the release of the Cole inquiry report compared to the several hundred questions over the course of the last 18 months. I have not done the sums—I did not think that I would need to draw a contrast between pre-Cole and post-Cole report questions—but the number would be no fewer than 300, all of which accused various ministers day in, day out of lying and deceiving and of outright negligence.

There have been three stages to the Labor Party’s strategy against the government for which they must be held accountable. The first, in the early part of this year, was that ministers within the government knew of the bribes and were culpable and involved in the bribes. These are the most serious accusations—allegations of corruption against ministers. As that began to fade through the first half of this year, the opposition changed tact and began to accuse ministers of a cover-up—that is, ministers later became aware of the AWB’s bribes but ignored them, then hid them and took no action even though they had full knowledge retrospectively of the bribes. The Labor Party have now moved on from that to the accusation of incompetence.

Yet, for all of the extravagance and hype of the Leader of the Opposition, there has been no apology. There has been no recognition that the Cole inquiry made no adverse findings against the government or against any minister. Commissioner Cole found that no minister acted improperly, that no minister had knowledge of the fees paid in breach of the United Nations sanctions at the time they were occurring and that the government and its ministers were misled by AWB just as AWB misled the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the United Nations and the Wheat Export Authority. The report highlights the extent of AWB’s efforts to keep hidden its payments of those fees and its after-sales service fees. The inescapable fact is that it took the powers and the resources of the commission of inquiry to uncover the extent of the AWB’s deception—an inquiry established by the government—a government that wanted to get to the truth of the matter wherever that may have led.

The Labor Party, of course, will claim that the terms of reference were too narrow and inadequate, but let me quote from paragraph 31 of Commissioner Cole’s inquiry with regard to this very issue of the terms of reference and their adequacy:

It was made clear, however, that if during the conduct of the inquiry it appeared there might have been a breach of any Commonwealth, State or Territory law by the Commonwealth or any officer of the Commonwealth related to the subject matter of the terms of reference, I would approach the Attorney-General, seeking a widening of the terms of reference. That situation did not arise.

It is clear from Commissioner Cole’s report that any claims of inadequate terms of reference in relation to ministers and public servants are a nonsense. The hardest thing for the Labor Party to overcome is the public’s recognition that the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs attended the inquiry. There is not a single person in Australia outside the Labor Party who believes that the Cole commission was anything other than completely unfettered and utterly rigorous in its consideration of the issues. The fact that the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs came before the commissioner lends great credibility to his findings. (Time expired)

Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry could not help himself towards the end of that speech and I think, quite frankly, that the minister prostituted the MPI before the House today with his cheap defence of the government’s untenable position.

I commend the member for New England for bringing this MPI before the parliament today. I know he is highly regarded by wheat growers and other constituents in his electorate. I note that the honourable member for Wakefield and the honourable member for Mallee are in the House today, as was the honourable member for O’Connor. All of these members have a deep and abiding interest across the political spectrum in the future of this industry. My interest in this is a fairly personal one. I have relatives who earn their living in this industry and in my youth I spent many holidays on the headers. They were nothing like the headers that are driven today, of course, but they produced the fond memories I have of working in this industry. I have an interest because of my shadow ministerial responsibilities, and of course the port of Geelong in my electorate is a major bulk-handling port for this product.

I disagree with one contention of the member for New England in today’s debate. We simply cannot move this industry forward until those who are politically responsible for its devastation are brought to account. The minister argued that in its response the government must be mindful of any additional costs that it puts on wheat growers, but what about the costs of its incompetence and negligence? Those particular matters have not been addressed and, until they are, this matter will not be resolved in either the political context or the economic context.

Today in rural Australia, a wheat farmer will look across the parched landscape of his or her drought devastated farm and a real sense of despair and betrayal will creep across that wheat grower’s soul. In the Australian parliament the Minister for Foreign Affairs arrogantly giggled and laughed away his responsibility in what has been termed the worst corporate scandal in the history of rural Australia. Today in rural Australia, wheat farmers despair that their crops have shrivelled in the hot sun. They have suffered the drought day after day to the point where they have incurred massive costs but there is simply no crop or no point in harvesting the crop and with it goes the hope of a reasonable season. In this House, the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of The Nationals, Mark Vaile, denies any knowledge of or responsibility for the scandal that has devastated the incomes of wheat growers in Australia. Today many wheat farmers will walk across their drought devastated farms and ponder the devastation visited on their great industry. They will ask why it is so and how it has happened. And in this House the former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Warren Truss, scurries for cover behind the findings of the Cole commission.

We are all concerned about the future of this industry, but to construct that future we have to deal adequately now with its recent past. How did it happen that the single desk marketing authority for this great industry and great rural product got itself into the position where it is now the subject of ridicule in the international and domestic marketplace and the wheat growers’ incomes have been so devastated? Cole gives us a clue to that. Cole gave us a clue when, on the second page of the prologue of his report, he said it was the ‘closed culture of superiority and impregnability, of dominance and self-importance’ that caused this mess.

I think those particular lines apply to the government, because if ministers had been doing their job this scandal would not have happened. The Prime Minister yesterday in this House really did mock the wheat growers of Australia, because he stated in question time that the Liberal and National parties were the best friends the wheat growers of Australia had ever had. That is the statement that had them white-hot with rage, because they know the devastation that has been visited upon their industry.

When we ponder the future of this industry we need a mechanism to take account of the costs. If we change the failed structures that have been put in place by the Howard government in this industry, we have to take into account the ever-present costs of this debacle to AWB and through it to the wheat growers. We know that the cost of this scandal has halved the value of the investment of shareholders in AWB. A conservative estimate would put that at $600 million to $800 million. We have lost trade with Iraq of more than $500 million. There are lawsuits threatened. We heard of one of those in the United States today of some $1 billion. There is a potential tax liability associated with the scandal that could run between $150 million and $200 million. So before we talk about the future we have to ponder the present costs of this debacle. That has to be factored into any suggestion that anybody in the industry or on either side of this House will make about the future wheat-marketing arrangements and what might be put in place in the wake of Cole.

I doubt that we are going to get serious debate in the government on the options that are available to the industry for its future. This issue has so poisoned relationships in the coalition that I fear for the industry. I fear that decisions are going to be made about it and about its structure by a government that is racked with division. We only have to look at the comments in the papers today on an entirely different matter. The rural Liberal, the honourable member for Hume, who I and the member for New England serve with on the agriculture committee, fronted the National Party senator in the party room and warned:

I have cut the throats of animals worth more than you.

Are those people, who have responsibility both for this industry and for wheat growers and their families in rural areas, going to sit down in the cool light of day with that sort of relationship? The honourable member for O’Connor had this to say:

A number of people, who were not Liberals, were constantly out in the marketplace saying it was the way you did business in the Middle East. If our side of politics is guilty of anything, it’s of trusting a mob of agri-politicians—all of which have close connections to the National Party.

I want the National Party ministers to really accept responsibility for this debacle and resign. Warren Truss should resign, Mark Vaile should resign and Alexander Downer should resign, because—

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will refer to members by their titles.

Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

the concept of ministerial responsibility is absolutely vital to the future of this industry. We know that the options are between the status quo and complete deregulation. There are many variants of that and they can be debated. (Time expired)

Barry Wakelin (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I thank the member for New England for the opportunity to discuss the future of the Australian wheat industry today. It is a very important topic at a time when there are significant challenges ahead. It is self-apparent, I am sure, but nevertheless it is worthwhile in this place to air it and I am appreciative of the member for New England’s contribution. I must say that within his contribution I found very little to differ with. In a very fair way he mentioned the issues. I was particularly attracted to the acknowledgement of Western Australians—and, may I add, perhaps a little selfishly, South Australians—in terms of the export component of the wheat industry, which, of course, the single desk particularly relates to.

Many of us will recall the debate many years ago about the deregulation of the domestic wheat industry. That is not what we are here to do today, as far as I am concerned. I, like the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the member for Gippsland, believe that it is possible to separate out the issues of the single desk and the corporate culture that AWBI found itself caught up in. I do not intend to discuss Cole in any great length other than to say that I am grateful for the skill, which I think is acknowledged right across the House and across party lines, that Commissioner Cole showed in the way that he analysed this situation. I end up with a great respect for someone who has so fairly and in a balanced way brought down quite a significant report but in such a forensic way that I am sure most Australians will be able to understand what he is talking about.

The fact of life for the wheat industry—and to go to the member for Corio’s contribution—is that the devastation of the income of wheat growers has much more to do with that which falls from the sky, and that will always be the case, than the behaviour of marketing bodies, governments or any other body within this country. As a wheat grower, I am proudly part of the wheat industry. Those who have come before me in the wheat industry at times of other great challenge in the industry have said, ‘Yes, there is a problem.’ Some people may remember the issue of wheat quotas. But, as my father said to me then, ‘Your greatest challenge, quite frankly, will be to grow the stuff.’ So let us not lose sight of what our farmers are about. They are amongst the best, if not the best, producers of grain in the most skilful way in the world.

The ebb and flow of organisations such as AWBI are, in my view, secondary issues for this great industry. Let us remind ourselves about this industry. The member for Mitchell reminded me that James Ruse produced the first wheat in Australia. I will take a guess, but it was probably in 1789 or 1790. Some people may remember a man by the name of William James Farrer. When he developed the wheat variety ‘Federation’, which I understand was a rust resistant variety, it contributed very significantly to the wheat industry over 100 years ago—hence its name, of course.

But there has been ebb and flow in this industry over at least 200 years, and this is just another part of that. We know that it is a significant export earner. We know that the mining industry has moved on and is a very strong contributor to our export income, whereas at one time primary production—that is, the wheat industry, the wool industry and the meat industry—was significantly greater than the mineral industry. So primary production, particularly the wheat industry, as significant as it is, is a smaller part of the overall Australian economy.

It seems to me the great challenge for all of us, particularly in this place, is to strip away the politics as best we can, as I believe the member for New England and the minister did today, and focus on our future at a time of one of our toughest droughts, at a time when we need, quite frankly, the best corporate approach—the best strategy—to give our wheat growers the best opportunity to maximise their return. Of course, everyone knows that, for anyone who has some wheat, in whatever quantities—and many wheat growers do not have very much wheat at all, and certainly my farm is in that category—wheat is at perhaps five to eight per cent of its average production or slightly above what we would consider a reasonable production level. Imagine your income when, after investing some hundreds of thousands dollars—certainly $50,000 to $100,000 at least, depending on your scale—and expecting to get some hundreds of thousands of dollars in return, you end up with 10 per cent, or 15 per cent if you are lucky, of what you might regard as an average income or of the average gross income for that particular year. So these are factors that farmers are used to dealing with. It is not particularly helpful for us to overly politicise the problems of the AWB in this place.

To go to the challenges over the next few days, we know that the government—the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister—will bring forward in the next few days a range of options which I believe will show us the way to the future. I have my own private views about that, but it is not for me to canvass them at this time, other than in the general context of agreeing with the member for New England that we cannot stay the same. The status quo is no longer an option. It does not necessarily mean that the single desk has to be unduly changed. At the very least, a significant interim period needs to be part of that discussion.

I look at all the numbers—the alleged $1 billion lawsuit; the tax liability—and all of the technical, legal and economic debate. The House might forgive me for being slightly wary of—I will not say cynical about—all that technical stuff, because I come back to this key issue: for the wheat growers of Australia, it is about growing the stuff. It is about getting a profitable return. It is not about the politics. It is not about alleged activities in the Middle East. It is not about any of that—remembering, of course, that the market in Iraq represents an average of about 10 per cent of the total export market at any given time. So I believe we can look to the future with confidence. We have issues of leadership and reasonable options that we need to consider as quickly as possible. I believe that those options are before us. There is no doubt about the ability to produce the stuff when it rains, and there is no doubt that the marketing capacity of this country is there. Within the single desk, we will find a way to maintain the standard, keep the corporate culture strong and make sure that this wheat industry continues to thrive after the drought.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is now concluded.