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

My question is to the Prime Minister and relates to the Prime Minister’s meeting with wheat growers in my electorate to discuss marketing of wheat exports in March 2006 in his then capacity as shadow minister for foreign affairs and trade. Does the Prime Minister recall saying, when asked about future wheat marketing arrangements at that meeting:

I think if the Howard Government is fair dinkum about finding out what wheat farmers want, what they should be doing is polling all registered wheat farmers.

Prime Minister, given that polling taken last year indicated that only 11 per cent of wheat growers wanted a multilicensing arrangement, will you delay passage of your government’s legislation until Australia’s 24,000 registered wheat growers are polled for their views?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for New England for his question. I do recall visiting his electorate with him some years ago on this, as I do recall meetings with many wheat farmers right across the country at that time, as I recall meetings with representatives of rural industry organisations most recently on this matter. The first point is this: why are we in this mess on the wheat industry? It goes back to something called AWB.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the truth. The reason we have our wheat marketing arrangements in disarray comes down to three letters: AWB. And it goes back to the wheat for weapons scandal, which members opposite do not wish to be reminded of but which fundamentally torpedoed amidships the credibility of our then existing international wheat marketing arrangements. That is why the entire wheat industry, including the 24,000 good and honourable people out there growing wheat as a crop as their livelihood, have had their future international wheat marketing arrangements placed in jeopardy as a consequence of the inaction—and, some would say, worse than that—on the part of the previous government.

Secondly, therefore, we as the incoming government have had to confront the realities of, ‘How do you best deal with the situation in a way which maximises the interests of growers right across the country?’ It is no secret to those opposite; it is no secret to the National Party; there is a huge division of opinion among wheat growers, depending on what part of the country you come from, when it comes to exactly the right approach to take. In Western Australia you have a huge deregulation constituency. In parts of New South Wales you have a huge non-deregulation constituency. In various other parts of the country it splits right up the middle. Take, for example, Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor.

Government Member:

Where is he?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When he is onshore, we know full well where the member for O’Connor stands on this, which is a no-holds-barred, complete, total deregulation of the industry. We know that. We also know that there are huge divisions within the coalition, within the National Party and between the National Party and the Liberal Party on this matter.

To go back to the direct answer to the honourable member’s question, ‘How do you best plumb the depths of what actually is the best set of opinions coming forth from the industry?’ what I can say—and I fully acknowledge what the honourable member has said—in response to that is, dealing with the realities that we have had to deal with, coming into office, the minister for agriculture has been out there, on the ground, right across the nation, consulting wheat farmers, I think it is fair to say, in every state of the country on what is the best set of arrangements for the future. Those arrangements have been reflected in the bill that we are putting forward for consultation with the industry very soon. We believe it represents the best balance for the future. But I will not say to all members here present that it will be to the universal welcome of every wheat farmer in the country; it will not. As those who are honest opposite will recognise, there was no alternative set of wheat marketing arrangements which would have met with the universal accord of wheat farmers. You know that as well as anyone else in this place.

Can I conclude where I began: none of this would have happened had the previous government discharged its responsibilities in ensuring that Australia’s important $4-billion-a-year wheat crop was marketed to the rest of the world in a non-corrupt fashion. Instead you allowed $300 million worth of bribes to be paid to the Iraqi dictator, which were then used to buy bombs, guns and bullets for deployment against Australian troops. On this question, the government as it existed at the time has no credibility.