Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Will the minister update the House on the latest developments in providing certainty to wheat growers?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wakefield for his question and acknowledge his strong engagement with the wheat growers in the electorate of Wakefield, who have a prime involvement in the export market. The reform that was dealt with in the chamber earlier today was required for the $5 billion industry that is the wheat industry in Australia. It was required because of failures of the previous government. If there was ever a moment where it was made clear that the old system was not serving growers well, it was the moment that can be defined by three letters, AWB, or three words, wheat for weapons. At that moment it was made clear to everybody around this parliament that the system had to be changed. Last year the previous government, instead of providing certainty for growers, took the legislation to a point where it provided the worst of all worlds.

To find the best endorsement of that, look at what people have defended in this chamber over the last 24 hours. We had the National Party position. They said, ‘Forget the current legislation,’ and advocated the rules we had at precisely the time that wheat for weapons took place. We then had the Liberal Party position in the Senate inquiry, which said we needed more regulation than what our bills provided. We then had the Liberal Party position in this chamber last night, which said we needed less regulation than what our bills provided. But nobody at any point said the way to provide certainty to growers was to leave the previous government’s legacy in place. Not one person in this chamber at any moment during the debate on that bill has said that the previous government’s legislation got it right. The reason that no-one can defend it is that it is truly indefensible.

I have been seeking for some months to provide certainty for wheat growers through a sensible marketing system into the future. On 5 March we released an exposure draft bill. At any time since 5 March it was open to the Leader of the Opposition to declare what the position of the Liberal Party would be. Growers have had to go through, work out whether they are going to plant and work out exactly what sort of wheat they are going to plant. They have had to make all those business decisions while waiting for the convenience three months later of the Leader of the Opposition to finally declare a position. Certainty for wheat growers is finally getting closer.

But we saw divisions when earlier today we had the division here in this chamber on going to the next stage of providing certainty for growers. Let us not pretend that there was any small gap among the members opposite. The Leader of the Opposition, when he talked about the reasons why the Liberal Party would be not opposing it referred to the legislation as being ‘consistent with the core philosophy of the Liberal Party’. The National Party, when explaining their reasons for opposing it, referred to the legislation as being a ‘fundamental tenet of the National Party’. Each of the parties opposite has completely elevated how wide and fundamental to their core beliefs this issue is. So they have decided that now—when they are voting on opposite sides of the chamber, when they are disagreeing on absolutely fundamental issues and core principles—is the time to say, ‘Why don’t we amalgamate?’ In working out whether now is the time to amalgamate, go to the ABC Online website and you will see comments from plenty of people seeking certainty for growers who are making their thoughts clear. Tony Gilleland writes:

The abolition of the single desk is because it lost all credibility through AWB on the National Party’s watch, trying to suggest otherwise is laughable.

Peter says:

What people have to understand is there has been a lot of debate about scrapping the single desk for years, but that it was never going to happen under the Coalition Government.

The big, long-term reforms that were necessary to provide certainty for growers were not going to happen under the previous government.

Greg A. says:

This only shows that the Nationals need to be more independent and not just vote like lemmings to support their Liberal colleagues. It is clear that the Liberals do not treat their election partners well, look at the McGauran defection.

As we move forward to try to provide certainty for growers for the next harvest, the chasm between the opposition parties could not be greater—and that is not due to how I define their differences, but due to how they define their differences. They talk about it being a difference between fundamental tenets and core philosophy. When their fundamental tenets and their core philosophy clash but they are still talking about a merger then it can only be because they have given up on plans for a future and are just out there looking for a logo.