Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In continuation of my short contribution last night, let me begin by repeating the last paragraph. In Western Australia, as an example, they have the unique, very successful industry process whereby the growers actually have a cooperative that looks after the wheat exporters. Western Australians own their own bulk-handling authority. By all accounts it is Australia's most effective and, apparently, cost-efficient system. It is in stark contrast to what applies in New South Wales, where there is indeed a serious monopoly called GrainCorp. The monopoly called GrainCorp originated through a decision by the Greiner-Murray government in the early 1990s to sell off the government owned Grain Corp to private enterprise. Hence the birth of the problems associated with monopoly handling of a particular system.

One of the problems that we have about this whole system is that it is very evident that we cannot come up with a system that is going to please everybody because of the geographic isolation and the infrastructure differences on a state-by-state basis. The object of the federal parliament is not to come out with a piece of legislation that pleases and/or appeases individual groups. It has to come up with a decision that is constructively centred on the interests of the people in the industry itself.

This particular bill is of great personal significance and interest to me. As I said yesterday, I made a couple of pretty comprehensive speeches on the issue of the corrupt AWB Ltd and what it was doing to export wheat growers in Western Australia and how certain A and B class shareholders of AWB Pty Ltd, who happened to be eastern wheat growers, were ripping off the Western Australian growers to buy $40 to $60 per tonne and in total $360 million a year, which was being used by AWB as a dividend base for A and B shareholders. I could not live with that or with anyone in any industry ripping off their partners in the same industry. I did not think that was appropriate.

I copped a bit of flak on this issue, as did the former member for O'Connor, Wilson Tuckey, when we pressed the then Howard government to do away with the AWB. One of the most vocal people was a fellow by the name of Jock Munro, of Rankin Springs in the member for Riverina's electorate. I note that the member for Riverina mentions him in glowing terms, but what he does not know about him, because he was not here at that time, was that he came into this parliament and tried to intimidate people. Fortunately he missed me, but he went up to the member for Farrer's office. I got a phone call from her after he had been there; she was very distraught because this bloke had threatened to destroy her politically. My reaction to that was: 'Susan, get on the phone. Here is the phone number for you. Ring up the Federal Police. He is in contravention of the Crimes Act and he should be charged.' That is the sort of person I have been dealing with on this issue for some time now. Anybody who thinks a bloke like that is all right really wants to have a look at themselves—I will say no more than that.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will take this opportunity to acquaint you and the parliament with the history behind my original comments on this issue, which have been the subject of further discussions with thinking, reasonable people, including politicians and constituent wheat growers. The precursor to the problem with what is now described as a monopoly by GrainCorp in New South Wales, as I mentioned earlier, was the National Party agreement within the Greiner-Murray government to regulate the wheat industry in New South Wales by privatising GrainCorp. What we are living with today is the further deregulation of the export wheat market through an amendment to the 2008 wheat export marketing bill, which followed the former Howard-Anderson government's decision to shut down the embarrassingly corrupt AWB much to the disdain of A- and B-class shareholders who were reaping guaranteed share dividends which, as I said previously, were financed from costs and charges which AWB, under the single-desk process, were ripping off from export wheat growers who were predominantly South Australian and Western Australian wheat growers. I thought that was about as low as you can get: wheat growers living off interstate export wheat growers in the way of dividends resulting in reduced returns to those export wheat growers of $40 to $60 a tonne.

The idea of re-establishing a single desk for wheat marketing will not solve the current problem because you cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach when there are unique geographical and infrastructure differences on a state-by-state basis. I recognise that there are indeed problems with the east coast grain supply chain, but returning to anything which remotely mirrors the former single-desk system is not the answer—and that is what my concerns have been about. I am advised by clear-thinking farmers that they believe single desks or farmer owned cooperatives make sense when farmers face downstream monopolists. They reinforce the reality that wheat marketing is a highly competitive business with relatively small margins. They are adamant that the real monopoly is with rail, grain handling and ports infrastructure, where east coast growers have limited options outside of GrainCorp. They also say growers need to look at greater options for getting wheat to markets on the east coast and that reinvesting in the grain rail system and encouraging private operators—like Newcastle agri-terminal, which is run by Jock Carter from Goulburn in New South Wales—is the answer. The strong message I received was that growers need to focus on the right issue—their words, not mine—and not get distracted by some outmoded idea that the marketing of grain, as against its handling and transportation, is the problem.

National Farmers Federation President Jock Laurie met with 50 parliamentarians recently—and I might add that the parliamentarians came together because of a discussion between my colleague over there on the other side of the House and a wonderful individual on this side of the House, Nola Marino, a fine Western Australian dairy farmer. I would like to quote Jock Laurie's words at that meeting:

I think it is important that all people who actually support agriculture are prepared to stand up and support it on principle rather than on some of the party political stuff that goes on, because I really think that does a fair bit of damage to the debate out in regional areas.

He conceded that some of the blame for poor policy outcomes rested with farmers and farm groups across Australia who were really bad at working from a unified position. He also said that the wheat export debate was a very good example of an issue that had blown out due to different lobby groups presenting different views to Canberra. He said:

The biggest trouble with the grains industry is they do not have a united voice.

I make the point that there is no solution that can be delivered in the federal parliament that will satisfy individual states or farmers and the parliament cannot differentiate to please or appease, as I said previously. It is my personal opinion that the logical level of government to address this economy is the states, which have the powers necessary, including price-fixing, total acquisition, fair trading and the office of the ombudsman. In the meantime I just want to send a very, very stark message that I will not be influenced by the backdoor antics of the New South Wales Farmers Association. They have put out a standard letter to their members, asking them to write to me. I have answered each and every one of those letters—and I might add that there were only seven in total. Nor will I be influenced by personal cowardly abuse by National Party members or vested interests. I will make my decision on the basis of a fair and equitable resolution for growers of export wheat. It is, after all, an amendment to the 2012 export wheat marketing bill that I will be voting on.

The export wheat marketing bill that was introduced by the Labor Party in 2008, before many of my current colleagues in this place were here, was a revamped version of a similar bill that was going to be introduced by the Howard government for the very reasons that I outlined before: to clean the industry up and get the corruption out of the system. Sadly from my point of view—and nobody though about this—from 2000 to 2008, when farmer organisations around the whole country should have been getting together and working out a system that would satisfy all of the states, with their different infrastructure and geographical problems, nothing happened. It was only when the government of the day decided that it would move down the path of further deregulation and brought in this amendment bill that people started to sit up and take notice and suddenly realised that they had not sorted out what the Wheat Export Authority was put in charge to do—and that was to come to a consensus of opinion between all the different groups and all the farmer bodies across the country to come up with something that controlled the very issues that are of concern to growers.

That saddens me, because we are now going down the path where people are excited for various reasons about the further deregulation. Further deregulation can be undertaken if it is allowed now to go down the path of a two-year delay—that is, no further action done until 2014 to allow the Wheat Export Authority and the farmer groups to get together to come up with a solution that is going to be acceptable to everybody. At the same time that that is happening, it is incumbent upon the farming groups to get to the state governments of the day and talk to them about why they cannot come up with some sort of legislative process through the ombudsman—and, indeed their ownership of the infrastructure that carries a lot of this wheat—and put a restriction on the people that are leasing that infrastructure to the extent where there is some control on stopping them from using that infrastructure as a monopoly to hit people with costs and charges of up to $52 a tonne in an environment where they are carting coal, as an example, under the same system for $18 a tonne. You cannot do that to people. You cannot do that to producers. I understand their concerns about that issue, but the producers have an obligation with their farmer bodies to get together and fix this up now.

It is because of the conversations that I have had with people and assurances I have been given by both the Leader of the Nationals and the Leader of the Liberal Party on this side of the parliament that I will be supporting the coalition on this bill, as distinct from what I was talking about a week or so ago.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the honourable member for Hume, who just spoke, who I work with on committees in this parliament. He is somebody who has a strong view about this. I see his honesty in where he has come from to reach his position on the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill. This bill implements the Australian government's response to the Productivity Commission's review of wheat exporting marketing arrangements, which was also considered under the House of Representatives standing committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry.

In June this year that committee made a number of recommendations to be included in the bill. The Productivity Commission review was done early on because the coalition insisted that this clause be included in the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2008. So there had to be a Productivity Commission review early in the process. The government had argued for this to be conducted at a later stage. The committee was aware that the current supply chain infrastructure is divided into regional monopolies developed through historical circumstances. However, delaying deregulation would not necessarily improve these trading conditions. Indeed, probably the entrance of new players into the market may be aided by deregulation and the abolition of accreditation.

In relation to market information, the committee agreed with the evidence that information relating to wheat stocks should be improved and freely available. A number of submissions and witnesses explained that wheat stock information currently available would be insufficient for a deregulated wheat market to function properly. I would have thought that industry would have wanted to make this information as freely available as possible. The committee, therefore, on this occasion recommended that the industry funded entity be developed to deliver services to the industry in the areas of quality, standards and stock information, and that the government consider appointing an industry funded grain industry ombudsman for a five-year period.

The industry should manage quality, and in fact the current laws reflect this situation. I would think that the customer would let you know what he wanted. If it was not up to the standard, the miller might say, 'I don't think it's what I want. You'd better give me what I want, otherwise I won't buy it off you.' The ombudsman, as we recommended, would be paid for by industry, by those that needed to use an ombudsman if there was a dispute. There are several models in Australia along these lines. Also, the committee recommended that the government support improving the sharing of wheat stock information and that this process might be initiated through using funds from the Wheat Industry Special Account.

The transition to a fully deregulated bulk wheat export market began on 1 July 2008 with the abolition of the single-desk wheat marketing arrangements. The decision to abolish the WEA was taken, of course, after consultation with all industry sectors, including development of the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Act 2008 and the Productivity Commission review. There has been no task force dominated by large grain marketers. The Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Act 2008 established a scheme for regulating the export of bulk wheat where exporters of bulk wheat must be accredited under the Wheat Export Accreditation Scheme, called the scheme, administered by Wheat Exports Australia and primarily funded from the wheat export charge. The Productivity Commission report on its inquiry into the wheat export marketing arrangements was tabled in parliament on 28 October 2010. This bill will implement the commission's recommendations relating to the act, but under a staged approach to ensure that full benefits of the 2008 reforms are released. It will abolish the scheme and the WEC on 30 December 2012 and wind up the WEA on 31 December 2012. This will give the WEA time to complete outstanding tasks, such as the final annual report and the 2012-13 report for growers.

The requirement for providers of grain port terminal services to pass the access test as a condition for exporting bulk wheat will be retained until 30 September 2014. This is a bit of a contentious issue. The access test will then be abolished, on the condition that a non-prescribed voluntary industry code of conduct covering access to grain export terminals is in place. That code will apply so that people cannot use their monopoly position to take advantage of market situations. If such a code is approved, the market will move to full deregulation from 1 October 2014. All aspects of the industry will be subject to general competition law administered by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, and complemented by the code. If a code is not approved, the access test will continue.

The Code Development Committee is making good progress on port access issues. It is conscious of the need for a strong compliance mechanism, which will be a key element in the government's consideration of whether the code is of an acceptable standard. It has also reached in-principle agreement on the release of increased stocks information. It should be noted that not all growers want stocks information made public, particularly those in WA.

This bill will bring the bulk wheat export market into line with other agricultural commodity markets and promote further competition in the wheat industry, leading to increased productivity and profitability. It will mean that more buyers will be competing for wheat, helping growers to get prices that reflect market value. The bill is expected to drive further marketing innovation and improve the services that marketers provide to secure supplies of wheat. It is expected that the industry will also benefit from the removal of the costs associated with bulk wheat export market regulation.

This is obviously the future of the sale of wheat from Australia. We need to ask ourselves why this bill is necessary. People might remember the scandal in 2007, when the Australian Wheat Board was illegally selling wheat to the Middle East. An article in the Australian in November 2011 states:

Despite the national wheat marketing monopoly being disbanded in 2007 after an international scandal—

when bribes were paid—

… by its gun-toting farmer-directors to Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, the grains president of the WA Farmers Federation says he would welcome its return.

A grain farmer is quoted as saying:

We really had a good thing going for years - they did our hedging, marketing, exporting and pricing, and that left us farmers free to just concentrate on growing the very best crops we could.

That was marketing under some people's philosophy, no matter what its effect was on the public good, the nation's principles or what the nation was trying to achieve with the international community.

However, it was revealed in the same article that not all farmers are of the same mind. It says the 'hankering for the glory days of the wheat board monopoly, when it had sole rights to sell Australia's $6 billion a year wheat crop on the global markets' is not shared by some of the younger, progressive farmers, who believe in the merits of trading wheat independently. If you talk to some of them, they will certainly tell you that. The article points out that some of these younger farmers, who were 'privately selling grains such as barley, canola and lupins 15 years ago, long before the wheat board was abolished' enjoy 'the sense that after delivering harvested grain to nearby depots' they can optimise their returns by choices made later on their computer. So modern farmers are using modern technology in a modern world.

The Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012 requires the ACCC to monitor continuous disclosure rules—contradicting Mr Cobb's statement that the eyes of the WEA will be gone. The ACCC will become the eyes to make sure that nothing wrong is occurring. It only demonstrates what a lack of leadership there is in the opposition on rural sector issues. There have been massive changes in the last few years. We should not be going back to the old Wheat Board days; we should be looking forward. But that is not occurring in this parliament. We are looking at old ways and going backwards instead of forwards with that sort of leadership in rural Australia. It is disappointing for young people like the member for Wannon over on other side. I know his concern about what is occurring in his own party room. I know that he wants to have a free marketing process because that is the way forward.

I think the miller of wheat should decide whether the wheat quality meets their needs, whether it is to make noodles, pastry, Weet-Bix, flat bread or high loaves. The industry needs to work this matter out. Along with the changes that this bill assists, we should have a website to highlight what wheat is available to sell. The industry should be able to work those things out in a modern way, as do many other industries in today's world. The wheat available would be there on the website for people to see. I do not see what could make people think that you could not modernise this industry. This could give a better indication to farmers as to what wheat to grow, helping them to choose by seeing what people want to buy. If the quality is there and it meets the needs of the millers, there are more opportunities to look for new uses and new products.

As with many other agricultural products, there needs to be research and development in this industry so that a strong future can be mapped out for wheat and other cereals. We need to be on top of the health issues in terms of the effect of food products, especially in assisting allergies by developing alternatives.

Why are the opposition trying to make it harder to market Australian wheat? We need to ensure that we can always be on the cutting edge: looking for new markets, taking on changes, considering the latest in research and looking for other cereals that can complement what we already grow.

So this bill will complement the many changes and innovations being made in the agricultural industry generally by this government—not with the opposition. I think it is important to allow competition to be part of the process, which means we can be in front of Europe and the United States in opening up our markets to new ideas and new technology without being at the behest and control of the some of the subsidies operating around the world.

I have seen that wheat grain exports in August this year totalled 2.2 million tonnes, or 59 per cent more than in August last year. I know that we have had a good year but I think it is happening—we seem to be out there selling more wheat and servicing more markets and more customers within each market. It seems to be happening; since the wheat board has gone we have diversified where we are selling wheat. We are selling more wheat, therefore our producers will need to grow more wheat and we will need to know what we need.

The discerning Asian market has grown. Here is the opportunity. We have been talking about the Asian century and the opportunity to sell grain. I was in Korea with the trade committee not long ago. I was in a bakery where the guy wanted to buy organic wheat from Australia because he only sells organic products. It is a very modern bakery which has a French sort of theme selling lots and lots of pastries. So I think the opportunities are there but we have to be able to capture them, and we should be able to capture the new markets. I support the bill.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill and the amendment. It is a great honour to speak after the member for Lyons, because, along with the member for Lyons, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry undertook an inquiry into this bill. I commend the member for Lyons on the way he steered the committee in getting to its final report, because the final report that was put out the by House committee addresses the issues that are still before us tonight as we debate this bill. It is one of the great pities that work has not been done to fix the issues which we identified in this bill before we had to come here and debate this bill, because if the executive had listened to the committee, which was chaired by the member for Lyons, and had read this House report and done its work, I think we would all be here saying that cooperatively we will move forward in the best interests of the Australian wheat industry. Unfortunately, that has not happened to date.

So, we are here debating this bill while the issue of port access arrangements, the issue of transparency standards in relation to stock information, and issues to do with minimum quality standards are still up for discussion—while there is still debate and negotiation going on over the voluntary code which underpins the future of the industry.

It is a real shame that the minister has not done the work required. So, rather than us being in a situation where it seems that the government wants to play politics with this bill, we could actually do what is in the best interests of the Australian wheat industry. And the Australian wheat industry is very important to our nation. The evidence that we took during our House committee inquiry demonstrated that. And the future is bright for the Australian wheat industry. The evidence we took also demonstrated that.

The forecasts that we were given by ABARES show that Australian production of wheat between 2012-13 and 2016-17 will be about 26 million tonnes. And wheat exports are projected to be at about 20 million tonnes, up to 2017-17. This is providing substantial export income for this nation. It is a serious industry and the government should give it the service and the attention that it deserves.

So what has been done around the issues, identified by industry, that they want sorted out before full deregulation takes place? I just want to get on the record quite clearly that all members on this side of the House support deregulation. This parliament took the first step—basically the most important step and the significant step—to make sure that we had a deregulated wheat industry, when it abolished the single desk. What we are talking about here is making sure that in taking the final step we have the future of the industry at heart and that we set the direction for the industry along the right path into the future. Sadly, at the moment we are not there. That is why it surprises me that we are here debating this bill tonight. We should have had these issues sorted out before this bill was brought before this place.

What is the process currently being undertaken by the industry to try and get to the stage where they can move to that last step towards deregulation? They are trying to sort out port access arrangements to make sure that the old legacy issues—some of them monopolistic—that have been left through deregulation can be dealt with going forward. And the idea is that we would get a voluntary code which would deal with this.

But the issue is that the voluntary code has no teeth. There is nothing which requires the players who come together as part of that voluntary code to stay as participants. What is to stop them, come September 2014 or 1 October 2014, from walking away from it? There is no certainty there for players in the process. And there does not seem to be an indication of how that problem can be alleviated.

There is also the issue with stock information. Once again, a House Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry inquiry took submissions on this issue. Some of the submissions were quite compelling. The acid test on this issue is whether you can have a proper functioning futures market with the amount of stocks information that is available in this country. According to the ASX, at the moment you cannot. So let us not hear from the other side this rhetoric about protectionism going backwards. What we are looking to do is make sure as we go forward that we have the proper structures in place to make sure that a deregulated wheat industry can operate how it should operate. One of the keys to a proper deregulated wheat industry taking place and operating efficiently is a proper functioning futures market which growers can participate in with certainty and with knowledge so that they can hedge along with other players in the industry like they already do. We need in Australia a proper functioning wheat futures market so we are not reliant on what is happening in the US futures market. We need to control our own destiny so that our wheat growers know with certainty that they can operate on a futures market here in Australia. They would not have to worry about all the issues around currency hedging, which they also have to take into consideration if they go to Chicago or elsewhere. What we need is the certainty for them here to control their own destiny.

Quality standards was another concern raised by industry. Ultimately we have the final arbiter and that is the overseas market. If you send poor quality wheat overseas then the person buying that wheat eventually is going to say, 'You are not delivering the quality or the standards we require; therefore, we are not going to buy from you.' That is the final backstop to this issue. There is the market to deal with this issue. But the problem is if you get a couple of shipments rejected then, because of the bulk wheat that we export, it does have the potential to hurt the industry as a whole. What industry wants to do is have the opportunity to come up with a way where it can ensure that there are some controls around basic minimum standards—not a request which is unreasonable or unfair.

What has the government said to industry players when they have detailed quite specifically that these are the concerns in taking the next step down the deregulation path? They have been given no assurances. They have been given no undertakings. They have not had any of the future direction of the industry or where the government sees this industry going mapped out. They have had no assurances whatsoever. The minister needs to take leadership on this front. It might be that what the minister needs to do in taking this leadership position is say to industry, 'I want to empower you to come up with the solutions yourself.' That would be a very good way forward.

It has to be said that there are divergent views within the industry. There are divergent views in Western Australia and in South Australia where the bulk of our wheat is exported from and along the eastern seaboard where the majority of our domestic wheat is grown and sold. There are issues of fairness and transparency that need to be worked out as we go forward. We have had full deregulation in the domestic wheat industry and we have seen that that has been successful. In moving to make sure that we get to full deregulation on the export side, maybe we need to look and ask: have we got the balance right? It requires the minister to say to the industry, 'I have confidence in you being able to work this out, being able to show us the way forward. I want to empower you. I want to treat you with the respect that you deserve because you are an industry which is incredibly important to our export performance.'

Our exports of wheat to Indonesia are incredibly important. It is a part of us supplying the growing middle-class of Asia. We talk about the Asian white paper. We did not see a lot of detail around food processing, around agriculture or around what the government is doing to make sure that linkages into this growth market will continue to grow and develop. Will we get the sort of cooperation that we need to ensure value is added to the food chain along the export path? This is the sort of thing that industry players want to see from the government. More importantly, they want to see that the government has the confidence in them to come up with some solutions to their issues. It might be that they need and they want their own body to help them along this path and maybe they want to fund that themselves.

Previous governments have taken the deregulation path with AWI, with MLA, with Dairy Australia, and done it quite successfully. If you look at the dairy industry, the way the coalition went about deregulating the dairy industry and setting up Dairy Australia, it gives an example to the minister of the type of leadership which he needs to show on this issue.

So, rather than playing politics with it, read the House report, Minister. See the issues that are identified. The chair was happy to sign off on identifying those issues and say that they need to be fixed. Yet all we are hearing from the executive is silence on this issue.

Those in the industry are calling for leadership. They understand that they need to go down the deregulatory path. They understand that. But what they want is some surety from government that, in going down that path, the government is prepared to stick with them, work with them, and make sure that the path is as smooth as possible—not something which is too contentious; not something which has not been done before. It is something that the minister seriously needs to look at, because if he sits down with the industry and tries to work things out, a path forward can be found because the issues have been identified. What we need now is the time and effort put in to finding the solution. If that can be found—and industry says, 'We are confident it can be found'—then I am sure all sides of this House will get behind this bill and say, 'Yes, this is the path we want to go down.' But putting the cart before the horse and asking us all to take a leap of faith is placing us in an untenable position. So let us step back from that and see if we can work cooperatively to get the solution that we need.

This industry is too important to play politics with. It is one of our key agricultural export sectors. It is one of the keys to ensuring that we will feed that Asian middle class which has been identified ad nauseam by those on the other side. But let us start seeing some substance put behind the theory on the other side. Let us see them work, sit down and do the hard yards, to make sure that the industry knows what its future is and is confident about its future. The Australian wheat industry is too important for us not to do that.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, wish to speak on the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012. You would think, from the way this government has behaved in relation to this most important agribusiness in Australia, that they have no experience whatsoever of managing an export enterprise and that they just simply do not understand what can in Australia very easily become a monopoly situation. We sometimes imagine that it was the mining sector that rescued Australia from the global financial crisis. It was not; it was the fact that more wheat was being traded out of the country because it had rained over various parts of the wheat-growing belts of eastern and western Australia.

Wheat is a commodity. Some people do not quite understand what that means. It means that the importers of the product in Korea, Japan and the Middle East are absolutely dependent on the specification which they have identified for delivery. That specification includes such things as the protein levels, the moisture levels, any chemical residue levels, and things like trash. They need to have the volume, precisely, and the variety that they have ordered sometimes a season in advance. That is because the product that they manufacture out of our wheat has to be consistent if they want to deliver a high-value, high-quality, branded product into their market.

When it comes to Japan, their noodle products are icon foods. They are even more important to the Koreans. The Japanese and Koreans together regard their noodles as their icon foods—more important than the quality of bread to France, I would suggest. They have depended on Australian noodle wheats now for at least some 25 years.

I was most concerned, when I was in Korea and Japan in the last two months, and asked them about our wheat. These were the big importers of our wheat, the manufacturers, the millers, who put into the market high-value fresh noodles. I asked them: 'How is our wheat going? Are you still quite happy with the product that you are receiving?' And these big buyers said to me: 'Well, we are concerned. We have no longer got the guaranteed specification that we had come to pay a high price for and that we had come to value, above, say, the Canadian product or the American product or products from countries in Europe. We are finding now it is a bit of touch and go. We are not getting the absolutely guaranteed, down to the finest decimal point, specification that we used to order and receive season after season. And we are not receiving,' they were telling me, 'the sort of market information that we used to receive from the single desk, which told us in advance, if there was a problem with drought in Western Australia, that there would have to be a blending of some product from the eastern side and that the specification would need to be a little varied.' They once received notice about that so that they could make adjustments to their other ingredients and still produce, at the end of the day, a manufactured product that was consistent and something they could be proud of.

I am not saying that it is just because we lost the single desk that we are now beginning to lose the strong reputation for Australian wheat in our premier markets. I am suggesting that we have had such a frenzy of exporting occur since we had so-called deregulation of the market that there has not been the attention to quality assurance that needs to happen if the reputation of Australia's wheat is to be retained. And I am sorry to say it but it is a fact that once a nation's reputation for quality is damaged it takes a long while to get it back.

I was never surprised when the United States Wheat Associates or the Canadian Wheat Board were desperate to have our situation of pre-eminent reputation in Australia damaged. They would, year after year, say things like, 'You can't be sure about Australia; it's always drought or flood.' In fact, for a very long time we had a pre-eminent position in the world as delivering as per specification.

What we have to do now is to make sure that this government understands that it is not a baby-and-bathwater situation. You cannot allow Rafferty's rules to reign if you want to still have a wheat commodity that has a reputation for excellence and for being delivered as per specification. That does require some oversight.

This requires more than a voluntary code, I have to say. Unfortunately, the Gillard government, with so little experience in the real world of business and certainly no experience in agribusiness, is trying to abolish the last remnant of any sort of quality assurance and oversight. They seem to think that standing back and seeing what happens will do. It will not do. That is why we have a proposed amendment to the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012. Our amendments says, 'Give us time; give the industry time; give the wheat export marketing framework a little more time so some quality assurance and oversight can be sorted out.'