Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

‘A government grant, by legislation, of a monopoly power confers on the recipient a great privilege. It carries with it a commensurate obligation. The obligation is to conduct itself in accordance with high ethical standards.’ This was on of the most important statements in the recently released Cole report into the AWB’s actions in Iraq. Australian wheat growers, along with the rest of us, were devastated by the revelation of lies and deceit. Australian wheat growers deserve the best international market access without interference from the Australian government or the AWB. I have always believed passionately in this issue and, on behalf of Australia’s wheat growers, I have fought passionately for it during my 10 years in this parliament. During hearings in Perth in 2003 into the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2003, I asked a number of questions about the WEA, the AWB and the impact of the AWB’s corporate dealings on growers. I was not satisfied with the responses that I was given at that time by various AWB executives—and I have felt that way even more strongly as the years have gone by.

I have always believed that the WEA is a toothless tiger, fundamentally flawed in its concept of keeping watch on the wheat board. Just last month we saw the AWB use its veto power to stop the CBH group from exporting wheat to its own flour mills in Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia. This is despite the fact that the CBH group was willing, in principle, to pay to farmers a higher premium than was on offer from the AWB. The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2006 seeks to amend the Wheat Marketing Act to temporarily transfer the right to veto bulk wheat exports from AWB and AWBI to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. While the WEA will continue to control the bulk export of wheat, agreement with the minister must be reached for each application.

Questions over the actions of the AWB in the international market have intensified following the release of the report of the Cole inquiry into Iraqi kickbacks. While members opposite have used the release of the Cole report to attack the government, it is important to remember that it was the AWB and its executives whose actions were found to require further investigation and possible prosecution. Commissioner Cole found that, had the AWB cooperated with the inquiry by promptly providing the documents it had already assembled, there would have been a considerable saving for Australian taxpayers, not to mention Australian wheat growers. Australian wheat growers and the AWB have not benefited from this inquiry in the sense of costs. AWB presented a facade of cooperation with this inquiry but, in truth, it did not cooperate at all. It should be ashamed of itself.

The Cole inquiry has been a landmark inquiry in terms of the government’s openness to forensic examination of its internal processes. That examination has extended far beyond government departments—to ministers and their offices and to intelligence agencies. Three senior ministers—the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs—were examined, gave evidence, provided sworn statements and were exonerated.

In recent days the South Australian government has announced moves to remove the barley single desk in South Australia and there has been pressure in this parliament to remove the single desk for wheat. That argument is yet to be had. I look forward to watching very closely as the consultative committee moves around the country and to seeing the report that comes back.

There is no doubt that, rightly or wrongly, wheat growers are split on the question of retaining a single desk—a buyer of last resort for wheat—and a debate over the future of the single desk is something that we will undertake at another time. However, at this time, as an imperfect answer to a difficult problem—and particularly bearing in mind my Western Australian colleagues—I commend the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2006 to the Senate.