Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

The opposition does not support exempting the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007 from the cut-off so I therefore move:

Omit “Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007”.

The reason that we demur on this issue is fairly simple. The government prepared a statement as to the reasons for exempting the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007 from the cut-off, and that statement essentially indicates that one of the issues in the bill is urgent—that is, the issue of extending the provision that was introduced into the wheat-marketing legislation last December to transfer the power of veto over bulk exports from AWB International to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr McGauran. Frankly, that aspect of the bill is the least controversial of any of the provisions in the bill. This is a bill which, I was just informed, has only this morning been introduced into the House of Representatives. This is a bill which, I was informed by a variety of grower organisations, as of yesterday had not been seen by the grower community. This is a bill which introduces a number of measures relating to the powers of the minister to direct the Wheat Export Authority, as it will be known until October, to acquire and to provide information. This is a bill which deals in part with powers relating to the Wheat Export Authority. There are powers contained in the bill which as yet I have not seen—and, more importantly, which growers have not seen.

So we are being asked today to guarantee the passage of this bill in these sittings, a bill which at the time we are debating this motion has not been seen by either the opposition or those who are affected by it. The govern-ment have had months and months to deal with this issue. Quite frankly, they could have, at the beginning of this fortnight of sitt-ings, introduced a bill which would have simply dealt with the extension of the existing power of the minister for agriculture to exercise the veto over applications for bulk exports. That was introduced by the government in December last year and it was not opposed by the opposition. But the government chose to introduce a sunset provision in that to expire on 30 June. What that aspect of the bill requires is a simple mechanism to change the date of the sunset provision—if that is what the government’s intention is. I would have thought it unlikely that the government would support—and certainly the opposition would not support—the return of the veto power to the AWB in any form. So I wonder why the government could not at a much earlier date have simply, as a stopgap measure, transferred the veto power to the minister. As I said, there are a number of other provisions of significant interest to grow-ers and their representative organisations in this bill. These provisions have not been seen by these organisations and have not been seen by the opposition. These provisions cannot be clearly understood until the words in the legislation are properly before us. Yet what the government are saying is, ‘We want to ram through a provision which allows for the standing orders of the Senate to be ignored to allow this legislation to be dealt with.’

Previously this morning the government moved a motion, which was carried, which requires that the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill be passed in these current sittings. The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill could be passed in these sittings quite properly, and the opposition would support it, if it only contained the provision relating to the veto power—that is, the continuation of the veto power residing with the minister rather than, as the legislation currently provides, having it revert to AWB International. The opposition indicated earlier this week that we would support such a provision and that we would expedite its passage through the parliament, on the basis that we did not believe it appropriate that the veto power revert to AWB International while other matters were worked out. In relation to the other provisions in the legislation, there is no urgency. There is no reason why those measures have to be carried. There is no reason why the changes to the power of the Wheat Export Authority need to be urgently carried. There is no reason why the Uhrig provisions, as I will call them in abbreviation, which the government are seeking to introduce to change the Wheat Export Authority to the Export Wheat Commission from 1 October, are urgent and need to be dealt with prior to the grower community, their representative organisations and indeed members of this parliament having the chance to give the legislation proper scrutiny.

Last night, at the annual dinner of the National Farmers Federation, the Prime Minister spoke about the issue of the wheat-marketing legislation. To quote him as best I can, he described the coalition as a broad church. On the issue of the wheat-marketing legislation he said that the pews were on the farthest sides of the church—in other words, the split in the coalition on this issue is massive. So the government’s intention in pushing through this legislation without proper scrutiny is to achieve one thing—that is, to silence the debate within the coalition party room about the issue of the wheat-marketing legislation. It is not surprising that the coalition has been massively divided on the issue of this legislation, because the grower community has been split down the middle in terms of the legislation and the arrangements which should apply to the marketing of wheat following the AWB wheat for weapons scandal and the Cole commission. Frankly, the fact is that AWB Ltd’s reputation as the manager of the single desk has been severely damaged—and Australia’s reputation as a trader of wheat has been severely damaged by AWB. It is not surprising that we need to do something about our international wheat-marketing arrangements.

The government commissioned the Ralph inquiry, which was essentially an inquiry to collect information from growers. That inquiry went around the country and took submissions. Unfortunately, we had growers prompted by AWB with a set form of words standing up at those inquiries and reading out the form of words to say they supported the retention of the current arrangements for the single desk. Fortunately, as I understand it, those growers, when asked questions, were unable to answer questions because they had been sent along simply to say a form of words, and they were not prepared to answer questions. I think that is not an indictment of them but rather an indictment of the organisation which put them up to represent views which were ill-prepared and self-serving to the organisation that held the single desk.

Having gone down that path, we have seen the government claim that there has been a certain outcome reported to it by the Ralph inquiry. The significant thing is that the report from that inquiry has never been made public. Not one word of it has been put on a public record in any effective way. One has to wonder if the report was indeed the basis of the government’s consideration of this matter. Why couldn’t it have been made available to the growers, the community and the parliament? Public moneys have been expended to gather the information and that information ought to have been made available to the growers. There has been too much secrecy about the way that this government has managed our international wheat-marketing arrangements and reforms thereto. This is just another example.

What could happen if my amendment were carried—and I have no doubt Senator Abetz will oppose it—is that the government could take up the opposition’s offer and introduce a piece of legislation which simply dealt with the veto power. I say again on the public record that the opposition would give all assistance possible to ensure the expedited passage of a simple piece of legislation that dealt with the only issue, according to the government, which necessitates the urgent passage of this legislation. It was the only reason recorded in the written statement that was tabled when this motion was moved. We are quite prepared to facilitate the passage of legislation that deals with the issue that in the eyes of the government is urgent. We are not sure that there would be great damage done if it were not carried until next session, but we are prepared—and have been since before the legislation was introduced—to facilitate the passage of a bill which would achieve just that.

But what we are faced with is a piece of legislation that says much more. It is legislation that has not been examined. I have given notice that I will move to have this legislation referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport for reporting in August. This would enable the organisations and the growers who are affected to understand what the legislation means. We could get some information, for example, as to what the cost implications of the legislation are for growers. Nothing that has been said so far has made it clear what the measures that the government is proposing to introduce will cost growers. All of that information could be properly dealt with, and we could deal with the matter expeditiously when parliament resumes in August. The opposition believes that that is the appropriate course.

Indeed, whilst I was at the National Farmers Federation dinner last night, I talked to some growers who could see no reason why those measures needed to be rushed through the parliament this week. They thought the best approach would be for there to be an opportunity to scrutinise the legislation through the committees of the parliament. It would give growers a chance to have a look at it before it became law. They would have a say on exactly what the provisions mean. They would also have an opportunity to understand what the cost implications of the legislation would be for growers. Given that the Wheat Export Authority, which is the subject of powers in the legislation, is funded by a levy on the export of wheat, which means a levy on wheat growers, they should have an understanding of and a say in what those implications are. If the legislation proceeds the way that the government has indicated it wants it to proceed, they will not have their say and they will not have an opportunity to develop a proper understanding.

This will be rushed through and the only reason for that is to get it off the books for the government so that it ceases to be an issue that divides the government’s party room. A government that operates on that basis with scant regard for the interests of an important community like this—the wheat growers of Australia—is a government that has lost touch with the people it purports to represent. It is an arrogant government.

This is an important issue to growers. Given the margin that growers achieve on the wheat they grow, the costs that they face in exporting that wheat are critical to an understanding of whether they are going to make a profit or a loss—depending upon the season, of course. This is a critically important issue for them. In the past, when this sort of legislation has been brought forward, an opportunity has been provided for growers to have a proper say. In addition, an opportunity has been provided for a proper inquiry to be conducted by the committee, which operates on a bipartisan basis. My experience with it—going back to 1997—is that the legislation it considers has been properly examined. Proceedings have been conducted not on the basis of politics but on the basis of the issue before it.

In this case, what the government will do by passing this legislation and proceeding down the path it clearly intends to is deny the parliament, the public and the growers an opportunity to examine legislation and have a proper say about what the legislation actually says before the parliament is forced to pass it. I urge the Senate to support the amendment that I moved. In relation to the only issue in the bill that the government says is urgent, we would facilitate the passage of legislation that dealt only with that matter. I will continue to pursue that line throughout the entirety of the dealings with this bill if this amendment is defeated.