Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

The problem with debating notice of motion No. 2 is that the motion does not effectively do what the shadow minister is suggesting it should—namely, allow for the immediate passage of the veto provision and separate consideration of the other provisions. We are sympathetic to that. We are encouraged by the fact that the original bill has been amended. Frankly, it was extremely flawed and, whilst I have not had the chance to study the amendments in detail, I am advised that they certainly are an improvement on what was originally proposed. The problem for the Senate is that this remains an extremely contentious issue. It is a public policy issue, not just an industry issue. It is one of whether choice and flexibility should be provided to the farming community rather than what has become an authoritarian and monopolistic practice. The public policy issues do deserve to be considered by the parliament in trying to address this bill and the future of wheat marketing.

As we all know, there is a great deal of support amongst many members of the coalition for a partially deregulated system with greater choice and, frankly, the interim provision of giving the veto power to the minister effectively means that for this period, as it was for the last period, the single desk is dead, because more than one exporter has been licensed in the recent past and I expect more than one exporter will be licensed in the future. If that is the reality—and so it should be the reality; quite frankly, the east coast National Party should be defeated in this matter—then that would be a good thing. We would look forward to a situation where our Western Australian export farmers will have a choice of who they can export their product through. Of course they should be licensed, but that is the direction in which we should go. But in the meantime, to confirm that should be the choice, we need an inquiry. This is why the Democrats have been interested in the shadow minister’s reference and his proposal. My difficulty with the reference as it is put together is that events are overtaking us. It will be a while until we come back and the legislation is upon us. I would prefer it if the shadow minister would consider a differently phrased motion to be put to the bill tomorrow, to examine the public policy issues surrounding the provisions of the bill in a more general inquiry rather than on the specific bill itself. The bill, as I read the forward program, is bound to be passed tomorrow, so therefore the reference would be difficult to manage.

I would urge the Senate to consider that option favourably, despite the opposition of my good friends in the National Party to the idea of modern market economic mechanisms being introduced to the export of wheat. I know some of the Queenslanders have struggled to catch up to that, but I am sure they can be brought along.

Debate (on motion by Senator Abetz) adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.