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

Isn’t it amazing? We are talking about a piece of legislation, the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007, dealing with an industry that is worth billions of export dollars to Australia. It was introduced last week into the House of Representatives. It has not been shared, prior to introduction, in any form with the grower communities. All we hear is, ‘It’s just a technical matter and we’re not going to support a reference to a committee.’

We gave the government every opportunity to deal with the only matter that it considered was urgent, when this bill was exempted from the cut-off. On page 31 of today’s Notice Paper, there is a contingent notice of motion of mine. That would enable the splitting of this bill so that the urgent matters could be passed and these other matters could be the subject of an inquiry for report in the next sittings in August. It would allow an inquiry to take place expeditiously over the break. There has been no indication from the government that they have given any consideration to that whatsoever.

There has been no indication from those senators who have been vocal in their criticism of the positions taken by the minister in relation to the single desk. There is a complete picture of unity on the government’s side, and that is what this is all about. The government and the coalition party room want this legislation out of the way and the problem put to one side until after the next election. We know there is not real unanimity in the coalition party room. Indeed, the grower community is not united as to the future for export wheat marketing, but the only thing this legislation is intended to do is to put the problem to bed until after the election. It is remarkable that, with all of the issues which are being raised by grower representatives and other parties to the industry, this government is prepared to rush the legislation through with a minimum of scrutiny and a minimum of an opportunity for the parliament to look at it.

We really believe that it is responsible for us to propose that this legislation be referred to a committee—a committee on which the government has a controlling majority. It is not a committee that is going to be hijacked by the opposition or the minor parties; it is a committee on which the government has a majority. It is a committee which, frankly, has a history of handing down unanimous reports. More often than not it has handed down unanimous reports. The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee has, on a variety of occasions, looked at the situation of the wheat industry and legislation of this type, but the minister has obviously extracted concessions from his party room, and senators are apparently not prepared to challenge the view of the minister in relation to the passage of this legislation, for the reasons that I have outlined.

If this motion is not carried then of course there will need to be an extensive committee stage of this legislation, and the opposition will be insisting on answers to questions about the construction of the legislation and its impact. We will not accept a deferral of those matters to some other time. I put the government on notice that they will need to have material available to be able to answer questions about the impact of the legislation, if we come to that point. That, frankly, is an inadequate way of dealing with the legislation and the suggested problems that exist with it.

In relation to the comments from Senator Murray, I privately clarified his statement. He expressed to me the view that he had the impression that the government were going to vote down this reference and therefore perhaps some other course of action might be open. He was well aware of our contingent notice of motion which would allow the splitting of the bill. I took it that he thought that was a preferable course of action. As I understand it, the alternative position that he put was on the basis that he was aware that the government were committed to a course of action, irrespective of the arguments put, to have this bill not referred to a committee.

I say again that this is a bill which deals with an industry which involves billions of export dollars and thousands of farming families’ livelihoods, but this government are so arrogant that they are content that it be rushed through the parliament—with a week from its introduction until its passage—with no real scrutiny through proper processes, and with a behind-closed-doors process negotiating some amendments, the impact of which will probably only become clear some time down the track. They ask growers to believe that they have acted in their interest. Frankly, that is a laughable proposition. It is laughable to suggest that this parliament’s conducting itself in this way will be in the interests of the community or the growers or, indeed, the probity of the parliament.

I suggest that it would be best for those coalition senators who support this bill to hang their heads in shame. I understand why they would vote for it. I understand that it is about party unity. But I suggest that it is much more important that legislation which affects growers be conducted in a way that allows growers to have a real say, a considered say, in the outcomes of it. This legislation, frankly, might be with us for some time. One does not know the intention of the government after the election. One does not know whether the Prime Minister is suggesting deregulation to one group of coalition party room members and something quite different to another group of coalition party room members. Perhaps that is academic anyway. Perhaps we will never know. But it is an incredible shame that the government is intent upon preventing appropriate scrutiny of legislation when it concerns such an important sector of the economy and when it can have such a great impact on this industry and, indeed, on Australia’s international trading reputation.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator O’Brien’s) be agreed to.