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

No, there is not. I withdraw that. This amendment is necessary to require the minister to actually make a decision on an application and not simply sit on an application. It is necessary to ensure that there is no game playing in this process. This amendment is required to ensure that, being given the power, the minister will exercise it in a way that is transparent and will provide a copy of the decision and the particulars to the parliament, particularly where he decides to refuse to consent.

Question negatived.

I move amendment (1) on sheet 5315:

(1)    Schedule 3, item 2, page 9 (lines 12 to 14), omit subsection 3AA(12), substitute:

      (12)    Until the first declaration under subsection (1) takes effect, nominated company B continues to be the designated company for the purposes of this Act until 1 July 2008, after which time nominated company B ceases to be the designated company for the purposes of this Act.

This is the ‘let’s not have AWB become the default single desk beneficiary because a minister doesn’t act’ amendment. The minister conceded earlier that I was correct—he chose to say it was ‘technically correct’, which means, I think, the same thing as saying that I was correct—in saying that, if there is no decision exercised under proposed section 3AA(1) in that window of opportunity for such a declaration to be made, then, on the bill as it stands, nominated company B, AWB, would continue to be the single desk holder with the power to export without permit. It would not have the veto power—we can be thankful at least for that—but it would still have effective control of the export of the majority of Australian wheat.

I would have thought, with all that the government has said about a time to change the status quo, that the government would welcome an amendment which made absolutely clear that there was not any way where, by default, AWB would become the controller of the single desk again. I would have thought that that was something that the government could contemplate in no circumstances, yet this legislation was introduced just a week ago containing this provision and also permitting AWB to have the veto power. Now the veto power has been removed, but we still have this anomaly in the legislation in the circumstances where a minister decides not to declare a particular company a designated company.

Let us look at the circumstances. The attempts to demerge AWB International fail, and it is a stiff task to demerge that company. You need a vote of the A-class shareholders, the B-class shareholders and the B-class shareholders by state—a majority in each case. It is not an easy task to demerge AWB International from AWB Limited. So, if that did not occur, where are we? The government says it will introduce new legislation but, at the present time, whilst that is an intention, the parliament cannot be satisfied with leaving a situation where, were that not to happen or were that legislation not to pass for some reason, there would be a reversion to AWB. Why should the parliament allow this provision, as contained in the bill, to stand and to lead to that outcome? It is a simple proposition and the amendment that I move makes sure that that will not happen because, if by 1 July 2008 there is no designated company, there will be no reversion. In other words, there will have to be some action by the parliament to deal with that circumstance.

In terms of the proposition that somehow we can simply wait on the government’s pleasure on this, I suggest that that would be the most irresponsible position that could be taken in relation to this legislation. This is a fundamental provision and the government has given a commitment to the public that AWB Limited and AWB International together will not be the mechanism for the single desk in the future. If they are committed to that, they will have no problem supporting this, but, if the government is not prepared to support this, the only conclusion that we can come to is that there is a secret agenda, that the government is looking for an opportunity—