Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I do know, because your leader, Mr Rudd, has put out a press release and—unless this position has changed—his position on the single desk is that it will go to the Productivity Commission, which is the kiss of death for any single desk. Senator O’Brien, when you get up to speak at least be honest with the wheat growers of Australia and tell them that the single desk will be examined by the Productivity Commission. They know what that is code for: it is dead in the water. Be honest with them. Tell them when you are addressing this very important legislation.

The Senate is debating the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill. This bill is the culmination of a lengthy consultation process with wheat growers from all parts of Australia. The measure it contains has the support of the overwhelming majority of wheat growers—whether they are from Western Australia, Queensland, Victoria or New South Wales. At all times, the majority of growers have been consistent in calling for their right to control the marketing of their product. This principle has also been The Nationals guiding light on this issue, an issue which at times has been very controversial. The deplorable conduct of the AWB in Iraq let down Australia and, more significantly, let down wheat growers. The oil for food scandal was used as a political tool not only in an attempt to divide growers themselves but also, crucially, to separate them from the single desk.

The single desk delivers, in the long term, premiums to Australia wheat growers over what they would receive without a single desk. They are not picked off one by one by multinational traders seeking to lower the price paid for wheat. We do not want to see the wheat industry become dominated, like retailing, by Coles and Woolworths. This bill is essentially a vehicle for delivering the control of wheat marketing to growers themselves—provided they establish a grower owned entity capable of doing the job by March 30 next year. The Nationals aim has been to ensure that profits in the industry stay with the growers and do not go to multinational traders. Australia’s wheat industry can be confident of a prosperous and certain future. This bill also highlights the effective and healthy coalition partnership between the Liberal and National parties.

The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill has six key features. First, it provides the Wheat Export Authority, the WEA, with broad information-gathering powers. Second, it provides the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry with the power to direct the WEA to undertake certain investigations. Third, it extends the temporary transfer of the power of veto over bulk wheat from AWBI to the minister from the current expiry date of 30 June 2007 to 30 June 2008. Fourth, it empowers the minister to designate a company other than AWBI as the holder of the single desk export privilege. Fifth, it regulates the export of wheat in bags and containers and non-bulk wheat, provided exporters comply with a quality assurance scheme. I must say that that has the support of the farming groups. Sixth, it replaces the WEA with the Export Wheat Commission and changes the relevant governance arrangements in accordance with the Uhrig reforms for the governance of Commonwealth agencies.

I register my admiration for the wheat grower groups, who stepped up to the plate and took on the challenge of leading the growers in talks with government about how to resolve the complexities and controversies of the issue of wheat marketing. In particular, I acknowledge the contribution of the Western Australian Farmers Federation, specifically their grains division; the Wheat Growers Association; the New South Wales Farmers Federation; the Victorian Farmers Federation; and AgForce Queensland. The wheat industry can be thankful that there were leaders equipped for the task who negotiated strongly on the growers behalf. The bill before us is a sign that the Australian government does not hold wheat growers responsible for the oil for food scandal. That is very significant because many growers were demoralised by the actions of AWB and bore the brunt of the public’s displeasure about AWB’s actions. Growers do not deserve to be penalised by legislators.

The bill is an important step in the history of wheat marketing in Australia and reflects the primacy of the growers in the political philosophy of the Liberal-National Party coalition government. In March this year the Queensland National Party unanimously called for a grower owned and controlled single desk for wheat export marketing, as supported by the overwhelming majority of wheat growers. In a key address to the Queensland Rural Press Club earlier this year, I described the very serious situation for the 2007 national wheat crop and the investment put into the industry over generations. I said:

There is an urgent need to put strength and confidence back into the wheat industry. To dismantle the pillars on which it was built is to invite disaster.

There really doesn’t seem to be a viable alternative to a grower owned single desk.

The single desk is the only way that Australian growers as a whole can maximise returns. Policymakers have looked, wisely, to secure the single desk infrastructure of wheat marketing because it benefits the whole. The bill allows the AWB to market this year’s harvest. This is a pragmatic solution. There is simply no time left to put in an alternative arrangement for this year’s crop. The top priority is to get wheat marketing actually happening again in Australia as soon as possible. The pre Cole inquiry AWB is no longer in existence. It is unfortunate that there is little recognition that wheat marketing has moved on already from the old status quo. Functional separation has created a new design for wheat export marketing. The functional separation of AWB Ltd and AWB International was announced on 27 July 2006. It was the first step towards greater separation and the creation of a separate AWB International board and a separate audit and risk committee. A separate management team was appointed to AWB International. AWB Ltd appointed a new managing director.

Critics should also note that over 90 per cent of pool services provided by AWB Ltd are currently subject to contestable tenders by third-party service providers. The board of directors of AWB are seeking shareholders’ approval for the legal separation of AWB Ltd and AWB International. The proposed split would establish AWB International as a wholly grower owned manager of the national pool. AWB International would also retain the obligation to ensure security of payments and maximise returns to wheat growers. Note that the demerger proposal would ultimately change the board appointments process for both companies. All A class directors would be required to retire. The AWB International board would then be decided by the grains industry and wheat growers themselves.

It is argued that a demerger would enable AWB Ltd to become more efficient and commercially focused with a standard commercial constitution to facilitate the transition to a more competitive environment. I ask those who oppose this solution, like the Labor Party: where is their viable alternative? They do not have one—other than to send it to the Productivity Commission.