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

I move:

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole that:

(a)

the committee divide the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007 to incorporate Schedules l, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in a separate bill; and

(b)

the committee add to that separate bill enacting words and provisions for titles and commencement.

I do so because, as indicated, we believe this bill should now be split. The only provision this legislation has that has any urgency is schedule 2. Of this 41-page bill, one page—indeed, seven lines—deals with the urgent matter, and that is the extension of the minister’s veto power. Indeed, when the government sought to exempt this motion from the cut-off, the only provision they referred to as justification was this provision. The government’s only grounds for rushing this bill through this week that they presented to the parliament, as they are required to do with the motion to exempt this bill from a cut-off, was a reference to the veto power. That is the only thing. And we were happy to support this provision. We would have been happy to have seen it pass earlier than today. But of course this bill is being rushed through for reasons other than the need to deal with this urgency. The government could have dealt with this, and could have dealt with this even more quickly than is going to be the case, had they been fair dinkum about pursuing the genuinely urgent matters and also had they been fair dinkum about sharing their intentions on the legislation and the impact of the legislation with growers and giving them an opportunity to have some input into the legislation. There are things in this legislation—for example, omitting the provision to consult the Grains Council—which were never raised with growers or the Grains Council. Yet the government says that we should pass this bill and pass this bill now.

The fact of the matter is that there has been an attempt from the National Party to mislead in relation to the arrangements that are going to apply for the future. We have even heard the misleading comments from Senator Boswell today about what the Labor Party’s position is. It has been clear for some time—I have been at pains to talk about this; we have put out press releases and we have spoken on the Country Hourthat we would refer the issue of the single desk to an inquiry with the powers of the Productivity Commission. Senator Boswell says, ‘Are you going to refer it to the Productivity Commission?’ We know that that would roll the matter. We very deliberately said that we would refer the matter to an inquiry with the powers of the Productivity Commission and that we would have people on that inquiry who had expertise in agriculture and the grain industry. Of course, when it comes to representing the facts, we cannot depend on Senator Boswell or the National Party, because they have their own agenda.

We have heard in this debate Senator Adams, who, I think, in the circumstances, has at least got the legislation moving in the right direction and has been part of a group that has achieved some changes, such as making sure that the veto power for AWB does not continue after 1 July 2008. But I am afraid Senator Adams is mistaken if she thinks that this bill does not provide for a reversion of the single-desk power to ‘nominated company B’—and I refer to provision 3AA(12) in the bill.