Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will be moving amendments to this legislation. As I have indicated, we moved a similar amendment to the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2002 in June 2003. The legislation as it stands seeks to remove the veto from AWB and put it in the hands of the minister. A number of questions arise in relation to the exercise of that power. For example, a wire story today reads:

Mr McGauran is likely to use his control of the veto to approve an application by WA grain handler CBH to ship two million tonnes of wheat at prices superior to those being offered by AWB.

We would like to know what deals have been done in relation to the exercise of the veto.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No deals.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ferguson says, ‘No deals,’ but it would be interesting if Minister McGauran, or indeed Senator Abetz—if we had the time—were able to assure the public just how this process would work. This is, unfortunately, another instance where it will be difficult to examine how the veto power is used. It is a blunt power as it stands. AWB has the veto and it has used it every time, with one exception—which it claims was a mistake that had slipped through. There was not much to investigate; it was simply a stonewall position by AWB. But now we see a media comment suggesting that a decision has already been made to allow CBH to do a bulk shipment of two million tonnes. We would like to know more about that.

Secondly, yesterday AWB put out a media release, which I think affected the stock exchange dealings with AWB shares, saying that AWB were unable to provide certainty because of the lack of clarity in the government’s proposed changes, including how the bulk veto would be applied in future. I have some sympathy for them—not about many things—in relation to understanding how the veto would work, because it is delightfully vague on how the minister is going to use this power. We ought to have had a more extensive statement by the minister in his second reading contribution as to just how he would exercise this power.

As Senator Johnston said, the reference to the public interest in the legislation does not give us any certainty as to the criteria that the minister will take into account, what he is limited to considering and the matters which are inappropriate for him to consider. All of these things have been done in a rather haphazard, rushed and slapdash manner. The opposition is concerned that this is hasty legislation and we are not being given an opportunity to properly consider it. Because of the rolling guillotine our amendment will not be given proper consideration. In his second reading contribution Senator Ian Macdonald said that he had not seen our amendment but he was going to vote against it.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a pretty good hunch though.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That mindset from government senators should not amaze anyone, but it indicates what a closed mind this government has about improving legislation. I heard what Senator Abetz said about Labor’s amendment. What Labor would have occur, as set out in our amendment, is a proper, authoritative consideration of all the issues around the single desk by people appointed who have the powers and protections of an inquiry conducted by the Productivity Commission in accordance with the Productivity Commission Act 1998. They would have the ability to probe all of the material held by AWB and AWB International. They would have the ability to make determinations and recommendations and those determinations and recommendations would be made public.

If you can believe the utterances of this government and leaked sources coming from the government, what we are going to have is some inquiry appointed where the government will hand-select some people on the basis of criteria we have no understanding about. There will be a secret report to the government and the government will say, ‘We’ve made a determination; we’re going to put this new system in place’—if, indeed, they change the system. In the opposition’s view, this will be a political fix, just like the current set of arrangements.

Looking at the current set of arrangements, back in 2002 and 2003 the opposition was saying to the government: ‘The Wheat Export Authority is a paper tiger; it is useless. Grain growers are paying money to prop up this organisation.’

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is toothless.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is toothless or, if it does have teeth, it refuses to use them. Growers have spent millions of dollars to keep the organisation going. Why don’t we just get rid of it? In 2003, when we moved amendments which would have had that effect, we were simply blocked by the government and, may I say, the Democrats. Former Senator Cherry was on all fours with the government’s position and was not prepared to support the thoroughgoing inquiry that we propose now, the sort of inquiry which would have given us some indication of what the problems were with the system, how the system was working and, to an extent at least, what the single desk was worth to growers. With all the money that has been paid to the Wheat Export Authority over the years, they have never been able to quantify the value of the single desk to growers. We did learn that they are paying $65 million a year for the privilege of having a single desk and AWB collecting that money, plus other bonus fees that they collected through mechanisms that not even the growers understood in terms of how AWB managed to reap more money out of the pool, allegedly for achieving an outcome over what might have been seen to be the norm. All of this was vague and was never put to the growers. The minister may have seen something, but that information never made it into the hands of the growers.

It has been an appalling system. It was an appalling system when it was put in place. From 2000, then Minister Truss was aware that there were problems with the powers of the Wheat Export Authority. Nothing was done about them until they were drawn to the attention of the minister through the opposition’s pursuit of the Wheat Export Authority. Through Senate estimates, through Senate committees and then finally through the Senate committee inquiry into this bill, we got some changes to the powers. But, of course, now we know that the Wheat Export Authority was so moribund and the WEA personnel were so incapable of doing whatever job was intended by the government—if indeed it was intended that they were supposed to be effective in relation to their stewardship of the single desk—that AWB went on doing whatever it liked for as long as it liked, and we got into the mess that we are in now.

The opposition understand the numbers in this place. We understand that the government will not support our amendments. We believe what we have proposed is the right thing to do. We believe that it is time for a proper, thorough inquiry, that it be conducted with the powers of an inquiry being conducted by the Productivity Commission, that it have the ability to go into all of the dealings within AWB and any other organisation relevant to the inquiry to get an understanding of the impact of proposals that it might make to government and to get an understanding of some of the problems, and that it make a report and make it public. Then there should be a debate with growers and relevant organisations about what it should be replaced with.

Coming up with another cobbled together political fix on this matter will result in another problem in years to come. We will continue to see arguments between the National Party and some members of the government about whether there should be a single desk and how it should operate, because no-one will have the basis of knowledge acquired through a structured and properly equipped inquiry. There have been some inquiries in the past but there have been differences in the outcomes. We need to get the work done now and that is why the opposition are proposing this.

We do not oppose this bill, but we think there are problems with the legislation. We understand that there are problems around the country with wheat growers, particularly in Western Australia. We understand the concern about having to go through the pool and the fact that it might cost growers money unnecessarily. We understand that there are problems with AWB’s cost structures and that there is the possibility that a substantial bill might be presented to a limited number of growers who have put their wheat into the pool. AWB’s press release says: ‘Over 2½ thousand wheat growers have currently delivered to the current pool.’

There are massive problems with the current pool. There are massive problems if the veto is not exercised to prevent bulk shipments by other sellers. There is the possibility of a veto of the pool by some Western Australian growers putting their grain into storage. That might have an impact. This is a terrible problem to face and the opposition are clearly not standing in the way. With these amendments, we propose a series of measures which will allow an independent and proper assessment of the matters upon which future decisions need to be made. We do not want yet another political fix from the government, because it will leave us in the situation of having to again debate the adequacy of the information on which the government has made its decision when it finally does—probably in the middle of next year.

There will be another quick fix and there will be another insistence that it be done quickly. We probably will not be given the opportunity to examine it. If we were, we would probably not have the necessary resources to do the job as well as we could if an inquiry had taken place. The government are not going to change their mind. If they were really considering the interests of growers, this proposal by the opposition is exactly the sort of position that they would adopt. If they do not adopt the amendments, let me suggest that they find some other way to do this. Let me suggest that a transparent inquiry, not a political fix, is somehow empowered to get the information needed to do the job that we suggest needs to be done. That is the right thing to do. If the government cannot bring themselves to support the opposition’s amendments because they are opposition amendments, let the government find a way to do it anyway because that is the right thing to do. I seek leave to move the amendments standing in my name.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 4), before item 1, insert:

1A Paragraph 5(1)(b)

Omit “and examine and report on the benefits to growers that result from that performance”.

(2)   Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 9), after item 1, insert:

1B After subsection 57(7)

Insert:

     (7A)    Before 1 April 2007, the Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the following matters:

             (a)    the operation of subsection (1A) in relation to nominated company B;

             (b)    the conduct of nominated company B in relation to:

                   (i)    consultations for the purposes of subsection (3A); and

                  (ii)    the granting or withholding of approvals for the purposes of subsection (3B); and

                 (iii)    returns to growers;

             (c)    the economic impact of export wheat control arrangements on Australia’s domestic wheat market;

             (d)    the benefit of maintaining export wheat control arrangements;

             (e)    recommended changes to export wheat control arrangements;

              (f)    recommended changes to monitoring and reporting arrangements.

      (7B)    The review conducted in accordance with subsection (7A) is to have the same powers, procedures and protections of an inquiry conducted by the Productivity Commission in accordance with the Productivity Commission Act 1998.

      (7C)    A review under subsection (7A) is to be conducted by a panel nominated by the Minister by a written instrument.

     (7D)    An instrument prepared under subsection (7C) is a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

      (7E)    The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review prepared in accordance with subsection (7A) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 25 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the report.

                   (i)    consultations for the purposes of subsection (3A); and

                  (ii)    the granting or withholding of approvals for the purposes of subsection (3B); and

                 (iii)    returns to growers;

Question negatived.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.