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

I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:

Tax Laws Amendment (Simplified GST Accounting) Bill 2007

Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007

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

The opposition does not support exempting the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007 from the cut-off so I therefore move:

Omit “Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007”.

The reason that we demur on this issue is fairly simple. The government prepared a statement as to the reasons for exempting the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007 from the cut-off, and that statement essentially indicates that one of the issues in the bill is urgent—that is, the issue of extending the provision that was introduced into the wheat-marketing legislation last December to transfer the power of veto over bulk exports from AWB International to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr McGauran. Frankly, that aspect of the bill is the least controversial of any of the provisions in the bill. This is a bill which, I was just informed, has only this morning been introduced into the House of Representatives. This is a bill which, I was informed by a variety of grower organisations, as of yesterday had not been seen by the grower community. This is a bill which introduces a number of measures relating to the powers of the minister to direct the Wheat Export Authority, as it will be known until October, to acquire and to provide information. This is a bill which deals in part with powers relating to the Wheat Export Authority. There are powers contained in the bill which as yet I have not seen—and, more importantly, which growers have not seen.

So we are being asked today to guarantee the passage of this bill in these sittings, a bill which at the time we are debating this motion has not been seen by either the opposition or those who are affected by it. The govern-ment have had months and months to deal with this issue. Quite frankly, they could have, at the beginning of this fortnight of sitt-ings, introduced a bill which would have simply dealt with the extension of the existing power of the minister for agriculture to exercise the veto over applications for bulk exports. That was introduced by the government in December last year and it was not opposed by the opposition. But the government chose to introduce a sunset provision in that to expire on 30 June. What that aspect of the bill requires is a simple mechanism to change the date of the sunset provision—if that is what the government’s intention is. I would have thought it unlikely that the government would support—and certainly the opposition would not support—the return of the veto power to the AWB in any form. So I wonder why the government could not at a much earlier date have simply, as a stopgap measure, transferred the veto power to the minister. As I said, there are a number of other provisions of significant interest to grow-ers and their representative organisations in this bill. These provisions have not been seen by these organisations and have not been seen by the opposition. These provisions cannot be clearly understood until the words in the legislation are properly before us. Yet what the government are saying is, ‘We want to ram through a provision which allows for the standing orders of the Senate to be ignored to allow this legislation to be dealt with.’

Previously this morning the government moved a motion, which was carried, which requires that the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill be passed in these current sittings. The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill could be passed in these sittings quite properly, and the opposition would support it, if it only contained the provision relating to the veto power—that is, the continuation of the veto power residing with the minister rather than, as the legislation currently provides, having it revert to AWB International. The opposition indicated earlier this week that we would support such a provision and that we would expedite its passage through the parliament, on the basis that we did not believe it appropriate that the veto power revert to AWB International while other matters were worked out. In relation to the other provisions in the legislation, there is no urgency. There is no reason why those measures have to be carried. There is no reason why the changes to the power of the Wheat Export Authority need to be urgently carried. There is no reason why the Uhrig provisions, as I will call them in abbreviation, which the government are seeking to introduce to change the Wheat Export Authority to the Export Wheat Commission from 1 October, are urgent and need to be dealt with prior to the grower community, their representative organisations and indeed members of this parliament having the chance to give the legislation proper scrutiny.

Last night, at the annual dinner of the National Farmers Federation, the Prime Minister spoke about the issue of the wheat-marketing legislation. To quote him as best I can, he described the coalition as a broad church. On the issue of the wheat-marketing legislation he said that the pews were on the farthest sides of the church—in other words, the split in the coalition on this issue is massive. So the government’s intention in pushing through this legislation without proper scrutiny is to achieve one thing—that is, to silence the debate within the coalition party room about the issue of the wheat-marketing legislation. It is not surprising that the coalition has been massively divided on the issue of this legislation, because the grower community has been split down the middle in terms of the legislation and the arrangements which should apply to the marketing of wheat following the AWB wheat for weapons scandal and the Cole commission. Frankly, the fact is that AWB Ltd’s reputation as the manager of the single desk has been severely damaged—and Australia’s reputation as a trader of wheat has been severely damaged by AWB. It is not surprising that we need to do something about our international wheat-marketing arrangements.

The government commissioned the Ralph inquiry, which was essentially an inquiry to collect information from growers. That inquiry went around the country and took submissions. Unfortunately, we had growers prompted by AWB with a set form of words standing up at those inquiries and reading out the form of words to say they supported the retention of the current arrangements for the single desk. Fortunately, as I understand it, those growers, when asked questions, were unable to answer questions because they had been sent along simply to say a form of words, and they were not prepared to answer questions. I think that is not an indictment of them but rather an indictment of the organisation which put them up to represent views which were ill-prepared and self-serving to the organisation that held the single desk.

Having gone down that path, we have seen the government claim that there has been a certain outcome reported to it by the Ralph inquiry. The significant thing is that the report from that inquiry has never been made public. Not one word of it has been put on a public record in any effective way. One has to wonder if the report was indeed the basis of the government’s consideration of this matter. Why couldn’t it have been made available to the growers, the community and the parliament? Public moneys have been expended to gather the information and that information ought to have been made available to the growers. There has been too much secrecy about the way that this government has managed our international wheat-marketing arrangements and reforms thereto. This is just another example.

What could happen if my amendment were carried—and I have no doubt Senator Abetz will oppose it—is that the government could take up the opposition’s offer and introduce a piece of legislation which simply dealt with the veto power. I say again on the public record that the opposition would give all assistance possible to ensure the expedited passage of a simple piece of legislation that dealt with the only issue, according to the government, which necessitates the urgent passage of this legislation. It was the only reason recorded in the written statement that was tabled when this motion was moved. We are quite prepared to facilitate the passage of legislation that deals with the issue that in the eyes of the government is urgent. We are not sure that there would be great damage done if it were not carried until next session, but we are prepared—and have been since before the legislation was introduced—to facilitate the passage of a bill which would achieve just that.

But what we are faced with is a piece of legislation that says much more. It is legislation that has not been examined. I have given notice that I will move to have this legislation referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport for reporting in August. This would enable the organisations and the growers who are affected to understand what the legislation means. We could get some information, for example, as to what the cost implications of the legislation are for growers. Nothing that has been said so far has made it clear what the measures that the government is proposing to introduce will cost growers. All of that information could be properly dealt with, and we could deal with the matter expeditiously when parliament resumes in August. The opposition believes that that is the appropriate course.

Indeed, whilst I was at the National Farmers Federation dinner last night, I talked to some growers who could see no reason why those measures needed to be rushed through the parliament this week. They thought the best approach would be for there to be an opportunity to scrutinise the legislation through the committees of the parliament. It would give growers a chance to have a look at it before it became law. They would have a say on exactly what the provisions mean. They would also have an opportunity to understand what the cost implications of the legislation would be for growers. Given that the Wheat Export Authority, which is the subject of powers in the legislation, is funded by a levy on the export of wheat, which means a levy on wheat growers, they should have an understanding of and a say in what those implications are. If the legislation proceeds the way that the government has indicated it wants it to proceed, they will not have their say and they will not have an opportunity to develop a proper understanding.

This will be rushed through and the only reason for that is to get it off the books for the government so that it ceases to be an issue that divides the government’s party room. A government that operates on that basis with scant regard for the interests of an important community like this—the wheat growers of Australia—is a government that has lost touch with the people it purports to represent. It is an arrogant government.

This is an important issue to growers. Given the margin that growers achieve on the wheat they grow, the costs that they face in exporting that wheat are critical to an understanding of whether they are going to make a profit or a loss—depending upon the season, of course. This is a critically important issue for them. In the past, when this sort of legislation has been brought forward, an opportunity has been provided for growers to have a proper say. In addition, an opportunity has been provided for a proper inquiry to be conducted by the committee, which operates on a bipartisan basis. My experience with it—going back to 1997—is that the legislation it considers has been properly examined. Proceedings have been conducted not on the basis of politics but on the basis of the issue before it.

In this case, what the government will do by passing this legislation and proceeding down the path it clearly intends to is deny the parliament, the public and the growers an opportunity to examine legislation and have a proper say about what the legislation actually says before the parliament is forced to pass it. I urge the Senate to support the amendment that I moved. In relation to the only issue in the bill that the government says is urgent, we would facilitate the passage of legislation that dealt only with that matter. I will continue to pursue that line throughout the entirety of the dealings with this bill if this amendment is defeated.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens likewise are extremely concerned about the way that this bill is being rammed through this place. The only urgency with this bill is the fact that the government need to get it off the debating agenda for the coalition. That is what the sense of urgency is. They know there is no agreement within the coalition. If they let this debate continue over the break into August—guess what!—all the coalition members who are not happy are going to put up their heads again and the debate will go on within the coalition again. This is about rounding up all the members of the coalition and making sure that they are not there—that the backbenchers are not there—causing trouble over the winter break over the wheat-marketing strategy. That is what this is about. It is not about anything else. If they were truly concerned about the future of wheat marketing in this country they would allow significant analysis and debate over this particular piece of legislation. We have not even seen it yet.

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

It is 40 pages!

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. As I understand it, it is to go to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport tomorrow for some farce of a process to look at a 40-page bill that has major ramifications for the way that we sell our wheat and for the farmers and growers of Australia. How could this government treat the growers and the farmers of this country with such contempt concerning such major changes after the scandal we have seen over wheat marketing and AWB? To ram this legislation through this place in such a manner is a perpetuation of the scandal. It is burying it in secrecy. As Senator O’Brien says, we have not seen the outcomes of the Ralph process. I have had phone calls and emails from farmers saying they are not happy with the process that is being undertaken. They have concerns about the way this is being dealt with. I think that is the tip of the iceberg. This process is designed so that nobody will get to properly analyse this legislation. Such a major piece of legislation needs adequate time for this place to analyse it, for the community to analyse it and, in particular, for growers and farmers to sit down and look at it. We have had a major breakdown in the process in our wheat marketing with AWB. Now the government is rushing headlong into another process which could have the same result if we do not look at this legislation and any problems with it. If we do not have a full debate about what the government is proposing, we could end up with the same mess we are in now.

Last time there was actually a committee that travelled around Australia and looked at wheat-marketing measures—I might add that we still ended up with the mess that we are in now. So where are we going to end up if we ram this legislation through this place without any significant review? It is mind-bogglingly incredible that the government thinks that the community is going to wear having such a piece of legislation rammed through and put in place without any transparency or review.

The Greens will be supporting an amendment to deal just with the power of veto. I do not see why it cannot wait, but if growers are saying that is what they want to see—that they want to see some level of surety there—we will support an amendment to deal just with that. But we certainly do not think there is any reason for ramming this through other than the reason that I mentioned of closing down debate in the coalition. I might add that it will cause a great deal of discontent in the community to see the way the parliament is being treated with such contempt. We are not even being allowed to make any comment. For any inquiry that we have tomorrow, if that is what is going to happen, nobody will be able to look at a bill of 40 pages. We will not even be able to look at a bill of 40 pages, because we are stuck in here until 11 o’clock tonight dealing with other legislation. Then they expect people to start looking at it and reading it properly tomorrow! That is an absolutely ridiculous notion.

The Greens do not support the government’s move to exempt this from the standing orders. We will support an amendment whereby the power of veto is considered, but we certainly do not support this bill being treated in this manner and we do not support the contempt the government is showing for this place and, more importantly, the community and growers, who are not going to have a say in a piece of legislation that fundamentally affects them and their futures. The government is treating this community with contempt.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Democrats also support an amendment to ensure that the cut-off motion is not applied to the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 2007. We all know the politics behind the wheat-marketing issue and the legislation and differing views there. As Senator O’Brien said, it is not just a matter of a split within the government; there is a split within the grower community. That is fine; people are entitled to have differing views. But that in itself I think highlights how completely inappropriate it is to railroad through some very significant changes without any examination at all. This is not just a matter of extending the veto further—that is not something that the Democrats have a problem with as an interim measure. But we all know that that could have been done ages ago. What we simply have here is the fact that it took the government until right now to get their act together to figure out what they were going to do. They could not get it together until right now and they are saying to us, ‘Well, we’ve left it till one minute to midnight to introduce legislation. It has got to be passed by midnight. So put it through.’ That would be acceptable if it just dealt with the veto, but, as Senator O’Brien and others have said, it does not. That is not just contemptible of the Senate; it is, even more concerning, contemptible of the growers, who are obviously directly affected by this and seriously concerned.

It is important to emphasise what the Senate is actually debating here. We are not debating the pros and cons of changes to the wheat-marketing arrangements; we are talking about the process by which the Senate deliberates on changes to that process and changes to those laws. We are not just forcing a vote on determining a political position. It is not just some motion expressing an opinion; we are talking about changing the law here that directly affects wheat growers throughout Australia.

The Senate and the public should be reminded of the whole purpose of the cut-off motion—standing order 111. The original genesis goes back to my Queensland Democrat predecessor, Michael Macklin, in the 1980s. It was not a specific attempt to constrain this government; it was brought in and supported by the then opposition coalition parties as an initiative of the Democrats to try to prevent precisely this sort of thing where governments, because they have control over the order of business in the Senate, would introduce legislation and then immediately try and bring on debate and force the Senate to deal with it straight away or force the Senate to go through the problematic process of actually forcibly adjourning it. So standing order 111 was put in place. It is an automatic procedure to ensure that legislation only just introduced cannot be brought on straight away for debate unless the Senate agrees. That was the whole purpose of it. It was specifically to prevent abuses like this where we have legislation being introduced one day and are immediately told, before anybody has even examined it, that we have got to agree to debate it straight away or within the next week.

That is clearly an abuse of Senate process. It is yet another example of this government’s misuse of its Senate majority and its willingness to pervert Senate process. As I said yesterday in relation to a different matter, the problem here is not just in relation to what it might mean for wheat growers if we pass legislation that is not properly scrutinised; it is what it means with the precedent it sets and the standards it sets in the way the Senate operates. We will have, apparently, a Senate committee inquiry of sorts tomorrow—or a hearing of some sort, perhaps—but any form of attempt to have even a half-rushed look at this legislation before debating it within the space of a week will simply bring the Senate committee process into disrepute. That is already a problem, as I flagged yesterday—people are becoming less and less interested in participating in Senate committee processes when they are so rushed that they believe they are a farce. So we are in this catch-22 situation where, even if we do try and look at it, we will be running the risk of discrediting the whole system by engaging in a process that cannot possibly do justice to the issue before us.

So this is a serious issue that goes beyond the merits of the various arguments about what happens with wheat marketing. It is about abuse of Senate process. This is precisely the thing I can recall warning about before the last election, clearly unsuccessfully—that there was a risk that the government could get control of the Senate and that, if they did, inevitably, as with any government, not just this one, they would abuse that power. Despite the Prime Minister’s promises after that eventuated, after the election, that he would not abuse that power, there is now a long list of abuses of that power. This is just another one. And it is quite a serious one, I might say.

Let me repeat, before I conclude, what is actually being put forward here by the government. It is that a piece of legislation that makes significant changes to wheat-marketing arrangements, far beyond just extending a bit further the existing veto power, is to be required to be debated within a week of the legislation appearing, within a week of anybody having a chance to look at it—not just us, the legislators, but, more importantly in many respects, the people who are directly affected. That is contemptuous of all wheat growers, whatever their perspective on what should happen with the single desk and everything else. It is a serious problem. It is a serious contempt of the Senate. It is a degrading of the parliamentary process. It is something that people really need to pay attention to because it is and should be a clear part of the issue at the upcoming election. We can all campaign on what we think should happen with the single desk. We can all campaign on workplace relations. We can all campaign on tax. We can all campaign on all those things. But the key issue beyond just who ends up getting in government is how the parliament is going to operate after the next election in scrutinising whoever gets into government. If we have a Senate that is perverted and degraded to the level that it has been dragged down to in the last couple of years—if that continues and becomes the norm for another three years after the next federal election—then I fear the public’s already very low esteem for politics and the parliament will be plunged down to perhaps irretrievable levels.

Going back to the particular motion before us, the Democrats do not believe the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill should be exempted from the cut-off order, for the reasons I have stated. Any sort of spin that says the Senate is trying to hand powers back to AWB is simply misleading all speakers. I will add the Democrats’ commitment to this as well. We have indicated that we are quite prepared to support a very simple piece of legislation that extends the veto for a short period of time and does nothing else. But it is crucial that these other mechanisms that are in here are properly scrutinised. Let me repeat the point that we are looking at changing laws. And we all know that, once laws are changed, it is often quite difficult to then un-change them. Certain procedures get put in place, people adapt to what is put in place, for better or worse, and then you have to look at how you fix up any problems, even unintended consequences and problems that have not been thought through because it was rushed. We have all seen that time and time again. We have been dealing with legislation just this week. It is not politically contentious but we were just fixing stuff-ups because we rushed it through too quickly the time before. This is not just about politics and party positioning and that sort of thing. It is about doing our job properly, which is something I think we need to remind ourselves of occasionally—actually ensuring that the laws we pass do what we think they are going to do. The people who are most likely to know what the real effects are going to be are the people who work in this area, who live with it day in, day out, which is virtually none of us—I know there are a few wheat growers in the Senate, but virtually none of us. They have a better idea than anybody of what the effects of changes like this—

Sandy Macdonald (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And we’re very happy with them!

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are speaking for the entire wheat-growing community there, are you, Senator Macdonald?

Sandy Macdonald (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re saying none of you are happy; I’m saying we’re happy.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s very good; we will take your word for the whole thing and railroad it through because you are happy with it. That sounds like good process to me—not! Anyway, the point is that it is as much about process as it is about what happens specifically and what people’s policy views are on the wheat industry. Senator Macdonald may have had an inside view on all of this, and looked at it in detail—and I am glad he is happy about it—but I think there are a full range of people we should hear from. The simple fact is that making significant extra changes without properly scrutinising, without properly consulting the full range of people who are affected, really presents some problems.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not detain the Senate for long, but I want to speak to this issue because it is a vital matter for Western Australia, which, as everyone in this chamber knows, is by far the largest supplier of our export wheat market. Firstly, I indicate my very strong support for the veto extension whilst this matter is resolved and for that veto to remain in the hands of a government minister and not to be returned to AWB; and, secondly, I indicate my very strong support for this matter being properly considered by a Senate committee. I understand that the proposal of the Labor shadow minister is to excise the veto power consideration and get that done urgently, which I know our party would be interested in supporting, and then to have an opportunity to review the other matters.

I took the trouble to go to a couple of very large meetings of farmers in WA and I closely observed the attitudes and beliefs of those farmers. As is typical in very large meetings, those who spoke were those who had most courage or most conviction or the most public opinions, but those who did not speak—the vast, silent majority—needed careful appraisal. My considered opinion, as a student of politics and of the industry concerned, is that the vast majority do not want to retain a single desk and do not want to move to full deregulation; they want a regulated, licensed market where they have choice of export facility.

I also want to express my surprise at the government continuing to consider the absolutely contrary policy of a single desk in the wheat market. Liberalism, and I mean small ‘l’ liberalism, has at its heart a belief in the market. It has at its heart a belief in choice. It has at its heart a belief in free trade—governed, of course, by proper rules and regulations. That does not preclude careful licensing and control. Every day I hear the Prime Minister in question time going on endlessly about choice—choice of industrial agreements, choice in the marketplace and choice in every sector of our economy and society. That is the mark of a free society—that you do have choice—and to deny the farmers of Western Australia choice in who exports their product is a disgraceful approach to modern market economies. Members and senators ranging from the Australian Greens and the Australian Democrats through to numerous members of the Liberal Party and numerous members of the Labor Party support choice being available in this marketplace. I am deeply disappointed that the single desk is likely to be retained, but I recognise the political reality that time is needed whilst the matter is more fully worked out.

I put on the record my support for the efforts of Liberal senators such as Senator Judith Adams, members of the House of Representatives such as Mr Wilson Tuckey, and many others whom I will not name in seeking to introduce true liberal values into this market, to do away with the single desk and to allow wheat exporters choice, even in a licensed and regulated fashion. In my view that would be the best way to go. I strongly urge that the Senate consider favourably Senator O’Brien’s suggestion, which is to deal with the veto extension expeditiously and to review the other matters carefully over time in a Senate committee.

I put on the record my very strong belief in an open market and my belief that the Western Australian wheat farmers should be allowed choice in the matter of who exports their product and not be forced into a single-desk situation. The situation is quite extraordinary given that those political and industrial forces driving it are mostly, in my view, domestic producers of wheat and operate in a completely open market. The domestic producers of wheat over in the eastern states who do operate in an open market are busy trying to tell our exporters that they have to operate in a closed market. It is the most extraordinary inconsistency, and I know that at the heart of the Liberal Party there is great dissension on this matter. My vote goes with those who want an open, modern market situation to prevail and not a closed anachronism, which is what the single desk is.

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

The government opposes this amendment. The issues that have been canvassed indicate that the current veto arrangement sunsets on 30 June. I do not think there is any objection that we need to deal with that. The other parts of the legislation are basically nuts and bolts and a degree of process in light of Uhrig and a few other issues. All of the speakers could not help themselves but refer to what I consider to be the ludicrous proposition that there is ongoing division in government ranks. If we were to accept that as the reason we do not want an inquiry—and I do not accept that that is the case—then it stands to reason that the Labor Party, Greens and Australian Democrats want an inquiry in order to see this alleged split continue to fester.

If you want to impute motives to our side, I suggest that you think about it because your own motives will be exposed as well. The very fact that you raise this as an issue exposes the fact that you are not interested in the true welfare of the wheat growers of this country but that you are trying desperately to get a crack in the government on this issue. Can I disappoint you all by indicating that there is no crack; we stand united on this issue for the reasons I have briefly outlined. I will not detain the Senate any further. We believe that this legislation should proceed and that is why we oppose the amendment.

Question put:

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