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

I have some general questions that I seek to put. Since this bill has not been to a Senate committee for inquiry I hope that the minister is able to answer a number of questions. Could the minister explain, in relation to schedule 1, why the provisions in 5DA talk about ‘requesting’ rather than ‘requiring’ the production of information? Could the minister explain why the commission is not to have powers under this provision to forcibly obtain information, rather than simply make a casual request?

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

As I understood it, the question dealt with why the WEA needs the power to request information from companies and why you would not have that as a request rather than as a requirement?

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

Yes.

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

It was decided in the first instance to make clear that the government expects companies to cooperate with any request from the WEA. If experience shows that this is not enough then the matter will be reconsidered. The Prime Minister’s announcement of 22 May foreshadowed further amendments to the act in 2008, including strengthening the WEA’s powers, and the matter will be revisited as part of that process. We will see how things play out until then.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to clarify something. If on 1 March 2008 the new entity is created—except for the provision of a licence which might be in the hands of a government; that may be anything from a prudential regulation licence to an occupational health and safety licence—and if the new entity is being curtailed from absolute completion not by reason of their own incapacity to complete but by reason of factors outside their control, how will that be resolved?

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

The bill requires that the company be ready to go by 1 March 2008.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In that process is there a program within government to make sure that the issuing of licences—in any way, shape or form—needed to bring about that new entity, will be given first priority in their development and delivery? Is there any role by government that might curtail or affect the company so that we cannot have an unnecessary falling over of the delivery on 1 March 2008, not by reason that they did not do the job but by reason that the government, whoever wins the election, has not done their job?

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

There is no such process to which the senator referred within the government.

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

I would like to return to the point that I was discussing. Is the minister saying that the government is content to wait and see how this request provision operates? Problems have been clearly revealed, through Senate estimates, in the Wheat Export Authority’s ability to gain information from a private company allegedly controlled by growers. I am not going to blame the growers for the behaviour of AWB in this regard but the experience clearly was that there were significant problems in obtaining information. In fact, there needed to be a memorandum of understanding between the Wheat Export Authority and AWB in order to get information. I am curious as to why the provisions are such that the government is content to simply wait and see what happens. Given that these provisions are probably much less likely to come into effect, in a real sense, until after 1 March, why should we wait until some time next year to see how these work before we give the authority or the commission a power which, on the face of it, one would think was essential for the authority or the commission to do its job in the interim? This is an area of the legislation that is perplexing. It seems that it is a rather permissive approach by the government in an area where, demonstrably, the Wheat Export Authority has lacked power, in terms of AWB. One would have thought that there was an argument that any company, if it thought it might be in its interest, might decline to give information if there was not a compulsion power.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the statement of the financial viability of a designated entity, who determines what that is? Will ‘financial viability’ be determined for the role that they determine to do? Who makes that determination?

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

In answer to Senator Joyce’s question, the term ‘financially viable’ will depend on the business model of the new entity, what it does in-house, what it contracts out and where the financial risk sits. It will mean the company has the resources to meet its operational needs and to pay growers for their wheat. The minister will need to be satisfied that the company has the financial resources to meet its obligations to growers and to maximise their—that is, the growers—returns.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So the financial viability will be determined by the minister?

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

Yes, on the basis of the factors that are put to the minister by the relevant company in relation to those matters I have just referred to, such as what they do in-house, what they contract out et cetera.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With the deregulation of containers and bags, will the proposed QA measures for containers and bags include measures to ensure that there is transparency to avoid the issues that have occurred, such as the Jordanian trucking company code of conduct—that is, what assurances are we putting into the quality assurance measures for containers and bags to ensure that there is no transfer of funds, by whatever mechanisms, to Mugabe, or that there is not another manifestation of Saddam Hussein?

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

That issue is currently in progress. The quality assurance scheme is to be developed and finalised by the WEA. In fact, that is one of the reasons why we believe there is some urgency about this bill so that the bill can be passed and the quality assurance scheme can be put in place in time for the upcoming harvest.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So is it the intent of the government to ensure that in those quality assurance measures we do put in protections to stop the illicit movement of money by way of bribes, or whatever, to parties which may be detrimental to this government’s policy, especially its foreign policy, on how we perceive regimes, entities and the conduct of countries overseas et cetera?

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

It may help to indicate that the purpose of the QA scheme will not be to dictate the quality of wheat that can be exported but rather be to ensure that exporters are meeting the specifications of their contracts with customers. This will allow exporters to fill niche markets and market opportunities according to what the consumer wants, rather than limiting exports to artificially preset standards. In relation to the matter that Senator Joyce raised, I do not think that would be part of the quality assurance scheme.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there any section within the legislation that will put a control on the deregulated trade of bags and containers, or is it envisaged that there will be an oversight to protect Australia from getting itself into another position, as was seen with the Jordanian trucking company code of conduct, or the payment scandal, as it was otherwise known?

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

The concerns expressed by the senator are quite proper concerns. We will not be dealing with them in this legislation. Issues of bribes being paid—illegal payments of moneys—are in fact dealt with in other laws.

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

Can the minister please advise the chamber whether an exposure draft of this legislation was shared with any party, obviously outside of cabinet, the minister’s office and the department, prior to its presentation to parliament?

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

That is a very wide question. I am not 100 per cent sure as to the extent of the consultation, but a number of government members were concerned. They saw drafts and they have also been consulting widely with constituents in various sectors around the country. That feedback has also been brought in. I am not sure exactly where the question is leading, but it is a very wide question. I cannot give an account of absolutely everybody who may have provided an exposure draft here, there or anywhere else. All I do know is that it was not provided to other departments within the government.

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

So there was an exposure draft shared with some people?

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

As I understand it, there was no exposure draft as such, but there was a draft bill, because it is a draft bill until such time as it is actually introduced. There was some consultation within government ranks and, as I understand it, elements of the government may well have consulted with others about the bill. Having said that, it would be fair to say that a huge, wide-ranging community debate about different approaches to this issue has taken place over some months and, undoubtedly, the minister, the government and the cabinet would have availed themselves of all those views and opinions that have been so freely expressed throughout the community.

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

From what you are saying, I take it that, if individuals outside the government, officers of the department or members of the ministry or cabinet saw this document, it was occasioned by the uncontrolled consultation of members of the government’s backbench.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the definition, in the deregulated market, of a container—that is, what are its limitations—and what is the definition of a bag?

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

Do not tempt me, Senator, as to what the definition of a bag is, but I think in the context of this legislation I know what you are referring to and I do have an answer for you. As there is no definition of bags and containers in the Wheat Marketing Act, the common usage of the terms will continue to apply, as has been the practice since the current regulatory controls were put in place in 1999. I am advised that these are well understood within industry. A container is that which is used in standard shipping practice. They are usually—and I find these measures a lot more comfortable—either 20 feet or 40 feet in length and are capable of being loaded onto container vessels, and road and rail transport. It is normal for 20-foot containers to be used, as the weight of grain is such that a 40-foot container usually cannot be filled to capacity. Bags can vary in size from small packets of a couple of kilograms—and this is a new measurement which I hope you are acquainted with, Senator Joyce, unlike the imperial measure for length; I understand the industry uses imperial for containers and the metric system for weight—but typically are no more than 40 kilograms, and they are easily loaded onto containers. The WEA or its successor, the EWC, will not tolerate attempts to abuse or flout the deregulation of bags and containers. As stated earlier, the common usage terms ‘bags’ and ‘containers’ are well understood by industry and they remain unchanged by this bill.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. I refer to the speech tabled by Senator Johnston, the Minister for Justice and Customs, in which he stated:

The Government has decided to give growers until 1 March 2008 to establish a new entity to manage the single desk. This entity may be either a completely new, grower owned and operated body, or a completely de-merged AWB (International) Ltd (AWBI).

In the second reading speech a completely demerged AWBI is allowed to be the designated entity; is that correct?

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

I understand they are one and the same.

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

I still have not heard an answer to my earlier question. The dissemination of the draft bill, if it occurred, would have occurred only because members of the government chose to share it with individuals or organisations; is that how I should understand your earlier answer, Minister?

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

I think in general terms that is right but, before Senator O’Brien seeks to make mischief with that, I point out that there was a huge amount of public discussion and consultation prior to the drafting, which then informed the drafting of the legislation. This was a situation where the community consultation took place, a draft bill was placed before us and, as a result and with further consultation, a few amendments were made in the other place. Now we have this bill in its present form before us. I would not want the suggestion to be made that there has not been proper or adequate consultation. It has taken place, largely prior to the bill, but, as is always the wont of this government, if people indicate to us that amendments can be made to improve the legislation we are always easily convinced in that regard. Amendments were made in the other place and we now have the bill in its present form here.

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

Were specific provisions in this legislation that affect other organisations discussed with those organisations, particularly the provisions of schedule 5, and whom were they discussed with?

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

I indicate to the committee that I am not going to go through the legislation chapter and verse, clause by clause as to what sector may or may not have been consulted. It is the government’s legislation. Having taken on board all the consultation that took place prior to its drafting and then, after its introduction into the House, the amendments, at the end of the day we say, ‘This is legislation which is within the overall national interest.’ There may well be—I am not sure what Senator O’Brien is getting at—sectors that are not fully satisfied. If that is the case, it does not surprise me because time and again we as a government have said we do not legislate for sectoral interests; we legislate for the national interest.

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

I thought you consulted widely with growers about growers’ interests. Did anyone raise with the Grains Council of Australia the provisions on page 26 which repeal reference in the legislation to consultation with the Grains Council? Was there any consultation with the Grains Council about that? Was the intention to do that raised with them? If so, when and by whom?

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

The answer is no.

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

It is interesting that this widely-consulting government takes a step to remove from the legislation a provision about consultation with the Grains Council—which is the peak body for the wheat industry, as I understand it—and specifically does not tell the Grains Council, or give them any chance to consult about that particular provision. Quite remarkable! In the provisions in schedule 1, the minister is to be given a new power to order the regulator to conduct an investigation if the minister determines it is in the public interest to do so. Why does the bill not require the minister to report to parliament in the event he does that? An extension of that is: why doesn’t the minister have to report to parliament in the event that he uses his veto power?

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

The honourable senator might have to repeat the second matter that he raised, but I can indicate that the Grains Council has been informed. It has been written to and informed that in the minister’s statement of expectations to the EWC a request that the commission consults widely with the industry will be included. The Grains Council of Australia is a valuable voice for the grains industry, and the minister expects that it will continue to work with the EWC in a constructive, two-way relationship.

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

The question that the minister perhaps did not hear was that in schedule 1 the minister has a new power to order the regulator to conduct an investigation if the minister determines it in the public interest to do so. Does the exercise of that power have specific accountability provisions to the parliament contained in the legislation? If not, why not? In relation to that type of power, why doesn’t the minister have to report to parliament in the event he does use his veto power in schedule 2?

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

As I understand the situation, the minister can, but is not required to, report to the parliament. More importantly, the report can be given to appropriate authorities and can potentially be published quite widely. But there is no provision in the legislation, in answer to the question from the senator.

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

In relation to schedule 3, can the minister explain why the government has permitted nominated company B to continue as the single desk holder? Lest it be assumed when the minister is referring to the Ralph report that somehow growers have seen it and the opposition have seen it, I can assure him that nobody has seen it. Is it the intention of the minister to release that report? Even if it is in retrospect, we could then understand the basis upon which the minister determined the priorities for this legislative package. The government said that grower groups have to come up with a new entity and that entity must have grower support in order to become the designated company. Why doesn’t the legislation contain a provision to poll growers to test their support for a proposed new entity taking over the single desk control, excluding the veto power?

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

There are a number of issues there in relation to the report by Mr Ralph AC. I understand it was a report to the Prime Minister, and it is up to the Prime Minister when and if that report is to be released. As to the suggestion of a growers’ poll—I do not have instructions on that, and I am sure I will be corrected—at the end of the day, we as a government are willing to take responsibility for the legislation. There was some urgency in relation to this legislation, and we have indicated that time and time again. We are willing to stand by our decision, keeping in mind that, from our consultation, the feedback we got from growers was that they wanted certainty at the beginning of the growing season. As Senator O’Brien and I are exchanging questions and answers across the table, I understand there are many farmers out there, thankful for the rains that have fallen, driving tractors and planting seed, and they want some certainty for their industry. That is what we are trying to provide by getting this legislation through today.

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

It is a pretty shabby reason to push through this legislation, which clearly has not been the subject of any significant consultation with growers. I understand the Grains Council received a letter last night specifying the matters to which the minister referred in his contribution earlier—that is, the extent of the consultation with the peak grower organisation for the wheat industry. One would have to say that that does not inspire confidence in the future of the level of consultation that our growers will receive from the authority—or the Export Wheat Commission, as it will become—and it does not seem to indicate a justification for removing from the legislation a provision that would have guaranteed that consultation. This came without any warning whatsoever to grower organisations—certainly none that have spoken to my office—or to the Grains Council. It is just remarkable. I am pleased to hear the minister say the government takes responsibility for this legislation. It is a shocking thing to have to accept responsibility for the cavalier fashion in which the grower organisation was written out of the legislation. And no-one was consulted about this when the bill was introduced—naturally, they went through it and picked it up, and we were able to discern the changes ourselves. It is remarkable that there was no consultation about that earlier.

It is also remarkable, if we are to accept from a government that talks about employees, industrial action, ballots, proper controls and the like, that in this case the government is not prepared to ballot growers on a provision that will affect every one of their enterprises in terms of the sale on the international market of the commodity they grow. And, of course, we are a major exporter, and many growers depend almost entirely on the international market, particularly those in South Australia and Western Australia. There is also a lot of grain on the eastern states of Australia that is sold into the deregulated domestic markets. In fact, some people suggest that there are a few people running around arguing the same case that the National Party is arguing—that they have not put their grain into the pool for quite some time. But the National Party is content to manipulate the argument, perhaps because it wants to be relevant—perhaps for other reasons; I will let others comment about that. But it is a remarkable situation: no consultation about the bill in any significant sense; no consultation about measures in the bill that wrote out grower organisations.

And now we have the issue of the non-bulk exports, the boxed and bagged exports, in schedule 4. We want to get an understanding of why the government has introduced the so-called quality provision. I thought from the minister’s earlier reply that it is not actually supposed to be a quality assurance provision. I wonder whether the minister could remind us in his next contribution of the actual purpose of this provision, which does not apply to any other export commodity.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don’t know about that.

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

Oh, there are other provisions. Senator Joyce says he does not know about that. I can assure him that there are other provisions that apply to other commodities, in existing laws, which no doubt would apply in terms of AQIS and its role in relation to exports. I do not know why we need specific provisions in this legislation that, as a matter of fact, are a justification for delaying the introduction of this provision. The 60 days from royal assent, which I understand is the operative date, seems to be an unnecessary delay. If there is a commitment to the deregulations of boxed and bagged wheat, as it is colloquially described, then why can’t it happen upon royal assent? We do not know that there is a great need for an extensive system to so-called ‘assure quality’. And we do not know what cost that will impose on this measure. I know that there are some within the grower community who have a suspicion that this is another means by which the deregulation of containerised wheat will be made less economic, and it will therefore be an illusory deregulation. Those concerns are out there. But, whether or not those are valid concerns, I do not understand why we need to go through this process of ‘quality assurance’. If I were an exporter of barley—or canola, or lupins or any other of the dry-land farmed commodities that we export—I would not need to go through this process, so why should a wheat grower?

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

If I may, I have a whole host of notes trying to deal with a whole host of issues raised by Senator O’Brien—before Senator Joyce adds to the list, I might try to get rid of some! Could I respectfully suggest to Senator O’Brien that we have had the political debate. I think the political points have been made by either side sufficiently—and I think that, if we could leave those as limited as possible, that would be very helpful in this committee stage. In relation to consultation with the GCA, I understand that they were consulted last year, especially in relation to the Uhrig changes, which I think you may have been referring to. On my advice, they also took part in the Ralph consultations. In relation to AWBI continuing to hold the single desk: that is not expected. The provision about the veto not returning to AWBI covers all contingencies. It is not expected to happen. The Prime Minister said on 22 May that, if no new entity had been created, we would consider our options.

I think Senator O’Brien would struggle to find a single wheat grower who feels that they have not had their voice heard. Growers have been consulted to within an inch of their lives and the thing that they really want is certainty. I take the point—and Senator Nash, Senator Adams and Senator Joyce may correct me on this—that some of the growers might not necessarily be fully satisfied with the outcome, but that is different to the issue of whether there has been consultation and discussion within their community on all the issues that should be put into the melting pot. From that point of view, I think there has been the sort of consultation that this government has become known for.

I apologise to my Nationals friends for quoting the member for New England, but I have been advised that he undertook a poll on what people wanted. There was 80 per cent support for a single desk. He consulted with his electorate and, just as much as he did, so did my Nationals and Liberal Party colleagues. If I have any knowledge about my colleagues, I am sure they would have done it even better than the member for New England. Also, submissions to the Ralph review support the government’s policy position.

By making it a requirement for exporters to comply with the quality assurance scheme, the government is also securing the reputation of Australia as a reliable supplier of quality wheat. What will that cost? Most wheat export contracts already involve sampling and testing for commercial reasons. I am advised that the cost of these tests varies but is typically in the range of $200 to $350 per test. The government expects that the costs under the QA scheme will be similar.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to go back to the definition of a bag. I know this is technical but is a one-ton pallecon bag to be defined as a bag? When you buy seed, a lot of the time it comes out in one-ton bags. DAP comes out in a one-ton bag. Is that going to be defined as a bag or are we talking about the 40-kilogram bags?

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

I am advised that standard industry definitions and that which has been industry practice will apply. As I understand it, the term ‘bag’ has been used in legislation since 1999. That is some eight years without it occasioning any difficulties. Given that, we will be relying on industry practice, but, as with all these things, we will continue to monitor it to see how it progresses.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is good because, under industry practice, if I ask for fertiliser to be delivered in bags, they will send it in 40- to 60-kilogram bags; they will not send it out in one-ton pallecons.

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

In relation to schedule 3, my reading of 3AA is that the minister is given permission, if not required, to declare a specified company as a designated company for the purposes of the act. There are certain requirements, such that it cannot be retrospective, that it must be a company registered under the Corporations Act, that the minister must cause a copy of the declaration to be published on the internet and that it is not disallowable. That deals with proposed subsections (1) to (5). Proposed subsections (6) to (10) talk about the revocation of such a declaration. Again, I do not think it can be retrospective, it has to be published and it is not disallowable. Proposed subsection (11) deals with the circumstances of a company ceasing to be registered under the Corporations Act. Proposed subsection (13) limits the time in which the minister can exercise the power to either designate a company or to revoke such a designation. That power would commence with the commencement of this schedule, which I think is to be in March 2008, and would cease to have effect from 30 June 2008. My question is: given subsection (12) reads, ‘Until the first declaration under subsection (1) takes effect, nominated company B is the designated company for the purposes of this act,’ isn’t it the case that, if the minister makes no designation for the period between 1 March 2008 and 30 June 2008, nominated company B remains the holder of the single desk power and will be able to export without permit? The only difference from the previous circumstances will be that it will not have the power of veto. Is that a correct understanding of the legislation?

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

The situation is that if the grower entity does not get up, if I can use that term, by 1 March 2008, further legislation will be needed before 30 June.

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

No, I am asking about this legislation. In the event that there is no other legislation, for whatever reason, do I correctly understand this bill to provide that, in the absence of a designation under 3AA(1), within that window that nominated company B—that is AWB—is the designated company and that cannot be changed without a bill going through this parliament?

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

We are expecting the growers to come up with their own company—

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

Why won’t you answer the question?

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

and while—

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

Senator O’Brien interjecting—

The Temporary Chairman:

Order, Senator O’Brien!

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

In my very next breath I was going to say: chances are Senator O’Brien is technically correct, which is why the veto cannot return. As I said, we do not expect that to happen and the Prime Minister has said that further legislation would be undertaken if that were deemed to be the case.

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

The next question I have goes to schedule 5. Why are there no accountability provisions which relate back to the minister’s use of the temporary veto power? What measures are there to guard against conflict of interest? Why is it necessary to require the regulator to obtain written permission from the minister before providing permission to export? Those questions are ones I would appreciate an answer to so we can progress the committee stage of this debate.

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

There were about three or so questions in that so—

The Temporary Chairman:

Minister, you will stand if you are seeking to address the committee.

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

There were about three or so questions in that bracket and I will try to get some information. First of all, I understand that the minister is subject to the ADJR in relation to the administrative decisions that he might take in relation to this matter.

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

The other question that I asked was: what measures are there in the legislation to guard against conflict of interest in terms of the minister’s exercising of his power?

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

There are basic normal provisions; I am not sure exactly where they are. In relation to any minister dealing with legislation or issues under his or her control there are requirements that they avoid conflicts of interest. That is something I am sure the minister would keep in mind.

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

Could the minister explain why it is necessary to require the regulator to obtain written permission from the minister before providing permission to export under section 60(1) of the legislation?

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

I would imagine, and I am sure the advisers box will correct me, but it is undoubtedly to remove any doubt and to make absolutely sure that there cannot be any questions, or not as many questions—I suppose I had better be careful; being a lawyer, you can always ask questions. What is the old saying? A fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer. But this provision undoubtedly would reduce the number of questions that might be able to be asked about the particular granting of a licence.

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

I have two questions that relate to a matter I raised earlier, which I do not believe has been satisfactorily answered. I would like it explained why the Grains Council of Australia, as the peak body for compulsory consultation, has been removed and why the legislation also removes the requirement for compulsory consultation and reporting to the wheat industry?

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

The provision was made to avoid the inconsistency of the Export Wheat Commission as an independent statutory commission being compelled by legislation to consult with one particular organisation.

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

I appreciate that part of the answer, but why does the legislation remove the requirement for compulsory reporting to the industry?

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

It is, I am advised, a legislative requirement to report to growers more widely.

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

Can the minister draw our attention to that provision?

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

I cannot, but I am sure vicariously, or whatever the term is, I will be able to in due course. And I am now in a position to do so. On page 4 we have clause 5C ‘Reports about nominated company B’s performance’. There is then a subheading ‘Report for Minister’. Over the page, on page 5, you find ‘Report for growers’ and subsections (3) and (4) deal with that. They say:

(3)

The Authority must prepare and publish a report for growers each financial year in relation to:

(a)

nominated company B’s performance in relation to the export of wheat for the year; and

(b)

the benefits to growers that resulted from that performance.

(4)

The Authority must publish the report for a financial year on or before 31 December in the next financial year.

This is in the act.

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

Are those provisions relevant to the Export Wheat Commission’s functions?

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

Yes.

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

The opposition opposes items (1) and (2) on sheet 5312 in the following terms:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 3 (line 2) to page 6 (line 15), TO BE OPPOSED.

(2)    Schedules 3 to 6, page 8 (line 2) to page 41 (line 23), TO OPPOSED.

Labor remain of the view that this legislation package is a shambles. It is clear now that there has not been adequate consultation with growers. It is clear that, in respect of some of the provisions, there was not adequate consultation with the Grains Council before reference to them was removed from the legislation. Labor would have sympathy for a number of provisions in this legislation, but we have no confidence in the totality of the package. We do not seek to oppose schedule 2, which is the extension of the veto power, consistent with all we have said, but we believe that the rest of this bill should be set aside. The government could reintroduce legislation—indeed, a committee could inquire into these measures and report by the resumption of the Senate in August, when these matters could be properly dealt with. That remains our view; hence we feel it would be inappropriate not to oppose these schedules.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that schedule 1 and schedules 3 to 6 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

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

I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 5307:

(1)      Clause 2, page 2 (cell at table item 4, column 2), omit the cell, substitute:

                 The day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.

This amendment relates to the date from which the provisions that deregulate bagged and containerised wheat would apply. The opposition sees no reason for a delay in this regard. If the government is content for these provisions to go ahead, for the deregulation to occur, we see no reason to delay it. We see no justification in the measures which are said to justify the delay, there already being a variety of measures which relate to the quality of any goods exported from the country and particularly those that are administered by AQIS. We believe that, in respect of the commercial arrangements that are entered into, the measures which are placed around the export of containerised or bagged wheat are simply cost impositions that serve little or no purpose and in fact restrain the so-called deregulation of the wheat that would be permitted to be exported without an export permit; in other words, a backdoor constraint on the so-called deregulation.

The operative date would be no problem for the industry; indeed, that is the information which has been received by my office. There is no need for an extensive period to consider the matters which the government says necessitate the 60 days. We believe it is appropriate at this time that, if this amendment is accepted, it be given effect immediately the bill has received royal assent.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question is that amendment (1) moved by Senator O’Brien be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

Schedule 1, item 2 is the specific provision that permits the commission or authority to request a report—sections 5DA and 5DB. As I said earlier, the amendments do not address long-held concerns that the regulator is toothless. Why didn’t the government give the regulator power to require rather than simply to request? What power will the regulator have if the corporation or person fails to comply? I say again that one of the problems with the Wheat Export Authority’s monitoring of AWB was that they had just such a problem—their power to require material information was constantly thwarted and they needed to negotiate a memorandum of understanding with AWB to get access to material on terms agreeable to AWB. Now we see a provision in the bill that, for the future, puts a similar problem directly in the path of the authority. Therefore it is inappropriate that this matter proceed in the way that has been proposed, which is why we seek to amend those provisions by including in them the word ‘require’ rather than ‘request’. In that regard we will be keen to press that document further.

Progress reported.