Mr WINDSOR (8:07 PM) —I move:

Part 6 - Registered wheat growers to be given opportunity to vote on options for change

This amendment ensures that growers are asked their views. We have had a debate in which all the speakers have spoken about how the growers are the important people in this debate. But in all cases the growers are not going to be consulted. The only effective way to consult the growers in relation to these changes to the veto rights and the wheat marketing arrangements into the future is to put the options by way of letter to the growers so that they can vote on how they feel. That does not bind the government to anything. It gives the minister, the government and the cabinet a clear view of the judgement of the wheat growers on the options that are being presented by way of letter to those growers. The minister said in the parliament about 10 minutes ago that he intends to write to every wheat grower letting them know that there are going to be some changes and that if they feel they would like to voice their views they should do so. I think there has to be a much better structured system than that.

The other point that I made earlier was that if the minister and the Deputy Prime Minister trust the National Farmers Federation and the Grains Council of Australia on this issue then they run the risk of divorcing the interests of the growers. We have seen what the National Farmers Federation have done in the past in the Telstra debate, where they have gone against the wishes of their constituents. We have seen what the Grains Council of Australia have done in the biofuels debate, where they have actually been more concerned about the cattle producers and the motorists of Australia than the grain growers of Australia. That is a fatal trap if the debate about what growers want is left solely to the representatives in the National Farmers Federation and the Grains Council of Australia.

Some National Party members a moment ago suggested that the way to do this is for the backbenchers to consult with their growers in their various regions and bring those issues back to the parliament. That is great in theory. I say to those backbenchers: look at the political process. Look at how the numbers work in terms of the debate. Look at how many members are actually in the country. And also look at what happened in the Telstra debate, where those very same backbenchers went out and listened, heard and then voted against their constituents. This debate is crucial to the wheat growers of Australia. They must be embraced in the process by way of a poll; they must be given the right to give an indication to the government of which way they would lean. As I said, the government does not have to take that on board, but it would give a clear indication of where the growers are on this. I am very disappointed in the Labor Party’s view on this. I think they have taken a very short-sighted view, and I think it indicates to growers out there that they are not too interested in the outcome either.

If we are really interested in the future of export wheat marketing arrangements, which are going to impact on something like 22,000 wheat growers across Australia, the only way is to develop the arguments. Mr Tuckey had one argument about the Wheat Export Authority taking the veto and determining who would be the various exporters or whether there would be a single desk or whether that desk would have several chairs around it. No doubt there will be other options as well, and so there should be. We should be debating those options. But in the end it should be the growers of Australia who determine the outcome—not the minister, not some debate in a party room somewhere where city majorities and business interests can probably outweigh the grower interests, not the National Farmers Federation or the Grains Council who have divorced themselves from the process. (Extension of time granted)

Honourable members interjecting—

Mr WINDSOR —This is a very important debate. The argument I have just put is being supported by the reaction of some of these people who could not care less about the future of wheat growers. Well, I do, and I think the debate needs to be put in a context where those growers can have some say. That is exactly the reaction that growers are going to get if they are not consulted about this process. So I urge the minister and the government to consult with growers by way of a poll. If you are sending them a letter, send them some substance. As I said earlier in the debate, I intend to poll them anyway. If the government will not do it and the Labor Party are not supportive, I will do it, and that will become part of the political process. We have to make sure that the wheat growers of Australia are protected in this process and not carted away in some sort of political sideshow that could occur if those interests are seen to be in second place.

The SPEAKER —The question is that the amendment moved by the member for New England be agreed to. Is a division required? Ring the bells for four minutes.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

The SPEAKER —As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question negatived. In accordance with standing order 127, the names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. The question now is that the bill be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill agreed to.