Senator FORSHAW (6:09 PM) —I indicate at the outset that the opposition will not be supporting these amendments. I will make a few comments shortly as to why. My colleague Senator O'Brien will be dealing in a bit more detail with the specific issues relating to this proposal and the general issue of the structure of the companies.

I listened to Senator Crane's contribution and, whilst I do not want to rehash the debate about who has agreed with what, I think it is pretty clear from his contribution that he recognises that there is not perfect unanimity—if I may use that phrase—across the industry. We believe that the level of disagreement between the key grower organisations in the states is still of sufficient magnitude that it is a matter of concern. But we nevertheless accept that there is a model on the table that has been negotiated over a period of time, that is, the current proposal to abolish the WIF and restructure the Wheat Board into two separate companies with different share regimes and so on—the `grower corporate model', as I think it is referred to.

We recognise that this is the case, albeit we are concerned that, as we indicated in the earlier debates, a major organisation within the industry is not happy with that proposal. They have been looking at either putting up an alternative model, such as the cooperative model that they briefly discussed before the committee when they gave evidence, or possibly reworking the grower corporate model that was adopted by the Grains Council. I am not aware, nor am I privy to any information as of today's date, that the Western Australian Farmers Federation are in any different position from the position where they were when they talked to me last Friday.

Senator Crane —Except I quoted from the letter.

Senator FORSHAW —That is why I referred to your remarks, Senator Crane, and wanted to come back to them. One of the concerns that I have about the process and where we are at is that, as Senator Woodley stated earlier, it is as if, having required of the industry that they reach consensus on the model that they want, responsibility has nevertheless been thrown on the Senate to make certain determinations on issues that the industry itself cannot get full agreement on, such as this one. That is a task we now have to deal with because of the earlier decision of the Senate.

Senator Crane—unfortunately, he has just left the chamber, but I hope he is listening or maybe someone can let him know what I am saying—stated in his contribution that, in the evidence presented to the committee, there was an acceptance by Mr Iffla, who is the President of the Grains Section of the Western Australian Farmers Federation, of propositions put forward by the Grains Council on the issues that are still in dispute.

I have just done a quick check of the Hansard and I cannot see where Mr Iffla has indicated acceptance on the part of his organisation of these critical questions. He did say quite clearly that he was looking for more time because he felt there was potential either to develop the grower cooperative model or to find a way to work within and amend the structure. Perhaps when Senator Crane comes back in he can enlighten me of what he says is `on the record' in respect of Mr Iffla's evidence. I am at a loss to find it.

As I understand it, Senator Margetts, in her contribution, also referred to representatives of the West Australian farmers having been camped in her office for a couple of weeks. I do not dispute that. It is only a minor point. It is just that I am not too sure who the people were in my office and in Senator O'Brien's office for a fair bit of the time. And, when they were not there, they were in Senator Woodley's office or in my colleague Mr O'Keefe's office. The only office apparently that they were not in was that of the minister, John Anderson, and that is unfortunate. He is the person they should have been able to see about resolving this issue. But apparently they were not having much luck there. I am digressing and getting into hypotheticals.

I understand that the amendments put forward by Senator Margetts may seek to accommodate some of the concerns of representatives of WAFF. Working within the model upon which the legislation is based, we cannot agree to that proposal for some of the reasons that she has advanced herself, that is, the legislation has been put on the table at the last minute. I do not in any way criticise the Greens for that. I agree with the comments that Senator Margetts has made. I believe her criticism of the government is well founded, that is, it has only been in the last week or so that any party other than the government would have had any opportunity to try to put amendments together.

As I said, when I walked out of this building last Friday I ran into representatives of the Western Australian Farmers Federation. They were asking me, `Is this matter coming back on next week? Where is it at? What is happening with the legislation? We are still trying to reach an accommodation on their proposals.' We do not see any value in jumping out of the frying pan into the fire by simply adopting the proposal that is put forward in these amendments. In other words, whilst we recognise the problems are still there with the Western Australian Farmers Federation, faced with no other option, we have to support the proposals that have been put forward in the bill in respect of the share issues and the company structure. Other than that, I will leave any further remarks to my colleague Senator O'Brien.