WHEAT MARKETING (EXPIRY) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 May 2013.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:03): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the Wheat Marketing (Expiry) Amendment Bill 2013. I am a bit concerned about some of the direction that was taken to get to this path, but I am very pleased with the final outcome. I note, Mr Speaker, that I am the lead speaker on this bill. It has been a slightly tortuous process, but I think we have come to the best outcome that we can, with all the circumstances that have arisen along the way.

I note that in the other place, on 2 May 2013, minister Gago introduced this bill, the Wheat Marketing (Expiry) Amendment Bill 2013, and the whole purpose of this bill is to seek to repeal the Wheat Marketing Act 1989. Our understanding is that repealing the Wheat Marketing Act will not impact on the South Australian Grains Industry Trust, as it can stand alone with its own new funding arrangements, and there is no reason to retain the Wheat Marketing Act in order to collect contributions to the SAGIT fund. Repealing the Wheat Marketing Act will not impact on the collection of the voluntary contributions for grain research and development.

The Primary Industry Funding Schemes Act 1998 (PIFS Act) currently provides mechanisms for these voluntary contributions. Grain industry stakeholders have agreed to the collection of contributions moving from the Wheat Marketing Act to the primary industry funding scheme. I understand that the government proposes to repeal the Wheat Marketing Act on the day the PIFS Act grains research scheme commences to avoid any interruption to the collection of contributions or the operations of the South Australian Grain Industry Trust.

I note that our shadow minister in the other place, the Hon. David Ridgway, has consulted with Malcolm Buckby, a former member of this place, who now runs a business called Rural Services. Malcolm Buckby advised David that the South Australian Grain Industry Trust supports the bill, and the bill is seen as part of the transition of the South Australian Farmers Federation to Primary Producers South Australia. I note that Grain Producers South Australia (GPSA) also supports the bill after the somewhat arduous and tortuous process at times to get to this place.

Part of the repealing of this act obviously has to do with the Australian Wheat Board, which is no longer a government body but privately run, and I will give a bit of history of AWB Limited. AWB Limited was a major grain marketing organisation, and it was a government body known as the Australian Wheat Board until 1 July 1999. That was when the AWB morphed into a private company owned by wheat growers. In 2010, AWB was acquired by the Canadian firm Agrium, and in 2011 the company changed its name to Agrium Asia Pacific Limited.

I note that the AWB exports into more than 50 countries, with Australian exports worth up to $5 billion per year. This is taken from figures supplied by the AWB in 2006. As the farmers certainly on this side of the house would be aware, the AWB had veto power over any other prospective exporters of wheat, which effectively eliminated competition on the export market for Australian wheat, thereby capturing freight differentials. This was known as the single desk. There was much debate about the removal of the single desk, but it has happened and we must move on. The exports are typically managed through commodity pools, and the beneficial interest in the export grain is distributed to participants or the farmers who take part in that commodity pool.

To give a bit of background history of the Australian Wheat Board, it was founded in the late 1930s to regulate the wheat market after the excesses of the Great Depression. This refers back to when the single desk was created, and it dates back to this period. This arrangement was not unique to Australia, as there was a similar arrangement in Canada, where the Canadian Wheat Board was created in 1935 in a similar fashion.

For much of its early history the AWB was a government run and owned company. As indicated earlier, from July 1999 its board was restructured into a private company. It offered A-class shares to those who met its definition of growers and who had the ability to elect the majority of its board and chairpersons, and from August 2001 class B shares were publicly traded on the Australian Stock Exchange. In 2008, constitutional amendments were passed and, despite resistance from several wheat lobbies and industry groups, it consolidated ownership of AWB into one type of share, giving growers no special consideration.

This change was proposed by the AWB management as necessary to have a simpler and lower-risk business model. Since the AWB has been privatised, it has grown to incorporate a number of subsidiaries to diversify its income away from its wheat exports. Those businesses include GrainFlow, to manage collection of grain, companies to ship the grain overseas to customers, and Landmark rural services. By its own estimation, AWB classes itself as a grower-owned and controlled company.

It is interesting to note, we have also seen the barley board deregulated over the last decade or so, and there were certainly different opinions in line with that. It is also interesting to note that the South Australian Cooperative Bulk Handling went to AusBulk, it then went to the Australian Barley Board, with ownership of not just the single desk but the assets—about 111 sites in South Australia to receive grain—a Canadian company then purchased the company, that being Viterra, and now we see a Swiss-based company, Glencore, a multinational, take over Viterra but still keeping the Viterra branding. So, things have moved on significantly in the grains industry in this state, especially in the last decade.

I want to go over a bit more history with regard to the Wheat Marketing Act 1989. It has become, essentially, largely redundant legislation. The commonwealth parliament in December 2012 passed legislation which has abolished the wheat exporter accreditation scheme, effectively fully deregulating bulk wheat exports. The only useful purpose for the Wheat Marketing Act 1989 is to provide the head of power authorising the collection of voluntary contributions for the grains research fund, administered by the South Australian Grain Industry Trust. The grains industry fund, also established under the Wheat Marketing Act 1989, which was the SAFF Grains Section Fund, has been replaced by a new fund established under the Primary Industry Funding Schemes Act 1998.

Prior to August 2011, the contribution rate in the early days was originally 2¢ per tonne when it was established in 1989, this is the SAFF fund I am talking about, and this rate was increased to 5¢ sometime before 2008. The South Australian Farmers Federation grains committee, under elected chairman Michael Schaefer, did not want the rate increased above 5¢ from 2008 until the group and the levy was autonomous from the South Australian Farmers Federation board control.

In February 2011, the SAFF grains committee commissioned a survey of South Australian grain growers which found strong support for a levy-based system to fund advocacy. It also found that the majority of fund contributors (grain growers) wanted to vote for the committee to represent them. However, they were not all members of the South Australian Farmers Federation. In September 2011, a grower meeting was held in Adelaide to discuss the way the 5¢ levy was administered by SAFF.

The meeting was arranged by the current SAFF grains committee and previous chairs of the committee. I note Michael O'Brien called them 'the luminaries' and there was a photo on the front of the Stock Journal. These included such luminaries as Malcolm Sargent, Tom Saint, Michael Schaefer, Greg Schulz, Jeff Arney, John Lush, James Rackham, Jamie Smith, Andrew Inglis and our own Peter Treloar, the member for Flinders. The meeting resolved to establish an autonomous grains body to represent all South Australian producers and to look to work under the SAFF banner whilst representing all fund contributors, not just SAFF members. A steering committee of John Lush, Jeff Arney, Jamie Smith and Darren Arney was formed to explore establishing an autonomous South Australian grains group.

In September 2011, a survey of growers was conducted in South Australia, and this went out to around 5,000 farmers with a return rate of 1,100. In that survey, there was 87 per cent support for the proposal put up by Grain Producers South Australia. In October 2011, Grain Producers South Australia and the South Australian Farmers Federation reached an in-principle agreement for GPSA, as an autonomous body, to manage the Wheat Marketing Act 5¢ funds (the levy funds) and to pay some of those funds to SAFF for a seat on the SAFF board.

This agreement was reconfirmed at a meeting in Parliament House the following week with Minister O'Brien who was the agriculture minister at the time, but subsequently SAFF walked away from this agreement. During this time, the SAFF grains committee continued to function; however, relationships between the committee and the board (and GPSA and the SAFF board) were strained, to say the least. Wheat Marketing Act funds from PIRSA to SAFF were quarantined.

Around that time in October 2011, Grain Growers Limited (a national body) did a deal with the South Australian Farmers Federation to access SAFF database and, in return, SAFF would get a seat at the National Farmers Federation through Grain Growers Limited. GGL wrote to SAFF database making them members of GGL, unless they opted out by writing back. It was noted that there was no communication between Grain Growers Limited and Grain Producers South Australia.

On 22 December 2011, Grain Producers SA Ltd was incorporated and funding for Grain Producers South Australia activities were sourced from loans from some grain producers and Darren Arney himself, who is the executive officer. Just for the record, Darren Arney was my agronomist in a former life when I was managing the farm.

In February 2012, the SAFF grains committee was sacked and replaced with a grains management committee. In March 2012, the Primary Industry Funding Schemes (grains) was introduced, with a contribution rate set at 5¢ per tonne and the Wheat Marketing Act SAFF levy rate set to zero, so we did not have double dipping. The minister, as was her discretion at the time, wound the rate back to zero.

The AGM for Grain Producers South Australia was held in that same month. I was very pleased to speak at that annual general meeting, with Garry Hansen being elected as chairman—and to declare my interest, Garry Hansen is a very good operator and is my next-door neighbour at Coomandook. The board comprised members such as Max Wilksch, Malcolm Sargent, Gary Flohr, Jamie Smith, Brett Roberts and Mark Schilling.

In May 2012, minister Gago instructed SAFF to share equally the Wheat Marketing Act funds held by PIRSA and in SAFF, which at that time were around $660,000 between GPSA and SAFF. Loans to Darren Arney were repaid and outstanding amounts owed to the SAFF grains committee and the GPSA steering committee were paid from the GPSA share.

In May/June 2012, there was consultation by Primary Industry and Resources South Australia around the primary industry funding scheme grain management plan. This was conducted by Neil Howells, with six meetings around the state. I attended one of those meetings at Karoonda and there was an online survey with input sought from all industry stakeholders, including the Grains Industry Association South Australia.

In September 2012, the GPSA survey of growers around priority projects was conducted and the survey also asked about support for a levy-based collection system and the contribution rate. There were 224 respondents with very strong support for all growers to contribute to advocacy and the contribution rate to be set at an average of 22¢. I did see the result of this survey and it was interesting to note that some growers wanted that rate set as high as $1 per tonne to make sure that grain growers had the right funding coming in to advocate for the grains industry.

As part of the PIFS plan there has to be a management plan and that was released by minister Gago in October 2012. In November 2012, the contribution rate for this scheme was increased to 20¢ per tonne and it was implemented for the 2012-13 harvest.

In April 2013, the South Australian Farmers Federation forwarded the Wheat Marketing Act funds to Grain Producers South Australia on the day of the SAFF general meeting. GPSA had been invoicing SAFF on a monthly basis from October 2012 for work carried out on behalf of grain growers. In May 2013, the application for projects was called for and GPSA's application for funds was submitted, and there is an anticipated drawdown of funds in July 2013.

A bit of other history in regard to part of the events leading to this day: in April 2013, the South Australian Grain Industry Trust trust deed was varied by SAFF, GPSA and the government to have GPSA as the appointees of the grower trustees. In line with that, David Shannon was appointed trustee to SAGIT in May 2013, and Tanya Morgan, one of my constituents from the Mallee, was appointed as a specialist adviser.

Going back a little earlier on in the history of this arrangement, in early 2012, the South Australian Farmers Federation hired consultant Rob Kerin, ex-premier from this place, to head a review of the SAFF. In the SAFF August 2012 AGM, they moved to look at changes to the SAFF constitution, and Roger Farley was elected the new president of the South Australian Farmers Federation. At that stage, SAFF was supportive of commodity groups including Grain Producers SA, and Garry Hansen was elected chair of the SAFF grains committee.

On 29 April 2013, the SAFF general meeting resolved to change the constitution to become a commodity member organisation and changed its name to Primary Producers South Australia. Grain Producers South Australia is a member of Primary Producers South Australia. I will comment more on this later, but this is a landmark moment for South Australia, especially South Australian producers, not only of grain but also livestock, horticulture and all commodities grown on primary production properties in this state. In order for the South Australian Grain Industry Trust to keep getting funding, it will not come from the Wheat Marketing Act but from the Primary Industry Funding Schemes grain research fund.

Wheat Marketing Act funds have been used over time by the SAFF grains committee and Grain Producers SA to fund advocacy and projects, and I will go through a list of projects, which include: natural resource management; impact of carbon pricing and carbon farming; South Australian Barley Advisory Committee; Grain Stewardship Program; occupational health, safety and wellbeing; education and training; young farmers and the future; Communication and Grower Consultation Framework; fees for affiliation of relevant industry bodies; grain freight and logistics plan; grain receival standards and quality control; review market information availability; review and evaluation of grain marketing products; increased competition in grain markets in South Australia; improved access and efficiency of port facilities; pollination of broadacre crops, which is becoming a more and more serious question; Thevenard port terminal access; promotion of agriculture to customers and community; pre and post harvest technical forums; biosecurity; farm machinery code of practice update; and dissemination of project outcomes to fund contributors. This is just part of the list of actions that have been taken from this fund.

I am pleased to say that some of these proposals and this work are a result of suggestions from the Select Committee on the Grain Handling Industry (which I was a member of), as well as the establishment of the wheat export task force, and the new mandatory code for port access, which is being worked through. I just want to note material that comes from a GPSA press release about when David Shannon was appointed as a new SAGIT trustee, and the South Australian Grain Industry Trust chairman Jim Heaslip welcomed the appointment of David Shannon as a new trustee to the SAGIT. I note that Mr Shannon is a sheep and grain farmer at Kapunda in South Australia and, as the member for Schubert said, one of his constituents—also at Marrawah—in Tasmania, with extensive experience in the agricultural industry. He has a long history of industry representation, including as Southern Region Panel chairman of the Grains Research and Development Corporation for nine years and Southern Region Panel member for an additional 10 years. I quote from Mr Heaslip:

David has contributed significantly to grains research and development over many years and we welcome his experience and knowledge to the SAGIT trust.

The Chairman of Grain Producers South Australia Limited made the comment that they were fortunate to have such committed and progressive grain farmers in South Australia, that are prepared to foster research and development in the grains industry. Mr Shannon joins the other trustees at SAGIT, Jim Heaslip, Chairman, Michael Treloar and Linda Eldredge.

I note that Mr Shannon was selected following a public advertisement placed in the Stock Journal in March this year. The selection panel comprised members of SAGIT and GPSA, who interviewed some exceptional candidates for the position. As part of the modernisation of SAGIT, the selection committee recognised the particular skills set of Tanya Morgan and have appointed her to the trust as a special adviser. Ms Morgan is currently a member of the SAGIT Project Management Committee.

This grain trust is currently funding about $1.4 million worth of research in South Australia per year, conducted locally in South Australia on South Australian grains issues. Since its inception, the South Australian Grain Industry Trust has invested more than $17 million on research on behalf of South Australian farmers, and this is further augmented by leveraging funds from the GRDC, the Australian Research Council, governments, and private sources, which effectively more than doubles the SAGIT investment.

I note, for the record, that this demonstrates how closely, under the new model, Grain Producers South Australia and the Grain Industry Trust are working together; both the Chairman of SAGIT and Mr Hansen from Grain Producers South Australia have welcomed the appointment. I think that certainly shows how the grain industry is moving forward. It will be very supportive of the repeal of this act.

In closing, I will make a few comments about how we got to where we are today. There have been some tumultuous times in farming advocacy, especially in the last two to three years. Obviously there have been differences of opinion between the SAFF board and the SAFF grain committee that caused a lot of duress and, sadly, I think this brought about the ultimate end of the South Australian Farmers Federation.

I was heavily involved, and not just as a local member. At the time I was the shadow minister for agriculture, working opposite minister Gago and offering support to the minister to make sure that this mess was fixed—because it needed to be fixed. We need an advocacy group in South Australia but, sadly, with the dysfunctionality with regard to what was happening internally in SAFF it was, quite frankly, just a disaster.

Years before this people were leaving the membership of SAFF in droves, and when the question was asked of the former chair Peter White or Carol Vincent, the former chief executive officer, it was always very hard to answer what the true number of members were in the SAFF. In fact, I believe that when that question was asked in a senate committee the answer was refused. You have to ask questions as to why that happened, but I think that just exemplified some of the frustrations that people had with what was happening at SAFF. I know there are always two sides to an argument—sometimes there are three, and sometimes there are more than that—but it was quite dysfunctional.

I must commend the work done by Rob Kerin to get this moving ahead. I would also like to commend Roger Farley, who knew he would go down in history as the last president of the South Australian Farmers Federation, but he also knew he had a job to do to transform the advocacy group into a new group.

Along the way, there were different people saying, 'There is another way that it can be done; there are other structures that can be put in place', but structuring the funding of commodities under the Primary Industry Funding Scheme was the one that—I think there were only two votes in it on that day in April, so it was very close to a unanimous decision—the different commodity groups could use, with a voluntary contribution, to help fund advocacy on behalf of those groups.

There have been six groups set up under that scheme, but some, such as the South Australian Dairy Association, are still membership-based groups. It is up to those groups, and they have representatives on the next body up (the Primary Producers Council), which will advocate and is advocating on behalf of farmers on cross-commodity issues, whether they be transport arrangements, access arrangements or other state-based arrangements that will affect farmers as we move ahead.

I would just like to congratulate everyone involved in the process. I would like to congratulate South Australian farmers for making a very, very firm decision on where advocacy goes in this state. For a while there, it was looking as though it would just be left to different commodity groups to do their own thing. I know some of that had happened over time; people in different groups had moved away from the South Australian Farmers Federation, but now I think we will see more people coming back when they see the strength of having an organisation.

I think it is very vital that we have a lobby group or an advocacy group, whether to lobby opposition or government, or to get the message out to the media. Certainly, for those three groups (the media, the government and the opposition), it is far better to contact one organisation than be chasing all over the place to find out who is speaking on behalf of farmers.

I fully commend what happened with the changes, and I think it will set up a plan for farming groups across the country. There are funding problems right across the board, and what has happened here in South Australia could lead to new legislation in other states and new funding arrangements to give farmers' groups a stronger voice. They do need to have a voice, because sadly a lot of people, for whatever reason, think their food just turns up in the supermarket aisles in Cryovac packs and milk cartons, and they have no idea where it comes from.

I will say that the opposition supports the passing of the Wheat Marketing (Expiry) Amendment Bill, because it is redundant: things have moved on; the wheat board has moved on; and the funding schemes have moved on. I wish the industry as a whole all the best for the future.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:34): I, as always, declare my interest in this debate, as a grain grower. I also want to declare that my brother Max was chairman of AusBulk and then director of Viterra. Indeed, my father was chairman of CBH for many years. This bill predominantly changes the way levies are distributed, but only in name; it is the same. The member for Hammond has very clearly laid out the case, and I will not repeat any of that, but he has done it very well and I congratulate him. It remains a voluntary levy collected at the point of delivery on all grains, particularly wheat, barley, legumes, triticale and the rest.

I support this move as part of the total restructure of the grain industry, and I note that the funds will be distributed equally between SAGIT and Grains Producers SA, the new grain section of Primary Producers SA—the new body. At least half of the old structure remains there, and I pay tribute to SAGIT and to Mr Jim Heaslip, the chairman, and the work they do, because their record stands as proof of their effectiveness. The growers are happy to pay their levies because they can see the results. I pay huge tribute to them. After all, these people are farmers themselves; you cannot get better than that.

I wish GPSA good luck, as it was the old grain section that caused the meltdown in that section that caused the demise of the South Australia Farmers Federation. That was sad indeed because I had a lot of faith in that organisation, even though I had a few rows with them at the finish. I did not want to see them gone, but they have. I hope we have learned from what happened and, whatever the future holds, the growers have to be considered to be the final arbiter of industry-changing decisions.

We heard a quote from the grain section at the time, and I will never forget this. It echoes with me. Farmers were told by the grain section at the time, 'We gave farmers what they needed, not what they wanted.' That was the single reason why the membership crashed overnight. They just felt things were being shoved down their throats by people on committees who were actually on the payroll of grain marketers. It would not stand the light of day. These accusations have been made before but, anyway, that is all history. It is done, but you see where we have ended up now. To GPSA, good luck. I just hope it is all going to happen.

It is sad indeed to realise that the old AWB has now gone as such—this is probably the last time we will mention the AWB in this place—and so has the ABB (Australian Barley Board), which was a solely owned and managed South Australian company, the largest company in South Australia at the finish. It was headquartered here in Adelaide. I do not want to repeat this in any great detail, but this house did not support the retaining of the single desk for barley and that really was the beginning of the end. I will not repeat the names and the places; the member for Hammond has just done that and did it well, as I said.

We now see many grain marketers operating, and I welcome very much the competition in the marketplace. I am pleased that the Western Australian grain co-op, CBH, is coming into South Australia, because farmers are desperate to get together and market cooperatively as they can see what happens when you have a massive company like Glencore, which has now bought Viterra. We have had two changes of hands in a matter of four years.

They are a huge company. Glencore is so big that they can take on major superpowers and win, and they are doing it every day. I note in yesterday's media that they were taking on an iron ore contract with some foreign government, and they have a habit of winning because they are so huge and they are now in control of our marketing in South Australia. I think the co-op, CBH Western Australia—the same as we used to have—is gradually moving in here and I do really welcome them.

This is probably my last bash on this issue and subject in this parliament. I have made many speeches and moved motions on the issues of grain marketing over 23 years, and I have prepared three books with indexes which show quite clearly the warnings I continually gave, but apparently to no avail. The house abolished the bulk handling of barley act with only four MPs in this place supporting me. I proudly name them: the member for MacKillop (Mitch Williams), the member for Goyder (Steven Griffiths), the member for Stuart (the Hon. Graham Gunn), and then member for Flinders (Liz Penfold). All the rest fell away.

I fought and did everything possible to frustrate and barrage. In fact, I consider the cartoon that appeared in the Stock Journal as a badge of great honour because you can see there this massive thing is rolling down the hill and I have my hand holding this ball up the hill, but as it eventually got going I got squashed.

I believe we now have the worst results, but I am an old man and some say my opinion is yesterday's: okay, you might be right. I am old and I am retiring but all I can say to these young farmers out there is, 'Been there, done that.' I know what happens in the marketplace. I am probably going to be a grain trader myself when I leave this place because it is easy pickings out there if you have the storage. You pick up the grain when it is cheap and you use the cheap prices to push all the prices down. When you are dealing with a company as big as Glencore not only is it the gatherer of the product but it also stores it and controls the ports as well. How long can this be the case? How long can this go on?

That was a huge advantage for us over all those years as farmers. We all paid tolls and paid for the building of the silos and we also paid for the infrastructure at the ports, and the government did a very tidy deal with us on the ports so that we could control them as well. It was a pretty good outfit, a very good outfit. Neither this body nor the ABB paid tax either so it was really a very good deal. We have turned our back on all this. I am sorry, I might be blinkin' old but I am not exactly stupid—at least I do not think so.

We have this huge body nationally now called Glencore. As I said, it is huge by any standard. Not only is it the major collector and gatherer of grain in South Australia but it is a major international marketer. Being the owner of the silos, worse than that, it also has a monopoly over our grain ports. It has been okay so far but wait until there is an oversupply.

I want to make sure that any other marketer has access to the ports—and do it by legislation—but you have to be careful because there are always ways in which a major owner like Glencore can make it difficult for a third party operator. We have to be very vigilant about that. I think we will probably be revisiting that issue to make sure that it is totally open and transparent. Otherwise, I think we really need a new grain port in South Australia in the Mid North, particularly in the Wallaroo/Tickera area. I have always said that; it is an old hackneyed phrase of mine but we really need to look at that issue, connected with the rail.

Historically the Wheat Board had a huge influence over the South Australian and, indeed, the Australian economy. Governments assisted over the years and there is a lot of history about this. The parliament has served the industry very well. I pay credit to this parliament and the Australian parliament for acts like the Australian Wheat Stabilisation Act which basically guaranteed the prices and then banks could lend money to farmers knowing what the price of the product was going to be.

After what happened during the Depression in the 1930s, this gave the industry huge stability. It was an industry that was built up to what we have today. All power to the government, and all power to those people. The member for Hammond has already named many of those people back through history and I will name a couple of them, particularly Mr Herb Petrus from the Mallee who we used to call Mr Barley. Herb Petrus was Mr Barley. He was a good friend of my father's.

In the wheat industry it was Max Saint from Maitland—Mr Wheat. These guys were legends in South Australia and, of course, people like the Shanahans: Tom Shanahan, Michael Shanahan's father, and Michael himself as well. These people were great leaders in our industry. They would be rolling in their graves to see where we have ended up today. It does upset me.

It is amazing how, over the years, the parliaments have certainly recognised the importance of our industry. Yes, decisions have been made and I will be a member of the GPSA, as soon as I pay the levy (and I probably am already) but I give warning that it is a voluntary levy and if we see any repeat of what happened before I will ask for my money back. However, that would be a last resort and I hope that it will never happen. It is up to all of us to be involved with the process to make sure it does not.

That concerns me a little because as growers—the member for Hammond and the member for Stuart and I—we can now go along to the Grain Producers SA meeting. As growers—all of us—we are entitled to go and to have our say there but there is only one representative who goes from there to the major body, Primary Producers SA—only one. That is a worry, because how do you get your voice heard when there is only one voice to go through?

Previously, we could all go along to the annual general meeting of SAFF, all of us—and they used to be very well attended meetings—and have our say to any grain leader who was there, but that is now going to be denied to us. I say to GPSA and also Primary Industries of South Australia that there should be at least one function a year, open to all members, so we can speak to and look at the board members of the head body across the table and have discussions with them. I cannot see a problem with that at least once a year. There is nothing in the constitution that says we cannot. I think that would be a great move forward.

I am a member of the GPSA and, in retirement particularly, I will be keeping active there as much as possible. Like the member for Hammond, I pay tribute to Mr Jim Heaslip of SAGIT, and also Mr David Shannon, who was my constituent when I had my office in Kapunda. He is from a great family and he is a great leader in agriculture.

I also pay tribute to the Hon. Rob Kerin, who was a graduate of this place—in fact, an ex-premier—who played a major role in getting all this sorted out. One of our new leaders, Mr Hansen, who has been mentioned by the member for Hammond, has been involved with the grain industry for many years and I, certainly, admire him. I think only one of those people from the old grain section remains, and can I say, without naming him, that I think that person is okay. He comes from the Mid North, he is a tidy and good operator, and I have no problem with him being there. I want to put that on the record because I am on record somewhere else saying they all should go. I have no problem with his being there, and we will leave it at that.

We are now fully deregulated, and it is very sad that SAFF has gone. I do not think it needed to go because I believe it was a good body. I would have just rejigged it. I notice the previous minister for agriculture has just sat down. I believe SAFF was an excellent body, with a huge history, and it is sad to see it totally finished now. I believe it is not finished but has just been rebadged, because I notice the constitution remains the same. I was pleased about that because we did not want to rebuild an organisation totally. But it was a good body and I think it could have been reinvigorated.

I really do hope that I can never say, 'I told you so.' As I said earlier, that echoes with me, and all farmers in South Australia, because the old grain section said, 'We gave farmers what they needed, not what they wanted.' I rest my case. Sadly, and very reluctantly, I support this bill.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (11:47): I would like to indicate that I will be supporting the Wheat Marketing (Expiry) Amendment Bill. I have spoken to many in the grain-growing industry and there has been overwhelming support for the fact that this bill repeals the Wheat Marketing Act 1989 and replaces it with the Primary Industry Funding Scheme. This scheme basically allows for the collection of voluntary levies and has the support of the industry so I, therefore, support this bill.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (11:48): I, too, would like to make a contribution and I indicate I will be supporting the Wheat Marketing (Expiry) Amendment Bill, and also the fact that I need to declare an interest. For a long time, I was an active wheat grower and am still a registered wheat grower, although I do not have anything to do with the day-to-day operation of my wheat farm on Eyre Peninsula.

I was also involved very much, in the early part of the first decade of the 21^st century, in the South Australian Farmers Federation Grain Committee. I spent three years as a member and then, a couple of years after that, took on the role of chairman of that committee. I made a decision during that time not to finish my tenure because I was pre-selected as a candidate for the electorate of Flinders so I thought the only right and proper thing to do was to stand aside from what was essentially a lobby group funded by growers' contributions whose efforts were spent lobbying government.

With those interests declared, I would like to talk about the bill itself—not to dwell so much on the history and what has brought us to this moment because the previous speakers (the members for Hammond and Schubert) have done that admirably, and there is a lot of history leading to this moment.

There have been a number of grower representative organisations operating in this state. It has not just been the South Australian Farmers Federation, although that has been the most recent incarnation. That organisation has effectively wound up as a result of their last annual general meeting and we have a new and invigorated representative body known as Grain Producers South Australia (GPSA). Over the years—over the century, really—there have been a number of bodies. There have been changes in the industry in the past. This is just another change, just another incarnation of representation for what is a very vibrant and important industry in this state. Of course, I am not just talking about the wheat industry but the grain industry itself.

The agricultural sector makes a significant contribution, as we all know, to this state's export income. The electorate of Flinders, which I am proud to represent, contributes not an insignificant amount to the state's annual grain crop. Often about two million tonnes a year—and occasionally in a good year up to three million tonnes—comes from Eyre Peninsula, going towards a total state crop of somewhere between six and nine million tonnes generally.

The real challenge for our farmers and marketers, and I guess our representative bodies, is to ensure that we are able to place that product onto a world market in a competitive fashion. There is, for the most part, plenty of grain in the world. We are competing on the world stage, we are competing sometimes against producers who have subsidies and support from their governments that we do not have in this state. I am certainly not an advocate of subsidies. I just think it is important that we recognise some of our competitors are recipients of such things and we do not always operate on a level playing field. I suspect that we may never do that. Often it is more about fair trade rather than free trade, but that is probably a discussion for another day.

As I said, there have been many changes over the years. The expiry of this bill actually finalises an act that has been in place since 1991 and it was really in place amongst other things but its prime role was to raise levy funds to fund two bodies in particular. One was the South Australian Grain Industry Trust, which is responsible for allocating funds for research, and that is an important part. No industry can stay at the forefront, particularly in a competitive world, unless that research has been done.

South Australia has a long history of having very good research done in agriculture in the grain industry and for a good part of our history we have been at the very forefront, a world leader, in that research and development. SAGIT continues to put growers' funds into research and growers recognise the importance of that research. I think growers also recognise the importance but do not always see the extension of that research into the field. Once again, that is a discussion for another day.

The South Australian Grain Industry Trust continues. In fact, a new board member has been appointed recently in Mr David Shannon from Kapunda, a former Nuffield scholar and colleague of mine. Also my younger brother Michael has taken a role; Michael, whom the former minister for agriculture had a quick chat with in the field on Eyre Peninsula one day, along with—

The Hon. P. Caica: A good bloke.

Mr TRELOAR: —the leader group. I agree absolutely. They are all good blokes and they do a wonderful job. As well as the SAGIT levy, the levy was taken from growers and contributed by growers for the South Australian Farmers Federation Grains Committee. That was an active committee and very important in lobbying government. It was very active during a time of great change within the wheat industry when the single desk arrangements were being wound up.

We have heard the member for Schubert speak on that today and I know that he has been very passionate about it over a long period of time and has great corporate knowledge, not just going back through his long and illustrious public and farming career but also his father's. He brings that corporate knowledge to this place, and it is with dismay that he watches what is happening. I assure the member for Schubert that we can only move forward from here. We have reached a point where the industry and the representatives of that industry take on a different role, are reinvigorated and are part of representing a vibrant industry.

So the single desk arrangements for both wheat and barley—wheat nationally and barley in this state—were wound up. We saw changes in the structure of our corporate entities. The AWD, or the old Australian Wheat Board, became the AWB, issued shares and growers became shareholders. Everyone realised that that could have implications for the ownership of such a company. Probably nobody realised or suspected how quickly those changes would take place, but in fact many growers chose to divest themselves of their allocated shares. I cannot be critical of that either, because in many ways the allocation and corporatisation of those entities realised a lot of invested capital, realised capital for growers which they were able to utilise in whatever they chose.

The old ABB became AusBulk initially, but then there was amalgamation and it was reincarnated in the form of Viterra, and ultimately Glencore has become the most recent owner of that entity. It released capital funds and allowed growers to make decisions about how they might best use those funds. It funded a lot of retirements, it paid some school fees, and in some cases it even allowed farmers to remain in the industry, because times are not always easy on the farm and cash flow is critical, and if that is the decision farmers made, then so be it.

There has been a lot of consultation on this. Generally the industry as I see it is supportive of repealing the Wheat Marketing Act from 1991. There are new players now and new faces sitting around the table. Many of the old faces have disappeared and will remain active, I am sure, but with the expiry of this act a new regime comes into place under the primary industries funding scheme, which exists for other agricultural sectors as well. In fact almost every other agricultural sector, apart from the grain industry, has fallen under one of these PIF schemes acts, and now I guess the grain industry really has come to be a part of the same scheme as all the other sectors in agriculture.

Harmonisation is the word I am looking for, and we are harmonising much legislation at the moment, and this is just another effort to do that. It is not with some dismay from some members on this side that we see this happening, but I urge them to embrace the future. It is a vibrant and ever-changing industry, and the lobbying and representation of that industry continues to change as well.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:58): I will make just a brief contribution. I support this bill. I think it is the result of an evolutionary process that has occurred in relation to wheat. We need to remind ourselves how important is that industry as part of the wider grains industry. As I have said before here, my first job at the ripe old age of 14 was working on a farm at Alford, but horticulture is my preference over agriculture. I acknowledge the very great contribution made by grain producers, including obviously wheat producers, in this state.

I will mention a couple of issues. I notice that some of the funding will support grains research. I have been concerned in recent times that governments, at various levels, have cut back on research for different aspects of agriculture. If Australia, and South Australia in particular, want to be at the forefront of agricultural production, there has to be a continued focus on research and it has to be funded.

Excellent work is done at the Waite, but if you look around Australia there has been a general cutback in funding for agricultural research and I think we will come to regret that in years to come because if you do not keep advancing, in terms of new types of wheat or whatever, then you will eventually find, to your great cost, that you have a decline in yields and you are subject to climate variations and so on.

Another aspect that I would like to mention is the transporting of grain, which is still an issue throughout not only South Australia, but the other grain producing areas. There has been a switch to road because the rail network has been shut down. I think in some situations that has been regrettable because the cost-effective way to shift large quantities of grain is via rail. I was in Burra last week talking to people who would like to see that line reinstated, not only for carrying grain, but carrying ore from some of the mines which are likely to be developed there, as well as tourism.

I think this bill represents an evolutionary phase and, as members have pointed out, there will be some regrets from some farmers, but I think the reality is that this new arrangement makes sense, particularly since the commonwealth has changed the law as well, and so I support this bill.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (12:01): I will just make a brief contribution to support the expiry of the Wheat Marketing Act. I will not go back over other members' contributions. In December 2012, the commonwealth passed legislation to abolish the Wheat Export Accreditation Scheme, effectively fully deregulating bulk wheat exports, and so this meant that the Wheat Marketing Act 1989 was largely redundant legislation. The only useful purpose of the Wheat Marketing Act 1989 was to provide the head of power authorising the collection of voluntary contributions to the grain research fund administered by the South Australian Grains Industry Trust.

The grains industry fund, also established under the Wheat Marketing Act through the SAFF Grains Section Fund, has already been replaced by a new fund established under the Primary Industry Funding Schemes Act which came in during 1998 and so the change from SAFF to Primary Producers SA. In April this year the South Australian Farmers Federation disbanded following an industry meeting in Adelaide.

The decision comes as South Australian farmers struggle to meet acute levels of debt, to manage depreciation of land values and skyrocketing production costs. I think a lot of that was due primarily to the drought and that led to uncertainty; the perception of the members that they were not getting the value that they thought they should have. The new model has the potential to work better in the political arena, particularly with the good work of the Hon. Rob Kerin, to make a one-stop shop, and Primary Producers SA essentially will provide that one-stop shop.

It does create ease for government. It does create a go-to centre or a go-to organisation for lobbyists, for government to make decisions, for ministers to seek support for government policy, but it also helps with the grain producers themselves—the farmers that need the support. They need the mechanisms when decisions are being made. They need a go-to place to have their views and their concerns heard, and I think that Primary Producers SA will do that.

The new body under Primary Producers SA will represent the livestock, dairy, horticulture, wine grape and pork producers and other proposed commodities, and I think that most of these commodities organisations are like-minded. As a past chair of the South Australian Murray Irrigators, I can say that we were a one-stop shop for all irrigators in South Australia. Its worthiness was demonstrated by the fact that the media and the government would come to the organisation and that the irrigators themselves knew that, if they had a concern or if they had issues that needed to be dealt with, it was the place to go to.

I will speak a little about the background of the electorate of Chaffey. It has about 3,000 food producers, but it does have an emerging grain-growing industry. For many years, the Mallee has been widely regarded as marginal country, and rightly so, with very low rainfall. But through the good work of R&D, and field days, through the Murray Mallee dryland group, it has moved forward in leaps and bounds. I think that is the way in which representative groups need to be there. They need to provide representation, but they also need to give out good information and good feedback for the farming sector that relies on them. In today's environment, we are going to need that more and more in order to become cost effective and competitive but we also need to extract more out of less.

As I have said, in the marginal Mallee country we are seeing crops, particularly in the last five years, in terms of tonnage and quality of grain product, we would never have dreamed of taking away from that very marginal country 10 to 15 years ago. That is the result of groups working together and having good representation but also, importantly, that representation needs to be easily accessible and easily seen. I think they have proved that they are a worthy group in terms of extracting information and giving good information. When I say 'extracting', I mean extracting information from farmers to provide information to other farmers so that the farming groups can work together. When farming groups work together, they can benefit one another.

I think that it has been a competitive game forever, and a lot of farmers are reluctant to give up their advantage in relation to what they are doing on their property. It is about farmers looking over the fence at what is happening. It is about farmers getting around in their groups and getting around in their small field day exercises, looking over the fence and being able to access the information—exactly how and why. They can look at what their neighbour is doing and benefit from it. That is something that particularly the grain industry and horticulture and viticulture have all benefited from—that is, dropping the barriers and opening the gate for the neighbour to come in to have a look for him to benefit.

For a neighbour to be able to benefit from their neighbour's divulging evidence of their practice is good not only for the farmer but also for the region, and then it flows on. Then it is good for the state and, if it is good for the state, it is good for our economy, and what is good for our economy is good for everybody because it does have a significant flow-on effect.

Some of that research, development and extension work has been eroded over the last decade perhaps. We see government decisions where R&D particularly is an easy target with budgetary cuts. It is an easy target if it is not your priority; potentially, it is an easy target if it is not your voting population. Over the last four or five years, coming into this political sphere I have noted with great concern—and I do not want to point a finger at any particular government—that particularly for the last 10 years we have had a government that continues to defund programs, projects and research centres and to put the onus on industry.

I do not have a problem with industry taking ownership of what they are about, selling their products for the betterment of themselves and their organisations, but there also needs to be that independent arm giving out advice, giving out the good oil on where the industry is going, on where their markets can emerge and just exactly where the types and the varieties will be on demand. It is about sharing the information; it is about sharing the knowledge. It really is something that all commodities within agriculture, horticulture, and viticulture—all the food growing sectors—need to understand, that withholding information, withholding representation is not doing anyone any good in the long-term; short-term—sure.

We may have a farmer who has the best looking paddocks, the biggest sheds, and the best equipment, but overall when we come to the tough times, it is their region that suffers and in turn that flows onto the state suffering. As I have said, once the state suffers, the economy suffers and then everyone suffers. It is something that I have looked at more intently over the last five or 10 years, and the barriers are being broken down. I think it is great to see that neighbours are befriending their neighbours now, rather than playing the competitive game.

We are seeing organisation, commodity groups now working together with other commodity groups, and I think that is potentially how the Primary Producers SA will work. I would like to recommend that everyone in this house give support to primary industries and to those organisations, because, again, they have been the backbone. They have been the economic driver in this state for more than 100 years and they will continue to be one of the biggest economic drivers for the next 100 years and beyond, remembering that every paddock, every field that grows food, that grows produce, will grow it again next year. It is renewable.

When we look at our mining sector, we look at a greenfield site. The mining businesses, companies, come into it. They dig a hole, they remove the precious resource and then they fill the hole in and go away and it is gone. It is gone forever, because it has taken more than a lifetime for that resource to accumulate in the ground and become a valuable commodity. Again, it is about supporting an economic base with good representation here in South Australia to become a world leader. South Australia has been recognised as a world leader, but there is always scope, there is always room to become better. There is always scope to do what you do with a better return, to use better technology.

I think with what we have achieved there is more to be achieved, and I think a single desk, a single body representation, something like Primary Producers SA, will be an asset to South Australia. It will be an asset to our economic base. More importantly, it will enable us to put food on everyone's table on a regular basis. It will allow us to export that food and that produce on a regular basis, year in, year out. When we face drought again, when we face hard times, we will have the best evidence, and we will have the best assistance package or toolbox next to us, so that we can deal with those hard times in a much easier way and get on with life; we can be sustainable.

In rising to support the expiry of the Wheat Marketing Act, I think that it will be seen that it will be something that has been change, but it is about dealing with the future. The future here in South Australia is food; it is agriculture; it is horticulture; it is viticulture; it has been for 100 years and it will continue for the next 100 years.