Marketing of Primary Products (Murray Valley Wine Grape Industry) Special Provisions Bill

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Public Works and Services) [9.41 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Page 5252

The matter addressed by this bill is procedural and straight forward. The House is being asked to extend for a further twelve months the current life of the Murray Valley (New South Wales) Wine Grape Industry Marketing Order 1994 without the need for any steps to be taken or procedures to be followed under the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1983. The issue is the same as was addressed by the Marketing of Primary Products Amendment Act 1996, which extended the MIA Citrus Fruit Promotion Marketing Order 1989 as an interim measure while a competition policy review was completed.

I am pleased to inform the House that following that competition policy review and a successful poll of citrus growers in March 1998 a new order has since been made. The new order continues the role of the MIA Citrus Fruit Promotion Marketing Committee as a provider of various services to citrus growers in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. The Murray Valley (New South Wales) Wine Grape Industry Marketing Order 1994 is made under the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1983 and relates to the Murray Valley (New South Wales) Wine Grape Industry Development Committee. The development committee provides various services to wine grape growers in the Murray Valley region of New South Wales and administers the order.

The order, as was the case with the MIA Citrus Fruit Promotion Marketing Order 1989, is approaching a "sunset" date. In particular, the order will lapse on 2 June 1998 unless action is taken to extend it. Under the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1983, the order cannot be extended unless certain steps are taken, including the holding of a poll of wine grape growers which demonstrates the necessary support for the order’s continuation. Representatives of the Murray Valley wine grape industry have already indicated a desire for the order to continue. However, the order is the subject of a competition policy review, which will ultimately determine its fate some time after June 1998.

Commonsense decrees that the order should be extended for a further 12 months to allow the competition policy review to be completed. If the review supports the continuation of the arrangement, wine grape growers may then be polled on the question of whether they support the continuing arrangement. In this situation, the growers will be able to vote in the certain knowledge that the order, with the necessary support, may continue for a further period. Under the provisions of the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1983, the only way in which this situation can be accommodated is by what is being proposed in the bill. To complement the proposed extension of the order, the bill provides for the extension of the term of office of the current members of the development committee. he bill also seeks to correct a minor omission in the published version of a proclamation relating to the initial constitution of the development committee. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.43 p.m.]: The Opposition supports this simple legislation that will enable the Murray Valley Wine Grape Industry Marketing Order to remain in place for another 12 months under prevailing conditions. This will allow the Hilmer review process to proceed and give the Murray Valley wine grape industry an extra 12 months to operate under its marketing order. Honourable members would know that marketing orders are available under the Marketing of Primary Products Act, which enables groups of producers in any given area to have a committee to look after marketing and promotional activities, and the development of the industry. This marketing order has to be approved by the majority of growers. It has been useful to a number of commodity groups over the years. The Murray Valley wine grape growers have benefited from this marketing order, and will continue to do so.

A number of primary industries are undergoing a review into their regulatory position under the accord of the Hilmer agreement entered into by all Australian governments in April 1995 at the meeting of the Council of Australian Governments. One agreement provided for all governments to review their current regulatory legislation and regimes in which practices might be seen to be prohibitive; some have already done so. The Marketing of Primary Products Act with respect to the Murray Valley Industry Marketing Order is one such regulation.

This simple legislation will enable the order to continue for another 12 months, which will allow the competition policy review to be completed. I expect that the order will prevail, as has occurred with most competition policy reviews. The most recent case involved the dairy industry, which will be dealt with shortly in this House. On that occasion the Government decided to leave in place the regulatory arrangements which, of course, were the milk quotas. The Opposition is pleased to support the legislation. It wishes those growers well on their 12-month extension. We keenly await the result of their competition policy review.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.45 p.m.]: I am happy to support the legislation. My policy adviser, Jeni Emblem, contacted the Murray Valley Winegrape Industry Development Committee and was told by Grieg Greenwood that the committee was happy with this legislation. Today I read that there might be a severe shortage of champagne within a couple of years. I hope that champagne will be produced for the year 2000 celebrations.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: There is no champagne left in Australia.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: No, it is not called champagne; it is white bubbly. I hope there is enough bubbly white to celebrate the year 2000.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.46 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Marketing of Primary Products (Murray Valley Wine Grape Industry) Special Provisions Bill. This legislation is similar to the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area Citrus Fruit Promotion Marketing Order 1989, because it is affected by the competition policy that now governs the whole of Australia, including many aspects of government. The legislation is required to
Page 5253
provide for an extension to the order that related to the operation of the Murray Valley Winegrape Industry Development Committee which would have expired on 2 June. The bill provides a 12-month extension.

I am concerned about the way in which competition provides positive values, and about the complaints that I get. In recent visits to the Murray Valley, Mildura and Riverina areas primary producers have complained to me, particularly those involved in the fruit juice market. They told me that in Mildura supermarkets fruit juices imported from South America are sold for less than the juice of the local fruit. This raises the question of whether that is fair competition. I know there is an ongoing debate about tariffs, but farmers are so fed up that they are bulldozing their orchards of citrus trees.

The same thing could happen in the wine grape area industry if we are not careful. It could be that other countries, such as those in South America, deliberately sell their products cheaper - they are losing money - to cause the Australian industry to fail. That failure would be permanent because farmers could not recreate that industry overnight. If it could, overseas prices might come back to a comparative price against Australian products. I hope that strategy is not followed by other countries. It seems incredible that a product imported from Bolivia, with high transportation costs, can be sold cheaper in Mildura than a local product. In my opinion there is something radically wrong with our primary industry.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Public Works and Services) [9.49 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members who have spoken in this debate, and I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.