Senator JOYCE—I would like to welcome Senator Marshall here for the record!

Talk
CHAIR—Don’t encourage him!

Talk
Senator JOYCE—Did you complete a socioeconomic statement or do you know of any socioeconomic statement to ascertain the effects on Australian wheat growers of the passage of this legislation?

Talk
Mr Phillips—No, we have not done a socioeconomic impact statement. But there will be a regulatory impact statement done.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—When will the regulatory impact statement be done? Will it be after the legislation has passed?

Talk
Mr Phillips—No. It must accompany the bill into the House. Before it can be finalised, we need to know what the final form of the bill is.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—Have you sought advice from the ACCC on required changes to the Trade Practices Act that would have to be passed conjointly with this bill for the access queries that you so rightly brought up to be dealt with?

Talk
Mr Phillips—We have had discussions with the ACCC about the way the bill is drafted, but not specific discussions about changes to the Trade Practices Act.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—Is it envisaged that you will be discussing changes to the Trade Practices Act?

Talk
Mr Phillips—That will depend on what the final form of the government’s decision is. At this stage there is no proposal to change the Trade Practices Act as part of this process.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—Do you know of any substantial amendments that we would not be aware of here at the moment that would change the effect of this bill?

Talk
CHAIR—Considering that the committee is still taking evidence, Senator Joyce, I do not know where you came up with that question.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—It is very important because Senator Heffernan suggested that if we could ‘twig’—I am using his words—the bill, things might change. I am just wondering if there is some twigging going on.

Talk
CHAIR—That would be normal commentary for these hearings.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—Otherwise, we will have to deal with the bill as it is tabled and people will either accept it or not accept it.

Talk
Mr Mortimer—The draft legislation has not changed one whit. The draft is the draft and nothing will be changed in any shape or form until the process—

Talk
Senator JOYCE—So it would be fair enough for people to make their assessment on the draft. If they say the draft does not fit the bill they envisage then they would be accepting it or rejecting it at this point in time on what is in the draft.

Talk
Mr Mortimer—The bill is out there for comment as it is. That is as much as we can say.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—Have you been advised of any future tabling of the Ralph report?

Talk
Mr Phillips—I am not aware of anything.

Talk
CHAIR—I am amazed at all this interest in the Ralph report, Senator Joyce. It was the previous government that commissioned it and then hid it from everyone. Anyway, if you wish to answer that, Mr Phillips, please feel free.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—I agree with you, Chair. I want the thing tabled.

Talk
Mr Mortimer—Sorry, what was the question again?

Talk
Senator JOYCE—Do you know of any envisaged tabling of the Ralph report into the support or otherwise of the single desk?

Talk
Mr Mortimer—We are not aware of any such proposal.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—Have any of the effects on regional economies of monopolisation at an access point for wheat been brought to your attention?

Talk
Mr Mortimer—I think it is fair to say that that was canvassed in the material that ABARE put together—the ABARE analysis which was discussed at the previous hearings and provided to the Senate committee since then. So there is some analysis and discussion of those issues available in that.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—With the legislators obviously stating that they believed that part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act was not capable of dealing with access issues and therefore the legislation required a specific mention of access to ports, why was it not envisaged that we needed the same access to receival points?

Talk
Mr Phillips—It is probably best to look at the experience of some of the state regimes for similar sorts of infrastructure. That legislation usually refers to port terminal facilities, not up-country storage. Several state governments have looked at this. Western Australians have some legislation and the Victorians have some legislation. The ACCC looked at it when ABB acquired AusBulk. In those situations, it was considered that port terminals demonstrated the natural monopoly characteristics that required some sort of access regime, but up-country storage did not, basically because the barriers to entry are relatively low in comparison to ports. Also, the experience in the domestic market would suggest that there has not been a problem in gaining access to up-country storage facilities for those traders who wish to participate in the domestic wheat market.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—We have heard evidence today that even CBH itself has talked about disassembling its structure, on corporatisation, to avoid regional monopolies and the capacity of one player to dominate the market. Would that knowledge, coming from this inquiry today, affect the advice that you would give?

Talk
Mr Phillips—The way the draft bill is worded, it talks about the company or a related company. Unless CBH sells off those companies and breaks the vertical integration, it would still be covered by this legislation. So what is being mooted would not get them away from the coverage of the act, I would not have thought.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—Do you know of any current successes in the agricultural sector with the monopoly in the horticultural industry and the better deal that farmers are trying to get there?

Talk
Mr Phillips—I am not responsible for horticulture, so I could not comment.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—But it is an industry like the one we are discussing here, with the same effects of centralisation of participants, especially buying participants.

Talk
Mr Phillips—I could not comment. I just do not have the knowledge of the horticulture industry.

Talk
CHAIR—You have made that quite clear. Senator Joyce, if you could move on—there are other senators who want to ask questions.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—If substantial amendments are required to this bill, from your history with the political process, what period of time—seeing that there is none envisaged at the moment—do you think would be necessary to draft, circulate, review and incorporate those amendments before the bill could be put forward again?

Talk
Mr Phillips—The usual process for these things is that the Senate committee makes a report, the government determines what changes it believes it is necessary to make to the bill, the bill is redrafted and the bill is reintroduced into parliament. My underst