CONCERNS about a lack of transparency in the allocation of bulk grain export capacity has seen the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) raise the possibility of a review of the bulk wheat code of conduct.
Last week the ACCC released its grain ports monitoring report.
Within it, ACCC deputy chair Mick Keogh said there was a need for reform within the grain export sector.
"While the grains industry has mixed views about the effectiveness of the current code, it's clear it isn't working optimally and a review is needed," Mr Keogh said.
Grain grower groups are claiming the calls as a moral victory in their push for the federal government to launch an ACCC-led inquiry into competition issues within the grains industry.
The grain trade, however, cautioned against reading too much into the ACCC's suggestion saying it was important to delineates between a review of the code and a broader supply chain review.
Mr Keogh said in ACCC consultation had shown that grower representative groups and some exporters generally support regulation of bulk grain export supply chains, but port terminal operators largely do not.
He said this meant the code of conduct, which is the regulation that ensures bulk wheat exporters all have fair and transparent access to port terminal services, needed to be looked at.
"The bulk grain export industry has undergone some significant changes over the last five years, so we need to consider whether the current regulation of exporter access to port terminals is still fit for purpose."
Mr Keogh said the grains industry was a markedly more diverse place than when the code was drawn up.
"In recent years we've seen an increase in the number of port terminal service providers, a higher percentage of non-wheat grain bulk exports, and, at some ports, an increased market share of grain shipments by exporters associated with companies that operate the port terminal facilities."
Grain Producers Australia southern director Andrew Weidemann welcomed the ACCC report, saying it raised a number of the same questions his organisation had.
"We believe it is time to get under the hood of the grain export system and really have a look at what is happening and what can be improved," Mr Weidemann said.
He said GPA still felt to hold a meaningful review the ACCC needed to be mandated with the power of compulsory acquisition of information from industry participants.
"Without that we feel the team conducting the review might not have all the data required to really get an idea of what is happening."
"A whole of industry look at the supply chain hasn't taken place since deregulation and we would welcome it.
Grain Trade Australia chief executive Pat O'Shannassy said much of what was written in the ACCC report referenced issues the industry was already aware of.
"The report firstly acknowledges record crops, grain movements, increase in port terminal operators and the challenges faced in getting grain to port," Mr O'Shannassy said.
"We know this and that is one of the reasons, in our view, that a regulatory inquiry was not necessary, as it basically tells us what we know," he said.
Mr O'Shannassy said the trade would prefer to work with growers to lobby for supply chain issues that would be mutually beneficial. "We'd like to see the government, working with industry, to improve and invest in transport infrastructure, such as roads and rail and addressing labour issues including productivity such as at container ports."
"Our feedback suggests there is strong agreement across all of industry on these issues."
Mr O'Shannassy said GTA had been on the front foot in the media arguing its case as to why a review was not necessary.
He said this was a separate matter to the ACCC's findings in its report.
"To be clear, our earlier comments in the media were not directed at the ACCC."
"Rather we felt there was commentary in the media that was in essence claiming, "market failure" and did not adequately recognise the success of the industry with record production and exports and high grower prices.
"We felt some these claims necessitated some questioning to provide some balance, so that the claims did not evolve unchallenged, in a political sense, into "facts"."
Mr O'Shannassy said issues around port allocation were complex and had been ongoing for a long time and warned against thinking a review would solve the issues overnight.
"In terms of the port allocation processes mentioned in the ACCC Wheat Port Code report, we note ever since deregulation in 2008, neither industry, Govt including the ACCC have been able to identify a system that satisfies all stakeholders all of the time, particularly in large crop years.
"Current arrangements provide for monitoring for any preferential treatment of port allocations."