Senator WRIEDT (Tasmania) (Leader of the Opposition) - We are dealing with the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1979 and the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979. Both Bills, although being considered cognately, deal with different measures. The Customs Amendment Bill (No. 3) provides for a right to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of administrative decisions which affect the liability to pay duty under the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act. The Opposition does not oppose that measure. Therefore, I do not propose to take the time of the Senate dealing with it.

The other Bill is of greater significance. This Bill introduces the Budget decision to decrease the rate of duty on high quality coking coal from $3.50 a tonne to $1 a tonne for coal produced from underground mines or from a mine commencing production after 30 June 1 980 and from a major extension of an existing mine if production commenced after that date. The Bill also makes changes in respect of coal mined from depths of more than 60 metres. It exempts from duty coal with a ash content of more than 1 2 per cent. This Bill continues what has become the standard Government policy of reducing the coal export levy without substituting an appropriate measure. We oppose the Bill as we have done in recent years with similar legislation and because of that I will be moving an amendment at the end of the second reading. Consistent with its policy of attracting development at any price, the Government has set about removing the levy on the export of coal. It is true that that levy imposes a burden on some marginal producers. I think that that applies more in some underground mines in New South Wales rather than anywhere else, but that in itself is no justification for the Government taking the present course.

The effect of these policies is to encourage capital-intensive extractive industries such as uranium and coal, under conditions which we believe are detrimental to the country as a whole. The Government has a very strong desire to maximise or attract investment of one sort or another. Consequently, it has watered down its foreign investment guidelines. That, in effect, is encouraging the transfer of Australia's resources to overseas ownership. Tax concessions have been made to encourage these developments but not much thought has been given to the provision of the infrastructure that is necessary in the development of these projects. That infrastructure is eventually being paid for by the taxpayers through the new infrastructure borrowing arrangements with the State governments.

The net effect is that the major companiesUtah is one that immediately comes to mindare making very great profits, most of which are repatriated overseas, which in turn compounds our balance of payments problems. We of the Opposition take a different view. We believe that there should be orderly and balanced development of our natural resources. That view is backed by a very clear and long standing commitment which we of the Opposition have had on this matter for many years. Our energy policy is based on the need to improve energy efficiency and the need to identify new energy reserves. What is needed is a policy, to be worked out in consultation with industry and the trade union movement, which will provide a proper climate for long-term investment in the development of our resources so that the benefits of those resources and their development can be shared equitably between those who produce them and the community at large.

On that basis it is essential that the coal export levy be replaced with some alternative form of resource tax which is based on the profits of the producers and which must be equitable but must recognise the rights of the Australian community to benefit from the development of those resources. Australia's resources belong to the Australian people. As such, the benefits should be shared amongst the community as a whole. The profits to which I have referred- the windfall profits, as they are so often called, which often result from dramatic increases in world prices or from pricing decisions of governments- should be shared as equitably as possible. If we continue to direct our tax policies towards encouraging capital intensive industries we must resign ourselves to the fact that there will be a continuing increase in the number of people looking for work. There must be some mechanism for distributing the large and growing profits which come from exploiting Australia's resources, such as coal and other mineral developments. A future Labor Government would take the stand that we must apply a resource rent tax to the coal industry. The tax would be, as I have said, carefully considered in conjunction with industry and the unions. We feel that that is the most effective way in which we can benefit from the development of these industries. I move: