Mr McARTHUR —My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, recent media reports have highlighted the level of remuneration received by waterfront workers. Could you advise the House of the accuracy of these reports?

Mr REITH (Workplace Relations and Small Business) —In the last few days—

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —Before the minister starts, can we have silence please.

Mrs Crosio interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —I warn the member for Prospect!

Mr REITH —I am invited to start with a rort for the day. Why disappoint them, Mr Speaker? Today's rort of the day is the fact that Patricks have a terminal in Rockhampton which is idle for about 60 or 70 per cent of the time and one of their employees, in respect of the terminal at Rockhampton, actually lives in Mackay. Every now and again Patricks have work that they want done in Mackay, which is the town where he lives, but because he is registered to work in Rockhampton, when they ask him to work in Mackay they have to pay him a travel allowance to fictionally go from Rockhampton to Mackay—when he already lives there! Not only that, when he fictionally transfers himself from Rockhampton to Mackay where he lives, they have to pay him $100 a day to look after himself whilst he is living in his own home town. Then, when he has finished his job, they have to pay him fictionally to go from Mackay to Rockhampton, when in fact he lives in Mackay.

Let me return to the question: there has been a debate raging in the papers in the last few days, basically under the heading, `Anatomy of a pay slip.' The wharfies are a bit concerned that the word is out about how much they earn and they have been tabling and giving to the press their pay slips to show people they do not earn 90,000 bucks a year, after all, and they certainly do not earn the $70,000 to $74,000 on average which has been shown by independent analysis.

Opposition members —Where is John Sharp?

Mr REITH —We can all play the anatomy of a pay slip game. Today I produce two pay slips which have been appropriately sanitised to remove all reference to any individual. One is for someone who works in Port Botany who is on $95,470 a year and the other is on a gross salary of $93,058.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —When the House is silent, we will hear the minister. If you extend the same courtesy to him as you would expect for yourselves, this would be a far more civilised forum. I understand your emotion and your concerns. I suggest you express them in the right way.

Mr Albanese —We can't hear him.

Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Grayndler!

Mr REITH —I also have here a list of the salaries paid for persons in the stevedoring industry out of particular sites showing the top gross incomes of a series of individuals. The fact of the matter is that the figures that we have produced, which are contested by the wharfies, are in fact independently assessed figures. They give you a true appreciation of remuneration.

As I have said repeatedly, by any reasonable community standard, wharfies are well and truly paid in excess of community standards. Sadly, for the balance of the community, we do not receive the level of productivity we otherwise should receive.

Mr O'Connor —Tell us about Parer.

Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Corio!

Mr REITH —I conclude by saying that these figures are one of the reasons the government has overwhelming support for the reform process under way on the Australian waterfront. To give members an idea of the sense of community opinion on this, I will read from some of the letters I have received in recent days on this issue. This one says to the government:

Please pursue to the end . . .

which puts it rather well. Another says:

A Government with enough conviction to do something about our waterfront has been a long time coming . . .

This one says:

Please do not lose your resolve, and be assured that the majority of thinking Aussies are right behind you.

Another says:

. . . I wish to express my support with any thing that you do . . .

This one says:

It is about time the public were reminded and informed of the frequency during W.War 2 when troops had to load the ships on the waterfront due to the contrariness of the waterside workers.

Another, addressed to the PM, says:

I fully support your strong stand . . .

This one says:

. . . Australia has been held to ransom by the—

wharfies—

for far too long.

. . . . . . . . .

. . .. the majority of Australians are definitely not in favour with the MUA stand.

This one says, and I paraphrase:

I recall when Bob Hawke . . . announced a great victory for his Government whereas the truth was that John Coombs and his cohorts took the Government and the taxpayers to the cleaners.

Mr O'Connor interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —I have already warned the honourable member.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —The minister will draw his answer to a conclusion.

Opposition members —Wind it up!

Mr SPEAKER —But he will do so when the House quietens. When the House remains silent, the minister is free to continue.

Mr REITH —I am happy to conclude; I am concluding. This one—and this is the last paragraph of this letter—says:

Your excellent and enlightening response today on John Coombs, together with an outstanding performance by the Prime Minister on Warwick Parer, is the best I've heard for a long time.

I tell you what the Australian public want: they want us to keep up the reform process. We are committed to doing so.