Mr REITH (Workplace Relations and Small Business) (12:31 PM) —There are two technical amendments I shall move to the levy imposition bill. The amendments make explicit the Governor-General's power to make regulations to prescribe different rates of levy for different types of cargo. Clause 5 of the bill imposes the stevedoring levy on the loading and unloading of containers and vehicles. The maximum rate of levy is set at $20 for a container and $10 for a vehicle. In each case a lesser amount may be prescribed under the regulations. The clause specifically provides that regulations may prescribe a zero amount.

A note to the clause highlights the government's intention that regulations may prescribe different rates for different types of cargo, with reference made to section 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. For example, prescribing different rates of levy for different types of cargo would allow a special provision to be made for accompanied passenger vehicles carried on passenger ferries. This would, for example, allow passenger vehicles accompanied by their owners, carried across Bass Strait on the Spirit of Tasmania, to be exempted from the levy. The intention of the government is that differential rates applying to different types of cargo would apply uniformly across the industry.

To remove any doubt, amendment 1 would make explicit the power of the Governor-General to make regulations to prescribe different rates of levy for different types of cargo. Amendment 2 would omit the note to clause 4 which becomes unnecessary if the matter is dealt with explicitly in the proposed clause 4 of the bill. With respect to the levy collection bill, I move:

(1) Clause 5, page 2 (after line 20), after the definition of container , insert:

constitutional corporation means any of the following:

(a) a foreign corporation within the meaning of paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution;

(b) a trading corporation, or financial corporation, to which paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution applies;

(c) a body corporate incorporated in a Territory.

constitutional trade or commerce means trade or commerce:

(a) between Australia and a place outside Australia; or

(b) between the States; or

(c) within a Territory, between a State and a Territory or between 2 Territories.

(2) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 9), after the definition of ship , insert:

stevedoring industry means the stevedoring industry, so far as it involves:

(a) stevedoring in the course of constitutional trade or commerce; or

(b) stevedoring by a constitutional corporation.

(3) Page 3 (after line 19), after clause 5, insert:

5A Purpose of the levy

The purpose of the levy is to meet the cost of payments under section 17.

(4) Clause 17, page 11 (lines 2 and 3), omit "directly or indirectly in connection with", substitute "in connection with, or incidental to,".

(5) Clause 17, page 11 (after line 4), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) No more than $250 million in total may be authorised under this section.

(6) Clause 18, page 11 (line 9), omit "purposes", substitute "purpose".

Clause 17 of the bill provides that the minister may authorise payments that are directly or indirectly in connection with the reform or restructuring of the stevedoring industry. Amendments 1 and 2 include a definition of `stevedoring industry' in clause 5. The proposed definition refers to stevedoring in the course of constitutional trade or commerce or stevedoring by a constitutional corporation. The terms `constitutional trade or commerce' and `constitutional corporation' are also defined.

Amendment 3 proposes a new clause 5A which specifies that the purpose of the levy is to meet the cost of payments under section 17; that is, payments in connection with the reform of the stevedoring industry. The proposed amendments are intended to clarify the purpose of the appropriation. Amendment 4 would vary the reference in clause 17 to the minister's power to authorise payments that are `directly or indirectly' connected with the reform or restructuring to payments `in connection with or incidental to' reform or restructuring. This is intended to clarify the scope of the provision. Amendment 5 would amend proposed clause 17 by inserting a new subsection 1A. This would provide that `no more than $250 million in total may be authorised under this section'. The amendment would thereby put beyond doubt the total available under the appropriation. Amendment 6 is consequential upon amendment 3 and would change the reference in clause 18 from `purposes' to `purpose'. I commend those technical amendments to the House.