Mr IAN MACFARLANE (9:00 PM) —Whilst I note the bipartisan attitude of the member for Corio, I will have to pass up his offer to right the agricultural industry when the Labor Party returns to power, and may that not be in my lifetime. I remember when Labor were in power and the favours they did us as farmers. Was it 22 per cent interest rates? I think it might have been. I think that probably caused more pain and grief in the rural sector than some of the horrific droughts which I worked through with previous ministers for agriculture and primary industries, Bob Collins and Simon Crean. To his credit, Bob Collins worked with primary industry and had a decent understanding of it being a producer himself. But there would be many out there who would dread the thought of returning to Labor and returning to the sort of economic management we saw.

Whilst on the issue of economic management, I pass over the highly important subject of low interest rates and turn to the introduction of a new tax system. I again correct the member for Corio by saying that in my experience and in the conversations I have had with the NFF—and I do happen to know the NFF reasonably intimately—they are looking forward to the introduction of a GST. They are looking forward to a reduction in wholesale sales tax. They are looking forward to lower diesel costs. Those are the sorts of things that the Labor Party opposed. I can assure the House that the rural sector is sitting very comfortably with the coalition government at the moment and the reforms we have introduced, the economic management we have in place and the opportunities we are providing for the future.

As has been said about the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , it covers a range of areas such as amendments to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act; the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act; the Natural Resource Management (Financial Assistance) Act; the Primary Industry Councils Act, an area in which I have a particular interest; the Rural Adjustment Act; and the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act. These amendments in the main bring about fairness, conformity, uniformity and equity.

When we introduced the Plant Breeder's Rights Act we did so with the best intent of ensuring that the Plant Variety Rights Act was replaced with an act which would encourage the greater use of plant breeder's rights here in Australia. Plant breeder's rights are fundamental to ensuring that we get better varieties here to give our farmers a greater competitive edge and to ensure that we are able to compete on an unlevel playing field in the international marketplace. These proposed transitional arrangements contained under the amendments relate to affected applicants who, with the introduction of that new act, lost the opportunity to keep their applications relevant. These transitional arrangements look at reinstating those applications and, in doing so, will hopefully restore some of the fairness that was lost.

The purpose of the amendments to section 37 are twofold and cover the area of recovery of costs associated with testing a new plant variety when conducted at the request of another country. This again is an issue of fairness, of ensuring the integrity of the act and of ensuring that there is the opportunity for plant variety rights to be protected. Australia is one of approximately 43 countries which are members of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. It is important that our acts work with regard to that undertaking. The amendment also has the provision of sheeting home to the unsuccessful party in such a request for a test the cost of that test. This brings about even further equity because, whilst removing the opportunity for frivolous claims, it ensures that the party who is proved to be right is not subjected to the costs of that appeal. Again, as I have said, this will bring about a fairer approach to those participating under this legislation.

Some other changes have been introduced, and I will speak briefly about those which relate to the issue of record keeping in the PBR Office. Under the amendments, we are going to allow a single hard copy of the register to be maintained. This is just simply commonsense and is a cost-effective way of ensuring that records are kept, thus protecting the rights of the plant breeders while at the same time not fostering a bureaucratic industry. Section 21 extends the allowable time in which the PBR Office must be notified and respond when rights to a variety are assigned to another person. Amendments to subsection 80(2) clarify the time, manner and circumstances in which fees imposed under the PBR Act are paid to the Commonwealth and may be specified in the regulation. These changes are fundamental to cost savings in administration and are seen as merely a tidying up of an act which has already brought significant change in the way plant breeding operates here. They have wide industry support and, as I say, bring conformity to the 1991 convention of UPOV.

I will move to the issue of the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 and the amendments under that act. The basic aim is to rationalise levy and charge collection and make provision for the efficient and effective collection of primary industries levies and charges. Of course, these levies are a very important part of research. They play an important part in ensuring that our industry is able not only to control its destiny but also to remain competitive into the future. A number of areas have caused concern to those in charge of administering the act. Take the horticultural industry, for example. There have been instances, particularly in the area of horticulture in wholesale produce markets, where intermediaries have taken the opportunity to urge the seller of the produce to either carry the burden of the levy or perhaps shun lodgment altogether. That obviously leaves those intermediaries and dealers in horticulture in the wholesale sense who abide by the act and pay their levies at a distinct disadvantage. Under these changes, we are aiming to tighten up the procedure and bring fairness in that area.

There is also some concern in the livestock industry, where sales of properties are conducted on a walk-in, walk-out basis. For those who are uninitiated, a walk-in, walk-out sale means just that. The buyer walks in, puts his money on the table and the seller walks out, basically leaving all plant and stock as well as the property there. In those situations, some anomalies have arisen in terms of the correct levies being paid on those stock. It is hoped that through the amendments that we are introducing here those loopholes will be tightened up. There has been some confusion in the area of processing as to who is actually responsible for the collection of the levy. The amendments that we have put in place define the proprietor of the processing establishment as the person legally responsible for the collection of the fee.

There are also some changes in regard to the rights relating to authorised persons. Whilst some may see this as an infringement on privacy, they are really there only to ensure that the act is carried out in an unimpeded, economical and efficient way. The area of resource management has been covered. As the member for Corio said, it really relates only to a name change. The changing of the National Landcare Advisory Committee to the Australian Landcare Council is aimed at better reflecting the independent status of that committee.

I noted some concern from the member for Corio about the consultative arrangements between the grains industry and the government. Many people have been involved in the grains industry and have led it at a state and national level. I am honoured to have been one of those. I will say, but perhaps I have a biased view, that that industry has spent a great deal of time in consultation with government, with processors, with marketers, with handlers and, most importantly, with growers. One of my fonder memories as President of the Grains Council of Australia was of travelling Australia—there were some 22 grower meetings over three weeks—explaining the changes to growers and listening to their views on the changes that we saw as perhaps fitting in the new wheat marketing organisation, now known as the AWB.

During that process, we saw the introduction of the Grains Industry Council, which was intended to provide a forum of representation to the main sectors of the industry. But, as we showed through practical experience rather than bureaucratic imposition, the best way to have that interface is to actually get out there and do it. As the instigator of the strategic planning units, we also worked at ensuring that we consulted all sections of the industry. I can assure members opposite that that strategic planning process worked very well. We not only consulted those people directly involved in the industry but even went to the extent of contacting customers overseas. I am not sure how one could improve on the process. Over time it has certainly demonstrated that the concept of councils consulting with government and industry was basically not relevant. We saw this with the only other council that was in place, the Pig Industry Council, and that has also been abolished.

It has been five years since the Grains Industry Council was first given life. During that period, I have watched organisations like the Grains Industry Council move from strength to strength. Under its current solid leadership of John Lush and Bruce McClelland from Queensland, I have absolute faith that the body will continue, along with its associations at a state level and its affiliations with various marketing and processing bodies, to ensure that the interests of primary producers are taken into account.

One of the things that the member for Corio did get right was that rural industry, like practically every industry in Australia, is subject to continuous structural change. That structural change was assisted by the Rural Adjustment Scheme and by changes intro duced by the member for Hotham and Senator Bob Collins during their tenures as Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, but with a change of government and the advent of a new minister it was time to take a fresh approach. There has been a significant change of direction in the way that rural industry has needed to be guided and assisted and, whilst the Rural Adjustment Scheme did an excellent job, the government's Agriculture—Advancing Australia package has taken the next step.

In that change, there has been a redefining of the roles of the Rural Adjustment Scheme. Under this amendment to the Rural Adjustment Act, we will be looking at changing the name of RASAC, the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council, to the National Rural Adjustment Advisory Council. Time moves on, and the needs of agriculture move with it. There is a far greater awareness in agriculture in 1999 of the need for things like strategic planning and greater education and training amongst those people who participate in that industry. To refer again to the NFF, there are some quite compelling statistics about the success of farmers and managers who have undergone basic training and skills upgrades in comparison to their colleagues.

The new Advancing Australia package is all about ensuring that we build on that new understanding. The role of the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council has changed significantly too. It will continue in its traditional role of advising on exceptional circumstances declaration, a process introduced by the previous Labor government—one which I have a great deal of support for. But the role and the experience now contained in what will be known as the National Rural Adjustment Advisory Council should be put to good use in advising on areas of rural adjustment generally, on regional issues and on the training issues that have now become so important in rural industry, particularly through the Farm Business Improvement Program. In the end, if you have that sort of intellectual base, you should draw on it for agricultural and rural issues generally.

Those changes will see the National Rural Adjustment Advisory Council play a pivotal role in the future of agriculture and will be the fundamental parts of the Advancing Australia package, the most important of which is the area of the Farm Management Deposit Scheme. That is a great scheme introduced by the current government which will allow farmers to put money away in good times in preparation for those inevitable droughts, floods or commodity price drops. There are also other components such as the training packages and the restart scheme. If there is one weakness in that scheme, it is the Retiring Farmer Assistance scheme, which has been an abysmal failure. That, however, is under review. Hopefully, the new minister will be able to put in place a scheme which allows people of retirement age to pass on their assets to the next generation and allow that generation to prosper and make their future in agriculture.

In concluding, it would be remiss of me not to talk for a moment about one of the great success industries of Australian agriculture, and that is the wine industry. As the member for Corio said, it has undergone absolutely formidable growth in the past 15 or so years. It has grown since 1985-86 from an industry that was exporting $21 million worth of wine to an industry that is now at the door of exporting $1 billion worth of wine. The amendments that we have outlined to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation are merely to bring about a regime which will allow us to maintain the Australian wine industry's reputation for producing a world-class product by ensuring that false claims are not made about wine. This will ensure that correct records are kept and that the nature of these records is such that an unbroken audit trail is established from the grape to the sale of the product.

All in all, this is a broad range of amendments which will allow rural industry to continue only to prosper as it has done under the last four years of the coalition government. This government will introduce many other programs to ensure that rural industry prospers but, in looking back over the last four years and to see the turnaround in economic terms, the way in our government is addressing the issues of trade and competi tiveness and the way we are moving to ensure that our producers have access to the latest varieties and the latest technologies—and the tax incentives to take up those technologies—I can only say that, while the coalition stays in government, rural industry will be the better for it.