Mr SCHULTZ —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. The minister will be aware of the historical decision by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission last Friday to abolish the tally system for the meat industry. Would the minister advise the House how this will benefit rural and regional Australia? Is the minister aware of support for this decision?

Mr ANDERSON (Deputy Prime Minister) —I thank the honourable member for his question. I note that he was himself in fact a meat processing worker for some 32 years, that he ran a meat processing works for some years and that he knows a great deal about this matter. He clearly recognises that our side of parliament has a capacity to deliver for not just the processing sector but for the workers in it.

Mr Zahra —What about the workers at Pakenham, you fraud?

Mr ANDERSON —Thank you very much for that interjection, because the point being made was that we have been attacking workers with our pursuit of the abolition of the tally system, and that is what I wanted to talk about today.

Mr Zahra interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —The member for McMillan!

Mr ANDERSON —Mr Speaker, yesterday in this place the minister—

Mr Zahra interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —The member for McMillan is defying the chair and, if he behaves like that again, will be warned.

Mr ANDERSON —We will come to the question of who is defrauding who in a moment. Yesterday in this place the minister for workplace relations and small business told the House of a vitally important milestone in industrial relations reform and for jobs growth in rural and regional Australia—the ending of the tally system in Australia's $6 billion red meat industry. That has been welcomed by the NFF; it has been widely welcomed by the Cattle Council of Australia and by all in the industry. It is a welcome breakthrough all round. It is interesting to note that the Industry Commission said in 1994 that these reforms were vitally needed, certainly for farmers, because our beef industry is competitive on international markets only because Australian producers are paid less than their competitors internationally. That was overwhelmingly because of high processing costs in Australia. That is what they said: low prices here in Australia because our processing costs were higher than America's, higher than New Zealand's and higher than Ireland's. In fact they then expanded the study and found we were still the most inefficient of five nations. They also said that processors were losing out.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr ANDERSON —I heard somebody talk about Aberdeen. The Industry Commission, when Labor was in power, said we needed these reforms to keep the processors going so that places like Aberdeen would still have jobs.

Mr Horne interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Paterson!

Mr Horne interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Paterson!

Mr ANDERSON —Exactly! Four hundred jobs lost because Labor would not introduce the reforms that were needed to save the jobs.

Mr Horne interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Paterson leaves me no choice but to warn him.

Mr ANDERSON —The Industry Commission actually also said that these reforms were vitally needed for the workers in the processing sector. Under Labor the Industry Commission, as it was then constructed, said that workers needed these reforms. Despite the catcalling from those on the other side and despite the fact that they would not deliver, the Industry Commission said `improved efficiency in processing will encourage an expansion of livestock production and meat processing and so will increase the demand for labour'. That is what they said.

Indeed, in those days it was authoritatively estimated that processing efficiencies could potentially result in savings of about $1½ billion. They reckoned that about half of that could go to the country's cattle producers, about a quarter to the processors and about a quarter to the workers. I would have thought the workers would have liked that sort of improvement in their bottom line in extra jobs. So reform has benefited livestock producers and brought better returns for farmers, more jobs for regional areas and better paid jobs. The interesting thing about this of course is that the ultimate rub—forgotten now by the ALP—is that in 1991 the ALP supported the abolition of the tally system. They supported it! The Commonwealth made a submission to a full bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in 1991, when Peter Cook was the Minister for Industrial Relations, and it said `it would be preferable to move away from the tally system altogether and introduce alternative payment systems'. How far they have slipped! With all of their rhetoric about how they care about regional Australia, with all their talk about being interested in regional jobs and improving prosperity in the bush, all we see is opposition to everything—opposition to tax reform, opposition to cheaper fuel, opposition to the very industrial relations reforms that will produce better outcomes for the workers in rural and regional Australia.