Mr McARTHUR (6:39 PM) —The previous speaker, the member for Brisbane, has raised a number of issues which need some readdressing.

Mr Laurie Ferguson —There's no-one here to do it.

Mr McARTHUR —The member for Reid might understand a couple of things. The member for Brisbane has brought up yet again the dispute at the G & K O'Connor processing plant. That is an argument about the introduction of AWAs, the removal of the tally system and an attempt by that processing plant to get more productivity. The member for Brisbane must understand that.

Mr Laurie Ferguson —You wouldn't support the thugs, would you?

Mr McARTHUR —I know a bit about the meat industry. I hope the shadow minister does not leave; there are a couple of other matters we need to address.

Mr Bevis —I'll stay for you, mate.

Mr McARTHUR —The member for Brisbane might not understand that the removal of the tally system has been a major breakthrough in the meat industry. That means that workers on the production line can work hard, get more productivity and not be restrained by the tally system coming in at 12 o'clock and then all the fellows going home. Both shadow ministers at the table, the member for Reid and the member for Brisbane, might understand that. I know the member for Brisbane has been to some of these meat processing plants. He may have even met Wally Curran in Victoria. The shadow minister is a Victorian, and Wally Curran might have been a friend of his.

Mr Bevis —I am a Queenslander.

Mr McARTHUR —Is that right? You are formerly from Victoria.

Mr Bevis —Don't insult me, Stewy. I was born and bred in Brisbane.

Mr McARTHUR —You have had association with Victoria. In view of your vast knowledge, you may have met Wally Curran, and you would fully understand the industrial conflict in the meat industry in Victoria. You are suggesting that the proprietors of G & K O'Connor at Pakenham did not have the right to improve their productivity and to bring about a new system of industrial arrangements where AWAs could be signed and the removal of the tally system would be an ultimate outcome. That is what you are arguing here. They took a reasonable action to bring in a new system. The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union did not like this change. I would argue strenuously that G & K O'Connor did close their works down for about four or five months in an attempt to bring in a new system. That is quite reasonable given the set of circumstances. I have seen coercive activity by the Australasian meat union.

The member for Brisbane spoke about the building industry. You would have to be joking to say that there were no undue practices in the building industry in Victoria and in New South Wales. We have a situation in Victoria where the building industry is in disarray. We have a particular position in Geelong, my home area, where the building industry is impressed by the Geelong agreement and where unions have a say with management.

Mr Howard —Keep going. I always like to hear you.

Mr McARTHUR —Thank you, Prime Minister.

Mr Bevis —He is here to listen to you.

Mr McARTHUR —I am delighted that the Prime Minister is here, because he fully supports some of the remarks that I am about to make.

Mr Howard —Along with thousands of your constituents.

Mr McARTHUR —That is right.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—I draw the attention of the members for Reid and Brisbane and the Prime Minister to the fact that the member for Corangamite has got the call and he will continue in the debate.

Mr McARTHUR —The member for Brisbane spoke about the MUA and their training operations: they attempted to take some good Australians to Dubai to train them for the waterfront. He makes great play of the fact that that was an illegal act and how terrible it was. Why can we not take individual Australians to be trained on the waterfront in the normal course of events so that they might replace the waterfront with skilled personnel? Obviously it was a difficult operation to remove the closed shop of the MUA to bring about a new culture, and the result of that is there for all to see.

I will move now to the important part of the bill—if I have time before the Prime Minister wishes to make a statement. The bill before the House is in relation to the HIH royal commission. As members would be aware, HIH has losses of up to $5 billion. I refer to an article which appeared in the Financial Review on 28 August, where it is suggested that the collapse will be in the vicinity of $5.3 billion and that it will take up to 10 years for the creditors to be paid. The royal commission will look at all the background information in relation to the HIH collapse. The liquidators are saying that it will be in New South Wales and Queensland, and it may be that the governments in those states will get only 35 cents in the dollar recovery and that the rescue packages will be in the range of $600 million.

The bill before the House is to ensure that these two royal commissions work in with the inquiry into the HIH collapse and, of course, the building industry, which the shadow minister has spent so much time talking about. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.