Senator MURRAY —Madam Chair, I suspect you were not in the chair at the time, but I did formally withdraw amendment No. 1, because the opposition amendment No. 1 was exactly the same. I move:

(2) Clause 8, page 5 (after line 28), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) Levy is not payable unless the responsible person makes an election in the prescribed form to utilise payments in connection with this Act.

(2B) An election under subsection (2A) cannot be amended or revoked.

The previous vote really did cause me a great deal of anxiety as I had to abstain on my own motion while being thoroughly supportive of both the opposition's arguments and its approach. It was a very difficult decision—it will not be the last one, I am sure. Anyway, that is what we are in here for. This amendment says that the levy should not be payable `unless the responsible person makes an election in the prescribed form to utilise payments in connection with this Act'. Essentially, it derives from our view that those who do not wish to take advantage of the fund should not have to pay the levy. We are concerned about this on the grounds of competitiveness and on the grounds of the nature of the industry. We were advised at the hearing, at which both Senator O'Brien and I were present, that there are two national suppliers, P&O and Patrick, which have between them some 90 per cent to 95 per cent of the market. The Sea-Land regional stevedore is a substantial player in the Adelaide market, and then there are between five and six small business stevedores, if I may describe them in that way. They would obviously be small business stevedores if, between them and Sea-Land, they share five per cent of the market. So a duopoly is pretty well running the whole thing.

Both P&O and Patrick unequivocally advised the hearing that they would take advantage of the fund, that they would be charging the levy, and that they would absorb the levy charges. Sea-Land, in evidence to the committee, was strongly of the opinion that they should not be subject to the levy and should not have to bear those costs. Whilst P&O and Patrick might voluntarily absorb the costs, if you are in competition and you have the levy imposed, you are going to be left with no option but to absorb it, otherwise you become uncompetitive in cost terms. That may not be entirely true in the ports, in that you have a geographical separation between, say, Adelaide and Melbourne and a cost differentiation may, to some extent, be feasible. Nevertheless, the point stands.

With regard to the five or six small business stevedores, the minister advised me, as he has probably advised the opposition, that one of the small business stevedores have told him that they will be using the fund, so obviously they should pay the levy. I was concerned that at the hearings there were no submissions that I can recall from the small business stevedores. Fortunately a stevedore called Strang Stevedoring Australia saw a comment from me in the newspaper and wrote to me yesterday. This is what they had to say:

Dear Senator Murray

This morning we received a copy of the Daily Commercial News which quoted that `you were inclined to support the above mentioned bill as it was a vital part of ensuring the deal between Patrick and the MUA'. It went on to say that your major concern was that the levy would be imposed on all stevedores including those with no desire to access the funds, like Sea-Land.

Our company commenced stevedoring operations in August 1996 and in order to commence operations it was necessary to recruit all new labour and to train them at our expense to become multi skilled in all categories.

The proposed Stevedoring Levy will be funding both P & O ports and Patrick Stevedores redundant labour and associated costs which are not general industry costs. Therefore the levy should not be used for this purpose and the user pay principle must apply.

The proposed imposition of costs on those stevedoring companies not drawing on the funds provided would directly benefit our competitors and at the same time impose commercial restraints and unacceptable costs and financial burden on our company for which we get no benefits whatsoever.

We trust that the legislation will protect ongoing competition and fairness within the stevedoring industry and that the user pay principle should apply.

ROBERT W.A. STRANG

MANAGING DIRECTOR

I indicate for the record that my office did check that we could use this letter in debate, so I do that with their permission.

This means that not everyone is going to be happy to be incurring the levy. Minister, the question that exercises my mind since the principle in the case is quite clear, is: is there anything in either the bills or the amendments you have moved which would justify or compensate stevedores who do not intend to access the funds to make workers redundant? Would there be any means by which they would be able to be relieved or in some way compensated or have some kind of adjust ment, not necessarily monetary, which would assist them in this problem?