Senator MURRAY (12:54 PM) —I want to begin my remarks on the Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1999 by quoting from the Department of the Parliamentary Library Information and Research Services Bills Digest No. 128. On page 2, they say:

In the 1996-97 Budget, the Government announced that the bounty would be removed from 20 August 1996 and that transitional provisions would apply where contracts had been exchanged before this date or where work would be completed before this date but the bounty not claimed. Following representations from shipbuilders, the Australian Shipbuilders Association, and the Governments of Western Australia and Tasmania in particular, the former Minister for Industry, Hon John Moore announced that the bounty would be extended until 31 December 1997. He stated that while the 1996/97 Budget had sought to scrap the bounty as a cost-cutting measure, it had since become clear to the Government that the world shipbuilding industry was not a `level playing field' and that the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement was stalling. On 7 May 1997 it was announced that the Government was extending the bounty to 30 June 1999 for commitments entered into by 31 December 1997. To be eligible, vessels must be at least 50 per cent complete by 30 June 1999. Pro rata payments will apply for vessels between 50 and 100% complete. In September 1998 the Prime Minister announced that the bounty would be further extended until 31 December 2000 at a rate of 3%.

The Labor Party has stated that the shipbuilding bounty should be extended at 5 per cent indefinitely, until the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement, or a similar agreement, is ratified. They estimate that this would cost $86 million over three years to 2001-02.

That is the quote from the library. It is fine as far as it goes but, although this bill is described here as non-controversial, this issue has been one of the most controversial the Senate has faced in the time of this government. When the coalition government came into power in 1996, it embarked on some astonishingly stupid policies in the field of industry development and assistance, and this was one of them—when it sought to get rid of the bounty. I think the Library sometimes misses the point. They say:

Following representations from shipbuilders, the Australian Shipbuilders Association, and the Governments of Western Australia and Tasmania in particular, the former Minister for Industry, Hon John Moore announced that the bounty would be extended . . .

In fact, this was one of the great victories of the Senate. It was the Senate which insisted that this matter be properly reviewed. It was the Senate which held up the legislation. It was the Labor Party—in particular, Senator Cook—who did an outstanding job in terms of aggravating and activating on this issue. It was the Australian Democrats who vigorously supported the Labor Party in that activity and raised merry hell about this issue. Whilst I would not seek to underplay the contributions of those others mentioned in the Library's Bills Digest , the Library, frankly, missed the passion and intensity of that very controversial political debate.

Underpinning this entire issue is hopefully a turnaround from the government from a policy where it sought to ideologically withdraw industry assistance from industries which are unable to compete on the world market unless they have appropriate strategic and financial assistance. This is not about protection. This is actually about being able to compete. It is about marketing and about getting our industries and our jobs up and running. Senator Hogg has just outlined some of the figures. This industry is valued at nearly $1 billion. If the government had had its way when it was in its period of stupidity in 1996, this industry would have been crushed by the economic consequences of that policy.

Yes, I do welcome the continuation; yes, the Australian Democrats do support this bill. But the Labor Party is right: the bounty should be higher and the certainty and presence of that bounty should be guaranteed for as long as the United States and the countries in Europe continue to put our shipbuilding industry at a disadvantage.

We must put this into perspective: the Senate was the victor in this issue. The Labor Party, in particular, deserves great credit for holding its ground against an ideological push by the government. The government deserves credit for eventually accepting not only the reality but also the good sense of the arguments that were being put to it. And it is the Australian Democrats who continue to argue for the proper retention of tariffs, bounties or subsidies where they are appropriate for the industry concerned, where they in fact preserve Australian jobs and the competitiveness of Australian industry versus other countries who in turn are subsidising, assisting or providing bounties to their industry in that manner. You have to fight fire with fire. There is no virtue in bounties or tariffs or subsidies on their own, but there is virtue when the whole purpose and intention is to keep us competitive and keep this nation able to sell its goods and to perform appropriately on the world trade stage. Accordingly, I record not only the Australian Democrats' gratitude that the bounty continue but also our view that it should be improved further.