Mr PROSSER (Minister for Small Business and Consumer Affairs)(9.44 p.m.) —in reply—In concluding the debate on the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996, I thank the members who made contributions. However, I think some issues need to be set straight. The government's approach to this scheme was to try to contain the expotential growth of the diesel fuel rebate scheme. In the 1996-97 budgetary year, the outlays of the scheme for the mining category were in the order of $793.7 million. Why the scheme had grown beyond its original intent was in some part due to successful claims to the courts and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The legislation seeks to contain that growth and to correct that movement of the scheme into areas it was not previously intended for.

The member for Hotham (Mr Crean) made a number of statements and the member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), I note, said that in October the mining industry was basically told—I think these were his words—one thing and then by January we had slipped in the 3.5 tonne vehicles. I want to correct that incorrect assertion. In a memo dated 9 October 1996 the Minerals Council confirms for their members a schedule which says:

Accordingly, we seek your agreement to the following package for the resolution of outstanding issues relating to DFRS:

They put up 12 items. Four of the items mentioned were already not eligible for rebate, but item 11 of the proposition put to the government reads:

all vehicles under 3.5 tonne GVW suitable/capable for use on public roads whether registered or not;

So there is no question that we changed in any way the rules to the agreement we arrived at with that working group of the Minerals Council. Reference was made to concerns by APPEA. I point out that Mr Wells was then the CEO of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, so he too was very involved in the negotiations the government had with regard to those areas.

The member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) made reference to light crude oil. I point out to the member for Kalgoorlie that light crude is now in fact subject to excise at the same rate as diesel—that at present being 34.5c per litre. That amendment was introduced by the previous government and probably at a time when he was a member of that governing party. So whether, in the case he was making, power stations use diesel or light crude for their power generation, in that instance they are not eligible for rebate and both products are excisable at the same rate.

In regard to the tightening of the scheme, members may be aware that the Auditor-General, in a review of the administration of the scheme, made several references and recommendations with regard to the accountability of that scheme. That audit report, as I recall, was Audit Report No. 20. It made reference to overclaiming and the need for tighter compliance with and administration of the scheme. The bill picks up that tighter compliance and better administration and better accountability referred to by the Auditor-General's report.

In closing, I note the comments of the member for Burke. I can advise the member for Burke that the government has been having discussions with the minerals industry and that to overcome some matters the government may well amend the legislation in the Senate. I thank members for their contribution to the debate on this legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.