Mr McMULLAN (8:03 PM) —I understand the important point the member for Kingston was making. I do not want to dwell too much on the Treasurer's little performance in question time to which he responded, but the member for Kingston is absolutely correct. It was actually so odd it was bizarre, but it was part of a bizarre day that the Treasurer was having. What the member for Kingston is saying, what the opposition is saying, is that there should be a public inquiry, not a private one.

Why do we think this amendment to the ACIS Administration Bill 1999 is necessary? Why are we talking about the fact that the government has created the ridiculous circumstance in which it is proposing an inquiry in 2005 into a scheme that expires in 2005 and therefore creates the threat of a hiatus? This is not the height of fantasy. This is not our imagination. In a joint statement by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the then minister for industry, dated 5 June 1997, they set out at dot point three: `There will be a review in 2005.' What we are saying is: that is a crazy time to have the review.

I do not object to there being a review in 2005, if circumstances at that stage justify it—let us wait and see. What we are saying is: the parliament is being asked to approve a proposal for some changes which come into effect in 2005 and in this particular bill the implementation of a support measure, so-called transitional measure, which expires in 2005, and the only public information we have is a government commitment to have an inquiry in 2005. Yet when we pressed this point in the second reading debate and heard the parliamentary secretary respond, what did he say? He said, `We don't need an amendment about an inquiry because the government might have an inquiry anyway.' We do not actually know they will. Nobody knows what sort of inquiry it is. Nobody knows whether the parliament will receive the report from that inquiry. Nobody knows whether the public will get a chance to make submissions, whether the industry will get a chance to make submissions, whether the affected communities for this very important regionally based industry will get a chance to make submissions, whether the state governments, particularly of South Australia and Victoria, will get a chance to make submissions.

I think there is legitimate concern that, while we all know that the big players are going to get a chance to be heard, this is an industry where the extent of small and medium sized enterprise involvement is underestimated because everyone thinks of the automobile industry as the four car manufacturers. Of course they are very important players in the industry fundamental to, for example, the City of Geelong, as our colleague the member for Corio made clear in his speech on the second reading. But what about all the automobile parts manufacturers and the other service suppliers affected by this? It is necessary that we propose to have a proper inquiry before the scheme folds and before the tariff changes take place so that all those views can be heard and an informed decision made.

The tariff is important because, while I think both sides of the House remain committed—I know we do, and I think it is the same for the government—to the 2010 APEC objective, the pace and timetable of achieving that are matters properly for informed judgment. But the most important thing is this: what is going to follow these transitional arrangements? How are these transitional arrangements going to continue beyond 2005? We do not want $2 billion of support after five years to just fall straight off the edge of the cliff to zero support, and that is what the parliament is being asked to vote for at the moment.

It is an unreasonable proposition. The amendment is one that the government could accept, except that it is so pig-headed. It is the `was not made here' syndrome. Because the opposition is proposing it, the government is now saying, `You don't need anything about an inquiry. We might have one and we'll tell you about it at the time. The form of it will be one that we'll decide when we're good and ready.' If there is a change of government, there will be an inquiry and it will be public. What we want is the parliament to ensure that, whether there is a change of government or not, that inquiry takes place.