Mr McMULLAN (4:20 PM) —In the normal course of things, this motion would have a lot of debate from this side of the House because it is an issue about which we feel strongly. We are going to vote for the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999 , and we will support these amendments, but it is a process and an outcome about which we have very profound reservations and qualifications. But we will support the bill and we will support it briefly because the reason this matter is being considered now is to facilitate its consideration in the House so that it can go expeditiously back to the Senate. This will facilitate the conclusion of our proceedings and also ensure that this package is properly passed and the money is made available to the industry before the conclusion of the parliamentary sittings.

Both I and the member for McMillan feel obliged to make some brief remarks: I because of the general nature of the concerns I have and the member for McMillan because of certain specific matters relating to his constituency. I assure the House that, notwithstanding the fact that in the normal course of things this would be a lengthy contribution, I will keep it brief.

The amendments that are being moved are those required by the detail of the regulatory package being put in place within the framework of this bill, and we do not oppose the amendments. But in the normal course of things when this bill came back we would have also been dealing with an amendment from the opposition, for which we had a majority in the Senate, which would have required that this package be reviewed in 2003 before expiry of the scheme and that changes to the tariff regime as a part of that take effect on 1 January 2005.

The government has committed itself to conducting a review of these policy arrangements in 2005 to take account of Australia's APEC commitments and progress on market access, but there is no provision for this review to take place before the legislated tariff reductions take effect or before the scheme expires. This is a bizarre bit of policy. We protested about that when it occurred in the auto industry and we protest again. We had the numbers in the Senate to pass an amendment to require that review be undertaken but we knew that, had we had persisted with that, the government would not have accepted it and we would have prevented the flow of $700 million of assistance to the industry. We will not do that. What we do is point out to industry—and the industry is now well aware—small businesses and the workers that if they want that review in 2003 they will have to elect a Labor government at the next election. There is no other way to get that review. We will make sure that everybody in this industry knows that and that will be an issue at the next election.

The debate here is being truncated with our cooperation so the bill can be passed today, 9 December 1999. The government says we must do this to expedite the package. Let us remember, this package was first announced in September 1997. The final commitment and the agreement was in July 1998. The package was introduced into the parliament in March 1999: sit around and then hurry, that is this minister's approach. So for nine months this legislation has sat on the shelf and then on the last day they truncate the process so there cannot be proper debate and the House cannot consider it adequately.

We will not use that as a reason to further delay $700 million worth of assistance to the industry. The industry warrants it and the jobs are needed. We will not oppose the bills because we want to let the industry get on with its work. But the failure to have a review is bizarre and absurd policy. The delay is merely an indication of this minister's continuing inattention to his responsibilities, his complete lack of interest in industry issues. He is in the wrong portfolio. He shows no interest and no support, and the way in which he has handled this matter exhibits that. We will not oppose these amendments. We will not delay the passage of these bills, but we give very clear notice that this will be a big issue for debate when the next election comes around.