Mr LAWLER (2:33 PM) —My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Is the minister aware of any recent research into the positive effects of tax reform on farm businesses and rural communities? What benefits does this research demonstrate for this sector?

Mr ANDERSON (Deputy Prime Minister) —I thank the honourable member for Parkes for his question. It gives me the opportunity to point to something that I think is very important indeed and that perhaps did not quite get the publicity that it should have. There was some very detailed work undertaken by the very highly respected Centre for Agricultural and Regional Economics at Armidale, in the member for New England's seat, towards the end of last year. As part of this analysis, the effects of the GST were tested against five typical farm enterprise situations. It is very obvious that no-one on the other side is actually interested in the outcomes of tax reform for rural and regional Australia, mainly because it actually delivers real benefits which of course they have always been prepared to stand in the way of.

We actually found that the effect in regional communities of tax changes for farm businesses is very encouraging. So often those businesses are of course the underpinning of regional economies. The centre looked at a small grazing operation, a medium sized grazing operation, a cropping partnership, a cropping company and, finally, a horticultural operation. The tremendous news is that in all five cases it found that the introduction of the GST would mean an increase in net disposable income. All five farming systems reviewed are better off, and let me quote the centre:

There is more good news: it is not just the big operators who are better off; the small grazing enterprise was 57 per cent better off in terms of net disposable income, the medium cropping operation was 20 per cent better off, the cropping partnership 16 per cent better off, the cropping company 22 per cent better off and, finally, the largest operation, which was the horticultural outfit, was 13 per cent better off. They are quite stark improvements in disposable incomes for farmers at a time when the sector is seeing very, very low and often negative returns on capital investment. They are in fact very encouraging, very significant figures. It is worth noting that this study involved the use of five actual farms - they were not hypothetical; they were real.

The question has to be asked in the face of this—and indeed it was referred to by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry yesterday—about the ALP's empty slate of a policy approach which contains just one commitment, and that is roll-back. Where is Labor's roll-back going to hit the farm sector, so desperately in need of a better bottom line? Where will it be? We know that we are looking at attacks on the income tax rates—the Treasurer has clearly established that—but what of some of the other important benefits, such as the very substantial benefits to the grains industry that the minister for agriculture referred to yesterday? What about the $3.5 billion cuts in fuel excise? We still have not heard from the new spokesman for the regions over there a repudiation of the member for Dixon's claim that our fuel cuts were nothing more than a boost to pollution. We are still waiting, member for Batman, for a repudiation of that statement. We have not had it. The only question that can be asked is: why does Labor in reality hate the bush so much that they are not prepared to commit themselves to the reforms that make a difference.

Mr Crean —You're an embarrassment to your party, John. Do you realise that?

Mr SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is denying the member for Calare the call. So is the member for Batman, who is warned!