Mr RONALDSON (6:01 PM) —It is a great pleasure to speak on the Fuel Sales Grants (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2000. I noticed with great interest that the member for Greenway made some comments today and talked about cash flow problems. I assure him that these grants will be paid in advance to fuel retailers to avoid cash flow difficulties. He also mentioned a number of other matters, including a supposed lack of scrutiny. I cannot think—in my 10 years in this place or the decade before then when I was taking an interest in politics—of any piece of legislation that has undergone greater scrutiny than the GST legislation. I thought it was very interesting that, when the member for Greenway sat down, the last thing he did was mumble under his breath, `We don't oppose this.' I have an amendment in front of me. If they do not oppose it, why is there an amendment?

Mr Slipper —It's humbug.

Mr RONALDSON —It is absolute humbug, and we have seen it now for about eight months. The simple fact is that the ALP have on every occasion since the introduction and before the introduction of the GST legislation done everything possible to put the fear of God into the Australian people. The great irony of this is that, having done this for the last six months or so, they then come in and mumble under their breath, `We're not going to repeal it.' If they are so vehemently opposed to the GST and every part of the legislation that accompanies it, why will they not remove it in the unlikely event that they get into government? Why is it that they come in here in relation to the Fuel Sales Grants (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2000, move an amendment and then mumble under their breath, `We're not going to oppose it'?

If you went into country Victoria, country Australia, and said to someone, `There's a proposal to dramatically cut the costs of fuel for small business, there's a proposal to cut the fuel costs for farmers, there's a proposal to cut the fuel costs for heavy transport and there's a proposal to start addressing the differential between city and country prices and the ALP are opposing those proposals,' they would say, `You are stark raving mad; they couldn't possibly be.' But the reality is that they have opposed this at every single stage. At every single stage the ALP have opposed what has been desperately required in regional and country Australia for a long, long time. The part that distresses me—again, through this amendment to the bill—is their total lack of understanding about regional and rural Australia. I am going to call it country Australia; I think it is a better term. They do not understand that small business people in country Australia are required to travel numerous more miles than their metropolitan counterparts. They do not seem to understand that the cost of transport, particularly heavy transport, raises the price of virtually every single product that we purchase in country Victoria.

I am pleased the member for Paterson has come in. I am sure that he would not support the amendment and would just go ahead and support the bill. But I will be interested to hear what he has to say about it in due course. He, at the moment, represents a country area, and I am sure that he would not support this sort of nonsense.

Mr Stephen Smith —Better than you can represent yours.

Mr RONALDSON —You have said that plenty of times, member for Perth, and we will see who is right after the next one. But I am sure the member for Paterson would not oppose what the government is doing. I would like to hear him stand up today and say, `The shadow minister has made an absolute goose of himself by moving an amendment in relation to this bill, and he should have just let it go through without this carry-on, this charade, of moving an amendment.' But I will just go back to where I was. An absolutely integral part of this new tax system for country Australians has been the reduction in fuel costs—the absolutely pivotal part of it. I just cannot believe that the ALP have not sat down and had a close look at this.

Mr Slipper —They can't read.

Mr RONALDSON —That is probably one of the issues, but I suspect that most of them can read. But if that was an issue, you could understand it. But what really concerns me is that they are just playing dirty, cheap politics in the run-up to 30 June—just dirty, cheap politics that has no relevance to the future of this country. They reckon they might be able to score a few cheap, political points on the way through, but I think they are grossly underestimating the ability of the Australian people to see that sort of behaviour for what it is.

If you look at the great bulk of industries in country Australia, you will see they are exporters, and I am very pleased to say to the member for Paterson that they include his wine industry, which is now one of this country's great export successes. A large number of other industries in country Australia—those industries that employ, those industries that support families and those industries that provide a future for our young people—are heavily reliant on export industries. I appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, that you represent a city electorate, but the member for Paterson should know that there are some $4 billion in taxes on our exports.

Mr Forrest —That's the monkey on their back.

Mr RONALDSON —As my National Party Whip colleague said, that is a huge monkey on their back. Surely commonsense would dictate that, if you take taxes off exports, the prices of those exports will potentially reduce. If those prices reduce, then surely they will become more competitive. If they become more competitive, then presumably more can be produced because there will be greater sales. If there are greater sales, more goods produced and more exports, then it is not unreasonable to think that there might also be some more jobs flowing from it.

Mr Horne —`If'.

Mr RONALDSON —I would have thought that was basic commonsense. As for the member for Paterson, I am not too sure what the unemployment rate is in his area—

Mr Horne —You guys haven't helped it.

Mr RONALDSON —That is a very, very ignorant comment by the member for Paterson. That is beneath you, my friend.

Mr Horne —Really?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! I ask members to address their remarks through the chair.

Mr RONALDSON —Mr Deputy Speaker, that is a very ignorant comment by the member for Paterson. The realities are that employers—including new employers in my region—who have responded to the policies of this government have reduced unemployment in my region from about 16 per cent, when the Labor Party left office, down to under 10 per cent. Surely anyone with a modicum of commonsense will appreciate that you have to have people employing people before jobs are created. So don't come that nonsense with me about what has or has not happened. The realities are that jobs have grown in my area only because people have been confident about putting people on and about growing their industries, unlike what happened in the late eighties and the early nineties when the Labor Party absolutely decimated country Victoria, decimated my own region. I tell you what: there is no uglier sight than to see people in the state they were in the early nineties. It was the most depressing thing that I have ever seen and it was driven by the ALP with patent nonsense about things such as `the recession we had to have'. What a charming little policy that was. What a charming way to destroy businesses. What a charming way to destroy families. What a charming way to destroy country Australia. `The recession we had to have'—what a charmer that was. What a disgraceful set of policies that would deliberately rip the heart out of country Australia. The realities are that this government has implemented and put in place a set of policies that have given confidence to those people who are going to deliver jobs to country Australians.

One of the biggest issues has been confidence about moving goods around this country at the cheapest possible price. That is what this bill is about and that is what this government is on about. As I said before, if you lower the costs of moving goods, not only do you, the member for Paterson, get the benefit of it as a consumer but the organisations and the companies, both large and small, which you represent also get the benefit of it, and as they are getting the benefit of it they are employing the people that you are here to represent. That is the first point about this.

As for the other point, I was amused by the comments of the member for Greenway when he talked about a lack of scrutiny. I found that amusing because the member for Greenway has obviously forgotten the fact that the party which he represents snuck through—at 12 o'clock at night when darkness was there—sales tax increase after sales tax increase. Was that ever subjected to scrutiny? Was that ever part of a policy that was put to the Australian people that was voted on in an election? Not on your sweet nelly! It went through under the cover of darkness—no scrutiny, no compensation, no explanation to the Australian people.

Mr RONALDSON —That is right. The ALP have an obligation to make sure that they are not spreading fear and loathing which is unduly affecting country Australians. That is what is happening. This ridiculous amendment is another example of that—a ridiculous amendment to allow them to keep on moving that fear and loathing to make sure that country Australians are not too sure about whether or not they are going to benefit. To do that and then to have the gall to whisper, `Well, we're not going to remove it,' I just think is absolutely totally duplicitous. It is totally duplicitous for the ALP to carry on in the way it is at the moment—and they are trying to make sure that the Australian people do not know about it—and to whisper, `Well, we're actually not going to remove it.' The cost of transport and the cost of doing business in country Australia is going to be dramatically reduced by these GST measures.

This bill addresses a number of things. The first one is that the price of fuel need not rise as a result of the GST. I think that probably one of the dirtiest little tricks I have seen in the last 10 years was one of the ALP members saying that fuel had increased because of the forthcoming GST. Honestly and truly, that was a blatant untruth, and the person that made the comment knows that it was a blatant untruth. The person that made the comment knows that the price of oil 10 or 12 months ago of about $11 has gone up to around $32 about a month ago. That is why fuel prices have increased, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the GST. But why risk letting the truth interfere with a good political point-scoring opportunity? That is what it is all about: cheap political point scoring.

The member for Greenway asked why decisions had not been made in relation to exact rates and details of the grants, et cetera. The reason for that is that disclosing exact methods of determining the grant rates and the excise cut at this stage could allow some players to manipulate pricing structures. So, on one hand, the ALP is crying crocodiles tears for Australian consumers and, on the other hand, it is suggesting that something be done which would put those consumers potentially at risk. It is an absolutely nonsensical argument. We are going to make sure that, when these measures are introduced, they are introduced for the benefit of the consumer and not for the benefit of that small, fortunately, but nevertheless existing minority that will try to rip the system off. We are not prepared to allow that and nor should we, because we want to make sure that Australian consumers get the best deal out of this.

The bill provides significant funds. All the legislation going through parliament provides significant funds to enable us to address and keep that election commitment that the price of fuel need not rise. It has been welcomed by those who know something about the industry and those who know something about country Australia. The VFF has welcomed what the federal government is doing in relation to this. The VFF knows darn well that this is the only government that has ever been prepared to take on the cost of doing business in country Australia. We have been trying to do something about the price of fuel and the differential between city and country. We have been trying to implement an oil code that would do that. But, again, which is the one group standing in the way of that? It is the ALP in the Senate. The ALP are again standing in the way of our doing something about it. This is the party that did absolutely nothing in government for 13 years, that showed not the remotest interest in country motorists in 13 years. In fact, they were so totally disinterested that they put up excise on a number of occasions. In 1983, there was a 1.87 per cent increase. There was a budget increase in 1986 of 3c and a budget increase in 1993 of 3c. There was another budget increase in 1994 of 3c. So not only were they not prepared to do something about this but they actually made petrol pricing worse by increasing those excises. They were not prepared to tackle the problem when they were in government—indeed, they actually put excise up as well—and now they oppose the government when it is trying to do something. That is where the ALP are coming from in relation to country Australia.

I thought it was very interesting to hear the ALP's discussions on last night's budget, which, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, introduced a number of the measures relating to this bill and other GST bills. You did not hear any message of support for this government's assistance to regional Australia. There was not a word of support. Their silence was, again, a cheap political point-scoring exercise. The health of country Australians was addressed in last night's budget. Did you hear a word of support from the ALP? Not a word. Their bona fides in relation to country Australia are absolutely non-existent. They did nothing in 13 years. The relevance of some parts of what happened in their time might be diminishing. Not only did they not do anything in their 13 years but they have purposely stood in the way of this government on every constructive thing that we have been trying to do. Every time we tried to do something, they have stood in the way and scored cheap political shots. They have not been prepared to support this government on any measure at all that is going to set this nation up for the future, and that contrasts directly with the former coalition opposition, which assisted the federal Labor government and supported those things that were going to drive this country forward. But this is a totally obstructionist opposition, devoid of any policy and intent only on opposing every single measure that this government has introduced. (Time expired)