Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (9:43 PM) —I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration for his explanation of the amendments going to the statutory formula for calculating the amount of fuel. I clearly note that on this occasion, rather than being stationary as usual, he is actually mobile in explaining this detailed statutory formula. I seek to raise a number of other issues in passing and to clearly establish that the opposition are supporting the bill before the House—unlike a suggestion made by a number of coalition members, including those representing National Party seats, who are now in the position where they just jump when the Liberal Party says, `Jump.' It is very clear that in a coalition government in this day and age—unlike in the day and age when people like Black Jack McEwen represented rural Australia—representatives of the National Party in the coalition government are rolled time and time again, as was clearly proved by a number of resolutions carried at the National Party conference in the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales last weekend. I suppose that for that reason a number of speakers in the debate—supposedly in support of the bill on the other side of the House—this evening actually raised their concerns about the anomalies that exist in the bill and the fact that it creates a lot of unanswered questions and dissatisfaction, especially in rural Australia.

I go, for example, to the point raised by the member for Eden-Monaro, who said that he actually believes that the bill is inadequate because it fails to cover emergency vessels. He also indicated that he will be making further representations to have emergency vessels on the coast covered by this provision. I believe the government should very clearly clarify this evening whether or not the representations by the member for Eden-Monaro will be favourably considered, or will it again turn its back on the concerns raised by regional representatives in the coalition government? Perhaps, in passing, it might also be appropriate for the government's representative, the parliamentary secretary, to consider the request I made earlier in the debate today to properly explain for the record why Mr Haverhoek, whom I referred to in my speech, an operator of a dozer and other heavy equipment providing a valuable service to primary producers in rural Australia in looking after their rural roads, is not eligible for the scheme.

But there are also other concerns raised by members on the other side of the House, for example, the member for New England—who I might say this evening used, in a shameless manner, the public purse in the House of Representatives to actually publicly advertise the sale of his prime mover. Mr Deputy Speaker, he clearly advertised the fact that he has been unable to sell his prime mover, using the House of Representatives and the public purse to make it very clear to the Australian public that he has a prime mover for sale. But, more importantly, I suppose, this has become part and parcel of the government. Not only do we have prime movers now advertised for sale in the House of Representatives, we even have the Prime Minister's daughter transported at public expense around France, as was recently disclosed to the Australian public. I tell you what: mateship is being extended a long way by the coalition government in this day and age.

It was interesting to note that the member for New England raised yet another concern—that is, whether or not powerhouses would be eligible for assistance under the scheme. I think the member for New England is entitled to know, as is the member for Eden Monaro, as he represents a regional seat in Australia, whether or not the government is prepared to favourably consider his proposal that the operation of the scheme be extended to the operation of powerhouses in his regional seat. I might say that I welcomed the opportunity to visit his regional seat, as I have, and I will continue to do so because I am getting very clear feedback that, across the broad spectrum of his electorate, there is now concern about his lack of representation and understanding of the needs and aspirations of people living in regional Australia.

I will now go to the member for Groom, a person often belittled by members of the National Party, the junior coalition partner. He raised the question of the quarrying industry and whether or not the application of the scheme would be extended to those working in that industry. (Extension of time granted) Like the members for Eden-Monaro and New England, I think the member for Groom is entitled to an answer. I think he is entitled to know this evening, as the government intends concluding debate on this bill this evening, whether or not the ramshackle way in which it considered the Diesel Fuels and Alternative Grants Scheme will now be revisited and whether or not people working in the quarrying industry, as is clearly the desire in the regional seat of Groom, which I have also visited—during the course of which I discovered widespread concern in the seat of Groom about the lack of quality representation by the member—are going to be covered by the application of the Diesel Fuels and Alternative Grants Scheme.

I think it is exceptionally important that, as these concerns have been raised by members of the government supposedly speaking in support of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Amendment Bill 2000, the government's representative clearly establishes beyond doubt this evening whether or not the government is prepared to actually consider in a meaningful way the extension of the grants scheme in relation to the concerns of the member for Eden-Monaro about emergency vessels, my own request about Mr Haverhoek in relation to the road industry, the question of the member for New England about powerhouses and the question of the member for Groom with respect to quarrying, or whether we are wasting our breath in seeking to raise our concerns to meet the needs and aspirations of our constituents. If not, I think it will clearly prove that this government has let down the constituents of New England, Groom and Eden-Monaro yet again.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.