Senator CRANE(5.09 p.m.) —In rising to speak in the debate on this corrective legislation that we have before us, there are a couple points I want to make. As it is the first time I have spoken on a primary industry bill since coming into the new parliament, I put on the public record—I don't think `confess' is the right word—that I am a partner in a primary producing oper ation. Naturally, that operation is eligible for the diesel fuel rebate, as it applies to all primary producers. As I said, the rebate applies to all primary producers in this country, as it does to people in the forestry industry, the mining industry and the fishing industry. I want to make that point and hopefully it suffices for the whole of the term of this parliament.

In dealing with this corrective legislation I acknowledge the comments of Senator Schacht, but the real reason why we are back here dealing with this legislation is that Senator Schacht got it wrong last year. He brought forward his correcting bill at that particular time. That was referred off to a Senate committee, which had a look at it in a legitimate and proper process. It then came back and—for whatever reason; I am not quite sure what the reason is but we might hear why in the third reading stage—Senator Schacht declined to finish the job which he started.

Senator Schacht —Because you added amendments to it.

Senator CRANE —He declined to finish the job which he started.

Senator Schacht —Because you added amendments to the bill.

Senator CRANE —I will come to those in a moment or two. After going through that particular process we are now here cleaning up his mess—what he left behind. There are a couple of things I remind you of, Senator Schacht, through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, in terms of this particular legislation. We put up some 70 to 80 amendments to this customs and excise bill—I forget how many there were; I know we put a block together of 20 in one group to help him through his dilemma—and you consistently made the point throughout that debate, when you were minister, that you wanted to actually get a prescriptive description but you did not want to take anything away that qualified for the diesel fuel rebate from when it was introduced.

In my view, and from the advice I have, there was only one thing that did increase it, and that was the extension into the landcare program. If we look at that, in regard to catchment areas—there is a definition in this bill of a catchment area—that was the only extension. At the time when the diesel fuel rebate came into being and the various changes were made, landcare was not a fact of life. It would have been if you had looked at Western Australia, but under a different program from the federal program. I understand that all the points that were raised in the Senate committees—I was not actually in the parliament when the second Senate committee was being handled—were things that qualified for the diesel fuel rebate prior to that legislation coming in.

The other point which I wish to deal with is the so-called limestone issue, which is dealt with in this legislation. If we go back and have a look at the practice that occurred prior to the changes being made, the mining or quarrying of limestone, whatever you want to call it, for use in agricultural purposes—

Senator Schacht —Quarrying.

Senator CRANE —Quarrying. The quarrying of limestone for use in agricultural purposes did qualify for the diesel fuel rebate and it was paid to those people who dug limestone out of the ground when it was used for the purpose of agriculture. What we have to remember with regard to this aspect, and I do not want to spend a lot of time on it, is that the mineral content of the limestone is the component—I am not a scientist but it is the ingredient as it was explained to me—which is required in terms of the acidification.

Senator Schacht —They don't extract that component out.

Senator CRANE —No, but it is in the limestone. You can go to further expense if you like; you can be quite silly and stupid economically and you do these things. Farmers around the place who have a little bit of sense. They say, `Well, there's no point in getting the minerals out of that. It's a waste of time. It's a waste a money.' It is far cheaper and it is far better to put the limestone in its rough form direct onto the ground, and it did qualify. It is not an extension of the scheme, as some people have tried to suggest in this debate.

It is also very important in terms of the total program to look after the most valuable resource or asset we have in our country, that is the soil. I am informed that in fact the acidification of soil in this country is a greater problem than salinity is. That is the sort of magnitude that we are looking at. I think it is a very responsible step with us now in government. I believe that it would have been a very responsible step for you to have adopted at the time you were in government, and I would have said so.

I also make the point that when the previous legislation was before us—and I am sure Senator Schacht would acknowledge this—I did not personally have a problem with defining the diesel fuel rebate and how it should be applied. I did question why you chose to apply it to mining and agriculture and not fishing and forestry. There seemed to be an inconsistency in the policy position. I still have that question in the back of my mind.

This correcting legislation is before us because of mistakes made by the minister at that time. You will remember during that debate—it was very late at night or early in the morning—I suggested that we take a 15-minute break and sort out the amendments and make sure we got them right because they were fundamental to the amendments that Senator Margetts was moving at that time on behalf of the Greens with regard to retrospectivity. As it has transpired, the legislation had to come back to this chamber because other matters needed clarification, and that is what this is all about.

I comment briefly on the amendments from Senator Margetts with regard to movement into the taxation field. I do not believe this is an appropriate piece of legislation to deal with those amendments, nor do I believe this is an appropriate time. I would certainly be prepared to look at them at such a time when taxation legislation is before us. That is not to say I will agree with them or support them. I have not analysed them, but this is certainly not the right legislation in which to be dealing with them. It is the correct legislation to deal with the limestone issues.

There are one or two other points regarding the Senate's report that I need to touch on. One in particular is a very notable omission, as far as the current situation with the diesel fuel rebate is concerned and one that was covered under the previous scheme; that is, the construction or maintenance on private access roads. It is particularly applicable to our people in pastoral country. Right now it is even more applicable than it has ever been because of the series of cyclones in the north-west of Western Australia and the floods that have occurred in much of the eastern part of this continent, particularly in those pastoral areas where individual property owners have made miles and miles of private roads.

Many of those roads are used by the public to get through those properties and get around outback Australia. They are also used extensively by our Aboriginal community, particularly in the north-west of Western Australia. This issue is something that needs to be addressed. I have taken this matter up with Minister Prosser and he informs me it will be addressed when amending legislation comes before this parliament. I intend to pursue that particular matter with him.

I have already made my position clear about the importance of the diesel fuel rebate scheme to our export industries, particularly the four I have mentioned, as one way of offsetting or allowing industry in this country to be more internationally competitive. I have already emphasised that point. If it makes you feel any better, Senator Schacht, I have raised this matter in the party room, and I will continue to do so through the various forums of our party.

I would like to comment on a matter I raised when the Auditor-General's report came before us. While the Auditor-General's report identifies a number of concerns, and that is correct, it also identifies some of the good—

Senator Schacht —$76 million worth of concern.

Senator CRANE —I made the point that it identifies a number of concerns, but it also identifies that certain actions have been taken by the customs department with regard to addressing some of those problems. I think we must have a balanced view when looking at that. One of the problems you have in this place is that when you sit on one side of the chamber you only put one side of the story. Senator Schacht, it is not quite as easy as that.

Senator Schacht —Not for you, Winston, on this issue.

Senator CRANE —No, not for me. It is not nonsense at all. I never used to do it when I was on that side either.

Lastly, I want to look at how the diesel fuel rebate is administered. I believe it is time we really had a look at the process. It used to be an exemption scheme, not a rebate scheme. We all know the reasons why it was changed. Changes were made to sales tax—I think Senator Button was here at the time. An exemption scheme was put in. A certified number was allocated to certified people who were the only people who could sign to get it.

I think that scheme could be expanded. It would certainly reduce the administration costs. It would reduce the chances of abuse of the scheme. It could be done in the form of a bankcard or medicare card with authorised people linked to it. I think that would be a step forward. I will be promoting that change to the administration side of it in our party room and with our minister.

Having made those comments, I commend this legislation to the chamber. We will gratefully clean up the mess Senator Schacht left for us. I commend the legislation, which is in the hands of Senator Parer, to this chamber.