Senator MARGETTS(11.10 a.m.) —I listened with interest to the debate today as the amendments that are being rejected are amendments which I moved and which did get support in this chamber. I note that in the other house the Labor Party also rejected the amendment.

We have heard an estimate that it could cost $7 million per year, as a conservative estimate. Obviously, our model of the issue was that it was not anything that taxpayers were not already entitled to. If there is, indeed, a potential cost of $7 million per annum which, on the cost of landcare, is not huge, the signal is that some people who would never use the scheme will be brought into the scheme. I do not think that is a bad idea. The purpose of providing such a mechanism is that there will be some people who, because they do not have taxable income, are not able to put off that reimbursement until a later date because these are straitened times and have been for some time.

If there is an extra cost, that is a recognition that the current system creates a disincentive for many people who ought to be able to provide landcare activities on their land but do not have the incentive or the ability to do so. That should not be seen as a bad signal; it should be seen as a glaring, flashing light that there is something that we should do to look after that situation.

It has been mentioned that the proposal could distort taxpayers' choice. I find that extraordinary. We thought that   the problem at the moment is that many people are left without choice about the times that they apply these measures because of the fact that they may not be able to be reimbursed for those measures when they most need them. There may be arguments on both sides, but I do not think you can claim that it is simply a measure that will distort taxpayers' choice. We think that the balance comes in the other direction.

At the time that I put the amendments, I mentioned that we were putting them as a model: this is one way that it might be done. If you feel that you are prepared to take the risk that your scheme is not going to be abused—quite frankly, we think that there is much more than $7 million at risk in terms of your scheme for treatment for limestone—we will be watching that, of course. Basically, what we said at the time was, `Come back to the Senate with some other ideas or with some commitment. If you do not think this is the appropriate bill or the appropriate way to do it, come back and say, "We've taken these concerns on board and we know that the rural community in Australia is keen that such changes be achieved. They would like to see you, as a government, come up with a model."'

As part of the outcome of today's debate, I would like to see a commitment that there will be moves towards coming up with a model. If you say that this is not the right bill, the right place or the right way, I would like to see a commitment that you will be looking into how to achieve this goal of that $7 million of claims that are currently not being made per year, to encourage those people who are currently discouraged by the nature of the schemes that exist to engage in important landcare activities. So I leave it in the hands of the government.

Senator Cook —Are you asking the minister to reply to that proposition?

Senator MARGETTS —As we all share these concerns, I ask the minister whether there is a commitment that the government will work towards solving these problems.