Senator KEMP (Assistant Treasurer) (9:14 PM) —We have had a discussion about Commonwealth-state financial relations. That bill is not in this package of bills which are before this chamber. Equally, the bills relating to the wine tax are not before this chamber. We can have debates on those bills. However, it makes sense to wait until the bills come before this chamber so that we can have these debates. Knowing his enthusiasm for these things, Senator Murphy will be jumping up and down as soon as these other bills come in, and we will have the same debate. It makes sense that we do not debate bills which are not before the chamber. I am again mindful of Senator Sherry's comments that we are very anxious to get these bills debated. The sooner these bills go through, the sooner we can get the other bills in and we can have a debate on them.

A number of issues were raised by Senator Brown from Tasmania. The payroll tax does not change, Senator Brown. That was one of the issues you raised. A wide range of taxes—up to nine—will be removed. That is on the public record. The states were very keen to abolish a range of inefficient taxes.

Senator Brown —Does that include stamp taxes?

Senator KEMP —There is a range here. I can go through these for you if you like. They include financial institutions duty, debits tax, stamp duty on marketable securities, conveyancing duties on business property, stamp duties on credit arrangements, instalment purchase arrangements and rental hiring arrangements, stamp duties on leases, stamp duties on mortgages, bonds, debentures and so forth. So a range of inefficient taxes will be coming off—and I think the states welcome that. That is part of the agreement with the states.

How will the tax reform affect Tasmania? Senator, our reforms to the tax system will provide Tasmania, like other states, with a more robust source of revenue which can be expected to grow over time. I note your comments about Premier Bacon. I think Premier Bacon was probably being sincere when he welcomed the arrangements. I do not think he was being indiscreet; I would prefer to phrase it that he was being honest. If he welcomed the arrangements, which we think were very generous, we think he was quite right. The revenue will allow the Tasmanian government to remove a range of inefficient taxes and provide into the future a sustainable level of quality services, such as hospitals, schools, roads and law enforcement. We think that is a very good thing, and it is one of the reasons we think this is quite a historic reform.

The Commonwealth has guaranteed that in the three years following the GST the budgetary position of Tasmania will be no worse off than it would have been in the absence of tax reform. There is a wide variety of ways the Tasmanian economy will benefit from the tax system. The cost of transporting goods and passengers across Bass Strait will be reduced by the effective elimination of the tax on marine fuel. You spoke about tourism in Tasmania. That seems to me to be a very important initiative not mentioned by anyone in this chamber. The net excise on diesel fuel used in heavy transport and rail will also fall sharply. You do not agree with that issue, but rural and regional Australia does. It is one of the big pluses for rural and regional Australia. Tourism operators will benefit from lower transport costs. Tourism operators in remote areas will obtain relief from excise for off-road use of diesel, such as remote air power generation. There are quite a range of ways in which the economy in Tasmania will benefit.

In relation to tourism, I will quote from a letter written by Tourism Council Australia. We have had a lot of experts on tourism in this chamber. Despite their interest in the debate, they all appear to have now departed, having made their comments.

Senator O'Brien —Would you like me to call them back?

Senator KEMP —You can call them back. They asked questions. One would have hoped they would have stuck around to hear a few answers.

Senator Murphy —They are enthralling speeches that you make.

Senator KEMP —You asked me about tourism. I am now quoting to you from Tourism Council Australia. Senator Murphy, you might not accept Tourism Council Australia's views, but let me just put them on the record. This is from a letter that was written to the Treasurer, with a copy sent to the Hon. Jackie Kelly:

I am writing to you to clarify the tourism industry's position on tax reform. I understand that over the last month the industry's message has been confused and been subjected to contrary statements on the effect of a GST.

Tourism Council Australia is a foundation member of the Business Coalition for Tax Reform and intends to work with Australia's leading business organisations in supporting the tax reform agenda.

Listening to all the senators who are great experts on tourism, I noted that nobody actually bothered to quote Tourism Council Australia. The letter continues:

TCA has 30,000 members Australia-wide and is the peak national body representing the interests of the tourism industry. This industry is solidly behind the Government's taxation reform package.

Senator Crossin —What did they say in their submission?

Senator KEMP —I know this is distressing for you, but you have had all these experts standing up and saying, `Gosh, this is so bad for tourism'; it is funny that Tourism Council Australia does not agree.

Senator Murphy —What is the date?

Senator KEMP —Senator Murphy, because of the expertise you have shown in this area this evening you should go and explain to Tourism Council Australia that in your view they happen to be wrong. In my view they happen to be right.

Senator Murphy —What is the date on the letter?

Senator KEMP —The 2nd of March, 1999. The letter goes on:

With the objective of achieving industry unity, I have attached a letter to Chris Brown, Chief Executive, Tourism Taskforce from the tourism industry's major associations.

I hope that this clarifies the industry position on taxation reform.

All I put on the record is that Tourism Council Australia seems to totally reject the views put forward by the Senator Murphys, the Senator Browns, the Senator Quirkes, the Senator Hoggs and the Senator Sherrys of this world. All I can say is, `Why don't you consult with the industry associations? Listen to what they say.'