Senator EGGLESTON —I have a question for Senator Macdonald, the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. Would the minister advise the Senate of reaction to the government's business tax reform package, specifically relating to its impact on regional Australia? Would he pay particular attention to the package's benefits for small business operating outside our capital cities?

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Regional Services, Territories and Local Government) —Senator Eggleston—in fact all senators—would be pleased to know that the package has received the endorsement of the National Farmers Federation, whose President said that the system would be much simpler, much fairer, and that primary producers would therefore be much more competitive. Of course that is good news for the bush. The Queensland Canegrowers have strongly endorsed the changes. The General Manager, Ian Ballantyne, said that it would appear this is going to simplify people's lives a hell of a lot. The Certified Practising Accountants have said:

The small business sector are clearly the winners from the announcement and have finally gained a voice in tax reform. The government appears to have heeded calls from small business who are drowning in red tape.

That is the red tape that Labor put in place in its 13 years in office.

The initiatives that we have introduced will provide for primary producers that assets of $1,000 or more having an effective life of less than 25 years will be subject to accelerated depreciation and pooling. Assets of less than $1,000 will be written off immediately. That is a great boost to small business generally and primary producers in particular. Business assets that have been held for more than 15 years, held by someone who is over 55 and about to retire, will be entirely GST free, and so the list goes on. Company tax will be reduced from 36 per cent to 30 per cent. That will be great news for rural and regional small businesses and farmers in particular. That is such a contrast to what the Labor Party did. They increased company tax from 33 per cent to 36 per cent. They wanted to increase taxes on four-wheel drives, an essential form of transport in rural and regional Australia. They increased taxes on motor vehicles and on petrol. You might remember that during the Labor years excise went up from 7c a litre to something like 46c a litre—an enormous tax increase. That is what Labor thought about the bush.

We have listened to what rural and regional Australians have said. As a result of listening to what people in country Australia have said, we have introduced our Rural Transaction Centre Program, the first centre being opened in late October. We have the Rural Plan and the Rural Communities Program. We have the regional Australia summit. Again, this government can listen to the concerns, listen to the problems, listen to the solutions that people in country Australia have. We are proposing a Northern Outlook conference, which also demonstrates that this is a government that understands and cares.

It is so different to the Labor Party. Mr Beazley, I understand, during the recent election campaign was in the electorate of Ripon, a regional seat in Victoria. He was asked why he was there. One would have thought he might have said, `We're here to understand your problems. We're here to announce some policy.' What did he say? He said, `We're here because we want to win it.' That is the only concern Mr Beazley and the Labor Party have in going to regional Australia. They are not interested in regional Australians, not interested in the policy; they are only interested in the politics. That is why their spokesman on regional matters, Ms Kernot, really has not been able to get out into the bush. She has been out there once or twice she said. As far as the Labor Party are concerned, they believe the bush crisis is whether or not Ms Kernot should keep her current portfolio or get a softer portfolio or get some additional help in her portfolio. That seems to be what passes in Labor for concern about the bush—whether Ms Kernot should be moved to another portfolio, because she has obviously failed in this portfolio. (Time expired).