Senator MARK BISHOP (6:06 PM) —It is interesting that you have allocated $75 million over the next four years for supporting conversion to CNG or LPG, an entirely worthwhile initiative and not something that the opposition would be particularly interested in attacking for attacking's sake. It is also interesting that, having decided to allocate that sum of funds, the minister is indicating that you do not quite know yet where the funds are going to be allocated and the manner in which they are going to be allocated.

Taking that point a little bit further, Minister, you said at the outset that some 40,000 buses are relevant and the program is going to affect some 800. When respective bus operators, owners of buses, do apply to the relevant agency to undergo the conversion process, can the minister advise whether there will be an order of priority in terms of those applications which might be successful, other than an order of priority in terms of date of application?

It is fairly well agreed that, if you go through Australia's major cities, the age of our fleet causes harm in itself. Older buses and older trucks, those that are heavily used, are more inclined to pollute. As their engine parts wear, they become more inefficient in their combustion processes and spew out grey and black muck into the air of all of our major cities. So, having decided to allocate $75 million to address this problem in part—with 800 buses out of 40,000, I suppose the improvement in air quality will be, at best, marginal and minor over time—it seems to me that it would be a sound objective to be seeking to have older machines, those that are more inclined to pollute our air, changed to be more efficient and environmentally friendly.

I ask the minister: has the government yet determined the order of priority? Will older buses and the like receive preferential or priority treatment? Will those engines and other parts of the buses that are more inclined to pollute, those that are more offensive in nature, receive priority treatment? What negotiations, if any, have been conducted to date with the major fleet owners? Is that issue going to be left solely to the states for implementation, or will the Commonwealth be indicating to the states and the relevant agencies their concern that the priorities be of a particular order and the progress, if any, of those negotiations to date? Does the government have in mind any particular regions, cities or parts of Australia that should be priority areas attached to this concern?

It is one thing to have a long range truck fleet or bus hauling system in remote parts of Australia where the harmful effect of pollutants is rapidly mitigated by the overall cleanliness of the air environment as opposed to some of our bigger cities like Sydney and Melbourne where the pollutant just hangs in the air for hours on end. What I wish to explore and get advice from the minister about is: has an order of priorities been attached to remedying this problem?

It appears to the opposition that, whilst the government was obviously keen to get its GST package of bills up, having allocated something in the order of $214 million rising to $233 million per annum—almost $800 million or $900 million over four years—for improvement of our environment, there would be clear objectives in terms of the implementation of the seven particular programs that have been identified. Minister, in respect of program 1, supporting conversions to CNG or LPG for commercial vehicles, the opposition is interested in being advised now on the record the order of priorities by state and by region. Is there an order of priorities for aged vehicles to be converted? I ask the minister to respond to those queries.