Mr HARDGRAVE (11:20 AM) —It has been an interesting process to listen to the approval of the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan), on behalf of those opposite, of the Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998 and the Taxation Laws Amendment (Film Licensed Investment Company) Bill 1998 . I think that at the very end of the day, when all is said and done, there is approval from the Labor Party for the government's measures contained within this bill—with a tonne of qualifications. If the member for Canberra is to be believed as far as takers for the FLIC concept are concerned—he did say that there probably will be takers—the bottom line is, by his figures, $27 million out of the Australian film industry and $40 million into it—$40 million worth of investment. That is really what this bill will be encouraging.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr HARDGRAVE —There is no cultural cringe on this side. We do not believe for a moment that Australian film or television productions are second rate or need to be the by-products of some sort of sheltered workshop. We believe that people will take up the challenges contained within this legislation, because they will see Australian film and television products as commercially viable and capable of returning on investment. The good old basic principle of ROI will generate the investment and there will be a return. We see this on a daily, weekly, monthly, yearly basis in this country, where the film industry is reaching the maturity to be able to generate, on a very constant basis, respectable films and films which also go on to be commercially viable and which win awards in international fora.

For so many reasons the government's bill before us is a worthwhile pilot scheme and a shot in the arm for the film industry, to generate the real support that it needs in order to be viable without simply being part of the government's ongoing program. We would all, on this side, like to be putting more money into matters such as the film and television industry and the arts. I note with some personal consternation the decline in the commercial television production fund announced in the recent budget—such a decline is something that I have fought against and would have hoped did not happen—but I am pleased that the Expenditure Review Committee did, in its wisdom, see the importance of supporting the SBSI production fund. That in itself is an indication of just how well returned the investments of SBSI as seed money for productions have been.

I am pleased similarly by the treatment of the Australian Film Finance Corporation, a government funded instrumentality which has financed movies like Shine, Muriel's Wedding, Priscilla, Queen of the Desert and Strictly Ballroom, four movies which have gone on to be huge commercial successes. The Film Finance Corporation continues to generate a great deal of government support based on the simple fact that returns do come in strong waves on the basic seed money investments provided by the taxpayer. What the bills before us today are saying is that we believe the commercial viability of the industry is there, it is well pronounced, it is well established and people will want to be a part of it.

The fact that the government has taken the Gonski review's recommendations to bring about this FLIC concept is a good thing, but we have decided also to ensure that certainty is there for the industry by retaining the 10BA provision within the tax act. Another matter that Gonski reported on, although it was only a line or two, was the fact that the existing taxation act—I think it is at section 51(1)—gives tax concessions to Australians who invest in films offshore, as overseas investment. I do not remember hearing anybody opposite talk about the need for taxation reform this morning, but there is another example of the need for taxation reform. There is no doubt in my mind that if we are, as a taxpaying nation, going to reward people who invest in industries offshore, there is something a little bit astray. There is a lot of need to look at taxation reform for this industry alone.

What is really at the heart of all of this is that the money—which is basically seed money—that the government is putting into the production film and television programs is a very cheap shout. Any amounts of money the government puts in tend to give some serious returns on investment. If we could find another $10 million and shoot it off somewhere, perhaps into commercial television production funds and so forth, it would be well regarded and greeted—the returns and the results would certainly be there—but I would find it very hard to look pensioners in my electorate of Moreton in the eye and say that, in spite of the Labor Party's debt and the resulting fact that we have been left a critical problem in repaying that debt, we could still find excessive amounts of money for an area where the private sector could be investing without the public purse having to be opened for it.

What the government is saying in the form of this bill, and what the debate before us has become, is that we have a great deal of confidence in the commercial viability of our film industry. I certainly would like to see the government be more generous in assisting the film and television industries. I think we are also sending the signal to the industries that we want you to go on and continue to prove yourselves to be commercially viable. It is a pilot scheme that is before us. To be fair, it would be my assessment that perhaps we might be making them struggle a bit more than some would like. Nevertheless, out of that will come the results that we would all like—that is, a continuation of the growth and of the real investment, the commercially viable investment, that is producing results in this important sector. I commend the bill to the House.