Mr FITZGIBBON (8:48 PM) —I enjoyed the contribution of the member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) in particular on the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Retirement Assistance for Farmers) Bill 1998 . I enjoy coming in here and watching members of the National and Liberal parties representing rural and regional Australia trying to justify their rather paltry representation of those areas. I like the way they always fall back to the Natural Heritage Trust funding, as the member for Murray (Mrs Stone) did.

Those living in rural and regional Australia paid a very high price for that Natural Heritage Trust funding. They took the government on trust. Their high price was the loss of one-third control of Telstra. That was a very high price for them. They were very concerned that this was a risky game, but they were prepared to take the government on trust. And what is happening now? They are going to flog the rest of it, and people living in rural and regional Australia are not too happy, I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There was some significant bias in the Natural Heritage Trust funding. The member for Murray would have us believe that the perceived bias is only because the Natural Heritage Trust funding went to rural electorates, but she can never explain to me the discrepancy between those rural seats that are held by government members and the amount of money they received and those rural and regional seats held by members of the Labor Party and the money they received.

The member for Gippsland was particularly passionate, and he was particularly passionate for a very good reason: because the National Party has been rolled again in cabinet—and it happens again and again. When this proposal before the House tonight was announced as part of Minister Anderson's wonderful AAA package, it was done with great fanfare, and it was going to do lots for people living in rural and regional Australia. But it has been made quite clear now—and the member for Gippsland has conceded it himself—that nowhere near the number of people as was originally suggested are going to be assisted by this bill. The former minister tonight conceded that, notwithstanding the fact that the original estimate was something like 10,000 would be assisted, it is now—on their own figuring—more like 2,100 people.

Prior to the election, members like the member for Gippsland were travelling the width and breadth of the country, jumping all over the Australian Labor Party saying that the Labor Party had failed the rural sector for 13 years but that they were going to do something about it. Drought was a perfect example. For months—indeed years—there were areas in my own electorate that had failed to gain a drought declaration. As would be recalled, that was a declaration made on the advice of an independent body made up of scientists—among other people. Unfortunately, for a long time that body known as RASAC was not prepared to designate many areas in the Upper Hunter as drought declared, and the then opposition were screaming how terrible this was.

Thankfully, just prior to the last election, those regions were drought declared. But do you know what happened on the election of the Howard government? That designation was taken away. After all the screaming in opposition—and having the Labor Party finally secure that designation—the coalition government came into power and took it away. So no wonder you see the filibustering coming from members like the member for Gippsland. They are embarrassed by their failure to do what they proposed to do for rural and regional Australia.

But the bill before us tonight is based on an admirable principle. Of course, it proposes to allow low income pension age farmers, including veterans and their partners, to transfer their farm and farm assets up to a maximum of $500,000 net of debt to the next generation without affecting their access to the age or service pension.

Before coming to this House, I was a local government councillor in my electorate and I have seen this problem from a different angle. I have been, as a councillor, part of a planning consent authority, and I have had people come to me pleading to allow them to subdivide their land contrary to the council's planning instrument because of the terrible way in which the assets test, with respect to their farm, was impacting upon them. I have seen the genuine concerns and, like the shadow minister, I support this bill. I can do so if for no other reason but for the letter I have received from a constituent, Ms Sandra Reynolds, who says:

The situation is that my mother has transferred Rural Farm Land to me her daughter 3 years ago. She is now 76 years of age.

Now she is suffering from Dementia and soon will have to go into care, she has been self funded until interest rates—

started to drop and now she is basically on the poverty line. She says:

After the announcement of the waving of the 5 year wait I applied to Centrelink and to my surprise after ringing their financial advisor this Act does not yet have Royal Assent. So 3 months later and no further ahead I hope that you will stir Mr. Howard to action.

It sounds to me like my constituent will not apply under this current bill because her land was transferred too long ago. That is a matter I am taking up personally with the minister.

But it highlights the point that previous speakers on my side have been making, that is, the very criteria which govern the operation of this bill. First, of course, the scheme will apply only to farm assets disposed of before 15 September 2000 and where the person or their partner reached age pension age before that date. Second, to qualify for the scheme a person must be a qualifying farmer as determined under the act. Third, the scheme will apply, as I have mentioned, only where the value of the farm assets is not more than $500,000—again, as I said, net of debt. Fourth, the person to whom the farm assets have been transferred must have been involved in the farm for the three years up to the date of transfer, except in exceptional circumstances. Fifth, the person's ordinary income from farming and other sources during the three financial years prior to the asset transfer must have been less than the maximum basic rate of pension.

There is something very confusing in that for me and I suspect it is one of the reasons Centrelink is advising so many people they may not be eligible for this assistance. I pick up what the member for Gippsland said in respect of none of us being sure about the eligibility numbers, but the act has not yet gained the imprimatur of the Governor-General, et cetera. However, I do know from that letter that Sandra Reynolds has written to me, and from subsequent conversations I have had with her, that Centrelink is giving advice as to whether people are likely to qualify for this assistance or not. She was given advice that she certainly does not qualify because the bill has not gained royal assent. But she also has some difficulties in terms of the time frame involved. We do know that very few—indeed, far fewer than originally indicated by the government—are going to be eligible for this assistance.

I turn to criteria four and five, which say that the person dispossessing themselves of the farm must have been involved in the farm for up to three years before the transfer date. In other words, the person who did own the farm has to have had a very low income, yet the other person, who is receiving the benefit of the farm, must have had an association with the farm. I think there is conflict there. I do not see how the previous owner of the farm is going to be earning such a low income when the farm is supposed to have been providing for both parties. There is a conflict there and I suspect that it is one of the things driving down the number of people who are gaining eligibility under the bill or at least being advised by Centrelink that their eligibility for the benefits under the bill are very doubtful.

The other thing I cannot understand about this bill is the fact that the government is allowing it to proceed through the houses of parliament without addressing the taxation concerns raised by the Australian Society of Practising Accountants. They are warning farmers not to avail themselves of the assistance that will be available under this bill without, first, considering it very carefully and consulting their accountants. They are referring, of course, to potential capital gains implications that might flow as a result of anyone taking or attempting to take the benefits under the bill. They are also referring to potential tax liabilities on deemed profits from associated transfers of livestock. They are also referring to potential income liability for retiring farmers whose farms are in a company structure.

I said earlier that the principle of this thing is right. It is a sensible principle, something that I appreciate the government attempting to do. But it is mickey mouse. The shadow minister may have taken it too far—I am not sure. He called it a hoax and over the course of time he will probably be proven correct on that. But, if it is not a hoax, at the very least it reeks of incompetence. We have a bill before us that is proposed to help 10,000; that, on the member for Gippsland's admission, is 2,100. It is a bill that does not have the support of the National Farmers Federation, but that is another story—they might have other interests in their mind. But it is a bill that has serious questions attached to it with respect to tax implications that are still unanswered by the government.

I suggest it would be better for the government to withdraw its bill and go back and have another look. It is mickey mouse. It reeks of incompetence. We are not going to be silly enough to oppose it because the principle is correct. But I suggest that the government has a look at what it has done and should take shame and admit that this bill is going to go nowhere near as far as it had proposed it would when it was announced with great fanfare by the minister last year.