Mr BAIRD (9:08 PM) —It is my pleasure to rise in support of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 . It is a great piece of legislation. In following the member for Paterson, I have to say what a sad, tired speech he gave purporting to represent regional Australia. How much he has let them down tonight. This legislation is about providing real incentives for people in the bush, it is about providing real incentives for people in the country. And what do you do? You hark back to the past.

Mr Horne interjecting—

Mr BAIRD —We are surprised that you did not bring back Paul to remind us what it was like. You said that we have not lived up to our promises—I suppose in the way that Paul did in 1993 when he promised that the tax cuts that would come were l-a-w. `Absolutely,' he said, `you're going to all have tax cuts.' But as soon as the election was over, what happened? He took them away.

This government has stated what it would do. It said to the bush, `We're going to provide reductions in diesel fuel taxes,' and it has delivered on that. You want to start talking about the administration costs and how we are going to implement the exemptions. But you are the ones who stand responsible. You had the opportunity to say, `This is a great initiative; this is the way to help regional Australia.' But what did you do? You held up your hands and said, `No, we don't want to do it. We want to condemn regional Australians to paying 43c a litre.'

Mrs De-Anne Kelly —The old Labor Party.

Mr BAIRD —That is right. The old Labor Party, the old Paul Keating style—keep them paying the high taxes. What we are doing is offering them a deal, paying 20c a litre—a real incentive for regional Australia. You would think that the member for Paterson does not understand some of the problems that are facing regional Australia.

Mr Horne —Where is your region again? I live in regional Australia. Where do you live?

Mr BAIRD —That is a very good example of why these incentives are there. In my electorate of Cook, we have 2.3 per cent unemployment. But when I go out to regional Australia, I recognise that a lot of Australia is hurting. This is what this bill is about.

Mr Horne —Fifteen per cent.

Mr BAIRD —Exactly. Having said that, you should be the first one to realise the need to provide real incentives to country Australia—instead of paying 43c, paying 20c. Instead of reducing or getting rid of red tape, you want to increase it. You did nothing in terms of this legislation. You talk about the ethanol proposals. Tell me how many proposals saw the light of day when your government was in power?

Mr Horne interjecting—

Mr BAIRD —Absolutely. How many companies took advantage of this when it was in place? This is an absolutely limited and pathetic effort. You make claims about how much it has been used in Germany. Provide the figures. If you want to find where diesel fuel is used in spades, go to Germany. I lived there for 3½ years. You will find cars on the road use diesel as well as the trucks and buses. So, if you want to use Germany as an example of where ethanol fuel is up and running, there is a very small usage there indeed; most of it is in terms of diesel. Go and check your facts. If you are going to come into the House and claim all these things, you ought to get your facts right. More important is the way you failed regional Australia.

This is about providing real incentives to regional Australia. This is about a new tax system that is going to assist in a very significant way. This is about a government that lives up to its promises. Sure we made some changes as a result of the agreement with the Democrats. But you could have come along and made the difference and agreed so there would be no changes. The recommendations the Democrats have made we have supported. This is what part of the bill is in regard to today. You talk about the Australian Taxation Office determining what is there. You talk about people not reading the tax bill. You have not read it yourself. In fact what will be defined as `metropolitan' for the purpose of this scheme is going to be determined by regulation. The member for Batman made the same mistake. He said, as you did, that the boundaries will be determined by the tax commissioner. In fact, the reality is that it will be determined by regulation and it will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. So it is clear what it is about. It is to be clearly spelled out. You go on with all this rhetoric about how the Australian tax office is going to do it. You will have the ability to scrutinise it right here in the parliament. This is what this government is about: being transparent, the ability to be scrutinised, saying things up-front. We did not hide the fact that we would bring in a GST. We told people up-front. We told them about the diesel fuel tax rebate, and people were delighted.

I challenge the member for Paterson to come to the road transport industry forum in Canberra next week. The opposition spokesman on transport should come along to hear what the industry thinks about providing real incentives to the transport industry. You would if the labor Party cared about transport around Australia. You would find a great deal of support for our government DAFG Scheme. This real incentive is introduced by the government and you lot oppose it. You are not concerned about what happens to regional Australia. You are not concerned about the incentives to the trucking industry. You are not concerned about how to make our economy more efficient. I challenge you to bring your rhetoric out to a forum of the road transport industry and tell them about what great initiatives you have. I would love to see your speech: `Ladies and gentlemen, I come before you tonight on behalf of the Labor Party and have I got a great deal for you. I want to continue charging you 43c a litre for your diesel fuel. The government might want to charge you 20c a litre, but I have a better deal; I want to charge you 43c.' I am sure they will give you huge applause; you would go down extremely well with the road transport industry, I don't think.

This is about getting real in terms of industry. This government is assisting industry right across the board. This is about the election promise given in 1998. It will certainly come into operation on 1 July next year. As we know, the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 was brought into this House and passed. These are the prescriptions for how it will be enacted. The grant is to be used for carrying on an enterprise. It is only for those conducting a business. This is why it is being welcomed by business.

I do not think the member for Paterson can give great examples of where business is saying, `Gee, thanks very much, but we don't want it. Please give it back.' I am sure we would all be interested in those letters. Please bring them forward. Certainly the trucks are eligible if they weigh between 4.5 and 20 tonnes and are used for journeys between a point outside the metropolitan area and a point inside the metropolitan area or between different metropolitan areas. All these requirements where it is going to operate are spelt out.

The legislation indicates what sorts of records are to be kept to make a claim. It sets out a formula for arriving at a claim figure. It identifies that DAFGS grants are taxable and allows the commission to determine what constitutes a claimable journey. It gives the commissioner powers to administer the scheme, including the allotment of appropriate penalties. Because of concerns about equality that the Democrats have raised, it is not available to city transport. As far as I am concerned, that is appropriate if the primary reason is to assist country and regional Australia, where there is so much need for assistance to be offered.

On the issue of substantiation, I notice that Senator Schacht said it will be terribly difficult to comply. The whole question of compliance was brought up. He criticised the requirement for truckies to keep diaries of their travel and the employment of inspectors to undertake random checks. Just like the member for Paterson, he offered no real alternatives as to how it might be done. This bill provides a real balance between the complexities of compliance which normally would go with it and trying to reduce the red tape. It is a reasonable balance. You keep a diary of where you have travelled, which is not too difficult to undertake. Having met those requirements, the rebate is available to you. The Australian National Audit Office indicated that, in terms of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme, $23.4 million has not been able to be substantiated. So the guidelines are provided to make it easier to administer the scheme.

The bill also provides the boundaries of the metropolitan areas in which subsidised fuel cannot be accessed for freight and passenger transport. It is fairly easy to identify where they are. They are the major conurbations that exist around Australia. In terms of equality, which the Democrats have indicated is a high priority for them, those areas are exempted from eligibility in the scheme.

Other members have said that there may be an asymmetry in the definition of what is an eligible journey. Concern was raised that an applicant driving a 4.5- to 20-tonne vehicle is entitled to a grant for the entire journey from a non-metropolitan to a metropolitan destination but not the other way around. I have been informed that the Australian Taxation Office does not consider there is a problem here and will ensure there is symmetry.

There has also been debate about what the word `between' means. The tax office says that it simply means between. It cannot be that hard to work out how this is to be interpreted overall. Likewise, there is concern about the word `point' and, hence, what constitutes a journey. For example, a trip from Wagga to Sydney may entail several delivery destinations in Sydney as part of a continuous journey. Some members have stated that it is not clear whether `point' means the first or the final delivery point of such a journey. The precise definition of a point thus seems likely to give rise to some dispute. Much will depend on how `point' is interpreted by the Australian Taxation Office. Members from the opposition in the upper house mentioned this when speaking on the bill.

The fact is that, under the terms of this bill, the Commissioner of Taxation will decide what is and is not a journey and will assess on a case by case basis whether a company is misrepresenting the true starting and ending point of a journey. Importantly, the tax commissioner must consult all the following organisations: the Bus Industry Federation, the Australian Trucking Association, the National Farmers Federation and any other organisations specified in the regulations. Tonight, bus industry representatives are in this place meeting with members. They understand the need for this incentive. They are glad that their members in rural areas will benefit from the reduction in diesel fuel costs.

Again, there is an incentive to country operators, which is what we on this side of the House want to see. There are real incentives to rural and regional Australia and to tourism right across Australia. This is what we want. This is the type of initiative that creates employment. This is the type of initiative that creates real incentives in regional Australia.

The member for Paterson claims he represents regional Australia, but all he can talk about in terms of any initiative is an ethanol plan, which represents about 0.001 of what is actually used in world production of fuel. It is such a nonsense to claim to represent regional Australia and have no idea how to provide real incentives. I tell you what, member for Paterson, if you want to talk about real incentives, try on 43c a litre compared to 20c a litre. That is real incentive. You do not need to talk about ethanol. You do not need talk about what you might have done. You had 13 years to actually bring it into operation, but the fact is that you did nothing about it—nothing at all for regional Australia—and that is why you are sitting on that side of the House. It is this side of the House that provides the real incentives.

It is also true that the bill does not prescribe the exact form of records required to claim under the DAFGS, as it does not want to add further to compliance costs—contrary, of course, to the member for Paterson's and the member for Batman's claims that this is going to add to compliance costs. However, it specifies that applicants must keep records which will enable them to substantiate a claim for fuel grants. This would include issues such as kilometres travelled, fuel used, receipts, details of journey—including when and for what purpose—distance travelled on public roads, distance travelled in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas and route taken. This is not exactly the most difficult thing in the world to comply with—a few notes jotted out about the route and the kilometres travelled.

At this stage the compliance strategy has yet to be fully developed by the Australian Taxation Office, but will be based on two things. Firstly, it will assist claimants to understand their obligations through an information and education campaign right across Australia. They will be provided with details of that. Obviously, the road transport industry will be involved in providing their members with details. So it will not be hard to get the message out. Secondly, there will be an enforcement strategy to remove unscrupulous operators, illegitimate operators and contrived schemes. A registration system is intended to identify eligible claimants in the first instance.

In terms of the resources of the Australian Taxation Office, which has been raised before, the tax office is currently assessing the deployment of inspectors and evaluating how best to employ these resources. They also providing penalties for false statements, whether made knowingly or recklessly. I am sure that all members would agree with these proposals. I also note that Senator Schacht in the upper house was questioning the use of geopositional satellites to monitor the movements of trucks. That is a sci-fi approach and will not be pursued. The Labor Party are the first to talk about privacy issues—we quite agree this would exceedingly invade individuals' privacy. Surely there is an easier way to do this. It is a straightforward exercise.

We have legislation before us tonight which shows the government's credentials on several grounds. Firstly, the promises they made before the election are delivered after the election. Secondly, they promised that they would deliver for regional and rural Australia, and they have done so. This bill also provides real incentives for truck operators, which will be passed on to rural producers; real incentives for bus operators, which will be passed on to tourism operators throughout the country; and real incentives for those who run their own private trucking operations from farms.

This is about real incentives for rural Australia. This is about creating jobs. This is about creating an environment for a more efficient economy. This is the type of legislation that the Labor Party should be supporting. The Labor Party claims to be supporting the workers of Australia; it takes this government to show how it is done. This is a can-do piece of legislation, which is being applauded right across rural and regional Australia. I am sure that the road transport operators will be screaming in the streets, demanding that the member for Paterson come and speak about how he plans to solve their problem, when right there in front of them they have the solution. It is a simple solution, and it reads, `43c a litre compared to 20c a litre.' Everyone who operates a truck throughout Australia and every rural producer will understand how it works. They know it is the coalition government that has delivered such incentives and it is the Labor Party that, once again, has let them down.