Senator CONROY (4:37 PM) —I will start my contribution by posing a question to Senator Ian Campbell, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Will the minister be attending for any of this debate? I am not so worried about the second reading debate; I am more concerned about the committee stage. I would suggest that he might want to—

Senator Ian Campbell —He wouldn't miss it.

Senator CONROY —He would not miss the committee stage? I am very happy. Thank you very much for that.

Senator Ian Campbell —I may have to fill in for short periods, but otherwise—

Senator CONROY —I hope that the minister is able to attend for all of it because most of the questions are going to be to him because his office and he are handling this particular item. That is no reflection on you. The technical detail of this bill will require his considered opinions—as frightening as that prospect is, I agree. The exercise that preceded the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 debate today is a shameful one. It is one of the National Party fibbing to the bush and then capitulating to the Liberal Party. I am disappointed that Senator McGauran has done the famous chicken run on this one—I am not sure where he has got to—because he has a lot to answer for. The famous `Roll Over Ron' Boswell and Senator McGauran have been caught out again. Then the Democrats capitulated to the Prime Minister who also then dudded the National Party. As Peter Garrett said, it was a dirty deal done dirt cheap. Senator McGauran has entered the chamber. Welcome back, Senator McGauran. I am pleased you have not fled.

Senator George Campbell —All his mates have.

Senator CONROY —He has his colouring-in pens over there. He has to colour something in. The then Leader of the National Party, Mr Fischer, originally said he would only support a GST if the fuel excise was abolished. He reneged on that pledge, as the fuel credit scheme that was announced by the government retained fuel excise. This meant no reduction in petrol tax for ordinary motorists and an increase in the city-country petrol differential—a bad deal for country Australia. But that is only the start of it.

The government promised a whole package of measures on diesel which it has reneged on. The chamber has dealt with legislation recently where the government was trying to renege on a deal cut with the Democrats to get the GST through. The Prime Minister used the diesel fuel rebate in the forestry industry as a bargaining chip in order to fool the Democrats. He promised to cut the diesel fuel rebate to foresters to secure Democrat support for the GST, and now he has reneged on that deal.

This legislation is one more step in the government's reneging on the promises it made to the road transport industry. The former Leader of the National Party promised that he would resign if he did not deliver the full diesel promise. The deal with the Democrats made sure he did not deliver. The current Leader of the National Party also promised he would resign if the deal was not delivered. He also reneged on this promise. The diesel fuel grants scheme came about because the deal with the Democrats was unconstitutional. The deal was so bad that it ran against the Constitution. It was against the Constitution to divide the nation into city and country regions and impose differential tax regimes. So we are left with the uncertain grants scheme and a wing and a prayer— fingers crossed—that this is actually going to pass the constitutionality test, as opposed to the last failed attempt.

Because of the confusion surrounding the scheme the government cannot give us the details on it. We remember Tim Fischer telling us to wait for the wonderful explanatory memorandum in which everything would be revealed. We did that, and what it revealed was that the government did not actually know what the scheme it had agreed to was actually about. The government wanted us to pass that legislation and then wait for months until it worked out it is to be applied through administrative arrangements. Because we are a cooperative opposition and we wish to try to end the confusion for the road transport industry, we reluctantly agreed to that approach, flawed as it was.

Now we have before us a piece of legislation which is supposed to deal with these administrative issues, and what do we find? We find that this legislation does not end any of the confusion. Rather, what it does is defer yet again the issue of the boundaries between the city and the country—the so-called urban conurbation boundary lines which got such a good mention yesterday, Senator Greig, in your absence; I was pleased that Senator Allison was present for that discussion. But, worse, it imposes a huge new compliance burden on transport operators. This involves more paperwork, more record keeping requirements and more expense in seeking professional advisers to navigate through the red tape. Remember: this is the government that was going to get rid of red tape for small business. The small business truckies who I talk to do not believe that they have had a reduction in red tape. They do not believe the red tape has been removed.

Senator Sherry interjecting—

Senator CONROY —Thank you, Senator Sherry. That is absolutely right: there is potential for penalties if people make honest mistakes. We saw this week the Yellow Pages survey. What is the single, greatest fear that small businesses have at the moment? Their greatest fear is the GST compliance bill. I see that Senator Allison has joined us, and I welcome her participation. I also welcome Senator Brown. Small businesses are already fearful of what this government has done to them in the red tape area and all the compliance burden that this entails—coined by the Treasurer as the nightmare on main street—and now we see them having to cope with the next instalment, the nightmare on highway 1, delivered courtesy of the National Party rolling over to Senator Heffernan and the bullyboys in the Liberals yet again.

Since June Labor has been asking, `What are the areas that qualify for the grant?' What are they, Senator McGauran? Are you able to tell us today? Senator Heffernan is part of the Manchu court. You are an important and powerful man, Senator Heffernan. Maybe the member of the Manchu court can give us some guidance and enlightenment today. Just because he is here today does not mean he is going to speak though. The members of the Manchu court are silent and that is how Senator Heffernan likes to conduct himself in this chamber. We are constantly told that all will be explained soon—perhaps by Senator Allison, perhaps by Senator Greig, perhaps by Senator Heffernan, perhaps by Senator McGauran, perhaps by Senator Kemp, the minister who has been dobbed in as handling the negotiations. But do not hold your breath, Senator Brown—and I do not blame Senator Greig—because I am afraid there will not be much explanation of the bill in this chamber.

Transport operators have a right to be able to plan their businesses with certainty. They have a right to expect governments to set out the rules simply and with adequate time to prepare for them. Each time we ask these questions we find silence from this government. It is the most talkative the Manchu court has been in six months in this chamber. Yet this is the scheme that the government have costed down to the last million dollars. So either they know exactly what the boundaries are between those that get the grant and those that are discriminated against, and they are not telling anybody, or they still do not have any idea what they have agreed to with the Democrats. Those are the only two options: either the government know and are not telling us, or they still do not have a clue what deal they have done with the Democrats and, even more importantly, the Democrats do not have a clue what deal they agreed to with the government. They are either hiding the truth from the people because they are worried about what a nightmare they are going to impose on the transport industry or they have no idea how they costed the proposal as outlined in the Prime Minister's press release.

Senator Kemp frequently invites members of the opposition to stand up and go their 10 yards to courage. That is Senator Kemp's favourite statement. I see that Senator McGauran is nodding. I invite Senator Heffernan to go his three inches to courage by standing up and speaking to this legislation. Can we check Senator Heffernan's microphone to make sure that it is working, because I am willing to bet that it is a faulty mike over there. Senator Heffernan, you just have to stand up to make a contribution to this debate. Since June we have repeatedly asked questions in the other place, in the committee and now here today on how this new nightmare will work. We never get any answers. All of the transport operators who live and work around urban centres have a right to know whether they will qualify for these grants, yet they are being kept in the dark.

There is important new information in this bill but, as usual, there are more questions posed than answered. There are record keeping requirements. These impose the new red tape for these grants. If you fail to satisfy the provisions of clause 18, you do not quality for any grant. We now know that. But what we do not know is what you have to do to satisfy the clause. We know what you have to do to not satisfy the clause, but tell us what you have to do to satisfy the clause. As usual in legislation the detail is not specified but is deferred to a determination not yet issued by the tax commissioner. So we do not know what the record keeping requirements are in order for people to qualify for the grants. On top of that, we still do not know which journeys will qualify for the grants. In fact, we do not even know what the definition of a journey is, as was revealed at the Senate inquiry on this bill.

Senator George Campbell —The tax office doesn't know.

Senator CONROY —The tax office does not know what a journey is. But there are new provisions which are complete. These are the new powers of the diesel police. These are the new powers that transport operators will now face. In fact, the tax office admitted that one of the new weapons—I know that Senator Hutchins will be particularly interested in this—of the diesel police in this country is the dipstick. It actually conceded that a dipstick was part of the new diesel police armoury. But that is not all. This bill also creates new powers for the tax commissioner to stop vehicles and to search vehicles. This bill allows virtually unlimited access to premises. It creates an offence if people do not comply exactly. Truck drivers in Australia will now face unprecedented intrusion into their business and, indeed, personal affairs. Dipsticks will be waved at them on the side of roads and they will be pulled over and checked. You can just imagine the scene when a truck driver, after a long day on the road, arrives home late: `Hello, dear. Why are you late home?' `Well, dear, the tax commissioner ordered that my truck be stopped and searched. I have just experienced the nightmare on highway 1 for the last few hours that Labor tried to warn the community about.'

Senator George Campbell —They won't be able to dipstick Senator Heffernan's tax avoidance trusts.

Senator CONROY —That is probably right, Senator Campbell. The conversation will go: `Oh, have you brought home someone for dinner as well?' `No, dear, but since the tax office believes that there are some documents here relating to the diesel grants scheme, he has decided to enter our home and stay here for a reasonable time. By the way, he has the right to inspect, examine, count, measure, weigh, gauge, test or analyse any goods or other property in our home and may also take samples. But just carry on as if he isn't here.' So the government is providing itself—

Senator George Campbell —They may have to pay fringe benefits tax on their dinner.

Senator CONROY —That is a very good point, Senator Campbell. We may have to GST them for providing a service as well. The government is providing itself with all these new powers. It is imposing new requirements on transport operators, but it has not addressed any of the confusion that it has caused with the dirty diesel deal with the Democrats. Why did the Democrats do this dirty deal? What was their motivation? They claimed that their motivation was the environment. Let us have a brief look at this. The Democrats had an expert adviser, Dr Clive Hamilton from the Australia Institute, advising on this and other environmental issues. What did Dr Hamilton do? He examined what the government was offering the Democrats, advised against it and then resigned when he saw what was happening. He is a man of integrity. He refused to be associated with a dud deal. He knew that the Democrats were getting conned by the government and tried to warn them. They did not listen, they did not care; they were going to shaft the community with the GST and shaft the urban environment as well.

The fact that truck operators would also face a bureaucratic nightmare does not disturb the Democrats at all. They were naive and gullible—just the kind of people the Prime Minister preys on. The Australian transport industry is now having to bear the cost of these compromises and these nightmares and, as well as copping the paperwork and uncertainty, they now face unprecedented government powers.

The bus industry actually put in a submission to the Senate inquiry that suggested and asserted strongly that for the bulk of the private bus industry they expect costs and fares to rise in the order of nine per cent. Their submission suggests that there would be some substitution of bus use, with increased car use as a result of these changes. Mr Gunning stated:

We think we know that. There are plenty of studies around. The cross-elasticity of demand between cars and buses is about 0.5; so, with the sort of numbers we are talking about, we think there will be a move from buses to cars.

They go on in their submission to argue that this will actually increase greenhouse gases as well. Senator Brown, can you believe that? We have a bill before us which is to protect the environment, yet it is guaranteeing an increase in greenhouse gases because people are going to be forced off buses into private cars. Mr Gunning also said:

Thinking about what the bus industry understands about the conurbations that have been drawn, the bus industry is especially struck by the fact that there is a whole range of agricultural areas that are being drawn inside the conurbations: wine growing areas in Victoria, for example, or market garden areas in Sydney, or plain bush in the case of Brisbane, and the like.

So they know that bus costs are going up by nine per cent and they are quite emphatic that this is going to mean that they will see people forced off the buses and bus fares will rise by about three per cent, and that is in an environment where, for a private motorist, car costs are coming down by about three per cent. Mr Gunning continues:

. . . for a business user of cars, cost reductions are in the order of 13 or 12 per cent. We know that there is substitutability . . . So we are heading in the direction of pushing people out of the great bulk of the bus fleet into cars. We know that on average, across-the-board, depending on the scenario you draw, buses are about eight times environmentally better than cars.

That is right, Senator Brown; they are eight times environmentally better than cars in the area of greenhouse gas and all the other areas, and this bill pushes people off buses and into cars. It is a disgrace and a sham. The Democrats need to be exposed not only for increasing greenhouse gases through this legislation but also for putting enormous costs onto the transport industry and forcing the industry to go through an enormous amount of hoopla just because the government wanted to sell out the trucking industry and the private bus industry to appease the Democrats. But the Democrats did not care.

All the Democrats wanted to do was to say, `We've done a good deal.' They lost their own environment adviser over it. He could not stomach what they were doing. He walked out. He said, `Enough is enough!' This mob are a soft touch. You have to congratulate Senator Hill, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. He did a good job of pulling the wool over the Democrats' eyes. He sucked them in good and proper and does deserve some credit for this. But the environment movement of this country will not give him any credit. The transport industry will not give him any credit over it.

Senator McGauran interjecting—

Senator CONROY —You can wave your coloured pen over there and finish your colouring in. Would you like to borrow a yellow one? The National Party sold out. They will pay for this deal at the next election, just like they paid for it in the Victorian election when they lost Gisborne and all those rural seats. The fact that the Labor Party is the largest holder of rural and regional seats in Victoria, more than the Nationals and the Liberals combined, is an indictment. This is the beginning of the backlash over rubbish bills like this.