Senator FERGUSON (5:44 PM) —I rise to speak in the second reading debate on the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 and the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999 . Having just listened to Senator Brown speak, I am reminded of the story I was told as a little child about the boy who cried wolf once too often. Having listened to Senator Brown speak ad nauseam in this place on the same issue, either during the committee stage or second reading stage, he certainly reminds me very much of that fairy story. In this particular instance, Senator Brown is again crying wolf once too often.

The problem is that Senator Brown has never taken a responsible position on matters relating to government legislation. In this instance, he chooses to blame and target the Democrats for the responsible position that they took in all the negotiations that were carried out during the debate on the GST. In fact, they were the only party that took a responsible position in negotiating with the government, and that is the reason we have these bills before us today; it is the reason we were able to get passage of legislation that is important to Australians.

Nobody actually believes Senator Brown anymore when he talks the way he does and when he chooses to attack personally those Democrat senators who have shown the courage of their convictions and who have stood up for the things that they believe in in negotiations. They have far more credibility in supporting sensible environmental policy than Senator Brown could ever aspire to. Senator Brown is known in this place only for his political stunts and has no credibility at all in relation to these matters.

The Democrats have always accepted that governments are elected to govern, and that governments have a right to pass legislation that they had proposed prior to an election. The Democrats, as another party, also believe that they have a right to have some input into the impact of that legislation and to make some changes. Through the negotiations that took place, that is exactly what happened. Throughout those negotiations it was shown that they were the only party that was prepared to responsibly take a position in helping a government achieve its aims and pass the legislation which has made and will continue to make a significant impact on the economy of Australia.

Having listened for 20 minutes to Senator Brown, it is easy to imagine that he is really only trying to save his own skin amongst his extremist supporters. When we have another Senate election in Tasmania, we will see just how strong that support is. The Labor party senators have a very different agenda, and that was shown in what Senator Conroy and Senator Sherry had to say. I watched on television what they had to say. Senator Conroy appeared to think it was a bit of a joke and that the more wisecracks you make—

Senator Patterson interjecting

Senator FERGUSON —It was gripping television, Senator Patterson, I can promise you. I was walking in and out with alarming regularity because I wondered when he was ever going to get to the stage of talking about important things. But he and Senator Sherry were intent on being critical of the Democrats. They refused to play any role at all in constructive debate in this parliament about the GST and their only charge now is to criticise the Democrats for helping the government to pass this important piece of legislation.

Senator Patterson —Their only policy at the moment is wholesale sales tax.

Senator FERGUSON —The Labor party are not quite sure what they want these days, unfortunately. They are not quite sure what they want. They are not sure whether they should be proposing some new legislation or some new ideas or some new policies—they have not shown us any of those. I guess it is unlikely that we will see any of those prior to another election. They choose, instead, to stake everything on criticising the goods and services tax—which the Senate has passed—and on criticising the Democrats and the government for the passage of this piece of legislation. We will see whether this is a successful tactic, but it seems as though they have no other. If you have no policies of your own, it is very difficult to do anything but criticise existing policies put in place by a government that has been making sure that the economy of this country runs smoothly and is in a healthy position. You do not need me to reiterate at length the evidence that has been provided about the strength of the economy in Australia. It is important that nobody forgets it. You know what the situation was when this government came into office and that the damage that was done in 13½ years under the Labor Party has been reversed in 3½ years.

In relation to these bills and the diesel fuel rebate, I happen to live in a country area, and I know how important the diesel fuel rebate scheme is to rural and regional Australia. When I talk about rural Australia, I am talking not just about primary producers but also about those people who live in the regions and who are going to benefit from the diesel fuel rebate, for example through the transport of goods to outlying areas. In all of those matters, this is a most important bill and the diesel fuel rebate is a most important issue for regional and rural Australia. Of all the issues that are currently confronting rural and regional Australia, the reduction of their costs of production and the reduction of the cost of living are among the most important.

I want to repeat the opening sentence of our minister, Mr Hockey, when he put this bill down in the House of Representatives because I think all Australians should realise how important these bills are. He said:

The government recognises Australia's dependence on transport due to the vast size of our continent.

No-one would deny that. He continued:

In light of this, prior to the 1998 election, the government promised to substantially reduce the cost of our major transport fuels. Such reform would in turn reduce transport costs and consumer prices, especially in regional, rural and remote areas.

The Democrats—to their credit—supported the reduction of those costs for transport. There were some issues where they did not agree in full with our position. But they know that rural and regional Australia needs the support of this government to reduce the costs, so they were prepared to stand up and join with the government in making sure that we could deliver. Where were the Labor Party when it came to trying to reduce the costs of transport to rural Australia? They were non-existent. They have no care or concern for any part of rural and regional Australia, and have not for years. That has been shown in the actions that were taken by them during their term of office for 13 years. Since that time we have tried to do everything we can to make sure that we can reduce that cost of living in rural and regional Australia.

Only the Democrats were prepared to support us on that—not Senator Brown, not the Labor Party, only the Democrats. It needs to be recorded that in this area they were prepared to back the government and to negotiate with the government to make sure that this great reduction in cost was delivered to rural and regional Australia. This government will continue to make sure that we provide some relief for the cost of living, for the cost of transport, for the cost of doing business. The demise of a lot of our rural towns is because the actual cost of production, the cost of transport—of delivering their goods to the major markets—and the cost of the provision of services in those country towns in regional Australia was so high. They were driven out.

We have now reached the situation where we are going to make sure that some of those costs are reduced. That was done with the support of the Democrats. It is all very well for Senator Sherry—whom I just see walking in the door—and Senator Conroy to get up and talk about this tax that has been introduced and how terrible it is that the Democrats supported the government. The Democrats took a responsible position. That is where we are today.

There are a number of other issues in relation to the important Diesel and Alternative Fuel Grants Scheme, which this legislation covers. We know that when the act was introduced by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services he foreshadowed that a further bill would be introduced to put in place the necessary administrative arrangements, including the compliance mechanisms that were needed to support the act. This is not something that has been sprung on this chamber; it was already foreshadowed some time ago that a further bill would need to be introduced. The minister also stated that the government would be seeking passage of this further bill prior to Christmas, which is exactly why we are debating this bill today. That was to enable the industry to develop record keeping arrangements and plan with confidence for the introduction of the grants scheme on 1 July 2000.

The introduction of this bill fulfils that commitment. Most provisions in the act will commence on royal assent. It will ensure that instruments and determinations may be made and registration mechanisms established before the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme takes effect on 1 July 2000. This will avoid any undue delay in claimants receiving their entitlements. That is why it is so important that these bills are debated and passed.

On 28 May of this year the Prime Minister gave an undertaking to Senator Lees that the government would put in place rigorous enforcement measures to police the scheme. In accordance with that undertaking the bill provides adequate penalties and safeguards to protect funds and to prevent abuse of this scheme.

We have had a diesel fuel rebate scheme for a number of years. It was a scheme that was put in place because it was deemed necessary to make sure that when an excise increased on fuel primary producers and those who actually have to use a lot of fuel were able to get at a reasonable price the fuel that was necessary for the production of their goods.

In the past some people have missed out. Some people who could genuinely have expected to get a diesel fuel rebate were not able to get it. This bill has sought to make sure that all of those people who we feel are in genuine need and genuinely should get the diesel fuel rebate will be able to do so. It will not matter how much slagging we get from Senator Conroy or Senator Sherry.

Senator Brown has a ridiculous position. Just before Senator Brown completed his speech he appealed for decency on this side of the chamber and on the other side. I do not believe that Senator Brown knows what decency really is. We have seen his performance in this chamber on a number of occasions, and I am yet to see any evidence of any form of decency from Senator Brown. Yet he appeals for decency from the Labor Party, from the government side and from all others in this chamber.

Where businesses have also claimed under the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme, this bill contains provisions to enable advances to be made under the grants scheme in the same way that they were under the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. This will assist in minimising the compliance costs of such claimants. That is a very important aspect of the bill. It is important—with the introduction of the GST and other matters—that people who have been involved in the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme over a number of years and who avail themselves of the Diesel and Alternative Fuel Grants Scheme still understand it and that the compliance costs are kept at a minimum. These bills ensure that those compliance costs will be kept at a minimum. For that reason it is most important that the bill has the support of this chamber.

Whenever there is a change in taxation arrangements of any sort there is always some apprehension from people in the community who have to change to a new system. People are comfortable with the system that they know. They are comfortable with methods that they have used. When there is a change to a system they are always apprehensive that it will mean that they have to learn something new or they may be confronted with something that they do not fully understand. This bill ensures that the compliance costs will be maintained and in fact that the rebates are made in the same way as they are under the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. That is a very important issue and a very important aspect of this bill.

I have listened carefully to what other speakers have said and I think it is time that some of the facts were placed on the record, particularly about the Democrat involvement in the passage of these bills. I have endeavoured to do that because, as I said before, they negotiated the passage of these bills on the understanding and in the belief that governments have a right to put in place matters that they have gone to an election with and that have been approved by the people. In some areas they felt that they could not accept some of the things that were being proposed, but in general we were able to get much of the original bills through. It was only the responsible position that the Democrats took in making sure that it was possible for the government to pass these bills that enabled it to happen. I commend the bills to the chamber.