Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the thoughts behind Senator Burston's bill, which, again, is a bill to establish a joint parliamentary committee to look at whether an Australia Fund should be created, for all the right reasons. But I've demonstrated in the short time available to me just some of the things that the government's done that are already doing what Senator Burston imagines the Australia Fund bill might do. I also point out to the Senate that, as I mentioned previously, a similar bill was brought before the House of Representatives in 2014. A committee was set up, and it was informed by a public consultation process and inquiries. It held a number of hearings throughout Australia, including in Canberra, Tasmania and Melbourne. It heard witnesses from a range of stakeholders including industry peak bodies and Public Service officials. Furthermore, the committee received 18 submissions from groups from as wide a field as Oysters Australia, the Australian Prawn Farmers Association and rural business development. Based on the evidence, the committee did not believe that the case had been made from public submissions to support a new fund of the type outlined in this bill. Recommendation 9 of that committee's report stated:

The committee does not recommend the establishment of an Australia Fund.

So I won't be supporting this bill and the government won't be supporting this bill, for the reason that it's already been investigated by a parliamentary committee that decided not to recommend the establishment of a fund. As I've pointed out in my speech, the government has already, in different ways, done the sorts of things that the fund would seek to do if it were established following the parliamentary committee. I say to Senator Burston: in fact, you're repeating or borrowing from the ideas already introduced by this government. I might say Mr Palmer is very good at that, and I always take it as a sign of praise that Mr Palmer also has pinched the idea that I have been talking about for some months now, about a review of the current zone tax rebate system. I see on TV advertisements that Mr Palmer has picked up my idea and is now talking about it. I quite like Mr Palmer, but I say with respect to him that his idea of giving everyone 200 kilometres from a capital city a 20 per cent reduction in income tax just doesn't pass the seriousness test. But I'm hopeful, and I keep advocating to the government that the zone rebate scheme—set up, I concede, by a Labor government in 1945—was a good scheme. It ticked all the right boxes then. It needs review and updating, and it needs an indexation of the benefits. I'm hopeful that the government will hear the calls for a review of that existing zone tax rebate scheme and the analogous remote area allowance.

But thanks to Senator Burston for raising this important issue. It allows me to point out the things this government is already doing to address the concerns that Senator Burston raised when opening this debate.

Debate interrupted.