Senate debates

Monday, 11 September 2006

Questions without Notice

Managed Investment Schemes: Tree Farms

2:22 pm

Photo of John HoggJohn Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Abetz, the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation. Does the minister recall defending the current arrangements for managed investment schemes on the basis that they revitalise rural communities, create jobs and encourage tree plantations as an alternative to logging old-growth forests? Can the minister now confirm that, despite his claims, the government plans to restrict the use of these schemes in the future? Won’t this action, on the minister’s own logic, threaten rural communities, cause job losses and stifle plantation forests as an alternative to old-growth logging? Can the minister also explain why he has not been able to counter what he described on 29 August as ‘the silly and emotive argument being used by some opposed to tree farms’? Why is the government more receptive to ‘silly and emotive’ arguments about tree farms than to the minister’s view about their benefits?

Photo of Eric AbetzEric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | | Hansard source

On this occasion, and it is very rare that I get this opportunity, I would like to thank the Labor senator for his question—and in particular for the fact that he seems to hang on every word that I have spoken in recent times. I am very flattered by that. I thank the Deputy President for his extensive quoting of me in his question. As Senator Hogg would be aware, as indeed would be the Senate and the whole Australian community, there is a matter coming up for discussion within the government—that is, considering a draft proposal that was aired on budget night, which was 9 May if my memory serves me correctly. The Assistant Treasurer issued a draft suggestion, and that has been a matter for consultation in recent times. Of course, as part of that consultation process there have been certain people putting a point of view—and one of those people has been me.

One thing I am hopeful of is that we can continue to have a good plantation sector in this country to meet the need for timber products in this country. We currently have a $2 billion trade deficit in timber and timber products in this country. Over the years, rightly or wrongly, the fact remains that a substantial resource of old-growth and native forest has been taken away from the timber industry. As a result, if we are to have a sustainable and environmentally friendly timber-producing sector, we of course need to develop that sector. If we do not grow our own, the alternative is to import the timber. Where would those imports come from? Places like Papua New Guinea and the Amazon—places of that nature where clearly they do not do forestry as well as we do. As Senator Hogg well knows, that is a matter that is coming up for discussion within the government. We are a very consultative government. There have been extensive consultations by the Assistant Treasurer, the government and I. In due course all those consultations will be thrown into the melting pot and an appropriate determination will be made by the cabinet.

Photo of John HoggJohn Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister explain what the cost will be to the plantation industry if Minister Dutton’s proposal to cap the tax deductions available through managed investment schemes is adopted? What will be the impact on those rural communities that the minister says are currently being revitalised through the use of these schemes?

Photo of Eric AbetzEric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | | Hansard source

These are all part and parcel of the considerations and consultations that have taken place. The fact is that, as Senator Hogg has alluded to, they are appropriate factors to be considered. Of course they will be thrown into the mix as cabinet considers the matter in due course.