Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Abetz, the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Does the minister recall evidence from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry at Senate estimates that they had provided no advice to Minister McGauran on the impact on industry of the government’s decision to end tax incentives for non-forestry managed investment schemes in July this year? Can the minister explain why the department failed to provide advice or undertake any research whatsoever on this decision given its potentially catastrophic impact on jobs and investment in rural and regional Australia? How could the agriculture minister have been so lazy and complacent as to not demand advice about the impact of this decision on such a significant component of agriculture in rural and regional Australia?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would seem that Senator O’Brien has tried to regroup after his humiliating efforts during Senate estimates. What he was told during Senate estimates needs to be repeated in this chamber because, quite clearly, I do not think he got the full picture. First of all, it was not the government’s decision in relation to the managed investment schemes. The Australian Taxation Office determined that they would not be providing product rulings for the future and gave appropriate notice of that. As a result, the government, in considering it, determined that it was—and I think the language I am about to use is correct—‘not disposed to intervene’. I understand that further discussions and considerations will be had by the government, as we as a government always do—we monitor these things; we consider these things.

In relation to the other aspect of the question, as to whether Minister McGauran sought advice, can I indicate that, like all members on this side of the chamber, we interact with members of the community and diverse interest groups on a very regular basis. So Minister McGauran availed himself of the information that comes from investors, from the managed investment scheme promoters and those that run them, from contractors and also from the family farmers and the National Farmers Federation, who hold a differing view to, let’s say, the Tasmanian farmers and the Western Australian farmers.

So, clearly, what we have here is a situation where there is a divergence of opinion within the community at large. We as a government have determined a particular course of action, and there is nothing untoward in any way about the suggestions being made by Senator O’Brien in relation to the sources from which Minister McGauran sought to inform himself. It is quite appropriate. Senator O’Brien was told the sources from which Minister McGauran informed himself, and the government’s decision is the one that has been announced.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for confirming that this is in fact a government decision. Can the minister explain the department’s failure to provide advice to its minister? Can it be that they knew that their minister was happy to see non-forestry managed investment schemes closed down? Is the minister able to explain how Minister McGauran could have allowed his personal prejudices to blind him to the impact of the government’s decision on thousands of jobs in regional and rural Australia? If the minister was happy to seek information from agricultural organisations, again, why didn’t he bother to get advice from his own department, the department which advises him on so many things?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first part of Senator O’Brien’s question should be ruled out, as it is clearly hypothetical. The second part is unbecoming of Senator O’Brien, using terminology such as ‘personal prejudices’. We have a minister for agriculture who has a very keen interest in looking after the interests of the agricultural sector and the farmers of this country. Despite all the inappropriate terminology that the senator has sought to mix into his question, there is in fact nothing new in the question.