Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

Both I and the opposition have some sympathy for the intent of the amendment moved by the honourable member for New England. It raises one of the serious anomalies in this legislation, but it is not the only one. There are quite a number of significant issues that need to be addressed in this legislation. It is hard to argue against a penalty tax on Lamborghinis and Rolls Royces, but I do not think it is okay to put luxury tax on a large vehicle that is necessary to accommodate the needs of a large family. I do not think it is appropriate that there should be a luxury tax on the extra safety features that may in fact take the cost of a vehicle over the trigger figure for the luxury tax. Nor do I think it is appropriate that there should be a luxury tax on four-wheel drive vehicles that are necessary and required in rural and regional areas where the road systems are poor. So there are serious deficiencies in this legislation, and that is why the opposition proposes that this measure should be dealt with in some detail by Senate committees, for them to look at the various issues and to devise an appropriate response.

I find it difficult to support the amendment of the honourable member for New England because I believe his proposal would be easily rorted. If every four-wheel drive vehicle registered in a rural area was to be exempted, it would be a simple matter of registering your vehicle in a country town and then driving it to Melbourne or wherever you want it to be. In fact, it would be a city based vehicle. I do not think this, therefore, is an appropriate amendment to the legislation. I believe this issue must be addressed in the amendments that will eventually be proposed for this legislation.

In saying that I think this amendment is flawed in its drafting, I do not intend to be critical of the member for New England, because he, like the opposition, had this bill dumped on him in a day with the expectation that it would be debated and through the House in a very short period of time. In common with a whole series of other legislation, this bill was dumped on the House last night and the government expects it to be brought through without giving people any proper opportunity to effectively consider it. What this government has done in bringing legislation in is without precedent. It is difficult for oppositions and Independent members to develop the full suite of amendments that need to be made to legislation like this in the available time. We intend to use the Senate process. If the member for New England wants to make a constructive contribution in this area, I hope he would also be willing to give evidence to the committee and to put forward his proposals.

So, whilst the opposition believe that the member for New England has raised a legitimate issue and one that must be addressed, we do not believe that the drafting of this amendment is an effective way to deal with the issue. This matter requires more detailed consideration. I note that the government, according to media reports, has also acknowledged that there are problems with this legislation and that it intends to refer the whole issue now to its own tax review for report in a year and a half. The government might be willing to indicate whether the whole thing is going to be put on hold for a year and a half, which means there is no need to rush this legislation through the parliament, or whether it is just going to have a review after the event, which I do not think is very appropriate.

This issue raises the same sorts of questions about GST on a tax—a tax on a tax. They have now referred the fuel issue to the tax review. There are, of course, lots of other cases of taxes on taxes. If that is an issue of principle that the government is now concerned about, it certainly needs to take that into account on matters such as this. So the legislation is defective. Amendments will be required. This proposal by the member for New England, while honourable in intent, will create a range of difficulties and will not really solve the problem for people who live in regional areas.

See this speech in context