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

Frankly, the suggestion that Senator Heffernan makes that it was the lack of water does not accord with what is stated by the company. Boundary Bend has already laid off 30 permanent staff on the basis that it cannot guarantee the continuation of projects which involve the preparation of olive trees and land for planting. This is a direct result of the government’s decision, and you would think that the government members would get their lines right. Minister McGauran is suggesting that it is some scheme by the investors to cause pain in rural communities where they are withdrawing their funds. Senator Heffernan says that it is a lack of water. Perhaps when the government can get its lines right it might have a little bit more credibility on this matter.

Labor is aware of numerous project proposals due to be started in the coming financial year that are now under threat of being halted. These include: organic olives in Brookton, Western Australia; truffles in Manjimup, Western Australia; almonds in Robinvale, Victoria; abalone in Elliston, South Australia; mangoes in Mataranka, Northern Territory; as well as walnut, olive, avocado, wine grape and almond projects in the states of Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania. How many real jobs would have been created by these projects? How many of these real jobs have now been axed as a result of the government’s decision? Do not ask the minister because we know that he does not know. He has not sought advice. He just does not want to know.

In the Weekly Times last week the minister even had the gall to blame investors for the uncertainty and job losses arising from his government’s own inept decision. In truth, the blame for all this uncertainty and the job losses rests with Minister McGauran, his National Party colleagues and the Howard government. Agricultural industries and communities across Australia have been left in a state of limbo as they await the next move by the government. This whole process has been a shambles from start to finish, and the government backbench knows it too.

In moving this motion to propose that the Senate committee undertake an inquiry into managed investment schemes, I am offering the minister and the government a chance to give rural and regional Australians a say—to give them a voice. They have not had one to date in this matter. Labor’s proposed inquiry is the right thing to do by rural and regional Australia and the thousands of people who stand to be impacted by the government’s decision. Frankly, it is a ‘get out of jail’ option for the government. A Senate inquiry would allow the government to have a full investigation of the benefits of non-forestry managed investment schemes in rural Australia and the potential impacts which may arise if the government decides to proceed with its decision. It would allow affected industries and communities to put their views to the parliament. A Senate inquiry would allow the parliament to hear from the shopkeepers, the contractors, the business owners, the rural industry and the mums and dads who may be affected by this decision. It would allow investors to share their views with the parliament. It would allow the parliament to deal with the claim that these schemes are just tax rorts and a drain on the budget. It would allow the parliament to assess the alternative claim that, whilst there is an up-front tax deduction, there is also a substantial gain to the budget out of these initiatives, a substantial saving to the budget as a result of jobs being created and a reduction of unemployment and social welfare payments. There would also be an increase in tax collections from the employees and contractors involved. All of these matters would offset the initial tax cost to the budget of the schemes.

Most importantly, Labor’s Senate inquiry would restore the principles of good governance and allow the government to properly assess the impacts arising from the decision on MISs on the Australian economy and rural communities. But, frankly, there is only one reason the government will not support Labor’s proposed Senate inquiry, and that is that the government, the minister and those who proposed this action do not want the truth revealed—that they are afraid an inquiry will show that the proposition they have been carrying forward in their party room and the community is baloney. That is the only reason that senators in this place will not be prepared to stand behind and defend their proposition and allow it to go to a Senate inquiry. It is quite cowardly, in my submission. It means that they have no courage of conviction in the proposition that they put forward.

I am calling on the government not to allow the prejudices of the minister and his government colleagues to stand in the way of well-informed, fair decision making. I call on the government to restore the principles of good governance and support Labor’s motion for a Senate inquiry into these managed investment schemes. If this inquiry does not go ahead, something might happen or it might not. If nothing changes in relation to the non-forestry managed investment schemes and they are closed down, not only will there be an impact in the communities affected but moneys that might have gone into those schemes will go into the forestry managed investment schemes. The savings to the budget will not be realised—indeed, they cannot be realised because the decision, in all likelihood, will be the subject of legal challenge. So ultimate savings to the budget are hypothetical.

We will see an immediate impact on schemes. We will see jobs disappearing in rural and regional Australia. Senator Heffernan clearly does not care about that. We will see a lot of businesses broken. We will see bankruptcy on a significant scale. We will see missed opportunity. I was speaking to someone from an abalone operation who was talking about a very significant opportunity with significant returns which can only get up with managed investment schemes but which ultimately will pay back manyfold, in returns over a period of time, the amount of money that it would cost the government. This is quite an exciting proposition, one that does not use water, does not buy land, uses Australian technology and will add to Australian exports of seafood products—seafood products that, frankly, we need to produce and we are not producing sustainably at the moment. That is just one example of the many examples of disaster that this decision is causing. I urge government senators to reconsider the government’s position, not to support the minister’s proposition on this matter and to vote for Labor’s inquiry.