Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I indicate my support for these amendments and commend Senator Fielding for the concessions he has been able to obtain. I note the comments of the South Australian Farmers Federation, referred to in Senator Fielding’s contribution in relation to this. They are pleased with the concessions that have been obtained. I want to focus on just one part of the debate, which I think is important, in relation to the, I think, quite legitimate concerns raised by Senator Abetz with respect to the issue of the definition of a car being used solely for the purpose of carrying on a business with respect to tourism operators.

I will stand corrected, but my understanding is that the tax act has dealt with this quite robustly in terms of its definitions. That essentially means that, if you are using the vehicle for an incidental purpose—I think the example given by Senator Abetz was going down the road to get a litre of milk for your family—that incidental purpose is legitimate and allowed. I think it is important to point out that, with respect to Senator Fielding’s amendment in the context of tourism operators, it is an acknowledged and well-used definition and it does allow for incidental use other than for the purpose of a tourism operator’s vehicle. I think that is clearly fair and it is something that has been robustly dealt with in the tax act over the years. For those reasons I support the amendment moved by Senator Fielding.