Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Fielding is clearly in a very embarrassing position. When we asked him what he has agreed to he cannot answer, and therefore the defence is wasting Senate time. The simple problem with Senator Fielding’s proposal is this: the legislation says that the definition of a refund eligible car means a four-wheel drive or all-wheel drive—I think we all understand that. Then it says ‘car of a kind specified in regulations made for the purposes of this definition’. What sort of car? Will it include an Australian made car? We could not have that, I am sure, given the amendments that have been passed anti the Australian car industry. Are we looking at vans, are we looking at only people movers, are we looking at sedans? I think that is a fair enough question to ask and a fair enough question to have answered.

I also note that the amendment defines ‘tourist activity’ as having:

… the meaning set out in regulations made for the purposes of this definition.

The tourism sector believes that it is going to get an exemption—full stop. It is quite clear that this legislation, through the regulations, is going to severely limit what is going to be determined as a tourist activity. Is a tourist activity taking a stretch limousine from Melbourne airport to the Crown Casino? Would that be considered to be a tourist activity under this legislation and under these regulations? Or, is it only going to be for ecotourism? This is just so wide—