Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you. I am glad you acknowledge that. Some of the issues that you raised in what was a very, very, very long question were raised and answered last night before your presence in the chamber. Frankly, I am not in the habit and I am not going to get into the habit of repeating and repeating myself. As you know, it is against standing orders and it takes up the time of the Senate inordinately. The last questions you were asking—about how much a levy would be and why it is needed—have been well canvassed, Senator Back, in this debate, not just in the committee stage but during the earlier debate. I do not intend to repeat my contributions of last night and I do not intend to repeat my contributions either in the committee stage or in closing the debate—or indeed the contributions that have been widely canvassed on both sides of the chamber.

In regard to the positions of Mr Katter and Mr Crook, obviously I am not them. I cannot answer for them. If you wish to cross-examine or critique them, that is your prerogative, but your colleagues in the other place can do that. All I know of Mr Katter and Mr Crook is that on this issue they have represented their constituencies effectively. I accept that. They are supporting the government legislation. All that is agreed to is on the public record. The extent to which Mr Crook or Mr Katter put out their press releases is their prerogative. I am not here to comment about what is in their press releases. That is for them to do.

On the issue of the regulatory exemptions: they are on the Treasury website. They are contained in the regulation schedules, of which I have copies here, which are also on the Treasury website, so all of that detail is there for you, Senator.

To come back to Senator Macdonald: firstly, he accused me of sulking. In fact, for the first hour I did answer questions, I think reasonably and fairly and comprehensively. I think Senator Xenophon would acknowledge that with respect to his questions and others I did the same. We then had Senator Macdonald engage in what is known as a filibuster. He just repeated himself over and over and over again with questions and arguments that had been heard and answered—so it was a filibuster, Senator Macdonald. If you wish to engage in that, that is up to you. I chose then not to continue to repeat answers I had already given or answers that had already occurred in the debate, and again I do not intend to do that this afternoon. When I conclude my remarks, I will have concluded my remarks and I will sit down. I do not intend to get up again and go back over issues that have already been canvassed.

On the issue of the tax and the method on the base of the tax the government selected, I did answer the question last night. I pointed out that using the income tax system was a matter of fairness, equity and administrative ease. I pointed that out last night and I pointed it out at the very beginning of the evening, Senator, but you still chose to pursue that for some 2½ hours. That is the reason we have done it. In precedent terms, the previous Liberal-National government, of which you were a member, applied a similar type base to its levies with respect to guns and East Timor. I think they were the other two levies that had a similar type base, and I pointed that out last night.