Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Minchin, Minister representing the Treasurer. Can the minister confirm that the government is reviewing the use of managed investment schemes? Is the minister aware of concerns within the government that these schemes severely disadvantage rural Australia by encouraging investment in areas which allow investors to claim large tax deductions, such as plantation schemes, rather than in traditional farming businesses? Does the minister agree with the member for Moore, who said on 14 June, ‘The lucrative MIS tax breaks need to be pruned before rural industries are wiped out’? Does the minister accept the position of the member for Forrest, who claimed that those opposed to the schemes ‘are trying to stop a disaster happening in traditional agriculture’? Does the minister accept the advice of his own backbench that these Howard government tax schemes are damaging Australia’s rural industries, and what action will the government now take to address this?

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am representing the Assistant Treasurer and have some information that—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The question was directed to Senator Minchin to answer, as I heard it. I do not know whether Senator Minchin is not capable of doing so—if he is not capable of answering, he ought to say he is not capable, but it is certainly not appropriate for someone else just to jump up and say, ‘I’ve got something to say because someone handed me the brief.’

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Evans, I do not know whether that was a statement or a point of order. In any event, the question was directed to Senator Minchin and I think that, if he wants to direct that to another minister, that is fine.

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: that is basically right, but what traditionally would be done here is that Senator Minchin would stand and flick it, rather than just throw it over his shoulder. I think that is where the confusion is coming from.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: it is important that the opposition understands who is responsible for what. We do have a minister representing the Assistant Treasurer. There is a portfolio of Assistant Treasurer. The Assistant Treasurer has responsibility for things like managed investment schemes, and it would be helpful if the opposition got its head around the responsibilities. I indicated to you by a signal, Mr President, that the question was more appropriately answered by Senator Coonan and indicated such to you. Now, I do not mind who answers the question—we have the same brief—but the proper thing is for the opposition to understand who they should be directing their questions to.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How does Hansard record a signal?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: that is absolutely wrong. Not only precedent but also courtesy requires the minister to indicate that he would prefer another minister to answer the question. As he represents the Prime Minister in this chamber, the opposition is entitled to ask him the question in that capacity as well, particularly as the issue went to a division within the Liberal Party and the government over what exactly the policy on this issue is.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have had points of order from both sides. Senator Wong, to whom do you want to address your question?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already addressed it to Senator Minchin.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to answer the question but, in future, I ask the opposition to clarify and make clear in its own head to whom these questions should be directed. I do not think that the opposition yet understands after 10 years that there is a Treasurer and an Assistant Treasurer and that they have different responsibilities.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you represent the Prime Minister!

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question was directed to me as the Assistant Treasurer. Nevertheless, with regard to the issue of managed investment schemes, the government has been reviewing the taxation treatment of plantation forestry. You may not have noticed, so I draw your attention to an announcement that was made on budget night that there are proposed new tax arrangements for investments in forestry managed investment schemes. The government has called for submissions from industry and other stakeholders on the proposed arrangements. These are due on 14 July. I imagine that the opposition can make a submission if it wants to too. The government also announced that it intended to conduct further consultation with industry on the application of the new taxation arrangements to non-forestry agricultural managed investment schemes.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister advise whether the junior agricultural minister, Senator Abetz, was in fact outlining the government’s position when he defended managed investment schemes in the Age on 14 June, arguing, ‘Changing the tax arrangements could prompt an investment collapse in key agricultural sectors’? Or was senior agricultural minister Mr McGauran correct when, two days later, he expressed concerns about the market-distorting effect of these schemes? Who is speaking for the government on this issue and what is the government’s position?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was an absolutely pathetic attempt to suggest that there is any division on this. Senator Abetz is proving to be an absolutely outstanding Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation. I commend Senator Abetz on the fantastic job he is doing representing forestry. The minister is an outstanding advocate of the role that managed investment schemes have played in promoting the plantation industry in this country. It is a vital industry for many regional communities, which you lot would never understand. We have announced a policy of reviewing the taxation arrangements for these managed investment schemes. Managed investment schemes will continue, but we keep the taxation arrangements under review. Senator Abetz is playing a critical part in that review, and I commend him on his role.