Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in the debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (2007 Measures No. 3) Bill 2007. I find it a little odd that this omnibus bill contains 10 significant tax measures ranging from the tax treatment of lump sum superannuation death benefits paid to the nondependants of ADF personnel, Australian Federal Police, police officers of each state and territory service, as well as the Australian Protective Services, right through to the repeal of the dividend tainting rules. The minister has obviously decided to put these measures into one instrument with a view to proceeding. I intend to limit my remarks to schedule 4, which aligns tax treatment of lump sum superannuation benefits paid to nondependants with that which currently applies to dependants where the deceased:

... died in the line of duty as:

(a)

a member of the Defence Force; or

(b)

a member of the Australian Federal Police or the police force of a State or Territory; or

(c)

a protective service officer ...

Superannuation death benefits paid to dependants of a deceased person are taxed more concessionally than those paid to nondependants. ‘Death benefits dependant’ is defined in the legislation as a deceased’s spouse or former spouse, a deceased’s child aged less than 18, any person with whom the deceased had an interdependency relationship just before he or she died, or any other person who was a dependant of the deceased person just before he or she died. As a result of the simplified superannuation reforms, from 1 July 2007 superannuation death benefits will be tax free without limit if paid to dependants and taxed concessionally if paid to nondependants—at 15 per cent if paid from a taxed fund and at 30 per cent if paid from an untaxed fund. Labor is supporting these provisions as they recognise the valuable role played by defence personnel and police in maintaining the safety and security of local communities and the nation as a whole.

As most members would be aware, prior to coming to this place I spent a number of years representing the professional and industrial interests of police officers in each state and territory police jurisdiction and the Australian Federal Police. I know first-hand the dedication, commitment and professionalism exhibited by these people in fulfilling their duties on behalf of their respective police services.

From talking to these people over many years—I am sure the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, who is in the chamber, would agree, as would the member for La Trobe—I know that it is very rare for the motivation of people entering the police force to be anything other than that they are joining to make a difference. This bill, particularly schedule 4, is a recognition of the special role played by the ADF and certainly our police officers.

Only last year the National Police Memorial was opened on Police Remembrance Day, 29 September 2006. The Prime Minister attended, as did many members of this House. The memorial, situated at Kings Park, has 719 names of police officers who have died serving their respective state or territory during the course of their duties. Since January 1999, over 30 police officers have been killed in the line of duty.

Schedule 4 of this bill goes some way towards recognising the important role that Australia’s police play in our society. It is also a well-recognised fact that police face significant physical and psychological rigours which are reasonably unique to that occupation. One thing which stands police apart from other employees is their oath of office. Police officers take an oath of office which gives them enormous powers but at the same time places them under enormous responsibilities. This personal responsibility distinguishes the obligations of police officers from those of most other employees. A police officer is obliged under their oath of office to put himself or herself in a situation of physical or psychological harm where it is necessary to keep the peace or to protect the lives and properties of members of the public. I am sure that is something we all sometimes take for granted. It is very easy to blame the police for not being somewhere when a crime is being committed. I assure members that these people take their job very seriously, and part of that is putting themselves in harm’s way to protect their community.

The other significant aspect of their oath of office is that it obliges a police officer effectively to be on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The oath of office obliges a police officer to intervene in any situation in which he or she perceives an offence is being committed, regardless of whether he or she is on a roster. That has significant implications for an officer’s safety. Those things are taken into account.

I will briefly mention a very unfortunate incident that occurred in Ultimo on 28 February 1998. Young Constable Peter Forsyth, who was off duty at the time, saw a drug deal taking place. As was required under his oath, he put himself back on duty and tried to apprehend the people involved. Unfortunately, he was fatally stabbed. That brings home not only the dangers involved in police work but also the fact that the people who take on this occupation must be prepared to put themselves on duty if they witness an incident. That is not required of other employees who may or may not be rostered on. If police officers are aware of an incident, they are obliged to take action to address the situation. I understand from the commissioner that Constable Forsyth was extremely well regarded. This incident demonstrates the commitment, dedication and professionalism of police officers and what they are prepared to do to look after the communities they serve.

I should also mention the fact that police officers have been serving with various overseas detachments on behalf of this country for many years. Police officers commenced service in Cyprus in 1964. In addition to that detachment, Australian police officers have been serving in Thailand, Namibia, Cambodia, Somalia, Mozambique, Haiti, Bougainville, the Solomon Islands and, more recently, East Timor. Australia’s peacekeeping obligations have seen this government and previous governments call upon state and territory governments to ask for volunteers for overseas service to honour Australia’s peacekeeping obligations. Once again, these police officers demonstrate dedication and commitment not only in serving their state but also in the way they continue to serve this country in its peacekeeping role.

In concluding, I pay tribute to the activities of the Police Federation of Australia, which is the professional body that represents the nearly 50,000 police officers serving in the various state, territory and national jurisdictions. I particularly commend federation president Peter Alexander and the chief executive officer Mark Burgess for their persistent lobbying on behalf of all Australian police officers. That persistence has resulted in major changes to superannuation death benefits paid to nondependants of police personnel. Nondependants of Australian police officers killed in the line of duty will now have access to the same concessional tax treatment for superannuation death benefits as dependants when they receive a lump sum. That is a significant step forward. It is also significant for other services, including the Australian Defence Force and the Australian Protective Service. For that reason, I support this bill.

See this speech in context