David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I certainly endorse the sentiments of the member for Dickson, and I am sure I speak on behalf of all of those on this side of the House when I say that this amendment in many ways demonstrates the ability of individuals to shape and influence the institutions and the decisions of government. It is important that we support that.

I rise to speak in support of each of the measures proposed in this Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008. I must say from the outset that, whilst I echo the comments of the member for Dickson, I do not support the amendment put forward by the member for Stirling which was seconded by the member for Dickson. I will speak to the issue of the schedule 1 proposal shortly.

There are some very good measures in this bill. I will not speak at length about each and every one of them but obviously I support schedule 2, the case that was inspired by Ms Fiddimore and her story. Those legislative changes will rectify that situation and demonstrate the necessary compassion that this place would like to see borne out in our superannuation laws.

In relation to schedule 3, I am very pleased to be able to participate in this debate because I have been very much involved in advocating the need for our tax laws to better reflect some of the social and environmental objectives that we as a community are seeking. This is an example of the tax laws being used for that purpose. This measure, which relates to the establishment of trees for the purpose of creating carbon sink forests, will allow the establishment costs of those forests, which would ordinarily be capital in nature, to be deductable. There are two parts to this: in the first instance, that expenditure would be deductable for the income years between 2007-08 and 2011-12. In the period thereafter, those incurring that expenditure would have access to the provisions of division 40, in order to obtain the benefit of ongoing deductions under the capital allowances regime, over 14 years and 105 days at a rate of seven per cent per annum.

This differential between the two approaches very much reflects the need to get on with the job when it comes to our responses to greenhouse gas emissions and our nation’s response to climate change. I am very proud that, in the short time since I was elected as the member for Lindsay, this government has taken significant action in respect of moving forward, making Kyoto something that this nation has now embraced and taking some of the necessary steps to implement our responses, and this measure will form a part of that.

I support the other measures, but I would like to comment more specifically on the only measure in this bill that seems to be in contention—that is, the provisions of schedule 1. Can I begin by saying that one very simple fact that has been ignored by members opposite is that this measure reflects an election commitment. I have heard members on the other side suggest that this is a rather odd place to find a measure such as this. I suggest to them, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, that this is not an odd place to find a revenue measure—and that is precisely what this is.

This measure, which was announced in a media statement entitled ‘Labor’s $3 billion Savings Plan’ on 2 March 2007, was designed to achieve one thing principally, and that was to contribute to overall savings for the Labor Party, when it was in opposition, in terms of how it would not only present a platform for the election but also be able to deliver and pay for that. This is something that we put before the Australian people, and it forms part of our platform, part of our agenda. So members on the other side should not be surprised to see that, with such haste, we have brought this matter before the parliament—as we have done with other matters that form part of our legislative agenda. I think it is a little bit cute to be suggesting that this is not an appropriate place for this measure to be found.

One of the other measures that was contained within the $3 billion worth of savings was the measure that related to reversing an increase in MPs’ printing allowances. That reversal related to changes that had been made under the former government which had dramatically increased the printing allowance available to MPs. There is something that I find just a little hypocritical here. I do not want to fall into the same trap that the member for Stirling fell into with the exaggerations and the hyperbole that characterised his contribution to the House—I think at one point he said that there was ‘absolute egregious hypocrisy’ on the part of the government, and I will come back to ‘absolute egregious hypocrisy’ in a moment—but I would say that, in respect of the savings measure related to the increase in printing allowances, those members of the former government, now members of the current opposition, have remained rather silent on this issue.

I see from a review of the Hansard of yesterday’s proceedings in the House that the member for Wentworth had some interesting comments to make on the issue of incumbency. (Quorum formed) Yesterday the member for Wentworth said in this House:

The question that we have to ask ourselves, as Australians committed to a contestable democracy, is what price democracy if one side of politics has an inordinate share of the financial resources available for campaigning?

And he went on to suggest that this particular measure was about nothing more than entrenching the power of the incumbency that the government currently enjoys. I have to say that I find this rather curious, given the many measures employed by the former government—many of them at great expense to the taxpayer—in order to boost and entrench the incumbency of the then government.

I have already referred to the increase in the printing allowance. We could go into a very detailed discussion about the benefits to our great democracy of the $2 billion worth of political advertising that our community was subjected to over the 11 years of the former government. Unfortunately, I did not hear the member for Wentworth, the member for Stirling or any member from the other side suggest that to entrench the power of incumbents would in some way go to the very heart of breaking up our democracy. In fact, I think that the words of the member for Wentworth this morning were that this proposal was a ‘poison pill’—poisonous to our democracy. It defies explanation, it defies justification on his part to suggest that, and I intend to go through some aspects of how that is simply not the case. Before doing so, can I say that I welcome the member for Wentworth’s preparedness to engage in a discussion about campaign finance reform. But what I find just a little bit rich is to see the member for Wentworth, of all the people in this House, coming forward to talk about the evils of political donations and how this is a great scourge that this parliament has to stamp out. Of all people, I would not have expected the member for Wentworth to be leading the charge.

One of the things that I noted in the 2004 electoral returns was that the member for Wentworth himself submitted a return—as this great democracy requires—and in that return there are a number of expenditure and campaign items which come to the rather modest total of $609,000. That is how much money was raised and expended in the campaign for the member for Wentworth in the 2004 election. That is some serious political fundraising. The member for Wentworth is, of course, a former federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party.

See this speech in context