Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In speaking on the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008 can I first go to schedule 2 and also add my support for the work that has been done in bringing schedule 2 of this bill to this House and for the bipartisan way in which this has been done. It is an incredibly important matter that has been brought through this bill under schedule 2. I am a new member of parliament and only in the first few weeks of my time as a member of parliament a very similar issue was brought to my attention by a constituent. It is very pleasing that, on this first trip to Canberra as a member of parliament and the first time sitting in this place, that matter is being dealt with so swiftly and I commend those on both sides for their compassion on this issue and for their promptness in bringing it to the attention of this place.

My intention today is really to address the matters relating to schedule 1. My colleague the member for Stirling has moved an amendment which relates to schedule 1 and deals with the tax deductability of political gifts and contributions being referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. That is an amendment that I strongly support, and I strongly support it for a number of reasons. The modest deductions to taxpayers that have been provided for political donations were the subject of extensive and vigorous reviews by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters over the course of several parliaments. Over the course of those reviews, as the member for Stirling was saying, there was consistent support from those opposite for those measures. But I am puzzled because, within months of the election, in one of the first items of business, the new government has sought to overturn this commitment. The question must be asked: why? What is the reason for the change of heart? What has changed in the minds of those who sit opposite about tax deductability for political donations? Are they doing it because there is a profound problem with people providing donations of up to $1,500? If that is the case I am not aware of any record of that evidence ever being brought forward. I am not aware of any of the work that has been done by those who sit opposite demonstrating the mischief that has occurred for those people paying their $50 or their $100 or even their $1,000 supporting their local candidate at local activities and whatnot. If there is such evidence of these things then it should be brought to the attention of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I think that is one of the important reasons why the bill should be referred there—to take this evidence and to have a look at these issues—that is, if that is in fact the problem, which I suspect it is not. Is it to save money?

They stand here in this place and say this will save $10 million as part of that massive raft of budget cuts which the Minister for Finance and Deregulation has been bringing before this House. He has been talking about these massive cuts, which really amount to little more than Captain Feathersword when it comes to cutting budgets. When it comes to getting the nation’s finances in order they should look back to the work of the member for Higgins in 1996, when the government of that time inherited a two per cent deficit of GDP and that had to be turned around. That is what serious economic management and fiscal management is all about.

Ten million dollars, if my maths is right, is the cost of 10 part-time sitting days on a Friday in this place. This government is happy to have a part-time parliament sitting on a Friday and to spend $10 million on just 10 part-time Fridays, but it is happy to deny out of hand extending the opportunity and encouraging people who are seeking to support and get involved in the political process. Those opposite actually have an argument on this. They say that they have a mandate. In his speech on this matter, the minister says:

This commitment was made as part of ‘Labor’s $3 Billion Savings Plan’, which was announced by then shadow minister for finance on 2 March 2007.

I cannot actually recall what I was doing on 2 March 2007, but I am unaware of any subsequent references by those opposite to this great longstanding election commitment of theirs. I do not recall it featuring in the $30 million of ads and various programs sponsored by the union movement. I do not remember that being the core plank of their argument that they went to the people with.

The true mandate comes from a very different place, which has not spoken its name in the course of this debate. The true mandate was revealed by the minister’s colleagues who sat on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. In their last report—a dissenting report—the Labor members of the committee made it clear when they said:

In stark contrast, the ALP Platform, as amended at the January 2004 National Conference is that ‘Labor will abolish the tax-deductibility of political donations.’

That is where the change took place. The change took place not through any sort of radical change in Labor thinking, not by those who sit opposite in this place. The change in policy that is now being put before this place came at the national conference of the ALP in 2004. So it was not from the Australian people but from the ‘bruvvers’ at the national conference. We remember that conference. It was the ‘new sensation’ conference. I remember the music. I remember the excitement of the members opposite as their new champion came strolling into the Sydney Convention and Exhibition Centre with INXS blaring across the speaker system.

See this speech in context