Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008. I particularly thank the honourable member for Werriwa, who is a very regular contributor to tax laws amendment bills and always makes a very worthwhile contribution. I say a very special thank you to the member for Lindsay for what I think I am correct in saying was his second contribution in the House and a very worthwhile one. We heard a lot in the last election campaign about the make-up of the Labor Party’s team. We saw advertisements saying 70 per cent were union officials and how the Labor Party was inexperienced and did not have the necessary skills. The Australian people passed judgement on that particular line of argument. I am particularly pleased that the member for Lindsay, who has a great deal of expertise in taxation matters as a former tax lawyer, is in the House and I look forward to his contributions on these matters, and look forward to using him as a sounding board from time to time on particular policy options.

Firstly, I will deal with schedule 2. This is a schedule which meets with bipartisan support. It is a schedule which was originally introduced in a slightly different form by the previous government by the member for Dickson, who is at the table on the other side. It met with Labor Party support at that time. I appreciate the comments of the member for Dickson in his contribution. I join with him in extending my condolences to the Fiddimore family. I acknowledge the member for Dickson’s efforts when he held the role that I now hold in introducing this measure into the House. I also acknowledge the tireless efforts of the member for Grayndler, who campaigned on this, and knew Christina Fiddimore through his work as her local member. I know he joins with the House in extending our condolences. She was a mother, and I am sure she is very sorely missed. But she leaves a legacy in public policy terms, and that is something her family can take some pride in that in her dying days she campaigned for a change in the law, which this House will enact today. I note that Ms Fiddimore was roughly my age when she passed away and I think roughly the age of the member for Dickson and the member for Stirling—a particularly tragic death. I am sure the House all join with the member for Dickson and me in extending our commiserations and in supporting this change to the law, which is very important.

Perhaps, unsurprisingly, the majority of comments referred to schedule 1 of the bill—and I note and thank the members for Wentworth, Stirling, Dickson and Cook for their contributions. I cannot say I found them particularly enlightening but I thank them for their contributions. I will deal firstly with the remarks of the member for Wentworth. He pointed out that—as I wrote it down—democracy itself was at stake in this particular bill. I thought perhaps I would coin a phrase that the member for Wentworth once coined himself on his way into the chamber: ‘That was just a touch overdramatised.’ Perhaps it was just a little bit overblown because this is a very sensible measure.

It is a measure which the Labor Party campaigned on clearly. It was a clear part of the Labor Party’s election campaign. The previous government tried three times to increase the threshold on tax deductibility. They tried in 1998, and that particular measure lapsed when the 1998 election was called. They tried after the 1998 election and the Senate, which was then not in Liberal Party control, rejected that measure. And of course they tried again in 2006 and on that occasion, with control of the Senate, they succeeded. The Labor Party opposed those measures and campaigned at this last election with a clear policy of removing the tax deductibility of election donations.

The 2006 changes were part of a wider series of changes—I would not use the word ‘reforms’, because that has a positive connotation—which increased the disclosure threshold, for example, from $1,500 to $10,000, which meant effectively you could donate $10,000 to each state and territory entity as well as the federal entity, and you could donate $90,000 to a particularly party of your choosing in secret.

The member for Wentworth says, ‘Democracy is at stake.’ I did not hear him coming in here saying democracy was at stake when the previous government put that legislation through. I did not hear him saying: ‘That’s outrageous. We shouldn’t be giving one side an advantage over the other,’ when they put that little trick through. I did not hear that sort of argument then. Now, in opposition: ‘We’re as pure as the white, driven snow. We are concerned about Western civilisation and democracy as we know it.’ That is somewhat of a disingenuous argument, and I think the Australian people will see it for what it is. The previous government also disenfranchised thousands of Australians when they changed the enrolment procedures for the election and in a very cynical way, which will be dealt with in due course by this government.

The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters considered those changes. There was significant discussion about those changes and the issues were put on the public record. Accordingly, the government will not be accepting the opposition’s proposed amendment, but I will say this: when this measure goes to the other house, we will be referring it to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics for consideration. That is what happens: tax bills go to the Senate economics committee. The member for Stirling can refer it or I can refer it—I will refer it. The member for Stirling might not realise that that is where tax bills go: tax bills go to the economics committee. Tax laws amendment bills, as the member for Dickson would know very well, cover a wide range of issues, as this one does—lots of different schedules, a wide range of issues. The Senate economics committee always does a very thorough job in checking all the elements of the particular tax laws amendment bill under consideration, and that is what will happen this time.

I am not prepared to have this measure delayed while the opposition decides to have a talkfest on a matter that was clearly the Labor Party’s policy and which the Labor Party went to this election on, which the Labor Party has a mandate to do and which was discussed by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters quite a bit the last term.

I note the member for Stirling indicated that the government was somehow being tricky by including this measure in line with other measures. The member for Stirling will come to learn that tax laws amendment bills cover a very wide range of matters all the time—some of which are controversial; some of which are non-controversial. Not once in my time as the shadow Assistant Treasurer did I come in and criticise the member for Dickson and say, ‘This shouldn’t be included. This is too controversial.’ Not once did I do that, because I knew it was within my power as a member of this House to move an amendment to take it out. It is within the power of any senator to move an amendment to take it out and to deal with it separately, if either house so chooses. That is not what we will be doing. I never once criticised the previous government for doing that and I am surprised that on his first bill the shadow Assistant Treasurer chooses to criticise us.

I note that the member for Stirling said that this measure fundamentally attacks the funding base of the Liberal-National Party. I think that is what we call a Freudian slip. This is why they are concerned—because they feel it is an attack on their fundraising base. The Labor Party clearly said that we do not believe that it is appropriate that the Australian taxpayers subsidise donations to political parties. The Australian taxpayers already subsidise political parties through the electoral funding procedures. They already provide money to political parties. Why should they provide more through tax deductions? The Labor Party came to that view and campaigned strongly on it. The opposition has a different view. I accept that and respect it, but let us not have members coming in here, like the member for Wentworth, saying this fundamentally undermines democracy, when the member for Stirling belled the cat and said this fundamentally attacks the Liberal Party-National Party funding base.

The member for Stirling also referred to ‘egregious hypocrisy’. There was a bit of egregious hypocrisy during this debate, but it was not what the member for Stirling was referring to. We heard about unions and how much they advertised during the last election campaign. The opposition did not quite get there but they got very close to saying tax deductibility of union fees should not continue, that union fees should not be tax deductible. That would be a very interesting debate, to hear the Liberal Party argue that what is a fundamental principle of tax law in this country and has been for a long time—that expenses relating to your employment are deductible—should cease. They did not quite get there. They got very close to doing it in estimates yesterday in the other place, and some honourable members on the other side got very close to doing it today. If they want to go down that road, I am more than happy to have that debate.

But this is where we get to egregious hypocrisy. We had all these complaints about union advertising and how much that gave the Labor Party an advantage in the recent election campaign. We did not hear any mention of government advertising. Maybe I missed something. I was working in my office during the debate—I had some meetings; I was not concentrating—but I do not think I heard a member on the other side talk about the $2 billion over 11 years in government advertising that this mob gave the Australian people. Talk about an unfair advantage for a political party! Talk about undermining the fundamental principles of democracy! Talk about giving one side an advantage over the other with taxpayers’ funds! Give me a break. If you are going to talk about egregious hypocrisy, look in the mirror. If you are going to talk about undermining democracy, look in the mirror. If you are going to talk about undermining the fundamental principle on which the Australian political system is based—a level playing field for both parties—look in the mirror.

This is what they did over 11 years: they took Australian taxpayers’ funds and pillaged them for their own political purposes. Let us not have this hypocrisy from the member for Wentworth, the member for Stirling and others about the undermining of democracy by this bill, because the Australian people know what they did with taxpayers’ funds—they were reminded every night on the television. Just before an election was called, you could not get through an ad break without two or three advertisements from the other side that were paid for by the Australian people—

See this speech in context