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

I take this opportunity to thank both of the honourable members who contributed to this debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 3) Bill 2008the honourable member for Stirling and the honourable member for Lindsay. As I have said before, the honourable member for Lindsay has a great deal of expertise in these matters and I always value his contribution. In relation to the honourable member for Stirling’s contribution, I do have some comments. With respect to the legislative process, the honourable member for Stirling questioned why we would not agree to this going to a Senate committee. Can I indicate that I am more than happy for it to go to a Senate committee, and I do not believe any other position was ever indicated when the government were asked to split this bill. We took the decision very quickly to agree to the request from the opposition. The opposition have indicated they wish to examine two of the schedules, and that is perfectly appropriate. I have no problem with that and I am more than happy to move an amendment splitting two schedules from the other two so that the honourable gentleman opposite can facilitate a Senate inquiry into the first two schedules. This response is in contrast to the approach taken by the previous government when I made similar requests in opposition.

In relation to consultation, can I make it quite clear that I think consultation has not been good enough for a long time. I have made that quite clear in public; I have made that quite clear in several forums. That is why one of the first things I did on becoming Assistant Treasurer was appoint the Wilson review, the Tax Design Review Panel, to ensure that there are fewer delays in the implementation of tax changes and that there is much better consultation early in the process. I have received the Wilson review. The government is preparing its response and it will be released as soon as possible. And that, I think, will make a very serious long-term improvement to the consultation process on tax law in this country.

I have made it clear to the Treasury that my No. 1 priority in the revenue area is to improve taxation law consultation. I have said on a number of occasions that there will be times when consultation needs to be cut short, when it needs to be less than is desirable, and this is one of those times. It is much less than what would be desirable. I would be the first to agree with that. I am more than happy for members opposite to examine the legislation closely in a Senate committee. There are some who argue that this particular schedule should go a lot further—I know that argument—and should not just fix the mischief created in the McNeil case but fix a broader mischief. I accept those arguments.

However, the government has taken a decision to do this now, to fix the particular mischief in the McNeil case, and to take a little longer to assess the broader issues so that this great uncertainty that has been created by the McNeil case is fixed as soon as possible. We have received a significant number of requests from very significant players in the national economy to carry this legislation as a matter of extreme urgency. They have advised the government that the operation of the McNeil case, despite the fact that the government has announced it will retrospectively fix it, is creating some very substantial difficulties for them in their operations. I would encourage the honourable gentleman opposite to ensure that the Senate inquiry, while being full and thorough, is not overly elongated for the sake of those people who are relying on the correction to the McNeil case.

I am a little less clear on the opposition’s concerns on the Capp Motors case, but they have expressed a view that the Senate committee should have a look at it, and I am more than happy to facilitate that. I always, where I am satisfied that the opposition has genuine concerns, am happy to facilitate a full and thorough review. If there are issues that arise out of that review, I am more than happy to take them on board, because we have nothing to fear from a full and proper legislative process. If there are suggestions and amendments that can sensibly be accepted, I indicate that I would accept them. The other two schedules are eminently sensible and I think have the support of both sides of the House. I foreshadow that when we go to the consideration in detail stage I will move an amendment which separates the schedules at the request of the honourable gentleman the member for Stirling.

See this speech in context