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

but the voting record of those opposite is clear for all to see.

I make the point that, if you seriously do not have an objection to organisations offering ethics-based instruction in schools obtaining the benefit of DGR status, then why do you want to make every single organisation that might exist in the future have to go through the hurdles? These processes take months, if not years. This application from Primary Ethics has been in the system for years. And all specific listing applications take a period of time to progress.

Those opposite say they are the party of deregulation and of removing regulatory burdens. Why on earth must this be a process that the parliament has to deal with on a case-by-case basis? Is the member for Casey honestly suggesting that there is something so insidious about these types of organisations that we should have to scrutinise them in this place one by one? Doesn't he trust the tax commissioner to do that? Frankly, this is ridiculous. For those opposite, it is for whatever ideological reasons, and if it is not ideology it is just their commitment to being negative about everything, because there is absolutely no justification for this ridiculous position that they have taken.

I will just conclude by making this point. If the opposition's amendment gets up, Primary Ethics—the only organisation providing ethics-based instruction in schools in the country—will be denied DGR status. And the opposition have not given any indication of whether or not, in government, they would even provide a specific listing. That, of course, at the very earliest, is not going to be for several months. This organisation needs deductible gift recipient status in order to continue to be viable. To do what you are doing is to destroy Primary Ethics.

See this speech in context