Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move coalition amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item.

(2) Schedule 3, page 11 (lines 1 to 10), omit the Schedule.

As I outlined in my speech on the second reading, the coalition is moving to excise schedule 3 from this bill. Amendments (1) and (2) give effect to that. Let me reiterate a couple of things for the benefit of the shadow Assistant Treasurer, and I will deal with some of the points he made. As he articulated, this legislation seeks to introduce a whole new general category. Currently, there is one provider nationally in Australia and that is Primary Ethics. We note that the explanatory memorandum to the bill provides that New South Wales example as the only one, with no reference to any other state or territory.

As I previously stated, this one provider has sought a listing and it was rejected by the current government. As Senator Cormann outlined yesterday, the coalition has no philosophical objection to ethics classes but did not think it was appropriate that we have this whole new category created at this point without proper consideration of all the issues.

I want to point out a few things to the Assistant Treasurer regarding what he said in his long speech of rebuttal to our position on this. He first said that Mathias Cormann, our shadow Assistant Treasurer, had confirmed that we have no philosophical objection and yet he accused him of having a philosophical objection. The Assistant Treasurer will, quite predictably, cast any aspersions on any scrutiny but, when it comes to his conduct of tax laws amendment bills, he is the Captain Chaos of Assistant Treasurers. We have seen time and time again—and I deal with a lot of these tax laws amendment bills—

Mr Bradbury interjecting—

I did interrupt you once or twice but, I think, on a tax laws amendment bill—

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Please speak through the chair and can we come to the amendments, in particular.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am trying to do that, but I would point out that the Assistant Treasurer is interjecting when we are dealing with something as serious as a tax laws amendment bill. I think it would be a lot better for the House and for him if he actually concentrated, instead of yabbering on while we are dealing with the amendments.

I am going to deal with a couple of issues that he raised. I am going to repeat what I said in my speech on the second reading. The coalition think it is more appropriate to consider these requests on a case-by-case basis rather than to open a new category at this point. There is one provider. That one provider has been rejected by the government. This government's track record of getting things wrong in tax laws amendment bills is endless. I deal with a lot of these tax laws amendment bills and, in bill after bill, there are schedules correcting this minister's previous mistakes. He says that if this general category is not created, the one provider—

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

Name them.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The more you interject—

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Speak through the chair, and the minister will refrain from interrupting.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. As to that provider, it is not the case that, if this general category is rejected, that provider cannot be listed; they can be listed on a case-by-case basis; they can come forward to the government.

On this point, the Assistant Treasurer would have you believe that a listing of this nature on the DGR is as rare as a Labor surplus. I dealt with a tax law amendment bill yesterday that listed six organisations. I do not think he knows a lot about tax law but I will say this: he knows, because he introduced the bill, that there would not be a tax law amendment bill—or if there were it would be very rare—that does not list a number of organisations, and we would deal with six, eight or 10 tax law amendment bills each year. Yesterday, just in one day, six were listed. So he should not come into this House with this absolute furphy that because there is one provider seeking listing he has to create a whole new category because it is too hard to list one organisation and it might be too hard for him to list another one in the weeks or months ahead— (Time expired)

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

As I said earlier, there is a principle involved, and the principle is quite simple. It is a principle that Senator Cormann in an interview today confirmed he supports. If he supports the principle, he and his party should support the bill.

If I look in division 30 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, it refers to one of the categories being a public fund established and maintained solely for the purpose of providing religious instruction in government schools in Australia. If the principle is that the same entitlements available to religious instruction in schools should be extended to ethics-based instruction, then it should not matter whether there is one or 1,000 organisations providing ethics-based instruction. As a matter of principle a new category should be established, and that is what we are proposing.

As to this furphy about the specific listing, let me make this point: if the member for Casey is suggesting that the way we deal with all DGR applications is for government to make a case-by-case decision, then presumably he is going to repeal every category that currently exists in the act. We create categories. They are policy decisions that government takes so that you do not have to come into this place and move an amendment to the law to give DGR status to an organisation that fits within certain parameters. We allow that to be done as an administrative matter by the Commissioner of Taxation.

We are achieving equity between organisations. We are determined to do that, because we think that these organisations are doing good work that should be supported. It is a policy decision we have taken: we think that organisations of this sort, provided they tick the boxes and their bona fides are approved by the Commissioner of Taxation, should be able to raise funds that are tax deductible.

If the opposition do not support that principle, fair enough. What that means is: they do not support the principle of providing DGR status to organisations that provide ethics-based instruction in our schools. They should say that. But that is not what Senator Cormann said in his interview today.

We heard all the huff and puff from the member for Casey, but I defy him to tell me about all these tax bills that I have introduced that he reckons have a problem. If there is a problem, the problem is that he votes against these bills when we are trying to crack down on loopholes. Big businesses are ripping money out of the tax system, eroding our base, and shifting profits, and they sit over there, idly, on their hands, allowing multinationals to fleece the Australian tax base. Because, if there is a rort, a rip-off or a loophole, the Liberal Party will be there, holding hands with the exploiters; that is what they do. We are out there cracking down on them. And if the member opposite suggests that somehow the bills that I have brought into this place—

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are two points: (1) the minister is not speaking to the bill; and (2) I ask that he withdraw his last, despicable, accusation that we on this side of the House are siding with—

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Casey will take his seat. The minister will withdraw, to assist the House—

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

I withdraw, to assist the House—

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and return to the amendments.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to 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.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me just reiterate a couple of points. Let me firstly deal with the Assistant Treasurer's broad-ranging, uncontrollable attack on everything the coalition stands for. I think it does him no service at all and just confirms that, when it comes to the detail of these tax law administration bills, he is incapable of clear-headed assessment of these matters; he is certainly incapable of consultation. But I am going to reiterate, for the benefit of the House and if not for his benefit—and I am still hopeful—that we have articulated very clearly that we have no philosophical objection to ethics classes. We have also said that with only one provider in the country it is better these be considered on a case-by-case basis rather than by creating a whole new category at this point in time. I am going to amplify what I said before about the regularity of GDR status listings in tax law administration.

Mr Bradbury interjecting—

I apologise; I am sorry, Assistant Treasurer. We're concentrating so that's a start! As I said, there were six yesterday. I would guess there would be 30 to 40 each year. Some tax law administration bills have a few; some have a dozen.

As to his point about the one organisation that exists, there is one and it can be considered on a case-by-case basis at this point. We are not going to accept his false motives. We are not going to accept the fact that he will always resort to political attack, rather than look at the specifics of an issue. There is one organisation and it can be considered on a case-by-case basis. Everything he says about the implications of excising this particular schedule is false. He knows that. When he talks about the listing process, he signs off on the bills with the listing and, if I am correct—and he will be able to inform me whether I am correct—I think that new organisation that is up there in the press gallery and is with the universities, The Conversation, was listed this week. Wasn't it, Assistant Treasurer?

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through the chair if you can, Member for Casey.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will assume it was. I think I saw it on the list there yesterday, and that is an organisation that has been running a few months. At this point in time we have made it clear it should be done on a case-by-case basis. I am sorry the minister resorts to false motives. We have made our position clear. It is for those reasons that we have moved to excise this schedule from the bill.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.