Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you for your guidance, and I will so do. I am aware that there are members of the National and Liberal parties who are as concerned as we are about the dental health problems, and I urge them in the new vigour and new strength of debate in those backbench committees and in their party room to raise this issue. It is affordable. It is possible for us to make a good start to attend to the most serious needs in this area.

The final schedule contained in this bill, schedule 5, updates the list of deductible gift recipients. This is in line with the policy and legislation as it exists, and there is nothing contentious or worthy of debate in any of those proposed changes other than to say that they have our support, as do the rest of the amendments.

The last area I would like to attend to before I sit down is with respect to the second reading amendment put by Labor. I have difficulty with it, I must say, because of the way in which it is expressed. Item (a) says that the Senate calls on the government to bring forward a separate bill on consolidation measures for greater certainty for business. I do not know what that means. I would have preferred the government to be asked to review the consolidation measures that are being applied to see if there is any final wrapping-up needed here. I have been a consistent and strong supporter of the consolidation measures regime, as indeed has the Labor opposition. I am mindful of the fact that it has contributed to greater flexibility, greater market responsiveness and opportunities for the corporate sector. But it is also at considerable cost. I recognise the point made by the shadow minister that it is an extremely complex area which is still causing angst. I am not sure what they mean, but I do recognise that we need to pay some attention to this area.

The second item in the second reading amendment condemns the government for unnecessary delays in bringing forward key changes to defend the mutuality principle, leading to great uncertainty for the clubs industry. To some of the clubs, I say that they can go hang, because they are operating private businesses under the shield of a tax concession which they should not be entitled to, and they really should be clamped down on. I would defend the mutuality principle in a different way by tightening it up and making sure that it applies only to those who really deserve it.

The third Labor amendment recognises that there are problems with the child-care tax offset. I outlined those problems in my own speeches on those bills earlier. There are difficulties, and I probably agree with item (c). Item (d) says that the Senate:

... rejects the Government’s mismanagement of health policy which has seen 1 million Australians miss out under cuts by the Minister for Health and Ageing (Mr Abbott) to the extended Medicare safety net notwithstanding ‘ironclad’ guarantees from the Minister and the failure to deliver a Commonwealth dental program.

I definitely agree with the failure to deliver a Commonwealth dental program and I probably agree with most of the other remarks, although I do think that Minister Abbott suffered grievously as a politician from making an ironclad guarantee and from it then being exposed. So he has probably been punished quite vigorously in the public arena.

Item (e) says that the Senate:

... condemns the Government for refusing to agree to align the definition of facilitation payments in the criminal and tax codes, providing scope for Australian Wheat Board-type kickback payments to be tax deductible.

I would have preferred that to be a request to government to review whether there was a need to align them. The reason I respond in this way is because I listened very carefully to the answers at the table from the tax office during Senate estimates and they indicated that there was absolutely no problem with those two definitions disagreeing in what they thought was not a meaningful manner. So I am not sure that they need to be aligned. I would like some expert advice from independent views as to what the differences mean. Item (f) condemns the government for failing to advance meaningful tax reform. I do not know what that means, unless it is meaningful ‘income’ tax reform, in which case I would agree. So, as you can see, I have a lot of sympathy with what you are presenting in terms of ideas in that second reading amendment, Senator Sherry, but I would have expressed them a little differently in application.