Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I am obliged to Senator Ronaldson for that contribution, and I will come back to it in a moment. I firstly want to say that the Australian Greens will be supporting the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008. But let me explain that. There were six parts to this bill; there is essentially now one—that is, a measure to remove tax-deductibility for donations towards election campaigns. That is what Senator Ronaldson was largely talking about a moment ago. But another part of the bill, which was dealt with last week in the main, is to allow tax-deductibility for the establishment of plantations as carbon offsets, and Senator Milne has explained that. So we have two things: one about election spending, and the other about tax-deductibility for people who put in trees under specified conditions to offset greenhouse gas emissions.

Let me deal with the first first. As Senator Ronaldson indicated, the Greens are very keen to get public input on tax-deductibility for election campaign spending. I understand that the government is going to be working on this quite a bit over the coming months. We favour the abolition of tax-deductibility for donations for electoral purposes. We have to vote on that measure tonight, and we will vote for it. Senator Ronaldson pointed out an anomaly for people who make donations to political parties, if this bill passes—and it sounds like it may not because the opposition, the coalition, still has the numbers and therefore can block the passage of that bill up until Thursday of this week, and then we will see what happens when we come back at the end of August.

The anomaly Senator Ronaldson spoke about is that MPs will still be able to tax-deduct their contribution for their own re-election or for their party’s re-election. It raises the interesting possibility—doesn’t it?—of us doing what Senator Ronaldson wants but in reverse, which is to abolish the tax-deductibility for spending which comes from members themselves towards their election campaign or their party election campaign. Let’s be the same as the rest of the public and let’s ensure that money that we get as servants of the public, as elected members of parliament, goes to the purpose of servicing our electorate. But, where we cross over and put money into election campaigns, let’s—and I am indebted to Senator Ronaldson for this thought—explore the possibility of removing tax-deductibility for that as well. I will certainly speak with my colleagues about making a level playing field in that way.

I want to go to the tax concessions which the government had adopted with the support of the opposition for the planting of trees—and they are wonderful indeed. If you plant more than 0.2 hectares, a fifth of a hectare, of trees which are to grow in their maturity to cover more than 20 per cent of the land in which they stand, as far as their canopy is concerned—in other words 80 per cent of the land need not be covered by tree canopy—you get whacking big tax deductions for that, and you only have to maintain the plantation for 14 years. As Senator Milne pointed out, indeed there is a fairly handsome compensation program: if on the 15th year the whole plantation is burnt to the ground, you can get your insurance for that and then retain the tax-deductibility you got way back 14 years earlier when you put into this scheme.

How can it be that we have a government putting this forward and an opposition supporting it in an age where there is a need to be scrupulous in addressing the matter of climate change? We are dealing with a piece of legislation which says, ‘You’ll get a tax reward if you plant trees, and you’ll be able to hang on to that even if they’re burnt to the ground 15 years later and all that greenhouse gas goes into the atmosphere.’ There is no penalty clause; there is no need to ensure that you have fire procedures to prevent that from happening. In fact, one could see an incentive built into this legislation for there to be more bushfires than we have seen in a long, long time coming down the line. Then presumably you can plant the same area of ground again and, if the intent of this legislation is followed through, get all the tax-deductibility again and put in another plantation. Fifteen years later you have all that tax-deductibility and you do not have to maintain it any further—it can be burnt to the ground again.