Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Hansard source

I remind those who are interested in this debate that we are here this morning discussing the Australian Greens amendment on indexing the threshold for fringe benefits. I concur with so much of what Senator Siewert has said, but I have to say from the outset that, unfortunately, the government cannot support this amendment. I would like to explain why that is the case. First of all, this is not the right place. This is not the right legislation to discuss such an important issue. The idea that we would deal with such a significant issue for the sector in such a piecemeal way does the sector a great disservice. This is a Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs bill. The intent of the bill, and the reason that we have it here before us, is to address the consequences of the previous government’s decision in respect of the use of the gross value of reportable fringe benefits on the not-for-profit sector and to restore the use of the net value of fringe benefits in the definition of adjusted taxable income for determining family assistance.

The amendment to this legislation that you have brought before us actually belongs in a financial bill, the taxation bill. Having said that, so much of what you said this morning is of critical importance to the sector. You quoted Mr Quinlan, from the Catholic Social Services, in his opinion piece in the Australian today. The issue that he raises in that article is fundamental to the way in which the government wants to deal with the sector in the future. The question that he posed about why the community sector would have to be dependent upon these special taxation arrangements, inconsistently applied exemptions and goodwill for its workforce viability is a profound question that we want to address.

In respect of the way in which we are intending to engage with the sector in the future, let me outline some things that will perhaps give you some assurance that we are not going to hang the sector out to dry. First of all, at the recent ACOSS conference I announced that we were going to work towards the development of a national compact with the sector, and that would be about re-engaging in a respectful working relationship and partnership with the sector on service delivery.

Secondly, we have announced that we will refer to the Productivity Commission a reference around developing a tool to measure and understand both the social and economic contributions of the sector. When we do understand those in real terms, and the extent to which the sector contributes to the social, environmental and economic life of the nation, we will all be able to advocate much more strongly for the sector.

Thirdly, Senator Murray and Senator Allison provided a reference on the regulatory framework, compliance and transparency around the charities and not-for-profit sector to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics. The terms of reference go to a range of issues that you raised here this morning and last night in your second reading contribution, so I think the sector itself will be able to articulate very clearly to government its real concerns and what they see as better ways that the government can respond to the real pressures that confront the sector.

Finally, on the issue of the complexity of the interaction of the tax and income support systems, which we have referred to the comprehensive review of Australia’s future tax system being led by the Treasury secretary, Mr Henry: the review will examine the issues and make recommendations to create a tax structure that will deal with them quite specifically for the sector but more broadly for Australia. As the Prime Minister has said, this will be a root and branch review of the Australian taxation system, and I will be advocating very strongly that the sector’s interests are very clearly considered in that review. So, at this stage, we will not support your amendment—not because we do not believe that what you are proposing is critically important but because it cannot be done in such a piecemeal way. To do it in this way would actually be a disservice to the sector.