Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President, or perhaps I should congratulate you as ‘Mr President in limbo for the moment’—a matter you obviously take very seriously. In taking note, can I follow Senator Colbeck’s comments today and reflect, in part, on Senator Conroy’s answer provided to the Senate. Senator Conroy indicated that the government has issued drafting instructions for this measure and, in listening to Senator Colbeck, you might have been confused about whether that was indeed the answer provided. Senator Conroy indicated that, consistent with the provisions of the excise and customs legislation, revenue can be collected for 12 months from the time the tariff alterations are proposed in the parliament or until the close of the parliamentary session—that is, until the next election—whichever occurs first.

Senator Colbeck provided appropriate advice, which is that people potentially affected by this measure should keep receipts, and indeed they should. But the hypocrisy indicated from the other side on this matter is astounding. Is Senator Colbeck suggesting that, during the term of the Howard government, similar things never occurred? I think he will need to consult the record on that. I can think of several. But it brings me to one of my favourites. My favourite is the government’s childcare measures in the lead-up to the 2004 election. If you are looking at the approach by different governments to tax systems—as indeed we are in referring to the Ken Henry review and other matters—you will see that it was the first and only occasion, of which I am aware, where the government introduced measures that were not to apply until the tax year after the year in which the expenses occurred. I invite senators on the other side to give me an example of a similar measure in our taxation history, and I think they will struggle.

In taking note of Senator Conroy’s answer today, Senator Colbeck gives me the opportunity to reflect more broadly on the Ken Henry review. I have had some time in the last few weeks to look closely at that review as we dealt with the fringe benefits tax issue and the issue of concessions available to charitable and not-for-profit organisations. I am extremely pleased to reflect on the breadth of the review that has been established. Senator Stephens will recall that she inherited a review that I attempted to establish in the Senate some years back when, unfortunately, other priorities overtook our attempt to take an early look at some of the issues that the Ken Henry review will now address. Labor have indicated for many years that a comprehensive review of our taxation arrangements is urgent. That is not to say that the government should stand back from taking measures such as those applied to ready-to-drink beverages, but we are looking at this issue far more comprehensively and more broadly. My favourite aspect of the Ken Henry review is indeed at point 2, which states:

Raising revenue should be done so as to do least harm to economic efficiency, provide equity (horizontal, vertical and inter-generational), and minimise complexity for taxpayers and the community.

Significantly, we should also be looking in this review at improvements to the tax and transfer payment systems for individuals and working families, as well as those for retirees. Aside from simplification issues, we are addressing not only the key transfer issues, the relationships between our social security system and our tax system, but also such issues as customs and excise relating to ready-to-drink beverages.

I took the opportunity during question time to have a quick look at the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs on this matter. They do indeed highlight the need for the Ken Henry review to address broader issues. I think some of the suggestions that Senator Murray made in his report, though, are also worth noting:

I look forward to Labor in government being able to address issues such as lower alcohol ready to drink beverages, tax and excise issues in relation to that area, and indeed wine as well can be a part of a much broader …

(Time expired)