Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

[by video link] I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021 and changes to offshore banking unit rules as they apply to groups wanting to register for the status of a deductible gift recipient. This measure makes changes to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to require non-government entities seeking endorsement as a deductible gift recipient to be a charity registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission or operated by a registered charity. Ancillary funds and specifically listed entities will be exempt from this requirement.

Charities and charitable bodies operate best when they have the full trust of the public, and this bill seeks to reinforce the framework on which that partnership is built. These changes are designed to help the affected entities and their donors by making absolutely clear the entity's tax-deductible status. It is similar to how some companies stamp their products with 'RSPCA approved' or with the Heart Foundation tick. Doing that is reassuring to the people handing over their money, because the product carries a stamp of an official certifying authority.

With deductible gift recipients, this bill grants some rolled-gold government-recognised status as a legitimate operation people can confidently donate to. It will also improve the consistency of rules governing deductible gift recipients, providing clarity and improving efficiency so that they can maximise the time spent on helping their chosen causes. The requirement to be a charity already applies to the majority of the general DGR categories in tax law. This measure will amend the special conditions applying to other general DGR categories. This measure takes effect three months after the bill receives royal assent. The 12-month transition period will provide non-charity DGRs with times to meet the requirements for charity registration without losing their existing status.

I have touched on just a few of the details in the legislation, because I think it has already been so well covered by the always gracious Senator Scarr, but I do want to touch on some of the other points that have been made, particularly around the multinational tax avoidance. It has to be acknowledged that we are a global leader in the international fight against corporate and multinational tax avoidance. From 1 July 2016 to 30 April 2021, the ATO raised around $21.5 billion in tax liabilities against large public groups, multinational corporations, wealthy individuals and associated groups. Of this, $13.5 billion in liabilities were raised from multinationals and large companies. So this has generated cash collections of around $12.5 billion already.

Since 2016, we have implemented more than a dozen measures to address corporate and multinational tax avoidance. This includes adopting the actions recommended by the OECD and G20: base erosion and profit shifting, including country-by-country reporting; hybrid mismatch rules; antitreaty abuse rules; strength transfer pricing rules; signing multilateral instruments; adopting other measures beyond BEPS, including a multinational anti-avoidance law which ensures companies do not avoid a taxable presence in Australia; diverted profits tax; double penalties for multinationals that seek to avoid tax; imposition of tax conditions on foreign investors; and strengthening thin-capitalisation laws. Enhanced whistleblower protection has been enacted to limit disincentives for individuals to report tax misconduct to the ATO. The MAAL has meant an additional $8 billion of sales revenue being booked in Australia each year. So Australia has played a key role in driving the agenda on the OECD G20 process. We are on the BEPS steering committee and have contributed to every G20 meeting where this has been discussed and have implemented the recommendations. These are really important points to make.

I listened with interest to those opposite. I listened to the increasingly breathless hyperbole about what should have or could have happened at the beginning of COVID. I think we all recall the dark days of March 2020, with the terrible uncertainty of the pandemic. What would it mean to people's security? What would it mean to their ability to put food on the table? The introduction of JobKeeper and JobSeeker was massively welcomed by Australians at all levels, even at the most basic level of ensuring mental health security for people who just didn't know what was going to happen next.

So the appalling attack by the opposition on the very sensible approach that was taken during those dark days just beggars belief. It seems that they have forgotten their own stimulus package of the Rudd days of 2009 when they too understood that there is a time for stimulating the economy and providing security to the people of Australia. The opposition seem to think there are only two jobs in leading a government and, of course, that is not only not true; it gives you much discomfort to think about them ever holding the Treasury positions, because they just truly don't know what the job entails. I commend this bill to the Senate.