Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 2022. The Australian Greens will be supporting this bill. It extends deductible gift recipient status to a number of organisations. I want to place on record our position. We think requiring an act of parliament for each organisation to receive DGR status shows that the system is not working as it should be. Many organisations would seek DGR status but they don't have the lobbying power to get themselves placed on this bill or on the ones before it. We need to have a transparent, fair, independent process for enabling DGR status that doesn't leave organisations focusing on a difficult bureaucratic process and doing lots of lobbying to get themselves on this list rather than on the important work that they're doing for the community. That's not to say that we don't support the organisations that are getting DGR status. In fact, we think that a lot more organisations should. We just need to have a better process. The current process is not working, it is arbitrary and it is open to being politicised.

However, I do want to thank the assistant minister and his office for the positive approach that they've taken to the charities portfolio, including the appointment of the new ACNC commissioner. It's an important sector, and we really value the fact that the minister and his office are working to consult with the sector to begin to address some of the really important issues that the sector is facing. We particularly welcome the appointment of Sue Woodward AM following a merit based process to the appointment as commissioner. Her appointment has been widely welcomed by the sector, and we are very glad to see someone of her calibre in this role.

But sadly, when it comes to the Treasury portfolio more broadly, there is a gaping hole that hasn't been addressed. This bill is a Treasury laws amendment bill. If you're thinking about what the priority should be in Treasury laws amendment, it is, of course, the previous government's—the Morrison government—inflationary tax cuts, which will mean that the benefits of those stage 3 tax cuts go to the ultra-wealthy, they go to the billionaires, they go to the people who have already have so much in our society and that is the at the cost of the people that really need to be having money spent on them. I mean, every time the Treasurer gives an update, it seems that the budget impact of the Morrison government's tax cuts has grown. A recent figure was $243 billion, and no doubt the final impact is going to be worse than that. They were the previous government's tax cuts. For the life of me, I do not know why the current government that professes to be a progressive government is just rolling on with these incredibly regressive tax cuts. That is the priority amendment that needs to be made to our Treasury laws—to scrap the stage 3 tax cuts—because that $243 billion, rather than providing a tax cut to the people who do need it, who do value it, will be used for investments to enable people who don't need it to have their next overseas holiday, to perhaps do some lovely renovations on one of their seven houses that they already have. Those tax cuts, that $243 billion, could go to all sorts of things which would benefit ordinary Australians, in particular, to raise the rate of JobSeeker and other income support above the poverty line. That is what would make a real difference to people's lives. That is the No. 1 amendment that we should be making to our Treasury laws. And this really matters, because it is clear that this government is making a choice to amend our laws in one way but not in another way. It is making a political choice. The poverty that people are living in is a political choice, and that's particularly clear when we're debating this tax legislation.

The other element of this tax—yes, we're talking about charities. The impact of people living in poverty has a massive impact on the charity sector. I'm currently chairing a Senate inquiry into poverty in Australia, and we are hearing heartbreaking and absolutely awful stories of what people are going through living in poverty. There are all sorts of people living in poverty in Australia, but the ones who are suffering the most are those who are living on income support, who cannot afford to put a roof over their heads, to put food on the table, to pay for the medicines that they need to address their health issues. They are having to choose to go hungry or to pay for their medication. They end up having to choose between how long they can cope with having their rent in arrears and when they are going to have to decide, no, they can't live in that house. They are having to cope with landlords putting up the rent, with being made homeless because they just can't afford the rent on a house anywhere in our capital cities.

When you're in the position of living in poverty and you're homeless and it's impossible to get your life back on track, it's the charities that are left picking up the pieces. Every charity that has appeared before our inquiry so far—including Anglicare, ACOSS, UnitingCare—every one of them has implored us to increase the rate of income support. So rather than spending $243 billion on tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, spend that money on increasing income support. The decisions of the former Morrison government made it really clear that poverty is a political choice and it matters to people's lives.

Given we are talking about tax legislation today, given we are talking about support for charities, given that we know that it is the charities who are picking up the pieces and given that we know that poverty is a political choice, I do want to take the opportunity to share some of the experiences of people who have spoken with me. One constituent told me about their experience on income support: 'As a young person on JobSeeker, I consistently struggled to find secure accommodation or healthy food, and was never able to save for essential big expenses like shoes or a licence. I wasn't having daily coffees. I wasn't eating at restaurants. Yes, I feel fortunate to have been born in Australia and to be eligible for social security at all. However, it shouldn't be such a degrading, time- and energy-consuming process to get the very bare minimum for survival. Everything from claiming support to keeping it for any period is a stressful and dehumanising ordeal. It's worse for those trying to claim disability.' That person goes on to say: 'We're one of wealthiest countries in the world and our government has chosen to roll back support for students, the homeless, the disabled, the elderly, the inexperienced about to enter or return to the workforce, single parents. All of these groups have substantial obstacles put in their way by our current welfare system and its draconian limitations.'

Poverty is a political choice. We are in a cost-of-living crisis. Rent's skyrocketing; food prices are soaring; it's more expensive than ever to see a doctor. So when we're talking about tax reform, it's very clear where our priorities should lie. We should be increasing income support rather than giving handouts to the ultra wealthy. We should be spending that money on putting dental and mental care into Medicare. We should be building more affordable housing—a million affordable homes to get people off the public housing waiting list. We could make child care free! We could make a real difference in people's lives, rather than contributing to people like Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer and enabling them to pay for their third private jet.

In 2019, when the Morrison government was ramming these changes through, I remember Labor senators in this place made points about how dangerous these changes were. They acknowledged the importance of the political decisions that were being made in this very chamber. Senator Gallagher said at the time: 'The job of the government is to say where that money is coming from, how those tax cuts will be paid for and whether there's a commitment from the government not to slash essential services to the Australian community in order to pay for them.' Senator Wong said at the time:

These are massive numbers with far-reaching consequences for health and for education, and actually for the sort of society we want for Australia, and we have absolutely no way, and the government has no way, of forecasting in 2019 how it can pay for $95 billion worth of tax cuts in 2024-25. The reality is that the government is actually locking in tax cuts without identifying the spending cuts which are required to fund them. That's the hard reality: it's locking in tax cuts without identifying the spending cuts which it will have to identify in order to pay for them.

I couldn't have said it better, Senator Wong. We agree with those points—except that that $95 billion is now $234 billion. We think that, fundamentally, if we're talking about Treasury law amendments, there is one amendment that needs to be made which would make a huge difference in people's lives.

I'll finish by moving my second reading amendment to this bill, because this should be the priority. I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to abandon the inflationary Morrison Government stage 3 tax cuts for billionaires and the ultrawealthy, and instead raise income support payments above the poverty line".

This is a treasury laws amendment bill. That is the most important amendment that we should be making to our treasury laws. That should be the government's priority. It is a choice of government, because poverty is a political choice.