Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 164(3) I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer for an explanation as to why order for the production of documents No. 767, agreed to on 10 February, concerning the Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donation to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024 and other matters, has not been complied with. The order required the documents to be tabled by 5 pm on 11 February.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm repping the Treasurer and I'm not sure I was aware this would happen, but you are generally very courteous. I will just check. The duty minister will answer the question.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Smith refers to Senate order 767, which I think was agreed to by the Senate in February. There was a letter from the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury, the Hon. Dr Andrew Leigh MP, provided on the following day. He advised the Senate in that correspondence that the requested documents could not be produced by the deadline and that work to compile and review the necessary material was actively being progressed. The letter confirms that it is the government's intention to comply with the order and notes that a response is expected to be tabled once those necessary steps are complete. It is important to note that this government, with a demonstrated commitment to standards of integrity and transparency and accountability far stronger than that of the previous government, is working through the necessary steps that are required to comply with this order.

The numbers of Senate estimates questions on notice, parliamentary questions on notice and orders for the production of documents have all skyrocketed to an industrial scale in the 47th Parliament. In fact, the number of OPDs has also doubled during the 47th Parliament and the scope of these requests has also expanded significantly. It's important that we consider whether answering all of them is the best use of public sector resources. For example, a recent order agreed to on the motion of Senator Kovacic required the return of tens of thousands of pages of documents. I hope senators paid attention to them and sat down and read them all carefully! It took public servants, who the opposition treat with contempt when they provide these draft orders with massive scopes, thousands and thousands of hours at an enormous cost to the taxpayer. However, I can advise in this instance that the documents requested in relation to OPD 767 are being actively progressed and that the government expects to provide them soon.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

What Senator Ayres says with regard to the government's demonstrated standard of integrity and transparency is actually very heavily contested in this Senate as we stand almost on the eve of a federal election. I would make this point too: it is not the number of OPDs that is the issue for the government to consider. That is actually immaterial. It is not at the discretion of the government, nor is it at the discretion, in this case, of the Treasury, to determine what documents will and will not be released. In actual fact, the order has been agreed by a vote of the Senate. So the Senate as an institution, the house of review, has exercised its judgement that the order to produce these documents—the type that are contained in the resolution that gave effect to the OPD—should be agreed and should be complied with.

I'd add that on 11 February, 43 days ago, this Senate agreed that documents, emails, correspondence between treasurers and correspondence between the Treasury and various Treasury ministers, on the matter of a tax incentive for food charity donations, were worthy of being revealed, worthy of being detailed and laid before this Senate. So, 43 days later, nothing has transpired, except words. And Senator Ayres's words were not that it will be complied with this afternoon; they were not that it would be complied with by tomorrow. It would be complied with 'soon'—43 days soon? What does that mean?

Why is this an important issue? It is an important issue because, in addition to the cost-of-living crisis that has been endured by Australian families, Australian charities have been enduring a cost of doing charitable business in this country, because inflationary pressures apply equally to charitable organisations. We know there's been an increase in the level of demand, in this particular case for food donations from and amongst food charities. And we know that probably for the first time in living memory in this country working families, many of them on dual incomes, have been forced to seek support and seek relief from charitable food organisations—like Foodbank, like OzHarvest, like SecondBite and like many of the ones I have visited over the past three years in local communities across the state.

In this OPD we also asked for the government and the Treasury to reveal what general work they had been doing on the idea of a tax incentive in regard to food donations. Why did Senator Smith lodge this OPD? It was not a fishing exercise. When the Senate economics committee was inquiring into this bill—which happens to be my private senator's bill—Treasury officials had been asked to do an analysis of the private senator's bill, and those officials said that this was an 'uncommon experience'. In actual fact, you'll often hear the government say they do not support private senators' bills, because they would prefer to bring their own initiatives to the Senate chamber.

That's why this OPD asks the government and the Treasury to reveal what general work they have been doing on a tax incentive for food donation charities. Why does Senator Smith have an inkling that the government might be doing this work? It is because the House agricultural committee last year—chaired by Labor and controlled by Labor members of the House of Representatives—issued a report, and a recommendation of that report was that it agreed that legislation of this kind, providing a tax incentive to support charitable giving to food charities, would be in the national interest. Indeed, organisations like Foodbank, OzHarvest and SecondBite wrote to the Treasurer in 2023 suggesting that it would be a really good and timely idea to provide relief to Australian food charities. And what did they get back from Dr Jim Chalmers? Silence.

So we on this side say that if no work is being done then there is no OPD to comply with. Senator Ayres could easily have said: 'Senator Smith, there's no work being done. Sorry for the 43-day delay. There's nothing to see here.' Instead, we have had delay and obfuscation. It may well be that Dr Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer, stands on his feet tonight and says there's a tax incentive initiative contained in the budget for food charities. On this side, we would say: 'Well done, Dr Jim Chalmers. We're disappointed it took you so long and disappointed you couldn't be more transparent with the food charity sector across our country, but we applaud that measure as a way of dealing with your terrible cost-of-living crisis that you've inflicted on Australian families and charities.' But that's not what is being said. We have delay and obfuscation, and, for me and food charities across this country, this is a powerful demonstration of why this government is not interested in transparency and not interested in integrity measures.

In summing up, let me explain why this matter is urgent for Australian families and why it is particularly urgent to Australia's charity sector. The Foodbankhunger report 2024 found two million Australian households, or 19 per cent, experienced severe food insecurity in the past 12 months. This was evidenced by increased demand for food relief by organisations such as Foodbank, OzHarvest and SecondBite. Sixty-three per cent of respondents to a survey conducted by the Salvation Army Red Shield Appeal last year had skipped meals, and 45 per cent had had to choose between paying household expenses and buying food. Most confronting, 27 per cent had had consumed expired or spoiled food. This is not my report; it's by the Salvation Army in this country, no less.

In addition to that, we know that cost of living continues to be the main contributor to food insecurity, with increased living expenses identified as a factor by 82 per cent of food-insecure households. This food insecurity trend is occurring at a time of extensive food wastage, with more than 7.6 million tonnes of food dumped each year—much of it perfectly edible—because it's more commercially viable to dump it than it is to donate it. Think about that for a second. It is more commercially viable to dump it than it is to donate it.

The private senator's bill that sits before this Senate, or any tax incentive, would aid the distribution of that food, out of being dumped, into food charities across this country, and for three years the government has sat on its hands. A tax incentive to support the donation of food that would otherwise end up in waste is supported by no fewer than 60 organisations across the country—everyone from Foodbank, OzHarvest and SecondBite to the Trucking Association, the National Farmers Federation and the Country Women's Association. It enjoys wide support. In addition to that, we know that Labor members of the House of Representatives who participate on the House agricultural committee also support it. We know that the Australian Food and Grocery Council supports it. We know that AUSVEG supports it. AUSVEG says:

Notably, the tax incentive—

of any kind—

will particularly benefit smaller farmers who may struggle to absorb the costs associated with surplus food and are more likely to resort to wasteful disposal.

By standing here this afternoon, I'm seeking to draw the Senate's attention to the fact that this Senate said it was necessary and proper and issued an order that the government, supported by the Treasury, would release these documents. Forty-three days later, the documents have still not been released. I'll take Senator Ayres on his word, and I hope that 'soon' is defined as the next 24 hours or the next 36 hours—most definitely before the Senate economics committee meets on Friday at the Treasury estimates.

Question agreed to.