House debates
Wednesday, 4 May 2016
Committees
Standing Committee on the Environment; Report
9:14 am
John Cobb (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On behalf of the Standing Committee on the Environment, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, on its inquiry into the Register of Environmental Organisations, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—We are all aware of the important contribution that not-for-profit organisations make in communities across Australia. Many of these groups rely on financial support from the public to survive, and in many cases these donations are tax deductible.
To ensure that these groups continue to enjoy the support of the community, so they can get on with their important work, it is essential that the public has confidence that tax concessions are granted appropriately and that tax-deductible donations are used in line with community expectations.
For this reason, the Environment Committee has been inquiring into the Register of Environmental Organisations, which is a government scheme to enable not-for-profit environmental organisations to receive tax-deductible donations.
The committee adopted the inquiry in March of last year, under the leadership of the former chair, and now Assistant Minister to the Treasurer, the honourable member for Mitchell.
The committee received 685 submissions, including submissions from around 200 environmental organisations. The committee also received thousands of form letters and other correspondence about the inquiry.
Due to the strong public interest in the inquiry, the committee travelled to communities around the country to hear about the environmental work being carried out by organisations on the register.
The committee held 12 public hearings, where it heard from a number of environmental groups, industry representatives, government agencies and interested members of the public.
The committee is grateful to all of these organisations and individuals for taking the time to meet with the committee and contribute evidence to the inquiry.
The committee also had the privilege of seeing first-hand some of the great work being done by environmental organisations and their volunteers on the ground.
To ensure that tax-concessions continue to support this important work, the committee has made a number of recommendations in its report.
It was clear from the evidence given to the committee that the current administration of tax concessions is inefficient and involves unnecessary duplication.
The committee also heard community concerns about the nature of the activities undertaken by a small number of environmental organisations, and about a lack of oversight of these activities by the Department of the Environment.
To make the system more straightforward, and to improve accountability, the committee has recommended that tax concessions for environmental organisations be administered by the Australian Taxation Office.
These organisations would also be required to register with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.
Furthermore, while the committee acknowledges that the vast majority of environmental groups are doing the right thing, in response to genuine community concerns, the committee has recommended sanctions for groups involved in illegal activity.
The committee is confident that these recommendations would lead to a system that is simpler for environmental organisations to navigate. Most importantly, these changes would ensure that environmental organisations are accountable to their donors and the public.
The inquiry also received a range of evidence about the activities undertaken by environmental groups. The committee came to the conclusion that environmental work is most effective when it is informed by a good understanding of conditions on the ground.
Therefore, the committee has recommended that environmental organisations be required to allocate 25 per cent of tax-deductible donations to on-ground environmental work.
In this way, the public can be assured that tax concessions are used to support organisations doing practical work to improve the natural environment in communities across Australia.
Once again, on behalf of the committee, I thank the organisations and individuals who participated in the inquiry.
I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of my colleagues on the committee. Although we did not always agree on all of the issues, I thank all members of the committee for their constructive approach to the inquiry.
I commend the report to the House.
9:19 am
Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
by leave—I rise to make some brief remarks in relation to the report on the inquiry in the Register of Environmental Organisations. I would like to start by acknowledging the contribution of the chair. It was a pleasure to work with him on this important inquiry. I also acknowledge the great contribution of all the members of the secretariat. As the chair's contribution made clear, this was a very extensive inquiry that presented some logistical challenges as well as some other challenges, and the work of the secretariat was invaluable and of the highest professional standard. This was an inquiry, as the chair indicated, that attracted great interest. I also thank all the organisations and individuals who made submissions to the inquiry, of which there were a very great number, and, in particular, those who presented evidence at the public hearings and also at the private briefings.
This inquiry, in large part, dealt with some inefficiencies, some duplicative matters and, indeed, some politicisation of the administration of the tax deductibility of registered environmental organisations. In respect of recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 there is agreement from all members of the committee about progressing reforms in order to remove those inefficiencies, duplicative arrangements and, generally, to tidy up the operation of this important instrument that goes to significant public interest.
A dissenting report was prepared. The Labor members of the committee—Tony Zappia, the member for Makin, who was the deputy chair of the committee for a significant contribution of the inquiry, the member for Newcastle, the member for Port Adelaide and the member for Isaacs and I noted our dissent to two significant recommendations—recommendations 5 and 6. In our firm view these recommendations ignore the weight of evidence presented to the committee. The support of the majority of the committee for these recommendations, which move the administration of tax deductibility from a purpose test in respect of environmental organisations, but not other organisations, to a test which effectively requires government to look to the activities of those organisations and which requires those organisations to invest considerable bureaucratic and administrative resources to managing their interaction with government, is unsupported by the evidence. There is no warrant, in our view, for environmental organisations to be singled out.
What we see here is a preference for ideology and deference to vested interests in place of evidence. These have significant consequences, which is why a dissenting report was submitted. It goes not only to the operation of this register and not only to how tax deductibility is applied generally; it goes, fundamentally, to how a civil society functions. We are deeply concerned that the adoption of these recommendations, in particular recommendation 5, would send two adverse signals: firstly, to treat environmental organisations differently and adversely from other not-for-profit actors in civil society; and, secondly, for government to seek to constrain the democratic functioning of civil society in limiting the capacity of groups to advocate in favour of environmental outcomes against government decisions and against the exercise of corporate power.
Labor members of the committee noted that there was no warrant for recommendation 5 in the evidence. There was no particular request for the proposal and, as the majority report indicates, there would be significant uncertainty in applying the approach that is recommended, in that the marker of activity in place of purpose environmental remediation is uncertain and would require significant definitional assistance. This of itself would impose a significant burden on organisations and on government that would require the allocation of significant resources. I note that the previous inquiry of this committee looked to reduce the burden of so-called green tape. It is, to say the least, extremely ironic that in this inquiry the government members have proposed to do exactly the opposite—to impose an additional administrative burden on government and non-government actors.
Labor members have dissented from this report because it would be administratively unworkable, antidemocratic and is fundamentally unwarranted.