Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures No. 2) Bill 2006 for two reasons. Firstly, I will deal with the matters in schedule 1. Secondly, I want to touch on the issues applying to schedule 6, as my friend the member for Moncrieff just did. Schedule 1 provides for a tax exemption for lump sum payments of $40,000 and $10,000 to aircraft maintenance crew, I think stationed at Amberley, who worked on the F111 fighter bomber from 1972 onwards.

I agree with the government’s position on looking after our servicemen. I do not think you would find anybody at all in this place who would quarrel with the notion of looking after our servicemen, but I think you would find that people have some difficulty with the fact that it has taken so long to come to terms with addressing a matter such as this with regard to our military personnel. This is a cash payment to those officers or maintenance personnel not only in recognition of their working with contaminated material but also in recognition of the physical effects that have been accepted as a consequence of their working in and about the deseal and reseal applications of the F111.

This goes back to the defence inquiry that was conducted in 2001. It was at that stage that that ensuing report identified and blamed the toxic chemicals used in the aircraft maintenance for cancers and other health complaints affecting more then 400 service personnel working at the Amberley Air Force base. It has taken some time. This has probably got to being the largest inquiry that our military has undertaken, and it has taken from 2001 until now to work out precisely what we are going to do and how we are going to compensate these people.

In the minister’s second reading speech, he chose his words pretty carefully when outlining the reasons for this payment. The Assistant Treasurer said:

The payments are made in recognition of the difficulties eligible personnel suffered in the environment in which they worked, regardless of whether there is evidence of any adverse health impacts from that work environment.

I have to say that that is a very keen choice of words. It is a choice of words that was very clearly designed to make sure that the Commonwealth did not accept liability, which stands in pretty stark contrast to the words that were used by the former Minister for Defence, Senator Hill. He was reported on 27 October 2004 as saying:

It’s something we clearly regret and we accept our responsibility to properly support and, where appropriate, compensate those who have suffered.

I emphasise that the minister was indicating at that point in 2004 that the Commonwealth was prepared to accept its liability in relation to these personnel.

These are people who are obviously long-suffering. As I mentioned, the effects on their health are various forms of cancers, lung disease, depression, anxiety, memory loss, skin conditions and other dysfunctions of the body. I did see in a commentary on the report that, as a result of the problems that they have suffered due to their time working in and about the deseal and reseal applications of this aircraft, the majority of those affected in this way were regarded as being between the 20 and 30 per cent of the population who have the lowest quality of life.

I suspect that these are matters that need to be addressed. My concern is that it has taken so long to address them. My concern is not that the money is now going to be paid—I think that is good and it is appropriate—but, if anything, we have to learn and make some differences to the way we address issues as they relate to our military. They cannot be treated as the bastion of our government on security issues when they are required to stand up and be counted, yet when instances such as this occur be treated as second-class citizens.

I half wonder what would have been the situation if these people were represented by trade unions, for instance. I am sure that people would not have sat around since 2001 navel gazing, trying to work out how we can ensure these people are adequately compensated for the injuries that they sustained over that period. It is symptomatic of the government’s approach to occupational health and safety generally. You recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that only this morning I tried to outline in the parliament how this government has moved to outlaw health and safety training where it is provided by a trade union, for instance. That is the sort of approach that has become symptomatic of this government. It has become so embedded with the ideals of being anti trade union that it does not see the positive aspects in something as fundamental as occupational health and safety being delivered by reputable organisations, and one of those reputable organisations could be, as it was in this case, a trade union. Having said that, I support the government’s position and I support the bill in allowing for taxability when making lump sum payments to those officers and maintenance personnel associated with the F111.

Another matter I want to quickly touch upon is schedule 6, which deals with the overriding requirements of superannuation guarantee contributions to be made by various state funds. There is no doubt that is an oversight. It is one of those things that has come about and I do not propose to stand in its way. I understand that it gives full effect to the government’s superannuation choice legislation. Having said that, as you will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, I spoke against the government’s superannuation choice legislation. I spoke against it on the basis of what it did and how it imposed red tape and bureaucratic requirements on small business. In my electorate, small business is a huge employer of labour. In fact, down the track I see it being probably the sole generator of jobs in my community. Therefore, I would be silly if I did not have regard to the attitudes and views of small business.

Superannuation does pose and has posed administrative problems for small business, particularly businesses of fewer than five employees. I do believe that the government have failed to address the concerns of small business when bringing forward legislation—not only this legislation but other pieces of legislation of late. Small business is often quoted in this place. It has been quoted pretty extensively in the industrial relations debate. If you look through just about every speech delivered by government members during the debate you would be forgiven for thinking the impetus for their industrial relations changes is to bolster small business. That is not the case. Small business has not been the advocate for these changes.

If you look to see who has been the spokesperson of small business, you tend to find it is Mr Peter Hendy from the ACCI. You do not find small business people of Campbelltown, Liverpool or other areas that I represent calling for these changes. In fact, people in my electorate do not want to be forced into a race to the bottom. They do not want to be forced to have to compromise their work conditions and slash their workers’ wages simply to compete in a new emerging economy.

For that reason, I had a lot of sympathy for small business when they spoke to me about superannuation choice and about being genuine small business people in genuine small businesses. Small business, from the perspective of this side of the chamber, does not represent every company up to 100 employees. We have a very clear view of what a small business is and most people who operate businesses for a living have a similar view. Small businesses function with a view to survival. They try to make a profit, they try to expand and they try to look after their staff, but they detest being forced into a race to the bottom. This government has driven an agenda which compels them into that race—solely to survive, they have to be so ruthless that they will compromise their employees’ conditions of employment and working conditions. As I said from the outset, I do not oppose this bill. I support it and I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context