David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney has raised a number of matters that require some response. He made the bald assertion that the position under common law, in going back to first principles under taxation law, is clear. The very fact that the position is unclear is why we are in the situation we are now in, where we are seeking to provide greater certainty and clarity.

For the benefit of the member for North Sydney, who I am sure has not taken the trouble to read the explanatory memorandum, I draw attention to paragraphs 1.10 and 1.11, which read:

1.10 The High Court has counselled against using traditional common law concept categories in the native title sphere. Instead it indicates native title should be considered on the basis of its uniqueness—

and—

1.11 When applying the current rules of the income tax system based on traditional common law concepts, it is unclear whether benefits provided under a native title agreement would be assessable income.

The EM also goes on to point out that submissions that were provided in relation to a government discussion paper on these matters supported the notion that clarity and clarification would be provided. So the amendment that is being moved by the member for North Sydney is an amendment that will, if passed, ensure that uncertainty continues to prevail in relation to the tax treatment of various payments made in relation to native title rights.

The government believes that it is important that we clarify these matters so that recipients of these payments are left in no doubt that the receipts that are in their hands will not be assessable. That is why we are taking the legislative action that we are taking. I make the point that the member for North Sydney has jumped up and down and spoken about the great haste with which these amendments are being brought. I remind him that there was a consultation paper entitled Native Title, Indigenous Economic Development and Tax that canvassed these very issues. It was released back in 2010. This is not something that someone decided to have as a thought bubble—as prone as the member for North Sydney might be to producing the odd thought bubble himself. This is the product of reasoned policy over a period of time.

I conclude my remarks by making the obvious observation that it does not surprise me that members opposite would seek to play politics with distributions, payments or moneys in the hands of individuals in relation to native title matters. It is a matter of public record that those opposite vehemently opposed the native title regime when it was introduced in the first place. That will forever be a very black stain on their contribution to these matters as they have been dealt with in the past.

If we were to go back to the Hansard of the scaremongering that occurred from those opposite at the time that native title was first introduced we would see that they have never supported native title. They have come to the party a long time after everybody has left, but they are now seeking to mire these payments in ongoing uncertainty. The question has to be asked: on what possible basis could they be arguing that we should consign these payments to ongoing uncertainty? There is no justifiable public policy reason. We have set out a process for looking at a potential vehicle that might help deal with these matters into the future. But there is a real, pressing and urgent need that needs to be addressed—and that is, are these payments assessable at present? We are seeking to resolve that and to bring some clarity to the situation. That is what I would commend the House to do.

See this speech in context