Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After the excitement of the debate on the MPI it is rather fitting that we move to the tax law amendment bills that need further discussion here in the House. As you pointed out, Deputy Speaker, we are dealing with two of them: Nos 4 and 5. Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 4) Bill 2014 has five schedules. Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 5) Bill 2014 has four schedules covering a range of matters. In the time available I will confine my remarks to some of the schedules in Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 4) Bill.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer outlined when he introduced this bill, it amends various taxation laws. In particular, schedules 1 to 3 legislate announcements made by the previous government—in many cases, years ago. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, I spoke on the matter in schedule 1 dealing with thin capitalisation, in a tax law amendment bill about five years ago. It was one of many items that had not been legislated by the time of the last election. As the Treasurer identified last year, they were matters that we said we would deal with, and we are dealing with those matters in the course of this debate

Through legislating the integrity measures in schedules 1 and 2—and schedule 2 deals with foreign resident CGT integrity measures—there will be an increase in revenue of about $755 million over the four years of the forward estimates.

I do want to focus my remarks on schedule 4 of this bill because I think it is important from not only a transparency point of view but also a taxpayer's confidence point of view. This is the schedule that deals with tax receipts. Deputy Speaker, you and other members of the House will recall that the Treasurer announced when he was in opposition the policy that the Commissioner of Taxation would issue tax receipts to individuals following their income tax assessment. We made this commitment before the election and it was announced as part of the budget earlier this year.

This is an important transparency measure. Australian taxpayers deserve to know what their taxes are being spent on without having to sift through the copious budget documents that come out in the second week of May each year. This tax receipt will be a concise one-page personalised and itemised receipt. It will almost always accompany the taxpayer's notice of assessment. Taxpayers will be able to see proportionally the areas of government where their tax dollars are spent.

Those opposite are not in favour of this measure. They are not in favour of taxpayers seeing exactly where their tax dollars are spent. We suspect that is because they will see the proportion that is being spent on debt. But it is that very issue that is so central to our budget approach. When this government took office it inherited a debt and deficit situation very similar in story to the debt and deficit situation that the Howard government inherited back in 1996. Both the Treasurer and the parliamentary secretary have spoken about the projected budget deficits, about the debt road we were on and about the necessity for this government to take action to change direction. In the time available I want to talk a little bit about this because it is very important for every taxpayer. The receipt that they will get will give them a snapshot of the budget priorities and it will highlight the fact that, while governments make decisions, they spend money from taxpayers or money that is borrowed on behalf of those taxpayers that must be repaid by those very taxpayers.

As we know, all of the net government debt inherited by the Howard government was repaid after many long years and difficult budgets. In fact, it took about a decade—'debt-free day' for Australia was back in April 2006. But, of course, with the election of the Rudd government and with the appointment of Mr Swan as Treasurer, Australia very quickly got back on the debt road. While the Treasurer has spoken many times, quite rightly, in terms of the gross debt for comparative purposes with the $96 billion of net debt inherited by the Howard government, by the time this government was elected the situation was very much the same story.

Let us not forget that the former Rudd government back in 2007 did not just inherit no debt; they inherited $45 billion in the bank. By the end of their term that position was a net debt position of about $200 billion—basically, $¼ trillion deterioration. It meant that the road we were on, with that debt increasing with each budget deficit each year, had to be turned around. That is precisely the task and the responsibility of this government. That is why this budget is taking the tough and difficult steps necessary.

It is often said that you cannot live beyond your means. Of course, the truth is that, whilst that is ultimately true, you can live beyond your means for a period of time. There is quite a bit of hang time. In family budgets you can live beyond your means for a while but ultimately the costs of servicing that debt mount up and difficult choices confront you. In the case of governments it is much the same. We will not begin to reduce our debt until we have the first budget surplus. At that point we will begin to pay it down. But what this government has done is ensured that we will not stay on that debt trajectory, escalating at the rate it was destined to if we took no action and on a road that would lead to more difficult choices in the years ahead.

The tax receipt that is part of this schedule is a transparent measure to report annually to taxpayers—shareholders in so many respects—so they can see precisely what government is spending their money on and why. I am very confident that in the years ahead, as these receipts come out, taxpayers will see the benefits of the government's budget policies—policies that will deliver a more responsible outcome and, importantly, a better future for taxpayers.

I will confine my remarks to those matters in the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 4) Bill 2014. I commend this bill and the related bill to the House.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on one aspect of the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 5) Bill 2014, the second of the two bills that are currently before the House.

My colleague, the shadow treasurer, has already foreshadowed that the opposition will not support the government-proposed abolition of the seafarers tax offset. When clicking through the second reading speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, I was taken by his claim that the abolition of the seafarers tax offset was part of the government's attempt to reduce costs of business. Given that this offset is actually a rebate for business, I am not sure that the parliamentary secretary has any idea what he is talking about. No wonder they do not have an Assistant Treasurer sitting opposite; it is because they do not have anyone—certainly not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer—who actually understands the tax system. This is a tax offset, designed to level the playing field between the Australian shipping industry and the foreign shipping industry. But this ignorance of the fine detail does not really surprise me.

The bill is the latest manifestation of this government's ideologically driven campaign to take on anything to do with the former government's shipping reform. The extraordinary thing is that this is a government which is out there talking about costs to the Australian shipping industry, but which is now proposing to gain savings by taking a rebate away from businesses here in Australia. There has been no consideration of the costs against the benefits of this proposition. Its lack of balanced consideration means that it opposes any of the reforms that were done as part of reforming and revitalising the Australian maritime sector during the last term of parliament—even though these changes were done completely in consultation with Australian industry: we established a group that included players in Australian industry, such as Rio Tinto and the big players in Australian shipping; and in relation to taxation, it was chaired by the Department of Treasury. And they came up with this proposal. In relation to an Australian who is working on an Australian-registered vessel: if that Australian is in the harbour at Southampton, they of course, currently, would have to pay Australian taxation rates. However, if that person is working in the pub at the port of Southampton, they of course would not be paying Australian taxation rates. So it is an extraordinary proposition that they have come up with. It was also recognised in their analysis that, for seafarers with our competitors for our Australian shipping, such as Singapore and other countries, they do not pay rates of their domestic taxation. So it was about having a level playing field for Australian shipping—as simple as that.

The former government introduced the offset in 2012, as part of a package designed to assist Australian shipping companies to compete against their international rivals; not through a protectionist measure, but through having a genuinely level playing field. The package included the creation the Australian International Shipping Register, which was designed to improve the competitiveness of Australian-operated ships. The seafarers tax offset provides a rebate to employers of Australian staff for part of the income tax withheld while those staff work on international voyages. In other words, it offers a tax break for companies which hire Australian seafarers to work on international voyages. It is payable for each employee a shipper hires, for at least 91 days in a year, on voyages to and from places outside of Australia—that is the important point here. The amount of tax offset is equivalent to 30 per cent of the seafarer's pay. The whole point of the rebate is to help strengthen the Australian shipping industry—a worthy aim, particularly given that Australia is an island continent, and that 99 per cent of our exports and imports are moved by sea.

According to the Australian Shipowners Association—which strongly supports the offset—there were only four Australian flagships involved in our international maritime trade. The association says this is equivalent to only 0.5 per cent of the total freight task. That is simply not good enough. Surely our country can do better, not just to help Australian shipping companies but also to create jobs for young Australians—jobs that would provide skills that could then be used in the maritime sector across the board, whether it be people who work in our ports, or people who work in the Navy. There is a real correlation between the maritime defence industry and the maritime sector.

Mr Ciobo interjecting—

The idiot opposite speaks about this policy because of—

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. The ignorant parliamentary secretary opposite—

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that the member for Grayndler withdraw his unparliamentary language.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. I took offence to a range of things the member for Moncrieff said across the chamber. 'Ignorant' is not unparliamentary. What is ignorant is when a member says a rebate to a company is about a union, which is what he said across the chamber. The Australian Shipowners Association is an employer body. I will explain it to him really slowly, so that he gets it. It is an employer body, and it is a tax offset to a company. It does not provide money or income to a union member or a worker. That is the problem of those opposite—they are so ideological that anything to do with the Australian shipping industry becomes about their anti-union crusade. In undertaking this crusade they are attacking Australian industry; the Australian Shipowners Association. They are attacking the groups that sat down and worked this out as a policy for industry—a policy that is not protectionist, but a policy that is about growing Australian industry and growing Australian jobs. Those opposite do not seem to understand that.

We want to see Australian shipping companies that are successful. But if you have an Australian shipping company and a foreign shipping company attempting to ply the same route and the foreign shipping company can do it cheaper because of the policies put in place by this government, then we have to address that and try to get a genuinely level playing field. That is what this policy did. I want to see Australia, an island continent, as a shipping nation with a thriving local maritime industry. Those opposite see that as a provocative statement that is about trade unionism. It is an extraordinary position that they have. The long-term effect of these sorts of changes and the failure to defend Australia's maritime industry will mean a loss of jobs. They want to talk a lot about borders and security and boats, but they do not want to talk about the Australian flag being on the back of Australian ships with Australian seafarers. If some of those opposite think that the maritime sector has no relationship at all with Australia's national security or with protection of the Australian environment, depending upon which ships go through the Great Barrier Reef, then I am afraid that does show their ignorance about what is good policy.

The 2012 reforms had the backing of industry, and they followed more than a year of careful consultation with industry. Immediately those opposite came to office they indicated that they would be winding it all back, therefore ensuring that you did not get that investment that was envisaged. The parliamentary secretary said in his speech that the reforms had failed, but they had not been given a chance to operate. Those opposite have said that the reforms will be wound back immediately. You should go and talk to people like the Ascianos and the big players in the industry that employ Australians. Many of these companies would agree with you about a whole range of issues, but I will tell you what: they do not agree with you on putting up the white flag and saying there is no role for Australian ships. If an island continent such as Australia has no shipping industry, there will be real long-term consequences in terms of the loss of that skills base.

We want reform in the national interest. This reform that they are attempting to wind back here is a saving—and that is the point. It is a saving to the government from removing a rebate for business. By all means, argue that business should not deserve that rebate, but do it on the basis of the reality, not on the basis of this nonsense that somehow it is not a rebate for business. At least understand the legislation that is before the parliament in terms of the changes that are being put forward. This is very disappointing indeed for Australian industry. I spoke to the head of the Australian Shipowners Association today, and there is a great deal of disappointment about the fact that the coalition has made no attempt to have proper policy development and process on this. We did. We made no apologies for the fact that we did negotiate and had input from and consultation with unions as well as employers and others in the sector. Everyone from the National Farmers' Federation to Rio Tinto and the Business Council were all involved and were able to participate in that process. I commend the amendment to this legislation that will be moved by the shadow Treasurer. He is doing that because of the flawed proposition being put forward by the government to run what is a very narrow, ideological and misguided agenda.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I endorse the comments of the member for Grayndler. This debate deals with two bills—the Taxation and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 4) Bill 2014 and the Taxation and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 5) Bill 2014. In combination, these bills deal with nine specific matters—all of which could have been, and should have been, the subject of individual debate, because they are each important in their own right. Yet the government has chosen to lump them all in together, and by doing so it hopes to take the spotlight off those measures which it knows are not popular or knows are not smart.

Time will not enable me to speak to each of the nine effects of these two bills. I will confine my remarks to the matters of multinational tax arrangements and the reduction of research and development tax offset provisions. I recently spoke in the Federation Chamber about the growing tax avoidance industry around the world and the billions of dollars of tax revenue that is being lost to governments as a result of tax avoidance techniques implemented by multinational entities using smart accountants, lawyers and tax haven countries where it is estimated that trillions of dollars are being stashed away. However, it is not even necessary to use tax haven countries to avoid tax in Australia, because it can be done by using other tax avoidance techniques. Prior to the 2013 federal election, the Labor government had proposed measures that would have closed the loophole to about $1.1 billion of tax that was being avoided by taxpayers in this country. The Abbott government, on coming to power, has decided to do away with all those measures Labor had proposed that would have closed those loopholes. That becomes, in turn, a $1.1 billion burden that the Abbott government will now have to impose on other taxpayers or else increase taxation or reduce government services. In other words, the rest of the community pays because the Abbott government did not follow through with that $1.1 billion of measures the previous Labor government had proposed.

The second matter I want to refer to is the reductions to research and development tax offsets. It is becoming very clear that the Abbott government simply does not understand the importance of research and development to Australia's future. First, it cuts about $300 million of funding from Australia's leading research institutions, including $146 million from the CSIRO, ANSTO and others; $80 million from the Cooperative Research Centres; and $75 million from the Australian Research Council. The work of these organisations is internationally valued and contributes immensely to Australia's productivity and security. So much of the research results in innovation that in turn is transferred to other sectors, from medicine to defence to industry and agriculture and through to the environment. Indeed, much of the private sector benefits from the work of these organisations and in turn depends on that work, but the government funding to them is being cut. When the research and development tax offset is then reduced, the problem is compounded, because the result is less research and development from government and less research and development from the private sector. On top of that, we have the Minister for Education threatening to cut research funding to the universities if he does not get his way with respect to the higher education funding cuts that he is proposing. On one hand the government is saying, 'We're not proposing any cuts to the higher education sector' and on the other it is saying, 'But if we don't get what we want, we're going to cut the research dollars to them.' In other words, it is an admission that cuts are proposed to the higher education sector throughout the country. It would be particularly shameful if the cuts impacted in any way on the research work done by the universities, because they in turn work in partnership with the other government departments and with the private sector.

The issue of private sector research and development will further deteriorate, because a major contributor to research and development in Australia for decades has been the automotive sector. And the facts will show that billions of dollars have been invested by the automotive sector in this country into research and development. The fact is also that the Abbott government has turned its back on tens of thousands of Australian car workers and their families. Simultaneously, it has turned its back on hundreds of small and medium-size enterprises that also depend on the auto industry in this country. But it is now also turning its back on research and development dollars that car makers were putting into this country. And many of the research and development dollars from the care makers in turn were in turn flowing on to other industry sectors that benefited from that investment.

We are going to lose all that, because the government has no interest in car makers in this country. We saw that only too clearly this morning, when legislation was introduced into this House by the Minister for Industry with respect to cutting another $500 million of funding from the Automotive Transformation Scheme between now and 2017—another clear signal from this government that it is not interested in car makers in this country and it is not prepared to do anything to assist them and not prepared to do anything to assist those support-component manufacturers who also invest in research and development. Some of them, with some government support and some supportive government policies, may well be able to continue after the car makers have ended. But it seems that this government is not prepared to give them the support they need and indeed is cutting funding that was previously allocated to that sector by the Labor government so as to help that industry remain competitive.

Other Western countries, including the USA and the UK, have in recent years turned their manufacturing sectors right around. A decade or two ago, they too were becoming non-competitive with countries with low labour costs. But in the last few years, and in particular in more recent years, both of those countries have redeveloped their manufacturing sectors and are now extremely competitive with low-labour-cost countries. Indeed, I understand from a report from the Boston Consulting Group that US manufacturers are today more competitive than their counterparts in China. That is not surprising, because we are seeing manufacturers transfer their operations back to the USA from China and we are seeing manufacturers transfer their operations from several countries to which they had previously located, back to what I call advanced First World countries.

The point I make about that is that manufacturing can be competitive if governments are prepared to back it and invest in it. If governments are prepared to give to the manufacturing sector the right kind of policies and financial support, then it makes a difference.

But there is one other critical element to all of this, and it comes back to the issue of research and development. If a company is going to be competitive then it needs to invest in research and development. If a country is going to be competitive it needs to invest in research and development. The research and development that companies and countries invest in not only benefits particular organisations, but the country as a whole. It seems to me that the Abbott government does not seem to get that any investments made in research and development are actually a good investment in the country. The return for the dollars invested is worth making. If in the future we are going to be a competitive country, then we need to be innovative, and if we are going to be innovative, that comes from research and development. Yet we are seeing the exact opposite being done here in Australia by this government, and that is a shame.

There is a snowballing effect with respect to not investing in research and development. The tax measures that take away one of the incentives for companies to invest in research and development simply compound and add to all of the other cuts I referred to earlier.

There is another matter that flows from all of this, which is what we call the brain drain from our country—the loss of scientists and researchers to other countries. That will happen once the dollars dry up in research and development in this country. Recently I spoke with a young man in Adelaide who is a graduate of medical science at Adelaide University. Based on his study results, he is clearly an outstanding graduate with an extremely bright future, so much so that he has already been offered a job in the USA by one of the medical research institutions, yet he cannot get a job here in Australia. The loss of people like that will ultimately be a loss to Australia's competitiveness, to our innovation and to our ability to do things and be a forward-looking, advanced country. We will lose people like that and we will lose people with specialist skills who are already in the sector, because we dry up the funding to research and development. Again, that will be to the detriment of this country in years to come.

Taken individually, each of the hits to research and development in Australia may be absorbed. But, collectively, the impacts will have devastating consequences for years and years to come. Diminishing the research and development tax incentives, cutting funding to government research and development organisations, the loss of the automotive manufacturing research and development dollars that we have benefited from, and the loss of intellectual capital—that is, the loss of scientists and researchers—will cost Australia dearly in the years to come. It is ignorant policy by a government that knows it will not be here when the damage is realised in years to come.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. The two bills before the House today, the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 4) Bill 2014 and the cognate bill, represent another important step in the government's economic action strategy. Our economic action strategy focuses on economic activity that will boost productivity and growth in employment. Our strategy is also about repairing the budget, putting it back into surplus so that we as a nation can start living within our means once again. Failure to fix the budget and take steps towards improving our economy now will materially impact on our living standards in the future.

There is no alterative to the budget repair task and therefore there is no alternative to the government's economic action strategy. We need to get on with the job of paying off the $123 billion of deficits that we inherited from the previous government. The bills before the House today will go part of the way towards doing exactly that.

The bills also continue the government's work in restoring the integrity of the Australian tax system. A backlog of 96 tax and superannuation measures announced but not legislated created significant operational uncertainty for businesses and consumers. We acted swiftly to clean up Labor's mess and to provide certainty and to reduce red tape for all taxpayers.

The first bill that was considered in the cognate debate was the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 4) Bill 2014. During the debate, Labor members have said that the government was not doing enough about taxing large companies, including multinationals. This is plainly wrong. Schedules 1 to 3 of this bill show this. Like much of the actions of the former Labor government, announcements were made without ever following through with the relevant legislation. Some of the measures Labor announced were unimplementable, undeliverable or would have caused severe disruption to Australian businesses. The multiple-entry consolidated-groups measure, for example, was found to be unimplementable, according to the findings of a tripartite review by the ATO, Treasury and the private sector. The offshore banking units measure, also announced by Labor, has not seen any revenue realised or delivered. In Senate estimates, Treasury further confirmed that Labor's proposed section 25-90 change, proposing to target multinationals, would have instead severely damaged Australian businesses looking to grow offshore. It noted that it was not a sensible proposal to proceed with.

Schedule 1 of this bill amends the income tax laws to protect Australia's tax base by tightening and improving thin-capitalisation rules. This bill amends the thin-capitalisation statutory debt limits to bring them more closely into line with commercial debt levels or to regulatory requirements, in the case of banks and non-bank financial entities. It provides additional flexibility with the introduction of a new test for inbound investors to allow gearing of the Australian operations up to the level of gearing of the worldwide group. In line with the government's commitment to reduce compliance costs for business, this bill increases the de minimis threshold from $250,000 to $2 million of debt deductions. Taxpayers below this threshold will not be required to comply with the thin-capitalisation regime.

Schedule 2 contains improvements to the tax exemption available to Australian companies for their foreign non-portfolio dividend income. This allows broader access to the exemption and allows it to flow through interposed trusts and partnerships. The change also improves the integrity of the tax system by ensuring the exemption only applies to returns on instruments treated as equity for tax purposes.

Schedule 3 to this bill amends the taxation laws to improve the integrity of the foreign resident capital gains tax regime by preventing the double counting of certain assets under the regime's principal asset test. Schedule 3 also makes technical amendments to the regime's reference to 'a permanent establishment' to ensure the regime applies where assets are used in carrying on a business through a permanent establishment in Australia.

Schedule 4 to this bill amends the income tax laws to require the Australian Taxation Office to send Australian taxpayers a tax receipt, a commitment this government made at the last election. This tax receipt will detail for each taxpayer how we as the Commonwealth government are spending their money and how much the government has borrowed on their behalf. Schedule 5 corrects minor technical or drafting defects, removes anomalies and addresses unintended outcomes in the law.

The second bill considered today was the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 5) Bill 2014. This bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to implement a range of changes to Australia's tax laws. These changes will return around $1.4 billion to the budget over the forward estimates. Schedule 1 of the bill abolishes the mature age worker tax offset. The mature age worker tax offset reduces by up to $500 the amount of tax payable for those who are already working. It does not help to reduce labour market disadvantage. Older Australians want to work. We need them to work. A prosperous Australia depends on everyone contributing to a strong and sustainable economy, and older Australians just need to be given this opportunity to contribute. Abolishing the mature age worker tax offset will save Australian taxpayers around $760 million over the forward estimates period, which the government is redirecting to a new wage subsidy called Restart.

Schedule 2 abolishes the seafarer tax offset. Put simply, the seafarer tax offset does not work. The seafarer tax offset is a 30 per cent refundable tax offset provided to companies for salary, wages and allowances paid to Australian resident seafarers who are employed to undertake overseas voyages on certified vessels. The offset was supposed to increase employment in the shipping industry, but no noticeable increase in employment of Australian seafarers occurred. The offset was supposed to result in significant new investment in the shipping industry, but no noticeable increase in investment occurred. The repeal of the seafarer tax offset will save Australian taxpayers $12 million over the forward estimates. I noted the contribution from the member for Grayndler earlier in the debate. Through all the huffing and puffing he seemed to be saying that this was a measure that would yield great results if only it were given more time. The fact that there are only some 20 shipping companies, with only approximately 250 employees, affected by this measure just indicates what a failure this policy was. I personally found it most interesting that once again we had a Labor MP standing in this chamber lecturing the coalition about how Labor understood what was good for business—despite the fact that, when you actually look at the impact of the measure, it was indiscernible. It was simply costing money and was, in reality, delivering nothing—hence my comments that the member for Grayndler was more concerned about stitching up MUA support bloc for his preselection than he was about doing something for Australian industry.

Schedule 3 reduces the tax offset available under the research and development tax incentive by 1.5 percentage points for income years commencing on or after 1 July 2014. The decision to reduce the offset rates provided by the R&D tax incentive was difficult, but repairing the budget must be done as fairly and equitably as possible. The R&D tax incentive will continue to support thousands of eligible companies in all sectors of the Australian economy in conducting research and development through the provision of a generous, easy-to-access program. This measure of course applies only to the very largest companies, those having an assessable income of $20 billion or more. This measure will provide a gain to revenue of around $620 million over the forward estimates period.

The fourth measure in this bill is about deductions for gifts to benevolent not-for-profit bodies. Schedule 4 adds three new deductible gift recipients. This will allow Australian Schools Plus; the East African Fund, which operates the School of St Jude; and the Minderoo Foundation Trust to receive tax-deductible donations. Australian Schools Plus is a vehicle to collect donations from the public for disadvantaged schools. This will actively address the perception that these schools find it relatively difficult to attract donations. The School of St Jude provides free high-quality education to children in Tanzania who would otherwise be unlikely to complete their schooling. St Jude's has over 2,000 students from various religions and 35 different tribal backgrounds. The Minderoo Foundation Trust operates a range of programs, including the Walk Free Foundation, GenerationOne and Hope for Children.

These bills will improve the integrity of Australia's tax system and return over $2 billion to the budget over the forward estimates. These measures represent another chapter in our Economic Action Strategy and our drive to provide certainty for all taxpayers. This in turn will build a stronger, more sustainable economy and a more prosperous Australia. I commend these bills to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.