Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary memorandum relating to the government’s amendments and a request for an amendment to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber today.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition intends to support these amendments on the basis that they do make a meaningful impact on the lives of charitable workers and that this was indeed an unintended consequence. But in doing so I support the statement of Senator Boswell, that the government does need to take responsibility for this. They have had the full resources that come with the department, going through this process. There seems to be something quite disingenuous about the process in that we have been advised information was received in early May and yet nothing was really done about it until mid-June. Whilst we do support these changes because they will benefit Australian workers and Australian families, we do so mindful that the government needs to improve its process and transparency. I seek leave to move opposition amendments (1) to (3) together.

Leave granted.

I move opposition amendment (1), which has been circulated:

(1)    Page 4 (after line 8), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of operation of amendments

        (1)    The Minister must cause an independent review of the operation of the amendments made by this Act to be undertaken and completed by 30 June 2010.

        (2)    The persons who undertake the review under subsection (1) must give the Minister a written report of the review.

        (3)    The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review under subsection (1) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of the day on which the report is given to the Minister.

        (4)    The review must be conducted by a panel of not less than 5 persons, of which at least:

             (a)    3 persons must be nominated by relevant key stakeholder organisations; and

             (b)    2 persons must be nominated by the Minister.

The opposition also opposes schedules 3 and 5 in the following terms:

(2)    Schedule 3, page 20 (line 2) to page 23 (line 24), TO BE OPPOSED.

(3)    Schedule 5, page 32 (lines 2 to 13), TO BE OPPOSED.

I was interested to hear Senator Stephens acknowledge that this is a very complex area. Accordingly, it needs continual monitoring and review. Amendment (1) moved by the opposition is for a review of the operation of the amendments that are contained in this bill. There is a particular delight in ensuring that by 2010 there will be some consideration of the effectiveness of the bill. It is a very important amendment considering that this bill was indeed cobbled together quite hastily and is going to have such a significant impact on Australians.

We have heard that there has been no modelling done by the government. This has been acknowledged not only in the senate committee hearing but in the speeches in the second reading debate here today. It quite clearly needs to be looked at. There does need to be effective modelling done on the impact on families. We have had a number of different numbers circulated both by the minister and in the reference to the Senate committee. We need to ensure that the bill does not have adverse effects and continuing adverse effects. This simple amendment, our first amendment, will enable parliament to monitor exactly how the amendments in this bill will affect Australians.

The other two simple amendments are pretty straightforward. This is about a government that did not go to the Australian people fully disclosing what they intended to do. There was no mention of changes to the Seniors health card. There was no mention of changes to the partner service pension. In fact, for a leader of a government who is widely purported to be a control freak, Mr Rudd, the Prime Minister, was not even aware that he was cutting the entitlement to the partner service pension for spouses of Australian veterans who can no longer work. How do I know this? Mrs Bronwyn Bishop, the member for Mackellar, asked this of the Prime Minister. His answer was quite simply:

I am unaware of the measure to which the honourable member refers.

This is an appalling state of affairs. Even though members of the government may say only 930 people or thereabouts will be affected by this measure, it has an enormous impact on the individuals concerned and it is amazing that the Prime Minister does not know what is in his own budget.

The third amendment that we are moving is in relation to the seniors health card. Once again, the government did not go to the Australian people with a full and open acknowledgement of the changes they were intending to make to the Commonwealth seniors health card. These are permanent changes; they are not a one-off review to clean a list or anything like that. There are 27,000 people expected to be affected over the next two years. It could be considered a de facto means test. It is a means test that was never talked about. People are going to be affected in a whole range of areas. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, as we have talked about, bulk-billing and other allowances will all be affected by this decision.

I make the point once again: we cannot support this because the Labor Party simply were not straight with the Australian people. The ALP did not show their hand before the election and it is likely that many more people than we have already indicated will be affected by this legislation in the future. We are a country that should be looking after seniors. We should be acknowledging their contribution to our country, to building our nation, just as we should veterans and their families. These two measures actually undermine that. They undermine the very substance of what a good government is meant to be. It is meant to look after those who have served the nation so well and those who are amongst the most vulnerable in our community.

In moving these amendments, I stated quite clearly what the coalition’s position is and I would hope that the government will look at them favourably in the interests of Australian families, Australian veterans’ families and Australian seniors.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to respond to the concerns of the opposition in relation to these things and seek a little bit of clarity on these amendments that are being proposed by the opposition. Certainly we really need to think about what is being proposed in these amendments and the impact that they will have on this bill. I will take this opportunity to tell Senator Bernardi, who has proposed these amendments of behalf of the opposition, that it is a little unclear the extent to which the review of operation in these amendments will actually apply and whether the intention is that the review of the amendments should apply to the fringe benefits issue or to all of the amendments proposed in this bill.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The intention of the opposition is that this review would apply to all the amendments, to all the changes effected by this bill.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This actually poses a slight dilemma for us, because I think we need to understand what the consequence of this is. Certainly the government is not supporting this particular amendment. Consider the way in which the Senate will have to deal with this amendment. If we deal with it now, the bill, as amended, will then have to go back to the House of Representatives and then it will have to come back to the Senate so we can ensure that we support those people whom we are all furiously supporting by correcting the issue as to the fringe benefits tax, and that issue will need to be resolved before the Senate rises. So I want you to understand the broader implication of dealing with your opposition amendments in this way.

I come to the issue that Senator Bernardi has raised in amendment (2) in relation to his concerns as to the seniors card. Senator Bernardi has suggested that this is a de facto means test. I want to go to that issue quite specifically, first of all, and then go to the issue of the numbers. This is not a means-testing regime; this is a compliance regime. It affects all new Commonwealth seniors health card claimants and existing Commonwealth seniors health card holders. The purpose of this is that from July 2008 the Commonwealth seniors health card will be included in data-matching regimes with state and territory governments’ registers of births, deaths and marriages, for death notification, and with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, to identify overseas absences longer than 13 weeks. Centrelink will review the adjusted taxable income of and collect the tax file numbers for all cardholders over the six-month period, commencing September 2008. The majority of reviews are expected to be conducted in February 2009, but the legislation is actually required to enable the collection of the tax file numbers. From September 2008 all new claimants for the Commonwealth seniors health card will be required to provide a tax file number as part of the claims process and that will allow Centrelink to data match by tax file number with the Australian Taxation Office as required. From July 2009 Centrelink will commence data-matching customers with the Australian Taxation Office to check taxable incomes on an ad hoc basis. From July 2009 Centrelink and FaHCSIA will develop a profiling tool for Commonwealth seniors health card holders that will target reviews for cardholders who have used taxable income that was assessed more than five years in the past and for those Commonwealth seniors health card holders and their partners, if applicable, whose adjusted taxable income is close to the relevant income limits.

Senator Bernardi has made a point about the number of people who are affected. I need to correct his additions. It is estimated that around 13, 000 Commonwealth seniors health card holders will lose their eligibility in 2008-09 and that will increase to 14,000 in 2009-10, not by another 14,000. So a total of 14,000, not a total of 27, 000, are expected to be affected by this measure.

The system is intended to make it fair for everyone, and no-one who is eligible for the card will lose the card as a result of this amendment. Only those people who are ineligible for the card, because their income is too high, will have their card withdrawn. The amendment will not take the card away from anyone who is eligible and whose income is below the income limits of $50,000 for singles and $80,000 for couples. It ensures equity in that only those eligible retain the use of the card and remain eligible for the associated benefits, including the seniors concession allowance and the telephone allowance.

As I said earlier, the previous government also conducted a data-matching exercise between the Australian Taxation Office and Centrelink on card eligibility in 2006. That was actually a cleansing of the database. It identified around 11 per cent of cardholders with income above the qualifying income limits and subsequently cancelled their cards. This is the same approach. There is nothing sinister in what is being proposed in the legislation. It really is clearing the decks, ensuring that those who are eligible for and entitled to the card will be able to retain it and those who are ineligible for the card, because their income is too high, will have their card withdrawn. I hope that clarifies the situation as to the two issues, the number of those people who will be affected and the process by which it will actually occur.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In responding to Senator Stephens’s comments, I say this is really a question of trust. It is not a personal distrust of you, Senator Stephens, and I hope you understand that. This is a question of how we can trust a government that are implementing measures that are going to have a negative impact upon thousands of people which they did not disclose during an election campaign. The first of our amendments is designed to ensure that the parliament and the Australian people will be able to rely upon an effective reporting mechanism, so that we are not going to see a government, any government, hide and cover up the true impact on people of their sneaky legislation. Whilst we could play tit for tat about numbers and how many people are affected, I think it is fair to say that if your figures are indeed correct the reason that incorrect figures have been suggested in this chamber is that there was a lack of clarity in the hearing on Friday. But, irrespective of who is right, it is a simple matter of what is right.

You have 14,000 people who, by your own estimates, are going to be negatively impacted by this legislation. It is 14,000 people too many, quite frankly. And it is too many, because you did not telegraph your punches. No member of this government went out there and said, ‘We are going to remove your seniors health card.’ No-one went out there and said, ‘We are going to remove your access to partner service pensions.’ If you had done that, and veterans and their families and seniors had gone along and voted for you, then perhaps you could have claimed that this is a genuine, reasonable piece of legislation to implement—but you cannot. You are cobbling it together, you are trying to take advantage of vulnerable people and you are trying to take away their benefits and entitlements to save a few dollars. It is really not the right thing to do. That is why we want those two provisions removed from this bill.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to know from the advisers who represent FaHCSIA, apart from the seniors health card, how many other programs does this legislation on fringe benefits tax affect?

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell, I am advised that it affects the family assistance measures, so it is the family tax benefit A, family tax benefit B, baby bonus and the childcare benefit.

I need to respond to two issues. As I emphasised, Senator Bernardi, this is a compliance measure which was actually taken by the previous government in 2006. There is nothing sinister about this. You talk about people losing benefits that they are supposedly entitled to; this is a system that will be fairer for everyone, and those people who will lose the Commonwealth seniors health card through this measure are those people who are not entitled to the card. They are not entitled to the card for a circumstance—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are eligible for the card.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, they are ineligible for the card because their income is too high. This data-matching process is part and parcel of the compliance regime that is a regular occurrence within the department. This legislation is about enabling tax file numbers to be collected. That is what this is all about.

In relation to the second issue concerning the partner service pension that has been raised by Senator Bernardi, I would like to put very clearly on the record what this measure is all about. The qualifying age for the age partner service pension will be raised from the current age of 50 to a qualifying age that is the equivalent of the veteran pension age for new claims made from 1 July 2008, subject to age equalisation. First of all, the change will not apply to a claimant who has a dependent child or who is the partner of a special rate pensioner—that is a TPI pensioner—nor will it apply to existing partner service pension recipients while they retain their current eligibility. Partners of veterans will still be able to claim the partner service pension five years earlier than the general population, who access income support on the basis of age at Centrelink. And no-one currently receiving a partner service pension—that is, at 30 June 2008—will lose their payment as a result of this change. However, if their pension is cancelled for any other reason, a subsequent new claim will be subject to the new age requirement. The kind of reason that it might be is if they enter into a new relationship, and are married to someone else and are therefore no longer eligible. The change reflects community expectations that people should participate in the paid workforce where possible rather than calling on taxpayer funded income support.

I note that the discussion that occurred in the Senate inquiry on Friday went to the issue of people remaining in the workforce beyond the age of 50. Encouraging the partners of veterans to retire at age 50 conflicts with everything we know about community standards and may contribute to long-term health, financial and social isolation problems for those people, who would end up spending several decades in retirement. As Senator Siewert so rightly pointed out, people over 50 have a significant earning capacity. And for women, most often the partners of veterans, the idea of building up their superannuation savings by continuing in the workforce until their retirement age would contribute in the order of $45,000 to their employment savings. That is a significant amount of savings for the future, which they would need to have. The change removes an anomaly where partners can access their service pension up to 10 years before the veterans themselves can. These types of pensions have been phased out progressively since 1995 by both Labor and Liberal governments.

Some parts of the veteran community have interpreted this change as demonstrating a lack of respect for veterans and their partners, but it is merely rectifying an anomaly which encourages premature departure from the workforce by those who are very capable of increasing their private savings, superannuation, health outcomes and contribution to the nation. Being very clear about what the impact of the partner service pension amendment does is very important. It is certainly not a hidden agenda within the FaHCSIA bill, and I need to advise both Senator Bernardi and Senator Boswell that the shadow minister has been briefed twice on all of the impacts of this legislation and understands them quite clearly.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just briefly, Senator Stephens can dress up this argument however she would like but the simple facts are these: the government are stripping away entitlements from seniors against the backdrop of a very uncharitable budget for elderly Australians and the backdrop where rising prices for fuel and groceries, amongst many other things, are causing great difficulties for those on fixed incomes. They are stripping away those entitlements. With regard to partner service pensions, we are talking about 930 partners of veterans—930 people who are being disadvantaged by a mean-spirited, undisclosed change which was not pre-empted and of which they were not forewarned before the election. Quite simply, how can anyone trust the government to look after the interests of Australian seniors or Australian veterans?

On the issue of Australian veterans, we have to make the point that these people receive special entitlements because of the special service that they have given our country. The Labor Party, under their legislation, just want to lump them in with other welfare recipients. I say: that is not good enough. Let us think about the people who are caring for veterans who are struggling in our society. The only firm figures we have received reveal that 930 people and their dependants and those they care for are going to be affected by this. The government are so intent on squeezing every last dollar out of the Australian public that they are prepared to put forward this sort of heartless legislation. It drives a stake through the very heart of those who have served our country so well, and their carers.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I did not make myself very clear, Senator Bernardi, but I want to tell you quite specifically that the change will not apply to a claimant who has a dependent child. The change will not apply to anyone who is currently eligible for the partner service pension. The amendment to this legislation has the effect of raising the current age of 50 to qualifying age—the equivalent of the veterans pension age—for new claims made from 1 July. That means that the 900-odd people you are talking about as being affected by this are people who are 50 and who are able to actually participate in the workforce for quite some time. We do not believe that this is an unreasonable request.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have sat here trying to bite my tongue but, given some of the comments which have just been made by the opposition, I have to make some serious comments about this. This is the opposition who when in government brought in Newstart and who decreased the income of thousands of single mums. Not only that, this is the opposition who when in government changed the child support formula and then would not do any modelling to find out the impact that it would have when you combined it with Welfare to Work changes, which had already dropped people’s income by $29 a week. Some of those changes were just a couple of years ago; some of the other changes were made just last year.

This is the same opposition who changed the back pay for carers, the same people the opposition now suddenly care about. They reduced it by half. This is not to mention a litany of other changes the opposition brought in which affected hardworking Australians. Do not get me started on Work Choices. This is ridiculous. All of a sudden they are picking on two small issues, particularly the seniors card. If I understand the legislation correctly, it is actually only enforcing existing rules—all it is asking for is a tax file number. Do I understand it correctly? I thought I did. So if you are going to have a bleeding heart then can you have it bleed for something proper, please.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens have to understand that the government has changed and what happened in the past is in the past. We are in a brand-new—

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert interjecting—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your defence of the Labor Party is touching. You are so far to the left of the Labor Party that you—

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert interjecting—

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not want any emotion in this. I want to know about these programs. I have been told about the programs. Could you nominate those programs again that you just enunciated to me with the number of people that are affected?

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I answered your question I said it was those programs that were part of family assistance. I do not have the numbers with me. I understand that Senator Evans, who is representing the minister in this chamber, has been working on getting a briefing together for you and will be in contact with your office about that. I am sorry that I do not have the numbers here tonight to answer your question.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You may not have the numbers, but you do have eight people in the advisers box there who should have the numbers. I would be very surprised if they did not have the numbers.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have some information for you, Senator Boswell.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ask and you shall receive.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is true. In relation to the amendments that are in this bill it is estimated that 85,000 people will be affected and will benefit.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to know what programs are going to be affected and which people are going to lose benefits. You have just enunciated four of them, I think. You have told me what those programs are. I did not write them down. I would like to know what they are again, together with the numbers of people who are affected on those various programs.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell, I have some additional information that might assist you. In relation to the baby bonus and the means testing, 16,000 families will be affected. In relation to family tax benefit B, it is anticipated 40,000 families will be affected, and 85,000 people will benefit from the measures that are within this bill. I hope that that helps.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To follow on from Senator Boswell, who most astutely asked that question—and I do thank Senator Stephens for her answer—I wonder if she could provide a breakdown of those figures on a state-by-state and territory basis, because I think that would be most informative, certainly as far as Tasmania is concerned. I think Senator Boswell has noted that there will be thousands upon thousands of people affected. You have given us the numbers, and if one of your eight advisers could provide the details on a state-by-state and territory basis I think that would be most informative.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Barnett, that is a big ask at this time of the night. I am sorry, I will have to take that on notice. The advisers do not have that information breakdown, but we will try to provide it to you at some time in the future.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a very good question that Senator Boswell has just approached me about. How are 85,000 people actually going to benefit from this legislation if indeed this is about taking away people’s access to benefits?

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell has been very diligent and astute in his querying of the unintended consequence of the fringe benefits tax issues. He spoke quite passionately about that in the second reading debate, and that is where 85,000 people are expected to benefit from the fringe benefits tax measures in the bill.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With regard to that, I believe that that figure of 85,000—and I will check—was raised by the minister in her second reading speech.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it was.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And yet the amendments for the changes to the fringe benefits tax have only come in after that second reading speech.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me correct the record, Senator Bernardi. It was not raised in the second reading speech; it was actually raised in her press release.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that opposition amendment (1), moved by Senator Bernardi, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question now is that schedule 3 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question now is that schedule 5 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:

Schedule 6, page 34 (after line 16), after item 9, insert:

9A  Paragraph 2(1)(b) of Schedule 3

Omit “reportable fringe benefits total”, substitute “adjusted fringe benefits total”.

9B  Clause 4 of Schedule 3

Repeal the clause, substitute:

4 Adjusted fringe benefits total

                 An individual’s adjusted fringe benefits total for an income year is the amount worked out using the formula:

where:

FBT rate is the rate of tax set by the Fringe Benefits Tax Act 1986 for the FBT year (as defined in the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986) beginning on the 1 April just before the start of the income year.

reportable fringe benefits total is the amount that the Secretary is satisfied is the individual’s reportable fringe benefits total (as defined in the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986) for the income year.

9C  Application

The amendments made by items 9A and 9B apply in relation to the 2008-09 income year and later income years.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000—

Amendment (3)

The Senate has long followed the practice that it should treat as requests amendments which would result in increased expenditure under a standing appropriation.

On the basis that this amendment would result in increased expenditure under the standing appropriation in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance)(Administration) Act 1999, it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that this amendment be moved as a request.

Question agreed to.

I move government amendment (1) on sheet PD342:

(1)    Clause 2, page 3 (after table item 15), insert:

Question agreed to.

The government opposes items 12 and 14 of schedule 6 in the following terms:

(4)    Schedule 6, item 12, page 34 (line 24) to page 36 (line 21), TO BE OPPOSED.

(5)    Schedule 6, item 14, page 36 (line 25) to page 38 (line 17), TO BE OPPOSED.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question is that items 12 and 14 in schedule 6 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move government amendment (2) on sheet PD342:

(2)    Clause 2, page 3 (table items 17 and 19), omit the table items.

Question agreed to.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (2) on sheet 5503 revised:

(2)    Schedule 6, page 42 (after line 27), after item 20, insert:

Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986

20A  Subsection 5B(1E) (method statement, step 2)

Omit “$17,000” (twice occurring), substitute “$23,000”.

20B  Subsection 5B(1E) (method statement, at the end of step 2)

Add:

Note:   The dollar amounts mentioned in step 2 are indexed under section 124AA.

20C  Subsection 5B(1E) (method statement, step 3, paragraph (b))

Omit “$30,000”, substitute “$40,000”.

20D  Subsection 5B(1E) (method statement, at the end of step 3)

Add:

Note:   The dollar amount mentioned in paragraph (b) is indexed under section 124AA.

20E  Subsection 65J(2B) (method statement, step 2, paragraph (b))

Omit “$30,000”, substitute “$40,000”.

20F  Subsection 65J(2B) (method statement, at the end of step 2)

Add:

Note 2:  The dollar amount mentioned in paragraph (b) is indexed under section 124AA.

This amendment relates to issues that I referred to in my speech in the second reading debate around the fringe benefits tax. As I articulated during my speech, the issue around the cap on fringe benefits tax came up at the inquiry held just last Friday. It has been an issue that has been of concern to the not-for-profit sector for some time. I will remind the chamber very briefly that at the moment there is a cap in place. It has been in place for eight years.

Progress reported.