HANSARD EXTRACT
|
Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures No.2) Bill 2006: Second
Reading |
| 24 May 2006 |
Mr
HAYES
(Werriwa) (6.33 p.m.)—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.
Return
to Speeches Menu.
