The SPEAKER ( Ms Anna Burke ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
That the following bills be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration:
Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013;
Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013; and
Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013.
The common law meaning of a charity will continue to apply, but the definition will be extended to include certain child care and self-help groups, and closed or contemplative religious orders. The Government has decided not to proceed with the draft Charities Bill.
Stakeholders in the housing sector are particularly concerned that housing has not been listed as a defined charitable purpose and believe this has the potential to jeopardise future investment in public-private partnerships. They have stated that they will be more disadvantaged under the statutory definition than the current common law definition and have called for the bill to be amended to provide further clarification with regard to the treatment of housing as a charitable purpose.
Former Prime Minister John Howard announced an inquiry into the definition of charity on 18 September 2000. The inquiry reported in 2001, making some 27 recommendations.
Former Treasurer Costello released draft legislation in 2003 which took the traditional four heads of charity and divided them into seven heads of charity in line with the inquiry's findings.
namely, the advancement of health, education, social or community welfare, religion, culture, natural environment and any other purpose that is beneficial to the community.
The Board of Taxation reported on the workability of the draft legislation in 2004—
The then government through the then Treasurer announced:
… the common law meaning of a charity will continue to apply, but the definition will be extended to include certain child care and self-help groups, and closed or contemplative religious orders. The government has decided not to proceed with the draft Charities Bill. The former coalition enacted the Extension of Charitable Purpose Act which confined itself to enlarging the legal definition of charity for federal purposes to include child care, self-help groups and closed orders. The Commonwealth's definitional extension has not been adopted by any state jurisdiction.
This bill would be the first time that legislation has sought to comprehensively define in statute, for the purposes of Commonwealth law, charity …
why create a statute where the common law has and does serve us well?
Why depart from 400 years of clarity and consistency?
If you are asking for an economic assessment of the two the carbon price followed by an ETS is economically superior to the direct action policy.
It will drive certainty, it will drive investment and so as a straight comparison between the two that's the choice.
It will drive certainty, it will drive investment and so as a straight comparison between the two that's the choice.
With those few words, I point out that the coalition will not oppose this bill. … We cannot support it and we cannot oppose it …
… the best guide is not the budget papers , because of these assumptions which really are no longer true …
The navy has turned back four boats to Indonesia. … It has made a very big difference to people-smuggling that that happened.
That the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Broadcasting Legislation be amended by omitting paragraph (16) and substituting as follows:
(16) the committee may report from time to time but that it make a final report no later than 24 June 2013.
That the message be considered immediately.
That the resolution of the Senate be agreed to.
That the House take note of the following documents:
Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 Report on the operation of the Act for the period 1 September 2012 to 28 February 2013.
Treaties
Bilateral Text, together with national interest analysis Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay on the exchange of information with respect to taxes (Montevideo, 10 December 2012).
Multilateral Text, together with national interest analysis and annexures Agreement on port State measures to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (Rome, 22 November 2009).
The urgent need for stable government to build a stronger economy for all Australians.
… faithful to the trust that has been extended to us.
We have a national mood of gloom …
I have conceded. That's it; I'm out.
…real tax reductions would be the best of all incentives to increased effort, earnings and production.
I do not think anybody should lightly throw around accusations that we are in recession or on the verge of recession. The most important thing when you think about economies is confidence. Trashing confidence, for whatever reason and however it is done, is not something that I think is in the national interest.
That this bill be now read a second time.
TEN homeless people a week are being turned away at a Waterford homeless shelter before the harshest period of winter even begins.
In many cases, advancing social or public welfare can only come after the relief of poverty. I don't believe that in Australia we are at the level of advancing social or public welfare. Changing the focus or not putting enough emphasis on preventing or relieving poverty, distress or disadvantage and instead focusing on "advancing" social or public welfare is not enough.
An entity must have only charitable purposes and must not have an independent, non-charitable purpose. An entity may have incidental or ancillary purposes that may be non-charitable when viewed in isolation but which must aid or further the charitable purpose.
Sometimes the independent, non-charitable component will actually fund or prop up the charitable purposes—there is a need to use discretion here so as not to stymy or restrict the work that NFP—
can actually do.
The purpose of preventing and relieving sickness, disease or human suffering, the purpose of advancing education, the purpose of relieving the poverty, distress or disadvantage of individuals or families, the purpose of caring for and supporting the aged or people with disabilities, and the purpose of advancing religion are presumed as being for the public benefit, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
There is a need to ensure that the definition incorporates the housing of individuals at risk of homelessness or domestic violence. Safe and appropriate housing is the first step in relieving poverty, distress or disadvantage and it may need to be listed independently to ensure that it is included in the new definition.
… government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
… the purpose of promoting or opposing a change to any matter established by law, policy or practice in the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country …
Currently small, volunteer led organisations have the unenviable task of trying to comply with laws that are unclear and sometimes inconsistent. By transferring 400 years of case law into one Plain English statute, the bill will make life easier for hard working individuals, serving the community.
Submissions indicated that there was considerable confusion and inconsistency around the definition of charitable purposes (including PBI) for the determination of tax concessions.
The House divided. [18:07]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
That this bill be now read a third time.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That order of the day No. 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
(1) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 16 and 17), omit "or by a regulation".
(2) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 18 and 19), omit "The power to make a regulation triggering this Act must be found in another Act.".
(3) Clause 7, page 8 (line 13), omit "or a regulation".
(4) Clause 7, page 8 (line 21), omit "or a regulation".
(5) Clause 9, page 9 (line 21), omit "or a regulation".
(6) Clause 10, page 9 (line 26), omit "or a regulation".
(7) Clause 11, page 10 (line 3), omit "or a regulation".
(8) Clause 11, page 10 (line 6), omit "or a regulation".
(9) Clause 12, page 10 (line 14), omit "or a regulation".
(10) Clause 12, page 10 (line 23), omit "or a regulation".
(11) Clause 13, page 11 (line 7), omit "or a regulation".
(12) Clause 13, page 11 (line 16), omit "or a regulation".
(13) Clause 15, page 12 (line 4), omit "or a regulation".
(14) Clause 15, page 12 (line 11), omit "or a regulation".
(15) Clause 16, page 12 (line 25), omit "or a regulation".
(16) Clause 16, page 13 (line 1), omit "or a regulation".
(17) Clause 17, page 13 (line 23), omit "or a regulation".
(18) Clause 18, page 13 (lines 26 to 29), omit the clause.
(19) Clause 24, page 18 (line 22), omit "or a regulation".
(20) Clause 37, page 30 (line 9), omit "or a regulation".
(21) Clause 37, page 30 (line 19), omit "or a regulation".
(22) Clause 39, page 31 (line 12), omit "or a regulation".
(23) Clause 39, page 31 (line 15), omit "or a regulation".
(24) Clause 41, page 32 (lines 2 and 3), omit "or a regulation".
(25) Clause 42, page 32 (lines 7 and 8), omit "or a regulation".
(26) Clause 42, page 32 (line 16), omit "or a regulation".
(27) Clause 43, page 32 (lines 28 and 29), omit "or a regulation".
(28) Clause 43, page 33 (line 7), omit "or a regulation".
(29) Clause 45, page 33 (line 24), omit "or a regulation".
(30) Clause 45, page 33 (line 31), omit "or a regulation".
(31) Clause 46, page 34 (line 11), omit "or a regulation".
(32) Clause 46, page 34 (line 20), omit "or a regulation".
(33) Clause 47, page 35 (line 6), omit "or a regulation".
(34) Clause 48, page 35 (lines 8 to 11), omit the clause.
(35) Clause 54, page 40 (line 21), omit "or a regulation".
(36) Clause 78, page 61 (line 7), omit "or a regulation".
(37) Clause 78, page 61 (line 12), omit "or a regulation".
(38) Clause 81, page 62 (lines 24 and 25), omit "or a regulation".
(39) Clause 82, page 62 (line 30), omit "or a regulation".
(40) Clause 82, page 63 (line 7), omit "or a regulation".
(41) Clause 83, page 63 (line 19), omit "or a regulation".
(42) Clause 84, page 63 (lines 22 to 25), omit the clause.
(43) Clause 101, page 72 (line 10), omit "or a regulation".
(44) Clause 103, page 73 (line 4), omit "or a regulation".
(45) Clause 104, page 73 (line 10), omit "or a regulation".
(46) Clause 104, page 73 (line 18), omit "or a regulation".
(47) Clause 105, page 73 (line 30), omit "or a regulation".
(48) Clause 105, page 74 (line 7), omit "or a regulation".
(49) Clause 106, page 74 (lines 17 to 20), omit the clause.
(50) Clause 113, page 82 (line 8), omit "or a regulation".
(51) Clause 115, page 82 (line 23), omit "or a regulation".
(52) Clause 116, page 83 (lines 3 and 4), omit "or a regulation".
(53) Clause 116, page 83 (line 12), omit "or a regulation".
(54) Clause 117, page 83 (line 24), omit "or a regulation".
(55) Clause 118, page 83 (lines 27 to 30), omit the clause.
(56) Clause 121, page 86 (line 8), omit "or a regulation".
(57) Clause 123, page 86 (line 20), omit "or a regulation".
(58) Clause 124, page 86 (line 25), omit "or a regulation".
(59) Clause 124, page 87 (line 9), omit "or a regulation".
(60) Clause 125, page 87 (line 21), omit "or a regulation".
(61) Clause 126, page 87 (lines 24 to 27), omit the clause.
That this bill be now read a third time.
… ADIs are required to report and transfer all unclaimed moneys as assessed on the applicable assessment date, including reactivated accounts, to the Commonwealth regardless of whether transactions have been made on the accounts prior to the reporting date.
… were shocked to find the savings of their eldest children … had gone into government coffers last week
Savings snatch $150,000 plucked from account under new laws. A BRISBANE woman has had more than $150,000 taken from her bank account by the Federal Government in the latest example of savers suffering under recent legislative changes.
A spokeswoman for Treasurer Wayne Swan said people would be better off under the new rules.
… the government has made it clear that the return to surplus is not negotiable …
This Budget delivers a surplus this coming year, on time, as promised, and surpluses each year after that, strengthening over time.
There is no presence of American infidels in the city of Baghdad.
The ABA notes that the proposed timing for implementation and a commencement of 31 December 2012 is unrealistic, being in less than 2 months and falling during a period when banks implement freezes on any technology or IT systems changes. It is estimated that banks and other ADIs will require at least 6 months to make all the necessary changes, inform customers in a legally compliant manner, and meet compliance requirements. It should be noted that individual banks and other ADIs will have different implementation issues. Therefore, the ABA believes that a 12 month transitional period for compliance is appropriate to ensure the legal, technical and practical issues can be addressed and ensure that the new regime can be streamlined into the existing annual process without disrupting banks' systems or bank-customer relationships.
If we didn't have the money elsewhere, we would now have to be paying for cardiologists, visits to surgeons, ECGs, x-rays, whatever is involved in the follow-up.
They are still working through the detail of the legislation. You won't be able to see how much they actually took until July 1 and the money won't be returned until 10 weeks after that.
The Commonwealth does not currently have power to refund moneys to ADIs directly though ADIs are the intermediary returning unclaimed moneys to their owners.
The financial impact from the Bill is likely to be low but is difficult to quantify due to insufficient data being available.
I am writing to inform you that today I went to my bank account to complete a transaction where I was informed my account had been closed and my money had been sent to the government.
As my member of parliament, I would like you to ask the government why it believes it has the right take my money from my account just because I haven't transacted during a certain period.
The bank is the only safe place I have to keep my money—money that I wish to keep for a time when I decide I need it. I needed money today. I had money in my account, yet, when I went to get it, I learned the government had taken it.
I am just writing to say that I am appalled at the Labor Party's grab on inactive accounts after 12 months. My four children have a small super fund and a savings account in that super fund which holds a small balance under $1,000.
There has been no activity in this account for 12 months, and now the government has absconded with their funds and we are faced with what will undoubtedly be an administrative nightmare just to get our own money returned to us. This is a hassle we do not need and bitterly resent.
It is bad enough paying thousands in taxes every year without the government stealing money from our bank accounts. We understand the principles behind remitting funds in inactive accounts to a government agency and have no argument with the basic objectives, but the new 12-month rule is just a nightmare and an extremely inconvenient government intrusion into our personal affairs for no useful purpose.
We feel we have been mugged and our money stolen. It is an absolute disgrace.
The ABA believes there is no benefit for consumers from the changes. The banking industry did not support the changes to the law.
Since the new law has been introduced, the ABA has been working with the Treasury to address unintended consequences and to ensure necessary technical amendments are made.
Banks must comply with these new laws. Banks have faced legal and technical issues trying to implement a new unclaimed monies regime without sufficient time or adequate rules to support the implementation of the new regime.
The family of a 95-year-old Hervey Bay pensioner who had $50,000 forfeited from a bank account because it hadn't been used for seven years is warning others to be aware of the laws.
Craignish resident Jan Powell said she was shocked last week when she went to check on the status of an account her mother opened in 2002, established to pay—
her own funeral costs, and found the balance had gone from $49,000—
I contacted the bank and after being shuffled around I was told that it was Federal Government law that if an account had been inactive for seven years the money was forfeited to the government …
I was furious and asked why my mother wasn't contacted and told it would be taken. She has another account with the ANZ Bank that she has her pension put into—so it couldn't have been too hard to track her down.
This account was opened in 2002 after her husband died and she saw the strain the funeral costs put on the family so she wanted to save for her own funeral so this wouldn't happen again.
Under Australia law cheque or savings accounts that have been inactive for more than seven years are forfeited to the crown.
Banks must, by March 31 each year—
… deliver to the Treasurer a register of all unclaimed accounts worth $500 or more, which is then published in the Government Gazette.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission reports Queenslanders' pool of unclaimed money from dormant accounts is now more than $71 million.
In a measure announced yesterday, the government will collect an extra $675 million by lowering the threshold at which lost superannuation accounts are automatically moved to the Australian Tax Office.
I'm no politician, but even I know that taking people's money is a stupid way to win an election. The Government did not consult the Australian Bankers Association … about the new three-year time limit—the figure appears to be an arbitrary one. Even as a Labor supporter—
Even as a Labor supporter, I am struggling to see this as anything but a desperate grab for money by a government that can't live up to its (retracted) budget surplus promises.
The Gillard government's plan to take money from dormant bank accounts is a shameful grab for cash and a significant attack on property rights.
People should be able to leave money in bank accounts for as long as they wish without the fear that the government might come along and steal it from them. To do so is an arbitrary acquisition of property by the government.
A QUEENSLAND pensioner emerged from a quintuple heart bypass only to find his bank had emptied his account, handing more than $22,000 to the Federal Government.
We would be at the end of each year within the $250 billion cap.
That the debate be adjourned, and the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
The House divided. [20:43]
The Speaker—Ms Anne Burke
The financial impact from the Bill is likely to be low but is difficult to quantify due to insufficient data being available.
I'm talking about the actions of government and how your interests usually end up on the losing side when hard choices are made.
It is also important for the schools in my electorate ... All these will now be connected to the National Broadband Network, but under 'fraudband' there will be no possibility of connection whatsoever. Consider what will happen with our local hospitals—for example, the Mater Hospital and the PA Hospital?
Holden has a world class balance sheet. We have ZERO debt, strong cash reserves and a very healthy pension fund.
Holden's strong balance sheet allows us to continue to invest in Australia for the future and this great position is best demonstrated by our significant capital and R&D spend. Our capital spend in plant and equipment was increased by $65 million in 2012, to over $100 million, in the lead up to the launch of the new model VF Commodore.
Last year Holden remained one of Australia's largest R&D spenders, with over $197 million invested in new product development. Holden has spent over $1 billion in the last 5 years on R&D alone because we know future success is directly linked to Research and Development.
Holden has a long term manufacturing plan in Australia for the future, which is very much supported by our R&D and capital spend.
The new model VF Commodore … will win hearts and minds. It is the most technologically advanced car ever created in Australia.
This highlights the world class capabilities that our domestic auto manufacturing industry can bring to Australia and the world—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) took the chair at 12:16.
We have always expected there will be some areas, mainly due to vegetation—trees and the like—that will cause those installations to not be able to pass through that qualification step …We are seeing those being slightly higher than we would have originally expected.
I presume you are also aware that the government has imposed a universal wholesale price for the NBN and, in light of your comments about affordability, how important is it not to discriminate against people who live in outer metropolitan areas and regional areas?
This is very important to our members.
What feedback do you get already from consumers living in regional areas in particular about things like the digital divide?
Mr Quigley, I want to go back to your briefing at the start, just to be crystal clear. The NBN costs $37.4 billion. What veracity should then be given to assertions that the NBN cost could in fact be around $90 billion?
I can only repeat that we are confident of the $37.4 billion figure.
Do you know how that $90 billion figure was derived?
No.
… other elements of Ciobo's letter are demonstrably inaccurate, delivered without context, or could be considered highly contestable, in that they do not represent mainstream thinking in the telecommunications industry from the consensus of expert opinion.
In your speech to the National Council meeting yesterday—
you raised the NBN … you said under the Coalition every country household will have access to high speed broad band with a minimum speed 25 megabits per second, but how much will it cost householders to have access to that?
Well it will be significantly cheaper than the NBN.
The NBN, under the existing arrangements, the access will be free?
… there will be still charges for … signing up.
Yes but we're talking about connection fees to the house.
Our connection fees will be lower.
It will make a big difference in many lives. It will strengthen our economy. It will promote our cultural identity in a flattening global culture … it will create opportunity and deliver equity for all Australians.
What an opportunity to promote Australia and expand our export economy by getting this build right.
In our common commitment to professional and high quality marriage celebrants, both civil and independent religious celebrants, we urge consideration be given to the following points.
1. As 70% of the Australian public are now choosing a civil marriage ceremony, they are being made to pay extra to cover the cost of the planned registration fee. The other 30%, using religious celebrants, will not have this fee imposed upon them. This Government has supported anti-discrimination in law, and yet is supporting this blatant discrimination.
2. MCA (Inc) supports a substantial fee to new applicants for registration as marriage celebrants. The Attorney General's Department (Marriage Law and Celebrant Section) has told us repeatedly that the processing of applicants is extremely time consuming.
The committee therefore seeks the Minister's advice as to whether consideration has been given as to specifying the purposes for which this power may be exercised or to other ways to confine this power …