Mr LATHAM (5:17 PM) —This legislation and the Senate amendments represent a missed opportunity. This should have been a chance for the parliament to introduce a proper model of corporate philanthropy. Instead we have the Prime Minister's feeble attempt at a social coalition. This legislation encourages passive corporate giving—where companies write a cheque on the 25th floor and send it away to a charity. They have no face-to-face or social contact with the people who need the assistance. It is a strange social coalition with no social component.

This legislation puts a large amount of public money into tax concessions to encourage passive giving and passive charity in this country. There is a better way than a model which encourages corporations to write cheques and support charities financially but not directly. The better model is a hands-on approach where companies would be supported with government concessions if they directly involve themselves with projects in poor suburbs. There are many examples in the United States where companies are heavily involved in face-to-face, hands-on projects supporting needy communities with housing redevelopment, community services, skills programs, and work in schools and homes. It has emerged that this is a far more effective model of corporate philanthropy, and it is a far more effective social coalition. Passive charity is not the answer. People do not necessarily need the handout; they need the hand-up and they need the hands-on approach that comes from direct corporate involvement.

This would have been a superior model for the government to introduce. They should have adopted the examples and the lessons of the United States. Instead of tax concessions there should have been a model of tendering, where companies that want to involve themselves in this way would submit projects and ideas to the government. The government would have a chance to assess them on merit and reward the companies that get their hands dirty—the companies that have face-to-face contact and involvement with needy communities. It is a great misapprehension and misconception of public policy to think that a majority of charitable money goes to the poor. In fact, research here and overseas has shown that the majority of charitable money goes into middle-class causes and causes in which the giver has a direct personal involvement or interest. Only a small fraction of corporate giving reaches poor communities, and that is another reason to have a different model of corporate philanthropy. Better results can be achieved with face-to-face contact. Building skills, social trust and social capital with an embedded involvement by companies in poor neighbourhoods is by far the best approach.

I reject the Prime Minister's notion of a social coalition, when all he can produce in this legislation is arms-length, passive giving. There is nothing social about this coalition at all. The rich people making the donations do not get to meet the poor people. There is nothing social in that and there is nothing that is building a more cohesive society. I would argue that there can be enormous gains for corporations with a hands-on, face-to-face approach. Companies in the United States which can send their managers into poor communities to solve problems and rectify the problems of poverty find that it involves the sort of lateral thinking and problem solving skills that they can carry back to the corporation. So there is something in it for the corporation. They can use it as a training program for their middle and senior managers. If they can solve problems in poor areas, they will have the skills and thinking needed to be more effective managers in their own corporations. In the United States, governments have tried to lever that sort of effort through tax concessions and a tendering scheme. We should be following that model in this country.

The Prime Minister's social coalition is harking back to the 19th century and the poor laws in Britain, where rich people gave their money but never went to meet the poor. It is an inferior model and there is a better way. We have very much missed an opportunity with this legislation and the Senate amendments now before the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.