Senator HOGG (4:27 PM) —Having just heard Senator Abetz in this debate, I wonder why he wasted our time in demanding that we call his colleagues in to listen to him, because unfortunately, Senator Abetz, I do not think you have some of your facts quite correct.

As far as Labor Party policy is concerned, it has never been part of Labor Party policy, as I am informed by the shadow minister, to have any contribution to FBT in terms of Australian Defence Force personnel placed on the group certificate. Apparently, this is a line that is being peddled by Minister Scott to try to cover up the mess that the government has made once again in this important area.

As I understand the position, there are only two items that thus far have been exempted from FBT being shown on the group certificate. Primarily, they are the issues of housing, which Senator Abetz raised, and funerals. Whilst the housing item contributes significantly to the FBT that Defence pays in respect of some of its personnel, there are nonetheless a significant range of other items that are involved which do attract FBT and which, when placed on the group certificate, will place Defence Force personnel at a disadvantage which they have not so far experienced.

It just so happens that in recent times a number of us visited Defence establishments in Queensland—within about the last three weeks. I have been to the Enoggera Army Barracks, the Lavarak Army Barracks in Townsville and the RAAF base in Townsville. Quite interestingly, all the personnel, whether they were in the ranks or were officers, greeted us with the same chord, which was, `Do something about this FBT. It is not something that it is fair to levy upon us.'

I will come to the point that Senator Abetz raised. He tries to make out that these people in the Defence Force should be and can be treated exactly the same as every other person out there in the real world. Of course, their world is quite different. They are committed to a very important task, that task being the defence of this nation, and they are placed under different stresses and different circumstances than many other people in the so-called normal work force.

As part of the visit to the various barracks that I have outlined, I also had the opportunity through the Defence Community Organisation to meet with the spouses of serving personnel in Brisbane and Townsville. And surprise, surprise! What did one find? They were equally miffed by the fact that the group certificates of their spouses would be attracting the amount for FBT. This will disadvantage these people who, in many cases, already consider themselves disadvantaged because of dislocation primarily from family and from the extended family in particular. And in many circumstances they do not enjoy the most gracious of climates, particularly in the hot months in the northern parts of Australia in places such as Townsville and Darwin.

I hope to have another chance to meet with defence personnel in Darwin in the not too distant future. I am sure that they will come up with exactly the same complaint about what the government are doing or what the government have done. They will undoubtedly express their dismay at what the government have done in this particular area. The voice of the defence personnel spouses, whilst not necessarily heard loudly throughout the community, undoubtedly is heard loudly throughout the political processes and is also carried very well through the Defence Community Organisation. The government need to pay attention to this very important group of people, because there needs to be stability for the spouses as well as for serving Defence personnel. They are clearly upset by the application of the FBT to certain benefits that they see making their lifestyle bearable in what could otherwise be quite unbearable circumstances.

On 25 August, after the government did the backflip in respect of housing and also funerals, an open letter signed by the Shadow Minister for Defence and the Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel was sent to the Minister for Defence and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. It is worth while looking at some of the issues raised in that open letter. They say:

Our contact with Defence personnel has clearly revealed a serious morale problem which cannot be ignored. Failure to act will immediately affect Australia's military capabilities.

These people do not have to be pandered to, but they do need to be content in the challenges that they face. They go on to say in the open letter to the Minister for Defence and the minister assisting:

We are particularly concerned at the ruling by the Tax Office that members of the ADF are the same as all other employees. As you would be aware, this flies in the face of the evidence and the way in which previous Governments have treated defence personnel who serve this nation.

That is the key. There is a difference. They are different and you cannot now go lumping them into the same barrel as every other group.

Senator Boswell —We don't.

Senator HOGG —Well, I will come to that in a minute. It goes on to say:

What other group of employees are unable to access normal industrial laws and processes, are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, are never paid overtime, are subject to the Defence Force Discipline Act, are compulsorily posted and can be sent to war at any time?

There are people in these defence forces who are on 24-hour readiness. There are those who are on seven days. There are those who are on 28 days. There are no people on similar levels of readiness out there in the general public. It is a nonsense. It does not exist. So to say that Defence personnel are the same as others out there in the community is not true at all. The open letter goes on to say:

The conditions of service that currently apply to members of the ADF were put in place in order to compensate them for the inherent hardships of service life and their conditions of employment. They are not fringe benefits or perks and the public realises this.

The open letter to the ministers goes on:

From advice that personnel have received from the ADF, it is clear that many face increased child support and superannuation surcharge liabilities and reduced entitlements to family payments as a result of the requirements that fringe benefits are reported on an individual's taxation group certificate.

One can see from this that there is an appeal being made to the Minister for Defence and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence to address this issue in a realistic way, not to try to sweep it under the carpet and not to try to ignore it.

With the modern age of emails and computers, we have all received a number of emails on this particular subject, none more so than me. It is worth while looking at the sentiments as expressed by one of the persons who corresponded with me. This person says:

1. It is with great concern to myself and my family, on the effect that the fringe benefits tax (FBT) will have on us. I am currently serving in Sydney, and because of personal reasons, my family (wife and four children) are required to live in Cairns. I have been told that the FBT on the married quarters and the single accommodation that I occupy—

and I note that that has been addressed by the government—

. . . could amount to as much as $22,000.00. On top of this, there will be FBT on remote locality leave, service vehicles, entitled travel—

contrary to what Senator Abetz's advice is—

airconditioning allowance, recreational leave travel, plus numerous others. These few FBT's will easily amount to approximately another $14,000.00, adding another $36,000.00 to my grossed up salary.

If you take out the accommodation that this person writes to me about of some $22,000, $14,000 is even then not an insignificant amount of money that will be included in this person's group certificate. He goes on to say:

2. This will in turn affect my family in the following areas:

a. Family payment

b. Youth allowance

c. Childcare assistance

d. Liability for superannuation contributions

e. Liability for medicare surcharge

f. And liability for child support—

The person does have a sense of humour in spite of being faced with these extra charges. He adds in brackets:

(if my wife and I are ever separated).

In the face of adversity, there is at least a little humour in this letter. He continues:

3. The only positive at the moment, is that my wife and I are still married, if we did separate I would be in the same position as many other members of the Defence Force, forced to resign because of this FBT!

That is not contrived. If one looks at the leader page that came with it, one will see that it got widespread distribution throughout the House of Representatives and the Senate, regardless of people's political persuasion in this place or the other place. One can only say that it is being felt out there. What I found when I travelled around Defence Force bases recently meeting Defence Force personnel was that there is grave concern about what is happening and what is being done by the government in this area.

I will now address some of the issues that are attracting fringe benefits tax. I quote from a document from the Defence Force and headed `Chief executive instructions—part 5, annex A to chapter 5':

ITEMS WHICH ATTRACT A FRINGE BENEFITS TAX LIABILITY

The following, listed in order of liability magnitude, are payments, allowances or benefits provided by Defence to its employees or former employees that have been identified as being partially or fully subject to FBT.

The first one on the list is housing. That has been addressed; I concede that. The second one reads:

Living Away From Home Allowance (Defence FBT Manual-chapter 9)

- Continuing Overseas Allowance (COA)—

remember that this is an internal Defence document—

- Living Out Allowances (LOA) and Living Out Away From Home Allowance (LOAFHA)

- Overseas Living Allowance (OLA)

- Child Supplement Allowance

- Reunion Supplement Allowance

Expense payments (Defence FBT Manual-chapter 7)

- Entitlement travel

- discharge travel

- annual recreation leave travel

- leave-other travel

- remote locality leave travel

- remote locality family leave travel

- reverse remote locality leave travel

- reunion travel

- student reunion travel

- spouse emergency travel

There is a whole range of services which are very much part and parcel of defence life and which they do not see as a perk or a lurk but as an unalienable right and something which should not be subjected to FBT. Yet in Defence's own documentation, it lists those as items which will be subject to and attract FBT. But the list has not stopped; there are three pages of these things put out by the Department of Defence. The list continues:

- Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) payments

- Transfer benefits

- post transfer visits

- allowance for sale of land

- long term Temporary Accommodation Allowance

- education costs allowance

- removals at time of retirement

- Defence Home Owners Scheme

- Other allowances

- child education in Australia allowance

- air conditioning allowance

- extra tuition expenses

- removal related child care reimbursement allowance

- Semi official phones in private residences

- Spouse accompanied travel

- Removals expenditure

- termination of service removals

- change of domestic status

And so it goes on. There is a very long list, which Senator Abetz has obviously not had made available to him. I think someone should make it available to someone in the government so that they will have some idea of the extent of the application as seen by the Department of Defence. It should not be something cobbled together by me or someone else; it should be a Defence document. There is a wide range of services and a wide range of issues that will attract an FBT.

Senator Abetz's answer to that is, `Oh, well, we've taken care of the big item. We've taken care of housing.' So what? There are other items which will affect the lifestyle of people in the defence forces right throughout Australia. I think the government should not be treating this as a political stunt. It is a genuine attempt to look at an issue that has been raised in visits that have been undertaken by me and my colleagues when we have met with defence personnel.

Without going through the whole list, it is worth while just looking at one other email I received, which I think sums up this whole issue. It is an email addressed to senators—some of my colleagues on the other side would have access to it. It says:

The new fringe benefits tax legislation that has been introduced in April this year, (we have only just been made aware of it, and that alone is cause for concern)—

the email is dated 6 August—

is causing a huge amount of concern in the Defence Community. I am a leading Seaman Combat System Operator in the RAN, and would like to draw all of your attentions to the devastating effect these new laws place on the people who risk their lives defending our beloved country, whether that be in times of peace or war.

The writer goes on:

If none of you are familiar with the new legislation, or the impact that this will have, that goes to show exactly how highly regarded it seems, we are to you. If you are aware, why was this allowed to be passed?

The email proceeds:

Please raise your voices as members of our community who are there to better the lives of each of us and look after us, the obedient men and women who love our country and will if need be die for it, if sanctioned by you, the Government, to go to war.

(Time expired)