Senator BROWN (9:50 AM) —On behalf of the Australian Greens, I also support the inquiry. I am not quite so accommodating of the overall tax package as Senator Murray has indicated the other non-government parties may be. To put it simply, I do not know that we will have an opportunity to look at the cost neutrality when it comes to cutting services in this place. The one good thing about this inquiry is that there is an expectation that the government's package is not going to add up—that there will be a shortfall of some billions of dollars. If that were the case, I can only expect that that shortfall will be a burden one way or another on people who expect government services and who depend upon government services further down the line. I move:

At the end of paragraph (1), add:

(i) the extent and likely impact of the proposals for reform on the non-profit sector, including the cumulative impact with the ANTS package.

As you know, Madam Acting Deputy President, there is already a lot of concern in the non-profit sector in the Australian community that, having been hit quite hard by the ANTS package—the GST package—there is going to be a further specific impact on the non-profit and charitable sector in Australia by the Ralph package, in particular through the alteration to the fringe benefits tax arrangements, upon which many charitable and non-profit organisations depend in this country.

I think that impact ought to be looked at at this stage. I understand that the Democrats and the opposition simply want to look at the cost neutrality question. That is one of the reasons this inquiry can be done so quickly. There is a reference to the further effective reduction in the research and development tax concessions arising from the package. I think my amendment is not altogether out of spirit with that. It is very important that we look at the wider impact of the Ralph package and go on beyond the question of cost neutrality.

Finally, I say this: there is a drift in this country towards the reduction of taxes to the wealthy to be matched by the reduction of services to the poor. I see that package in this light. I am not warm to it at all because I think it is giving the breaks to the already rich. I have sat through the last three years here in having billions of dollars cut from—

Senator Kemp —You sat for the last three years and you wasted your time.

Senator BROWN —You may think it is a waste of time. But I think that is quite derogatory to the role of every senator in this place, Senator, because I put a lot of time in here. It is a privilege to be in this place and to represent people whose voice would otherwise not be heard in the democratic system. That is why I am on my feet right now. I may not have the numbers to get up this amendment, but I am making a very valid point. My point is that under this government we are serially seeing the advantages given to the already wealthy as against the poor. The gap between the haves and have-nots in this country will increase under the package. There is more involved than the cost neutrality to the exchequer. I would expect that this inquiry will be followed by an inquiry with far greater scope so that the community reaction from those people who are going to be hurt by the tax package or are going to get no advantage from it can also be gauged by the Senate.