Senator IAN CAMPBELL (10:01 PM) —I move:

That the committee does not insist on its amendments nos 8, 11 to 14, 17 and 18 to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

These amendments, as those of us who were involved in the debate only yesterday know, propose significant additions to measures contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999 that will provide taxation incentives for personal and corporate philanthropy in Australia. Broadly, the amendments provide that, where a property owner covenants a property for conservation purposes and that results in a reduction in the value of the property, then any reduction in the value of the property should be treated as a tax deduction. The amendments also extend the ability to deduct amounts over five years to such donations and also, where property is donated, a capital gains tax exemption should apply. Substantial changes like these need to be considered in-depth in the context of their cost as well as their effectiveness. Any decisions need to be taken within the budgetary constraints of government but also with the objective of getting the most effective outcome in terms of conservation. Accordingly, the government does not accept these amendments.

Amendments 14 and 18 propose changes to the measure that will allow tax deductibility for donations that will be known as prescribed private funds. Broadly, prescribed private funds will have to operate in the same way as public ancillary funds but will not have to seek and receive funds from the public. The purpose of the amendments is to preclude a fund that provides funds to political parties from being a prescribed private fund. Item 6 of schedule 5 of the bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 such that a fund can only be a prescribed fund if it is established solely for the purpose of providing money to a fund or institution that is listed under subdivision 30B of the act. If a fund is established to provide funds to any non-listed institutions, it cannot be a prescribed private fund. Political parties are not listed in subdivision 30. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary. Accordingly, the government does not accept these amendments.

I made it clear on behalf of the government in our consideration, particularly of amendments Nos 8, 11 to 13 and 17, that the government are serious about developing a policy that will encourage the donation of property for conservation values. We heard the Minister for the Environment and Heritage make that commitment in this place in the last day or so. We believe that such a policy needs to be developed in an integrated fashion. We believe that tax deductibility and tax breaks, tax advantages, for that activity is a sensible path to take but that it needs to be considered in a broad and detailed context, with the benefit of good quality research into the options, the pros and cons, and the costs and benefits.

I do not think anyone in this place, particularly people like Senator Brown, who has dedicated most of his life to conservation and the environment, would like to see the resources of the Commonwealth not aimed at enhancing conservation outcomes to achieve the very best bang for the buck, to use a colloquialism and a cliche. The government are determined to do that. We are not afraid of investing money in the environment. Senator Brown and others may not approve of the way we go about that. He may not enjoy the fact that we had to sell Telstra to invest billions back into the environment. But I am sure that we would all agree around the chamber that investment in the environment should be done on a value basis. If a government were to squander taxpayers' money on environmental investments, it would put that sort of public investment into ill repute and would not encourage the public backing of that sort of investment. So we need to proceed cautiously.

I do not mean to delay unnecessarily that sort of decision. We are not talking about that. Senator Hill has made it clear that it is a high priority of his and of the cabinet's to develop an integrated policy package in this regard. I know very well that these measures will be under the close scrutiny of all of us who take seriously environmental benefits, environmental reform and improving Australia's natural heritage in this place. I count myself amongst those. The government will not be accepting these amendments.