Senator COONAN (Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer) (10:22 AM) —The first comment I would make is that, with discussion in this chamber, I do not see any purpose gained by any sort of pejorative presentation, nor do I see any point in misrepresenting what I said in my speech in the second reading debate. It is certainly not what I am used to and I do not appreciate it. I take great issue with it.

What we are discussing here is a broader concept than that of Playgroup Australia. What I said in my summing up speech is that there may very well be playgroups that carry out a charitable purpose for a public benefit and—guess what—if they do they are already included within the definition that this government has just put forward. If that is the case with Playgroup Australia, they are already included in the definition. So there is not much point in railing against the fact that they are not included. If they have a charitable purpose and a public benefit, that seems to me to be the clear position.

What I said was that there can be playgroups—and I do not say this pejoratively, but for the purpose of looking at the definition and whether somebody is carrying out a charitable purpose—that are nothing more than some people who meet on an organised basis to supervise their children for a short period during a coffee morning. There is nothing wrong with that. I think that is a very useful thing. I think it is very good to socialise children. Early childhood development is critical, there is no doubt about that, but not every activity that parents conduct with their children has a charitable purpose or a public benefit. It is something that people do.

I do think that there is a distinction across the spectrum of the way in which what are loosely called `playgroups' exist. I have to say that the opposition amendment certainly did not nominate or characterise any particular group; it just talked about playgroups. I think it is quite disingenuous of Senator Collins to try to roll every playgroup that has ever existed into the whole concept of something that is carried on for the public benefit and for a charitable purpose.

The actual definition in the opposition amendment just says `a playgroup'. That might be arguable. Is it for playgroups or is it for associations—which is it? It certainly does not seem to be clear from the way in which the amendment has been framed. So the first point is that a lot of playgroups are already included. Those which may not be included are certainly tax exempt. The challenge for Senator Collins, and she has failed to meet this challenge, is to say which. Senator Collins has completely failed to rise to this challenge and to identify which GST concessions available to charities that are not currently available to playgroups are relevant, because most of them are available to both.

That is a very real issue here. We are dancing on the head of a pin, Senator Collins. We are not arguing about the good purpose of playgroups; nobody is cavilling about that. We are not arguing about funding for playgroups, because we have already given them another $11 million, so that does not get you very far in your criticism of this government's response on that issue. What I am trying to identify from the opposition is: can you precisely say what it is that is not covered by the extension? That is No. 1. The tax-exempt status is No. 2. No. 3 is the fact that GST concessions are also available to tax-exempt entities and charities.

I have not heard one word about what is really worrying the opposition. What GST concessions are worrying the opposition so that they are prepared, somehow or other, to try to force every playgroup into the definition of a charity? It just is not a sensible way to proceed, if I may say so. If there were any suggestion that playgroups would be disadvantaged, I would be very interested to hear it. So far, I have heard a lot of rhetoric but I have not heard any facts.