I rise to make some brief remarks in relation to the report on the inquiry in the Register of Environmental Organisations. I would like to start by acknowledging the contribution of the chair. It was a pleasure to work with him on this important inquiry. I also acknowledge the great contribution of all the members of the secretariat. As the chair's contribution made clear, this was a very extensive inquiry that presented some logistical challenges as well as some other challenges, and the work of the secretariat was invaluable and of the highest professional standard. This was an inquiry, as the chair indicated, that attracted great interest. I also thank all the organisations and individuals who made submissions to the inquiry, of which there were a very great number, and, in particular, those who presented evidence at the public hearings and also at the private briefings.
This inquiry, in large part, dealt with some inefficiencies, some duplicative matters and, indeed, some politicisation of the administration of the tax deductibility of registered environmental organisations. In respect of recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 there is agreement from all members of the committee about progressing reforms in order to remove those inefficiencies, duplicative arrangements and, generally, to tidy up the operation of this important instrument that goes to significant public interest.
A dissenting report was prepared. The Labor members of the committee—Tony Zappia, the member for Makin, who was the deputy chair of the committee for a significant contribution of the inquiry, the member for Newcastle, the member for Port Adelaide and the member for Isaacs and I noted our dissent to two significant recommendations—recommendations 5 and 6. In our firm view these recommendations ignore the weight of evidence presented to the committee. The support of the majority of the committee for these recommendations, which move the administration of tax deductibility from a purpose test in respect of environmental organisations, but not other organisations, to a test which effectively requires government to look to the activities of those organisations and which requires those organisations to invest considerable bureaucratic and administrative resources to managing their interaction with government, is unsupported by the evidence. There is no warrant, in our view, for environmental organisations to be singled out.
What we see here is a preference for ideology and deference to vested interests in place of evidence. These have significant consequences, which is why a dissenting report was submitted. It goes not only to the operation of this register and not only to how tax deductibility is applied generally; it goes, fundamentally, to how a civil society functions. We are deeply concerned that the adoption of these recommendations, in particular recommendation 5, would send two adverse signals: firstly, to treat environmental organisations differently and adversely from other not-for-profit actors in civil society; and, secondly, for government to seek to constrain the democratic functioning of civil society in limiting the capacity of groups to advocate in favour of environmental outcomes against government decisions and against the exercise of corporate power.
Labor members of the committee noted that there was no warrant for recommendation 5 in the evidence. There was no particular request for the proposal and, as the majority report indicates, there would be significant uncertainty in applying the approach that is recommended, in that the marker of activity in place of purpose environmental remediation is uncertain and would require significant definitional assistance. This of itself would impose a significant burden on organisations and on government that would require the allocation of significant resources. I note that the previous inquiry of this committee looked to reduce the burden of so-called green tape. It is, to say the least, extremely ironic that in this inquiry the government members have proposed to do exactly the opposite—to impose an additional administrative burden on government and non-government actors.
Labor members have dissented from this report because it would be administratively unworkable, is antidemocratic and is fundamentally unwarranted.