3 August 2017 Senior Advisor Individual and Indirect Tax Division The Treasury Langton Crescent PARKES ACT 2600 Submitted via [email protected] Submission re Reforms to the Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) Tax Arrangements Dear Sir/ Madam, Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission regarding the misuse of taxpayer funds by charitable organisations enjoying the benefit of ‘deductible gift recipient’ (DGR) status. Of particular interest is the recommendation that ‘legislative and administrative changes be pursued by the ATO to require that the value of each environmental DGR’s annual expenditure on environmental remediation work be no less than 25 per cent of the organisation’s annual expenditure from its public fund’, which we shall return to later. The role of government in protecting Australia’s greatest common asset: our unique, irreplaceable environment The fundamental duty of care of a legitimate government is to protect its citizens from foreseeable threats and to protect and preserve common assets for the sake of current and future generations. A healthy environment — a safe climate (atmospheric carbon below 350ppm), clean air, easy access to clean water, fertile soils and so on) — is the foundation on which all we know and value depends. It follows that Australia’s unique and irreplaceable environment is arguably its most precious common asset and that the role of governments is to actively protect and preserve it. However, it appears that successive Australian governments are systematically undermining democratic processes in relation to environment protection (as well as associated social justice issues). Highly paid lobbyists and commentators acting on behalf of vested interests are not the same as highly trained experts in matters of major public interest. Former minister for resources and Northern Australia, Matt Canavan ideally illustrated such confusion with his recent resignation comments that: ‘It has been such an honour to represent the Australian mining sector over the past year.’ Beyond his outrageous public comments was the apparent surprise that so many Australians expect their democratically elected leaders to represent and defend the best interests of current and future Australians first and foremost. This perverse thinking goes some way to explaining with the current government appears to be confused about the difference between community based organizations that seek to protect, 1 analyse and/or monitor the environment against misuse or degradation from human activities and powerfully cashed up industry groups seeking greater access to exploit environment assets to maximize private profits. The former represents current and future Australians and the latter represent destructive industries, typically multinational corporations that employ relatively few Australians and send the majority of their profits offshore. Australian tax-payer funded attacks on our Environment and those advocating for its protection The Institute for Public Affairs (IPA) is an independent so-called ‘think tank’ that through influential members and donations has long-held strong ties with the Liberal Party (itself a beneficiary of tax-deductible campaign donations) to whom it makes policy recommendations.1 Although the group has always been notoriously secretive about its funding base, support is known to have come from major mining (ie BHP-Billiton and Western Mining), chemical (ie Monsanto), tobacco (ie Phillip Morris), forestry (ie the former Gunns) and oil and gas companies (ie Shell, Esso, Caltex and Woodside Petroleum).2 The IPA enjoys DGR status as an ‘Approved Research Institute’ on the grounds that it engages in "scientific research which is, or may prove to be, of value to Australia". Producing legitimate, reliable science involves a thorough process of critical scrutiny by other experts (colleagues or peers) and is called ‘peer review’. Any mistakes that may have been found during the peer-review process can then be corrected.3 To ensure independence from any vested or conflict of interest, peer reviewing is done for free by scientists who have no relationship with the author(s) of the work being judged. This is why it is peer-reviewed research science is independent, building on data and conclusions that have been checked and re-checked and corrected by top experts. A condition of an ‘Approved Research Institute’ is that it has a ‘suitably qualified research committee’. However, the IPA’s experts only appear to have expertise in social research experiments (aka lobbying) with the apparent intent being to mislead and deceive the public into thinking that private corporations should have unlimited access to common assets in order to make profits for their private shareholders. The IPA’s role in killing the ‘Super Profits’ mining tax is an example of how it seriously undermines the Australian public’s current and long-term interests in order to benefit private corporations. To prevent Australia’s non-renewable mineral resources from being exploited by transnational corporations while raising billions of dollars to help fund pensions, health care, education, tax cuts for small businesses among other public programs, in 2010 the Rudd ALP government proposed a mining tax of 40 per cent on ‘Super Profits’ above $50 million (aka a ‘resources rent’ tax). In response, with the IPA as its cheerleader, vested interests funded an aggressive and highly misleading and deceptive public relations campaign suggesting that Australia’s economy would collapse if they were made to pay a tax on their excessive profits. The campaign gave the impression that the mining sector was a huge employer when in fact less then two per cent of Australians work in mining. As for collapsing the economy, as a direct result of a ‘resources rent’ tax (introduced in 1990), Norway (with a population of around 5 million) now has the world’s richest sovereign wealth fund currently worth about $850 billion. In a pre-election 2013 keynote speech at the IPA’s 70th anniversary (a black tie gala event held at Victoria’s National Gallery of Victoria — including special guests media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, whose father helped found the IPA, mining magnate Gina Rinehart and Cardinal George Pell, all of whom support climate denialism), Tony Abbott said: ''So ladies and gentlemen that is a big 'yes' to 2 many of the 75 specific policies you [the IPA’s Executive Director, John Roskam who was sitting before him] urged upon me.''4 At the top of the IPA’s wish list was scrapping all climate protection laws (including the carbon price and Renewable Energy Target) and dismantling all independent agencies established to promote zero emission energy alternatives to dirty and dangerous fossil fuels (ie Clean Energy Finance Corporation, Climate Change Authority and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency). To make the job of stripping Australians of their natural assets easier, by silencing dissent, the IPA has long been lobbying for a fire-sale of Australia’s independent news broadcasters, the ABC and SBS to friendly corporate media interests.5 Earlier this year we learned that the Turnbull government had overruled an independent selection panel to appoint the chairwoman of the Minerals Council of Australia to the ABC board.6 Although the IPA has always been notoriously secretive about its funding base, support is known to have come from major mining (ie BHP-Billiton and Western Mining), chemical (ie Monsanto), tobacco (ie Phillip Morris), forestry (ie the former Gunns) and oil and gas companies (ie Shell, Esso, Caltex and Woodside Petroleum).7 The IPA enjoys DGR status as an ‘Approved Research Institute’ on the grounds that it engages in "scientific research which is, or may prove to be, of value to Australia". At a glance it’s obvious that corporations have benefited enormously from the IPA’s public policy offering. For instance, in 2014 it came to light that Australia’s largest coalminer, Glencore Coal International Australia Pty Ltd paid almost zero tax on income of $15 billion made over the previous three years.8 During this period, Glencore’s Australian born, Swiss based Chairman saw his personal wealth rise nearly 20 per cent to $6.6 billion on the back of his Glencore shares.9 Both BHP and Rio Tinto are known to be squireling profits to tax havens offshore in order to avoid paying taxes on the profits they are making through the exploitation of Australia’s non-renewable natural resources.10 It’s worth noting here that, after talking tough re cracking down on corporate tax avoidance, Joe Hockey and the then Assistant Treasurer, Arthur Sinodinos, announced they would not legislate Gillard’s tax reform package to abolish deductions (under section 25-90 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) that would help combat tax minimisation by global corporations, at a projected benefit to the taxpayer of $600 million.11 The justification was that it would impose ‘unreasonable compliance costs on Australian companies’ with subsidiaries offshore. This all explains why successive Coalition Federal governments have systematically dismantled Australia’s environment protection laws and taken a wrecking ball to what was an emerging sustainable, smart economy. For during the roughly two years that the Gillard government’s Clean Energy Future legislation (including a carbon price) determined climate policies, tens of thousands of new jobs and tens of billions of dollars in new investments were generated in local more sustainable economies while emissions declined across electricity generation, agriculture, industrial processes and the transport sector.12 Any reasonable person would have to ask: why kill laws that were achieving their goals? Why kill Australia’s chances for sustainable progress? Why knowingly, deliberately fail the international community in the name of Australians? Ignoring that donors to the IPA are largely corporations with vested interests, and there appears to be no legitimate scientific research programs taking place, it’s not lawful for the IPA—or other similarly structured ‘think tanks’/front groups acting for vested interests—to use tax-deductible donations to fund conferences and/or public relations campaigns, as it regularly appears to do.