Mr CREAN(7.51 p.m.) —I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the Bill breaches the government's election commitment that it would not increase existing taxes or introduce new taxes and should therefore be withdrawn, redrafted and re-presented in a form in which:

(1)   goods for personal consumption to which Tariff Concession Orders apply continue to enter Australia free of duty; and

(2)   no change be made to the duty rate which currently applies to Policy By-Laws".

I will not take up too much time of the House on this because I had an opportunity to speak in the cognate debate. This amendment seeks to restore integrity to the coalition government's position of no new taxes. It ensures that this measure does not result in a GST by stealth, which is what will happen if the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) goes through.

The policy by-laws comprise the second string in the bow if people fail to secure a tariff concession order. Under us, the policy by-law could still rate at zero, whereas your proposition can result in circumstances in which a three per cent rating can apply. For you to argue that this is what we proposed in relation to policy by-laws is wrong. We are seeking by way of this amendment to protect consumers yet still give to business a second opportunity to get the concession, the zero rating, through the policy by-law rating mechanism. It is still possible under certain circumstances for them to get it in your case, but not in every case.

Your going to the election saying that you supported Labor's position is inconsistent with the second string of our amendment. Certainly what you are trying to do by way of imposing a consumption tax via this measure is completely contrary to what you said in opposition, what the Treasurer (Mr Costello) has said, and in particular what the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has said, which is that there will be no increase in taxes and no new taxes under a coalition government.

This is a new tax by any definition. It is a tax on consumers. The only person who says that it is not a tax is the Treasurer. The Minister for Small Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Prosser) is now wagging his head in the negative. He does not believe that it is a tax either. Go and consult the High Court, and talk to the National Farmers Federation and industry. Your senior minister, who has the cabinet ranking, not you, has admitted publicly that it is a tax.

Do not let us have any hogwash about there being no tax here. This is a tax. It is another example of a broken promise. You said that you would not introduce new taxes. Whilst the minister was able to roll the Treasurer in relation to the tariff concession orders, all he did was pave the way for the Premiers to do the same thing last week at the Premiers Conference. That was another example of a broken tax promise.

We are here to hold you accountable. That is why we are moving this amendment and ensuring that the proposal does not extend to consumers. It gives another level of protection to business, which you say you are keen to look after.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrew) —Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Martin —I second the amendment.

   Question put:

   That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Crean's amendment) stand part of the question.