Mr BRADFORD(12.46 p.m) —I am not wanting to take issue on the technicalities; I am wanting to make the point that the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham) has an obsession with the mechanism by which this matter has been brought forward.

Mr Price —I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but could you assist me. If an amendment were moved to refer amendment No. 1 to a conference of the House and the Senate, would that also be ruled out of order?

Mr Latham —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I think I have been misheard in terms of the amendment I was moving. I was moving that this amendment be referred to a conference between the two houses.

Mr Miles —Mr Deputy Speaker, what the honourable member moved previously was a much longer amendment than he is now giving to the House. It was much more extensive; it went beyond the actual amendment No. 1 and covered virtually all the four amendments.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield) —Order! I have ruled on the amendment moved by the member for Werriwa, as I understood it, and I have ruled it out of order.

Mr Latham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I accept your ruling.

Mr BRADFORD —I do not want to prolong the debate, but I do want to contend what the member for Werriwa says. Despite the paranoia that he exhibits towards the Lyons Forum—I assume that is whom he is referring to—the fact is that the delivery of this $1 billion package of tax relief for Australian families was absolutely central to the government's pre-election strategy and the legislation which delivers it is widely applauded.

The fact is that an amendment has been brought forward which, in its context, is not of any great consequence except that my understanding of it—without having seen all of the background—is that it would deal with the targeting of that assistance to the people that it is intended to reach. For the member for Werriwa to stand here and try to make something—

Mr Price —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I am reluctant to draw the honourable member's attention to standing orders but, as the parliamentary secretary took a point of order on relevance, we are dealing with amendment No. 1, which refers to trusts—the beneficiaries of trusts and the beneficiaries of deceased estate trusts. I say with great respect that the honourable member is transgressing the limitation of the subject matter covered under amendment No. 1. And I am not the first to take this point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. G.H. Adams) —I ask the honourable member to be relevant to the amendment that is before the House.

Mr BRADFORD —Thank you for that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I can actually do nothing else. The only piece of paper I have in front of me here is amendment No. 1, and I am pointing specifically to my understanding of it, as I read it here, because I am not subject or privy to what went on behind the scenes. It is dealing with a minor technical correction within the overall legislation that would deal with the matter of income which is coming to a spouse as a result of a particular financial arrangement that is entered into—

Mr Price —Trusts.

Mr BRADFORD —By trusts, okay—by a family. My understanding of this would be that it would simply be a matter of correcting what otherwise would be a situation of eligibility for that family tax provision that ought not apply because the provision is carefully targeted. It is targeted to families in need and the fact is that this initiative, this bill, will deliver to Australian families $1 billion of benefits. The member for Werriwa is just standing up here in his usual fashion, being obstructive, being difficult—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should address the motion before the chair.

Mr BRADFORD —I am sorry. The member for Werriwa is simply coming into this place, as he does time after time, and jumping up and down with some mock indignation about some relatively minor matter. He knows, as is clear to me from this bit of paper in front of me, that this is a technical correction to legislation which overall is extremely important. I just do not accept that he has a serious point to make in this matter. If he did, then I am sure the parliament would take him seriously. But he is just here to obstruct and be difficult. We just do not accept that way of proceeding.

Mr Latham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I would move that amendment No. 1 be laid aside pursuant to standing order 245, as the House does not believe that the Senate has the power to make an amendment in such a manner.

Mr Cadman —That has been ruled out of order.

Mr Price —It has not been ruled out.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The bill has to be laid aside—

Mr Latham —That's ridiculous. There is no bill before the House, so that provision does not apply.

Mr Miles —Mr Deputy Speaker—

Mr Price —Mr Deputy Speaker—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Are you taking a point of order?

Mr Price —I was seeking the call, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —On the amendment?

Mr Price —On amendment No. 1.

Motion (by Mr Miles) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Price —This is outrageous! This is all about trusts. Do you reckon the battlers are going to benefit from trusts?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The parliamentary secretary has moved that the question be now put.

Mr Price —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: you gave me the call.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I put the—

Mr Price —Please let me make my point of order. My point of order is that you had graciously given me the call. If the parliamentary secretary wanted to gag me, he had to move that I be no longer heard which he failed—

Mr Miles —A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—

Mr Price —Which he failed to do. I am saying, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I regret that the parliamentary—

Mr Miles —A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: a point of order can be made on the motion that the question be put at any time, and I ask you to uphold that ruling.

   Question put:

   That the question be now put.