Mr ROCHER(1.41 p.m.) —In my speech on the second reading I did address some remarks to this then anticipated amendment and I again express my gratitude to the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) for giving me some advance knowledge of it.

My interest embraces two particular concerns. The first is that, by raising the threshold from $1,000 to $1,500 before which subsequent expenditure over that threshold may then attract a 20 per cent tax rebate, the government has in fact invoked an increase of some 50 per cent. That of itself is remarkable. But, more importantly, I am concerned for those not so well off in our community who under present arrangements have to spend more than $1,000 after Medicare refunds and even private health insurance refunds in any one year. For someone battling, to have to dig into their pockets to meet expenditure in excess of $1,000 at present, or $1,500 as it is to be, they have really had a bad year, and to be deprived of some small relief by way of the 20 per cent tax rebate for up to $500 is going to make that bad year just a little bit worse. I wonder whether on equity grounds it is fair. I suppose if it were means tested—heaven forbid, given the complexity of that—it might satisfy my concerns, but there will be people not so well off in the community who will have to meet, without tax relief, expenditure of up to $500 more, and that is to be regretted.

The second part of my interest in this proposed amendment concerns matters of fact. In the supplementary explanatory memorandum we are told that the effect of this measure will be to benefit the revenue by some $45 million to $50 million in a full year. My simple arithmetic approach suggests that, given that 20 per cent of $500—the amount of the increase—is $100 and a total take of somewhere between $45 million and $50 million is expected, the cost impact estimate anticipates that there will be some 450,000 to 500,000 Australians affected by this measure. I might have missed some basic fact and there might be some other matters come into play, hence my reason for raising it at this time. If indeed the results of my simple arithmetic are all there is to this matter and the cost impact benefit to revenue is estimated at $45 million to $50 million in a full year, it is an amazing statistic. I simply find it very difficult to believe that 450,000 to 500,000 people might be affected. Hence, as I say, my reason for raising the matter. I would welcome any explanation the minister might have at hand. I did foreshadow it in my speech on the second reading and I am sure the advisers have had a chance to check it out.