Mr ZAMMIT(11.03 a.m.) —I want to make a few observations, especially after reading the second reading speech by the Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime Minister (Mr Miles), in which he said that the 1936 act was `on the verge of collapsing under the weight of 60 years of constant and largely piecemeal amendment.' I have spoken to accountants about the income tax act, and they all say the same thing: it has become so heavy to lift that some of the staff are looking at putting in claims for back problems. It is about time it was reviewed and rewritten to make the act shorter, easier to understand, and with as few loopholes as possible.

I want to pay tribute, as the former speaker did, to Mr Somlyay, who was here beside me today as Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. I am advised that both New Zealand and Britain have a strong interest in looking at this project and undertaking to look at what they can do to amend their tax laws in line with the changes that we are proposing to make. That is a great tribute to Mr Somlyay and his committee, who have reviewed the bill.

The rewritten areas that, in particular, I want to talk about are the areas that cover expenses, primary production deductions, the recoupment of deductible expenses and the sale of leased cars. I am advised by the accountants that I have spoken to about these issues that these are the issues that are most open to debate. As a result of that, of course, it costs the taxpayer money to have the matters resolved and costs the taxation department time, effort and money in trying to determine who is right and who is not right and in trying to interpret the intention of the act.

I want to mention five points in particular. They are minor policy changes and I note that these changes have the support of the opposition. The five specific points that will make it easier, simpler and less burdensome for the taxpayer are: replacing the rules with which one facilitates taxpayer compliance; simplifying the rules which are unnecessarily complex; deleting unnecessary rules; removing anomalies; and clarifying ambiguities. Anyone who has anything to do with the income tax act will be very pleased that these changes will occur.

The only other thing I would like to mention is that this will have no impact on revenue. It is basically a broadly neutral impact on revenue. It is about time that this has been tackled and, as I said, I want to pay tribute to Mr Somlyay and his committee for reviewing the changes and for making this possible. It will, in time, save us all a lot of time, money and effort and the taxpayers of Australia will be very pleased with these changes, not to mention the accountants, and those who go to them to seek advice and to understand the interpretations of the act, which have become very complex.

I know in one particular case—my own case—I have sought a clarification from the Australian Taxation Office on matters that my accountant and I would like to dispute, and we have asked them for an interpretation of the act. We chose not to put in my tax return and to say that we have taken the deductions. If the ATO disagrees, they should advise us accordingly. We have decided that the best thing we can do is to ask for a clarification of the matters and then we will put in an amended return. It has now been close enough to six months and we still have not had a response from the Australian Taxation Office. I can understand the difficulty of the complexity in which they find themselves, trying to interpret something that should have been cleared up a long time ago. I fully support the bill.