Mr KELVIN THOMSON(9.00 p.m.) —As is increasingly the practice in this House, the government has circulated a series of very complex amendments to the States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1997 . Those amendments virtually double the length of the original bill. Having said that, on this occasion the opposition is not going to criticise that practice and will, indeed, acknowledge the fact that we received an advance copy of the amendments this afternoon. We appreciate the government's cooperative attitude.

As has been indicated previously, this series of amendments is necessitated in the aftermath of the recent High Court decisions in the Ha and Lim and Walter Hammond cases. Part of the temporary response to those decisions was for the states and the territories to request that the Commonwealth increase their existing tax bases—both wholesale sales tax and excise—to replace the revenue which had been collected under the state and territory business franchise fees. Those requests were duly made and, as many will be aware, on 6 August the Treasurer (Mr Costello) announced increases in customs and excise duties on petroleum products of 8.1c per litre, customs and excise duties on tobacco of $167 per kilogram and increases in the wholesale sales tax on alcoholic beverages of 15 per cent. In addition, the intention to impose a windfall gains tax on refunds of business franchise fees arising because of the High Court decision was also announced.

As well as collecting the revenue on behalf of the other governments, the Commonwealth also has to ensure that the disbursement of these funds is equi table so that consumers and governments do not lose out. We all know that the government mucked up this issue. It had not properly planned for the contingency of the High Court decision, even though its potential impact was widely known. The issue did not even come out of the blue. Indeed, the issue had been looked at by the former government back in 1993, which demonstrates that a fully thought through and agreed plan should have been developed prior to the High Court decision being handed down.

Even after the agreement with the other governments was supposedly finalised, we still had chaos reigning, especially in the liquor and tobacco industries. I regret to say that this poor management of issues and day-to-day floundering reflects a government which tends to engage in knee-jerk reactions rather than forward planning.

Despite this poor management by the Treasurer, the opposition does not wish to cause any parliamentary difficulties with the passage of this legislation. Consistent with our practice to date, we will be supporting this important legislation and all the government amendments which have been moved this evening.

The shadow Treasurer, in his contribution on the second reading debate, sought assurances from the Parliamentary Secretary [Cabinet] to the Prime Minister (Mr Miles) that four conditions—which we regard as essential in supporting this package and the relating revenue package—have been met. In his summing up on the second reading debate, the parliamentary secretary did respond to that request for assurances. I want to reiterate from the opposition's point of view the importance that the revenue and grants packages have the support and agreement of the states and territories, that revenue is fairly distributed to the states and territories, that extra taxes not be imposed on Australians and that they are equitable in their impact on the businesses which are immediately affected.

In the particular context of this bill, I further seek the assurance of the parliamentary secretary that the various petroleum, tobacco and alcohol shares contained within the amendments have all been agreed to by the relevant jurisdictions. We are also interested in knowing whether the revenue shares used in the calculation of the revenue replacement payments will remain constant or whether they will be altered each year.

To conclude, I hope that the parliamentary secretary will be able to respond to this questions. I close by re-emphasising that the opposition will not be opposing these amendments.