Mr CREAN —I direct my question to the Treasurer. I seek clarification of section 38 of the government's new 10 per cent tax on almost everything bill. Treasurer, will you confirm that under this clause the transport of imported goods within Australia will be GST free whereas the same transport of identical goods produced in Australia will face a GST? Treasurer, why are you providing this benefit to imported goods which is not available to Australian made goods? Won't this simply encourage more imports, a worse balance of payments result and even higher increases in the foreign debt?

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Hotham has actually sought details of clause 38 which is, I would have thought, going beyond the anticipation arrangements, because that is what we would expect to occur in the consideration in detail stage in the chamber. That is what the anticipation rule is about.

Mr McMullan —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on that very matter. I appreciate that this is a very vexed question, but the basis upon which we proceed with regard to exactly the terminology of the member for Hotham's question is the advice which we received and on which we proceeded without any standing order being taken against us right throughout the debate on the workplace relations bill when we asked questions, particularly about the preamble, precisely in the terms used by the member for Hotham, and they said, `We seek specific clarification of matters with regard to your bill.' That was the basis of our advice. It was upheld on every occasion during debate on the workplace relations bill.

Mr Downer interjecting—

Mr McMullan —No, it was not, you fool.

Government members interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —Order! Members on my right! The member for Fraser has the call and is making a deliberative point of order.

Mr McMullan —We can only operate as an opposition on the basis that we are going to get consistency of ruling, and that is the basis of the advice we received upon which we acted and was upheld on every occasion during the course of that very important bill.

Mr Reith —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, which also goes to the anticipation rule. It has been put to you that this is a vexed matter; it is not vexed at all—in fact, there is quite clear precedent on it. The fact that the opposition disguise their questions with some preliminary remarks does not detract from the simple point that the anticipation rule does not allow questions which go to the details which will be canvassed in the second reading debate.

When I say it is not vexed, I refer you to House of Representatives debates in November 1988. I put to you that the same rule that applied then should apply now. On that particular occasion a question going to particular details was put to the then Treasurer of the day and Madam Speaker then said, `The Treasurer will keep clear of the bill.' I could go on with a quote from the now Leader of the Opposition, who himself made exactly that point, referred to House of Representatives Practice and made it clear that a minister is not entitled to be directed to canvass details of a bill. On that point, I put to you that your tentative ruling is the right ruling and should be the order of the day.

Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to pages 511 and 512 of House of Representatives Practice . Under the heading `Anticipation of business', it states:

The principle established by rulings from the Chair is that questions seeking to elicit information about proceedings pending in the House are permissible provided they do not anticipate the discussion itself or invite a Minister to do so. For example, in 1976, Speaker Snedden disallowed a question because it invited anticipation of the second reading speech and the arguments and principles upon which the legislation was based. However, he later permitted a question asking whether certain people would be disadvantaged under legislation then before the House. The Speaker ruled, in response to a point of order alleging inconsistency in the two rulings, that the second question was in order as it was simply seeking information about the legislation.

My first question to you, which is no different in essence at all from the question that has just been asked, sought information in relation to the impact of the GST legislation contemplated in this House on whether or not a pensioner in public housing would receive compensation in the same way as a nursing home resident. This second question that has just been asked by the deputy leader seeks information—

Mr SPEAKER —I am well aware of the second question.

Mr Beazley —on whether or not a GST will apply to imported goods in a way that is dissimilar from that applied to goods produced domestically. It is in entirely the same genre and in complete keeping with the Speaker's ruling at that time.

Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat and I will rule. I interrupted the member for Hotham because he specifically asked a question about section 38 of the legislation, seeking the sort of detail that one would expect to emerge in the detailed stages of the debate. As such, it is reasonable, I believe, to apply the anticipation rule because this is seeking information on what will be debated in the detailed stages of the debate. I am happy to reconsider the member for Hotham's question when rephrased.

Mr CREAN —If I can address that point, I will rephrase the question this way: will the Treasurer confirm that under his 10 per cent tax on almost everything bill, the transport of imported goods within Australia will be GST free, whereas the same transport of identical goods produced in Australia will face a GST? Treasurer, why are you providing this benefit to imported goods, which is not available to Australian made goods? Won't this simply encourage more imports, a worse balance of payments result and even higher increases in the foreign debt?

Mr SPEAKER —I will allow the question. It is clearly not necessary for the Treasurer to respond in detail, but the general principles of the tax reform may be addressed.

Mr COSTELLO (Treasurer) —We do not take seriously the Labor Party's proposition that a new tax system which takes taxes off exports is somehow going to worsen the current account. The Labor Party taxes business inputs under its wholesale sales tax. What is more, the Labor Party taxes all transport in Australia, both of imported goods and domestic goods. The Labor Party taxes 22 per cent on all trucks and 43 per cent on all diesel, which under our system will be dramatically reduced. Under our system of tax, all taxes on business inputs come off exports—$4.5 billion off exports.

Mr Crean —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. My question went to the cost of imported goods and transport and why it will be treated differently from domestically produced goods, not the export issue. This is an issue that he has to address.

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Hotham will resume his seat. I had not interrupted the Treasurer on the point of relevance because he was, in fact, referring to transport, which I thought was perfectly legitimate.

Mr Crean —He hasn't once mentioned imports in relation to his tax package.

Mr SPEAKER —The Treasurer has the call.

Mr COSTELLO —I was asked a question about the effect of tax reform on the current account, exports and balance of payments.

Mr Crean —Imports, you goose!

Mr COSTELLO —Let me just tell you that balance of payments covers exports and imports; it covers both. I was asked a question about the balance of payments. A new tax system which takes tax off exports helps the balance of payments—$4.5 billion off exports, $4.5 billion that the Labor Party opposes taking off exports. This is the side of the House which has a new tax system and it will help Australian exporters.

Mr Crean —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. Why won't he address the new tax he has now put on Australian-made but not imported goods when they are transported in Australia?

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Hotham will resume his seat.

Mr Crean —Because you're wrong!

Mr SPEAKER —Has the Treasurer completed his answer?

Mr Costello —Yes.