Mr HOCKEY (Minister for Financial Services and Regulation) (8:35 PM) —Madam Deputy Speaker, the bill that we have been debating tonight, A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill (No. 2) 1999, introduces technical and consequential amendments which are necessary to complete the pay-as-you-go arrangements. These amendments include measures dealing with how the pay-as-you-go instalment system will apply to trustees, and the consequential amendments to support the new standardised collection and recovery rules. The bill also includes a minor amendment and technical corrections to the binding oral advice regime for individuals. In the committee stage I will introduce amendments to bring forward the start date of the beneficial change to the fringe benefits tax instalment system arising out of introduction of the new pay-as-you-go system.

There have been a number of speakers in this debate. Whilst my friend and colleague the member for Corangamite made an erudite and thoughtful contribution to the debate, with him as usual being a strong advocate for taxation reform, I can only reflect on the old, weather-beaten words of the Australian Labor Party members, including the member for Kingston, who just got up here and started on the old weather-beaten mantra that, `Gee, the GST is going to be awful for business' and, `Gee, the GST is going to be awful for consumers'. If they believe that, why won't they repeal the legislation? It is because the Labor Party is full of hypocrites. Every time we come into this House we have weather-beaten members of the opposition frontbench, like the member for Wills, pushing the line, `Gee, the GST is going to be terrible, but when it's introduced we're not going to get rid of it. We think it's horrible. The Australian public loathe it. It's going to raise far too much revenue and—you know what—we're not going to get rid of it.'

What a surprise that the Labor Party should be running that rhetoric. It follows in line with the hypocrisy of the Labor Party in relation to general taxation issues, and that is their failure to address the most incredibly debilitating taxation regime that has been left with us, which is the taxation regime that makes it attractive for state governments to introduce punitive, regressive taxes like the bed tax in New South Wales. The mates of the member for Cunningham, who is at the table, from New South Wales focus on extending land tax to the family home or on more poker machines. Lord knows, it would take a hell of a lot of poker machines to save the St George Illawarra Dragons. They cannot get enough revenue into clubs, so what happens? Up go the pokie taxes as the state government tries to raise more revenue, and more poker machines go into pubs. That is the simple solution of state governments to the problems of not having growth revenue at a state level—insidious taxes like gambling taxes, bed taxes and extending land tax to the family home. When a progressive coalition government comes along and introduces real taxation reform that for the first time delivers to state governments growth tax, growth revenue, to match growth expenditure that the states have in police, schools, hospitals and roads, regrettably, the Labor Party opposes it.

As time passes the Labor Party will be judged very harshly on its hypocrisy in relation to taxation. In my humble view, it will be judged harshly by the electorate on its general hypocrisy concerning policy development and policy debate, but that is for another place. Specifically in relation to taxation, the Labor Party is doing everything it can to make the transition to the new taxation system as difficult as possible for Australian consumers and businesses. Yet, under initiatives such as those in the bill before the House, Australian businesses and consumers will be much better off than they are under the wholesale sales tax regime and the antiquated taxation regime that seems to be not only a part of the folkloric glory days of the Labor Party but also its current policy. I commend the bill to the House. When the House considers the bill in detail I will be moving a number of amendments to address some issues.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.