Mr KELVIN THOMSON (2:32 PM) —My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the government planning to spend $5 million of taxpayers' money to advertise the end of the financial institutions duty when this measure will be automatically put into place by the banks? Prime Minister, wouldn't this campaign be unlawful under the Auditor-General's guidelines for government advertising?

Mr HOWARD (Prime Minister) —I am touched by the member for Wills's new-found, unbounded faith in financial institutions—very interesting. Let us make a note of that: the member for Wills says that, if a financial institution says something, you do not have to do anything about it. Does that leave your corporate governance policy in the dustbin? Are you just going to rely in future on moral suasion rather than any changes? It is very important to tell people of the end of the financial institutions duty, Mr Speaker—which, let me remind you, you voted against. You voted against it, remember? Remember when you lined up to oppose the abolition of the—

Mr Crean —Wrong!

Mr HOWARD —Oh, we are wrong! I see. So we are wrong on this too! How could we get it so wrong!

Honourable members interjecting—

Mr Leo McLeay —They have all gone mad, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER —If the Chief Opposition Whip has a point of order, he will come straight to it or resume his seat.

Mr Leo McLeay —I will, Mr Speaker. I am sure you did not vote against the financial institutions duty tax, and you might ask the Prime Minister to address his remarks.

Mr SPEAKER —The Chief Opposition Whip will resume his seat. I had noticed that the Prime Minister had been directing his remarks deliberately—

Mr Horne —What was the last at Sandown, John?

Mr SPEAKER —The Member for Paterson! The chair is endeavouring to address the chamber and you have the sheer, barefaced audacity to interrupt.

Honourable members interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —When the House has come to order! The Prime Minister will address his remarks through the chair.

Mr HOWARD —The member for Hotham says, `Oh no, we didn't vote against it; we only sort of voted against the means to finance the abolition of it.' In other words, he is in favour, along with his leader, of spending more, he is in favour of having a larger budget surplus and he has found a magic way of abolishing the financial institutions duty as well. The member for Hotham really is the original magic pudding.

Let me simply say to the member for Wills that I think the experience of members on both sides of the House has been, over the years, that you should never assume, just because you have made one announcement about a budget measure and because it has been communicated in various interviews, that there is a widely disseminated understanding within the community of the announcement. Nor should you assume that every corporate institution in this country automatically, with alacrity and from the very first time that it ought to do so, delivers every single benefit that it ought to deliver to its customers. I have great faith in corporate Australia. I think I probably have a bit more faith in corporate Australia than the member for Wills, who spent, I imagine, a large part of his public career in fact attacking corporate Australia. Nonetheless, I think it is necessary to inform the consumers of Australia of their rights.

The really good news on 1 July is that financial institutions duty will go, courtesy of tax reform. The other bit of good news on 1 July is that the company tax rate will fall to 30 cents in the dollar, courtesy of taxation reform. The other bit of good news on 1 July is that dividend imputation credits will be available for older Australians. Of course, if you want some further indications of other good news on 1 July I commend a full-page advertisement in yesterday's Sun-Herald.

Mr McMullan —Mr Speaker, on a point of order relating to relevance: it was a very important question concerning whether the advertising was in breach of the Auditor-General's guidelines or not—whether it was in fact illegal. That is very important and has not been answered.

Mr SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business knows that a point of order must be a point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister has concluded his answer.