Senator WOODLEY (6:25 PM) —I want to support these amendments but I must say that Senator Chris Evans was starting to lose me. He was obviously filling in time and has debated about six other issues. I am not sure that those other issues are as relevant as he has made out. We do agree on the problem that salary packaging is causing. It has particularly shown up in the charitable organisation area but it has also shown up in executive salaries.

Salary packaging is becoming a growth industry and it is doing some serious things to taxation collection. However, I hope that when we do come to the charitable sector we will take account of the reasons why some of them do this in order to, with the limited funds they have, attract a high level of expertise that they could never attract if they had to pay a full salary. So there are reasons for that, but some of the charities have gone way beyond any reasonable arrangement. As Senator Chris Evans says, their salary packaging, at 80 or 90 per cent of the whole package, is not reasonable. In terms of that issue, I agree.

However, what we are talking about, Senator Evans—and I would like you to reassure me at this point—is the ability of one parent to so arrange their income through fringe benefits packages that they distort the assessable income in order to avoid paying the child support. It is not the taxation issue so much, it is the issue of the amount of income to assess—

Senator Chris Evans —Yes, there are two effects.

Senator WOODLEY —I wanted reassurance because the debate did seem to range fairly widely and you were starting to lose me. I will certainly listen to the minister, but at this stage I recognise what these amendments are trying to do.