Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the Leader of the Opposition noted in his budget reply on 10 May that there is 'nothing wrong with this country that a change of government can't fix'. Today my message is to Australian industry: only the coalition has the economic credentials to help business survive and prosper. The coalition is committed to lower taxes to help attract investment in critical infrastructure, develop our position as a regional financial services hub and strengthen our economy. This tax increase will damage Australia's reputation. Some international investors feel tricked into directing their funds to Australia. The 7.5 per cent rate is less than two years old, and it will now double after investors have locked in decade-long contracts. As Peter Mitchell, the CEO of Asia Pacific Real Estate Association, said, 'The Australian government's withholding tax announcement has seriously undermined global confidence in Australia as a stable investment destination.'

We must not pass this tax increase. If we want Australia's reputation to be as a regional financial services hub, if we want crucial long-term infrastructure to be built and if we want new hotels, new hospitals and new roads, we must offer hope, reward and opportunity, not more taxes. And we must vote against this bill today.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again we stand in this House discussing a piece of legislation that has an on-again off-again approach by the government to policy development. As I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Bill 2012 and the related bill, I think it is important to recognise the constant uncertainty that has been created by constant changes in tax policy and many other policies that this government seems to foist on the Australian public and the Australian business community.

The bill's explanatory memorandum states that the Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2012 amends the Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Act 2008 to increase the tax rate from 7½ per cent to 15 per cent on fund payments in relation to income years on or after 1 July 2012. It is instructive to note that it was only some three or four years ago that the rate was reduced to 7½ per cent, and at the time we as the coalition expressed concerns. Today we see a bill reintroduced to backtrack on that original reduction. The last time this bill was referred to committee to be reviewed we raised a number of concerns about its implementation which were largely due to the retrospective nature of the changes. However, thankfully, some of that appears to have been addressed within the bill's current form. However, retrospectivity aside, we remain concerned that billions of dollars of infrastructure investments already made, in addition to future investments, could potentially be put at risk as an implication of these changes.

An analysis conducted by the Allen Consulting Group for the Property Council showed that the proposed increase in the final withholding tax revenue from MITs would have a profound adverse affect on the economy without raising the expected revenue. It is instructive to note comments from Martin Codina of the Financial Services Council. He raises the concern that people have made investment decisions based on a tax rate of 7½ per cent and now the increase to 15 per cent is going to create increased uncertainty for those people in their investment-making decision. In addition, what does it say to investors about the Australian system when these things are constantly changed? Andrew Cannane, General Manager for Corporate Clients at the Trust Company, said in a recent interview:

We don't foresee there being the same amount of take up in MIT structures as there was. And ultimately, the net loser for that will be Australia. It will result in less foreign direct investment.

We all recognise in this House that we as a nation require foreign capital to build and grow our economy. Some 50 per cent of our financing and our loan books are funded from offshore funds. Andrew Cannane goes on to say that, in the calendar year 2011, foreign direct investment into Australian property rose some 50 per cent to $7.7 billion. He estimates that well over $5 billion of that would have been into managed investment trusts. He said:

The big concern for investors is the inconsistency. The 7.5 per cent rate has only been in place for two years and it's already changed.

To return to the Allen Consulting Group report, it noted that there was a billion-dollar drop in investment as a result of the increased tax. A net tax revenue for the period 2012-16 would be estimated at some $35 million due to decreased recipients, which is less than half the $75 million predicted by Treasurer. It also found that by 2015-16 the increased tax would reduce government direct inputs by $580 million and cost more than 4,600 jobs a year.

In addition to these concerns, the uncertainty this government has shown in dealing with the rate of the MIT withholding tax raises the issue of perceived sovereign risk. How will our relationship with our international business associates fare with the continued massive uncertainty caused by this government? The dissenting report by the coalition members of the economics committee stated:

The doubling of the withholding tax rate would also reduce Australia’s international competitiveness and reputation as an attractive and certain destination to invest in.

This is only made worse in light of other recent tax increases in the form of a carbon tax and a minerals resource rent tax. I am sure it is well and good that the Treasurer speaks about the $500 billion of investment in the pipeline, but the important part in that discussion is that it is pipeline investment. It has not been committed to works on the ground. It is work that is potentially planned yet has not come to fruition. This constant shifting of the goal posts, new taxes et cetera only makes it less certain that companies will proceed with those projected investments. What is the consequence to this country if that $500 billion of proposed pipeline investment turns out to be $250 billion or less? Attracting more foreign investment is important to achieve stronger economic growth leading to increased government revenue without the need for governments to hike taxes or introduce new taxes, like the carbon tax.

The carbon tax is only five days away and is the mother ship of the Labor-Greens government's poisonous policies. Yesterday I asked in question time about the fate of 800 workers at the local abattoir within my electorate. The plan there is to shut down the operations for up to 10 days to avoid going over the 25,000 tonne carbon tax threshold. The reason they even have to consider doing this to their loyal workers and their families is that they cannot afford to lose their competitiveness against other countries, like the USA, for example. We will certainly be in a league of our own once the carbon tax comes to town. What this example tells us is that this is a government that is not up to the job of protecting our future wealth, or economy for that matter. This bill, as I touched on earlier, has been outlined in a previous bill which was then excised from the bill by the government only to be reintroduced and debated once again here today. It is important for everybody's confidence in our economy that this ad hoc and piecemeal approach—to double the tax on managed investment trusts, but generally in relation to many legislative items over the term of this government—be reduced and that we have a more streamlined process so that people see a consistency and so that they can make long-term business and investment decisions and be confident that those decisions are going to allow them to grow and build their businesses and not be penalised due to increased tax rates and no ability to plan for that. Our focus should be on encouraging further investment from our foreign counterparts through internationally competitive taxation arrangements so that we can grow our economy more strongly and not just talk fluff about how great this economy is, when in reality the people of this country have had enough.

I support the comments from the member for North Sydney, who said yesterday in his contribution to this debate, 'Do not create uncertainty.' Uncertainty is the death knell of business. We need business certainty in all areas, whether it is taxation or regulation, because that allows businesses to make those long-term decisions to create wealth for the future of this country. It is our business community—it is ordinary Australians—that are the ones that go out and create the wealth for this country. It is not governments, of whatever persuasion. Governments do not create anything. More often than not they put roadblocks in the way of people's vision for what they would like to do for their lives and the future of this country.

So I call on this government to create, or seek to create, an atmosphere of trust so that people can trust this government and the direction it is going. But ultimately examples like this bill reduce that trust and create uncertainty. It is the consistent, coherent economic strategies that were employed under the Howard-Costello government that allowed our country to grow and prosper. I think this government has ably demonstrated that it is not able to produce and stick to a coherent economic strategy, and for the future of this country one is desperately, desperately needed. As the member for Ryan quite adequately pointed out in her contribution, it is really only a coalition government that can restore hope, reward and opportunity to all Australians for the future of this country.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Bill 2012. This bill is the next stage in what has been an inglorious saga of prevarication and changing position by this government over many years. As I cast around for a term which would most accurately describe what has happened, I was reminded of my experiences as an eight-year-old boy with one of those electronics starter kits that you were given—in my case by an engineer father hoping to encourage his son in the same direction. Sadly, I turned out to be a great disappointment and became a lawyer, but I do remember one thing from this particular set. There was an exercise in building what was described, as I recollect, as a 'multivibrator flip-flop'. A multivibrator flip-flop is apparently some kind of electric circuit—that is as much as I recollect. But it struck me as really quite an appropriate term for what we have seen from the Treasurer in his conduct of withholding tax rates. This has really been a multivibrator flip-flop exercise, Madam Deputy Speaker. You would recollect, I am sure, the glowing terms in which the Treasurer announced to the world in 2008 the policy approach that he was going to take in this area. He had this to say. His words rang out through the chamber:

Our nation has the potential to be a financial services hub in the Asia Pacific Region—the fastest growing region in the world. To support this ambition, the Budget begins the process of significantly reducing the withholding tax, by reducing the current interim rate of 30 per cent to a final rate of 7.5 per cent for most nonresident investors.

We then had in the budget announcement in May of this year the announcement, to the great surprise of the financial services industry, that the rate was to increase from 7.5 per cent to 15 per cent. This came with very little warning. It emerged out of the need of the Treasurer and the government to desperately cast around for revenue to plug the massive hole that they had created through sustained fiscal mismanagement over several years and to deliver, for political reasons, on the promise of having a surplus for the 2012-13 year. With very little foreshadowing and very little announcement, it was disclosed that a decision had been taken to increase this rate—the reduction of which had been foreshadowed and announced so proudly only a few years before. With no notice, the financial services sector was told that the rate was going to increase from 7.5 per cent to 15 per cent.

That in itself was unsettling and disturbing enough, but last week we had a truly remarkable development, because last week the parliament was considering the Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 2) Bill. The bill included within schedule 4 a set of provisions under which the rate was to move from 7.5 per cent to 15 per cent. That is to say that the bill was, it appeared, intended to give effect to the announcement made by the Treasurer in the budget speech only a few weeks before. We had the extraordinary saga of the Assistant Treasurer coming into this place and moving an amendment to remove the provision in the bill which was intended to give effect to the announcement which had been made only a few weeks before. This was a truly mystifying development, and no light was cast on the mystery by any explanation from the Assistant Treasurer. He sat mute at the table, giving no enlightenment to the chamber at all as to why the government was now reversing a policy which it had announced only a month before—a policy which in turn reversed the policy which the government had announced with such fanfare in 2008. So at that point observers were, to say the least, puzzled—the rate had gone from 30 to 7.5, and it was then announced it was going to go from 7.5 to 15, and the government then moved an amendment on its own bill to reduce the rate from 15 back to 7.5.

But the flip-flop activities of the Treasurer and the Gillard government in this area have not ceased, because in the bill the House is now considering the flip-flop continues. We are now told that indeed the rate will increase from 7.5 to 15 per cent, and we find in schedule 1 of the bill a set of provisions which is identical in every regard to the provisions which were contained in another bill put before the House last week and were then excised by the government in its own amendment. The word 'curious' does not begin to describe what is going on here. I reiterate that the only term that I can find that I think best describes the conduct of the Treasurer and the Gillard government on this front is the term that I have dredged up from my own memory as a small boy, playing with an electronic starter kit: the multivibrator flip-flop.

It is easy to castigate this government for its flip-flopping, but let us turn to the serious consequences of this kind of conduct. Let us turn to what it actually means for business confidence—not just in Australia but, very importantly, business confidence on the part of international investors who are considering putting money into an Australian investment. Let us recollect that international capital is highly mobile. Let us recollect that Australia is competing to attract investment capital against many other destinations. Let us recollect that Australia is a nation which, every year, imports capital—and, were we not to do that, we would leave investment opportunities not taken up and we would find ourselves less prosperous than we would otherwise be. So the question of creating a climate of confidence, in which international investment can be attracted, is a question of first importance for any responsible Australian government as it considers its economic policy. Unfortunately, we have had a government through this sorry saga over the last few years—including the extraordinary mismanagement of the last few weeks—which has done a remarkable amount to erode investor confidence, including the confidence of foreign investors.

What foreign investors now understand to be the position of the Australian government is that high-minded sentiments expressed one year can be abandoned in a great hurry the next year to fill a short-term budget hole. We have a government which is desperately casting around to try and find extra sources of money to deal with the fact that it has engaged in profligate, irresponsible, uncontrolled spending year after year, a government which is prepared to trash policy commitments it had made only a few short years prior and a government which is prepared to demonstrate extraordinary political incompetence and mismanagement in the basic task of giving effect to the legislative changes it has announced. It is just an extraordinary piece of mismanagement, and it leaves foreign investors wondering whether any policy commitment by this government is one that will be honoured for any period of time at all, because the risk that they must face and that they must factor into any investment decision they are contemplating is that for short-term domestic exigencies, because of the desperate need to manage short-term financial pressures, a policy setting which had supposedly been a substantial and reliable commitment of the government is just abandoned without any warning whatsoever.

One of the things that business requires more than anything else is certainty. What is important for business and for investors is to understand the ground rules as they are contemplating making investments in Australia. Businesses manage their affairs over a significant time frame; businesses engage in long-term planning. Major investment decisions require a long lead time and need to go through internal approval processes. Many businesses will be planning not just for next year with an operating plan but will have a forward plan which may extend two, three, four, five or even 10 years out. As they go through that planning process, businesses will assess the investment conditions that they face, and they are much more likely to come to a favourable investment decision in respect of an investment in Australia or anywhere else if they have confidence about the certainty of the regulatory environment into which they are proposing to make an investment.

The term 'sovereign risk' gets used extensively, but it is not exaggeration to say that capricious, short-term, random changes in significant tax parameters, inconsistent with the previously stated policy of the government, erode investor confidence and erode perceptions of a stable, well-managed jurisdiction that is not characterised by sovereign risk. Australia does have a good international reputation, built up over many decades of careful custody and careful stewardship. Australia does have a good international reputation as a jurisdiction where the rule of law prevails and which welcomes foreign investment. It is of the highest importance that we preserve, maintain and strengthen that reputation, particularly in view of the fact that we are a nation which is an importer of capital and has more investment opportunities than can be funded domestically—and, if we do not attract foreign capital, we will be less prosperous as a nation than if we do attract foreign capital. Against that backdrop, the House ought rightly be alarmed at the consistent inconsistency which has been displayed by this government when it comes to the treatment of the withholding tax rate for managed investment trusts. This has been an extremely unfortunate episode and a demonstration of extremely poor management. It sends a very bad signal to international investors, and everybody in Australia who is concerned about our international investment reputation and concerned about sound economic management ought to be very troubled at the way the government has managed this particular episode.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is just a few weeks since the budget was brought down and on the night of the budget we saw the government announcing the doubling of the final withholding tax on managed investment trusts to 15 per cent for foreign investors. Run forward a few weeks and here we are. The measure was listed for debate last week with an increase in the tax from 7½ per cent to 15 per cent. It was listed for debate in the House as part of an omnibus group of bills. When the government came to speak they stood and withdrew that part of the omnibus set of bills which related to this increase in the final withholding tax.

We thought, 'This is a good sign; the government have had second thoughts about the stupidity of their decision to double this tax in such a difficult international investment climate. They have suddenly realised not only the impact in the short term but also what this will do our reputation as a reliable place for foreign investment.' But, no, within a space of 24 or 48 hours we were told that they were going to reintroduce this measure. We assumed that there would have to be some changes, that they had had second thoughts and they would have tidied up this legislation.

But what did we see? When the legislation was reintroduced, we saw that there was not one word changed in the whole thing. It is exactly the same as the stupidity that we saw on budget night, with the announcement of the doubling of the withholding tax. This of course confused everyone, including the business sector. But then we had the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, in the other place, admit that the government were effectively being dictated to by the Greens. So the legislation is announced, it is introduced, it is withdrawn and it is reintroduced, and then we find out that there is some motive for all this flip-flopping and this embarrassing approach by this government.

The Tax Laws Amendment (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Bill 2012 and the Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2012 have become in many ways a classic symbol of the incompetence and chaos that we are seeing on the other side of the chamber in the way in which they are managing so many issues. The political management of this government is in chaos, and it has been for months. This is very much at the crisis of confidence that is now characterising the seven million households in Australia and the crisis of confidence that is running across the business sector outside of the resources sector. Even within the resources sector we are seeing so many Australian companies have now got their sights set on Africa.

I worked in that industry for several years and I have lots of contacts in the resources sector. I was in Perth three weeks ago to see a lot of these people and to get an update on what was happening with investments et cetera. Half of the people that I went to see were not available because they were in Africa. Three hundred Australian mining companies are now in Africa.

In Perth I met with one of the large investment funds from the US who have been there for four years. They are very active in placing investments from the United States into our mining sector. This fellow was ropeable. I met him at the airport. He was on his way back to the United States to have four meetings across the United States with a series of investors in his $5 billion investment fund. He was at pains to single me out and to list the litany of sovereign risk issues that have so damaged the reputation of Australia as a safe investment and the 40 per cent increase in the cost of mining projects. He was beside himself that he had to go back and at every one of these meetings across the United States say to each and every one of these important investors in his investment fund that they now needed to focus on Africa.

So with potentially still several years left in the mining boom, still with a pipeline of a quarter of a trillion dollars that has not gone to FID—or final investment decision—here we have an investor, who has invested time and has lived in Perth to place these investments for the last four years, who has had to go back to the United States and had to tell people to go to Africa, that investments now from that fund will go to Africa. This is what it has come to. This government is even undermining the mining boom. It takes a lot of skill, a lot of great ability, to take what are rivers of gold and compromise them so comprehensively as this government has done. In the last few years of this mining boom every mine that we could have achieved, which would have given us another 50 years of prosperity, will now be something that goes to Africa in the main. Again, by this decision, this government sent shock waves around the world not because of the size of the decision but because of the way in which it has added to that litany of sovereign risk issues that we have now confronted. If passed, this tax increase—with no grandfathering provision, which effectively makes this a retrospective piece of legislation—will do untold damage to our reputation as a stable and reliable jurisdiction to invest in.

The night after the budget I rang contacts in the United States—Australians who are trying to place investments here in Australia—and they were beside themselves. They said that all directors over there look at are the headlines. They do not have time, with so many destinations for possible investment, to understand the nuances. All they see are the headlines. They have seen the headlines about prime ministers coming and going as though we have a revolving door. They have seen attacks on former prime ministers by their own side that make their hair rise. They have seen headlines on carbon tax, on mining taxes and on the reregulation of the labour market, which has compromised the cost structure of doing business in the mining sector here.

They have seen the way in which this government panicked in an extreme fashion with the live cattle exports, closing off 40 per cent of the protein going to our biggest neighbour. We can almost throw a stone over to Indonesia; it houses 300 million people on our doorstep, is a big part of our future and is growing very strongly. And what do we do? Three nights after a television program we send them an email—it did not even go via the ambassador, who heard of it in the car on the radio—telling them, 'By the way, 40 per cent of the protein coming into your country is being stopped indefinitely as of now.' What a way to handle our relationship. What total humiliation of a neighbour.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I draw the member for Goldstein back to the bill before the House. I think he has ranged off widely this time.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not ranged widely. What I am saying is this adds to—

Government members interjecting—

They can all laugh on the other side. This is just politics to them. This is simple and pure politics. It has nothing to do with our reputation as investors. So keep laughing! It is the way in which they deal with the serious issues in this country. This issue of the doubling of the withholding tax adds to this litany of sovereign risk issues which I have been seeking to draw attention to. Greg Hyland, the Shanghai based Regional Director for Asia Pacific Capital Markets with Jones Lang LaSalle, said recently:

People like investing in Australia because it has certainty, and when that environment changes people sit back and reassess the situation.

Obviously, when you double taxes, it's not attractive for investors. It undermines Australia as a safe haven to invest.

This sovereign risk in Australia has been monumentally enhanced by this government, and all for $260 million. Those opposite are going to sacrifice billions of dollars of investment for the sake of trying to meet a target surplus which they will never meet. They know that. They are not going to get there but, in order to try to demonstrate, that they will go to any lengths and sacrifice the integrity of our reputation as a safe investment haven.

This is so perplexing, and it totally contradicts budget night 2008. On that budget night former Assistant Treasurer Chris Bowen, the member for McMahon, announced a progressive reduction in the withholding tax from 30 per cent to its current rate of 7.5 per cent. It is a matter which was widely regarded and supported. It was part of Labor's plan to develop Australia as a financial hub for Asia and the Pacific:

The government had acted to 'dramatically improve the competitiveness of the Australian managed funds industry', Bowen said.

The move, he added, would provide a 'significant boost to Australia's ability to compete globally' and would support the aim of growing assets under our management from the current $1.7 trillion to $2.5 trillion by 2015.

How things have changed in just four short years! Now we have a situation in which the sound principles and objectives that the then minister espoused have evaporated with this bill. More so, the Assistant Treasurer has the gall to attack us for defending Labor's original policy of 7.5 per cent. He is there attacking us for defending Labor's policy, which was widely heralded and widely admired and which has promoted significant investment in this country.

There is a requirement for MITs to have an in-country office. Several major retirement funds are in the process of developing those offices, and what do we do in the middle of it? Just as people become comfortable and encouraged by this provision the government pulls the rug out. Not only that, but it does not even grandfather the provision so that they are now stuck with investments that have been made at 7½ per cent which may well not have stacked up at 15 per cent. These are multimillion-dollar and in some cases billion-dollar investments.

The Assistant Treasurer claims that we have used flawed modelling from the Allen Consulting Group. Give me a break! Talk about flawed modelling. This government would have to have the worst record of any government for unreliable forecasts. The UBS forecasts miners will pay $4.78 billion over the next four years against Treasury's estimate of $13.4 billion. Look at the budget forecast—it went from $12 billion to $44 billion after making several jumps along the way over 18 months. How can people reliably assess or make investment decisions—or any decisions, for that matter—with the record this government has?

This government will stoop to any level to distract and to play politics. This is an act of base politics. Clearly, they have done a deal with the Greens. Something will come up in the Senate, and we will have more confusion. This bill will be amended again in the Senate—you can see it coming. The Assistant Treasurer will stand up and defend the bills, knowing full well that they have done some deal with the Greens. It will confuse the investment market once again, and who knows what strings are attached? Who knows what other pieces of legislation will come into this place that we know nothing about and which are part of this grubby deal that the Assistant Treasurer is going to seek to put through with the Greens in the other place?

This government is a walking sovereign risk. This bill is part of that. The legislation should stay as it was. (Time expired)

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank all of those members who have contributed constructively to this debate. The Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Amendment Bill 2012 amends the Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Act 2008 to increase the managed investment trust final withholding tax rate to 15 per cent. This will apply to distributions made in relation to income years commencing on or after 1 July 2012.

Schedule 1 to the Tax Laws Amendment (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Bill 2012 makes consequential amendments to the Tax Administration Act 1953 to give effect to these changes. The new rate of 15 per cent withholding tax for managed investment trusts is still competitive with rates applying in other countries, and will bring us into line with or better than the US, Canada, Hong Kong and the UK. It is consistent with our original 2007 election commitment, and it is half of the 30 per cent rate that applied under the previous government.

When Labor came to office and reduced the 30 per cent tax rate, we heard howls of protest from the coalition. Peter Costello called it 'a tax cut for foreigners'. The member for Pearce was heard to ask: 'Why would you want to favour foreign investments and make them pay less than Australian companies?' But now the coalition is opposing this fiscally responsible approach that will continue to attract investment while also getting a fair return for Australian taxpayers.

You might find this strange, given that it is half the rate that was in place when those opposite were in government, but the coalition are addicted to their reckless negativity. They just cannot pass up on an opportunity to say no. Of course, if the coalition are genuinely opposed to the 15 per cent withholding tax rate, they should commit to reversing it in office. I see the shadow Treasurer is in the chamber, and I am sure he would be happy to stand up and to commit to reversing it in office. If he does that, he should also come clean about which payments and which frontline services he will rip away in order to fund this tax cut. If they are not prepared to set out exactly how they will fund this then the Australian people would be entitled to be sceptical and to take the view that the opposition's $70 billion black hole will only be getting larger and larger.

This government has taken the responsible decisions to bring the budget back to surplus on time and as promised. This responsible savings measure better balances the need for Australia to be an attractive destination for foreign investment by ensuring that Australia receives a fair return on profits to be made in Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bills be now read a second time. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with the resolution agreed to yesterday the division is deferred until conclusion of discussion of a matter of public importance.

Debate adjourned.