Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill, the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day 2015) Bill 2015, is part of a disturbing pattern that we have seen from this government not just on superannuation but, of course, in its attitude to the entitlements of people on low and middle incomes right across our country. I think it says something about this government that among its highest priorities in the super system is to make it easier for people to dodge their super guarantee obligations. This very much reflects the approach of the government to regulation, whether it is superannuation or taxation, or the intersection of the superannuation and taxation system. I think it shows a real pattern of behaviour and where the heart of this government really lies.

The heart of this government really lies, I think, with an overpowered and overpaid financial and corporate elite. Basically, this government dances to their tune. The overpaid and over-empowered corporate elite are trying to, basically, pull down many of the key policy platforms that have driven growth and social mobility in our society and in our economy. Over the last 30 years, Australia has been one of the most successful developed economies when it comes to both economic growth and maintaining social mobility. But the over-empowered and overpaid financial and corporate elite seek to take us down the American road of an increasing concentration of wealth and income at the top, a hollowed out middle-class and an even bigger army of working poor.

These people, who this government represents, are really targeting two areas of policy to achieve their ultimate aim—that is, to continue to put in place a series of policies which in United States are basically known as trickle-down economics. Give more money to the wealthy and the well to do, and the fruits of that will somehow trickle-down to those in the middle and those at the bottom. But, of course, that has not happened in the United States, where people on middle incomes for over 30 years have not had an increase in their living standards. And, of course, there is a bigger army of working poor. They do not have in that country what we have in this country—which is a progressive taxation system and a decent system of industrial relations with a decent minimum wage and decent minimum conditions for that job.

The policy justification, as I said before, behind measures like the one before us today in this bill and like what the government is trying to do elsewhere in taxation, are all about trickle-down economics. What this government is intent in doing is, basically, seek to put structural inequality into our economy and into our society, and then try to wrap it up in some form of respectable intellectual and policy framework. Year after year we see glossy reports from bodies like the IPA, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and all of those bodies that support and run this government. They put forward so-called modelling and claim it to be reputable. But what it is really all about is shifting the tax burden onto low- and middle-income earners and away from corporates and wealthy individuals.

Over the past year we have seen some stunning revelations from the Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance. It has exposed how hollow all of these glossy papers and the modelling that underpins them are. It has exposed the unethical behaviour of some of our most respectable companies. That unethical behaviour tears at the very fabric of industry and the trust that the public has, more generally, in the business community. That inquiry has shone a light on the ethically bankrupt and legally questionable tax practices of some of our largest companies.

Corporate tax is a vital part of the Australian social contract. Over the past four years corporate income tax collections have totalled $267 billion. Assuming, conservatively, that 10 per cent of corporate revenue is lost due to aggressive minimisation and evasion, at a minimum the cumulative cost to the budget is $26 billion over four years. That is a lot of money. We could do a lot of budget repair and a lot of good work in education with $26 billion over four years.

The data released by the tax office shows that over one-third of corporate entities operating in Australia did not pay any tax in the relevant year. Now, of course, among this group there were some that would have done the right thing, but there were some that did not. There are some companies that are serial tax avoiders. When a large number of public corporations are paying no tax that impoverishes all of us. The lost tax revenue must be found elsewhere from other businesses and individual taxpayers or at the expense of funding critical services. Organisations such as the Business Council have a solution to this: ignore it. Their solution to this is to make the punters pay. Their solution to this is to increase the GST by 50 per cent from 10 to 15 per cent.

As this government's tax agenda has lurched from one policy debacle to another—in fact, they are happening daily now—the BCA, through all of this, has been an ever-present voice calling for lower company tax and a higher GST. Rigorous analysis of what the BCA and others have been putting forward shows that it would result in an increased concentration of wealth and income. This would come at the cost of long-term growth because wealth concentration is not wealth creation. Wealth concentration is a drag on economic growth. We know this now from the work that the IMF and many other reputable organisations around the world have produced in recent times. But the Business Council of Australia, the Institute of Public Affairs and all the other fellow travellers who run this government are clueless or do not want to know about this advice.

It is in this context that I was stunned last week to read in The Financial Review what one of our leading, respectable businessmen said about tax. The head of the Commonwealth Bank said at The Financial Review roundtable that people think businesses are not paying tax, 'when the facts are that they are'. Well, the facts are that many are not. When many do not pay, everybody else—small businesses and individuals—pays, or we pay through the loss of services in health and education. While I acknowledge the Commonwealth Bank is—or may be—meeting its legal responsibilities, many other large, so-called respectable companies are engaged in outright tax evasion. That is what we have seen come out of the Senate inquiry. But the BCA has not spoken out about this once—not once. Yet it has the gall to go public suggesting a 50 per cent increase in the GST when the 30 per cent nominal corporate tax rate is not being paid by all corporates.

The data published by the tax commissioner is incredibly important. Few companies pay anywhere near the 28 per cent rate that the BCA is now arguing for. Few companies even pay anywhere near the 25 per cent rate that the BCA is arguing for. The effective rate for all companies is 24c in the dollar. So the very notion that this 30 per cent nominal rate is making us uncompetitive is a farce and ought not to be considered in any serious debate about taxation. The effective rate is 24c. That is the rate that is being paid by those who are paying their tax, because many are not paying anything or are paying considerably less than 24c in the dollar. Let's consider this fact: if all the companies that reported taxable income paid the full 30 per cent, the additional amount from these companies would equate to more than $11 billion. That is the extent to which people are not paying the 30c nominal rate or a 28.5 per cent rate. The average effective rate is 24c in the dollar.

Then we come to the argument from the BCA, which cites a Treasury roundup paper, which says that two-thirds of the growth dividend of a company tax cut flows to labour, with only one-third flowing to the owners of capital. This is a highly theoretical model based on an internationally-competitive scenario. It does not take into account the rampant tax evasion and avoidance that we are afflicted with. It does not take into account the beggar-thy-neighbour policies implemented by countries like Singapore, where there are many multinationals that have a zero rate. It does not take any of that into account. The zero rate in Singapore acts as a tariff against countries like ours and the good investors in this country. It is a tariff against responsible taxpayers in this country. That is how it acts. There is no way a country like Australia can compete with a zero rate. Even if we were to take the effective rate down to 15, companies would ignore it because they would be seeking to minimise their tax. This is the backdrop to the government's pattern of behaviour. They do not consider these factors when they come along and suggest big shifts in taxation, from an increase in indirect taxation through to a cut in the company rate. They will try to claim that a cut in the company rate will produce all these magical benefits, when the modelling is not realistic and does not, in any way, comply with the real practices that are going on in the community.

Much of this agenda—the BCA, the IPA and all of the other constituent elements of the Turnbull-Abbott government—is all about wealth concentration, not wealth creation. It is nothing like the 1980s and 1990s agenda of the Hawke and Keating governments. What it does resemble is the 1980s and 1990s American style trickle-down economics that I was talking about before. It is an agenda for growing inequality. At their core, Prime Minister Abbott, Prime Minister Turnbull, former Treasurer Hockey and current Treasurer Morrison all have it in their DNA that inequality is good for us because they work on a 'survival of the fittest' ideology. They do not see that the things we do together are the things that make us strong. They do not see an effective role for government to put in place effective long-term national policies like compulsory superannuation—perhaps the greatest achievement of the Hawke and Keating years. It is a savings pool unmatched just about anywhere else in the world. It is the product of a government intervention in the market to ensure that people saved for the long term. It was not just for the good of the individual but for the good of the country. But because it is a collective initiative, it is in the DNA of people who think that inequality is good for us to tear it down.

What we are seeing with this bill is an attempt to tear apart the essential infrastructure of superannuation for ideological purposes. The ideological purpose is to get the government out of the savings part of the economy, which is so important. Whilst we are the 12th largest economy in the world, we are vulnerable as a consequence. We have a small population and a large landmass with heaps of opportunity. We have always been an importer of capital, but being an importer of capital means that you are vulnerable as well. That is where superannuation comes in. It will only ever be achieved if government stands in the middle of the market and makes it a reality.

Our superannuation savings pool is bigger than our GDP. Why did that happen? It was because Labor governments, who are always the governments that put in place the big structural reforms in this country, put it there. When those big structural reforms are put in place, it is always the mission of the Liberal and National parties to tear them down. That is precisely what this bill is about. It is what the government has tried to do in industrial relations, it is what it is trying to do to Medicare, and it is what it is trying to do with the tax system. It is about tearing up a progressive taxation system and getting stuck right into the basis of fairness in the wage system in our society because, at the end of the day, what the Liberals stand for is trickle-down economics— (Time expired)

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to speak after the member for Lilley on this matter. He is a man whose passion and, I argue, whose expertise in the areas of superannuation, which this bill goes to, knows no bounds. When this genus of a bill first burst upon the scene after the 2013 election, it was referred to as the red-tape repeal day bill. When I saw the bill on the Notice Paper, I thought that, perhaps, the change in name—the fact that they had dropped the reference to red tape—had led to a change of heart by the government. Then I went to the subject matter of the bill and it became patently clear that nothing could be further from the case.

When it comes to the government, they do not know the difference between red tape and a guardrail. The government see every instance of protection and regulation which has a public good and a public purpose at its core as a target for watering down and redressing. That is exactly what we see in the bill before the House today. The government are completely lost on economic policy. They are talking about a big game but delivering precisely nothing. In these dying days of the 44th Parliament, we thought that we would see bills that went to the heart of economic management. Nothing could be further from the case. They are completely lost on tax. It now appears that they are going to introduce some vanilla form of the Labor policies announced by the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, but they are not going nearly far enough. They are simply adrift. They cannot get their story straight.

I want to talk about the amendments to the superannuation laws because there is a serious and growing problem in Australia with the nonpayment of superannuation. The Australian National Audit Office has found that up to 20 per cent of employers are not compliant with their superannuation obligations. According to experts, it is absolutely endemic. CBUS warns that Australians are losing somewhere in the vicinity of $2.6 billion a year on superannuation; that is right: $2.6 billion is being lost to workers because of the nonpayment of entitlements. Instead of addressing this issue that affects hardworking Australians, the government is this very day instead introducing a bill which will actually make the problem worse.

Schedule 1 of the bill is the main culprit. It strips down the firm penalties in place for employers who do not comply with their superannuation obligations. The situation is this: where employers do not pay their adequate superannuation guarantee contributions on time, they are liable for a charge that includes an interest component and an administration fee, and rightly so. But the bill makes it easier for those who are seeking to dodge their responsibilities under Australia's widely respected superannuation scheme. It lowers the base of the calculation of the shortfall charge, decreases the period over which the interest is calculated and removes the administration fee.

For those who work for an employer doing the right thing—and this is the overwhelming majority—these changes will not mean much at all, but, unfortunately, it is those workers who need the protection of this legislation who are going to be most affected. Unfortunately, almost 700,000 Australians—that is right: 700,000 Australians—are being dudded of superannuation that they are owed.

That is why the member for Rankin, who has seized upon the weaknesses in this bill, has moved a sensible amendment to remove the component from the bill which makes it easier for employers to flout their obligations. This amendment should be supported by all right-thinking members of this House, and we encourage members of the government to support the amendment moved in the name of the member for Rankin.

The bill dares employers to dodge their superannuation obligations, effectively. The Assistant Treasurer has said publicly that she is focused on making sure that every employee gets the super they deserve. But, like so much that the Assistant Treasurer does, it is all talk and no action. What is worse is that she has failed to read her own government's talking points, again—either that or she is simply unable to tell the truth on this. She has claimed that the changes in the bill are specific to the period in which the penalty interest is charged, but that is not actually right. The bill not only changes the interest calculation, as she has stated, but also decreases the base of the penalty calculation and entirely repeals the additional admin charge.

We feel very strongly about this—very strongly indeed—because it was the Australian Labor Party, in partnership with great leaders like the former secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Bill Kelty, who introduced occupational superannuation into this country, to ensure that the benefits of a dignified retirement, the benefits of superannuation, were spread beyond those who had previously enjoyed it. Government employees, defence employees, managers in white-collar employment and salaried employees had traditionally enjoyed occupational superannuation. It was not always as good as it looked on paper, but they enjoyed the capacity to get some occupational superannuation. But the vast majority of the Australian workforce and the overwhelming majority of women did not enjoy this benefit.

We feel very strongly about it. We are the architects of superannuation, and it has been Australian Labor governments that have sought, whenever in office, to advance the provisions of occupational superannuation, and it has been the coalition partners who have stood in the way of increases in occupational superannuation, every single time. Every single time that Labor has moved to increase the statutory requirements for occupational superannuation, it has been the coalition members who have voted against it, opposed it and done their darnedest, whenever in office, to ensure that those provisions did not succeed.

So we are proud of our strong record. In fact, in the last term of government, not only did we move to increase the statutory requirement for superannuation; we sought to make it easier for small businesses to comply with their obligations. We set up the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House which was, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, a one-stop facility to pay their superannuation. That is what we are about: ensuring that the rights are there and that it is easier for employers—particularly small businesses—to meet their obligations. Not only that, we want to make sure that we have a fair and sustainable superannuation system—one that provides for all Australians, including low- and middle-income earners. That is why we put in place measures that would ensure that low-paid workers received a rebate.

One of the first actions, paradoxically, of this government—and it shows their values when it comes to superannuation—was to remove the rebate of the low income superannuation offset and, in the very next breath, to give a tax cut to people who had superannuation balances of over $1.5 million. Nothing says more about the priorities of this government and who they stand for than that act—one of their very first acts—of removing the rebate from low-income workers and giving a rebate to high-income superannuants. Nothing says more about the priorities of the government than that one act.

So we are opposed to those provisions of this bill, and we are opposed to them for good reasons. We on this side of the House know the difference between red tape and a guard rail. Provisions such as this are a guard rail, put in place to ensure that employees have access to their superannuation entitlements as and when they fall due. We know the problems that beset employees when a company goes bust: they are pushed down a level when it comes to prioritised creditors, although the tax office does have some advantages in this area over other creditors. But we know how hard it is for those workers to chase their superannuation entitlements and their other entitlements when an employer has ceased to pay. Ceasing to pay super is one of the early signs. It is like a canary in a coalmine. You know a business is starting to falter when it is starting to fall behind in paying its superannuation entitlements. It sends up a red flag. Workers are often three months or six months out of pocket before any action, and many workers I have spoken to say it can take up to 12 months to get the Australian tax office—which is struggling, because of a lack of resources and a lack of priority from this government to resource this function—to act. Workers can be out of pocket and can struggle to ever regain their lost entitlements.

So we understand what it means. We understand that this is a guard rail, not red tape, and that is why we oppose the proposition put forward by the Assistant Treasurer and the government and why we support the sensible amendments which were moved in the name of the member for Rankin.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These repeal day bills that we have been introducing are exceptionally important to our local economy and obviously to every small business person in this country. Everyone would remember that, in 2013, before the election, we made an election commitment to cut red tape costs by a billion dollars a year, to improve our competitiveness, create more jobs and lower households' costs.

This target has been well exceeded. We have announced more than $2.45 billion in regulatory savings in just over two years from the last election. While these figures can be lost in the big numbers, it has meant that on the ground we are helping small businesses—out there having a go and trying to make money by employing people and trying to create wealth for this country—keep their focus on what is important to them: their core business and making sure they are employing people and making money. Every small business that you walk into, Deputy Speaker Goodenough—and I know, with your background, you would know—in this country, across every sector, says, 'We have too many forms to fill out; we have too much red tape.' They spend a lot of time not focusing on their business. They are—literally—crossing t's and dotting i's.

With this repeal day legislation there are a lot of reforms. There are reforms with ASIC to facilitate business to take up digital disclosure, leading to annual savings of nearly $300 million, and the Australian Taxation Office upgrade of ATO online, providing access for businesses to manage their tax affairs in a digital environment. There are upgrades to the online portal, which is estimated to have an annual saving of over $100 million as well. For smaller businesses, changes to pay-as-you-go instalment entry thresholds remove an estimated 500 thousand small businesses from the system. This means that 45,000 small businesses that have no goods and services tax reporting requirements will no longer have to lodge the activity statement. The remaining 400,000 small businesses with modest or negative incomes that are still required to lodge business activity statements will no longer have to interact with the pay-as-you-go instalment system. This is going to save small businesses tens of millions of dollars each year in red tape. We have also expanded access to the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House, which means additional employers can now use this free service. This will save them time and reduce their paperwork. The reforms through the new franchising code will also deliver millions of dollars in red-tape savings across the sector.

We also have a $5.5 billion Growing Jobs and Small Business package in this year's budget. That will build upon these initiatives. The package allows for small businesses to immediately deduct every eligible asset costing less than $20,000 purchased between budget night and the end of June 2017. Many small businesses I have visited in my community have had a lot of people making capital purchases that would have been put off. It also includes lower taxes for small business. There has been a 1½ percentage point cut to the company tax rate for small companies and a five per cent tax discount for unincorporated entities. Providing small business with a reduced rate tax enables them to retain more earnings, which is important for their cash flow, their survival and the number of resources and money they have for employing more people.

This bill forms part of our commitment to repeal counterproductive and often redundant legislation. There are also amendments to the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act to simplify this and makes the superannuation guarantee charge and penalty more proportionate to the noncompliance. There is also a tax imposed upon employers by the tax office when the employer does not meet their superannuation requirements on time. The guaranteed charge regime can be very punitive if they inadvertently make small mistakes, and this will be recognised.

The government is committed to employees receiving their superannuation so that Australians can save for their retirement. However, it is important to right-size the regulatory environment where appropriate. For example, this schedule will change how nominal interest is calculated. Currently, nominal interest is charged from the beginning of a superannuation guarantee quarter rather than from the due date of superannuation guarantee contributions, so employers have to effectively pay an additional four months of interest. This change will fix this problem by aligning nominal interest.

The second change this schedule makes to the guarantee is to align the penalties under the superannuation guarantee charge regime with the administrative penalties that exist under the Tax Administration Act 1953. This is all about simplifying penalties. The third change will align the earnings base for calculating the superannuation guarantee charge with the earnings base used to calculate the superannuation guarantee. Currently, these are different.

Schedule 2 will amend superannuation laws to enable the Australian Taxation Office to pay certain superannuation amounts, such as unclaimed super balances, directly to people with a terminal medical condition. It will also remove the requirement for superannuation funds to lodge a lost members statement with the Australian Taxation Office. The first change ensures that people who are dealing with the circumstances of being diagnosed as terminally ill or injured do not also have to deal with unnecessary complexity to get access to superannuation savings held by the ATO. Superannuation balances are, generally, able to be released tax free to people with a terminal medical condition. Super funds can already pay balances they hold directly to such people when a valid claim is made.

However, the existing law only permits the ATO to pay unclaimed super directly to terminally ill or injured people in limited circumstances. In most cases, when a terminally ill person makes a claim, currently, the ATO first has to transfer the money into an existing account in a super fund before they can access it. This creates unnecessary delays and paperwork for people who should be able to access their super. In fact, if the person does not have a super account, the red tape they face under existing law increases. For example, if a person on finding out they are terminally ill withdraws their balance and closes their super account, the person needs to create a new account just to receive their unclaimed super held by the ATO. We as a government do not want to subject people to needless bureaucracy, particularly when they are facing difficult life circumstances and are likely to be at their most vulnerable. Enacting this bill will allow the ATO to pay super amounts they hold or administer directly to a terminally ill or injured person. This will eliminate a pointless step in the claims process and provide people with faster access to their super when they need it most.

The Commissioner of Taxation also, in schedule 2, maintains a register known as the Lost Members Register, which contains details of members who have been reported by their super providers as lost. This register is maintained for the purpose of reuniting people with their lost super. The register is updated, periodically, using information reported to the ATO by super funds. This information is currently reported to the ATO by super funds, twice a year, through the lost members statement. This is a requirement under superannuation law. However, since 2013 similar information has also been reported by funds to the ATO as a result of a separate reporting obligation under tax administration law. This bill will remove the extra requirement for funds to lodge the lost member statement. It will remove an additional reporting burden for funds and reduce their compliance costs without reducing access to information as it will continue to be collected under tax administration law. People will continue to be able to use myGov to search the register for their lost super.

Schedule 3 to this bill contains amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 to modify the notification and reporting obligations applying to certain corporations that have property in receivership or property in respect of which a controller is acting. These amendments remove the unnecessary compliance costs, reputational damage and investor confusion caused by having to include 'in receivership' on all of a company's public documents, rather than only those documents that relate to the affected trust. The amendments will also reduce the administrative burden on corporations' officers by reducing the matters upon which they are required to report to a controller.

Schedule 4 to this bill repeals inoperative acts and provisions of the tax law. This includes: the repeal of the Commonwealth borrowing levy, which has been inoperative since 1997; the repeal of the tax-exempt infrastructure borrowing concession, which has been inoperative since 2012; and the repeal of various provisions relating to concessions for equity investments by financial institutions in small and medium enterprises, which have been effectively inoperative since 1999. I commend this bill to the House.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. It is disappointing, however, that those opposite would stand in the way of this bill simply because they do not understand how the changes outlined in schedule 1 to the bill benefit business, particularly small businesses. That said, this government will not subject people to needless red tape, which is why the government is proceeding with the other important measures in this bill.

Schedule 2 to this bill will amend superannuation laws to enable the Australian Taxation Office to pay lost member superannuation amounts directly to people with a terminal medical condition. Enabling the Australian Taxation Office to pay these amounts directly will cut out needless paperwork and delays for terminally ill and injured patients wishing to access their super benefits. Schedule 2 will also remove the requirement for superannuation funds to lodge a lost member statement with the Australian Taxation Office. Removing this report will reduce regulatory costs for funds that already provide similar information to comply with other reporting obligations.

Schedule 3 to this bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to simplify the notification and reporting obligations applying to licenced trustee companies and other corporations that a property in receivership or property in respect of which a controller is acting. This will remove the unnecessary compliance costs, reputational damage and investor confusion caused by having to include 'in receivership' on all of a company's public documents, rather than on only those documents that relate to the affected trust. These amendments will also reduce the administrative burden on corporations' officers by reducing the matters upon which they are required to report to a controller.

Schedule 4 to this bill repeals inoperative acts and provisions of the tax law. This includes: the repeal of the Commonwealth borrowing levy, which has been inoperative since 1997; the repeal of the tax-exempt infrastructure borrowing concession, which has been inoperative since 2012; and the repeal of various provisions relating to tax concessions for equity investments in small and medium enterprises, which have effectively been inoperative since 1999. Removal of these inoperative acts and provisions will make it easier for businesses, agencies and other stakeholders to identify the current law. On our fourth repeal day, we are building on the progress we have already made right across government to cut red tape. I commend this bill to the House.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the words proposed to be omitted—that is, Mr Chalmers' amendment—stand part of the question.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be read a second time.

An incident having occurred in the chamber—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What the minister is doing—you normally get named for that. It is completely disorderly, and he should be called to order for it.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The second reading has been agreed—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, point of order. A point of order has been taken, and you must make a ruling. We have had a member of parliament walk around the chamber during a division. It is quite disorderly.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe that Mr Tudge did not move till the result was announced, so we will proceed. I call the minister.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We had the member for Rankin on his feet at the dispatch box, seeking the call. You clearly saw that he was on his feet and were about to acknowledge him. You cannot have a situation where the call is then changed.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What has happened is that the second reading has not been agreed to, so I will put that now.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.