Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will commence my contribution to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 where the previous speaker, the member for Fraser, left off and deal with Commonwealth-state relations. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will remember the premiers conferences at which there was a pre-discussion statement by all premiers blaming the Commonwealth for disastrous management and claiming what their share of the pie should be. Every Premiers Conference during the time of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, even though many of the states were Labor, was heralded by pre-Premiers Conference claims and counteraccusations. After the conference there were the traditional ‘we was robbed’ press statements from premiers. That has not happened for a long time in Australia. The concept of the Australian Labor Party that the blame game is active and alive in the Commonwealth government could not be further from the truth. I will always remember the decision that we took, following an election, to establish a consumer tax, the way in which the premiers signed up to that process and the huge cooperation there was in the tax-sharing arrangements. That was a landmark and historic example of cooperation and working together. There was no blame game there. It was a historic process of cooperation between the states and the Commonwealth.

The recent $10 billion water initiative has seen the states and the Commonwealth come together for the first time to solve the Murray-Darling problems. Never before have the states and the Commonwealth been able to agree on the Murray-Darling difficulties in the way they have recently. I know Premier Bracks still has some reservations, but it is wonderful to see that the Commonwealth and the states—even though the states are all Labor and we have a coalition federal government—have come together and, through the $10 billion water initiative, established for the first time a cooperative and workable arrangement for the management of our great water systems.

I would also like to point out to the House the way in which the states and the Commonwealth have cooperated in our management of the threat of terrorism. Our national police and security agencies have worked with state police to establish a system with the cooperative exchange of ideas and support. The Olympic Games is another example. There is example after example. This blame game nonsense that is being carried out by the Labor Party is a fabrication. There is nothing in it. When a state government like that of New South Wales is failing and is seen by everybody to be failing in the way it manages its affairs, it is fair enough to say so and to point out its shortcomings. The state governments do not hesitate to do that with all brands of Commonwealth government. They tend to say, ‘Give us the money and we’ll solve the problems.’ It is not a uniform process.

I have mentioned terrorism and the Olympic Games. What about the Tough on Drugs program? From the school and health systems, right through to the interception programs of Customs, the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Defence, everything has worked on a cooperative basis because Australians realise that we need to be tough on drugs if we are going to deal with the drugs problem. In general, there has been absolute cooperation between governments, even to the extent of personal income tax sharing to local governments and the roads programs. For the first time we have had a cooperative arrangement between the states and the Commonwealth and the funding of local government. There are not the rows there have been in the past. Peace and quiet reigns as people work together for the betterment of Australia with common goals and common objectives. It has never been like that. In my experience of this parliament there has never been better cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states, despite the political differences. Of course there will be point-scoring from time to time, but not with the viciousness and nastiness that there has been in the past.

I would like to break the budget down into the various community groups that are most affected by it. Such a massive budget is only realisable because of good management and the capacity to put down the foundations that allow Australians to succeed and our economy to build. If anything, the trouble with the budget is that it is so large and so diverse in its assistance, support and intelligent application to the needs of Australia that it is hard to get one’s head around every aspect of it. One approach I have tried—and I think it works for me and for my community—is to examine the budget on the basis of the groups of people that are affected by it.

For the electorate of Mitchell nothing is more significant than Australian families, and support for families is probably one of the most notable features of the budget. It has been a notable feature of all Howard government budgets. One needs to focus on the various needs of families as they go through the stages of home acquisition, the arrival of children—who then become teenagers—and moving on to becoming older Australians in retirement. I should begin by talking about the tax cuts and the way in which they affect families. For 2007-08, taxpayers with an income of $30,000 will receive a tax cut of $21.15 per week. It will stay at that level in 2008-09. The income range that I think is most affected by the budget and which relates to most families is $30,000 to $80,000 per year. For those on $80,000 a year, in 2007-08 there will be a tax cut of $14.42 per week, but in 2008-09 there will be a tax cut of $24 per week.

That is assisting families with money in the pocket to be able to use as they choose. This government has consistently passed back taxation where it does not need the funds. I think that is a laudable objective for governments. It is not something that has been general practice by the Commonwealth; the Commonwealth has tended to stick with every dollar it has collected, but that has not been the case for a long time under this current government. The low-income tax offset will allow $750 per year to return to families with incomes of under $30,000. That is a way of offsetting the incapacity to further lower taxation in that group, so there is almost a negative taxation process of giving funds to support those on lower incomes.

There is a $2.1 billion childcare investment, but what does it mean to families? Families eligible for the childcare tax rebate will receive two tax rebates this year, with one being brought forward. I think this is a very sensible approach, because I thought the 22-month delay before these rebates were paid was detrimental to the program. I have sought for some time for that to be rectified, and I am pleased that it has been in this budget. The childcare rebate has been brought forward, with a reimbursement of up to $4,200 per child per year. The rebates for last year and for the current year are being paid together so that there will be two payments in the one year. For families with two children under the age of five, it would be possible to be reimbursed over $16,000 for childcare costs. The childcare benefit will increase by 10 per cent, which will take it to $20.50 per week for low-income families with one child.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context