Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Wakefield for his question. I can tell him that not only has the government reduced tax—and I gave an example a moment ago to the House of somebody on $30,000 who, over three years, has had a reduction in their tax bill of 45 per cent—but the government, in addition to that, has introduced family tax benefits. So if you happen to be a family with children, you have not only got the benefit of tax cuts but you have got the benefit of family tax payments as well.

Let me give the House another example. A family on average weekly ordinary-time earnings, with the second partner working part time for one-third of that amount, in 1996-97 would have had a disposable income of $52,052, in today’s dollars. As a result of both tax cuts and family tax benefits, that family will have a real disposable income of $67,151, an increase of 29 per cent in real disposable income. That is your classic family in Australia: one partner, usually the father, is on average weekly ordinary-time earnings; mum has gone back into the workforce for a couple of days a week and is on one-third of average weekly ordinary-time earnings; they have two children, because they have not yet taken up the invitation to have one for the country; and their real disposable income in 2007-08 dollars has increased from $52,052 to $67,151—a 29 per cent increase in real disposable income.

As we all know, on 30 June this year, we will be celebrating ‘fundamental injustice day’—the day which the Leader of the Opposition proclaimed as the day which will be written as the fundamental day of injustice of the 20th century, when this government reformed the tax system. As we move down—and I am going to move down to ‘fundamental injustice day’ over the next 33 days—we are going to look at how ‘fundamental injustice day’ has affected Australian families. Well, there is a classic Australian family that, in 2007-08 dollars, will have had an increase in their real disposable income of 29 per cent.

I am asked: are there any other policies? It seems to be an open question as to whether the Labor Party can find anything wrong with the tax system, because if they can, they are not saying it, and they are certainly not putting forward a policy for the next election to address it. If Labor will not put their policy out before the election, we are entitled to conclude that it is no vote winner. In fact, if they will not put their policy out before the election, we are entitled to conclude that it can only be moving one way—and that is to the detriment of Australian families.

We have evidence of this, because the Labor Party has form. The last tax policy that it put out, for the last election, was going to make families worse off. It was going to make them worse off by taking away the $600 per annum per child family payment.

I have previously read to the House one of Australia’s great literary works on this subject, The Latham Diaries, which explains who the author was of taking away the $600 payment and what the rationale was. I was a little surprised to read in the Australian on Saturday that The Latham Diaries are contested on this point. I was a little surprised to read the member for Lilley saying of the tax policy in the 2004 election:

We did a fantastic job ... The problem was the design flaw that was inserted at the insistence of our previous leader.

It did not have anything to do with the member for Lilley! Here he is, dumping on one of Australia’s stay-at-home fathers, suggesting that it was all the work of Mark Latham and it had nothing to do with him. He even got up in parliament last Thursday after I raised this in the House—and, by the way, I again tender the names on the front of the tax and better family payment plan: Latham, Crean and Swan—and claimed that he had never said that this was not a real payment.

So I went back through my file of cuttings and I found in the Australian on 9 September 2004 a clipping titled ‘$600 will disappear, ALP insists’. It states:

... Mr Swan said the $600-a-child payment was a “fool’s gold”.

It’s not real - it disappears.

Oh really? He never claimed it was not real! This is a quote in the Australian on 9 September 2004.

See this speech in context