Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

My electorate of Mitchell is truly the electorate of the working family: 48.6 per cent of my electorate of Mitchell is made up of families with dependent children. That is the highest level of any electorate in Australia. However, according to this government’s divisive formula, many of these families in my electorate are now to be classed as ‘rich’. The Labor government’s blanket $150,000 threshold, above which you are some sort of greedy, capitalist robber baron living the life of luxury, is a farce. The Treasurer’s and the Prime Minister’s obsession with 19th-century class struggle will see a significant proportion of the people in Mitchell saying goodbye to their family tax benefit B and goodbye to the baby bonus. Working families in my electorate are certainly to be worse off.

As reported by the chief economist at the Housing Industry Association, Harley Dale, a family income of $150,000 must be seen in the context of Sydney’s median house price of more than $500,000. A family with an income level of $150,000 that took on a lot of debt to buy a house a couple of years ago would be facing a repayment burden now which would certainly mean that they were not well off; it would be insulting to refer to them as rich.

While I support the increase in the childcare tax rebate, I ask why Labor decided not to means test this rebate, yet for the family tax benefit part B, which supports all families, especially a significant percentage of stay-at-home parents—most of whom are in my seat of Mitchell, at 32 per cent—it decided to implement a means test. It is clear that the Labor government does not support the value of stay-at-home parents. Is a family with a stay-at-home mother or father not a working family? What does Labor have against these types of working families? If you fit in with Labor’s narrow definition of a working family, then you will receive some help with this budget. If you do not, then you will get nothing. Why are family tax benefits and the baby bonus now means tested while the childcare tax rebate is not? Millionaires can send their kids to child care and receive a 50 per cent rebate whilst struggling working families with a stay-at-home parent receive no assistance.

Let us be clear here: this is not a means test; this is an ideological test. Labor is obviously of the view that caring for children at home has less value than caring for children in institutions. Try telling that to the 32 per cent of parents in my electorate who choose to stay at home and care for their young children. These parents were well represented by full-time mum Kate Iori, who spoke out after the budget in the Australian, saying that they, being the Prime Minister and the Treasurer:

... are creating this us-versus-them mentality. I feel like we are getting hit from every conceivable angle. I think Rudd has it in for middle class people.

He certainly does. On one hand, no matter what your income is, you receive an increased childcare tax rebate, yet if you decide to care for your own children and your family is on a combined income of greater than $150,000 you lose family tax benefit part B. What message is Labor trying to send? Labor has always held, as a remnant of 1970s feminism, a deep lack of respect towards stay-at-home parents, but that has never been so blatantly displayed before. As the Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson, has pointed out, we believe family tax benefit part B is a benefit that recognises mothers and fathers who stay at home and raise children, and this means test should actually be on a mother’s income and not on that of her husband. (Time expired)

See this speech in context