Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity of joining in the debate on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008. This bill supports some of the decisions made by the government in the 2008 budget. The government, of course, has had quite an easy job to manage the economy since it was elected to office, given the fact that the former government had repaid $90 billion of Labor debt and ensured that the budget was in surplus. This government has come forward and somehow suggested that it inherited an economic basket case and that it therefore had to slash and burn existing programs to make sure that the government was able to pay its way.

There has been a lot of huffing and puffing, but sadly not a lot of accurate comment, on the part of the government. This government, unlike its predecessor, inherited a robust, well-managed economy. The former Treasurer, the honourable member for Higgins, did an outstanding job as Treasurer, as did the government generally as a government. We created a culture in Australia where governments have to pay their way. One has to treat a national budget in the same way as one would treat a family or household budget. One simply cannot continue to spend more than one earns. Unlike our predecessor, we made sure that the government kept within its means and we repaid debt. Having repaid debt meant that we were no longer paying interest on that debt, and in the last years of the government we were able to return a social dividend to the community as a result of the benefits of sound economic management.

Some people said that the former government, while managing the economy well, maybe did not have a heart, did not have enough of a heart or did not show enough feeling for those people in our community who were doing it tough. But everyone agreed that the government did manage the economy in a sound and responsible manner. What the new government has done is to attack our economic credentials. It suggests that we let the inflation genie out of the bottle. It claimed that we were spendthrifts. It claimed that it had to rein in spending so that the country could continue to operate. It has sought to demolish our economic reputation. It has sought to portray us as economic vandals. It has sought to suggest that we, in some way, did not have our eye on the ball.

This is not convincing the Australian community. Labor governments, like leopards, do not change their spots. The challenge for this government is going to be to resist the traditional Labor tendencies which always seem to creep into Labor administrations around the country. The families, housing and community services legislation currently before the chamber is legislation whereby Labor does give in to its ideological inclinations, particularly with respect to the baby bonus. It is ridiculous that the government has sought to victimise those families who earn more than $150,000, because the baby bonus was not seen as a welfare measure. The baby bonus was something that was provided to assist families with the additional costs of bringing a child into the world. The baby bonus has been quite extraordinarily successful insofar as the fertility rate in Australia has risen. An amendment has been moved by the honourable member for Warringah that states:

While not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1)

is of the opinion that the Baby Bonus should be payable at a tapered rate for incomes in excess of $150,000, being reduced in respect of higher incomes by $1,000 for every $10,000 earned; and

(2)

records its concern at the Government’s decision to impose a means test on the family tax benefit.

This amendment would greatly improve the bill were it to be accepted by the government, but I suspect that this government will be unlikely to accept the common sense expressed by the member for Warringah in his amendment.

The interesting thing is that the number of families in Australia with incomes in excess of $150,000 having children would not be high. I suspect strongly that the cost of administration of this means test will outweigh the moneys which would be saved by the government as a result of the means test. So this is, I suppose, an ideological indulgence by the government pandering to the people on the left of the party. I think it is really quite ridiculous that we are seeing this means test introduced with respect to the baby bonus. The means test, in my view, will cost more to administer than the savings will be as a result of depriving those people with incomes of over $150,000 from actually receiving the baby bonus.

The government stands condemned by the Australian community in a number of areas. Because I am quite keen not to tempt you, Mr Deputy Speaker, by straying too far from the provisions of this bill, I am not going to talk about things such as the way the Assistant Treasurer misled the House. I am not going to talk about the way that public servants were forced to work for 35 hours straight to produce legislation—

See this speech in context