David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Hansard source

The member opposite says 'at 15 per cent'. He should remember that when they were on the government benches, the rate was 30 per cent; not 15 per cent, not 7½ per cent, but 30 per cent. They came into this place—I remember the debate well—the member for Casey came in here and started quoting some of my comments. I remember it well. I said that we need to make sure that we have a competitive rate, and we will have a competitive rate. Once these amendments are passed—and I am confident that they will be passed by the parliament—then we will have a competitive rate.

At 15 per cent we will be competitive. It is exactly the same rate as Japan and the United States; and the UK is 20 per cent. But, most importantly, our rate will be very competitive with the rate that existed when they were last in government—30 per cent. It will be much better than that. So, on the question of the competitiveness of the rate, we are confident that there will not be any difficulties.

The member for North Sydney in his haste—amid all the hyperbole that we often get, the huff and puff and the bluster that we get from him in this place—started talking about interest withholding. That demonstrates that he either does not get it, he does not realise that we are talking about withholding tax rates in respect of distributions from managed investment trusts—distributions, not interest—or he has not read the bill. I am not sure which of the two it is. People can go back and have a look at the Hansard if they like and have a look at some of the comments that he made there, which betrayed a fundamental lack of understanding about the key measure. He does not know the difference between interest and a distribution from a managed investment trust. He wants to hold himself out as the alternative Treasurer, but he cannot get a fundamental issue like that right. It is no wonder he has a $70 billion black hole.

See this speech in context