Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House how changes to the tax and family benefits system are assisting Australian families? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?

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

I thank the honourable member for Bonner. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that he is the best member of parliament that Bonner has ever had.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Roxon interjecting

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gellibrand is warned!

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

One of the highest priorities of this government has been helping families, because we believe that there is no more important institution in Australian society than the family, which is the natural unit for raising children and preparing them for life and building our future as a society and a country. That is why this government has been cutting income taxes and increasing family benefits. In 2007-08, a single income family with two children on average weekly ordinary time earnings will have a disposable income in real terms 34.6 per cent higher than they had in 1996. A big part of that has been tax cuts. The government has cut all tax rates and raised the thresholds at which they apply.

A very strange document was given out in a clandestine way yesterday. It was a document prepared by the member for Lilley, which he apparently distributed to his MPs but did not put on the website and did not put out publicly. I had to purloin a very badly photocopied copy—and I would ask members of the media, if they have a better copy, whether they could give it to me in due course. It was not put out publicly. Normally, when you put out an expose on the government you put it out for the world to see, because it is supposed to be an expose. I have never in my life before heard of a secret expose—but then we have never had someone like the member for Lilley before, have we?

One of the alleged myths—according to this secret expose—that I am going on about is my claim that Labor does not have a tax policy. The secret expose says that Labor does have a tax policy: ‘In May 2005, Labor outlined its alternative tax plan.’ Have a think about that date of May 2005. I had to think about that myself. What happened in May 2005? I can tell you this: the member for Brand was the Leader of the Opposition. This is a pre-Ruddite tax policy. Apparently, it still stands, because it is a myth to claim that Labor does not have a tax policy when it has a tax policy and it was released in May 2005. One of the things that is apparently in this policy is that the 30c rate should cut in from $26,400. In fact, it cuts in from $30,000, so if this policy stands that would be putting tax up for people earning between $26,000 and $30,000. If this policy still stands, the threshold for the 42c rate should be raised to $67,000. There is no 42c rate. The 42c rate has been abolished. There is a 40c rate. If this policy stands, the 47c rate should go up to $100,000. There is no 47c rate. There is a 45c rate, and it cuts in not at $100,000 but at $150,000 and soon will cut in at $180,000. This is apparently the tax policy that still stands. The only way in which it could be interpreted is that the Labor Party will raise rates and lower thresholds.

No wonder the heads are down on the back bench, because this document has been circulated in all seriousness to members of the ALP. You might get away with this stuff at a local branch meeting. But in the court of public opinion, where taxes count and mean something, you cannot go on with this rubbish; you have to actually have an economic policy. I quote:

When the history of this parliament, this nation and this century is written, 30 June 1999 will be recorded as a day of fundamental injustice—an injustice which is real, an injustice which is not simply conjured up by the fleeting rhetoric of politicians. It will be recorded as the day when the social compact that has governed this nation for the last 100 years was torn up.

Who said those words?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Churchill.

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

No, it was not Churchill.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

FDR.

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

No, it was not Roosevelt.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

John Kennedy.

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

No, it was not Kennedy.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Dalai Lama.

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

It was not the Dalai Lama. This was said in the parliament—that this was not ‘fleeting rhetoric’, that this was ‘a day of fundamental injustice’. Who said those words? None other than the Leader of the Opposition, the economic conservative. The ‘day of fundamental injustice’ was when we swept away wholesale sales tax, financial institutions duty, bank account debits tax, stamp duties on share transactions, when we cut income tax rates, when we increased thresholds—that was ‘a day of fundamental injustice’. Now he says it is a myth to claim that Labor has no tax policy because the tax policy is the Beazley tax policy of 2005. When you are getting ready, seriously, to engage in a policy discussion, the Australian people are entitled to look at it and know what it means, but this is not an opposition that is anywhere near that point.