Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to a letter to me from Cheryl Schuyler from Halls Gap, who runs Grampians Gifts and Souvenirs, a business that has suffered from the Victorian floods. She said:

We have only been affected by loss of trade and downgraded income—many families and businesses have lost loved ones and have no income at all and yet the Federal Government’s response is to kick people while they are down by proposing another TAX. It never fails to amaze me that a lazy government’s easy solution is just to add another Tax! People are hurting badly; adding to their burden is not the right or just solution.

What is the Prime Minister’s response to Cheryl Schuyler?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. I understand that when you go to the Australian community and say to some members of the community, ‘We are going to ask you to pay some more,’ that that is not necessarily popular. I understand that.

I understood that when I made the decision that we would have this levy. I understood it was very likely that for days and days we would see talkback radio rage, television stations conducting phone-in polls and that the quick conclusion by many would be that the community was opposed. I expected all of that, but I also thought, and I absolutely believe now, that Australians will accept that it is the right thing to do, to step forward at a time like this and to assist their fellow Australians.

I am making the same judgment call that Prime Minister Howard made when he proposed the gun buyback, that Prime Minister Howard made when he proposed the East Timor levy, that Prime Minister Howard made when he proposed the various industry restructuring funds, that Prime Minister Howard made when he proposed the Ansett levy and that Prime Minister Howard made when he proposed the levy on superannuation. I am making the same judgment call that there are some times in a nation’s history when the right thing to do is to ask the community to put in some more.

Who is being asked to put in some more? No-one who earns under $50,000 a year is being asked. Taxpayers who earn over $50,000 a year and less than $60,000 a year are being asked for less than a dollar a week. Someone on $80,000 a year is being asked for less than a cup of coffee. The levy does rise and it does hit higher income earners and so it should. Almost half of the money raised from this levy will come from those fortunate enough to earn over $200,000 a year. Almost 40 per cent of it will come from those earning over $300,000 a year. We will ask Australians to make an additional contribution—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, a point of order: in being required to be directly relevant to the question and accurate, how can the Prime Minister say how much people will pay when the Treasurer does not know how many people will be paying the tax?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar knows that that was not a point of order. The offer to her for the call for a point of order is not an offer to her to enter into a debate. On the matter of direct relevance, when a question ends with ‘What is the Prime Minister’s response’, it is a very wide question.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to the member who asked the question I agree with him it would have been wrong to say to Australians, ‘Shoulder this burden entirely through a levy.’ So we have not done that. For every dollar we will ask Australians to contribute to this levy, we have found $2 in savings or deferrals in the federal government budget—not easy decisions. The Leader of the National Party interjected before about infrastructural deferrals. The single biggest infrastructure deferral actually affects my electorate—not easy decisions, but the right decisions in the national interest.

You can come to this place and say, ‘I will always look to do what’s popular,’ or you can come to this place and say, ‘I’m determined to do what’s right.’ On this side of the chamber we are determined to do what is right. We ask the Leader of the Opposition just once—just one vote on one occasion—to set aside his political interests and to vote in the national interest.