Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This matter of public importance dealing with the problems confronting working families and the allegation that the government is refusing to confront these issues while spending vast amounts of money on its political survival is an absolute nonsense. If you go to the most important budget paper of the budget—Budget Paper No. 1—you will see that it shows very clearly that, in the 11 years that this government has been in office, it has directly targeted much of its policy work and benefits at families. Indeed, if you take a look in Budget Paper No. 1 at the period from 1996-97 to 2007-08, you will see that what has been paid to families, both by way of direct cash transfers and tax benefits, has increased by something in the vicinity of 39 per cent. What that means for families is that the government has recognised that families come in different categories of need. There are single parent families, dual income families and couple families with a single source of income. The needs of families and the choices that people want to make about their families is something that this government recognises.

Accordingly, we have introduced the very significant payments of family tax benefit part A and family tax benefit part B. Those benefits are designed to boost the income of families over the long period during the growth of their children so that families are relieved of a tax burden, which brings about something called the real net tax threshold. I will tell you how that works. Take, for instance, a couple family with two children, one aged three and one aged eight. If that family has dual incomes, with one partner earning 75 per cent of their gross income and the other earning 25 per cent, the real net tax threshold is $55,340. In other words, such a family is able to earn $55,340 before they have to pay tax. If you have a family which is a single income couple with children aged three and eight, there will again be a benefit for those families in that they will not have to pay any income tax until they are earning over $50,000. The aim of the policy has been to boost the income of families to enable them to nurture their children and give them the advantages that they require. As I said, the overall increase that we effected in that 11-year period is something in the vicinity of 39 per cent.

The other thing we have concentrated on in looking after working families is in spending an enormous amount of money on educating our people. Thirty per cent of school leavers go on to tertiary education. That is a vast change since, say, 40 or 50 years ago, when a very small percentage of people would have been able to go on to, in particular, university education. The big growth has been in the number of women who are participating in that education. They are gaining skills and higher skills, and we will soon have more female than male graduates from university. Those women want to use their skills for their own fulfilment, but the nation also needs them to work to give a return to the people who have helped give them that education. In order to do that, child care becomes an important factor in the equation. For women who have become mothers, either as sole parents or in a couple, to utilise those skills for their own benefit and for that of the nation is only possible with good child care. Therefore, child care has become a very important program and policy aspect of this government.

We have introduced the childcare benefit and the 30 per cent tax rebate, which is payable for out-of-pocket expenses above and beyond the childcare benefit where the child is in eligible child care—and, whereas that was originally to be gained through filing a tax return, through this recent budget it will be able to be accessed through Centrelink via payments at fortnightly intervals. We have also increased the size of the childcare benefit. For an eligible child using 40 hours a week the payment will go from about $118.40 to $134.80 per week, which is an increase of $16.40. This will benefit 700,000 families—a huge benefit for the working families that the Labor Party is complaining we do not look after.

The record is there; the policy is there. There have been increased policy initiatives to make sure that families, both men and women—couples in a family—have good education, that they are able to use it and that there is adequate childcare provision. The fact that there is an increase in that childcare benefit and a change in the operation of the 30 per cent rebate I think is in part a reflection of the good work that we did in our Balancing work and family report to the parliament. For the Labor Party to say that the government has been negligent in addressing those problems is patently wrong.

The matter of public importance also claims that the government is ‘spending vast amounts of money on its own political survival’. What a nonsense is that! This is an accusation from a political party that is the same political party that is tied with the trade union movement that is selling off Currawong in my electorate, which should be a national heritage property, for $12 million. It was offered $15 million by another party, but, oh no, it wants it to go to someone that it feels comfortable with. It is selling it off for $12 million to put that money into an advertising campaign to bag our industrial relations policies. How hypocritical is that? This is John Robertson who heads up the trade union movement in New South Wales. He wants to get a guernsey to come and join his other mates in this parliament. He is going to sacrifice what is a national treasure in Currawong to spend on ads to bag a government policy. What hypocrisy is that?

This is the same political party that when in office went straight ahead with its deal on Centenary House to put its snout in the trough. Under the lease that it negotiated for its benefit the Auditor-General this year has to pay $8 million in rent. The Labor Party has gouged $58 million out of the taxpayers’ purse over the course of the lease. To be hectored by such a group that, in telling the people what our policy is, we are somehow not spending money legitimately and transparently I find absolutely appalling. The rent for the Auditor-General when this lease ends in 2008 will drop from $8 million a year—Labor Party money—down to $3 million a year. That is the going market rent. The built-in nine per cent escalator clause delivered them the most immoral cash cow this country has ever seen. Not once did any of the Labor Party members over there recant or say that they would give the money back or that they had done the wrong thing. Do not lecture to this government that we do not look after families. Do not lecture to this government that we spend money improperly. You have got a big beam in your eye. (Time expired)

See this speech in context