Page 2078 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 25 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
constrained by the Opposition proposal to cut $300m in State and territory funding.
The proposed $2 billion tax package for families, which I can only describe as a cynical political ploy targeted at middle-class Australia, is centred around child tax rebates, dependent spouse rebates and child-care tax rebates for working parents. The use of the tax system to provide benefits for children is neither efficient nor fair. It would be more honest and effective to provide the assistance directly through the family allowance scheme introduced by the Hawke Labor Government.
Mr Stefaniak: Labor has not done much for middle Australia.
MR BERRY: Unlike what the Liberal Party is attempting here, Labor has not attempted to drive a wedge between middle Australia and those people I mentioned earlier who are least able to fight. I refer to the poor, the disabled and the Aboriginal families in Australia. To take advantage of the disadvantaged as a cynical vote-catching exercise is a very poor performance indeed by any standards.
Tax rebates are of no benefit to people too poor to pay tax, and provide equal assistance for millionaires and average families. Family allowances, on the other hand, are simple to administer, provided directly to the mother or principal carer, and paid regularly throughout the year when those in greatest need most need them. Indeed, the child-care rebate proposal is an elitist scheme which will benefit those in our community who are able to afford the high child-care costs. For example, this scheme would offer the very same rebate to a working couple earning $100,000 a year as to a couple earning $10,000 a year. That is just one example of the inequity of the Liberal Party's proposal, and I know that they do not have any conscience about it.
The child-care tax rebate is three times more expensive than the current children's services program, and the introduction of rebates ignores social justice and quality issues. The policy statement carefully omits any reference to increasing the number of child-care places. I agree with Dr Blewett's assessment, that the rebate system would not create one extra child-care place.
The Federal coalition has ignored the persuasive and comprehensive evidence of hardship already faced by low income families and also by a number of young people in the ACT community now experiencing hardship and homelessness. The coalition proposal will not only make the situation worse but will negate much of the valuable work we are doing in these areas.
The requirement for an up-front payment of $1,200 a year for tertiary education will remove this as an option for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .