Mr SNOWDON (11:57 AM) —Firstly, I thank the member for Prospect for her erudite contribution, which was, as a person has just reminded me, right on the money. I have to say that it is always a pleasure to hear the member for Prospect contribute in this chamber because, invariably, she espouses the position of the Labor Party with strength, feeling and reason. I know that my good friend across the table, the member for Sturt, would share many of her views. He might do it secretly, but he would share many of her views. I am absolutely certain in this debate—and I think it is registered by their non-appearance—that many government members, including my friend opposite, agree with the arguments of the opposition. How else are we to surmise their position?

Mr Pyne —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not mind exchanges across the chamber, but the member for Lingiari is verballing me in the most egregious fashion, and I would ask him to withdraw the suggestion that we support the opposition or the member for Prospect's remarks.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—There is no point of order. I think the member has made his views known.

Mr SNOWDON —I think that confirms my case. We have him crying crocodile tears about me making the assertion that because of the lack of appearance by government members in the debate that there is tacit support amongst many of them for the arguments that have been put by the Labor Party. I think it is 100 per cent correct. It is worth noting, and I will come to it in a moment—

Mr Pyne —You have got a very thin speech there.

Mr SNOWDON —Just listen and you will learn about the logic of my position. I note that the member for Scullin and other members on this side of the House have made reference to the fact that not one member of The Nationals has contributed to this debate, and I will come to that in a little while.

We know that this Tax Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Reduction) Bill 2004 seeks to amend the Income Tax Rates Act 1986 to increase personal income tax thresholds for the 42 per cent and 47 per cent tax brackets. As a result of this measure $52 billion will be spent, but you will not receive a tax cut if you earn less than $52,000. Indeed, as the member for Kingston has argued, the title of this bill ought to be `No tax cut if you earn less than $52,000'. The bill will increase the 42 per cent threshold from $52,001 to $58,001 and the 47 per cent per cent threshold from $62,501 to $70,001 from 1 July 2004; and from 1 July 2005 the 42 per cent threshold will be increased to $63,001 and the 47 per cent threshold will be increased to $80,001. It does nothing below the $52,000 mark either this year or next. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister—again as the member for Kingston pointed out—have been quick to remind all of those people that they got the milkshake and sandwich tax cut last year and they should be happy. Well they might be happy!

When we go through, as others have done, the list of electorates that do very poorly out of this legislation, we soon learn—and not surprisingly—that the seats of the wealthy and of the blue bloods in the joint do quite well and the seats of the poor, where there are large numbers of working families, do quite badly. I undertook a little exercise to test the populations of the electorates in Northern Australia. I chose, not surprisingly, my own seat of Lingiari and the seats of Solomon, Leichhardt, Grey, Kennedy and Maranoa. I discovered that in the seat of Lingiari 88 per cent of income earners earn less than $52,000 a year. In the seat of Solomon that figure is 85 per cent. We then look across to the other northern seats that I have referred to. In the seat of Grey, which is the northern part of South Australia, 92 per cent of income earners will earn less than $52,000. In the seat of Herbert the figure is 90 per cent. In the seat of Kennedy—a neighbouring electorate of mine, as is Grey—the figure is 90 per cent. In the seat of Leichhardt the figure is 90 per cent. But would it surprise you to know, Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, that the figure for North Sydney is 65 per cent?

An assertion has been made that no members of The Nationals in this place have spoken on this legislation. It is no wonder that the members of The Nationals, the Liberal Party and the Country Liberal Party—that is, the member for Solomon—have not come in here beating their breasts about this important piece of legislation. What message would they be able to give to their electorates? It would be an `I'm all right, Jack' message. In effect, what they are saying is, `I'm sitting up the front of the aeroplane in business class when I travel to and from Canberra and that is fine. But I'm also going to get a tax cut of just over $40 a week. And you poor suckers, those of you who earn less than $52,000 a year—the bus drivers, the shopkeepers, the school teachers, the nurses—won't get one red cent.'

I would like to see one person in particular, the member for Solomon, go into his electorate, which neighbours mine, and say to the people of Darwin and Palmerston, `It's absolutely terrific that the government has passed this piece of legislation because 85 per cent of you are going to miss out on any tax cut.' He will not have the hide to do that. Noone, including those of us on this side of the House, begrudges the idea of there being tax cuts; of course we believe there should be. But this is unfair and unreasonable. In essence, it is targeting those in the community who are the worst off.

About the merits of its tax package, we hear the government saying that there is an income disadvantage attached to this piece of legislation if you earn less than $52,000; but I think there is also a locational disadvantage with this package, based on a person's occupational category and where they live. Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, I know that in your own electorate the picture would be much like it is for others in your neighbourhood. In the seat of Fowler, 96 per cent of income earners earn less than $52,000 and they will not receive any benefit out of this measure.

I said earlier—and the honourable member then in the chamber took umbrage at the fact that I was positing this view—that the members of The Nationals and the Liberal Party in those seats where large proportions of the populations earn less than $52,000 a year would share our view about this piece of legislation. I am absolutely certain that when the member for Solomon, for example, gets on his scrapers in and around Darwin he will not be saying that this is a terrific piece of legislation for the bulk of the population. As I say, if he does have a message, it is: `I'm all right Jack. I've received a benefit—you will not.'

What I am concerned about, apart from the idiocy of this proposal in terms of its inequity, is that when you look more closely, particularly in my electorate, it is again penalising and discriminating against the most disadvantaged portions of the Australian population—the poorest people in this country, who live in very isolated communities. They not only do not get the benefit of a tax cut—sharing this lack with other people around the country—but they also, most particularly, have the worst health outcomes, the poorest educational outcomes, the worst housing outcomes and the worst access to reasonable infrastructure in this nation. Is there any money in this budget to alleviate that poverty? Not at all.

So, not only are they being discriminated against in terms of the tax cut, they are also not getting access to the services that other Australians, particularly those in seats like North Sydney which I referred to earlier, take for granted. A large number of the people of North Sydney get the benefit of the tax cut. They also get access to good schools, good hospitals, good health care, good housing, good roads and good communications infrastructure—all of those things. Large sections of the population in my electorate get none of them, yet somehow or other we on this side of the House—indeed, all members of this parliament—are expected to go out to those communities and say, `There's great benefit to you in this piece of legislation,' when we know there is zilch. The Australian community is waking up to this government. It is aware of the government's tricks.

It is worth noting that this argument about disadvantage is one which this government does not care to contemplate. The member for Prospect referred to an article in this morning's newspaper about HECS fees and how much money will flow into the coffers of universities that choose to increase their HECS fees. What happens to a university like Charles Darwin University, which has campuses in the seat of Solomon and the seat of Lingiari? This is a small university by national standards. It is a struggling university by national standards because of the inane actions of the Howard government since 1996. We now see the prospect that Charles Darwin University is going to increase its HECS fees. What will that do? Here we are, trying to have an incentive for young people living in Northern Australia to improve their education, to get better professional qualifications and to attend a university. We know they come from relatively poor families, but we are being told that somehow or other they should see this magnanimous gesture by the government to allow universities to increase their HECS fees as a benefit to them.

As the member for Prospect says, whether it is a HECS fee increase or a levy, it is a tax. It is just another tax. These people are being asked to put their hands into their pockets and pay more for tertiary education. These are relatively poor Australians. They are being asked to pay more for their education while, at the same time, the member for Solomon, the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and every member of this chamber, including me, cops a tax cut. It seems to me that that is neither fair nor reasonable, and it is certainly not equitable. Of course, these are the very same people that the member for Scullin referred to when he talked about certain people wearing the impact of the GST—this regressive tax. Not only do they not get a tax cut but, because of their income levels, their expenditure patterns and the GST, they also pay more in tax as a proportion of their income than other Australians, and somehow the government expects them to be happy. Let me see the member for Solomon, in particular, because he is my neighbour, and those other members from Northern Australia who I have referred to, go into their electorates and advocate the merits of this piece of legislation as opposed to demonstrating to their constituents the truth of what has happened. There is no question in my mind about the judgment people will make. Indeed, I think they have already made a judgment about the impact that this piece of legislation will have on them.

A lot has been said in this debate about other matters, including bracket creep. It is worth noting Alan Mitchell's item in the Australian Financial Review of 13 May, when he said in relation to bracket creep:

The key point here is that, not only is this not addressing the needs of the poorest people, the most disadvantaged people and those working families who earn less than $52,000 in our nation, but in the end it is also not really going to have the effect that the government argues it will have for those other income earners who are actually getting a benefit from this particular tax cut. That is a position which was articulated very clearly in the contribution of the member for Kingston. He said:

It is very clear that this legislation will not deliver as the government would argue it does. The opposition will be supporting the legislation. I commend to the House the proposed amendment moved by the opposition:

(1) failing to provide tax relief to 4 out of 5 taxpayers;

(2) providing less in income tax cuts than it will collect in bracket creep in each of the years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08; and

(3) continuing to be the highest taxing government in Australia's history”.

The Australian community understand what is happening here. They understand how resources are being shifted into the pockets of the wealthy and that people most in need of tax cuts are not being affected by this budget measure. They are not, themselves, getting tax relief. They are looking on whilst their parliamentary representatives, as a result of passing this legislation, will walk out of here accepting an extra 40 bucks or more in their pockets; and they get nothing. Let us just see the government members go out to their constituencies and say to those people who are earning less than $52,000: `Vote for me. I got a tax cut, but you didn't.' I bet they will not!