Senator STOTT DESPOJA(4.42 p.m.) —The Australian Democrats once again believe that if this government was concerned about families and people with dependents they would have left the threshold at $28,000, at the average weekly earning figure. I think it is a pretence that the government is supporting this amendment because it is concerned about families and individual circumstances.

What I believe Senator Harradine's amendment demonstrates is that the tax system does recognise that there are some groups in our society, some categories, that should be exempt from payments. The Australian Democrats, as the minister referred to earlier, proposed an amendment—not an amendment that we considered perfect or the best amendment because we far preferred the idea of the threshold staying at its current or former level—that sought to take further the principle that some people should be exempt. As you recognised in your comments before we divided, in fact the amendment proposed by us would affect more graduates and more people in our community by seeing the threshold raised to around $24,450.

The taxation system recognises that low income earners should have their taxation payments reduced. I believe that as part of the 1993 budget process a low income earners tax rebate was introduced. This rebate is paid in full to all taxpayers earning less than $24,700 and phases out to $24,450. The amendment that you referred to earlier and that we proposed in light of Senator Harradine's amendment was that a person in receipt of the low income earners taxation rebate would not have to pay back their HECS. This would have the effect of reducing the threshold at which graduates begin to repay their debt from $28,000 to $24,450, but it is now roughly $20,000 per annum. If the threshold for the low income tax rebate is raised, then so too will be the threshold for tax.

You were unable to give us an understanding of how much this would cost, but I have no doubt that the proposed Democrat amendment would cost far more than Senator Harradine's amendment; otherwise, I suspect the government may have considered it. I acknowledge that there is support for Senator Harradine's amendment, but I would like us to at least acknowledge why that amendment is being supported.

I cannot believe that this government is genuinely concerned about dependants and family circumstances. I have to ask: Minister, when you referred to weekly repayments of the HECS as being the price of a movie ticket, were you suggesting that it is a lot or it isn't a lot? To me, it seems roughly the same as what your government is promising in the form of the family tax package. Mind you, what some families will get per week as a result of your family tax initiative will be completely countered by the increase in HECS and other payments that families are expected to endure.

Is it a big deal or isn't it? You keep telling us that the amount families will get through the family tax initiative is a huge amount. We have concerns with Senator Harradine's proposal, but we also acknowledge that we are now in desperate circumstances. We are doing our best to alleviate the many harsh aspects of this legislation.