Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 20 September 1972
Page: 1070

Senator JESSOP (South Australia) - I was disappointed to hear Senator Cavanagh refer to my colleague Senator Davidson in the way that he did. I was interested to hear him make reference to Ipec Australia Ltd and the sale of aircraft belonging to Jetair Australia Ltd. He is very interested in transport matters. I recall that not long ago he made reference to the business venture that is being contemplated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and Sir Peter Abeles of Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd. I thought that Senator Cavanagh's speech was an astute speech. He said that he was not in favour of the partnership, no doubt because he realised that the effort of the ACTU with regard to the running of Bourke's store was a lamentable example of business ineptitude. I can understand his interest in the TNT-ACTU merger.

I would like to take the opportunity to say something on income tax matters. It is time that the people of Australia realised what income tax would mean if the Australian Labor Party ever came to govern ment in this country. The best description of this appeared in an editorial in the Australian' of 24th August. I would like to read this article because I believe the editorial sums up pretty well what the people of Australia must contemplate. The editorial is headed: 'Whitlam must explain tax policy.' I shall read to the Senate what is contained in this article because of what Senator Gietzelt said in regard to the taxation policies of this Government which has led this country to prosperity over a long period of time, lt has led the country to a stage where most of the working people of Australia can afford not only one motor car but two of them. I believe that we are enjoying at this stage a degree of prosperity comparable with that of any other country. It is time that we took a bit of notice of what is said in this editorial which I believe sums up the situation. The editorial states: lt is now clear that the most embarrassing question anyone can ask Mr '.Whitlam during the election campaign will be whether he is prepared to guarantee not to raise taxes if Labor wins office. The Budget debate so far has been remarkable for a crushing silence from. Mr 'Whitlam on this point, lt is all very well -for Mr Whitlam to claim that the Budget's average1 10 per cent tax reduction is not really a reduction at all but, in terms of effect on pockets, merely a slowing down in the rale of tax increases. In the context of the promises of extra Government spending he has made, and of the threats of slashing income tax deductions and tightening up the tax system that both he and Mr Crean the ALP's shadow Treasurer, have made in the past few months, this attack becomes specious. If Mr Whitlam is elected to office and keeps all his promises, he will have to find finance for boosting pensions to 25 per cent of average earnings; ending the means test; handing out an immediate J 1 00m to pensioners and unemployed; reducing sales lax; raising unemployment benefits; extra, spending on schools and hospitals; pre-school education; free university education; a national scheme; and regenerating urban public transport. The inescapable conclusion is that Mr Whitlam will not be cutting income lax; he will be raising it, by 10 per cent or even more.

I must remark that what this editorial said is very accurate. The editorial posed the question: 'From where is the money going to come?'

Opposition Senators - Oh!

Suggest corrections