Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600  Tel. (062)72 6994.

Leader of the Opposition

Australian Government Centre  Chifley Square, Sydney, N.S.W 2000  Tel. (02) 239 3050

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE, SYDNEY, SUNDAY 14 JUNE 1987.

Q (inaudible) .

JWH Well it's the latest desperate lie of the Labor Party in this election campaign. Nothing we  proposed in the Medicare area is the least bit  illegal. There will be no repudiation of agreements  between the Federal Government and State Governments  by a Howard Government. It's the Hawke Government Ã¢ÂÂ

that repudiates agreements with the States. Remember the Lemonthyme and the Tasmanian logging?  The savings in our tax policy are totally unrelated  to the health agreements with the States. There  will be no interruption. They haven't even read  what,we have proposed. That gaggle that met in  Melbourne last night is merely a collection of

people who are pulling a political stunt. Our  proposals to cut payments to the States will affect  only half of one per cent of total State Government  spending of $60 billion. I would say to all of

those State Premiers that if you can't carve half of  one per cent out of your State Budgets by  eliminating waste and eliminating extravagance you  deserve to get thrown out at your next State  elections. I dismiss the whole exercise in  Melbourne last night as a total political stunt.

JWH That's ludicrous because there is nothing illegal  that we are proposing. It's just part of the lie  pattern. If you can't knock a policy over with a  decent argument - and they haven't been able to do

that - you resort to lies. There's nothing illegal.  There is nothing that we propose in the Medicare  area-and the savings that have been produced-that  remotely affects the agreements with the States.

Can I just say one other thing: This week, as last  week, is going to be dominated by the taxation  issue. So far the Government hasn't found a decent  argument. We propose tax reform - tax reduction -

because we believe it will be beneficial for the  Australian economy. The Prime Minister's trying to

Q What about the High Court challenge? Ã¢ÂÂ

make people feel guilty about supporting a program  of tax reform. He's adopting an attitude of Â·

paternalism instead of offering people hope. This  afternoon I have issued a detailed economic  statement which blows out of the water all of the  economic arguments that have been used by Hawke and  Keating a nd.others against our tax reform program.

It is in the national economic interest that this  country has lower taxation, lower government  spending and we offer this program not only because  it will reward hard working Australians, but it is .

in the national economic good that.we cut tax,  eliminate waste and cut government spending. .

(inaudible)... the Opposition's tax policy, you all  saw the Joh Bjelke-Petersen/John Stone (-inaudible)

The policy that I put forward is going in precisely  the same direction as the policy that was released  yesterday. I think our policy is a good one. I

think it is a sound one. I think it's got a

pro-family bias which people want and it is  eminently achievable. -

Could there b6 a place for Mr Stone on the front .   bench? .

Well Mr Stone's a very able man. I know him well. He talks good economic sense. The question of who  is on the front bench in a Howard Government is  something that I will keep to myself until after the  election. .  .

(inaudible)... the opinion polls today, Mr Howard.

I beg your pardon? .  .

AnotherÂ· bad showing in the opinion polls.

Well I don't know - it depends which one you read.

"The Times on Sunday". .  .  .

Well we're going to have a mountain of opinion polls  between now and the election and I don't intend to  comment on every one. .  Â·

ÃÂ¿

JWH

Q

JWH

Q

JWH

0

JWH

Q

JWH

0

JWH

0

Mr Howard, how can cuts to the States work if  there's wholesale opposition by all the States, or  by the majority of States?

.  Well it is a completely political exercise. I meanÂ·  you don't seriously mean to tell me that a. meeting  of Unsworth, Cain, Burke and Bannon with Hawke a  week after an election campaign has commenced is  going to produce anything other than, anti-Liberal

rhetoric based on lies and unrealities.

But their stand would continue if you were elected.

No it w on't .

Why not? .  .

State Premiers after electionsÂ· become eminent  realists. I have dealt with them before. They make  a lot of noise during a campaign. But when it's  over they knuckle down to the reality and the  reality is that all I am proposing to do to the  States is take half of one per cent.off $60 billion  of expenditure. Now if they can't cut that fat,

that.extravagance, that waste, out of their State  Budgets they deserve to be thrown out by their own  electorates and replaced by Liberal administrations  that will do it with gladness.

Would Mr Stone, be your Treasurer if you are elected  on July 11? '

I'm not going to comment on the composition of my  Cabinet after I'm elected.

/ You wouldn't have a Treasurer who is sitting in the  Upper House though, would you - in the Senate?

I'm not going to comment on the composition until  after I'm elected. .

What's your view of the dumping of Mr C o H a r d ?

Well that's a matter for the National Party. I like  -  Stan Collard but that is a matter for the National  Party.

Would any Treasurer have to support your new tax  Ã¢ÂÂ¢  package? Ã¢ÂÂ   .

JWH I've dealt with that.

TREASURER

PRESS  RELEASE NO.

EMBARGO MIDNIGHT SATURDAY 13 JUNE 1987  STATEMENT BY THE TREASURER, HON P.J. KEATING MP

LIBERAL TAX PROMISES NOT ALL THEY SEEM

Mr Howard's proposed tax cuts are a very expensive election bribe. He knows they could never be paid for. But even taking the promises  at face value not everybody does as well as Mr Howard would have  them believe.

Sole Parents and Widows/Widowers

The Liberal proposals for sole parents are both callous and  cynical. Mr Howard has attempted to make much of the fact that he  is targetting benefits to single income married couple families with  children (20 per cent of households). But according to Mr Howard if  the income earner dies, not only does the family lose that source of

income, Mr Howard will also grab back $15 of family allowances each  week. Only Mr Howard could show such insensitivity.

Liberal Tax Cuts are Smaller than Labor's

Mr Howard is proposing to fund a single tax cut with a three year  program of expenditure reductions. That is he is promising one tax .   cut in the next three years. Over the last three years Labor has  cut taxes for someone on $500 a week by $20.42. Mr Howard proposes  a cut of only $11.46 over the next three years. The attached notes  set out more detail on these points.

Nursing Home Benefits and Pharmaceuticals

By supposedly quarantining most of the Commonwealth's Budget from  savings, Mr Howard's $2530 million in program cuts is narrowly  targetted on a small range of expenditure areas. The areas which  remain available for Mr Howard's "razor" include nursing home  benefits and pharmaceuticals. The major pharmaceutical expenditure

is on pensioners. Therefore Mr Howard's secret agenda must include  a radical reduction in nursing home care and pensioner  pharmaceutical payments. How then can he claim that he is looking  after the needy?

CANBERRA ACT

12 JUNE 1987

LOOKING BEHIND THE LIBERAL TAX PROMISES

EVEN APART FROM THE FACT THAT THEY CANNOT BE PAID FOR BY THE  MEANS WHICH THE LIBERALS HAVE NOMINATED, THE PURPORTED  LIBERAL TAX CUTS ARE NOT ALL THEY SEEM.

1. THE PUBLISHED LIBERAL TABLES INCORPORATE THEIR PROPOSED  INCREASED FAMILY ALLOWANCE PAYMENTS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF  FAMILIES. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY HAVE PADDED THEIR SO-CALLED  TAX CUT TABLES BY INCLUDING IN THEM OTHER PAYMENTS. THE BEST  WAY TO ASSESS THE REAL WORTH OF THEIR PROPOSED TAX CUTS ALONE

IS TO LOOK AT THE CUTS THEY ARE OFFERING A SINGLE TAXPAYER  (TABLE 1). IN THIS CASE IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE MYTHICAL $26  A WEEK AT THE $500 INCOME LEVEL SHRINKS TO $11 WEEK. THERE  IS NO ADDITIONAL BENEFIT PROVIDED OVER AND ABOVE THE TAX CUT.

2. IF THE SPOUSE WORKS THE ADDITIONAL BENEFIT SHRINKS TO  $7.70 AS OPPOSED TO THE $15 A WEEK FOR HOWARD’S SO-CALLED 'AVERAGE'  FAMILY. IN ACTUAL FACT, FIFTY PER CENT OF FAMILIES  WITH CHILDREN ARE IN THIS POSITION. MR HOWARD’S USE OF THE  WORD AVERAGE IS TOTALLY DISHONEST.

3. ONLY 20 PER CENT OF AUSTRALIAN HOUSEHOLDS ARE OF THE TYPE  THAT MR HOWARD CLAIMS WILL BENEFIT MOST FROM HIS PLAN.

4. ACCORDING TO MR HOWARD, THE CHILDREN OF SOLE PARENTS ARE  NOT FAMILIES WORTHY OF ASSISTANCE. THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL .   FAMILY ALLOWANCE PAYMENT FOR THEM. FOR INSTANCE, THE  CHILDREN OF A WIDOW WOULD RECEIVE NO ADDITIONAL FAMILY  ALLOWANCE PAYMENT UNDER JOHN HOWARD.

5. IN ACTUAL FACT MR HOWARD’S PROGRAM OF TAX CUTS IS NOT  GENEROUS BY THE STANDARDS OF THE LABOR GOVERNMENT. MR HOWARD  IS PROPOSING A.SINGLE TAX CUT FUNDED BY A THREE YEAR PROGRAM:  WE ARE THEREFORE COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED IN COMPARING HIS THREE

TAX CUTS WITH THE LABOR GOVERNMENT’S 3 YEAR TAX CUTS. LABOR  HAS CUT TAXES FOR SOMEONE ON $500 A WEEK BY $20.42; JOHN  HOWARD PROPOSES TO CUT TAXES BY $11.46. (TABLE 2).

6. NONE OF THE TABLES PUT OUT BY THE LIBERALS COMES CLEAN ON  THE INTENDED IMPACT ON AUSTRALIAN FAMILIES OF THE PROPOSED  EXPENDITURE CUTS, WHICH THEY HAVE ESTIMATED AT $7.8 BILLION.  ONE LIKELY REASON FOR THIS IS THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW YET HOW  THEY ARE GOING TO FIND CUTS OF THIS SIZE. THE ONLY THING  THEY HAVE SPELT OUT IN ANY DETAIL SO FAR IS A $250 ($5 PER

WEEK) MEDICAL CHARGE ON FAMILIES. WHEN EVEN THIS IS  SUBTRACTED FROM THE ALLEGED NET BENEFITS, THERE ARE PLENTY OF  CLEAR LOSERS AND THIS IS ONLY A TINY FRACTION OF THE  PROPOSED EXPENDITURE CUTS.

12 JUNE 1987

TABLE 1 SINGLE PERSON

$ PER WEEK

Taxable Income  $pw Additional  Child Credit

Income Tax  Cut (a) Net Benefit

100 0.00 0.52 0.52

200 0.00 2.81 2.81

300 0.00 4.73 4.73

400 0.00 9.46 9.46

500 0.00 11.46 11.46

600 0.00 13.46 13.46

700 0.00 18.04 18.04

800 0.00 29.04 29.04

900 0.00 40.04 40.04

1000 0.00 51.04 51.04

1100 0.00 62.04 62.04

1200 0.00 73.04 73.04

1300 0.00 84.04 84.04

1400 0.00 95.04 95.04

1500 0.00 106.04 106.04

1600 0.00 117.04 117.04

1700 0.00 128.04 128.04

1800 0.00 139.04 139.04

1900 0.00 150.04 150.04

2000 0.00 161.04 161.04

1 ABLE 2

LABOR'S TAX CUTS LIBERAL'S TAX CUTS

1 of I  o f

Taxable In c o ie  A f t e r - t a x  A f te r - ta x

(tpw) (Ip a ) (Â«pul In c o ie (tpw) I n c o ie

100 5214.00 3 .0 4 . 3 .1 0 .5 2 0 .5

120 6256.80 4 .2 4 3 .8 3.61 3 .2

140 7299.60 5 .4 4 4 .4 3.41 2 .6

160 8342.40 6 .6 4 4 .8 3.21 2 .2

180 9385.20 7.84 5 .1 3.01 1 .9

200 10428.00 9 .0 4 5 .4 2.81 1.6

220 11470.80 10.24 5 .7 2.61 1 .4

240 12513.60 11.44 5 .9 2.41 1 .2

260 13556.40 11.72 5 .6 3 .1 3 1 .4

280 14599.20 11.92 5 .4 3.9 3 1 .7

300 15642.00 12.12 5 .1 4 .7 3 1 .9

320 16684.80 12.32 4 .9 5 .5 3 2 .1

340 17727.60 12.52 4 .7 6.3 3 2 .3

360 18770.40 12.72 4 .6 7.1 3 2 .4

380 19813.20 13.22 . 4 .5 . 8.59 2 .8

400 20856.00 14.42 4 .8 9.4 6 3 .0

420 21898.80 15.62 5 .0 9 .8 6 3 .0

440 22941.60 16.82 5 .2 10.26 3 .0

460 23984.40 18.02 5 .4 10.66 3 .0

480 25027.20 19.22 5 .6 11.06 3 .0

500 26070.00 2 0 .4 2 5 .7 11.46 - 3 . 0

520 27112.80 2 1 .6 2 5 .9 11.86 3 .1

540 28155.60 , 2 2 .8 2 6 .0 12.26 3 .1

560 29198.40 2 4 .0 2 6 .2 12.66 3 .1

580 30241.20 2 5 .2 2 6 .3 13.06 3 .1

600 31284.00 2 6 .4 2 6 .4 13.46 3 .1

620 32326.80 2 7 .6 2 6 .6 13.66 3 .1

640 33369.60 2 8 .8 2 6 .7 14.26 3 .1

660 34412.40 3 0 .0 2 6 .8 14.66 3 .1

680 35455.20 3 0 .4 3 6 .7 15.84 3 .3

700 36498.00 31 .7 4 6 .9 18.04 3 .7

720 37540.80 33.94 7 .2 20.24 4 .0

740 38583.60 36.14 7 .6 22.44 4 .4

760 39626.40 38.34 7 .9 24.64 4 .7

780 40669.20 40 .5 4 8 .2 26.84 5 .0

800 41712.00 42 .7 4 8 .5 29.04 5 .3

820 42754.80 44 .9 4 . 8 .8 31.24 5 .6

840 43797.60 4 7 .1 4 9 .1 33.44 5 .9

860 44840.40 49 .3 4 9 .4 35.64 6 .2

880 45883.20 51 .5 4 9 .6 37.84 6 .5

900 46926.00 53 .7 4 9 .9 40.04 6 .7

920 47968.80 55 .9 4 10 .2 42.24 ' 7 .0

940 49011.60 5 8 .1 4 10.4 44.44 7 .2

960 50054.40 60.34 10.7 46.64 7 .4

980 51097.20 62.54 10.9 48.84 7 .7

1000 52140.00 6 4 .7 4 11.1 51.04 7 .9

A

