COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRAL~ rr
SPEECH ss 16
BY I( A
The Rt Hon. J. G. GORTON, 7M
ON
APPROPRIATION BIL ( No. 1) 1969-70
Second Reading
( BUDGET DEBATE)
[ From the ' Parliamentary Debates', 21 August 1969]
Mr G. ORTON ( Higgins-Prime Minister)
[ 8.301--Mr Deputy Speaker, at the beginning
I wish to endorse the remark made by
the Treasurer ( Mr McMahon) that the Budget
which he introduced to the House last
week is one of -the best budgets to come
before us in the last 20 years. And that is
really saying something, for successive budgets
under a Liberal Administration have
led in that period of time to a situation
where, compared with 1948-49, our mean
population has grown from 7,796,000 to
12,171,000; our gross national product at
constant prices has risen from $ 8,391m to
$ 21 ,077m; our steel production has risen
from 1,178,000 tons to 6,599,000 tons; our
new motor vehicle registrations have risen
from 103,149 to 459,885; our construction
of new houses and flats completed has
risen from 52,684 to 115,357; our mineral
exports have risen from $ 12,883,782 to an
estimated $ 464,079,000 and our unemployment
rate has fallen to a stage where all
our people can be said to be fully employed
to an extent that has never been known in
this country before.
It is estimated, too, that the increase in
average earnings in this coming year, after
income tax, will be some 5% and that the
average income earner will be some 5%
better off. This is a pretty significant record
of achievement as a result of the planning
and the budgets that have been introduced
20930/ 69 in the past. It is a very good augury for
the achievements that are available in the
future and will be availed of by further
budgets introduced in the next 3 years by
a Liberal Government which has this
record of achievement behind it. In the circumstances
in which we find ourselves
today, with great pressure on our labour
resources, as I have indicated, and considerable
pressures on some sectors of demand
in the economy, the Budget is, as it
needed to be, deflationary rather than inflationary.
It is mildly deflationary. It has
reduced an overall Budget deficit of $ 385m,
which was budgeted for last year, to an
estimated overall Budget deficit of only
$ 30m in this financial year. It has increased
a domestic surplus of some $ 200m last
financial year into an estimated domestic
surplus of $ 500m this financial year. It is,
Sir, financially responsible.
Yet at the same time it has made very
significant advances along the road to social
justice. Steps along this road were taken
last year. Further steps are apparent in this
' Budget and yet further steps remain for
future budgets presented by a Liberal
Administration. Some 17 months ago the Governor-
General stated in his Speech:
My Government will review the field of social
welfare with the object of assisting those in most
need while at the same time not discouraging
thrift, self-help and self-reliance.
Let us see what has happened in the
intervening time to fulfil these intentions.
We will have in the space of a year increased
the basic rate of age pension by
$ 2 a week for single persons. This is an
increase of more than 15%, which is an
unprecedented increase and which is an
increase far in excess of any increase in
the cost of living. In the same period we
will have increased the rate for the married
couple pensioners by $ 3 a week, increased
the pensioner wife's allowance by $ 1 a
week, increased the allowance for the first
child by $ 1 a week and for other children
by $ 2 a week. We will have increased the
pension for a widow with two children by
a week and given an additional $ 2 a
week if one of the children is under 6 years
of age or is an invalid. We will have increased
the unemployment and sickness
benefit by $ 1.75 a week and the wife's
allowance by $ 1 a week. We have given a
personal care subsidy of $ 5 a week for
persons over 80 years in hostel type accommodation
under the Aged Persons Homes
Act. Our deserted wives and home care
programmes open up a new aspect of cooperation
with the States in the welfare
field depending not merely on cash grants.
I do not argue that no more remains to
be done, for, of course, much does remain
to be done. But I do suggest, Sir, that this
is a practical. demonstration of moving to
carry out an intention-not a vote catching
intention but rather is it an honourable
approach to fulfil a promise honestly made
some 17 months ago, and very greatly
fulfilled at this stage.
But what of our other stated intention, to
encourage thrift and self-help, which previously
were discouraged? Previously if a
certain amount had been earned or had been
gained in superannuation, a pension was
reduced by $ 1 for every extra $ 1 earneda
100% tax. What of our stated intention
to overcome those problems? We have in
this Budget made what I think is a most
significant breakthrough in that direction by
the introduction of the tapered means test.
This is a measure which really does encourage
thrift and self-help and I1 doubt whether
its benefits are even yet fully understood in
the community. Under these proposals,
those who have provided for their retirement
through superannuation or through other means of saving will no longer have
their pensions reduced by $ 1 for every $ 1
they receive in excess of $ 10 a week if they
are single or $ 17 a week if they are married.
Further, a single man or woman whose
income or means as assessed equals or
exceeds $ 25 a week at present receives no
pension at all. Under our proposals such a
person will receive a pension, reducing as
his income increases but not ceasing until
his income reaches $ 40 a week.
-In addition such a person with an income,
for example, of $ 30 a week, who
previously paid $ 72 a year in tax, will now
pay tax of only $ 17, a further increment
and a further encouragement to saving.
Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, he receives a
double benefit-a pension increased from
nothing to $ 5 a week and a tax benefit of
$ 1.05 a week. An aged single person
receiving $ 40 a week of taxable income does
not get any pension under our proposalsbut
he does get a tax concession of approximately
$ 1.60 a week.
As a further example of how the scheme
works, a married couple who are pensioners
with income or means as assessed of
a week will have their pension increased
from nothing to $ 5 a week, and they will
receive tax concessions amounting to
approximately a further $ 1.42 a week. And
the benefits continue for a single person
until he receives an income of $ 44 a week,
and continues for a married couple until
such a couple receives $ 80 a week. At all
these ranges of income these benefits are
matnifest. They should be fully understood.
I do not wish to take up the time of the
House in giving further detailed examples
of particular rates of income or means as
assessed and the benefits which flow from
them, but instead with the concurrence of
honourable members I will incorporate in
Hansard, at the conclusion of my speech,
three tables which show the benefits flowing
from part pension and the benefits flowing
from tax concessions in each income
range. But I emphasise again that it is necessary
when computing the encouragement given
to thrift to take into account not only the
benefit from the part pension now to be
paid but also the tax concessions now to
be available. I doubt, Sir, if there has ever
been such an incentive to thrift-such an
incentive to self help-proposed in this
House previously and I believe it will result
not only in a just approach but also will
reduce the total pensions bill otherwise to
be borne in the future by the working taxpayer,
and we have done this without
increasing taxation.
I would like to contrast those proposals
which I have just spelt out with what
I take to be the proposals of the Opposition,
but unfortunately there is great difficulty in
doing this properly because when one reads
the Budget speech made by the Leader of
the Opposition, he has not made any firm
proposals at all. All he has told us in relation
to high, wide and handsome statements
about abolishing the means test for everybody,
no matter what their range of income
or superannuation schemes-all he has told
us is that if his Party is elected it will then
appoint a committee to tell them what they
ought to do, because apparently they do not
themselves yet know what to do or have not
yet worked out a scheme which they could
put before this Parliament. This is a completely
nebulous approach, and it is also an
improper approach, because it means that
the Opposition is either afraid or unable to
make firm proposals as to how they would
carry out whatever their proposals areafraid
or unable to present these before the
people so that the proposals and the cost of
those proposals may be judged by the people
themselves. For my part I believe the
explanation of this extraordinary cavalier
approach is that the Leader of the Opposition
is afraid to put his proposals forward,
even imprecisely. For, Sir, if those proposals
are to follow the recommendations of Professors
Downing and Gates, as he suggests
but does not definitely state, then they
would require increased taxation on the
working population to raise S880m a year-
$ 880m a year being the part to be paid by
employers, or a tax of approximately 6%
on payrolls. And they would require an
additional tax on the wage earner ranging
from about $ 15 a year for the lowest paid
contributor who is compulsorily to be taxed
to $ 182 a year on income earners of $ 90 a
week or above.
Dr J. F. Calms--I think you are all
mixed up.
Mr GORTON-The honourable member
for Yarra ( Dr J. F. Cairns) suggests that it
20930/ 69-2 may possibly be that I am in some way
mixed up. If I am it is because there have
been no definite proposals put before us
but merely a suggestion that if the Party
opposite is elected they will get somebody
from outside to tell them what to do, which
is of course what they have been doing
in a different way ever since they have been
the Opposition. Furthermore, it is worth
noting in these Downing proposals, as I
understand them, that the benefit to be
received on retirement by the working man
who has been taxed during all his working
life, is also to be taxed in his hands after
he has retired.
Mr Griffiths-Well, they are taxed now.
Mr GORTON-Do not deny it. It is also
worth noting that those proposals, if they
are the proposals ultimately to be adopted,
require that such benefits even though they
have been paid for during a working life
are to be reduced by one-half of any
earnings continuing after the age of
This is supposed to be something called
' the abolition of the means test'. So these
proposals require the community to accept
substantial and compulsory increases in
taxation throughout their working lives; to
accept increased costs and prices due to
an additional compulsory 6% levy cn payrolls,
and to accept that when they do get
benefits those benefits are taxable and
subject to a means test of one-half when
they reach
Let me make two additional points about
this strange amorphous non-proposal. The
first point I want to make is to bring home
by illustration the increased burden of taxation
that the scheme-which is apparently
to be put forward but, of course, we do
not really know what it is but it has been
hinted at-would require. For the Professor
Downing scheme, if that is the one to be
adopted, requires all who are self employed
to pay in addition to their own tax to which
I have referred the contribution that would
otherwise be paid by their employer. So a
self employed man, a farmer, anybody in
his own business or a shop keeper with a
wife and three children, who is earning
a week, after allowing for average concessional
deductions would be required to
pay income tax of something over $ 200
per annum to be increased under Professor
Downing's proposals and the Opposition's
proposals, unless they are told to do something
else, by $ 100 per annum or almost
This is actually the employee's contribution
and because he was self employed
he would also have to pay the employer's
contribution-an additional amount of $ 200
per annum-so that the total income tax
bill would rise from $ 218 to $ 518 per
annum. I do hope that there will be some more
precise proposals put before this House in
regard to what aspects of this scheme are
or are not to be adopted than the mere
statement: ' Well, we are rather in favour
of this kind of course. We do not quite know
how to do it. Ii we get elected we will put
a committee up to tell us and it will be
something along the lines of the Downing
scheme'-which I have just shown to the
House requires these sacrifices from the
taxpaying man, from that section of the
community the Leader of the Opposition
was so sorry for, for whom he wept crocodile
tears, but who would be the really hurt
people should this compulsory additional
tax be introduced.
Mr Crean-Tell us who is paying the
$ 800m extra tax this year.
Mr GORTON-I will not interject on
the honourable member and I ask him not
to interject on me. But, Mr Deputy
Speaker, I have been asked a question and,
if you do not mind, I will reply to it
because it is an interesting point. I have
been asked who is paying the $ 850m extra
tax to be raised by the Treasury this year.
The people earning wages and salaries are
paying this, but their rates of taxation are
not being increased by one cent-and no
one can say that the Opposition's proposals,
if they are implemented, would not require
an increase in rates of taxation. I will move
on to that later. It is no wonder that the
Leader of the Opposition has not made any
firm proposals. It is no wonder that he
adopts as a policy a promise to ask other
people to tell him what his policy should
be. But it is a wonder that he should believe
the Australian people are as gullible as he
seems to believe they are, and I suggest
very strongly that he and the Party who sit
behind him are Under an obligation, if they
are to retain any credibility in this matter
at all, to put precisely before Australians just what they do propose to do and just
what extra taxation and just what increases
in taxation rates they propose to impose
on the working population in order to do
it. For our part we can say with truth
that our proposals are clearly and
concretely set out in the Budget for Australians
to judge, as they ought to be.
Mr Duthie-You are the Government
and you can do this.
Mr GORTON-They have been costed
and they do not require any increase in
taxation. It is said that we are the Government
and that is what we should be expected
to do. I agree. That, indeed, is what we
have done. But they are the Opposition and
they can be expected, if they propose to
put an alternative scheme, to put it in the
same finite, concrete, costed way that the
Government has put its scheme before
Australians. Apart from advances in the field of
social services, the Budget provides for great
advances in providing for education. It provides
for a continuation of the grants now
made by the Commonwealth for science
blocks and libraries in secondary schools,
both government and independent. It provides
for a continuation of the grants made
for building secondary technical schoolssolely
government secondary technical
schools. It provides for a continuation of
the $ 8m a year for capital to build teacher
training colleges for State governments to
train teachers for State government schools,
except that there is a small percentage of
private teachers trained in them. It also
indicates that that grant will be increased
to $ 10m a year in the future, and all of
these grants require no matching contribution
from the States whatever.
Further, the Commonwealth accepts the
proposals put forward bythe Martin Committee
that teacher training should be permitted
as an integral part of colleges of
advanced education and should. attract Commonwealth
grants when they are so integrated
and accepts that recommendation
from the Martin Committee, again to the
advantages of State education systems. It
accepts the proposals of ihe Australian
Universities Commission for the coming
triennium and of the advisory body on colleges
of advanced education for the coming
triennium, and as a result expenditure from
all sources-Commonwealth, State and fees
-will rise from the record $ 651m in the
present triennium, which ends at the end
of this calendar year, to $ 910m in the
triennium beginning on 1st January 1970.
It provides for increased scholarships and
it provides something which has been
attacked by the Leader of the Opposition in
the sense that he does not think it should
be provided in the way it is. It provides for
assistance to be given to the recurrent costs
of independent schools. This assistance f~ r
all independent schools is to total $ 16m for
recurrent costs in this financial year and
for science blocks and libraries in this
financial year. That is what this Budget in
this financial year is providing for independent
schools-a total of $ 24.8m. This is
fully justified and fully warranted. For our
part, we believe in a dual system of
education. . Mr Bryant-Why do you neglect the
State schools?
Mr GORTON-I will show you that we
do not. We believe -in a dual system of
education. We believe that it is good for
education itself for there to be alternative
approaches able to be tried out both in the
government schools and in the independent
schools. We believe that those who bear
their full share of taxation should be able to
receive some return if they decide that they
wish their children to attend other than a
government school, and we believe, looking
at the matter purely from an economical
point of view, that it would be nothing less
than a disaster for the government schools if
the independent schools were not able to
continue and nothing less than a disaster for
the nation if the independent schools, being
able to continue, were to provide a bad type
of education. It is necessary to see that both
these problems are attacked, and this Budget
sets out to attack them, yet the proposal is
criticised by the Leader of the Opposition
on the grounds that the Budget makes no
provision for government schools, echoing
an interjection made fairly recently by one
of the Leader of the Opposition's closest
followers. To quote the words of the Leader
of the Opposition: ' There is not one cent in
the Budget for government schools'. Such a
statement reveals either ignorance or a
determined and quite futile attempt to
conceal the truth, for this Budget provides in total for independent schools, as I have
said, $ 24.8m in this financial year, and it
provides in total for government schools,
including the provision of teacher training
in that field, not $ 24.8m but $ 39.4m. There
are a lot of cents in $ 39.4m, and I am
surprised that the Leader of the Opposition
could say that there was not one cent in
the Budget for government schools.
I should not conclude without referring
to some of the most glaring of the attempts
at misrepresentation which were evident in
the speech delivered here by the Leader of
the Opposition. He implies that the Budget
increases taxation. It is perfectly clear that
it does not. The rates of -income tax or
indirect taxes are not raised by one cent.
If he had said that total collections from
taxation will rise he would have been correct,
but he chose instead to imply that
rates of tax were to rise, which is untrue.
He claims that the Budget makes no considered
approach to the needs of all schools.
both* independent and government, and I
have shown that the Budget provides indirect
grants for government schools and the
provision of capital for training teachers for
government schools, more than it provides
for independent schools. He claims that it
ignores the problems of capital cities, yet it
contains provision for the first steps in the
Government's decision to provide S600m
for urban roads and freeways over the
coming 5 years to relieve one of the greatest
pressures on the urban system-the congestion
of traffic and the time wasted and
economic loss through that congestion. He
claims that it makes no attempt to grapple
with social services, and I have shown both
that it does, and that there has been no
concrete alternative proposal advanced.
rExtension of time granted.] I thank the
House and will not take advantage of it.
The Leader of the Oipposition claims in
his speech that the Treasurer spoke of a
growth rate of 6% in the coming year and
said that the Treasurer had refused to
indicate how much of that growth rate
would be real growth and how much inflation.
Yet the Treasurer's speech specifically
states as reported on page 33 of Hansard of.
12th August 1969:
An increase of at least 6% in gross national
product at constant prices
I interpolate that that means in real terms.
It seems a reasonable forecast to make.
Yet we are told that the Treasurer had
refused to give that information. It is there.
It was there for the Leader of the Opposition
to see, but it was misrepresented to this
House. The Leader of the Opposition claims that
' the Treasurer concedes that to abolish the
means test entirely over the next 5 years
would cost less in each of those years than
the present proposal will cost this year'.
The Treasurer has not, as far as I know
and from any document I can read, conceded
anything of the kind. But the Leader
of the Opposition's remarks, being translated,
mean that he thinks that to abolish
the means test would, when it has been
done, cost annually six times as much as
our own taper proposals, without providing
even one extra dollar for the areas of Deed
that remain.
Mr Crean-That is not what he said.
Mr GORTON-That is what he said. I
will quote what he said. I am told it is not
what he said. Indeed what he said was:
The Treasurer concedes that to abolish the means
test entirely over the next 5 years would cost less
in each of those years than the present proposal
will cost this year.
This means that he thinks that this year,
next year, the year after and so on for the
following 5 years you add at least as much
as is provided this year, which means that
it will be six times as much annually as is
provided now, and that, Mr Deputy
Speaker, will not leave one extra dollar to
relieve those who have no other m eans at
all; to relieve the widows; to take any
further steps along the road of helping real
need. I think that the statement as it was
made was made in a way designed to lead
the unwary to be taken in.
The Leader of the Opposition said:
For the first time in memory this Budget contains
not a single development proposal. This
Budget continues the silence on Queensland water
projects. Amongst the papers presented with the
Bu dget for all to read who have the intelligence
to read and the will to honestly
reproduce what they read, the Budget contains
money, makes provision for the
Copeton Dam, for the King River Dam, for
continuing the Tailem Bend pipeline in
South Australia, for the Fairbair ' n Dam, for
a loan of $ 14.7m to Tasmania for power.
In total an increased developmental project of $ 71m in the Budget over last year. Yet
we were told that for the first time in
memory the Budget contains not a
single developmental proposal. 1 cite these
examples, and they are examples selected
out of many that could otherwise be chosen
to illustrate what I believe to be the false
and unsustainable basis of attacks on our
p roposals, for, coupled with the nebulous,
imprecise, audacious suggestions of ' Elect
the Labor Party and we will get somebody
else to tell us what to do', and coupled with
an inability to level genuine criticism and
attacks on the proposals we ' have made, it
leads me to the conclusion that this long list
of misrepresentations, this long list of misstatements,
points up the bankruptcy of new
ideas, points up the inability of a concrete
and proper attack on the proposals the
Government has put forward. For we have
put forward matters finitely presented and
finitely costed. That they can only be
attacked by misrepresentation must mean
that there are no finite alternative proposals
ready to be put before this House.
I just wish to make one other point. it
was clear from the opening remarks made
by the Leader of the Opposition in this
House that there has suddenly burst upon
him with a startling clarity as some new
revelation from on high, that when new proposals
are made, that when advances in
social services or education or development
are made, the money to make them has
got to come from the taxpayer. He suddenly
realises this, apparently, because he points
out with an air of surprise that this is where
the money is coming from; it is coming
from the taxpayers. OK, we knew that, and
I think most people knew it before. Let us
accept that. But what is more important
than this new revelation is what I hope will
be a subsequent revelation, and that is, that
if all the proposals, I will not say advanced,
but imprecisely sketched and put before
this House were ever to take a concrete
form, then the money would still continue
to come from the taxpayers, but i much
larger amounts than at present and as a
result of much higher rates of taxation than
at present. What we are proposing, a3 1
said, is a Budget which takes good steps,
which is financially responsible, and which
will not take from the taxpayer by raising
rates of taxation one single penny this year.
I commend it to the House, and I believe
it will commend itself to the country.
SINGLE PENSIONER
EFFECT OF TAPERED MEANS TEST
Present Means Tapered Means
Test Test
Means as
Assessed
per week* Income Income
Pension and Pension and
pension pension
15.00 25.00 15.00 25.00
11 14.00 25.00 14.50 25.50
12 13.00 25.00 14.00 26.00
13 12.00 25.00 13.50 26.50
14 11.00 25.00 13.00 27.00
10.00 25.00 12.50 27.50
16 9.00 25.00 12.00 28.00
17 8.00 25.00 11.50 28.50
18 7.00 25.00 11.00 29.00
19 6.00 25.00 10.50 29.50
5.00 25.00 10.00 30.00
21 4.00 25.00 9.50 30.50
22 3.00 25.00 9.00 31.00
23 2.00 25.00 8.50 31.50
24 1.00 25.00 8.00 32.00
25.00 7.50 32.50
26 7.00 33.00
27 6.50 33.50
28 6.00 34.00
29 5.50 34.50
5.00 35.00
31 4.50 35.50
32 4.00 36.00
33 3.50 36.50
34 3.00 37.00
2.50 37.50
36 2.00 38.00
37 1.50 38.50
38 1.00 39.00
39 0.50 39.50 40.00
M0 This column converts to weekly terms a single person's
Means as Assessed which comprise annual income plus onetenth
of assets in excess of $ 400.
MARRIED COUPLES-BOTH PENSIONERS
EFFECT OF TAPERED MEANS TEST
Present Means Tapered Means
Test Test
Means as
Assessed
per week' Income Income
Pension and Pension and
pension pension Present Means Tapered Means
Test Test
Means as
Assessed
per week* Income Income
Pension and Pension and
pension pension
19
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 43.50 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 24.50 23.50 22.50 21.50 20.50 19.50 18.50 17.50 16.50 15.50 14.50 13.50 12.50 11 .50
10.50 9.50 8.50 7.50 6.50 5.50
4.50 3.50 2.50 1 .50
0.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 43.50 25.50 250 24.5 24.00 23.50 23.00 22.50 22.00 21.50 21.00 20.50 20.00 19.50 19.00 18.50 18.00 17.50 17.00 16.50 16.00 15.50 15.00 14.50 14.00 13.50 13.25 13.00 12.50 12.00 11 .50
11.00 10.50 10.00 9.50 9.00 8.50 8.00 7.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00
2.50 2.00 1 .50
1.00
0.50 44.50 45.00 45.50 46.00 46.50 47.00 47.50 48.00 48.50 49.00 49.50 50.00 50.50 51.00 51.50 52.00 52.50 53.00 53.50 54.00 54.50 55.00 55.50 56.00 56.50 56.75 57.00 57.50 58.00 58.50 59.00 59.50 60.00 60.50 61.00 61.50 62.00 62.50 63.00 63.50 64.00 64.50 65.00
65.50 66.00 66.50 67.00 67.50 68.00 68.50 69.00 69.50 70.00
1 7 26.50 43.50 26.50 43.50 0 This column converts to weekly terms a married couple's
18 25.50 43.50 26.00 1 44.00 Means as Assessed which comprise combined annual income
18 plus one-tenth of assets in excess of $ 800.
COMPARISON OF TAX PAYABLE AT ORDINARY RATES WITH TAX PAYABLE
UNDER PRESENT AND PROPOSED AGE ALLOWANCE
Annual tax payable
Weekly Single taxpayer Married taxpayer
taxable income Under. Age Allowance Under Age Allowance
At provisions At provisions
ordinary ordinary
rates rates
Present Proposed Present Proposed
10.88 14.13 17.88
22.27 26.63 31 .01
36.22 41 .99
47.73 53.50 59.96 66.61 73.28 79.94 87.43 95.01
102.57 110.21 118.69 127.17 135.64 144.32 153.70 163.08 172.46 182.20 192.47
202.76 213.04 224.00 235.52 247.03 258.54 270.05 281.56 293.08 304.59 317.45 330.56 343.67 356.80 369.91 383.01 396.12
409.44 423.89 438.33 452.77 467.22 481.66 496.12 510.55 23.98
47.97 71.95
95.94
119.92 135.64 144.32 153.70 163.08 172.46 182.20 192.47
202.76 213.04 224.00 235.52 247.03 258.54 270.05 281.56 293.08 304.59 317.45 330.56 343.67 356.80 369.91 383.01 396.12
409.44 423.89 438.33 452.77 467.22 481.66 496.12 510.55 8.66
17.33
26.00 34.66
44.26 54.66 65.06 75.46 85.86 96.26
106.66 117.06 127.46 137.86 148.26 182.92
217.59 252.26
281.56 293.08 304.59 317.45 330.56
343.67 356.80 369.91 383.01 396.12
409.44 423.89 438.33 452 77
467.22 481 .66
496.12 510.55 10.88 14.13 17.88
22.27
.26.63 31.01 36.22
41.99 47.73 53.50 59.96 66.61 73.28 79.94 87.43
95.01
102.57 110.21 118.69 127.17 135.64 144.32 153.70 163.08
172.46 182.20 192.47
202.76 213.04 224.00 235.52 247.03
258.54 270.05 281.56 293.08 304.59 317.45
330.56 343.67 356.80 369.91 383.01 396.12 409.44 423.89 438.33 452.77 467.22 481.66 496.12 510.55 23.98 47.97 71.95 95.94
119.92 143.91 167.89 191.88
215.86 239.85 263.83 287.82 311 .80
335.79 359.77 383.76 407.74 431 .73
455.71 4.33
13.00
21.66 30.33 39.00 55.66 72.99 90.32
107.66 124.99 142.32 159.66 176.99 194.32
213.52 236.92 260.32 283.72
COMPARISON OF TAX PAYABLE AT ORDINARY RATES WITH TAX PAYABLE
UNDER PRESENT AND PROPOSED AGE ALLOWANCE
Annual tax payable
Single taxpayer Married taxpayer
Weekly
taxable income Under Age Allowance Under Age Allowance
At provisions At provisions
ordinary ordinary
rates rates
Present Proposed Present Proposed
3 3
62 525.61 525.61 525.61 525.61 479.70 307.12
63 541.39 541.39 541.39 541.39 503.68 330.52
64 557.16 557.16 557.16 557.16 527.67 353.92
572.95 572.95 572.95 572.95 551.65 377.32
66 588.72 588.72 588.72 588.72 575.64 400.72
67 604.49 604.49 604.49 604.49 599.62 424.12
68 620.27 620.27 620.27 620.27 620.27 447.52
69 636.04 636.04 636.04 636.04 636.04 470.92
652.86 652.86 652.86 652.86 652.86 494.32
71 .669.96 669.96 669.96 669.96 669.96 528.98
72 687.07 687.07 687.07 687.07 687.07 563.65
73 704.17 704.17 704.17 704.17 704.17 598.32
74 721.28 721.28 721.28 721.28 721.28 632.98
738.41 738.41 738.41 738.41 738.41 667.65
76 755.51 755.51 755.51 755.51 755.51 702.32
77 772.75 772.75 772.75 772.75 772.75 736.98
78 791.62 791.62 791.62 791.62 791.62 771.65
79 810.49 810.49 810.49 810.49 810.49 806.32
829.36 829.36 829.36 829.36 829.36 829.36
81 848.22 848.22 848.22 848.22 848.22 848.22
82 867.09 867.09 869.09 867.09 867.09 867.09
83 885.96 885.96 885.96 885.96 885.96 885.96
84 904.83 904.83 904.83 904.83 904.83 904.83
923.70 923.70 923.70 923.70 923.70 923.70
86 942.56 942.56 942.56 942.56 942.56 942.56
87 961.43 961.43 961.43 961.43 961.43 961.43
88 980.30 980.30 980.30 980.30 980.30 980.30
89 999.17 999.17 999.17 999.17 999.17 999.17
1,018.05 1,018.05 1,018.05 1,018.05 1,018.05 1,018.05
AGED PERSONS
BENEFITS RESULTING FROM PROPOSED CHANGES IN PENSION AND AGE ALLOWANCE
SINGLE PERSON
Means as Pension per week Tax Payable per week Total
assessed -benefit
per week Present P roposed Increase Present Proposed Decrease per week
14.00 13.00 12.00 11.00 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 15.00 14.50 14.00 13.50 13.00 12.50 12.00 11.50 11.00 10.50 10.00 9.50 9.00 8.50 8.00
7.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00
4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00
2.50 2.00 1 .50
1.00 0.50 0.46 0.92 1.38 1.38 1 .84
2.31 2.61 2.78 2.96 3.14 3.32 3.50 3.70 3.90 4.10 4.31
,4.53 4.75 4.97 5.19 5.41 S
* Assuming concessional deductions allowable as follows:
Means as Assessed Concessional deductions
per week per week S
20-29 2
30-48 3
AGED PERSONS
BENEFITS RESULTING FROM PROPOSED CHANGES
IN PENSION AND AGE ALLOWANCE
MARRIED COUPLE
MensP ension per week Tax Payable per week* oa
assessed -benefit
per week Present Proposed IIncrease Present Proposed Decrease per week
3 17 25.00
18 24.00
19 23.00 22.00
21 21.00
22 20.00
23 19.00
24 18.00 17.00
26 16.00
27 15.00
28 14.00
29 13.00 12.00
31 11.00
32 10.00
33 9.00
34 8.00 7.00
36 6.00
37 5.00
38 4.00
39 3.00 2.00
41 1.00
42 43 44 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 61 62 63 64 66 67 68
69 71 72 73 74 26.50
26.00 25.50 25.00 24.50 24.00 23.50 23.00 22.50 22.00 21.50 21.00 20.50 20.00 19.50 19.00 18.50 18.00 17.50 17.00 16.50 16.00 15.50 15.00 14.50 14.00 13.50 13.00 12.50 12.00 11 .50
11 .00
10.50 10.00 9.50 9.00 8.50 8.00 7.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00
4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00
2.50 2.00 1 .50
1.00
0.50 1 .50
2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50
9.00 9.50
10.00 10.50 11 .00
11 .50
12.00 12.50 13.00 13.50 14.00 13.50 13.00 12.50 12.00 11 .50
11.00 10.50 10.00 9.50 9.00 8.50 8.00 7.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1 .50
1.00
0.50 1
2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50
10.00 10.50
11.00 11 12.00 12.50 13.00 13.50
14.00 13.50 13.00 12.50 12.00 11 11.00
10.50 10.00 9.50
9.00 8.50 8.00
7.84 7.67 7.51
7.34 7.18 6.42 6.22 6.02 5.66 5.29
4.91 4.54 4.17 3.79 3.43 2.93 3.06 3.18 3.27 3.28 3.29
MensP ension per week Tax Payable per week* oa
assessed
per week Present Proposed Increase Present Proposed Decrease per week
6
76 8.76 5.46 3.30 3.30
77 9.22 5.91 3.31 3.31
78 9.69 6.36 3.33 3.33
79 10.15 6.81 3.34 3.34
10.15 6.81 3.34 3.34
After allowing for appropriate deduction for spouse who has no income other than pension; and
09) assumed concessional deductions other than dependants as follows:
Means as assessed
per week
3
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80 Deduction per week S
.8
Debate ( on motion by Mr Erwin) adjourned.
Printed for the Government of the Commonwealth by W. G. MuanAY at the
Government Printing Office, Canberra