Cameron Thompson (Blair, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to be part of this debate today and to welcome the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment (Child Care and Other 2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007, which gives effect to some important measures from the budget this year. It is welcome news for families across Australia, not least for those in my electorate of Blair. I note that the opposition’s spokesperson spent some time reading from the newspaper in her speech and I would like to retaliate with some articles that I read this morning. The Australian has a large article talking about how Australian families are better off as a result of the tax reforms and other changes that the government has made. This goes directly to the debate that we are having today, because the fundamental proposition being put forward in the article on the front page of the Australian today is that:

... only 40 per cent of households actually pay any net tax, after the value of all government benefits is counted.

The average household pays total taxes of $360 a week, but gets back $375 in both cash benefits and government services, such as health and education. Tax raised from the corporate sector covers the difference.

After taking account of inflation, real incomes rose by 8.9 per cent over five years, while the value of government services rose by an additional 7.2 per cent, with big increases in government spending on pharmaceuticals, community health services and other health benefits.

We are discussing the issues that confront families in Australia every day about child care, raising children, and affording the necessities of life. It is what has been called the ‘barbecue stopper’—the work-family balance. I heard from the opposition spokesman a lot of words about policies but, to be honest, particularly when it comes to the question of education, the opposition has been pushed to the periphery of the debate and are playing catch-up on points on which the government has a well-established track record. On several of these points, the opposition has in the past pooh-poohed government initiatives and discounted them as being unnecessary or in some way frivolous and are now being forced to come back and confront the inadequacy of their own position in the past. It is a welcome position when they come back and start looking again at education and at these kinds of issues. But it does them no credit to criticise the government when, really, they are coming back and following along in the government’s wake.

Another point that was made in this morning’s Australian newspaper, under the heading ‘Tax take helping Howard battlers’, was that savings from the reduced cost of maintaining unemployment benefits have been redirected into an increase in family benefits, which have risen from $20 per household a week to $28, and in the age pension. The study also shows there is a massive recycling of tax and cash benefits from the rich to the poor. It says:

The poorest segment of the population by contrast—

with the best paid segment of the population—

pays just $22 in tax and gets $300 a week in cash benefits.

That brings a smile to your face, I can see, Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop. This is a very effective policy that assists young families, and in this legislation that we are reviewing here today we are talking about child care and we are talking about families and how they cope under the improved tax regimes introduced by the Commonwealth and the increased support for child care provided by the Howard government.

I found a very interesting fact in doing research for this debate. The opposition are very keen, on occasion, to quote activities happening in the OECD or in other situations, but they have become less willing to do that in recent times, because quite obviously Australia is performing so well by comparison with the rest of the OECD that those sorts of comparisons are no longer popular among members of the ALP. However, I would like to discuss something about the OECD. What I have discovered is that the OECD has found that Australia has higher levels of subsidy support for parents’ childcare choices than comparable nations. The OECD estimated that, in Australia, the government contributed, on average, around 60 per cent of parents’ childcare costs, where other comparable nations were more likely to contribute about one-third. That is the first thing. Also, a non-government Taskforce on Care Costs before this year’s budget—before these measures were taken into account—showed that many families earning under $80,000 a year were receiving more than 47 per cent of their costs from the taxpayer. The government has a very proud record in relation to child care, and I compliment the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs on his efforts to take it further ahead, particularly the measures that are contained in this budget.

Some post-budget modelling has been conducted by the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs which found a range of very interesting things about these new measures. For example, for some low-income families returning to work and receiving JET childcare fee assistance, the government contributes more than 98 per cent to the total fee. Also, the subsidy for common working family types using approved long day care will be between 55 per cent and 93 per cent of the fee as a result of the increased childcare benefit and the improved childcare tax rebate, which we have heard is now going to be paid by way of a direct payment. So a common example of a working family on a combined family income of $60,000, using part-time care for one or two children, showed they had between 55 and 79 per cent of their fee subsidised, depending on the centre they used. As we have heard referred to on occasion in this House recently, this modelling has been conducted using what is a relatively high fee figure of $350. So it shows that the government is making a very solid impact, and the very real measures of assistance that I referred to in relation to the tax environment provided by the government are also important.

But I would like to just speak generally about how families are benefiting from the strong economic conditions that have been provided as a result of fundamental reforms pursued by this government with direct opposition from the Labor Party over the past 11 years. These achievements have happened because of the efforts of the government and despite the efforts of the opposition, not with any assistance from them.

There are now more Australians in work than at any other time in history, with seasonally adjusted employment surging by 39,400 in May to stand at a record high of 10,453,800. Full-time employment increased by 66,800 in May to a record of 7,530,000. A while ago it was popular among the members of the Labor Party to talk about how all the jobs that were being created in our country were part-time jobs. Since the advent of Work Choices—since the industrial relations reforms implemented by the government—that has been turned on its ear, and you do not hear that argument from Labor any more. Why? Because people are getting full-time jobs. In the context of this debate about families, there is easier access to family-friendly hours. There are more people taking up jobs where they work 25 or 30 hours a week. Although that is a part-time job—and there are more people taking up full-time jobs—people are being taken into these family-friendly jobs. That means that women who might have had children are being lured back into the workforce not only by more jobs with higher pay but by the opportunities to make use of hours that suit them and their families. It is what they want to do.

This is the environment that the government has delivered by providing for workplace flexibility. The government’s family-friendly measures have delivered a scenario within which families can be more confident when they pursue child care and they can do it in a less stressed environment because of those flexible measures that the government has introduced. The female participation rate is at the highest level on record, 57.5 per cent. When people look back and say, ‘Unemployment was at two per cent after the war; if only we could get back to that,’ it is worth nothing that we did not have then the kind of workplace we have now. In 1966, when I was a young whipper-snapper, my mother was one of the first teachers allowed to go back to work after having been married—an incredible occurrence in those days. Prior to that time, when women married they said goodbye to their jobs and they did not go back. It was only in 1966 that that started to change. It was way before then that a two per cent unemployment figure was achieved.

The female participation rate, at 57.5 per cent, is the highest on record. Of the 309,600 jobs created since the introduction of Work Choices, 134,300 have been filled by women. This is a very fast-moving process which has seen many more women enter the workforce, and many more women are making these choices. Against that environment the government is making very real advances in the provision of child care. We on this side of the House deserve special credit not only for providing the environment that encourages the work but also for facilitating the work by providing support for child care and incentives for people, and women in particular, to take a greater part in the workforce.

I do not want to continue for too much longer on the conditions that apply to the employment of women but, interestingly, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has shown that there has been a narrowing of the wage gap between men and women. That is significant. Once again, the government’s measures have supported the movement of women into the workforce. That is a good thing, and long may it be so. The Melbourne Institute’s wages report of May 2007 showed that employees on individual contracts experienced an average increase of 6.8 per cent compared with an average of 3.4 per cent for those on enterprise agreements and 2.6 per cent for employees on the safety net or the award. I throw that in because this is the fundamental point about workplace flexibility. Workplace flexibility is advantageous not just for the traditional blue-collar workers—it is not something that happens only in mines; it is happening all over our economy—but for women as well as men. From these flexible conditions they are getting more money, not less, and they are finding family-friendly opportunities to support them as well.

There will be an increase of 10 per cent in the childcare benefit from 1 July. Child care was an important focus of the 2007-08 budget, and the expenditure included a $2.1 billion investment to help families with their childcare costs. The government is investing $11 billion in child care over the next four years, with a 10 per cent increase in the rate of childcare benefit from 1 July—730,000 families will benefit from that change, and that is just the first part. This is of significance to people in my electorate as well as across Australia. In my electorate, 7.3 per cent of the population are aged under five and 16.5 per cent of the population are aged between five and 14. There is a demand for child care in the electorate of Blair, but I do not agree with the opposition when it says that places are not available. There are different types of child care that people can access. If you want a particular type of care, you might encounter difficulties—I have experienced that myself locally—but there are places available and in this area the government has demonstrated continual improvement.

If only the government is empowered to continue with its program, to continue with the good, sound economic management that it has delivered, the availability of those places will continue to improve, the availability of support for child care will strengthen and the opportunities will improve. But, if it goes the other way, if the Labor Party and the unions are given power over our country, then we are heading for an economic disaster zone. Support for child care cannot be retained if the government is plunging into debt and if the economy gets into difficulty. One of the things that I think is most significant is the way in which the Labor Party continually say to people, ‘Imagine if there is a downturn,’ and then they threaten people about their jobs and their security if there is a downturn. I know one way of guaranteeing a downturn, and that is to put the Labor Party in power. You would have a self-fulfilling prophecy courtesy of the Labor Party.

Dependent on the incomes that people have, the investment that the government has made in their childcare costs will mean up to an additional $20 a week for families to help them cope with childcare costs. The childcare benefit gives parents a choice about working—it provides the resources to allow them to do so and alleviates the expense.

The member opposite spoke about the change in the way the rebate is paid. The fact is that there is a bonus for families who paid for child care in 2005-06 and 2006-07. They will receive two payments after 1 July: one through the tax rebate system and one through the family assistance system that this bill implements. That is $8,000 worth of assistance. There is just one point that was not covered by the member opposite, and I am disappointed that it was not. I would like to flip to that now. The bill helps young people with disabilities and severe medical conditions by giving them access to the healthcare card from 1 October 2007. Twenty-five thousand full-time students aged 16 to 25 who used to be carer allowance child receivers may be eligible for the card in their own right. Previously, unless they qualified for a low-income healthcare card or had access to income support related concession cards, they were not eligible until after they were 16. So this will help them through their education, reducing their costs and giving them more long-term opportunities. I am disappointed that was not covered by the member opposite, but I think it is very important that we focus on that matter and give support to all members in the community, particularly in relation to child care and disability support.

See this speech in context