Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I was trying to assist the opposition by stacking a few questions up and answering all of them in a five-minute lot, but we will do it this way if that suits the convenience of the opposition more generally. I was trying to assist. Obviously every member of this parliament has an equal right to pose questions in the consideration in detail of the budget, so I will turn to the questions from the member for Bass first.

On the questions asked by the member for Bass, she is absolutely right. In this budget we have delivered on the government’s promise to phase out full-fee-paying places for Australian students. The government did that because we believe simply that it is wrong that Australian students should be judged for entry to higher education on the basis of their capacity to pay. That was a system of the former government, where it put capacity to pay before merit. We believe Australian students who want to go to university and take up undergraduate places should be assessed on the basis of merit. We think that that is the Australian way, and the budget papers deliver on that and deliver on the phase-out of full-fee-paying places for domestic students.

On the second question that the member for Bass raised, I am pleased to note that she was able to work with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Tasmania, Daryl Le Grew. I have had the opportunity of meeting him and I am glad to hear that there were options available for people who worked in Telstra call centres. I know that has been a substantial issue in the member’s electorate. Obviously we are very concerned, and part of the policy settings that drive the budget is to ensure that there are opportunities for training and retraining throughout life.

On the questions raised by the member for Warringah in relation to CCB, I will take him to some of the details in the budget papers. He is right; we have introduced an income cut-off point for CCB, the childcare benefit. Prior to the introduction of this income cut-off point for CCB, which is an income-dependent payment—it is assessed in relation to income; the higher you earn, the less you get—it hit a minimum level. At higher income rates it hit the minimum level and continued. The minimum level was, indeed, a very minimum level. We believe, as a matter of fairness, that it would be better if the taper that is in place continued so that CCB actually becomes zero at high income levels. The levels that we are talking about for a family with one child in approved care is $126,000; for two children in approved care it is $131,000; and for three children in approved care it is $148,000. That is where the taper hits the zero rate.

I think there was some misunderstanding about this in the early days beyond the delivery of the budget. I know the member for Warringah was concerned about this. There was some confusion that, if you were beyond the taper and you had zero CCB, you would no longer be eligible for the child care tax rebate. I cannot quite remember whether the member asked about that in question time but I know that he did raise it publicly and was concerned about it. I am very keen to clarify that we are restructuring, so people are deemed, even when they have a CCB rate of zero, to still effectively be CCB eligible so that they trigger their eligibility for CCTR. So it is not true to say that, if you are no longer in receipt of CCB, you are ineligible for CCTR. You can be at a high-income level and not be eligible for CCB but still be eligible to get CCTR. What that means, if you model it across all income ranges, is that everybody is in advance of their position pre budget. Everybody will get more assistance for their childcare costs than they did under the former arrangements, which I think is a great result for working families.

See this speech in context