Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to talk about four-year-olds and their families in the electorate of Lalor—to talk about families and the 2015 budget that builds on the unfairness of the 2014 budget. The budget that, after last year's horror budget, was going to be good for families according to our Prime Minister—the same Prime Minister who promised no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no changes to pensions.

My area is home to lots of families drawn by an affordable lifestyle and a great sense of community. With 70 to 80 new babies born locally each week we have lots of young families. There are Josephs, Josies, Josephines, Joannes, Joeys, Johannas, Joachims and Joes living throughout the electorate, lots of them four years of age.

Our community, where families look for an affordable lifestyle, is a great place to live but most local families are on modest incomes trying to get ahead by buying an affordable home or paying affordable rent. Most local families work hard for their modest incomes. The best example of this measure of our community being affordable and people being on modest incomes is the fact that almost 18,000 families in the electorate of Lalor receive family tax benefit part B—the means-tested family support program designed to ensure all children have the support they need. That is 18,000 families who will lose up to $6,000 a year from their modest incomes. I would like to repeat that: 18,000 families—that is the highest number of any electorate in Australia. Take a minute to let that sink in: 18,000 families working hard and raising their children.

There are other electorates that have high numbers of family tax benefit families across Australia—Blaxland and Holt have 16,000 families, Gorton and Fowler have 15,000 families—but Lalor has almost 18,000 families. Let us assume that on the NATSEM modelling this impact is on average $4,000 per family—that is a huge $72 million less in the local economy. Again, let that sink in for a moment: $72 million less in the local economy. But of course across the chamber the impact will be far less—Warringah and North Sydney have around 3,500 families; Higgins and Kooyong around 3,000 families in receipt of the FTB. No wonder those opposite thought cutting the family tax benefit could be a saving, as the impact on their communities will be minimal in comparison.

I want to talk about the four-year-olds in those families in my electorate, so let's have a look at those. We will call the first notional four-year-old Joseph. He is a four-year-old in a young family with a two-year-old and another on the way. When the budget came down, Joseph's family were keen to know more about the increases to childcare benefits and how that might help the family only to find that, as this measure is not to be introduced for two years, young Joseph and his family will not benefit. His family will, however, like all families with school-age children, lose the schoolkids bonus next July.

In another family, another four-year-old lives—let's call him Jose. Jose is son to a newly-arrived family trying hard to resettle in Australia. They are benefiting from 15 hours of kindergarten, an absolute game changer for children where English is a second language. However, his younger sibling, aged two, will not be so lucky as funding for 15 hours is not guaranteed beyond 2017. His parents, like me, might ask the local council—who run our kindergartens—what the change will mean for them. No doubt, they will get the same frustrated response I did: 'We don't know. There is no certainty. It is a two-year funding line. It is very difficult to plan with, and we have spent money on infrastructure to ensure space, for all four-year-olds, for 15 hours. We might have to pass the cost onto families.'

Across the road, there is a four-year-old we will call Joanna. Joanna has had an unsettled start to life. Her parents had some mental-health issues and moved around a lot. One parent has passed away. The other, due to ill-health, is unable to care for her full-time. Joanna now lives with her grandmother, who is trying to ensure she gets on the right track. But Joanna will not get a starting-school health check or the benefit of the child-dental service or the schoolkids bonus making sure she is ready for school. It may not be until Joanna is eight that it might be discovered she has poor eyesight. It will not have been picked up early, as is the case now.

In a nearby suburb there is another four-year-old. Let us call him Joey. Joey was born before the federal government's PPL program existed, and the private company his mother worked for did not have one either. So when Joey was born the family received no paid parental leave. At great cost, she took months off. This hit the family hard, financially, but now they are planning for their second child. Joey's mum now works in retail and paid parental leave is part of her EBA. She is earning around $40,000 a year, she is planning to take maternity leave at half pay and, along with the government's scheme, this could give her six months, in total, with her new baby. This could have made her life much easier. Joey's parents will be unimpressed that the government is changing the rules. They will be more unimpressed that parents like them have been demonised in the budget papers as 'double dippers'. They just wanted the best start for their new baby.

Another notional four-year-old is Josephine, the youngest in her family. Josephine's parents are concerned about her oldest brother. He is completing year 12 and making plans for when he leaves school. He is a hardworking student and has made the most of his educational opportunities. He works part-time and has seen older mates lose shifts once they turn 18. He has no illusions about work and what a tertiary education could mean for his future.

In an area that has very high youth unemployment, thinking about the future is a daunting task for young people in my electorate. He might like to go to university—but with the uncertainty about costs and repayments, his parents may not be keen. He could have seen the education minister say that he will pursue the legislation that will lead to $100,000 degrees. He would be torn about his future. He might be checking out apprenticeships, but with so many cuts to apprenticeship support programs and so few apprenticeships being advertised he will have to be lucky. If he cannot find work he faces a lower Centrelink payment for a longer period of time—and must somehow be thankful he only has to wait four weeks before payments.

At a time when he and his mates should be hitting the books and looking forward to the many and varied jobs they might undertake in the future, they are bogged down and anxious about their futures. Let us say this family struggles financially. Dad has casual work that leaves them vulnerable, working pay slip to pay slip. They have had to rely on emergency relief programs. In my electorate, last year, that was two vouchers for the year per family. This year it will be one—one $60 voucher.

Another notional family has a four-year-old, Joe, whose Dad is a landscaper—made famous recently in the federal parliament, landscapers. He has heard the chat around the table of the so-called small business bonus and so dad, Joe Senior, is looking to borrow money to take advantage of the asset write-off tax concession available to small business. He might buy a new welder or compressor. What Joe Senior cannot do is predict the future. By borrowing to purchase an asset he puts his business under pressure, and the loan will still have to be paid. It might not be the wisest decision he makes. It might turn out okay.

His partner is not in the paid workforce. She does the business books and runs around after the kids. She, too, has heard things about the budget. She knows that her family will lose income if the FTB changes go through the Senate, so she has turned her mind to some paid work. The thing is, though, that there are very few local jobs.

Before the move to Wyndham, before they bought the house and had the kids, she could have had a good job—perhaps a great job—in Carlton. We know lots of those. But she cannot imagine sitting in traffic for an hour and a half each way. Yes, that is what locals who travel into the city often experience. She would have to leave young Joe in long day care and the others in after-school care. She would be worried about not making the 6.00 pm deadline because of traffic congestion and getting charged by the minute for being late. Perhaps it would not happen if Melbourne had better public transport or improved road infrastructure, but this budget has short-changed this family there. Victoria has been dudded on infrastructure, and there is no relief in sight. So this family, the small business family, could be worried that there are no plans for jobs and no plans for infrastructure to assist them in communities like mine.

So the Josephs, Joses, Josephines, Joannas, Joeys and Joachims live in families that will not understand why they are so unfairly targeted by the current government. These four-year-olds will never benefit from the proposed increases to the childcare benefits. They will lose the schoolkids bonus after only one payment. They were born prior to the introduction of Labor's paid parental leave scheme. They will not have a four-year-old Healthy Kids Check before starting school and will not receive any dental treatment from the child dental benefits scheme. They will miss out on the family tax benefit once they turn six. If they have a disability, they will not be assured they will get the support they need at school They started kindergarten with uncertainty around the 15 hours of universal access and, if they get sick, their families will pay more for a visit to the doctor as the Medicare rebates are frozen.

All of these four-year-olds are planning to start school next year. When this group of children were toddlers, there was a plan—most here will remember it: the Gonski plan for equitable school funding. This group of four-year-olds was set to benefit. The schools in Lalor benefited from the Smarter Schools National Partnerships with additional money flowing for extra literacy and numeracy support; for additional resources to allow schools locally to employ more specialist teachers to support students with English as a second language; and for low-SES students to be supported.

The schoolkids bonus was also helping so many families with the cost of books, excursions and school equipment. Now we find these four-year-olds will not benefit from the full Gonski funding model, with no commitment to years 5 and 6 and with $30 billion ripped out from education funding more generally in last year's budget.

For a government that says it is all about jobs and families, my local families are finding those words very hollow. Surely, education is the pathway to employment, but the rhetoric on jobs is not supported by a strong commitment to education—not in last year's budget, not in this year's budget. In fact the term 'early education' has disappeared from the childcare debate. It has disappeared. This government has made it clear that childcare is about babysitting and work participation—not about education and getting our kids ready for the jobs of the future, not about making sure all four-year-olds are ready for school.

The need to ensure a healthy workforce is not supported by the many cuts to health programs, particularly preventative health programs. This budget sees another $2 billion on top of last year's $50 billion gone from the health sector—last year from our hospitals, this year from preventative health programs again.

This budget still supports the introduction of $100,000 degrees for students, and many in my community will suffer from that. This budget outlines no support for Toyota, Ford and GMH workers who are losing their jobs in my electorate and no support for the growing number of young unemployed, other than to limit their access to youth allowance and cuts to support programs.

This budget has no support for local jobs in my area, and the state we live in has been dudded in the infrastructure spend. Remember the 18,000 families about to lose their FTB, ripping millions from the local economy, putting pressure on our small businesses, potentially leading to more job losses. This government says its budget is about families and jobs—hollow, hollow words.

The priority of this budget is not the families of Australia. It is the job of our Prime Minister. I implore this government to find a fairer way. I ask the Treasurer to think about his namesakes, the four-year-old Joes in Lalor, and to have a go at giving them a go.

See this speech in context