Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Isn't it interesting—the former minister has so much to say about these things now but she had so little to do when she actually had the responsibility. She knows the package, she knows the changes and she knows how there is better targeting of support. I could spend more time talking on that, but I imagine she would jump up and say, 'That's not what the bill's about.' It is the motive of this bill; it is the purpose; it is the goal, and the bill seeks to bring about some of the resources to achieve those goals.

What is troubling is that the original proposition the government brought forward was a crucial $4.7 billion down payment on that Jobs for Families childcare package. It was an enormous commitment, a reprioritisation of resources, all aimed at increasing the overall support that was there for families but also aligning it with families that seek to improve their own circumstances and to have the policy settings in place to do that.

We are having to amend that bill, so when you hear Labor saying, 'What are they talking about?' we are here today because Labor are standing in the road of measures that would fund the Jobs for Families childcare package. We are here today because they have refused to support certain changes, and they are the same side of politics who unilaterally decided single parents should go off those payments and onto Newstart. This is Labor's formula, with very little support to assist the transition—and they have the hide to come in here and attack the government for very sensibly and in a measured way trying to put in place the support that families are looking for so that tens of thousands of family members—often women—who want to go and engage in the economy, to raise revenue and income for their families and to provide a wonderful statement about the capacity of family members to participate in the economy can do so. It is a great single signal to children, who would then see that investing time and energy in the economy, pursuing livelihoods and improving oneself through training and education are things that are valued and important in that family environment.

Why is that important? I know from my own community, where there are intergenerational issues about unemployment, that often it is about breaking that cycle. It is about putting before people new incentives and new support, such as the Jobs for Families childcare package, so that those in the family think: 'I can take some steps in my life and improve my circumstances and improve my prospects for higher levels of income in my family. I can model the kind of behaviour that I hope for from my children.' That is fantastic. It is transformational. That is the way in which you can inject new possibilities into families that might have been challenged by intergenerational unemployment. That is what the public policy goal is. And what is Labor's response to that? 'Yes, there need to be changes, but you have to pay for it.' That was the member for Jagajaga's contribution: 'Yes, these reforms are needed, but you need to pay for it.' Two things are relevant here. What is Labor's childcare package? They have got none. In the year of big ideas, they have come up with three new taxes.

See this speech in context