Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to continue the argument for the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2015. What a tremendous contribution the member for Dunkley has just made. He succinctly put the case for this measure but he also cast our minds back to the reason we find ourselves in this position. The member for Adelaide had a little bit to say in her contribution, but oh how the memories of those on the other side of this parliamentary chamber have become so short. The government has proposed amendments to the bill to remove measures that do not have Labor support, but we are still here fighting the good fight for a good cause—finding the savings that are required to enable us to invest in much-needed reform for our child-care sector for the 21st century. Labor has turned a $4.7 billion package covering child care into a $525 million downpayment. To steal the words of the member for Dunkley, they 'missed by just that much'. We should not be surprised by that, because we had six years of a government that missed by just that much.

Those who are listening and watching need to understand that every morning when your alarm clock rings and you wake up for another great day—any day you are breathing is a great day—the taxpayers of Australia will have to find $100 million just to pay the interest on the debt left by the previous Labor government. And they missed by just that much—$100 million is an extraordinary amount of money that we have to find every day just to pay the interest. I continue to say to the Australian people, focus on that. You elected a government to bring the finances of your country back into line so that we can leave things in a better state for our children and grandchildren than is currently in prospect at the moment. We were elected with a mandate to do that, and it is fair to say that at pretty much every turn in the last two years of this democratically elected government we have found ourselves continually bashing our fiscal head up against the wall.

We hear a lot in this place about fairness; we hear a lot about being equitable. I ask those opposite what is fair about loading up my children, the grandchildren I do not yet have and everybody else's families with massive debt? We would not tolerate it in our own family but we think that this democratically elected government should tolerate it forever and that we should continue to put our expenditure on a massive trajectory. Maybe Labor just want us to ratchet up taxes to pay for it. No, we need to make sure that this country remains productive and competitive. Continuing to raise taxes just to pay for undisciplined, out of control expenditure is not acceptable in anybody's language—certainly not the language that we on this side of the House speak. We hear a lot about being equitable. What is equitable about an opposition, a Labor Party, that claims to be the alternative government running a protection racket each and every day for militant unions at the expense of the remaining 85 per cent of the non-public service workforce who have to pick up the tab? I do not see much of a protection racket being run by those opposite for the farmers and the small businesses. They have their favourites—they continue to pander to and reward those favourites but it is at the expense of those people who are the ultimate economic contributors and wealth makers of this country.

The government wants to help families find affordable child care. I am sure that sentence will resonate with most of the hardworking families of this country. They need us to help them find affordable child care. This is an extremely important productivity measure that will boost female workforce participation, that will be an economic enabler across our nation. We as a government stand ready to invest almost $40 billion over the next four years into child care. This includes the extra $3.5 million for the Jobs for Families package, to make child care simpler, more flexible and more accessible. The government is committed to supporting parents raising children. We are also committed to ensuring the family and childcare systems remain targeted, sustainable and effective into the long-term by reforming the family tax benefit system.

We on this side of the House spend a great deal of time looking beyond today. That is what we are elected do. It is not about political survival, it is not about my political tenure as the local member for Braddon, it is not even about the Liberal or National parties. I thought that we were all elected to do what was best for the country, to ensure that this nation's prosperity is sustainable and effective. We cannot continue to be either sustainable or effective with massive debt over our head and an undisciplined approach to expenditure which will ultimately lead to ongoing deficits—every budget spending more than we earn. Any person with a modicum of common sense would know that that is unsustainable. I accept that in any change of government policy there will be people across the nation who are impacted more than others, but I have not been elected, the government has not been elected, to develop policy for individuals. The government is elected to develop policies for the prosperity and the betterment of the nation as a whole.

That is what this bill is about. It is about taking advantage of the need to find funds for a childcare system that is absolutely in need of reform. Our welfare system is growing beyond the reasonable capacity of taxpayers to pay for it. Again, to those watching or listening, hear this: the taxes paid by eight out of every 10 persons who takes home a pay cheque this week or this fortnight go to pay the welfare bill of the nation. The taxes of eight out of every 10 hardworking taxpayers taxes go to pay just the welfare bill of the country.

The welfare system in this country should be a safety net—that is what it is about. Any fair-minded Australians would agree that their taxes should and can be used with their blessing to protect the vulnerable. This country is great like that—they get that. But, what they do not get, is their hard-earned taxes sustaining a system that is inherently not there as a safety net but has become some system of, shall I say, support that some people think just now is to be expected each and every day.

Under this bill, from 1 July 2016 couple families eligible for FTB B, other than grandparents, will receive the payment only while the youngest child is aged under 13 years. This replaces the 2014-15 budget measure, which reduced payment eligibility to the age of six. The government will continue to provide vulnerable families, such as single parents and grandparent carers, with FTB B assistance, until the youngest child turns 13. These changes will enable us to invest more heavily into giving Australian children the best start in life.

As a result of the new childcare package that we have spoken about, families using childcare services from July 2017, and with incomes of between $65,000 and $170,000, will be on average $30 a week better off. The Jobs for Families package has several components, including a two-year national nanny pilot program to support around 10,000 children in families finding it difficult to access standard childcare services.

As the elected member for Braddon, I know that some in my electorate—not the majority but a significant part of my electorate—are in geographical locations that make it very difficult for them to access child care. The member for Adelaide obviously knows my electorate better than me, by the look of the squint I just got from her across the chamber, but I think I know my electorate. Can I say that the nanny pilot program, which is designed to provide care to 10,000 children, will be warmly welcomed in my electorate. It will open up possibilities that do not currently exist for mums and dads across my electorate.

The government wants to provide creative choices for people to find the childcare system that works for them. The Child Care Subsidy will simplify what is currently a very complicated system by replacing three payments: the Child Care Benefit, the Child Care Rebate, and the Jobs, Education and Training Child Care Fee Assistance. The Child Care Safety Net will provide targeted support to vulnerable families and childcare services in disadvantaged communities. There will be stricter immunisation requirements for receiving childcare subsidies and support, under the Australian government's No Jab, No Pay policy.

As I wrap this up, can I just say that the government is absolutely committed over the long term to continuing to assist families to raise their children. But can I stress 'long term', because I want to go back to a point I made earlier. Good government policy has an eye to the future. It is not about our political fortunes today. It is not a Band-Aid fix that we are looking at. We are looking at generational change to a policy that is currently out of date, far too complicated and does need some serious reform. But we are committed to families in the long term. I say to the people of Braddon: if you want a sustainable welfare system that is there as a safety net, if you desire effective child care, for not only your own children but shortly, probably, your grandchildren, it has to be affordable. The nation's finances have to be in order and sometimes governments need to make decisions that will be taken advantage of by our political opponents.

I think the Australian people—and certainly the electorate that I represent, and I am sure the other 149 electorates are exactly the same—seriously understand the need for this government to get the finances of the country under control. They have a view that they are prepared to do what is in the best interests of the country, if we explain it and if we find a national fairness about it. But it is not helped by the deceit and the militant action of some, who just seek to destroy the future of our country. I say to those opposite: get with the program, stop thinking about today and start thinking about tomorrow.

See this speech in context