Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Herbert has not only a very mobile but a very intelligent electorate if they are asking excellent questions like that. The childcare reforms were originally designed, in their first iteration, by the now Treasurer when he was Minister for Social Services. He also bore the responsibility for finding the savings inside the family tax benefit system to pay for those reforms. It is now the case, because of machinery-of-government changes, that the Minister for Education and Training has taken responsibility for child care. As the member for Herbert would be well aware, the genesis of the changes that we have suggested for child care, which need to be paid for with appropriate, rational savings out of the family tax benefit system, was the work of the Productivity Commission. The commission noted that 165,000 Australian parents said that they wanted to, and would, work more but felt that they were unable to do so or inhibited from doing so because of the access to and arrangements surrounding child care. They are the 165,000 Australians whom we are working very hard for, whom we have devised a plan for and whom we wish to assist to engage in the workforce. As the member has noted—and as his constituents are no doubt keenly aware—that has to be paid for. Perhaps it is timely for me give him a response that relates to the procedural mechanism by which that payment will occur.

We had a rare event in the House last week, where members opposite agreed with savings initiated by the government. It does not happen very often, but it did happen last week. Those savings, with respect to a mechanism to pay for at least some portion of that childcare spend—$525 million worth of savings—were agreed to by members opposite. They will mean that, in the not-too-distant future, the family tax benefit will end for couple families when their youngest child turns 13. They will be making a contribution—$500 million worth of contribution—to sweeping reforms to child care. It is now the case, as the member would be aware, that we have legislation before the House this week with all the details on the childcare package. But that package involves a very significant expenditure of money, and it has to be paid for. One of the benefits that we have seen is that the expenditure is slightly less than expected; there is less generosity to those on higher incomes and better targeting of childcare support to those on lower incomes. But I want to assure the member for Herbert and his constituents that, whilst the childcare package needs to be paid for and whilst only part of it has been agreed to, the remaining savings will come back before this House, with some slight modifications. I have sent some legislation to the member for Jagajaga, and that revolves around excluding the small group of grandparent carers and single parents over 60—both small groups. We have been able to do that because the spend on child care, due to the work of the education minister, is less than we had thought. (Time expired)

See this speech in context