Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government will reduce cost-of-living pressures for Australian families through improved childcare support? Is the minister aware of any other approaches—ones that would hurt hardworking families?

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

I thank the member for his question. The point is that the government is on the verge of the most significant childcare reform in decades. As has been noted by the Prime Minister in an earlier answer, that very substantial $1.66 billion investment in child care has to be paid for—famously described by the member for Jagajaga as 'having to be paid for somehow'. We have always said from the very start of this process that the way in which we would find the appropriate savings funds to pay for generational reform to child care was through the family tax benefit system. The approach that has been settled on and the approach which the crossbench—or at least a majority of the crossbench—have agreed is a reasonable approach is a simple approach, and that is to pause the indexation of family tax benefit payments for two years starting on 1 July of this year. That will allow the government to achieve much-needed and generational reform to child care. No family would lose a dollar—not a dollar—

Ms Macklin interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Jagajaga is warned!

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

This year we spend $20 billion in the family tax benefit system and, by holding that amount constant for nearly two years, we pay for all of these marvellous achievements and changes in child care. I am asked, 'Are there any alternative approaches?' The Labor alternative is, in fact, equally simple—that is, simply do not make the savings and do not proceed with any reforms to the childcare system. The reason why they would adopt that approach is summarised in a press release put out by the member for Jagajaga this morning. They say that a two-year indexation pause to the family tax benefit system is a sledgehammer blow to Australian families. That is an interesting description when you consider the double standards involved. Labor in July 2009 reduced the indexation of family tax benefit part A from the pension rate down to CPI—not pausing; reducing. Labor in 2009 paused the higher income threshold for FTB, saving $1.4 billion over three years. Labor paused the indexation of the FTB part A and part B is supplements for three years in 2009. Labor paused the indexation of the—

Ms Butler interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith is warned!

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

FTB higher income threshold for two years in July 2012. Labor paused the indexation of the FTB higher income threshold for three years. None of those were sledgehammer blows—none of them—and none of the money was spent on reforms in child care. That is the alternative. (Time expired)