Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, during question time, the government said Labor's working family childcare boost is for 'the top end of town'. Is the government really saying a family on a joint income of $189,000 should be penalised for taking on extra work because the government considers they earn too much?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday, also in question time, on the exact same matter, I was able to respond and tell the House that when we sought to make changes to child care those opposite considered those on $185,000 to be too rich—they themselves—and they opposed our plan. For a year, those opposite delayed the implementation of our package, and we had to be in a position of negotiating with the crossbench in the Senate, and we were able to come to an agreement with Senator Hinch that enabled our plan to be put in place.

Once our plan was put in place, there were a number of things that happened. Workforce participation continued to rise to record levels, and female workforce participation rose to record levels, and the gender pay gap went to record lows prior to the COVID-19 recession hitting this country. Those changes also led to out-of-pocket expenses—as a result of the changes we made—falling by over three per cent. These are inconvenient facts for those opposite, as is the fact that they opposed those changes for so long and refused to act to support what was a sensible, means-tested and targeted plan that had the desired effect of getting more people into work—getting more families into work, getting more women into work. That's what those changes produced. The Labor Party opposed those.

Mr Speaker, that's why you can never believe them on these things. They're for and against everything. They're for and against absolutely everything. They're for taxes and they're against taxes—higher taxes and lower taxes. You can't follow them.

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

The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order on direct evidence: it's a very long preamble that the Prime Minister is engaging in now and not directly relevant to what was asked.

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

If members behind the Manager of Opposition Business could cease interjecting, it would make things easier for him and me.

Ms Murphy interjecting—

Member for Dunkley, thanks for saying sorry. Just don't interject again for the rest of question time, or you will be sorry, as I said to someone the other week. Before I call the Prime Minister, in response to the Manager of Opposition Business: up until that very point, I believe the Prime Minister was being relevant, given the scope of the question. He was relating his material to the policy area, and the question referred to answers he'd given yesterday. At the point that the Manager of Opposition Business jumped, though, I think the Prime Minister was drifting to another policy topic. He'll need to confine himself to the question.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was the first point I made, Mr Speaker. This is what happened back in 2015: those opposite accused me of designing a system—this is what the Labor spokesperson said: 'Wealthy families will be the big winners in the package, with families on incomes of $185,000 pocketing as much as $2½ thousand more per year.' The hypocrisy of those opposite on this matter speaks for itself. They're all over the shop.