Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

Family First welcomes initiatives that are good for Australian families and is pleased the government has provided some help for families in this budget. But this budget is a budget of missed opportunities for the Howard battlers. The Howard battlers are the Australian families in the outer suburbs and regional areas who are struggling to make ends meet. They are families reeling from soaring petrol prices as well as increasing grocery costs and electricity and water bills. The government has missed its opportunity to provide real relief to these Australian families where they need it most—at the petrol pump.

The government has also missed its opportunity to provide real relief to Australian families with respect to child care by giving all families genuine choice about the type of child care that best suits their needs. The way to do that is to treat all parents the same instead of giving a lot more to those who opt for institutional child care. If families want their children to be cared for by a grandparent, friend, neighbour or nanny in a family home, why should they miss out? Give all parents the same benefit and then let them be the judge of who is best to care for their children.

This budget of missed opportunities for the Howard battlers confirms that the Prime Minister has failed the families who have put their faith in him. This is a budget that puts the market first, that puts the market ahead of families. It is a budget that looks at the childcare issue through the lens of how we can get more mothers into the paid workforce. Instead, we should be focusing on what is best for our children and what is the best we can do for all parents so they have genuine choice about whether to stay at home or enter the paid workforce.

Let us turn to petrol, an issue the government has turned its back on, despite the fact that soaring petrol prices are crippling Australian families. Only this week, a survey of more than 5,000 families revealed that one in every three families declared high petrol prices as their main challenge when trying to make ends meet. For a year and a half Family First has been calling on the government to cut petrol tax by 10c a litre, which the Prime Minister yesterday said would cost $2.8 billion. The government’s stubborn refusal to cut petrol tax again shows how out of touch it is with families in the outer suburbs and in regional Australia who are today paying up to $1.40 a litre for petrol. Family First will continue its campaign, because cutting petrol tax is affordable and commonsense, because it provides real relief to families and small businesses and because it takes pressure off inflation and interest rates.

Now consider the much debated childcare issue. The Treasurer trumpets how the focus of the government’s childcare policy is to get mothers back into the paid workforce. ‘It is very important to encourage mothers back into the workforce,’ he said. Not only does this remark devalue the role of stay-at-home parents, who are very much part of Australia’s workforce, albeit not paid; it is revealing that the government’s No. 1 focus is on serving the needs of the market, as opposed to serving the needs of our kids. The key question is not ‘How can we get more mothers back into the workforce?’ but ‘What is in the best interests of our children?’

Family First supports parents returning to work if that is what they want to do, but childcare policies must be driven by the interests of children, not of adults. We need childcare policies that are family friendly, not market friendly. While the government has provided more money for child care, it has failed to reform a flawed system that benefits only parents who opt to send their children to institutional child care.

Family First regrets that a government that claims to be pro family still refuses to give families real choice by giving all families the same funding, even if they do not opt for institutional child care. It is a fact that many Australian parents prefer to look after their own children, particularly when they are young, or to entrust their child to a family member or friend in a home environment rather than to a childcare centre.

Parents who send their children to childcare centres can claim childcare benefits of up to $7,500 per child per year, while also pocketing up to $4,000 per child per year in childcare tax rebate. But if parents prefer that other people look after their children in a family home—say, grandparents, the next-door neighbour, a close relative or a friend—they can only claim up to about $1,300 per child per year and they are denied any childcare tax rebate. It is a big difference—a huge difference, in fact. Enrol your child in a market-friendly childcare centre and you can line up to claim your financial bonuses, but bypass the commercial option and have your child cared for by a friend or a grandparent in a family home and you will miss out. The government is providing a clear financial signal as to where its priorities lie: for the Howard government, the market always comes first.

It is also fascinating how the government’s childcare system is so focused on helping middle- to high-income professional couples, certainly not the Howard battlers. How many Howard battlers can really afford to pay large out-of-pocket expenses on child care in the first place to get the rebate? The childcare tax rebate assumes families can afford to pay these expensive out-of-pocket childcare expenses up-front. To claim the maximum $4,000 rebate, parents would have to be spending about $12,000 a year in out-of-pocket expenses. Most families that my wife, Sue, and I know would struggle to find just $500 for out-of-pocket expenses. How many Howard battlers can afford that sort of money?

Let us turn to other aspects of the budget. Family First welcomes the additional funding to fight illicit drugs but is disappointed there is no extra funding to tackle the $7.6 billion alcohol toll. Australia has a culture of binge drinking, and alcohol is second only to tobacco as a preventable cause of death and hospitalisation in Australia. Furthermore, 40 per cent of police resources are tied up in alcohol related problems. Australia has tackled the road toll, the drug toll and the tobacco toll. We are well overdue on tackling our alcohol toll.

Also, Family First believes the government missed opportunities to genuinely help the Howard battlers by lifting the tax-free threshold for all taxpayers from $6,000 to $8,000 this year, rising to $13,000—equivalent to subsistence income—in future years as the budget allows. Family First regrets that the government did not provide a further increase in the tax-free threshold of $1,000 for each dependent child.

Finally, Family First condemns the government for failing to provide any budget money to upgrade the Princes Highway, ignoring the greatest need of families in south-west Victoria. The budget listed the Geelong bypass, the Calder Highway and the Pakenham bypass for funding, which is welcome, but did not allocate one cent to the Princes Highway. It is ludicrous that the main route from Melbourne to south-west Victoria and South Australia, which provides trade, transport and tourism, is not considered a road of national significance.

This budget is an attempt to buy votes but a budget of missed opportunities for the Howard battlers.

Debate (on motion by Senator Colbeck) adjourned.