Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for the minister. I did not hear your complete second reading speech. Some industry groups have predicted associated cost increases of somewhere between $12 and $22 per day as a result of the national quality framework. There is some concern that these overheads will not be able to be absorbed by childcare providers, so the expectation is that these costs will be passed on to parents. I seek confirmation or the refutation of those industry figures, whether they are accurate or not and whether the government has undertaken any modelling or consideration of these costs being passed on to parents and thus increasing the out-of-pocket expense for parents in seeking childcare services.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Bernardi for the question and his interest in this matter. I know he shares Minister Ellis's concern about and interest in these matters.

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

At the moment you might have but one never knows about the future. I can say this in response to your question. The impact of the national quality reforms on cost to families will be modest and will depend on a range of factors, including family income and the level of usage of early childhood education and care services. Independent analysis by Access Economics indicates that the average out-of-pocket cost increase for a family on an annual income of $80,000, with one child attending full-time long day care, would be $8.67 per week by the financial year 2014-15. As the changes will be introduced over a number of years, services will have time to adjust and the government expects there will be no sudden increased cost to families. Further, many services already operate at the required ratios and qualifications and so there will be little change.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister, for the clarification that the expected increase for out-of-pocket expenses is $7.78 per day. Specifically, do you then reject the industry based estimates of $12 to $22 per day as the national quality framework? Once again I ask whether the government has undertaken any specific modelling outside of that one scenario that you gave me to either refute or support these industry figures?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is no.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It almost beggars belief that the government can say the industry figures are not correct and yet has not undertaken any modelling outside of the single case scenario that you just detailed to us. There are a myriad different scenarios that will impact individual families quite differently, and to only examine one of those scenarios really suggests that the Australian people, once again, have been sold a pup and told that this will not impact upon them, it will not create any serious negativity for them, but you are relying on a very narrow case example. I may have this entirely wrong but I know that I represent the concerns of a number of people, including many on the Labor side, who are also worried about families and child care and how these things are going to impact upon those who are already struggling and finding it very tough to make ends meet. To come back to it, I seek an explanation as to why, with such limited examination of such a critical issue that will affect many millions of Australians, it has not been done.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Bernardi for his question. The government obviously is concerned about this issue, and that is why we have brought this piece of legislation into the parliament. We believe Access Economics is an appropriate organi­sa­tion to do this research and analysis. Again I repeat that its conclusion as a result of its research was that the average out-of-pocket cost increase for a family on an annual income of $80,000 a year with one child attending full-time long-day care would be $8.67 a week by the year 2014-15. We stand by the report and we believe Access Econ­omics has accurately dealt with this issue.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the minister responsible arriving at any stage or will you, Minister, be handling this on her behalf?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be handling it on her behalf, yes.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the primary purpose of this legislation to generate savings?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, the primary purpose is to generate savings—$81 million, to be precise.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that, it might be an appropriate time to put this in a little context. I do have a number of questions but some context at this point might be useful as we have not had this legislation before us in the chamber for some time. The government is putting forward a change in the maximum per child rebate to $7,500 per annum. In essence that is what it does, and it also completely cuts out the indexation for several years. The reason I raise this before I move to my questions is that it is important that we look at exactly what this piece of legislation does and exactly what the current arrangements would be if the standing arrangements had been in place. It would have been $8,179 per annum and we are now looking to reduce that under this legislation to $7,500. When, as the minister has just indicated, the primary purpose of this legislation is savings, many out there in the community would be very concerned that child care is being used as a cash cow for the government.

The minister referred to the figure of $81 million in savings. It is interesting that this government has spent $80.9 million on an emissions trading scheme that does not even exist. He we are on one hand looking at government waste of around $81 million and yet working families out in our communities, and particularly regional families, are going to have to wear a savings measure of almost exactly the same figure. That would raise the question for those out in the community: why are working families having to bear the brunt of this when the government has already wasted $81 million on something like administering the emissions trading scheme that does not even exist? This government needs to answer a lot of questions about why child care is being used as a cash cow—why the savings have to be generated from this area. I ask the minister at this point why it was deemed appropriate that the child care rebate be used to raise funds for a government with a debt of $198 billion.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Nash for her question. We probably need to put the measure in some perspective. The way I propose to do that is to indicate that the vast majority of families using approved child care—some 95 per cent or 759,000—will not reach the reduced annual cap in the financial year 2011-12 and therefore will not be affected by this change. Less than five per cent of the families in the year 2011-12 using approved child care will be affected by this change and it will be very modest—there will be on average a $7 per week impact on these families. The measure will not affect childcare benefit payments to lower income families. Those benefit rates and their thresholds will continue to be indexed in line with the current policy.

I further point out to Senator Nash—and this might be of some interest to her constituents—$59.4 million of the expected $81 million savings from this measure will be redirected to help improve the quality of up to 142 budget based funded services by 2014 that operate predominantly in rural, remote and Indigenous communities and provide care to some of Australia's most vulnerable children. Almost half of these services are the only provider of child care in their community.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. Minister, what consultation was undertaken as part of the process of drafting this legislation? The minister has indicated that in his view this is not necessarily a signi­ficant cost burden, but I would say any increase to the cost burden of families and in particular working families is going to be something they would rather avoid. It simply does not make sense to make things more difficult for working families rather than to make it easier. It is quite extraordinary that we have the Labor Party over here, who purport to stand up for working families, and the Greens and Senator Hanson-Young, who has been very vocal on this issue for quite some time now, prepared to whack an extra financial burden on these families. Minister, specifically what consultation was undertaken with not only industry but also families throughout the communities on the potential impact of this legislation?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Nash for her question. When we are starting to talk about what this government has done it is important to make the comparison with what the previous government, your government, did in respect of this issue. Senator Nash, I know you do not like talking about the sorts of things you did to working families when your government was in power, particularly Work Choices. It will not go into that issue, but I will go to what your government was doing in terms of the child care rebate. Under the previous government the maximum child care rebate cap was $4,354. This government increased the cap to $7,500, so that is an increase of 72 per cent and some $3,146 more than under your government. This government introduced quarterly payments of the child care rebate to families and, from July 2011, fortnightly rebate payments, increasing support for families. The government will continue to cover 50 per cent of families' out-of-pocket childcare costs up to a capped maximum of $7,500 per child per year. The government is also providing improved support for parents and jobless families to transition and income support for employment by promoting increased take-up and indexation of jobs, education and training childcare fee assistance as of July 2012.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the minister whether he has any intention of addressing the question.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have answered as to what the government has done in its proposals and I have done that in comparison to what the previous government did in this area.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I was not clear in my question. I thought I was straightforward and I thought I was fairly clear in my question. What I asked the minister, before he went on his rant harking back to the old days—as the government do when they are in a bit of a corner—was: what consultation has been undertaken with industry and families involved in the sector to determine the impact this legislation is going to have?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rest assured, Senator Nash, that we are not in a corner on this issue. What I have indicated to you is that, when you compare what this govern­ment has done in terms of the childcare rebate, it has significantly improved the position for most families. I will repeat the figures that I gave you a moment ago. The amounts have gone up from $4,354 to $7,500. That is an increase of 72 per cent and is $3,146 more than what was the case under your government.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Isn't this interesting! I have now given the minister two opportunities to inform the chamber about what consultation has taken place with the sector and with families in the community to determine the impact of this legislation, and on both those occasions the minister has been unable to provide the chamber with an answer. Quite frankly, I think that is appalling.

On the other side of this chamber, the Prime Minister and her Labor government might think it is okay to increase costs for families for child care. On this side of the chamber we disagree with that. Having accepted that this is the piece of legislation the government are putting forward, I think it is quite appropriate for those in this chamber to at least be informed as to what consultation the government had with the sector and with families in the community. How on earth can the government sit on the other side of this chamber and say the change is going to be negligible and there is not going to be any impact if they cannot actually enlighten us and those listening as to what consultation took place?

I am very interested to note that Childcare Alliance Australia, which is one organisation that I know of, undertook a research strategy showing that there were going to be increases of $12 to $22 a day. They represent 70 per cent of long day care providers. Perhaps I can ask a specific question: can the minister inform the chamber whether the government consulted with Childcare Alliance Australia?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Nash for her statement. It is important to point out that I was not saying there was no impact on families. As I indicated, the particular figure was that 95 per cent, or 759,000 families, will not reach the reduced annual cap in the year 2011-2012 and therefore will not be affected by this change. As to your question, Senator Nash, about who we consulted with, of course this was our policy that we took to the last election. So, if you like to look at it that way, we consulted with the Australian people before the last election. We took our policy to them. The opposition is always criticising this government for not taking our policies to the people. Well, we took this policy to the electorate before the last election. We consulted with the Australian people. The Australian people decided that they would re-elect this government and, as a result, we are coming forward with the legislation that we took to them at the last election. So we have consulted with all Australians about this matter and, of course, we were re-elected. In terms of particular organisations that we may or may not have spoken with, I happen to know the minister and I know that she regularly consults with people in this—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She might do that as well. But I happen to know that she regularly consults with organisations in the sector that she is responsible for. This is her sector and I feel sure that she makes it a practice to consult with all of those organisations. That does not mean that just because you consult with organisations you do what they want you to do or you accept their positions, because as a government we have to make decisions. But we took this policy to the last election, we have consulted with the Australian people about that and they have re-elected us.

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

They have re-elected us, Senator Bernardi. You may not like that but they have re-elected us and we are now proceeding with the policy that we took to the last election. We have explained it exhaustively. I do not think I can explain it any more clearly to you than how I have explained it to you already, Senator Nash. We have consulted with the Australian people. We regularly consult with organisa­tions in this sector. That does not necessarily mean that we always do what they want us to do.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do appreciate, Minister, that, as you have just indicated, you think you have explained it clearly. Actually you have not answered a question or given the Senate chamber any information today that has been of any assistance whatsoever. I would hazard a guess that, running up to the last election campaign, many people were not aware of this. I note that you did indicate to the chamber that this has been explained fulsomely and that consultation has taken place. I am happy to accept that if you can tell me what has taken place. Perhaps, in the midst of this conversation that we are having here, some of the officials might be able to find out if Childcare Alliance Australia was consulted as part of the negotiations leading up to this piece of legislation coming into this chamber. I think it is very important, when we have an organisation that represents 70 per cent of long day care providers taking the time and going to the trouble to do the research from their perspective of what they feel the increased costs are going to be, that this chamber knows whether or not the views of that organisation have been taken into account by the minister. So I do not think that is too much of a stretch of a question for the minister. Perhaps, as I have said, the officials might be able to look into that while we are continuing to discuss this. But I will ask the minister one question, and I will get to it in just a moment.

I do note that you said 'we consulted with the Australian people prior to the last election on this'. That is very good. I suppose the question that most people would like to ask at this point in time is why on earth the government did not consult with the Aust­ralian people before the last election on a carbon tax. Apparently it is okay to go and consult with a sector and consult with a community in the knowledge that you took to the last election, as Senator Farrell has just informed us, the information that people needed to understand this piece of legislation, the Family Assistance Legis­lation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010. Apparently it is very important that consultation took place, because the minister has just told us about that, but what about consultation on a carbon tax? You do not think that might have been a little bit of a priority as well if perhaps the government thought that it should be consulting with the Australian people, as the minister, Senator Farrell, said was done before the last election on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010? You do not think that theory would also apply to a carbon tax? I would say, colleagues, given that the minister has raised this issue, that I think it is very important that we ask the government if they pick and choose which particular pieces of legislation they are going to consult the Australian people about before an election.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pick and choose when they'll tell the truth.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Birmingham—pick and choose when they will tell the truth. I find it extraordinary the minister can stand in parliament and say, hand on heart, that they have consulted with the Australian people on this piece of legislation. I appreciate the intent with which Minister Ellis said that, Senator Farrell, and I think it is a very good thing. I think prior to elections the people of Australia should be consulted on issues of importance that are going to impact them. I would say that this particular piece of legislation is one of them; it is going to hit the hip pockets of families around the country in terms of their childcare fees.

One wonders why the government did not ask the Australian people about a carbon tax. Perhaps before the last election the Prime Minister could have said: 'Yes, I'm going to bring in a carbon tax. Not only that, I'm going to tell the people before the election that I'm going to bring in a carbon tax, and I will consult with the people before I bring in a carbon tax.' That reminds me: the Prime Minister did indicate that nothing would go ahead on a carbon tax until rigorous consul­tation with the community had occurred. It is a bit unfortunate that that never happened. So I ask the minister what response, if any, there has been from the sector about the potential implementation of these measures.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Nash for her contribution. You will get plenty of time to talk about the carbon tax when that legislation comes before the parliament, but on this occasion we are talking about child care and, in particular, this piece of childcare legislation. I do not think I can make it any clearer. We took this policy to the last election. The Australian people, to the extent that they were interested or involved or took the trouble to find out what our policy was, would have understood that this was our policy. We made it very clear that this was what we intended to do, and the government was re-elected. I know you do not like that, Senator Nash, but the reality is that this government was re-elected.

We are simply implementing the policy that we took to the last election. We would have liked to have done it earlier, but that was not possible. We are now in a position to proceed with this legislation. As I indicated before, Minister Ellis is regularly in touch with all of the organisations and stake­holders—that is the popular word—in this industry. She regularly meets with those organisations. I do not think there was anybody in the industry—and you talked about knowledge of the proceedings—who was not aware that this was our policy. We have taken that to the people. Those people in the industry knew what our policy would be. Now what we want to do in a timely way is to proceed with this legislation and to pass what was endorsed by the Australian people at the last election.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It seems that the minister's sole defence for extracting additional funds from Australian families for child care is that they took this to the last election, promised it, and there was widespread consultation. I suggest to the minister, before I put my question, that this line of defence is wholly and entirely uncredible given the history and track record of this government. Let us remind ourselves of some of the promises that were taken to the last election. There was the cash-for-clunkers deal. Australian families' cash has certainly paid for a clunker of a government, but that is not what it was about. It was about a transition into new cars from old. It was entirely discredited, but it was taken as a key plank to the last election. I do not see the government implementing that because they knew that it was a bad piece of policy.

We also have the instance, as Senator Nash articulately outlined, of the carbon tax. 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Those words haunt every Australian family today as they expect their electricity bills to rise, their jobs to be lost and industry and carbon emissions to be exported overseas. And not to see climate change one jot or tittle, not to see it change one iota, but to re-engineer the Australian economy with a tax that we cannot afford. Of course, that was another promise that this minister conveniently overlooks. But there was also the promise that, instead of a carbon tax, there would be efforts to build community consensus about the need for a carbon tax. There was going to be a cabal, a gathering, of people with different view­points about climate change and what action needed to be taken on it. There was going to be a lasting and deep community consensus before—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A citizens assembly!

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right! The good citizens of Australia were going to have their say. And 148 members of the House of Representatives went to an election saying there would be no carbon tax or emissions trading scheme and that there would have to be a deep community consensus before any ETS or carbon tax was going to be introduced. That was a crystal clear promise. It was only dumped after the election because this government was not prepared to keep its promises.

But the government tries to keep its promises that will damage and hurt everyday Australians, promises such as this one, which not only raises my concerns about the lack of support for stay-at-home mothers but seeks, in my opinion, to force parents, in a way, to put their children into institutionalised child care. It removes the start-up rebate, I understand, for family day care centres, which provide, in my opinion, a much more enduring and nurturing environment for children who cannot be at home with one or both parents. In a move to save a relatively meagre $83 million or so over four years, the government is prepared to disadvantage 27,000-plus families, to add to their costs every year. The government is doing this because it was a promise at the last election.

Indeed, the minister may be right. There may have been consultation by Minister Ellis in the other place with some of the industry stakeholder groups. But do you really think the Australian people had this front and centre when they were making their decision at the last election? Do you really think the families of Australia, who knew they were doing it tough under Labor—never knowing how much tougher it would get for them—were making their analysis on what was going to happen in respect of the childcare arrangements? The answer, on any reason­able analysis, would have to be no, they were not. They were focused on the relief that there was going to be no carbon tax. They knew no carbon dioxide tax or emissions trading scheme was going to put up the cost of living and drive industry offshore and destroy jobs, as it has destroyed the credi­bility of successive Labor administrations.

I am sure also, Senator Farrell, that the minister undertook the greatest consultation when she called into the SDA and asked them what she should be deciding. I have no doubt at all that she could ignore the claims of all the other industry stakeholders and just accept the claims of the SDA. If this is SDA approved, if this is family friendly, I would like you to stand up and say that the SDA has given this its stamp of authority. I know that Peter Malinauskas is now running the show in South Australia, or officially anyway. But I also know, Senator Farrell, that you keep a very close eye on what Peter does. I can see the strings sometimes. Senator Farrell, I need to know whether the minister went into the offices of the SDA, whether she consulted with the union bosses there and whether she actually undertook any consultation with you with respect to your previous involvement in this area. Is this bill approved by your union? It is a very simple question; I would like you to provide a very quick answer.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Bernardi. This piece of legislation was approved by the Australian people at the last election. That is who we took it to for approval. We made it very clear to the Australian people what our policy was. We made it very clear to the Australian people before the last election what it was that we would do if they re-elected us. Sure enough, they did re-elect us and now we are doing exactly what we said we would do.

I think it is important to point out that the savings that will be made through this change in the cap will be reinvested in quality improvements to centres that service our most vulnerable children. Okay, some savings are being made, but they are being reinvested in quality improvements. I will go through some of the things that we have done in this respect. Over the next four years we are going to invest $20 billion in early education and care. This is $13 billion more than was provided in the last four years of the government that you were a member of, Senator Bernardi.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A fine government.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was not a fine government when you start talking about the sorts of things they did to working families. Can I just bring you back to Work Choices, what you voted for and did in that government and the damage that you did to working families in this country.

Senator Nash interjecting—

Senator Nash, I know you do not like the truth about what you did to working families through Work Choices, but that is the reality.

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

Even your mentor, Senator Minchin, has now accepted that you made a blunder with that particular policy. I would have thought you would have come round to that same conclusion yourself, Senator Bernardi. I thought you religiously followed everything your mentor—or should I say tormentor to some—does.

Over the next four years we intend to invest $20 billion in this area, $13 billion more than the last four years of the Howard government. We are providing record levels of assistance directly to families through the childcare benefit and childcare rebate. Over the next four years we are going to provide $16.4 billion in direct fee assistance for Australian families through the childcare benefit and childcare rebate. This is more than double the funding that was provided by the former coalition government. While the coalition government was perfectly happy to leave the childcare rebate capped at 30 per cent with an annual cap of just $4,354 per year, we increased the rebate to 50 per cent of the parents' out-of-pocket expenses and increased the maximum for each child in care to $7,500 a year. This represents a 72 per cent increase that has assisted more than 735,000 Australian families to pay for child care since July 2008.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was sparked by some of the comments that Senator Farrell made to ask an additional question of him about this mandate that he is claiming for this legislation, legislation that he said was approved by the Australian people at the election held just a touch over a year ago. I am wondering if Senator Farrell will be able to show the Senate how that approval was manifested. Where was the television ad about these changes to the childcare rebate? Where was the radio advertisement about these changes to the childcare rebate? Where was the mention of these changes to the childcare rebate in, say, the Prime Minister's campaign launch speech?

Where was the mention of these changes to the childcare rebate in the material from the Labor Party that cluttered the letterboxes of Australians? Did Ms Ellis herself take this issue up with her own constituency? Did any of her campaign material in the electorate of Adelaide highlight these changes?

The parliamentary secretary is claiming that there was clear, unequivocal approval given by the Australian people at last year's election for these changes. Obviously, if it was such clear and unequivocal approval there was very clear and unequivocal information provided to the Australian people. The people in the gallery and the school children in the gallery up there are obviously paying close attention to what is happening in the Senate today. As much as I would like to think that there are a few other people around the place, I do not kid myself, Senator Farrell, into believing that mums and dads who are busy at work, who have dropped their kids off at child care while they are at work, are necessarily paying intricate detail to legislation that is laid on the table and yet to be debated in this place or the other place. I do not think you can say, 'We had a proposal; we had a bill; we had a plan and it appeared on a government website somewhere,' and say that the Aust­ralian people were informed, and because they were informed and re-elected your government, you have this all-encompassing mandate to make a change such as this one.

Quite clearly, yes, you may have mused about doing this before. You may have put it on a government website and you may have even introduced legislation to get to the first stage of debating it. But what did you actually do? If you want to claim an electoral mandate, if you want to claim the stamp of approval and authority from the Australian people, what did you actually do to earn that? What did you do to proactively ensure that the families who will be most directly affected by this knew about it? What did you do to ensure that those families were fully informed? What did Ms Ellis do to ensure that before people in my home suburb, in her electorate, went down to the local ballot box and cast their votes that they knew that this is what she was planning to do as the childcare minister? How did they know that this is what your government was planning to do?

In claiming that there was widespread consultation, I note that in the submission to the inquiry into this legislation we have a situation where your now friends in the LHMU—the 'missos' union—made a submission that was quite critical of this and highlighted the longer term impacts of it. Their submission stated:

… it must be recognised that without alternative allocation of funding, the proportion of affected families will certainly increase over the subsequent years. We draw attention to the fact that childcare fees have risen by 34.9% since June 2005—more than 2.5 times the headline inflation rate over this period. With the capping of the [childcare rebate] and continuing fee inflation, the cost of future fee increases will be increasingly met by parents at all income levels, exacerbating the cost of childcare for many families.

Let us just dwell on those last few words.

With the capping of the [childcare rebate] … the cost of future fee increases will be increasingly met by parents at all income levels, exacerbating the cost of childcare for many families.

That is the 'missos' union. Senator Farrell, I know that you and Ms Ellis have not traditionally consulted the 'missos' union terribly much. Mr Butler, the member for Port Adelaide, has been the custodian of the representation of the 'missos' union in the federal parliamentary Labor Party delegation from South Australia and you have tended to take somewhat opposite approaches to things during that time. I note that recently there has been a bonding, a merging of sentiment, between the 'shoppies' union that you and Ms Ellis represent and the 'missos' union that made this submission, that Mr Butler and Mr Wetherill and others represent. I would have hoped that even if you had not historically listened to what they had to say, even if you had not listened to what they had to say back when this idea was conceived, or back when the 'missos' union gave their evidence, now you might give it a little more thought and encouragement. But, Minister, to return to the key question that your comments sparked, how is it that you claim this mandate, this sweeping approval from the Australian people? What did your government do proactively to inform voters before they put that little green piece of paper for the House of Representatives in the ballot box at the last election?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Birmingham for his contribution. I do not think I can be any clearer about what we did at the last election. This was our policy. We took it to the Australian people and they have re-elected this government. What we are now proceeding to do is implement the mandate that we received at the last election.

I think we are starting to go round and round in circles. At this point, I would like to table the supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber today.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just pick up on what Senator Birmingham asked and the minister's response where he said he was unable to be any clearer in regard to the mandate for this bill that they took to the last election. When we are talking about clarity, this is as clear as mud. This is a murky and muddy promise that you cannot, in good conscience, say was made plain and clear to the Australian people. It does not pass the common-sense test.

I would invite the minister to recollect during the last election campaign when Ms Gillard made allegedly unscripted remarks at the Labor Party campaign launch. We know that was not true. It was another deception, another hoax played upon the Australian people. The Labor luminaries—I can remember their faces—were all given their lines as they walked out of the conference, saying: 'Those remarks by Ms Gillard were entirely unscripted. What a wonderful woman. How passionate. It is the real Julia.' Then the inconvenient truth was exposed that the remarks were entirely scripted and the script had been left on the podium—once again drawing into question the credibility of the Prime Minister, both the fake Julia and the real Julia.

I would put to you, Senator Farrell, that there has been and there was no clarity. There was no mandate that you could claim at the last election—notwithstanding the fact that, yes, you have been able to cobble together a minority government—because your policy program, such as these cost increases that you are imposing upon families, was entirely rejected either by the Australian people or by your own party in such things as dumping the cash-for-clunkers scheme, dumping your own key plank of policy which is called the 'no carbon tax under a government I lead' policy, and in junking your community consensus. I forget what its name was. It was abhorrent. The deception of the Australian people meant that the outcome of that last election is muddy and the credibility for this govern­ment to implement any of its programs is absolutely murky and clouded and under deep suspicion.

While that suspicion is felt very strongly out there by the Australian people and while the Australian people are actually angry at this government, it is no longer a case of Liberals versus Labor; it is all of Australia against this government. They are mocked and derided by people like Mr Albanese in the other place because there were not 6,000 trucks taking time off from their work of trying to make ends meet to have a protest. They could get—only!—about 400 or 500 people travelling from all over Australia at their own expense to come here. They are mocked and derided for sharing in this part of democracy. It is just like those people who want to hold this government to account for its no carbon tax promise and were derided as cranks and extremists because they dared to disagree with this government.

Let me suggest to you, Senator Farrell, that at no stage during the last election and at no stage in your key policy announcements at the Labor Party election launch did the Prime Minister ever say to the 20,700-plus families that are going to be affected by this thing, 'We are going to make you pay more for your child care.' At no stage would she have said that. I am happy to stand corrected and I would invite you and your coterie of advisers to go into the Hansard, look for the election promises and show me the actual words where the Prime Minister said that we are going to increase the cost of child care for 20,000-plus families. I would suggest to you respectfully that that is not the case. So please, don't pull my leg or anyone else's leg in this place by saying that this was clear, that there was clarity on this at the last election. We know that is not true. We know that it is as clear as mud. That is why the Australian people are rejecting this government and that is why the coalition has grave concerns, grave reservations, about the deception played upon the Australian people and what this cost of child care is going to be doing to the affordability of it for so many families.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I reinforce Senator Bernardi's question to the minister. If Ms Gillard made a commitment in relation to reducing the benefits made to parents for child care, why, Minister, would anyone in Australia have believed her at the time? You will recall, of course, that just a year ago, just a few days before the election, Ms Gillard promised everyone in Australia, 'There shall be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' When Tony Abbott pointed out to the Australian public on about a dozen occasions that a Greens-Labor accord would introduce a carbon tax, the deputy Labor leader, Mr Swan, said that Mr Abbott was being hysterical. Ms Gillard came back the day before the election and, hand on heart, promised all Australians, 'There shall be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' So how could the Australian people, knowing that Ms Gillard told the Australian public a direct and deliberate lie, take any notice of any commitment that the Labor Party and their Greens allies gave before the election?

Senator Bernardi has raised as well the question of what notice the government will take in relation to child care of the protesters that came from all over Australia yesterday to make their views known. They are protestors who did it the right way, sought approval from the police authorities, and yet Senator Brown, the Greens political party leader, who has a record of illegal protesting, accused the convoy of being a convoy that has not blockaded anything. Senator Brown, do you know why they did not blockade anything? Because they abided by the law. They told the police and asked the police for directions where they could do it. They wanted to do it in a lawful and orderly way, unlike Senator Brown. Senator Brown came in and said they were a mob of moaners in town to moan about everything in general and nothing in particular. Fancy that coming from Senator Bob Brown, who has a whole history of moaning and whingeing about everything—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald has a right to be heard in silence.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Obviously the Labor Party do not want me to point out that their mates in the Greens political party were out there illegally protesting in the old days—

Progress reported.