Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Chisholm today relating to childcare.

It is hard to imagine what would actually provoke this government to meaningfully respond to women's economic interests, in particular, the significance and importance of Australian women having access to the labour market and consequently developing their own economic and financial independence, because the true meaning of 'independence' is the ability to find your way out of circumstances not of your choosing, to make real choices in the knowledge you have the economic resources to support you. The indifference to women's labour market participation, the indifference to their economic interests, the indifference to their wealth and the indifference to their super is absolutely remarkable.

The question on this occasion was about child care. For many families, the cost of child care is far too high. Childcare fees in Australia are amongst the highest in the OECD. In fact, our costs as a proportion of income are only eclipsed by a handful of other countries. It comes at a cost and it shows in our statistics, because high childcare fees are not only a hit to household budgets but act as a very, very significant barrier for parents, especially women, to return to work. The issue is that the childcare subsidy interacts with the personal tax system and the family tax benefit to mean that many mothers actually pay if they take on additional hours, and many more lose most of the additional income that they would obtain through working those hours. Women are being forced to reduce their working hours, missing out on career opportunities and advancement, missing out on superannuation, missing out on income.

Women need to balance earning enough money to afford these very high childcare fees but not so much that the childcare subsidy plummets and makes the experience of work financially pointless. The impact of this was shared by one young mother recently, who said: 'Realising it made more financial sense to work four days rather than five felt like an absolute blow. At no point did we consider my husband dropping down to four days. He has a secure job and his employer would not consider this. I, on the other hand, being a mum returning from leave, am nearly expected to be the one to request part-time employment.' And that young mum isn't alone, because her story is borne out again and again and again in the data. Data from the ABS shows that, of parents with a child younger than five, only 64 per cent of women were in the workforce compared with 95 per cent of men. And of those mothers who do work, 60 per cent of those are working part-time compared to only seven per cent of fathers. Even when children go to school, women continue to work part-time, and women are much more likely to be underemployed than men. One of the structural reasons for this low workforce participation amongst women is because of the high out-of-pocket costs of child care and the punitive tax rate that secondary income earners face.

We are facing very difficult economic circumstances. This is a time when governments all over the world are searching for solutions for growth, searching for solutions for productivity. If you want to increase Australia's productive capacity, it is pretty straightforward. There is an army of women out there, waiting for opportunities to work but on the condition that they actually are meaningfully financially rewarded for that contribution. You would think that it would be a policy priority for this government to consider their interests because it would be fair. It would not only be significantly fairer for those women but it would also be a good thing for the economy. It's a flat-out no-brainer. It is the most straightforward thing you could do to lift Australia's productive capacity. But there is zero interest, because this is a government run by men with almost no interest in the interests of women, who treat women's issues with contempt when they are raised, here in this chamber, at the estimates table, in the media. We get glib responses: 'Well, women are Australians; we look after all Australians.' I can tell you that is not what the data shows. The data shows women's economic interests are not improving. Women still face a gender pay gap. They face a super gap, they face a wealth gap, they face increasing rates of homelessness and, under this government, they face some of the highest childcare costs in the OECD.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wanted to start by responding to the last part of Senator McAllister's contribution where in attacking the coalition she ignores the record rates of female workforce participation in this nation under a coalition government. She ignores those inconvenient facts for herself. She talks about there being no women in this coalition government when we have the highest number of women in a cabinet in the history of our Commonwealth. Those criticisms should be seen for what they are, because they are not backed up by the facts. This government will always prioritise participation in the workforce for women, allowing families to make choices. That has been our government's record, that's what we'll continue to do and that's what our policies are directed at.

You do have to take a step back—before I go into some of the stats re child care and the support that the coalition and the Morrison government has been giving to child care and to families accessing child care over a number of years—and ask the question when you hear from the Labor Party and their critique on child care: who does the modern Labor Party represent? They are arguing against a childcare policy which has absolutely prioritised those on low and middle incomes. This is the government that actually said we are going to give a higher rate of subsidy to those on low and middle incomes, yet we have a Labor Party who claims to represent workers and who would say: 'No. What you actually have to do is give more subsidies to those on very high incomes.' That is the Labor Party's policy and that is the Labor Party's critique when it comes to child care. When we hear this line of questioning and this line of attack from the Labor Party, I am reminded of the comments of Joel Fitzgibbon, when he said he wanted to put 'labour' back into the Labor Party, because it is extraordinary. I'm old enough to remember when people didn't have to say things like, 'Let's put "labour" back into the Labor Party,' because perhaps many years ago, perhaps when I was just a young man—a very young man—Labor may have had a reputation as actually supporting workers and perhaps a reputation, once upon a time, once perhaps in the distant past, as actually supporting low- and middle-income workers. But what we have is a modern Labor Party who has forgotten about those noble roots, dare I say it, of a once great Labor Party who used to represent those kind of workers and now needs to be reminded—

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You never did.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I never did? I'll compare backgrounds with you. When you were campaigning for the legalisation of dope at university I was working as a cleaner, mate. I'm not going to take interjections from Senator Murray Watt. We understand what it's like to earn a living, and the modern Labor Party—

Senator Watt interjecting—

That interjection again! I worked as a cleaner. I've done the hard jobs, mate. Apart from agitating for drug law reform, mate, with your mates at university, I'm not really sure what your cred is on this. The modern Labor Party, I'll tell you, doesn't have a lot of cred. When it comes to child care, they are now putting to the Australian people and to the government that instead of in fact prioritising low- and middle-income earners—as we are doing—we should be giving higher rates of subsidy to higher income earners. This is a government that has a proud record of delivering for families, a proud record of keeping childcare rates as low as it possibly can, as opposed to the Labor Party's policy which saw the out-of-pocket costs of child care up 53 per cent during their term in government. Their policies have been proven to fail, and that is why you have this existential crisis within the Labor Party where you get the wiser heads like Joel Fitzgibbon saying to the Labor Party: 'You need to remember who you are. We need to actually put the "labour" back into the Labor Party.' Our childcare package supports low-income earners and middle-income earners. It supports families who are doing it toughest. It supports them in making the choices that they want to make to get on and look after their families.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the other place, the Prime Minister rose in the past hour and said, 'Our plan is to get workers who are not in jobs back in jobs,' but there was no detail whatsoever. What I would say is that it is the Labor Party that has actually thought through how to people get into jobs. One instance of that is our proper plan for child care, acknowledging the proper place of female workforce participation, and in turn a proper plan for the economy. The government has shown great unwillingness to support working Australian families by providing a fair and properly funded childcare scheme. The coronavirus pandemic and the economic destruction it has wrought have left us with a once-in-a-generation chance to build the economy that we want, that Australians deserve. Policymakers learnt this lesson during the Great Depression: you do not cut spending during a crisis. Now is the time for a bold plan to restructure the economy, yet what do we hear from the current government? Nothing like that whatsoever; it is all just announcements.

The Morrison government would rather withdraw support early for struggling Australians. They would rather ascribe debt unlawfully to Australians under the robodebt scheme than put money into brave policies and nation-building legacy projects. Fixing the unfair childcare system in this country would be just that. Australians pay some of the highest childcare costs in the world. Fees have increased 35 per cent under the Liberals. That is simply not sustainable. It is only under a Labor government that it will be remedied. Our plan, which the Morrison government refuses to support, will scrap the $10,560 childcare subsidy cap. This cap often sees women losing money just because they undertake an extra day of work. That is just not acceptable. Don't those opposite want to reward ambition, hard work and aspiration? That's what they say, but again it's all just words. Labor will lift the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent. Not only will our plan help more women get back into the workforce; it will also help families with the increased living costs that the Morrison government has overseen in this term of government. It will provide for better early childhood learning opportunities.

The way the Morrison government have designed their system, women actually lose money should they wish to return to the workforce and work more than three days a week. The current system locks out more than 100,000 families who simply can't afford it. Our plan is good for the economy, and if the Morrison government were serious about being good economic managers, as they so often say they are, they would support it. Our plan will both lift workforce participation and spur economic growth. Both KPMG and the Grattan Institute have modelled the economic benefits of increased investment in child care. KPMG noted that further investment in this sector could create up to 210,000 more working days a week. That is the equivalent of 30,000 to 40,000 full-time jobs. Now, if those opposite don't like KPMG, the Grattan Institute found that women would increase their hours by up to 13 per cent if the childcare system were reformed to make it cheaper.

As we know, the Morrison government is squibbing its response to the coronavirus induced economic crisis. It isn't building a plan to create jobs; it isn't investing in critical infrastructure; it isn't easing the burden on families that this awful year has inflicted. Rather than put in place a proper plan for child care in this country, the Morrison government—particularly the bungling former flatmate, the Minister for Government Services—would rather hound people with robodebt notices, all the while knowing that that was unlawful. It is perhaps the most cruel act committed by an Australian government against its citizens that has ever been seen.

The economy was already in trouble before last summer's bushfires and coronavirus, because of seven, going on eight, years of inaction by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. Government debt will soon reach $1 trillion. The Morrison government has been relying on outside forces to keep the economy ticking over, at every turn unwilling to intervene to protect the livelihoods of working Australians. Many Australians haven't had a pay rise in real terms for years. Business investment has been weak for years. But now, when faced with the opportunity to support a policy that would not only alleviate the financial stress felt by working mothers and families— (Time expired)

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kitching, you're a good person and you're an honest person, and because you've got an honest face it means I look at you across the chamber as you say what you do, and I know that not even you believe the bull that you've just been sharing with us, because you know as well as I do that, pre-COVID, we came into this position with record workforce participation for women. At 61.2 per cent, women were participating in the workforce more than they ever had. You know as well as I do that, despite the fact that those opposite love to pretend that they are the party of working people and they are the party of women, the cost of child care—childcare fees—went up by 53 per cent in the last term of Labor in government.

So we're not going to stand here and be lectured to by those opposite about how they're the party of affordable child care. The very fact that senators stand up in this chamber and pretend that child care is a women-only issue is itself disturbing. We on this side know that caring for children is a responsibility that belongs to both parents. It's not something that lies simply on women. It belongs to the entire family. But you'd never know that from what's said by those opposite. You'd think that it only matters to a woman whether or not children are cared for. You know, we operate in the real world. A real world where blokes, like Senator Seselja, like my husband, like many thousands and millions of men across this country, are equally invested in—

A government senator: What about Slade Brockman?

Slade, too. Slade is a fabulous father who cares just as much for the care of his children as the many other men in families.

Senator Watt interjecting—

I can't speak for you, Senator Watt. You can speak for the legalisation of dope, but you can't speak on this issue, because in your party child care is treated like something only women can talk about. Over here we know it's a whole-of-family issue. That's why those opposite will only ever talk about child care in the sense of institutional care in a childcare centre. You'll never hear them talking about income splitting and how that might help the whole family. You never hear them talk about the possibility of tax deductibility of in-home care. You'll never hear them talking about sharing the burden of raising children across the whole family with income splitting. No, it's all about the institutional solution. It's a closed-minded approach. It denies the reality of how many people choose to live their lives and it denies the fact that there is an uncomfortable truth in Labor's childcare policy, a very, very uncomfortable truth. That is that Labor's childcare policy is one that would tax middle-income families to subsidise the child care of the very, very wealthy. If you don't believe me, let me give you the maths. A family in Townsville earning $80,000 a year as a family under the policy of Mr Albanese and those opposite—Labor's signature position from their budget reply—would be subsidising a Sydney family earning $360,000 a year. They would subsidise those on $360,000 a year with the money of the Townsville family earning 80K. Where I'm from that doesn't make much sense. To make it even worse, they want to bake in permanent spending of $6 billion over four years with no plan to pay it, as well as baking in a subsidy for childcare workers to the tune of $10 billion a decade, again with no plan to pay it.

So we won't take lectures from those opposite. We know the care of children is a whole-of-family issue. We are prepared to approach it that way. We've put record funding into child care—$9.2 billion, growing to over $10 billion in the coming years. We put forward the very first Women's economic security statement and we renewed it. We came into this COVID crisis with record women's workforce participation. That is an approach to women's working success and the success of caring for children and families that we can be proud of and that should be an embarrassment to those opposite as they plan to take from middle-income earners to subsidise those on the Sydney harbourside. Well, good luck to them! We know which Australians we're fighting for.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the government was asked about its plans for making child care affordable, Senator Birmingham told us, 'The government takes child care seriously.' It's difficult to this take government seriously when it comes to early childhood education, it's difficult to take this government seriously when it comes to anything that affects working women, and it's difficult to take this government seriously when it comes to addressing household budgets and real household struggles. Working families with children in child care today are struggling right now, and this government has delivered them no relief. In fact, under this government, childcare fees have increased by more than 35 per cent. That's happened at exactly the same time as wages have flatlined, with wage growth at record historical low levels under this seven-year Morrison government.

Families can do the maths; they know exactly how expensive and difficult the childcare system is to navigate under this government. They know that many parents actually lose money if they choose to work an extra day or work more than three days a week. That's why Labor will reduce the cost of child care. That's why the Morrison government should commit to our plan, our proposal, to do exactly that. We will scrap the cap, which often sees parents losing money from an extra day's work. We will keep working to fix Australia's broken childcare system. We will take the pressure off family budgets with this reform. We will give families the support that they need to succeed in their lives and in their household budgets—support that this government just refuses to deliver. We know that cheaper child care is not just good for families and household budgets; it's good for the economy as well. It's good for the recovery. Failing to reform child care is just another failure of the Morrison government to get our economy moving. We know that making child care more affordable will lift workforce participation and that that, in turn, will increase growth. We on the Labor side know that cheaper child care is fundamental reform that will absolutely supercharge our recovery.

This government has repeatedly lacked the vision and the heart to power this recovery for all Australians. This government has repeatedly lacked the vision and the heart to power this recovery for Australian women, in particular. First of all, they left too many women out of the JobKeeper program. Women who were, in fact, hardest hit by this COVID crisis got the least support from the Morrison government: casuals, hospitality workers, arts and events sector workers and university workers. Then, after leaving all of those women workers behind, they removed JobKeeper early for early childhood educators. This government chose to target early childhood educators in this pandemic—the very people who were going to work every day to educate our children while everybody else was being asked to stay home to stay safe. This is a sector that is made up of 95 per cent women. Now they're leaving women out of the recovery. Women have lost more jobs than men in this crisis. There are more women unemployed in Australia than ever before. But the government took no steps to get women back to work in its budget.

As we know, the government spent one-third of one per cent on women's economic security in their budget. They delivered nothing for jobs in sectors dominated by women workers, such as aged care, early childhood education, the arts, hospitality and higher education. Those sectors dominated by women got either nothing or next to nothing, or, indeed, got funding cuts, from this government. Women's jobs just do not matter to this government. When the government was called out on this, we got its now famous response: 'What you can find in the budget for women is our package on road infrastructure, because women drive on roads. That's what women get in this budget: roads.' The government just fails to understand that supporting jobs in sectors women work in supports not just 50 per cent of our population; it supports the economy as a whole. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.