Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is an incoherent motion and it reminds me of a joke from Woody Allen in Annie Hall, where there are two unreasonable people criticising a restaurant. One person says to the other, 'Do you know what? I can't stand the food at that restaurant.' The first person says, 'I agree. Portions are so small.' It reminds me of this motion, where most of the motion says, 'We don't like the policy of the government, we don't like its criteria, we don't like the fact that it is so expansive but, gee, they should do it immediately.'

It's a weird incoherent motion that, in a lot of ways, reflects the time in government in this space of those opposite. I remember very clearly when I was a backbencher in the previous term reading reports of the intense arguments going on in their party room, where a number of prominent backbenchers claimed that any kind of expansion of child care would reflect women outsourcing parenting. This was the big debate on child care in their party room and was reflected in so many ways in which they dealt with the policy area. It reflected what happened in JobKeeper, where so many people in this sector were excluded from JobKeeper when they were casual or part-time, and this contributed, no doubt, to the significant skills shortages that we are facing today. It was also reflected in their approach to the then-opposition and now-government's approach to increasing the minimum wage which had such a positive effect in the care economy. They said it would bring the sky falling down. They said it would be unaffordable. It hasn't been unaffordable; it's been absolutely critical to not only, firstly, helping people cope with cost of living but, secondly, for dealing with skills shortages. Of course, on this IR bill that this parliament is dealing with right now, which is so critical for the care economy, the opposition is fighting tooth and nail. They say that we need to do things immediately to deal with the skills shortages, that we need to do things immediately to deal with this sector, when, at every step of the way, they've had an incoherent policy, mixed messages and done everything they can to stand in front of and stop critical reforms.

Our policy in this space was announced very early in the last term. It was the centrepiece of the then opposition leader's response to the 2020 budget. Those opposite rubbished it and now they say in this motion 'do it immediately'. It was motivated by a number of things, firstly the three Ps—productivity, participation and population—underpinning long-term and sustainable economic growth. It was also motivated to help women's participation in particular increase, recognising the fact that childcare subsidies at that point proved to be a barrier for so many and of course it recognised the fact that this is a critical reform when it comes to children's early education.

I want to quote extracts from the Grattan Institute's comparison of the two policies from the period leading up to the last election. Under the coalition policy, mothers with two children in long daycare can lose 100 per cent of the take-home pay they earn in the fourth or fifth day of work, largely due to childcare costs. Labor has lowered the disincentive rates, lowered the means test taper, which is significantly less steep than the coalition's. The steepness of the taper is one of the significant reforms of this policy and it dramatically increases the incentive for participation. Again, from the Grattan Institute's comparison of the two policies, Labor's policy is broader, it supports more families and it would have a much larger and more widespread economic benefit. It would also bring down out-of-pocket costs and sharpen workforce incentives for a much wider group of families. That backs up exactly what the Prime Minister said in his 2020 budget reply when he made this policy the centrepiece. It was a centrepiece back in 2020 and it is now one of the major reforms that we have implemented.

As I've alluded to, this policy is buttressed by critical reforms likely the VET policies and investment in skills. Critically, it is buttressed by our policies in relation to skills and workforce conditions. It is only through all of those holistic approaches to this sector that, on the one hand, we're going to get more people working in it, and, on the other hand, we're going to reduce the taper rate and make it more affordable for a whole raft of families.

This reform is absolutely critical for families and for the broader macro economy at a time we are facing rising costs. This is one of our government's signature policies. For so many on our side, it was a matter of great pride when it passed through this parliament. It formed the centrepiece of the PM's response to the previous government's 2020 budget and is a centrepiece of this government's agenda. Now they say, 'We don't like it, but why haven't you implemented it immediately?' Well, Labor has achieved more in six months than the previous government did in a decade. It has legislated key childcare reform and is now responding to the skills and wages challenges.

See this speech in context