Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Single parents in Sunbury, in my electorate, with an income of $31,000 and two teenagers will lose $4,700 every year because of the Prime Minister's unfair cuts to family tax benefits. How is it fair to ask these families to then pay $3,000 more because of you jacking up the GST?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This appears to be the identical question to the one that the member for Parramatta just asked. In any event, the very well-informed Minister for Social Services will answer the question.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I noted previously, that figure that is being cited includes the schoolkids bonus, which has been abolished and which has nothing to do with the present measures on family tax benefits before the parliament. It is a very dishonest way in which to look at the cameos that the opposition have put out. If I might say, going back to the structural mechanics of what we have before us, we are proposing $4.7 billion worth of savings to provide for $3.5 billion worth of child care and to allow for a modest amount to—

Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—

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

The member for Adelaide is warned.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

go into budget repair. We do not pretend that it is absolutely possible to make savings proposals universally popular. That is a very, very difficult thing to do. In fact, the member for McMahon said this:

We will go to the next election with an alternative vision for the nation, with detailed policy commitments and with savings proposals which will ensure that our election commitments are funded and that we have plan for a sustainable budget.

Not all these savings proposals will be universally popular or will necessarily win us votes.

But the member for McMahon has found that the way to make savings measures universally popular is just to not tell anyone what they are; then you are absolutely guaranteed that they will be universally popular savings measures!

What is absolutely fascinating is that we have proposed savings measures which pay for sweeping reform to child care by making rational restraint to the family tax benefit system. Some of that rational restraint you are agreeing to; some if it you are not. But what I have said previously is absolutely fascinating is that you all recognise what we recognise, and that is that if you are to move back towards surplus and pay for necessary reforms such as in areas like child care, you must look inside the welfare budget and you must look inside the social services budget; a large part of that budget is the family tax benefit system; you must look at that. Our proposals are well known, your proposals are this. The fascinating thing is that at the end of this little press release out today appears this interesting phrase:

Labor … will continue to investigate fair ways of ensuring our Family Tax Benefits system remains targeted to those who need it most.

That is code for saying that they realise what we realise: you must find savings inside FTB. The only difference is that we are explicitly stating where the somewhere is and for them the somewhere is just somewhere not known and thereby never unpopular.