Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. In September of last year the government announced more than $3 billion for its child-care policy—

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Weren't you going to end the double drop-off? That was a great policy, wasn't it, Kate?

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

but legislation introduced by the government just yesterday—

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

The member for Adelaide will resume her seat. The Minister for Urban Infrastructure will cease interjecting. He was warned yesterday; he is warned again today. The member for Adelaide will begin her question again.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. In September last year the government announced more than $3 billion for its child-care policy, but legislation introduced by the government yesterday showed that this policy has now shrunk to a $1.6 billion policy, half of the original amount that was promised by the Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister still making pensioners, new mums and over 1½ million Australian families pay for his shrinking child-care package at the same time as giving a $50 billion corporate tax cut to big business?

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

I thank the honourable member for her question. She comes from the great state of South Australia, struggling all too often in the dark: struggling with 41-degree temperatures; struggling with businesses that cannot get reliable or affordable power. I would commend the ABC's online news site to the honourable member today. One small-business owner after another, many in her electorate, is saying how they are being put out of business by the ridiculous Labor energy policies in South Australia. That is the reality: a state that is struggling to get more investment, more industry, is being put out of business by Labor's policy.

In terms of child care, what we are delivering is exactly what we promised. We are delivering precisely the benefits that we promised to Australian families, and it will mean, for example, that a family earning $65,000 a year will have 85 per cent child-care costs paid. It will cost $15 per child. That is a huge saving for those families, making child care more affordable and available.

In terms of the budgetary matters she mentioned, I will ask the Treasurer to add to that.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Only the Labor Party could complain about the fact that things do not cost as much as they were first estimated. They want it to actually cost more. What we inherited from those opposite was the exact same model for child care that was used by those opposite when the original estimates were put together for this package, when it was first introduced in the 2015-16 budget. What is a tragedy here, with our child-care reforms, is that if those opposite had supported the savings that we put forward for two budgets—if they had supported them then—those child-care reforms would be available right now. What we see from those opposite is not a Leader of the Opposition who has a stop-go sign; it is a stop-stop sign on every single thing that we bring into this parliament.

Only the Labor Party could complain about the fact that we are delivering exactly the same reform at a lesser cost, which not only ensures that we can deliver the important childcare reforms but we can maintain our trajectory to return the budget back to balance, which is currently projected to be reached in 2021. They are the party of higher prices for child care, bigger deficits, higher taxes and larger debt.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister advise the House on how making the childcare system more affordable, flexible and accessible for hardworking Australian families will create jobs and relieve cost pressures? And what are the alternative approaches to this?

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wright for his question. I know of his very strong interest in this area.

He understands that a lack of access to affordable child care can be a real barrier for mothers and fathers returning to the workforce, for them increasing their work hours and for them, in fact, reskilling by going back to university or undergoing further training. By providing access to more affordable child care, the Turnbull government is giving Australian families real choices about their future.

Under the previous Labor government, they actually commissioned a taxation review by former Treasury secretary Ken Henry. In it in 2009 he said:

Access to high-quality and affordable child care can be an important factor in a parent's decision to remain in or return to the workforce. … Assistance with child care costs recognises that child care is a cost of employment and thereby reduces the disincentives to participate that are created by the tax and transfer system.

He went on to say:

Access to quality child care also plays a role in early childhood development, particularly of children from families experiencing, or at risk of, social exclusion.

We could not agree more.

That is why this government is making childcare reforms that are in fact a very important economic reform. These reforms are going to deliver relief to around a million Australian families in their out-of-pocket childcare cost pressures. They are going to help relieve their household budgets and they are going to give those children an opportunity to benefit from early education. This is critical, because of those children aged under five around 40 per cent use childcare facilities.

So under our changes, a working family that is earning around $60,000 a year will end up paying $15 per child per day for child care. These reforms are going to see us abolish a multiplicity of payments and replace them instead with one single new childcare subsidy that is targeted to provide the greatest assistance to those who are in the most need.

Now, I am asked by the member whether there are any alternatives. I suppose that does depend on your definition of what an alternative is. Those opposite went to the election promising that they would keep the status quo. Then after the election, they went to the National Press Club and they said that they were going to embark upon a big national conversation. And more recently they have said that they are just going to scrap it all and start again.

What they cannot walk away from, though, is their perfect record when they were in government of increasing the cost of child care to Australian families. (Time expired)

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Is it still his government's policy to make Australians work until they are 70 to get the age pension? And can the Prime Minister confirm that he is giving Australia the oldest age pension in the developed world?

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

We have been asked about the age pension age, and so let me start with a very apt description that was given by the member for Jagajaga. She said:

Increasing the age pension age is a responsible reform to meet the challenge of an ageing population and the economic impact it will have for all Australians.

…   …   …

Australia must move towards a higher pension age over the next decade.

Source: Wayne Swan and Jenny Macklin media release, budget 2009.

But an even better description—a more academic, a cleverer and more well-rounded description—comes from the member for Fenner. He says:

A better approach would be to index upper age limits in all laws, …

…   …   …

How might age indexation operate in practice? One approach would be to mandate that all elderly age limits should increase by 3 months every year (approximately the rate at which life expectancy is presently rising).

Source: 'You're only as old as they feel', op-ed by Andrew Leigh in The Australian Financial Review.

I do feel a little bit sorry for the member for Fenner! He was put into the shadow ministry in a factional deal where he got in but he did not get any weight!

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

The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?

Government members interjecting—

Members on my right! The Minister for Immigration and the Treasurer! The Leader of the House!

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question, once again, is one without a preamble and is one which goes directly to the question of the age pension age going up to 70. At no point in the answer so far has the minister referred to that.

Government members interjecting—

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Give the economist a fair weight!

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

On my right. Both the Treasurer and the Minister for the Environment and Energy do not need to interject when I am trying to address the House. I have made that very clear. The minister was completely in order in his preamble. But as he well knows, the preamble cannot last for the entire three minutes.

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

As I was saying, with respect to the issue raised again by the member for Fenner, I do feel sorry for the member for Fenner. In a factional deal that suited his leader he got more work and less pay! He is going to join the Clean Event support group! (Time expired)

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Use your union credit card! Give them your AWU credit card!

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

The Minister for Immigration is warned! The member for Sydney.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the government introduced into the parliament a $2.7 billion cut to family tax benefits—

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

Sorry, member for Sydney. The call was on this side—

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know—they were too slow.

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

No, we are not going to play those games, okay? It is not going to be an athletic contest. It will not suit everybody! The member for Durack has the call.