Senate debates

Wednesday, 24 August 2011

Bills

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010; In Committee

10:51 am

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

I note that we are moving towards the conclusion of this debate. I have sat in on parts of it and heard this parliamentary secretary and the previous parliamentary secretary make some of their contributions. It is important that, as we move to the end of this debate, the core element of this is not forgotten. The core element of this is that it is not going to do anything to help the cost of living pressures that Australians face. In fact, quite the contrary, it is going to harm Australians, and increase those cost of living pressures. The minister can cite the statistics as to what extent that may be and what families may be affected, but there is no way you can look at this without coming up with the conclusion that there is a negative impact. It is not just a negative impact in terms of putting a freeze on the indexation of the rebate in future years. That is not the only thing that occurs here. What we actually have is a reduction in the rebate. The amendment that the government has had to move to its legislation makes it very clear that there is an effective reduction in the rebate. It is having to put in place a new subclause in this legislation that will ensure a rebate that could have been $7,941 as at 1 July 2010 will be brought back to $7,500. An indexed rebate that would have kept going up from that $7,941 will be brought back to a flat line of $7,500.

We should not forget core principles; we should not forget that this is one of a range of factors in the cost-of-living pressures that are building up on families. Since December 2007 we have seen electricity prices around Australia go up on average by 51 per cent, gas prices around Australia go up on average by 30 per cent, water on average by 46 per cent, education by 24 per cent, health costs by 20 per cent, rent and housing costs by 21 per cent, grocery prices—and in fact this statistic is a little old and they have probably gone up even further—by 14 per cent and, as we have heard in the evidence that has been highlighted, childcare fees since June 2005 go up by 35 per cent. These are massive increases for families doing it tough. Not just is this legislation, this approach of the government, doing nothing to help those pressures; to some extent it will add to those pressures. That is an undeniable fact and an undeniable consequence of what the government is doing here today.

It is critically important that if and when this debate wraps up it is very clear and on the record that this government is for families who use childcare services putting in place barriers, putting in place structures, that will see them face higher costs. That is the clear outcome of it. That is before we get into the carbon debate—and some of my colleagues have raised the carbon tax and the extra cost pressures that all of that will pile onto families and households—and it is from a government that within that carbon tax debate wants to keep highlighting the so-called compensation that it is going to offer, the compensation arrangements for house­holds that it plans to have.

If this is the type of approach this government takes to support services around compensation and rebates and assistance for services, it is a demonstration that this government cannot be trusted when it promises some form of compensation. It is a demonstration that over time this government is happy to let rebates, compensation or assistance be eroded, because that is what it is doing here. It is letting those things be eroded here and it will let them be eroded under the carbon tax mechanism as well. Anyone listening to or looking at this debate needs to be absolutely clear that, despite the nice words from the parliamentary secretary in dealing with the many sensible questions that Senator Nash and others have asked her, this is a cut in assistance, a reduction in available assis­tance. It is a reduction now, it is a reduction of what might have been in the future, it comes on top of so many increases in pressure on the cost of living that everyday Australians face and it is going to do nothing to assist them. If anything, it will harm them. I think that the parliamentary secretary should acknowledge that very basic and core premise of the change that is being proposed.

Comments

No comments