Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that this bill makes some useful updates to the administration of the federal government's childcare subsidy. One Nation largely supports those changes. One Nation, though, opposes many of the provisions in the bill.

Before moving my amendment, I'll put it in context and ask four questions of the minister, because this bill has not been thought through. This bill will add $4.5 billion over the forward estimates to the cost of child care to the federal government, taking the annual cost above $10 billion. Child care, or early learning, is an industry worth $14 billion a year, employing 133,000 Australians to care for 1.3 million children.

The government is promising that this bill will make child care more affordable, and the expectation is it will allow more families to put more children in child care. But it's difficult to see how. Remember that subsidies always make services and goods more expensive. A family earning Australia's median wage of $52,000 will see an increase in the government subsidy from 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the cost of child care—just a five percentage point increase. At an average cost of $80 a day for a preschool place, this saving will amount to $4 a day, and for long day care a saving of around $8 a day.

How fast will this benefit be eaten away through inflation? Well, it has already been eaten away. Childcare centres started to put their prices up straight after Labor's election victory, with the expectation of this increase in the government subsidy. As rising energy prices, wages, insurance and overheads impact cash flow, childcare centres will raise their prices further. According to a Mitchell Institute study, child care was unaffordable for 386,000 Australian families, and this was keeping 73,000 people out of the workforce. What's missing from the explanatory memorandum, the Bills Digest and the committee report is any proof that making child care $4 to $8 a day cheaper will have any effect on childcare uptake.

Did anyone ask why these everyday Australians could not afford child care? Had this question been asked, we would have found that everyday Australians not only find child care unaffordable but can no longer afford their electricity bills, their rent, their mortgage payments and weekly grocery bills. Did anyone, Minister, ask if these families could not afford child care because they can't afford a car to get there, or the petrol to go in that car?

My first question is: why has the government advanced this bill as a solution to childcare affordability without actually doing the work to prove this bill will make child care more affordable? What about tax reform to enable families to look after their children—the best form of care: respect for families and parents. What about the modelling? I'm pretty sure that this bill won't do a damn thing for everyday Australians.

Thanks to the economic policies of the previous Liberal-National government, which Labor supported from opposition, inflation is now running at eight per cent. I've spoken previously about the inflation that resulted from wasteful COVID spending, funded through increased debt and money creation using electronic journal entries. That's where the problem is: wages going backwards from runaway inflation due to government spending—government spending that's already out of control. What does this bill do? It adds another $4.5 billion to government spending. If everyday Australians are not benefiting from this bill to any useful degree, where's the $4 billion coming from?

Figure 1 in the Bills Digest is a handy chart that is most instructive. In this bill the biggest financial benefit to existing recipients goes to families who are earning $170,000 a year. The biggest winners overall are families earning between $360,000 and $530,000, who did not get the childcare subsidy before and now will. Does this sound like a measure to help working Australians? No, it does not. To One Nation it sounds like the government is spending billions to make themselves popular with urban professionals who voted Greens and Teals in the last election. What about rural and regional Australians? Urban professionals are the winners in this bill; workers and regional Australians get scraps. That is a cynical political decision from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

One Nation is compelled to raise a second issue arising from this legislation. Qualification for free, taxpayer funded child care is being based on race rather than need. While we fully support evidence-based measures to improve Aboriginal workforce participation, childcare support should be based on the needs of the individual, not the colour of the individual's skin. Aboriginals and all Australians are worthy of respect and fairness. I support Senator Nampijinpa Price's comments on the definition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. This bill has not been thought through.

Thirdly, this bill includes a provision that will have the effect of prohibiting the million or so Australian families using child care from paying for their child care in cash. By cash, I mean cash or cheque. Australia's two million small businesses often deal in cash. Rural Australia still needs cash. Anyone in a flood, in a blackout or with a hacked bank account has to pay in cash. Family members help each other out in cash. Yet the globalist billionaires have told Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Minister Stephen Jones to ban cash, and now we have snuck into this bill a provision that all payments made to childcare centres must be made using electronic funds transfers—no cash allowed! This continues the Liberals' and Nationals' war against cash. The Reserve Bank of Australia admitted to me in estimates hearings that it is working on a CBDC, or Central Bank Digital Currency, for Australia, and working with other nations' central banks to develop a global digital currency. The predatory billionaires said, 'Jump,' and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said, 'How high?' Now, an entire industry, worth $14 billion a year, can no longer accept cash payments unless the minister writes a specific exemption—which they will not write, because the whole idea of banning cash payments is to ban cash. There is no reason for this new provision. The King's currency—our national currency—is by law legal tender across the nation and must be accepted. If this government wants to stop Australians using cash then it should have that conversation and bring on that legislation.

I understand some childcare centres are not collecting the gap fee and are instead relying on the 85 per cent—now 90 per cent—government payment as their full revenue. Taking payment for the gap in cash—or any other measure—and not declaring it is already illegal under the law. Not taking payment for the gap is already illegal under subsection 201B(1) of A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999. Criminal and civil penalties are provided—$12,000 per offence. Under subsection 201B(1A) of the same act, the minister can prescribe rules that could be used to ban a childcare centre from accepting cash if they are caught rorting the system. However, if they are caught rorting the system through use of cash, or any other method, they lose their license anyway for failing the 'fit and proper person' test to work in child care. Some welfare groups raised concerns with this provision in the committee inquiry. I suggest more would have if they had been more aware that the measure was hidden away in the bill. I note that the word 'cash' is not even used—that's sneaky.

The provision to ban cash payment in the entire childcare industry makes no sense if judged on the reasons the government states. It does make sense if the intention is to make another incremental removal of cash from common use as part of a wider agenda to force every Australian onto a Central Bank Digital Currency linked to a digital identity. Last week, the New South Wales government announced a digital identity for New South Wales that is not linked to government paperwork but to be used for liquor purchases—government and the private sector working together like one big corporate state!

One Nation was successful in fighting the cash ban bill in the previous parliament with help from the Citizens Party. The Senate rejected a cash ban in 2021 and I ask the Senate to reject a cash ban again today. Countries in Europe that have tried a cash ban are now winding measures back. What makes sense to inner-city elites makes no sense at all in the real world. I foreshadow that we need to remove this provision that will stop Australians paying for their childcare gap in cash. We have one flag above this building, we are one community, we are one nation, and the King's currency cannot be refused. Minister, in addition to the previous questions: why is Labor joining the Liberals and the Nationals in banning cash? Your dwindling grassroots members said resoundingly last year, 'No, keep cash.' Why are you banning cash?

I move, firstly, my amendment No. (2) on sheet 1735:

(2) Schedule 4, Part 2, page 21 (lines 1 to 24), to be opposed.