Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Will the minister update the Senate on the majority report of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee findings into the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2015?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator McKenzie for her question and for her work as chair of that committee and, indeed, her work on that report, as in all education areas. The childcare reforms of the Turnbull government are an important and critical workforce participation measure. They are part of our economic reforms, particularly in the way in which they help to support families who need child care most to get the greatest support—those who work the hardest to get the greatest number of hours of child care—whilst also supporting a strong early learning system. What this government recognises is that we need to—and the report of Senator McKenzie's committee recognises this—deliver funding under our reforms to those who are working, training, studying, volunteering or looking for work. We ensure that those families who require child care due to work schedules are the prime intended beneficiaries of government subsidies. There are important recommendations and findings of the majority report, which highlights that current childcare structures create a situation where taxpayers and families are often paying for childcare services that are not needed or not used—money of families that is going to waste; taxpayers' money that is going to waste. We better target the support.

The report rightly highlights some of the positive comments in relation to our childcare reforms. The Australian Childcare Alliance said that it 'recognises the many positive aspects of this package', particularly 'the increased threshold from $7,500 to $10,000 for middle-income families'. In fact, we are supporting families all the way up to $185,000 in income to be able to get that increase in childcare support, to pay the bills of their child care, to help them in their workforce participation and to help them access early learning opportunities. It is important that we recognise that around one million Australian families will benefit as a result of these reforms, warmly endorsed by Senator McKenzie and her committee. (Time expired)

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister inform the Senate if there were any dissenting views?

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were dissenting views, and it may come as a surprise to people to know that some of those we hear carping and whining opposite us were, in fact, the authors of those dissenting views.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know—shocked and surprised, I am sure. Labor, of course, in their dissenting comments say they want increased investment and they want to spend more, but they do not define where they want to spend it or where the money will come from, which, of course, is the standard Labor mantra. We have a budgeted, costed proposal that puts $3 billion of extra support into helping families, helping children and helping workforce participation. They say there should be more, but they do not say where it should go and they do not say where the money should come from. Labor, of course, argue that increased investment 'should not go to the profit margin of providers'—that is in the dissenting report—yet they oppose the hourly fee cap that we want to apply to put downward pressure on the growth in fees. So they are opposing the one measure that can actually keep costs under control and keep those profit activities under control. They oppose the activity test, which actually helps to ensure those who need the most support get the most support. (Time expired)

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Is the minister aware of any alternatives to the government's approach?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Aside from some very vague claims of those opposite, I am aware of no alternatives. Mr Shorten was out there earlier today, in fact, saying, 'Family shouldn't have to worry about the cost of child care.' Under a Turnbull government, they know there will be increased investment, targeted to those families who are working the hardest and earning the least, getting the most support from a Turnbull government. But there is no clarity from those opposite as to whether they support our reforms or, if they do not, what the alternative would be. So Australian working families face great uncertainty under what a Shorten government would look like. The boost that could generate and support around 29,000 additional people in workforce participation could be lost without the reforms we have. But, most importantly for families, the additional support that will be available for low- and middle-income families, who will on average be around $1,500 a year better off in paying their childcare bills under our government, would be jeopardised by the lack of plans or detail from those opposite. (Time expired)

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that further questions be placed upon the Notice Paper.