Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Under the Morrison government's current childcare scheme a family with a full-time policeman and a physio working three days a week lose 91c in the dollar if the physio works the fourth and fifth days. Why is Mr Morrison refusing to support Labor's plan, which would see the same family more than $3,100 a year better off if they chose to work more hours?

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

I thank the senator for his question and for the opportunity to highlight that our government, our side of politics, has taken childcare reform very seriously over recent years. Our reforms to the application of the new childcare subsidy provided billions of dollars in additional support that was targeted to ensure that the more hours somebody works, the greater the number of hours of subsidised child care they and their family are entitled to and that the less that they earn, the greater the rate of subsidy that they get. It seems quite remarkable that the Labor Party seem now to be adopting a policy position that is all about providing higher rates of support in terms of the childcare subsidy to those earning higher levels of income.

We absolutely want to make sure that the childcare system works to support Australian families. Under our reforms, over 70 per cent of families have out-of-pocket costs of less than $5 an hour and nearly a quarter are paying less than $2 an hour. Those families would be the lowest-income Australian families. We have targeted childcare subsidy support to give the greatest level of assistance to Australian families working the longest hours but earning the lowest amount of income.

When the Labor Party comes along and says, 'We're going to beg in the budget for a whole lot of extra structural spending,' the question always is: guess how they'll end up paying for it? Higher taxes, no doubt. This will just be some little Labor trick where they pretend to give with one hand but take with the other.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Birmingham. Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr President. Chloe from Chermside is a single mum who has been forced to say no to extra work because of the cost of child care for her son. Why is the government blocking Queensland women like Chloe from taking on extra work in a recession?

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

I again draw attention to the figures that I just went through, which would—dependent, of course, upon Chloe's circumstances and Chloe's income—see very high rates of subsidy provided for the childcare fees that might be incurred. I note that the senator hasn't tried to give any of those sorts of details. He's constructed an example that doesn't actually allow anybody to compare whether it could be an 80 per cent or an 85 per cent rate of subsidy that is being paid. Indeed, in special circumstances, the government pays even more than that.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

I hear the senators ask: where's the calculator? Indeed, people can go onto the relevant Social Services websites, and they can ascertain how much support they are going to get. Yes, child care comes at a cost, but we subsidise that cost and we give the greatest support to those earning the lowest incomes.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary question?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why has the Morrison government budgeted $15 million for Mr Morrison's ad campaign about Australia's comeback but included nothing in this year's budget to make child care more affordable?

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

Only the Labor Party could suggest that budgeting $9 billion for the childcare subsidy in 2020-21 was 'nothing'. We are budgeting $9 billion in expenditure to support child care in this financial year alone. This is about $2 billion—from memory—more than was being spent a couple of years ago prior to our reforms. We came along as a government, we introduced reforms to create the childcare subsidy, we increased the rate of spending on child care and that spending has now reached a point where in this financial year we will spend and invest $9 billion to support the hardest working Australian families, to give the greatest support to those earning the least amount of money, and yet those opposite come in here and they pretend that $9 billion is nothing at all! It's certainly not nothing at all!

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Birmingham! Senator Keneally on a point of order.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is on relevance. The minister is almost through with his answer and we're yet to hear about the $15 million comeback advertising campaign that the question asked about.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Keneally! That was a very open-ended question. The minister is being directly relevant. Senator Birmingham, you have five seconds remaining.

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

Senator Chisholm asked: why are we giving nothing to child care? On this side, we think $9 billion is actually quite a lot of money!