Mr ANTHONY (Minister for Children and Youth Affairs) (3:45 PM) —I think it is very interesting to look at the actual title of the MPI today, which was obviously submitted by the opposition. It blames this government for its `failure to propose positive policies for Australian families due to its obsession with the politics of distraction'. The politics of distraction! As I mentioned earlier yesterday, and I will reiterate today, the reason they hastily convened and announced this policy yesterday, out at Queanbeyan of course, was as a deliberate distraction from the embarrassment and the double position they have taken on national security, particularly over the issue of Iraq. This MPI and what the member for Lilley submitted actually endorse the comments I made yesterday that it was put out as a distraction to get them off the hook.

What is interesting is that the member for Lilley professes that this is the most important public policy announcement for decades. He is very fond of recalling Skyhooks. I think perhaps Mental as Anything is more appropriate to the member for Lilley after that diatribe. If this was so important, and there is no doubt that policies on work and family are important, then why did he say, `This is probably going to be one of the most important policy releases in the last decade of Australian politics'? They whipped it out yesterday, hastily convened in the morning. You would have thought that the member for Lilley, who is going to be addressing the work and family conference tomorrow in Brisbane, would have announced it then. No, he walks out of the chamber now because he knows this was a hastily convened policy. They plagiarised some work and family task force documents. Such documents are always around in government. Many different documents come to government with many different ideas as the Howard-Anderson government strive to continue to improve the health, wellbeing and living standards of Australian families. It is extraordinary. They could not even come up with a new name. They had to actually steal it from an internal document. So the old saying applies: `Loose lips Latham'.

There is no doubt that the press conference yesterday was hastily convened. If it was so significant, why did they not make the announcement at any other time without the distraction of Iraq? It was done because of their embarrassment on that issue. If it is so important, why was it not given, let us say, a more appropriate announcement? I think it just demonstrates this confected indignation that the Australian Labor Party has on the part of Australian families. Members of this parliament and those that are listening to it will recall how Australian families suffered enormously in the nineties with the recession that we had to have: a million people out of work, one of the highest rates of unemployment and interest rates up at 17 per cent. That was hardship for Australian families.

Since this government have been in power, our whole modus operandi has been to improve the economy by creating more employment, by creating more apprentices and by creating more jobs. Through good economic management, we have reduced interest rates and, if nothing else, that gives young families the opportunity to own a home, to pay off that debt through low interest rates and to provide a safe and secure work environment. The No. 1 priority if you are going to bring a child into the world is to have steady and permanent employment. What have we done with the introduction of the family tax benefit—which they are quite happy to criticise and to spin around the edges? Interestingly, in the diatribe from the member for Lilley he said that they are still going to use the family tax benefit structure to assess the means test for the baby bonus. The family tax benefit provided a substantial increase to families—skewed of course to families with young children. We make no apologies for that.

What is interesting, though, is that the Labor Party again have claimed, and they said it at their national conference, that they were going to have paid maternity leave. This is not paid maternity leave. This has become a payment, as the Treasurer outlined today. We know it is unfunded, we know there is a deficit and, on the forward estimates released today, we know there is a $347 million shortfall. It is $220 million for next year, then $260 million, going up to $300 million and, finally, $250 million in 2007-08. Of course, in underfunding this proposal, not only is it not credible in the sense that it has been wrongly costed but they are actually paying for it by stealing payments that were going to Australian families in the context of Medicare. Here they are putting in this baby bonus payment by stealing money that would have been available for the safety net which is terribly important for Australian families. The opposition cried crocodile tears and did not support our better Medicare package that went through the Senate. That will substantially increase the payment going to young families. Also, there is the safety net for concession card holders or those on social security payments at $300, going to $700 for those that are not concession card holders. They are actually going to be stealing about $350 million out of that to fund this payment.

Interestingly, when you look at other areas where the opposition have decided to take away funding—robbing Peter to pay Paul—you see they are going to scrap employee entitlements. As I mentioned yesterday, one of the things that this government has introduced is at least some guarantee, particularly if a company goes into insolvency, that employees will receive their redundancy pay and that some of their employee entitlements will be met. It was never done in the 13 years the Labor Party were in power, and now they are proposing to abolish it and in its place, as was mentioned today, put in a new payroll tax—which is a tax on jobs. And, of course, a tax on jobs means that more people will be out of work. This is incredulous.

Then the thoughts of the opposition turn to gutting a number of public service bureaus we have here in Canberra. Interestingly today, an unlikely supporter of the government—none other than the CPSU—came out with a statement, which says `PS jobs cut to end ALP honeymoon'. It goes on to state:

And on it goes. Here is a union organisation, who you would think would be supportive of their political arm, being highly critical of how the ALP are going to pay for this funding. And of course it goes on and on. What we are demonstrating today is that this policy that was made on the run was announced yesterday as a deflection from their embarrassment over national security issues. If it was so important, why didn't they find another time? Why didn't the Leader of the Opposition even speak to the MPI? We did not even have that. What they are doing is taking funding and entitlements off many Australian families, directly impacting on them. Even when they are doing that, they have underfunded it by $350 million. Not only did they have the super blooper a few weeks ago, one could argue that it is the baby blooper today.

What I find extraordinary is the accusation that the member for Lilley is making—the mock indignation—that this government has been unfriendly to families. What a load of rubbish! Whilst I withdrew a comment in question time today, I think it very much demonstrates the political apparatus used by some members of the Australian Labor Party because they are bereft of vision. When it comes to child care, there has been a substantial increase in funding. We have now committed $8 billion over the next four years.

Mr Hartsuyker —How much?

Mr ANTHONY —We spend 70 per cent more today on child care, as the member for Cowper reminds me, than when the Labor Party was in government. There is constant policy refinement. We have increased the number of outside school hours care places which, again, is critically important for Australian families. We have seen an increase of more than 240 per cent in outside school hours care. This story goes on and on when it comes to the increase in child-care benefit, the increase in places for family day care and the increase in places for outside school hours care, not to mention that it was this government that introduced the immunisation regime. When Labor left government in 1995 we had the lowest rate of immunisation of children in the Western world at around 60 to 65 per cent. That figure today is the highest in the OECD at over 90 per cent because of direct policy action by the government to help the health and welfare of young children.

We see the same outstanding record when it comes to employment; when it comes to the reduction in interest rates, which is critically important—the No. 1 priority of any Australian family that is battling it out to have the capacity to pay a mortgage to have a roof over their head; when it comes to job security, which has increased dramatically; when it comes to the increase in funding through the family tax benefit; and when it comes to the other payments such as child care. We are unapologetic: it was this government. Yes, it was this government that introduced the baby bonus, recognising that there was a need to help compensate families when they have young children. When you think of what the government has done, it is a fact that it took this government—it is 102 years since Federation—to recognise that a dedicated minister for children and youth was needed, particularly for the health and wellbeing of Australian children. We will have more to say about that in due course. To say that we are not concerned about the health and welfare of Australian families and children is outrageous.

Let me come back to where this started. We know it was hastily convened because it is uncosted by $350 million. We know they are paying for it by taking money away from Medicare. We know they are taking away what we set up as an entitlements system to support workers who might be put out of work. They are ripping that off and putting in a substitute payroll tax. We know they are taking money away from the Employment Advocate. Even the CPSU, of all people, have suggested that is wrong. Obviously the benefit there is to encourage more industrial unionism. The member for Lilley has the hide to say that all we are interested in on the ethanol debate is looking after our mates. They are looking after their own interests through the constant rort of Centenary House. To have the audacity to come into this parliament and suggest that we are looking after mates! I will tell you the mates we are looking after: we are looking after all the young families across Australia through good government policy.

The self-importance of the appointed rooster, the member for Lilley, is extraordinary. He was claiming credit for Stronger Families and Communities. Here is a guy claiming credit for it when not so long ago, in January, he was highly critical of it. This again shows the inconsistency of their argument. He is now claiming credit for it. In January he said it was a hotchpotch: `If the money was put into a couple of strong national buckets, we could get much better bang for our buck.' At one stage he was claiming credit for it and at the next stage he was criticising it. The Stronger Families and Communities package, I might add, has been an outstanding success, particularly in helping those communities and young families who are at risk. We have been able to specifically target that program. It has been a very positive program.

That brings us back to the issue of today's MPI—`obsession with the politics of distraction'. Distraction was the reason they announced their policy yesterday. If it was so important, why did they choose the one day on which we knew the national media would be totally occupied with the member for Werriwa's inconsistent position on withdrawing the troops from Iraq to announce it? That is exactly what today's MPI is about. This is all about smoke and mirrors. The Australian Labor Party have been very good at obtaining documents. The government are in a constant process, as I have mentioned before, of evaluating positions, as we have with the introduction of child-care benefit, as we have with the introduction of the family tax benefit, as we have with the introduction of making more secure work environments to ensure that Australian families have jobs; and as we have in particular in reducing interest rates to ensure that every Australian family can afford a mortgage. In conclusion, the government have a very proud record when it comes to looking after Australian families. We are unashamed about advocating for Australian families. (Time expired)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Before I call the member for Bass, could I suggest to the minister—I know this also applies to the opposition—that instead of using the terms `they' or `their' it would be much better if he were to use the terms `the member' or `the opposition'.