Download Fragment

Tuesday, 23 August 2011
Page: 5171

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (13:33): It seems that the minister's sole defence for extracting additional funds from Australian families for child care is that they took this to the last election, promised it, and there was widespread consultation. I suggest to the minister, before I put my question, that this line of defence is wholly and entirely uncredible given the history and track record of this government. Let us remind ourselves of some of the promises that were taken to the last election. There was the cash-for-clunkers deal. Australian families' cash has certainly paid for a clunker of a government, but that is not what it was about. It was about a transition into new cars from old. It was entirely discredited, but it was taken as a key plank to the last election. I do not see the government implementing that because they knew that it was a bad piece of policy.

We also have the instance, as Senator Nash articulately outlined, of the carbon tax. 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Those words haunt every Australian family today as they expect their electricity bills to rise, their jobs to be lost and industry and carbon emissions to be exported overseas. And not to see climate change one jot or tittle, not to see it change one iota, but to re-engineer the Australian economy with a tax that we cannot afford. Of course, that was another promise that this minister conveniently overlooks. But there was also the promise that, instead of a carbon tax, there would be efforts to build community consensus about the need for a carbon tax. There was going to be a cabal, a gathering, of people with different view­points about climate change and what action needed to be taken on it. There was going to be a lasting and deep community consensus before—

Senator Birmingham: A citizens assembly!

Senator BERNARDI: That is right! The good citizens of Australia were going to have their say. And 148 members of the House of Representatives went to an election saying there would be no carbon tax or emissions trading scheme and that there would have to be a deep community consensus before any ETS or carbon tax was going to be introduced. That was a crystal clear promise. It was only dumped after the election because this government was not prepared to keep its promises.

But the government tries to keep its promises that will damage and hurt everyday Australians, promises such as this one, which not only raises my concerns about the lack of support for stay-at-home mothers but seeks, in my opinion, to force parents, in a way, to put their children into institutionalised child care. It removes the start-up rebate, I understand, for family day care centres, which provide, in my opinion, a much more enduring and nurturing environment for children who cannot be at home with one or both parents. In a move to save a relatively meagre $83 million or so over four years, the government is prepared to disadvantage 27,000-plus families, to add to their costs every year. The government is doing this because it was a promise at the last election.

Indeed, the minister may be right. There may have been consultation by Minister Ellis in the other place with some of the industry stakeholder groups. But do you really think the Australian people had this front and centre when they were making their decision at the last election? Do you really think the families of Australia, who knew they were doing it tough under Labor—never knowing how much tougher it would get for them—were making their analysis on what was going to happen in respect of the childcare arrangements? The answer, on any reason­able analysis, would have to be no, they were not. They were focused on the relief that there was going to be no carbon tax. They knew no carbon dioxide tax or emissions trading scheme was going to put up the cost of living and drive industry offshore and destroy jobs, as it has destroyed the credi­bility of successive Labor administrations.

I am sure also, Senator Farrell, that the minister undertook the greatest consultation when she called into the SDA and asked them what she should be deciding. I have no doubt at all that she could ignore the claims of all the other industry stakeholders and just accept the claims of the SDA. If this is SDA approved, if this is family friendly, I would like you to stand up and say that the SDA has given this its stamp of authority. I know that Peter Malinauskas is now running the show in South Australia, or officially anyway. But I also know, Senator Farrell, that you keep a very close eye on what Peter does. I can see the strings sometimes. Senator Farrell, I need to know whether the minister went into the offices of the SDA, whether she consulted with the union bosses there and whether she actually undertook any consultation with you with respect to your previous involvement in this area. Is this bill approved by your union? It is a very simple question; I would like you to provide a very quick answer.