Angus Taylor

Last night we saw handed down by this hopeless Treasurer a budget for the next five weeks, not for the next five years. It is a budget for the prosperity and security of two people and their jobs—the Prime Minister and that hopeless Treasurer who is sitting over there. It is only about them. It is absolutely not about the hardworking Australians trying to get ahead, who are going backwards under this government. In 2½ years, Australians have seen the biggest collapse in their standard of living in the history of this country. We've never seen anything like this before. It is worse than any other country in the world. This hopeless Treasurer doesn't understand economics. He has never worked in the private sector—actually, I'm wrong; he worked in the private sector for six months, and he says he absolutely hated it. That's because he doesn't get it. He absolutely doesn't get it. And it's why, in his time as Treasurer, we have seen an eight per cent reduction in the standard of living of hardworking Australians. The truth is, for many Australians, it's far worse than that. If you're running a small business, it has been 18 per cent. If you're working overtime, weekends, because you can't afford to pay for your workers, it has been an 18 per cent collapse. If you are an Australian and you live in Western Sydney and you've got a mortgage, you've paid $50,000 more since this government came to power than you expected to pay just 2½ years ago. That's in after-tax income. That's what you have seen under this government.

Their answer to all of that is 70c a day over a year from now. That's their answer. That is the best this hopeless Treasurer, who simply doesn't understand economics—he's a PhD in spending; he's a PhD in excuse-making. That's the one thing that he focuses all of his time on. The best he has is 70c a day in over a year's time. The Australian people are smarter than that. They know they have been let down by this Treasurer, who is only focused on one job—his own. Actually, no—

Darren Chester

He has got two jobs in mind.

Angus Taylor

I tell a lie. He's interested in two jobs—the one he has got and the Prime Minister's job. They're the only jobs he's interested in.

Darren Chester

He has got a housing plan at the Lodge!

Angus Taylor

Yes, he does have a housing plan at the Lodge. I agree with that. Well said. I thought it was worthwhile having a look and seeing what you can buy for 70c. What is it you can buy with the 70c that the Treasurer thinks is the answer to the economic collapse that he has been behind over the last 2½ years? It turns out it's this: a single lolly at some old-school corner stores or service stations; a bread roll from a major supermarket, if they're on sale; a small coin donation to a charity box—it would be a pretty small coin donation; a single photocopy at libraries or office supply stores; a discounted soft-drink can at a clearance sale—it's probably past the use-by date; and an entry into a guessing competition, like, 'How many jelly beans are in the jar?' That is this Treasurer's solution to the biggest collapse in our standard of living in the history of this country. This Treasurer has no idea when it comes to what it takes to have a strong economy.

I said before the budget we've had three budget flops under this Treasurer—three flopped budgets. I said before this one there are three tests. There are three very simple tests. The first is that this budget needs to restore Australians' standard of living. We've seen in 2½ years, on average, an eight per cent reduction in Australians' standard of living, and we know what is behind that—the homegrown inflation that this Treasurer has driven. The Reserve Bank governor called it homegrown. We see grocery prices, for instance, up 30 per cent. Energy prices, gas prices and electricity prices are up over 30 per cent. Insurance bills and mortgage costs—you name it; this Treasurer has overseen a catastrophe on the cost of living that Australians have had to bear. The truth is, throughout that, our core inflation has been higher than most of our peer countries most of the time because this Treasurer never understood what he needed to do about it.

We've seen interest rates that have been higher for longer in this country. I talked about the average Australian family with a mortgage; they've had to find $50,000 that they weren't expecting to have to find—$50,000! The Treasurer's answer is 70c. You've got to be joking. He has no concept of the pain that they are experiencing. I go to food banks—

Government members interjecting—

You should listen to this. I go to food banks right across this country, and I see working people with mortgages going into those food banks who simply can't feed their families. And this Treasurer stands up here and says: 'It's all okay. You're all okay. I'm okay, so aren't you okay?' This bloke has never got it.

The second thing I will say about the cause of this collapse in the standard of living is the increase in personal income taxes being paid. The average Australian is paying $3½ thousand more in personal income taxes than when those opposite came to power, and that's on its way to $10,000.

Government members interjecting—

Nothing you are talking about is going to change that one little bit—

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick

Order! The member for Hume, I'm sorry. If you could just pause—

Angus Taylor

You have been responsible for higher taxes in this country because you have absolutely failed—

Milton Dick

The member for Hume, resume your seat for a moment. There are far too many people interjecting outside of their seats; this is not going to continue. If people wish to interject from outside of their seats, they will leave immediately. There is far too much noise. The member for Hume is going to give his speech, and everyone's going to listen to what he says.

Angus Taylor

As I said, the first test is restoring Australians' standard of living. We look at the budget papers, where we can see whether or not Australians' standard of living is going to be restored under their plan, and the answer is: no time soon. They've seen an eight per cent reduction in their real disposable incomes. That's the goods and services that their incomes can buy—eight per cent down since this Treasurer took on the role. He smashed Australians' standard of living. He smashed household budgets to try and improve his budget. He's found $400 billion more to spend by taking it from Australian households, which was my earlier point about taxes.

The truth of the matter is that, when you look at the budget, there is no pathway back anytime soon to the standard of living that Australians had when we were last in power. The Reserve Bank tell us that they expect our standard of living to get back to that level in 2031. That is a lost decade. And, if you leave this bloke in the role, it will be a lot more than a decade, because he has completely failed in this budget to restore Australians' standard of living.

The second test for this budget is whether it restores the hope of Australians who are losing hope. Aspiration and hope are central to the great Australian dream. The hope and aspiration that, over time, you can buy a house, pay it off, keep it as you approach retirement and use it as the basis for a great retirement are disappearing under this government. Hope is disappearing fast. We have seen them make a commitment to build 1.2 million houses, but there's no sign of that. The experts are telling us we'll be lucky to get to 800,000. There was absolutely nothing in this budget that suggested that that great hope of owning a home is coming back anytime soon.

Of course, the other great aspiration so many Australians have is to start and build a business over time. We know on this side of the House—because, unlike those opposite, so many of us have worked in small businesses—that small businesses are the backbone of our local communities. They are absolutely at the heart of employment and prosperity, ensuring that our communities are strong and that we have rising real wages, rising real incomes and a rising standard of living—something that those opposite don't seem to have much interest in. Again, there is absolutely nothing in this budget to suggest that there is any hope being restored anytime soon for those many Australians. There are 2.5 million Australians who own a small business, and we know there are many more who would like to over time, but they are losing hope. Young Australians are giving up on that hope.

I said the third test for this budget was restoring fiscal integrity and honesty. Peter Costello put in place a series of rules back in the 1990s—

Government members interjecting—

Listen to them crow. They've got a new model of government where they just spend like drunken sailors. That's their approach. Peter Costello put the rules in place that have worked for this country for many, many years, and the first thing that this Treasurer did when he came into the role is he threw them all out. He threw them all out because he knew better. His degree in spin taught him that you don't need fiscal rules. You don't need any discipline over the bureaucracy or your colleagues—who all want to spend like drunken sailors; there's no doubt about that. He decided to throw all of those rules out, and the result of that in this budget is red ink as far as the eye can see.

Since Labor came to power, they have added over $400 billion of spending to the final budget numbers that came out when we were in government. That's $400 billion of extra spending. That's $400 billion of extra taxation and red ink as far as the eye can see. Indeed, if you add up the five deficits the Treasurer announced last night, they add up to $170 billion—that's 6,000 bucks for every Australian—being put on the credit card to save this bloke's job. Actually, it's his aspiration to have another job, I think, as well. That's what we saw.

What we saw in this budget was not just a big-spending, big-taxing Labor budget; we also saw a big Australia budget. The numbers here are totally out of control.

An opposition member: It's jaw dropping.

They are jaw-dropping—absolutely right. They are out of control. Those opposite are going to see a number approaching two million people coming into the country in just five years. Now, we are a great immigrant nation, but you've got to get the balance right. There needs to be a balance between the housing supply in this country—which has been in freefall—and our immigration rate. That has been absolutely out of whack whilst this Treasurer and those opposite have been in power. It has been a complete disaster. Every time we get a new forecast, up it goes. Up it goes. They've added 700,000 to the forecast over just a few years. And the actual outcomes are quite extraordinary: over a million people coming into this country in just two years. They've lost control.

The result of that is that GDP per capita in this country has gone backwards for seven consecutive quarters. The only thing driving this country is Australians working for more hours, and their real incomes have gone backwards. The Treasurer should actually listen to some of this because he should try to get across the economics of what's going on here and not just focus on the spin. He has absolutely no idea about how an economy works. We see, as I say, an immigration rate which is completely unsustainable under this government. And they have lost control of our borders.

Now, there is a better way. There is a better way. We know that the way forward is to beat inflation, to boost growth, to back small businesses with accelerated depreciation. Those opposite reluctantly come to this place each year and say, 'Oh, I suppose we've got to give something to small business.' But I tell you what we've done is we've said, 'No, we're going to change that.' We're going to make this a permanent part of our taxation system. It's a permanent incentive for every small business in this country to invest, create jobs, create opportunities, and create prosperity for every Australian. Those opposite will never come at that. That's lower taxes. That's lower taxes that are going to drive prosperity for every Australian.

And we know, while I'm on this topic, that the worst thing that we could do with our taxation system is to start creating a system where you tax unrealised capital gains. But this Treasurer has absolutely no idea about how wealth is created. The truth is he is quite happy to go after unrealised capital gains of smart farmers and small-business people. And you know what, Mr Speaker? That means that those capital gains are going to have to be realised; that means a farm gets sold, a small business gets sold because they have to find access to that cash.

I said we've got to beat inflation, boost growth and back small business. We've got to fix our housing supply too. That means making sure that we are breaking the infrastructure bottlenecks that we know are holding back housing supply in this country. We also know that we need to deliver affordable, reliable energy. The failure on this has been astronomical. Those opposite promised a $275 reduction. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy promised a $275 reduction. The Treasurer was asked about this the other day, and he couldn't name the number; he couldn't do it. It was like an episode out of Fawlty Towers. Don't mention $275. Don't mention $275, because the truth of the matter is they have absolutely failed on one of their core promises from before the last election.

I know in my electorate and the electorate of the minister for energy Australians are paying $1,300 more than was promised by Labor. This is an absolute disaster, and we know putting more supply into the system is always going to be the answer. A renewables-only strategy is never going to work, but that is the path those opposite are on, and it has been a complete disaster for our country. Australians cannot afford another three years of Labor. Australians are poorer after three years of Labor, and 70c a day in over a years' time is going to do absolutely nothing to change that.

Long debate text truncated.

Tony Burke

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the resumption of the debate on the motion that the bill be read a second time being made an order of the day for a later hour.

Milton Dick

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Tanya Plibersek

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the bill be now read a third time.

Tony Burke

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following on Tuesday, 25 March 2025:

(1) after the introduction of Supply Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026, Supply Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026, debate on each bill being adjourned until a later hour;

(2) Ministers introducing the Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Machinery of Government Change) Bill 2025 and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025 without notice and debate on each bill being adjourned until a later hour;

(3) when the order of the day for the resumption of debate on Supply Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026 is called on, a cognate debate taking place with Supply Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026;

(4) immediately following the discussion of a matter of public importance, if the Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia's Transport Sector) Bill 2024, Supply Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026, Supply Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026, Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026 and Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Machinery of Government Change) Bill 2025 have not passed, all questions necessary to complete consideration of the bills being put immediately;

(5) following the passage of the bills listed in (4), the resumption of debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025 being called on immediately and all questions necessary to complete consideration of the bill being put at no later than 5.45 pm; and

(6) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.

Members would be aware of the different bills that the government is seeking to get through the parliament this week. As members would be aware, the Senate has Senate estimates on Thursday; therefore, the only way of us being able to deal with these different pieces of legislation is to deal with them in the House today, and this motion is to give effect to that. I move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick

The question is that the question be put.

Tony Burke

by leave—I move:

That standing order 133(b) (deferred divisions) be suspended for this sitting.

Adam Bandt

I seek to speak on the motion. Had the government come in this budget week and said, 'We need to reorder business to pass legislation to ensure that people can go and see their GP for free and triple the bulk-billing incentive,' we'd have entertained that. Had the government come in this budget week and said, 'We want to pass legislation to get dental into Medicare,' we'd have entertained that. Had they come and said, 'We want to pass legislation to wipe student debt by 20 per cent to ensure that it's protected against whatever might happen in the next government,' we'd have entertained that. We offered the government action on all of those things because, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, when we have been called back for a couple of days to sit, we should be prioritising legislation that might actually help people. But, instead, the government says, 'We've got to come back and reorder business to fast-track legislation to gut our environment and climate laws and to do a dirty deal with the opposition to fast-track extinction.'

Milton Dick

On a point of order, the Leader of the House?

Tony Burke

Just on relevance, the motion that the Leader of the Australian Greens is speaking to is not the motion that's before the House. The motion that's before the House is whether or not the standing order that would defer any divisions till after question time be suspended.

Milton Dick

The Leader of the House is correct. I'm just giving the Leader of the Australian Greens some licence, but the procedure motion before the House is—

Honourable members interjecting—

Just hold your horses. Members on my right are not helping this situation either. People are interjecting outside of their place. Any member on their feet has the right to debate. Everyone on my right can just cease interjecting. But this is to deal with the standing order, so, if you wish to address the motion, you can, but you'll need to be relevant to the motion before the House before we get to other motions.

Adam Bandt

Okay. This is a motion to reorder the business of the next couple of hours to allow divisions to occur in the next couple of hours. Usually at this time on a Tuesday there are no divisions occurring. Why is it that, in a sitting that many people didn't expect to have and with a couple of days of sitting left, the government says, 'We want to change the way things are done usually to allow for more divisions to happen and more votes to happen to allow legislation to be fast-tracked through this place'? That's what the divisions are for. Why is the government wanting to do that? It's not to wipe student debt. It's not to ensure that people can go and see the GP for free and that we Dutton-proof that legislation. No. It's to bring legislation to this place and ensure that the normal order of doing things is reorganised so that they can fast-track the extinction of a species in Tasmania and introduce legislation that will gut our climate and environment laws. That is why they are moving this motion to allow for, over the next couple of hours, votes to take place on legislation that was seen a couple of days ago that hasn't been through the usual Senate inquiry process and that will not address the cost-of-living crisis that people are under when we are called back here for a budget. They will instead act, simply because the big corporations and the Leader of the Opposition have said, 'Jump,' and the Prime Minister has said, 'How high?'

The legislation which the suspension motion from the Leader of the House is designed to fast-track over the next couple of hours by rearranging the way things are usually done will not address the cost-of-living crisis that people find themselves under. That is not the government's priority in moving this motion. They have shown absolute unwillingness to legislate even their own measures, which they say are so important. They want to hold wiping student debt by 20 per cent ransom to the outcome of the election. They won't bring a motion to this parliament to say, 'Let's pass that now.' Let's legislate seeing the GP for free and tripling the bulk-billing incentive—an idea of the Greens that they've adopted. No. We won't bring a motion to parliament to re-order business and to allow debate and divisions to happen to ensure that that progresses today.

No. What this motion is about is ensuring that, over the next couple of hours, the government fast-tracks legislation that will make a species extinct, and—not just that!—the government says, 'Please pass this motion so that we can debate this legislation.' You know what, Mr Speaker? There's a reason that they're not prepared to put this to a Senate inquiry and, instead, want to go through this dodgy process here now to allow divisions to happen at a time when usually there would not be divisions. The reason that that is being proposed is to hide scrutiny of just how wide ranging this bill is.

Milton Dick

Order. The Leader of the Greens will resume his seat for a moment. The Leader of the House?

Tony Burke

I rise on a point of order of relevance to the motion that's before us, again. It might be of some assistance—while the Leader of the Greens is referring to reordering of business that might be moved in subsequent motions, the bill that he's referring to is actually scheduled to be debated and voted on this afternoon. This standing order is irrelevant to divisions that happen after 2 pm. The resolution that we have now basically determines whether or not we can deal with supply bills and whether we can deal with a transport security bill before we get to question time. The legislation that he's referring to is legislation that—even on what's going to be moved subsequently and even if that were somehow relevant—is completely outside the ambit of the motion that's before the House right now.

Milton Dick

To assist the House—it's a big day today—could the Leader of the Greens just stick to the motion regarding the standing order. I know he's bringing other materials in, but I just want him to be directly relevant to the standing order, 133(b), which is before the House now as we're making the decision whether the deferred divisions will occur or not.

Adam Bandt

Of course those other bills can be progressed through this parliament, but what the government knows that it is trying to do is to ensure that, over the next few hours, passage is cleared, including by moving any procedural motions and having any divisions on them that are necessary, for an unprecedented piece of legislation to be put through this parliament today. That's what the government is attempting to lay the groundwork for in this motion—to allow unprecedented legislation that has not been to an inquiry, that will have wide-ranging implications not just for the fast-tracking of a species to extinction but also to allow coal and gas projects to be approved, to allow other environment destruction to take place and to remove the communities' right to oppose that. The government knows full well what it is trying to do, which is to clear the procedural decks to allow the fast-tracking of legislation that will fast-track a species to extinction and open up massive loopholes in our environment laws that other coal and gas corporations and other huge developers are going to be able to drive their way through. The government knows that. The government knows that absolutely.

We'll oppose this attempt to reorder and clear the procedural decks so that the government can fast-track this terrible legislation through. I urge the government in the remaining time that it's got, as it's considering the procedural motions that it's putting here, to go back to the drawing board and say: 'Let's use these next couple of days to pass legislation that will benefit people, that will wipe student debt, that will triple the bulk-billing incentive and that will get dental into Medicare. Let's use it to do that, not to fast-track a species to extinction and to gut our climate and environment laws.'

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the motion be agreed to.

Zali Steggall

The Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025 is an important bill in terms of finally assisting young families in juggling those commitments of parenting, children and working. Support for our working families leads to stronger outcomes for the economy and our community.

The decision about whether to return to work or take more time off to care for a child is a decision that all new parents must face, and all too often women are left with that responsibility. That needs to change. Men and other parents and partners must shoulder more of that proportion and responsibility. Of course, there are trade-offs when that choice of either staying home or going back to work has to be made, whether they be financial or emotional, because none of these choices are easy. I've spoken to many young parents, especially women, across my electorate who rely on many different types of care, from private and public child care to relying on family, to help juggle the demands of working life and the exorbitant cost of accessing child care.

I've been there personally and I understand how incredibly hard and expensive it is. As a barrister and as a sole trader, I didn't get access to any of that assistance. It was a juggle between local childcare centres and my parents assisting me a number of days a week, and I often had to juggle leaving court and leaving chambers early because of the crazy closure times and the penalty rates that apply if you're five minutes late picking your kids up from the childcare centre. It's incredibly hard, and all too often the decks are stacked against women because all too often women are left to shoulder this responsibility. My call-out to men is: it is good for your relationship with your children to spend more time with them. The responsibility of caring should not fall on mothers; it has to fall equally on all parents. It is good for your relationship with your children and for our economy and our society because it means everyone has the opportunity to participate.

All too often for women, the frustration of wanting to go back to work but being penalised by a reduced eligibility to claim days in child care—you have this penalty cliff at which there is a point you are working to pay for it rather than working to get ahead. That is just wrong. Women juggling commitments need to feel supported by the community and our broader society. Parents need to feel supported. This is an essential part of Australia moving forward—being able to have that juggle of family, children and work and progressing careers.

Of course, support comes in many ways, through the childcare system, family support and a broader understanding of the pressure on working parents. The call for universal child care holds significant benefits for our children, and, far too often, it has quite insultingly been pitched as something that is given to women. With respect to every member, it is something given to our society, because we go nowhere unless we have children and we go nowhere unless everyone in our society has the opportunity to work and to contribute and has that equal opportunity to do those things. So universal child care holds significant benefits for our children, our community, our economy and our society.

Of course, for children, it also provides the best opportunity to be happy, safe and secure and it builds the necessary foundations and skills that children need throughout their life, especially when they then enter schooling. It's incredibly important that all children have the opportunity to access that early childcare experience. It's particularly impactful that children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds are able to get into those opportunities. So I very much support the implementation of full, universal access to child care for this minimum of three days, and this bill is a welcome start.

The bill is being introduced because the activity test is broken. The childcare subsidy does not provide an adequate safety net for working families. We have the second-highest childcare costs in OECD countries. It is prohibitively expensive, and, whilst there are childcare deserts and a lack of availability in regional communities, the cost in urban communities is exorbitant. My community would have to have one of the highest costs when it comes to child care. Australian families spend about 27 per cent of their income—that's nearly a third—on child care, compared to the OECD average of 14.5 per cent.

The Productivity Commission's report on universal child care found that 328,000 parents were not entering the workforce due to the affordability and availability of child care. We hear a lot in this place about staffing shortages and skills shortages. You can point to and blame immigration and do all those things, but, ultimately, the first and best thing we can do is utilise, to the best and the fullest capacity, our current population, making sure everyone in our communities now have that equal opportunity to participate. If you think about it, 328,000 parents are not entering the workforce due to the affordability and the availability of child care. So this bill goes some way to fixing that, and I welcome it.

The activity test introduced by the previous government in 2018, designed to encourage workforce participation, was shown not to work. The test is used to determine how much care subsidy a family can receive, but it's linked to hours a parent is working or a parent is volunteering, job hunting, on leave or studying, and it has been heavily criticised, because, unfortunately, it has not resulted in increased workforce participation. In fact, it has disincentivised workforce participation. The Australian Institute of Family Studies's evaluation found no evidence that the activity test caused any increase in workforce participation; instead, it is most likely to hurt lower income families and discourage use of access of early childhood education for their children.

The Productivity Commission, the Thrive by Five campaign and the Parenthood group all have done phenomenal work in raising this issue. This is not a women's issue; this will be a society issue and an economy issue unless we can all participate. It is very good to now be looking at this activity test and getting rid of it. It's too convoluted and difficult to understand. As it was, the subsidy didn't increase enough to cover the added cost of child care as a parent increased their working commitments. Too often parents, usually women, were left to work part time because the cost of going full time or increasing their days was simply too prohibitive. That has so many knock-on effects. It means that women may stay on part-time or casual contracts instead of going into permanent employment. It means that they are not accumulating the same amount of super. It means they are not eligible for the same promotions. You then see that pay gap and that opportunity gap widen.

The focus on the parents in that activity test does not provide an opportunity to allow all children to have the best opportunity to thrive. In fact, families have been found to deliberately keep their hours low enough to receive support. Alarmingly the Productivity Commission found that 70 per cent of sole parents and secondary earners have reduced their hours due to the reduction of childcare subsidies. If there was ever a counterproductive measure, this would have to be it! The ACCC found that families on a lower income spend a greater share of disposable income on child care and are disproportionately impacted by the childcare subsidy activity test. The impact is that some 126,000 children from the poorest households across Australia have missed out on early childhood education, and, unfortunately, that missing out is compounded over the years, and it makes a difference.

This bill reforms the activity test to ensure that families who earn less than $530,000 per year will be guaranteed access to at least three days a week, or 72 hours per fortnight, of subsidised child care. According to the Department of Education, households earning between $50,000 and $100,000 per year will save around $15,000 a year. This is really significant. It provides a guaranteed 100-hour entitlement per fortnight for parents caring for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child. And I welcome that additional provision for First Nations Australians.

It's a high-stakes road map; there is no doubt. The bill presents an opportunity to improve gender equity by providing more choice between increasing caring responsibility and entering the workforce. It's a first step to make universal child care available for all Australian families. Better access to affordable child care leads to additional hours of work by more parents joining the workforce. It's estimated that the taxation uplift will actually be in the order of some $292 million, and it will increase Australia's GDP by some $6 billion. So I dare anyone in this place to oppose the bill and say that somehow this is not a good measure.

The bill presents an opportunity for children to access high-quality child care that will set them on the right path. Now, of course, this only works if we couple this with a measure to make sure child care is available in all communities in Australia. I've heard many from the opposition, in their speeches, talk about the childcare deserts. That does not warrant opposing this bill. It means go to the table, sit down with the government. You find ways to do it on other issues, so sit down and work out how we can roll out childcare centres so they are available in every community in Australia. Pointing at the lack of availability is not a reason to not support making it available and more affordable to all. It's so important.

I've spoken many times in this place about the need to help women participate equally in work and strengthen our gender equity, including in our superannuation laws and paid parental scheme. For me, this campaign to increase the childcare subsidy to provide more support for working families is essential. That's why it is so important to be committed to having more voices in this place, more diversity. Especially, it is about having more women's voices in this place—to make sure that these issues are not pigeonholed but are put front and centre of good economic management.

This bill is welcome, but more can be done. The activity test still needs reforming. I think we need to remove the activity test completely to ensure greater universal childcare access. The affordability is one piece of the puzzle, but it doesn't work without access to high-quality childcare centres. So, as I said, we need to do more about this. During the break, the government committed to funding and constructing more. They have committed to 160 centres. Unfortunately, I remember at the time there was a media outcry about the scale of that spend. Well, you can't come into this place and complain about the lack of availability, oppose the measure to build and support more child care and then also oppose making it more affordable for families. And you can't then go out to communities and say you're somehow in this place fighting for families.

I support the government on this issue. We need to do more to make sure that there are more centres built and, in particular, that regional and rural Australia has access to child care. Victoria University has done a study which shows that 24 per cent of Australians live where there is a lack of childcare availability. There are more than three children for each childcare spot. So it's slightly better than in 2020, when it was 34 per cent, but it shows that there's still a lot to do; there is so much more that needs to be done.

Yes, I represent an urban community, but I am acutely aware that child care needs to be available to all Australians. All communities need to have access to quality child care so that all Australian children have that opportunity to develop. So I encourage the government to consider incentives to increase availability of high-quality education and early learning, such as rewarding centres if they meet or exceed national quality standards. We need to make sure there are incentives.

Of course, we have labour shortages, so the question will be whether we have enough people to staff these centres. So, again, it's making sure qualified staff are available. We know that they're struggling to find qualified staff, and it's putting extra pressure on families as centres cap the number of places due to staffing shortages. Now, of course, that is linked to wages and whether or not it's an attractive career pathway. Median wages for early childhood teachers are about 20 per cent lower than those of primary school teachers. They have poorer working conditions, fewer leave days and greater workplace pressures. More than half of graduates of early childhood education degrees choose employment in primary school, so clearly we still do not have parity across these education sectors and we are picking and choosing which ones we value. We need to do better to make sure that the entire pathway is supported and equitable.

The government's commitment to early childhood education is welcome, but, as I said, more can be done. So it comes again to that coordination piece at the state and territory and federal levels to improve the recruitment and retention of early childhood educators: removing unnecessary workforce barriers, such as moving between state and territory jurisdictions; improving opportunities for career development, such as early career support and mentoring programs; and, of course, wage increases.

So I welcome this legislation. It is an essential part of us having an equitable society where men and women—all parents—have the opportunity to juggle the responsibility of parenting with working and making a financial contribution by being in paid employment. It is so important that early child care be available. Ultimately, it is a key to us having a smart next generation. We know that the data shows that engagement in early child care helps development and improves learning outcomes as children go on to primary school.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the Senate amendments be agreed to.

Patrick Gorman

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Adam Bandt

Instead of helping people, the major parties help themselves; what a stitch-up! On the last day of parliament, instead of reforming childcare laws, it's laws to help the big parties.

Milton Dick

Order! The Leader of the Australian Greens will resume his seat. The assistant minister has the call.

Patrick Gorman

I move:

That the question be now put.

Hon. Members

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick

Order! We are dealing with matters before the House, and for us to deal with this we need some semblance of order in the House. Just so everyone understands what the motion is before the House—that's all I'm trying to assist with, so everyone is aware of what is happening—the question is that the question be put.

A division having been called and the bells being rung

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! I am drawing a line in the sand for this kind of behaviour. We are not going to behave in this unruly way, simply yelling at people across the chamber. I understand the issue is emotive for members, but this is not acceptable. I need members on both sides of the chamber to show restraint and some dignity while we deal with these issues.

The question before the House is that the question be put.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the amendments be considered immediately.

Patrick Gorman

I move:

That the amendments be considered immediately.

Milton Dick

There is a motion before the House. The question before the House is that the amendments be considered immediately, so I'll put that question.

The way the standing orders work is that, once the question is stated before the House to deal with a matter immediately, it's not debated.

Zali Steggall

Shame!

Milton Dick

We'll just get further clarification to make sure everyone is informed of what's happening in the House. The advice is that the motion can be debated.

Patrick Gorman

I move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the question be put.