Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As the mover of the original motion, I seek leave to speak without closing the debate.

Leave granted.

Thank you very much. I thank the honourable member for Franklin for his words about the report Balancing work and family. As people listen to debate on the report, they will see that one thing in common is that everybody is passionate about the calls for child care to meet the needs of individuals, not for individuals to meet the needs of a system. I do not think ever before has such a comprehensive report been presented to the parliament, bringing together an enormous amount of evidence that we took from all around Australia, hearing from over 200 people, having over 200 submissions, having Access Economics do the macromodelling to see the impact on the economy as a whole if we saw a greater participation of women in full-time work and having Econtech do the micromodelling so that we would know the impact on the budget and on individuals.

The thing that came out loud and clear in this inquiry is that the CCB and the CCTR, which stand for childcare benefit and childcare tax rebate, which are the fundamentals of the current policy, do not meet adequately the needs of individuals who require child care. There is a need for a greater flexibility in child care—a need for the benefits that are paid to cover a greater variety of child care that suits the need of parents rather than being paid out into basically centre based care.

The value of the childcare benefit is $1.6 billion. I will give you an indication of the way in which it is paid. ABC Learning Centres have been mentioned here, and ABC Learning Centres have become an important provider in the area of child care. They showed in their annual report that their net revenue was $592 million, but, if you then look at the amount of money that is paid out in CCB—and bear in mind that most of it is paid directly to a childcare centre—their share of that money is $300 million. In other words, half of their income comes directly from the taxpayer via the CCB.

On the other hand, the childcare tax rebate has been shown to be a vast underspend. The rebate was set so that you could get a maximum rebate of $4,000 a year. That means you would have to spend $12,000, but you would have to spend it in such a way that it was in approved child care—that narrow definition. The bottom line is that, instead of many parents being able to claim that $4,000 rebate, which is a 30 per cent rebate, and get it back, the average rebate paid is $813. That is not because parents are not spending the money; it is because they are spending it on child care that suits them and their arrangements, but the government policy presently does not cover that sort of child care.

One instance of that is in-home care. There is an in-home government program for in-home care, but it is a very small program. It is dealing with parents who have multiple-birth children, people in isolation—it has very strict criteria, and there are only 7,000 families on that program. Before the inquiry, it had been frozen. I am very pleased to say that, after we brought down the report, the program was opened up again. So that was an immediate good outcome.

Clearly, the in-home care program can suit many people. It can suit shiftworkers, anyone who is a policeman, an ambulance worker, a flight attendant or a nurse—anyone who is called out at hours when centre based care is not available. For instance, there are only 21 centre based care childcare centres in the entire country that are open at weekends, but only eight of them are open on Saturday and Sunday. So automatically, out of the umpteen thousand places that are available, clearly, if you are not a regular nine to five type worker, you are out of luck. Consider the pressure that is put on usually the mum, who has to get up, pack the lunches, get the kids washed and dressed, race one off to a childcare centre in one particular area, race another one off to a different area and perhaps one off to school as well. If you could arrange to have care in your home, how much easier that burden would become. So in-home care has to be an option, and it can be various families sharing. But we put in a restriction. We said the in-home carer must have a level II certificate and must be registered with the government’s Family Assistance Office.

The government has another very good policy which says that if you have not finished year 12 and you are 25 or over you can get a $3,000 voucher. With that $3,000 voucher, you can go and get training in any number of suitable courses being taught, usually at TAFE or in the private sector equivalent of TAFE, and you can become qualified. Interestingly enough, towards the end of the inquiry I launched such a course for in-home carers. I am very pleased to tell you that I am informed by the provider of that course that it is now officially recognised by the government. You can get your $3,000 voucher and take it to that provider and you can learn to be an in-home carer and get a level II certificate, which will mean you will qualify under the restriction in our report.

The question of tax deductibility has come up as an issue for some in giving preference to people who are greater income earners than others. For this reason the Econtech research was very important. We wanted no losers. So the recommendation is that the CCB and the CCTR remain. You can go on claiming those or you can have tax deductibility, but you cannot have both. You can choose which will suit your needs best, but it is not carte blanche. If one parent is working five days a week and one parent is working two days a week, you can only claim the tax deduction for two days, not for five, and it must be for the production of assessable income. That seems to me pretty fair.

The bottom line is that you can get a tax deduction for your computer, your steelcapped boots, your motor car and your mobile phone but not for fundamental child care, which is necessary to produce assessable income. I have to tell you that, from my mail and from the people who have contacted me, there is enormous support for this proposition because it is seen as being equitable for women. It is a fundamental equity question. But it also has enormous benefits for the economy. Access Economics said that if we see a growth in the full-time participation of women that will equate to a growth of between 2.4 and 4.4 per cent in national income, which is greater than tax reform—that is, the introduction of the GST—and just under competition policy. That is a huge benefit for the nation.

Econtech said that the total cost of implementing this policy would be $262 million. When I look at the Treasury documents I see that already, for the year 2006-07, the underspend for child care is $280 million. It is estimated in 2007-08 to be $305 million and in 2008-09 to be $330 million. That is the underspend. That figure of $262 million is certainly affordable. When you realise that we are already returning $16.9 billion, by way of tax deductions for which people claim work related expenses and other deductions, I reckon $262 million is pretty affordable.

We received a very interesting paper from somebody at FaCSIA. It pointed out that, at the very least, for every dollar the government have invested in assisting parents with child care the government get back in tax $1.86. In other words, for every dollar that they are putting into helping parents they are getting a return on that investment. That is the conservative end of the estimate. Some people say it is eight times the value.

The bottom line is that the government have done some very good things with regard to child care, but what is needed is flexibility. They admit it with regard to Work Choices. Flexibility is needed. We need flexibility so that mums in particular, but dads too, can choose what sort of care they want for their kids and can have an option in what is good for them. Thank you very much to the secretariat, who did a fantastic job, and thank you to the other members of the committee, who worked very hard.

See this speech in context