Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I will take the questions in turn. I did misunderstand the member for Warringah. I was talking about approved care and I understand now that his question was about registered care. So, while I correctly explained the operation of CCB and CCTR for approved care, I understand he has an interest in registered care. What I think is important for the member for Warringah to understand is that the income changes to CCB do not affect registered care. The proposal for CCB for registered care—that is, care provided by friends, relatives and nannies who have registered with the Family Assistance Office—is that the changes do not affect those families. Those families will continue to receive the minimum rate of CCB. I think that is the question the member wanted answered. They will continue to receive the minimum rate of CCB. The member for Warringah is right: such families in registered care do not attract CCTR. I can understand why he would have asked that question, and I think it is an important factual point. The new changes with CCB not hitting a minimum rate and continuing at high-income levels to zero are changes for approved care. They are not changes which impact on CCB eligibility for registered care. I hope that has specifically answered the question he asked.

The member for Makin asked about the Bradley review of higher education. The member for Makin is right: by world standards our universities have been through a very difficult period under the Howard government. We are intending to redress that. The Bradley review is about ensuring that our universities are a world-class system for the next decade and the years beyond. We want to take a long-term, strategic approach to higher education. The issues that the member for Makin raised are the sorts of issues which will be comprehended by the Bradley review, and I thank him for his question.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked a number of questions in the workplace relations area, which I will turn to. She asked, in the first instance, about the assessment of collective agreements. That is being presently undertaken by the Workplace Authority. Consistent with Labor’s policy Forward with Fairness, after the implementation of our substantive industrial relations changes, the assessment of collective agreements will move to Labor’s new industrial umpire, Fair Work Australia. At that point, the Workplace Authority will cease to exist. The reason for creating Fair Work Australia is that we have an aspiration for a one-stop shop which will be easier for employers and employees. So, following our substantive industrial relations changes, a collective agreement assessment will be undertaken by Fair Work Australia. That is the nature of our reforms.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

I presume I take up where I left off. I was answering the questions of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The second question she raised—I think it was the second question—was about a $30 million cut to the Workplace Authority. We have reduced resources for the Workplace Authority. We have done that because we anticipate that the impact of the transition act will be that fewer individual agreements are made. Consequently, we believe the work of the authority will be less. We are very well aware that, in relation to the authority, we are cleaning up a huge mess of over 100,000 agreements that are waiting for processing. We are not getting to the end of that, but we are making progress in addressing the backlog. We have hit a stage where the number of agreements being processed means that a dint is being made in the backlog. Instead of the backlog getting bigger and bigger month after month, the authority is starting to make a dint in it. This is a huge mess created by the former government. We are tidying it. We have to tidy it up in the interests of employers and employees who are caught in the backlog. It is one of the legacies of Work Choices, and we are dealing with it.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised a question about the operation of the no disadvantage test. The operation of the test is that people need to get the conditions specified in the so-called Australian fair pay and conditions standard. Then they need to come out better off than the award. That is the way in which the test operates.

The last question I was asked was from the member for Blaxland. He is right; universal preschool is an important development for social equity. We are investing in that. His last question to me was on childcare centres. We are commencing the rollout of childcare centres. The first 38 will be rolled out as a result of budget initiatives. For the balance of the program, we will be working in partnership with state and territory governments. We will be consulting with local communities and stakeholders. We want to put those centres in areas of need and where they will make a difference. We have said publicly—and I know the member for Warringah is interested in this—that one of the criteria in assessing the providers for the centres will be to look to providers with a track record of affordable provision. I think that deals with all of the questions asked in a slightly disrupted pattern.

See this speech in context