Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013. I find the comments by the minister in his introductory speech balanced against the actual effect of this bill to be an absolute farce and at odds with each other. This is a bill that seeks to provide $300 million over two years: $135 million in the first year and $165 million in the second year. It is about lifting wages for the workers in the childcare industry, but $300 million will not provide that increase for all workers in the childcare industry. I would have thought the one thing coming from a Labor Party driven by the unions, owned by the unions, would have been an equality for all workers—the same people doing the same job in the same environment getting paid the same amount of money. Isn't that what the union movement is supposed to be all about? But here we have a minister who is introducing a special fund for the benefit of a select few.

This was brought to my attention by one of my electorate's childcare directors, and I will not name her for a few reasons. She had real concerns. She came to see me with some of her workers. One of their concerns was that they were told by the union movement that to access this fund the workers in that centre needed to join the union movement. In fact, they needed seven workers to join the union before they could be eligible for this program. And that is a lie in itself because you do not need to be a member of the union to apply for this grant. However, they needed to sign up to the enterprise bargaining agreement to access this fund.

It is abundantly clear that this funding will provide a wage increase for only 30 to 40 per cent of the workers in long day care and only over two years. So here is the predicament that my long day childcare centre owner has. She has put it to her workers and they have decided: 'We might as well, so, yes, we have to join the union and we'll pay $500 a year each for the pleasure of joining the union. We'll enter into this enterprise bargaining agreement, we'll put our name down for this fund and if we get the funds for two years, what happens at the end of the two years?' Guess what? The fund goes, but how easy will it be to reduce the wages by that amount? That ain't going to happen, so parents are going to get slugged for an increase in childcare costs. And there is no guarantee on the funding coming through to that centre, so if the workers enter into the enterprise bargaining agreement and do not get the funding the costs of child care will have to go up from 1 July. How smart is that?

People in the industry, who actually understand the childcare industry and who interact with parents on a daily basis, want stability and affordable child care. And one thing that really disappoints and annoys those people is that this program seeks to drive division in the industry—division because some workers will get compensatoryfunding, others will not; division because this only applies to those workers in long day care, not those in preschools or in other forms of childcare provision.

One thing that the coalition did, and did well, was bring all of the workers involved in the childcare industry together. This bill is a farce. Do I think that childcare workers are worth more money? Absolutely. I am married to a person employed in the childcare industry and I see what they go through on a daily basis. I see the care and love that they provide to children who are not their own but who are put into their care. They are fantastic people and they work incredibly hard. I think this legislation is dangling a carrot at the end of a stick, which will only to be snatched away from them after two years—after they have made that commitment to pay $500 a year in union membership; after their employers have been locked into an EBA—and it will drive up the costs of child care.

Some queries came in from centre operators, particularly not-for-profit centre operators, in my electorate. One read:

The government has pledged funding for some educators for two years. Conditions apply such as signed workplace agreements. We're a small community centre in a very needy area.

Another one said:

Pay increases for some childcare workers and educators have already been contracted. The New South Wales branch of the union, Big Step, said only educators that signed the contracts would be getting the increases. This makes us worried. We're a small centre in—

a certain area—

Not many of us out here look after the real interests of the children. Thank you for reading my email.

The final one that came through read:

The Federal government funding pledge for some childcare workers have told and have read we need to sign contracts, work agreements for funding for two years only. Can you please spare the time to help our little community centre with only 39 children—cannot come up with this funding like the commercially owned. Thank you. I don't know what to do.

I met with them in my office. Their paramount concern was for the future of their workers and the care being provided to the children under their arrangements. If you have a condition where one centre is paying more, you are going to see a drain from one centre to another. What will happen at the end of the two years? Deputy Speaker, I am sure in your position and in my position as local members, if we got a pay increase for two years—if we signed up to an agreement and we entered into that as part of our workplace agreement—and then after two years that funding was pulled, are we going to happily sit back and say: 'That's great. It was great that it was there for two years and now, all of a sudden, we're expected to take a pay cut?' We know that will not happen. The cost of child care under this government will go up. That is an undisputed fact. For some parents it will go up immediately; for others, where it is being subsidised, the cost will go up in two years.

There is no doubt that childcare workers are some of the lowest paid people in this country and they deserve more. I found the second paragraph of the introductory speech by the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, on 30 May, when this bill was introduced, rather offensive. He said:

Core to our values is giving every child an opportunity to succeed …

That is somewhat hypocritical because, if you are providing different funding for different child care, it means you will get different outcomes. So that is not giving every child an equal opportunity. Further, he said:

At the heart of this bill is this government's commitment to quality early childhood education, a commitment to early childhood education that is accessible and affordable and a commitment to having a highly qualified early childhood workforce.

That sounds wonderful, an absolute dream and something that should be achieved. But how do you achieve that if you are only providing a limited amount of money to cover a small percentage of the workforce for only two years? It cannot be done. So it is built on a false premise.

Finally, in the same speech, under the title 'Affordability and Accessibility', he said,

This government has been working hard to ensure that quality early childhood education and care remains affordable and accessible for all Australian families.

He kept repeating himself. This legislation is not sustainable by any stretch of the imagination. Further, in his speech, when he got into the targeted area of this Early Years Quality Fund, he said:

The fund, which will operate for two years, will enable grants to be paid services to supplement wage increases of all educators and staff assisting in the provision of quality early childhood education and care.

He used the word 'all' there. The fund does not cover all providers. So I am very disappointed but, in particular, people in my constituency are very disappointed. The people who work hard in a very low pay environment committed to the provision of quality child care are disappointed that, as they see it, they are being driven to join a union movement against their will to be able to access funds. What about freedom of choice in this country? It does not seem to exist.

What this bill is about is the government spending $300 million of taxpayers' funds to do nothing more than build union membership, under the Big Steps campaign, to give themselves sustainability and increased numbers in the trade union movement. So I oppose this bill. I want people to have higher wages—absolutely—but I want them based on productivity and affordability, and if the government is going to shell out taxpayers' funds they should be shelled out for all of the workers providing the same service, not for a select few—a select few that have been forced to join a union movement against their will. That is why this government and this bill need to be condemned.

See this speech in context