Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to commend the member for Paterson and the member for Higgins for their speeches because I think they have summed up exactly what this bill, the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013, is all about. Sadly, it is this government giving another sop to the union movement. It is remarkable that we are debating it on this day, this third anniversary of Julia Gillard becoming the Prime Minister of our great nation, because that event was all about the union movement regaining control of the Labor Party—and, boy, are we seeing the Prime Minister repay the unions' faith in her in spades and that is what this bill is all about.

We have seen that with another bill we have been debating in this chamber in the last two weeks, the bill about 457 visas with the union movement looking for the government to crack down on the so-called rorting there—a union inspired campaign which the government decided to get behind. There is quite an irony as to that bill because it seems it is the media communications guru in the Prime Minister's office, on a 457 visa himself, who thought: 'Oh, there's a great convergence here. We've got the 457 visa issue which the unions want us to push and we can use that to try and disguise the issues that we have with our borders.' So they brought those two issues together in that bill, and now we are also seeing it here, because United Voice have run a very strong campaign to get action in this area. But it is not to get action on behalf of all childcare workers and it is not to get action to see wages rise across the sector in a fair way. It is a call to arms by United Voice to get the Gillard government to act on behalf of them. That is what is so shameful about this piece of legislation because, as the member for Paterson identified, what it does is divide worker against worker and it divides various segments of the childcare sector against each other. What we on this side cannot understand about this Prime Minister is why she continually wants to divide Australian against Australian. Why is it? Leadership is not about division; leadership is about uniting. Yet this Prime Minister seems hell-bent on just making one Australian be pitted against another Australian be pitted against another Australian. It is not the way to govern a nation.

Let us go to the specifics of the bill. What is it about? It is about providing a commitment of $300 million over two years to various members of this sector—and I say various members of this sector, not all. How do you see whether you can qualify for some of this $300 million? The government have set up a seven-member panel which has responsibility for deciding the criteria that centres will need to meet in order to be eligible for the funding. How have they gone about establishing who should be on that committee? Have we got a wide range of voices? Have we made sure that we have got the sector as a whole well represented on that seven-member panel? No, we have not. But what have we made sure of? Who have we made sure are represented on that seven-member panel? It should come as no surprise. United Voice, of course, are on that panel. But do we have private sector engagement on that panel? No, of course not. Heaven forbid that we could have broad representation on it, but, my word, have we insisted that United Voice get one seat? Yes, we have.

What then are the guidelines that are going to lead how this funding is allocated? They are still yet to be determined, meaning we are unable to consider whether they are even fair and reasonable. So here we are debating this legislation, which is going to dish out $300 million over two years, and we have a seven-member panel set up—and we know that United Voice are on that—but what are the criteria? No criteria! But we have seen, through United Voice's campaign—and can I say it is a fairly deceitful campaign—the type of guidelines that they would like to see. They would like to make sure that the union is front and centre when it comes to allocating these funds. They would like to see, whether a centre has an EBA or not, the level of union membership that a centre has within its workforce. That is the key criterion that they would like to see. We will wait and see whether or not the government actually puts that in the criteria, but there is no doubt that, by giving United Voice representation on that seven-member panel, those are the things they will want to bring to the table.

And what does it mean for the other types of child care? What does it mean, for instance, for family day care? What does it mean for occasional care? What does it mean for budget based care? They are excluded entirely from this funding. I have already had an approach from an occasional care provider in my electorate in Warrnambool. They are incredibly fearful of what this means for their ongoing viability. It is worth mentioning because occasional care is sometimes frowned upon by the other side for being there for those who can afford it. I tell you: when you go and sit down and talk to the parents, grandparents or carers who use occasional care, it is often the most needy and vulnerable who use it, yet, through what the government is doing here, it is going to make it harder for them to continue to employ people. It is going to threaten the ongoing viability of this sector. That means that the poor and the needy who use occasional care—those parents, grandparents and carers—are going to be left with little alternative. Often it is the single parents who have to use it the most, yet, through this piece of legislation, the government is going to make it harder for those occasional care providers to operate. I ask anyone on the other side, if they query this, to come down to Warrnambool. I would love to take them to the occasional care centre there and to get them to talk to the parents, grandparents and carers so that they can hear firsthand what this piece of legislation has the potential to do.

So there are serious problems with this bill. They come on the back of other pieces of legislation which have been introduced to this House and which have also caused considerable concern to the sector. I will say about these two other initiatives the government has put in—the national quality framework and the universal access—that they at least have the right intent, whereas this bill before us today does not have the right intent. It has been singly about making sure that United Voice has got the policies that they were seeking, in many ways, it is worth reminding the House, rewarding them for their support for the Labor government. Let us not forget that, as the member for Higgins put on the record, $7 million has been donated over the last two election campaigns by United Voice to the Labor Party. That is what is driving this piece of legislation.

What drove the national quality framework and universal access was good intent, and we on this side recognise that. Of course, the implementation has, sadly, been lacking and has caused a lot of concern within the sector. So why, having caused that concern and still trying to bed down the disruption which has been caused by the national quality framework, including the increased amount of staff necessary to implement the national quality framework—and, of course, with universal access there are the difficulties in getting the staff needed to implement it—has the government come and sought to divide the sector by presenting this piece of legislation, which we know and the government has admitted cannot cover the whole workforce in the childcare sector? As a matter of fact, it is expected that it will only cover between 30 and 40 per cent. So you bring in two pieces of legislation, which caused concern through their poor implementation, and then you bring in this piece of legislation, which will divide the industry. It will only cover 30 to 40 per cent of the workforce. As I have said before, that is going to pit centre against centre, but it is also going to pit against each other the types of child care provided.

So what does the coalition want to offer in this space? In the first instance, it wants to offer good governance. It wants to say to United Voice: 'Do this properly. Don't go to the government and say you want a cosy deal. Use the system. Put in an application through the proper channels to get a pay rise for the childcare sector workforce as a whole. Let's work so that the whole sector can get the type of remuneration that the sector deserves and that we on this side recognise that it deserves. Don't go and do a cosy deal which shows that, once again, it is the union movement that has the strings to pull to get this Prime Minister in particular to do what it wants done. Use the proper process.'

What else do we want to do? We want to make sure child care is affordable and accessible for all, whether it be in metropolitan areas or in regional and rural areas. We will embark on that process. We will look at ways to make sure everyone in the sector can make sure they continue to provide services which are affordable and accessible. It will not just be long day care centres; it will also be family day care, occasional care, budget based care and others excluded entirely despite their roles being very similar.

There is one thing that the Leader of the Opposition has made clear—that is, we want to get away from this politics of division. We want to get away from this politics of representing part of the community and then pitting that part of the community against another part of the community. We want to get back to where the national interest comes first, where the community comes first and where all Australians come first—not a government which seems hell-bent and a Prime Minister who seems hell-bent on making sure that the only way government occurs is by dividing the nation.

On this side, we are opposed to this bill. We can see it transparently for all it is—that is, repaying United Voice for everything they have done in getting rid of a Prime Minister three years ago and putting in a new Prime Minister to be at the beck and call of the union movement. It is a shameless piece of legislation. It covers only 30 to 40 per cent of the workforce. It covers only one sector of child care. It is not about improving the sector as a whole; it is about rewarding the union movement and that is why we oppose it.

See this speech in context