Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

You are right. But this is just a debacle. How anyone can vote yes on this has got me.

Thirty to forty per cent is a pretty rough guide too. The government have established, to their credit, a seven-member panel that has the responsibility for deciding the criteria centres will need to meet in order to be eligible for the funding. I would like to sit in on that meeting and see how that works! Yet these guidelines are not yet determined, meaning they are unable to consider whether they are fair or unreasonable.

This bit of legislation is being rushed through at a hundred miles an hour so that no-one really knows the facts or how this bill is going to work. It sounds to me a bit like the grabbing of funds from bank accounts and superannuation funds. They can take it all right, but they have no idea how they are going to return the funds once the public realise the funds have gone out of their account and they squeal. They do not know how they are going to give it back. This sort of legislation has been rushed through this House time and time again. The public is getting pretty sick of it.

Membership of the panel seems deliberately slanted away from the private sector, though the unions secured a seat around the table. The coalition has extensive correspondence with childcare providers regarding this bill. The childcare sector as a whole expresses concern that the $300 million fund will create a two-tier system, driving a wedge in the system. You are going to have two classes of workers. Is this fair? They are gravely concerned that the centres that are not successful in securing funding will have their staff poached by the other centres. The staff will be very hard to retain if there is a difference of $400 a week in their pay packets. How are they going to hold onto those staff? A number of centre owners have indicated they will have to offer a higher wage rate in order to keep the staff and adhere to the national quality framework staffing requirements.

The coalition referred the bill to the House standing committee, and the bill was automatically referred to the Senate committee for an inquiry; however, at the end of the day, this bill is being rushed through without proper consideration. I have a letter here from a child-minding centre in my area. It says:

It distresses me greatly to have the uncertainty that this bill focusses on our profession. The problems that I see with this Bill are as follows:

There is simply not enough money for the process to be effective. First not all services will be able to access the grant. The big question is how will it be decided who will miss out …

It goes on:

There seems to be absolutely no link between who gets the grant and the quality of the service.

… … …

Even if the grant is obtained there is no guide to who is able to receive it within the service.

… … …

Ability to plan for the future is compromised due to the grant dropping back in 2 years. It would not be sustainable to keep fees reduced and maintain approx an extra $85,000 to the bottom line.

Another letter says:

In regards to the current talks of a pay rise to the Child Care industry I am totally confused and dumbfounded. After hearing about a pay rise to the industry we had a visit from United Voice in April who informed us they would be responsible for deciding which Child Care Centres would be receiving the pay rise and that it would go first to the centres with the highest Union membership.

That is a quote from a union delegate. It says further:

None of our employees were happy about this, including our Director. The Union rep when later talking to the employees told them that most people had signed up and that … our Director, was fully on-board.

This was not the case. The letter goes on:

… had earlier had strong words with the rep but like the rest of us had felt strong pressure to join up, believing this was our only way to be in the running to receive the raise. The Union told us the only other way to be in the running was to privately organise as an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement which would cost of tens of thousands of dollars.

If that is not bullying, I do not know what is. It further says:

I have personally tried to find out information regarding the how, where's, why's, and whose of this whole thing and the only information I have been able to find is very vague and left me more and more confused.

'Can you please help me with this important legislation and please oppose it at every opportunity.' That was from two childminding centres in my area. Some workers have been told they do not get it if they do not sign up and their colleagues will not receive a pay rise. Employees signing up and committing to pay more than $500 a year in union fees are falsely being led to believe that they will be guaranteed a pay rise. There is much confusion out in the workplace. It is divisive. It is unbalanced. It is not fair and that is why I totally oppose this bill. I think it is the worst bill that I have come across in my three years in parliament.

See this speech in context