Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Anyone sitting in the gallery or listening to this broadcast today must wonder, as the ball gets batted from one side of the chamber to the other, this one blaming and putting figures up, what this is all about. Of course, it should be about the education of children. It should be about participation. It should be about ensuring the taxpayer dollar is actually well used. In other words, when you put $1 of taxpayers' money in on behalf of the Australian community, you have an expectation that it will be used in an efficient, effective and honest way. We heard the member for Charlton and others this morning almost wave away that fraud is somehow—I will not say forgivable—just one of those consequences that occurs with Commonwealth funding. I used to be the minister and introduced a range of fraud detection because every dollar we spend in this area, like in every other aspect of government, should be used as productively as we possibly can.

The motion refers to consultation, and I want to thank April and the early childhood educators on the Sunshine Coast who met with me before Christmas. We sat down in the backyard with the kids there and chatted about the issues. They were as disturbed as I was to learn the extent of some of the fraud that is being perpetrated in this area, because every dollar that goes in an inappropriate manner means that there is a child, a parent and a family that need those resources, all of which are limited because Commonwealth taxes are actually limited. There is no money tree. The money has to come out of one Australians pocket to go to another, and that includes for things such as early childhood education and child care. Those parents and I sat down and worked through. The undertaking was that we would take back to government their suggestions about how this could be done better. In other words, to ensure the safeguards are in place for children to be cared for.

I come at this not only as an MP and former minister but also as a parent who over the years has used family day care and long daycare centres, who has seen the argument between the families who claim that, if you are a for-profit centre, that somehow is a lesser value than those that are not for profit. My experience is that the overwhelming majority of people in this sector do it because they love the job, they love the children they work with and they want to make a difference.

Yes, there are a lot of small businesses in this sector. The family daycare sector is one that is actually meeting the market because it has the flexibility which is now replicated in our workforce. No longer do we all work nine to five Monday to Friday. These families that have other families' children in their homes do so and provide the flexibility that those parents need. It gives them the chance to connect with the labour force. It gives the children the chance to have the education that the member for Charlton spoke of. All of those things are possible but cannot be done without the right checks and balances in place and cannot be done without ensuring that quality of service is maintained.

I will speak briefly on a couple of the points that were raised here today. A lot has been said by those opposite of the $157 million. $157 million is a lot of money—it is more than most of us can ever dream of—but in political terms it seems to be just chicken feed. But the reality is that buys a lot of child care, and in this particular case the $157 million was a Labor commitment that was not ongoing, so that these centres and businesses could plan for the future, but a sugar hit of three years. What Minister Morrison is about to undertake after the Productivity Commission is the hard work that is required in this area.

It is simply not good enough for either side of this chamber to stand in here and say, 'We spent more taxpayers' money than the other side.' What we ask is: what are the gains and improvements? For all of the extra increases in CCB and rebate that the Labor Party introduced there was no increase to the productivity of the workforce participation rate as a result of that. So why do we do it?

Let us ensure that the taxpayers' money we will spend in this place goes towards ensuring that we have the most productive workforce, the highest quality education, money not rorted and that we work together to ensure families have the flexibility and options they need. It is about choice: the choice to stay at home and look after your own children, and the choice to use the services of a family day-care early-childhood educator or a long-day-care centre. I commend the motion to the House.

See this speech in context