Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

First off, I do want to commend the secretariat for their excellent work in running this inquiry and I want to thank the two chairs of the JCPAA during this inquiry. It is not an understatement to say this has been the most politically contentious inquiry we have had in this term of parliament and, on the whole, I think both chairs have managed the partisan heat in this issue quite well. So I thank both of them for their efforts there.

The member for Groom alluded to the policy circumstances in which this policy was being developed. We had a national quality framework that led to an increase in the training requirements for childcare workers, where the decline in the ratios meant that we needed to get 15,000 additional childcare workers into an industry where the staff are underpaid. When you look at the qualifications required, they are underpaid and competing against the education system for teaching graduates.

We also had the context of a national wage case. The last federal government chose to intervene to supplement wages in a limited way. It is fair to say that everyone going in knew the $300 million were going to be stretched very thinly. I think the chairs' remarks about the shortcomings and departmental administration really go to the nub of the matter here.

I make a couple of points about the hearings. Certain members of the committee used the hearings to explore probity concerns and that was absolutely their right. But I make the point that the ANAO stated very clearly that, in the end, they found no evidence of any probity wrongdoings, that the systems put in place were sufficient and if they had found anything to indicate probity concerns, they would have 'chased down that particular rabbit burrow'. They did not find anything, so they did not investigate that particular matter.

On the caretaker conventions, we had evidence from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that they provided advice to the department and the minister of the day about how to fulfil the caretaker conventions, and they were followed. PM&C certified that the minister of the day followed the caretaker conventions to the letter and they were implemented in regard to the opposition. But I do support the recommendation to further clarify in detail how effective consultation with an opposition should be done.

On the issue of Goodstart receiving 96 per cent of funding that was finally allocated, this is not an accurate figure. That is the figure when you take into account the broken promise from the coalition. The coalition promised to honour the $300 million of funding and they broke that promise. So, in the end, $137 million was allocated. So the accurate figure was that Goodstart received 44 per cent of total program funding of $300 million. If the coalition had fulfilled their election promise of allocating the full $300 million, Goodstart would have received 44 per cent, not 96 per cent. So, in effect, it was a choice of the incoming government to allocate 96 per cent of funding to Goodstart.

Nevertheless, this was an important ANAO audit. The hearings of the JCPAA went to some very important matters around departmental administration and caretaker conventions. I commend the report to the House and again thank the secretariat for their always excellent work on what was a very high-profile audit.

See this speech in context