Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House:

(1)

supports a universal right to early learning for all Australian four-year-olds through the introduction of an entitlement to 15 hours of play-based learning per week, for a minimum of forty weeks per year, delivered by a qualified teacher;

(2)

is committed to providing extra financial assistance to build additional childcare centres on primary school grounds and other community land in partnership with childcare providers;

(3)

calls on the Government to increase the number of fully-funded university places in early childhood education to address the shortage of childcare provision across Australia;

(4)

calls on the Government to introduce a 50 per cent HECS remission for 10,000 early childhood graduates working in areas of need;

(5)

calls on the Government to eliminate TAFE fees for childcare trainees; and

(6)

supports the transfer of responsibility for early childhood education and childcare into the Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training with a new Office of Early Childhood Education.

I move this motion because it is time for this government to treat seriously the childcare issues that so many Australian families are grappling with on a daily basis. It is long overdue. This motion calls on the House to draw attention to Australia’s childcare crisis. I call on the government to support Labor’s solution to this crisis.

When it comes to child care and early childhood education, the Howard government is nothing short of delusional. So out of touch is the Treasurer that his own department is denying the existence of a childcare crisis. The Treasurer needs to start listening to the normal Australian families in his electorate—or in any Australian electorate. If he does, he will find a mum down the street who desperately wants to return to work but cannot see the incentive to do so when she is paying such high childcare fees and finding it so difficult to find a place. He will find a couple, too, who have been told that there are plenty of childcare places available to them—although they may be 100 kilometres or more down the road.

The real situation is that Australian parents are not being ‘too choosy’ when it comes to child care, as the Treasurer’s department has argued. In fact, they are facing enormous difficulties in finding childcare places. Just because places exist at some childcare centres does not imply that they are accessible. As the member for Jajajaga has pointed out on numerous occasions, what good is a place in Tamworth if you live in inner Sydney? The shortages that exist in Australia’s childcare system today are not ‘a function of consumer choice’, as the Treasury paper has argued, but real shortages caused by a lack of funding and a lack of trained childcare workers and teachers. Thousands of parents across Australia are desperate for a childcare place and do not appreciate being told by the Howard government that there are plenty of places.

Particularly in the areas of long day care and care for babies, Australia is facing a childcare crisis. On the issue of early childhood education for our youngest Australians, Australia is significantly lagging behind in investment by international standards. According to the OECD, Australia spends just 0.1 per cent of GDP on preschool education, compared with an OECD average of 0.5 per cent. An unsurprising result of this underinvestment is that Australian participation in early childhood learning is extremely low by international standards. According to the OECD, Australian children aged three and four are being left behind at an age that is critical for brain development and early learning and clearly predicts ongoing educational achievement.

The solution to this crisis must be multifaceted. Firstly, the government must introduce a universal right to early learning for all Australian four-year-olds and address the underinvestment in this critical area to ensure that Australian children are no longer left behind by international standards at this critical age of development. The Labor Party will achieve this by introducing an entitlement to 15 hours of play based learning per week, for a minimum of 40 weeks per year, delivered by a qualified teacher.

Secondly, the government must provide the additional financial assistance necessary to build more childcare centres. Labor have a clear policy that would put 260 childcare centres on primary school grounds to end the double drop-off, as we know how frustrating that can be for parents.

Thirdly, the government must work to train more teachers and provide incentives for people to train as childcare workers. The government needs to work harder at recruiting and training staff. This should be achieved by increasing the number of fully funded university places in early childhood education, a very wise start; introducing a 50 per cent HECS remission for 10,000 early childhood graduates working in areas of need, which is Labor’s policy; and eliminating TAFE fees for childcare trainees. We on this side of the House intend to encourage young people into childcare training to address this shortage.

I urge the government to stand behind Labor’s new childcare policy and to really start investing in our children’s future. The key issues here are that Australian children should be provided with the best possible opportunities for education and care and that child care should be of the highest quality, be affordable and be available. Labor have devised a plan to address each of these issues, and I urge the government and members opposite to support it.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Ryan, representing the western suburbs of Brisbane, I am again delighted to speak in the House of Representatives on this important topic. Child care and early learning are of course very important issues for all parents in this country, and they are certainly important to parents in the electorate of Ryan.

I know that the member for Adelaide is new to this parliament, and I am sure that she is trying as hard as she can to make a contribution to the national debate, but I think I would rather be backing the Treasurer’s skills and abilities over those of the member for Adelaide. This motion has some seven or eight points. Unfortunately, in the time allotment of only five minutes we cannot address each one of them. I want to take the opportunity in the few minutes I have to enlighten the member for Adelaide, because I think this motion really reflects how misguided the member for Adelaide is—as are many of her colleagues on the opposition benches. Parliament really does require serious people, not just people who are going to make uninformed and ill-considered points.

The first point I want to draw to the member for Adelaide’s attention is that I think it would be worth her checking her understanding of our system of government and the federal-state dichotomy. If she were really aware of policy matters then she would, first of all, understand that TAFEs come under the remit of state governments. TAFEs are not the responsibility of the Commonwealth government. One of the points she made was to call for the Commonwealth to call upon the TAFEs of our country—which, as I say, are managed by the state governments—to eliminate fees. TAFEs are the responsibility of the state governments. So she is calling upon the national government of this country to call upon the state governments to do something about early childhood learning. Of course that is important. But to say we have the power to actually remove TAFE fees is quite incorrect. That is something that she might want to brush up on.

This government focuses on early childhood learning very much. Those of us who are parents would have a focus on that. I am delighted to say that I am a parent. I have a 7½-month-old  child, whom I love dearly: young Ryan Andrew Johnson. As a parent, it is very important for me to be aware of the opportunities that the federal government is creating for the children of our nation. The federal government is spending some $9.5 billion over four years to support parents like me who use child care. There are some 600,000 funded places available and over 800,000 children are using government subsidised child care. I would have thought that we would all be very complimentary about something like this; I would have thought that we would all be telling our constituents exactly how hard the federal government is working to maximise opportunities for children eligible for these places. But the opposition is not in the business of commending the government when it comes up with good ideas, initiatives and policies.

In addition to these matters, the Howard government has announced an extra $120.5 million over four years for child care in the 2006-07 budget. This is real money that will make a real difference. The member for Adelaide may need to be made aware that these are some of the biggest changes to child care since the introduction of the childcare benefit in 2000. These are really significant policy announcements by the government, not some on-the-run motions and on-the-run policies that we are now becoming familiar with from those opposite. I recommend that she get a bit more of an understanding of this issue. I know that she is probably well meaning, but her contribution would have had far more substance if she was aware of the Australian government’s activities and policies in this very important area. We should all know that from 1 July last year the Australian government removed the cap on the number of CCB approved places for outside school hours and family day care. This means 99 per cent of childcare places will be uncapped, and that is very important for the people of Ryan. (Time expired)

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to congratulate the member for Adelaide on bringing this very important motion before the House. Investment in our kids and in early childhood education is of critical importance to not only the future of those young people but also the future prosperity of Australia. That link between early childhood education, human capital and economic performance is now well understood and accepted. The World Bank, the OECD, the Economics of Education Review and James Heckman—who is a Nobel laureate in economics—are organisations and individuals that are not discussing education as some kind of abstract pursuit. They recognise education as a key economic driver, one that makes a real difference to a country’s productivity and prosperity. The results of their research into what can be achieved through education are encouraging and inspiring and send a very strong warning to Australia. Despite all the evidence of its critical importance, we are just not doing enough to get our children in this country off to the right start when it comes to their education. Failure to invest in early childhood education—in the learning that takes place before children start their formal schooling—is a wasted opportunity for the child and ultimately for the country.

Apart from being precious members of our families, our children are also incredible assets to this country. We now know from recent developments in brain research the extraordinary capacity for young brains to learn and absorb. One researcher in this field, Jack Shonkoff, describes children as being born ‘wired for feelings and ready to learn’. He says, ‘During this early period of life brain cell growth and wiring of connections drives remarkable linguistic and cognitive gains.’ In other words—as every parent knows—children are sponges. They want to learn, and we need to give them every opportunity to satisfy that urge to learn and explore and develop.

Building on this research into brain development is the work of Nobel laureate James Heckman, who concludes that learning starts before formal education begins and sets the foundation for success or failure at school and life. But what should really get governments reaching for the playdough and for the chequebook is James Heckman’s emphasis on the exponential impact of quality early childhood education. Investing in early childhood education brings benefits at that early stage of life that continue to benefit the child throughout each stage of his or her education. Early learning means later educational experiences have greater impact. This is echoed by the World Bank statement that ‘it is never too early to start investing in our children’s future but it can easily become too late’.

Sadly, in Australia, when it comes to investment in early childhood education, we seem intent on testing out that theory. Participation rates and investment in early childhood education in Australia are low by international standards. OECD figures from 2005 show that more than one-third of four-year-olds did not receive any pre-primary education. This is partly explained by further OECD figures which place Australia almost at the bottom of the league table of about 30 developed countries when it comes to spending on pre-primary education. In fact, we are at the very bottom. That is not good enough for our children. It robs them of opportunities and it risks our nation’s future prosperity.

That is why a Labor government will make early childhood education a priority. We have made it clear through a number of policy announcements—and I might mention for the member for Ryan’s benefit that they are very detailed policy announcements—how we would do that. But, as the World Bank says, it is never too early to start investing, so today’s motion invites the government to act now and take up those proposals. As the member for Adelaide’s motion sets out, it starts with the universal right to early learning for all four-year-olds. All four-year-olds would be entitled to 15 hours of play based learning per week for a minimum of 40 weeks delivered by a qualified teacher. These early learning programs could be provided through existing preschools and kindergartens or through childcare centres and family day care schemes. An investment of $450 million to assist centres with this initiative will mean that there is no increase in fees and charges to parents as a result of the expansion of learning programs.

Quality early childhood education starts with great teachers. We need a major commitment in Australia to building up our workforce in this area. That is why Labor’s plan includes a significant investment in the education of early childhood teachers and childcare workers. That means 1,500 new fully-funded university places in early childhood education, a 50 per cent HECS remission for 10,000 early childhood graduates working in areas of need and, as we have heard, no TAFE fees for childcare trainees. Once again, I congratulate the member for Adelaide on putting this important motion on the Notice Paper. This is an investment that our country needs and that our children deserve. (Time expired)

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government is absolutely committed to the wellbeing of child care of all types, whether it be preschool, long day care, family day care or any of the multiplicity of childcare services available in this country. This government has worked with the states to provide an extensive and comprehensive service. In fact, at the COAG meeting in July—less than a year ago—it was agreed that the four priorities for human capital reform were early childhood, diabetes, literacy and numeracy and child care, which form part of a national reform agenda announced on 10 February 2006. Senior officials are to complete specific reform proposals for COAG’s consideration. In many of the proposals put forward by the honourable member for Adelaide today, it is absolutely critical that the states come along and agree and endorse the process, but there is no mention of COAG and a cooperative approach. It is all about a Commonwealth takeover.

The suggestion is that the Commonwealth completely take over all preschool services in Australia. I do not know how, from a Commonwealth perspective, we could ever run that. I do not know about your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay, but I cannot imagine a public servant from Canberra going to Maleny, Nambour, Palmwoods or any place like that in your wonderful district and having a look at some of the preschool centres and judging whether they are operating effectively. The program that has been established by this government is an accreditation scheme that is administered by the states and funded in a cooperative manner.

We have heard the Australian Labor Party say today that they are the only ones who can work with the states. This government is working with the states. It is drawing up initiatives in cooperation with the states to cover all types of early childhood services. The national agenda for early childhood is an evidence based policy framework for early childhood—from the antenatal period up to age 6—covering the whole spectrum and all the services that involves. The motion moved by the member for Adelaide will reward the states—particularly New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland—that have neglected their responsibilities for funding preschool services.

According to the Report of government services 2007, the national rate of preschool participation in 2006 was 85.7 per cent. Again we have the problem of New South Wales not performing, not delivering and not living up to its promises. New South Wales continues to have the lowest participation rate at around 60 per cent compared with the national average of 85.7 per cent. According to the childcare census of 2004 across Australia, 45 per cent of Australian government approved LDC centres provide an in-house preschool program run by qualified early childhood teachers.

There is little information about the quality of these services, and it is up to the state governments to bring them into line or to modify them in line with their goals. It is not something that can be done from Canberra. It is not something that should be a takeover, as is proposed by the member’s motion. These proposals would involve the assets of third parties, including state governments and non-government schools of all types. I do not know how you are going to put that in place and say, ‘We want to involve your assets. This is our plan and we are going to involve ourselves in what you are doing.’

The call to eliminate TAFE childcare fees is again something for the state governments. No state government invests as much in or cares as much about TAFE and encourages skills, trades and others in technical and further education than this government. In nominal terms, funding has increased from $878 million in 1995-96 to an estimated $1,269 million in 2006-07. Those increases are directed to child care in part and to the training of childcare and preschool teachers.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Adelaide on this excellent motion on child care. It is very ironic that the government is constantly criticising the opposition for its lack of policies, yet when we come up with very detailed and soundly based policies—

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stop the blame game; work with the states!

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite are interjecting from the background. Child care is something that people in my electorate certainly know about, with the 1,200-place shortage in long day care that we have in the city of Port Phillip. This motion proposes 15 hours of play based learning per week for a minimum of 40 weeks by a qualified teacher, extra financial assistance to build additional childcare centres on primary school grounds, more fully funded university places in early childhood education and the introduction of 50 per cent HECS remission for 10,000 early childhood graduates working in an area of need and supports the transfer of responsibility for early childhood education and child care to DEST and a new office of early childhood education.

Child care is an area where there are clearly inequities all over Australia. I know in my electorate that there is an acute shortage of spaces. We have a problem with high real estate prices and even many private childcare operators are unable to set up in that area because the cost of capital is too high. Of course, the federal government has neglected its responsibility for capital funding in this area for a long time. In the mid-1980s, with various schemes that the Labor government had, a lot of community based child care was set up with federal funding and buildings were established. Nothing has been put into them since then.

In some areas of the outer suburbs, we have private child care, such as the ABC group, opening and shutting according to demand in particular suburbs. I noticed in the Herald Sun the other day that a lot of parents were very agitated about the fact that the only resource that they had in their area was commercially based child care, but because it was run on commercially based decisions, when enrolment slipped below 50 per cent of the places in that childcare centre, they closed down the entire facility. What would happen if we did this with schools? If school enrolments dropped in some suburbs, would we close the entire school and expect the children to go off somewhere else?

I suggest to the parliament that early childhood education is as important as school education and we certainly have to do a lot to assist those who make contributions to our society by taking the relatively poorly paid jobs that we have in child care at the moment. There are some excellent ideas in this dissenting motion, such as the 50 per cent HECS remission for 10,000 early childhood graduates and extra financial assistance to build childcare centres on primary school grounds.

In my electorate, far from the blame game that the member for Mitchell talks about, the state government has taken the initiative of building a childcare centre on the grounds of the Elwood Primary School, which is to be called the Elwood hub. That will do what the former Leader of the Opposition, the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Adelaide and all of us on this side want—and that is to stop the dreaded double drop-off that parents have to face, racing off to one part of Melbourne or Sydney and then racing off to another. So that they can productively participate in the workforce or in other areas, these mothers and fathers are all trying to get their kids to different places in time.

It is a very important, positive and constructive idea that the opposition has had: at many primary schools around Australia, where mothers or fathers are dropping off their kids to early education, they can drop off the little ones at the childcare centre in the area, or the same building, at the same time. At the Elwood hub this is going to be done very successfully. There are 90 full-time, long day care centre places being built. It is an example of the state government working with the City of Port Phillip to make up for the inadequacies of the federal government. The federal government has put no capital expenditure into this centre and has not addressed the issue of the crying need in the inner and middle parts of the cities of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane for child care—long day care in particular—that parents are facing. I commend the member for Adelaide for this excellent and detailed policy idea. (Time expired)

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the few minutes that are available to me I note that I find the motion somewhat confused in that it mixes up the need for early childcare education and child care per se. They are two entirely different functions. The training of the people involved in each differ according to the need.

I will address the question of the need for early childhood learning. It is quite clear that already government policy is to support that concept. Looking at the data that are available, 85.7 per cent of children—that is a national figure—participate in preschool education. The really bad figure is that in New South Wales only 60 per cent of children get access to preschool education. That certainly is a very damning statistic for New South Wales, which is slipping on every indicator. It is at the bottom of the heap on every indicator.

In relation to the childcare issues, the thing that has been completely missed—and I listened to the last speaker talk about the need for bricks and mortar, the cost of land and building more childcare centres—and the bottom line is that we have to think more broadly than that. We have to think of the types of child care that suit parents, rather than parents having to suit the needs of the buildings of childcare centres, which are institutions. They are a good institutions, but they are still institutions.

We need to look at the concept of in-home carers, where families can share an in-home carer, who would have to be properly trained—I suggest they would be vocationally trained to a level 2 certificate. Where there is a home-like arrangement you do not have to pay for the land or the bricks and mortar because they have already been paid for and yet you can get a suitable outcome for families. For instance, where there may be children who are two, four and 13, the two- and four-year-olds can be in their own home, the four-year-old can be looking forward to going to preschool and the 13-year-old can have someone to come home to when they return from school.

The government has put in place some very good policy with regard to child care. The evidence about the availability of people to be teachers and childcare trainees is that probably there is pretty good policy in place to provide enough to meet the needs of parents and children, but keeping them in that area of child care is more difficult because they take the training and then leave. I am afraid that these policies of reducing HECS or reducing the cost of TAFE—which we have always been in favour of, right across the board—will not keep them in the area of child care or early childhood education. That requires a different policy setting.

As I said, in these few moments I have available to me, I think it is important to note that it is government policy to have that available to all children in that last year before they go to school for preschool education, that child care is something quite different and that it needs to meet the needs of individuals, not the other way round. So rather than simply talk about centre based care being institutional care, we need to look outside the square and look at ways that we can provide care that people want—that is, perhaps using in-home care providing the coverage of CCB and CCTR to a whole range of care that currently misses out.

I think the motion needs to be rethought because government policy is already established in many of the areas but the committee report, entitled Balancing work and family gives a good way ahead for improvement to occur.

Alex Somlyay (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.