Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this motion which concerns early childhood education. I am the mover of this particular motion. This is an important motion that I hope will get the full support of this parliament. It is so important because it concerns the viability of three-year-old kindergartens in Victoria. In short, if we do not get the flexibility that is called for in this motion, then many three-year-old kindergartens in Victoria will close.

I would like to explain the origins of this pending crisis, how it is manifesting itself and the actions that we are proposing the government take to address the crisis. The crisis in three-year-old kinders and also four-year-old kinders in rural areas had its origins a few years ago when the federal Labor government decided that it wanted to get involved in preschool education. It introduced what is called the Universal Access policy, which mandated that by 2013 every child in the year before they started school, which is typically four-year-olds, must have 15 hours per week of preschool education and, further, that this preschool education must be delivered by university trained teachers. The government at the time made a commitment of $955 million over five years to assist with the implementation of this policy.

With the policy articulated, agreements were then struck with various state and territory governments to administer the universal access policy. However, while the sentiments expressed in the policy were reasonable ones—that is, to deliver good preschool education to preschoolers—the actual policy itself has not been properly thought through. Unfortunately, like many of this government's policies, the full consequences of the implementation were not properly considered before the final decision was made. In this instance, the Universal Access policy for four-year-olds is going to have a drastic impact on three-year-old kinder programs, particularly those in Victoria. In Victoria, we have the largest three-year-old kinder program: about 25 per cent of all three-year-olds attend three-year-old kinder. It is the most comprehensive program in Australia. These three-year-old kinders receive no government funding. They are often managed by parent controlled committees and they provide good introductory education for three-year-olds for about five hours per week for about 40 weeks a year. These three-year-old kinders typically use the same facilities and often the same staff as the four-year-old kinder programs.

This is where the problems arise. With the implementation of the Universal Access policy, hours for four-year-old kinders will be increased by about 50 per cent. Typically at the moment they offer about 10 to 11 hours per week for four-year-olds. So the consequences of increasing the four-year-old kinder program by 50 per cent is that it will squeeze out the three-year-old kinder programs to the extent that many of them will not survive unless something changes.

Four problems arise from the Universal Access policy in this regard. Firstly, simply a lack of space because, as I mentioned beforehand, the three-year-old programs are often run at the same location as the four-year-old programs. They have managed to combine themselves in a sequential manner offered in the same facilities. Now, if you increase by 50 per cent the four-year-old programs, then there are simply not enough hours in the day during a school hour time frame to then run a number of three-year-old programs concurrently at the same location.

The second problem is insufficient staff. There is already a shortage of university qualified staff for preschools, as you may already know, and with the four-year-old programs needing 50 per cent more staff by 2013, again three-year-old programs are going to find it very difficult to find staff to manage their programs.

Thirdly, the structure of 15 hours for four-year-olds will not necessarily fit neatly within the employment awards presently for kindergarten teachers, because under the Early Childhood Teachers and Assistants Award, a full-time person will not be able to run two sessions of four-year-old kinders. This is because the award specifies that they must have 30 minutes of non-teaching for every one hour of teaching and it also specifies a maximum of 38 hours per week. You can see, if you do the mathematics there, a single person will not be able to run two 15-hour sessions under the existing award. So again, we are going create all sorts of staffing problems in the four-year-old programs as well as the three-year-old programs due to this.

Finally, the fourth problem which arises from the Universal Access policy is that some four-year-old programs may be put in jeopardy in rural areas. That is simply because many kindergarten teachers will frequently run a program in one small kinder in one location and another one in another location and they simply will not be able to do both if the hours are increased, and so that puts some four-year-old programs also at risk and I imagine that Dan Tehan, the member for Wannon, will have something to say about that as the seconder of this motion.

Kindergartens in my community have said that they will have to close their three-year-old programs if something does not happen to rectify these problems. Templeton Orchards three-year-old preschool in Wantirna in my electorate is one such example. Lelania Currie, the vice-president of the kinder, has said publicly that they will have to close if this goes ahead by 2013. They presently cater for about 23 families each year. Other kinders have said similar things. They have said that if there is no flexibility then three-year-old kinders will simply have to shut their doors. The Municipal Association of Victoria has said that there will be a crisis by 2013 under this policy. They have pointed out that four-year-old programs are already bursting at the seams due to a mini baby boom which is going on across Victoria, and indeed across Australia, and that this Universal Access policy will exacerbate it. The Prime Minister herself has been advised that her electorate is one of the most at-risk regions for children to miss out. This will turn into a very significant crisis by 2013 and impact thousands of young families if this mess is not fixed up. The clock is ticking. We need to act and we need to act quickly.

Let me move on to what should be done to fix this. The first point I would make is that it is not too late. The policy under the current law is that it needs to be implemented by 2013. Kinders are starting to enrol already for that year and there is still some time, but we do not have a lot of time. The second point I would make is that the key principle required is flexibility. This government has a tendency to want to mandate things from the top down and, in this instance, they have come down and mandated very heavily that every single four-year-old kinder program across the country must have 15 hours. What we are suggesting, through this motion, is that the government just allows some flexibility for the kindergartens to implement their policy at their own pace and according to their own infrastructure capacity and according to their own staffing that they have available. So point 8 in the motion, which is the key point, calls on the government to provide flexibility for the kindergarten operators to deliver kindergarten services according to the needs of their own communities and in line with local infrastructure and staffing capacity and further, at the very least, provide flexibility on the start date for the implementation of the Universal Access policy. It is a reasonably straightforward motion. It should be a reasonably straightforward thing for Minister Garrett to hopefully accept.

Minister Garrett has considered this in the past and he has said no to date. He has said it is all up to the state governments. Well, can I just put on the record here that it is not just up to the state governments in this instance because there is a COAG contractual arrangement here. The Victorian state government is willing to examine it and look at providing flexibility, but we need Minister Garrett and the Gillard government to come to the table to address this problem also.

If flexibility is indeed provided and we can properly look at how we are going to implement this going forward, we also would be able to look at other things as well. There is a strong group called the Community Choice for Preschools Group which is calling for the 15 hours of funding to be spread across the two years and possibly five hours for three-year-olds and 10 hours for four-year-olds. Again, I think that is a worthy idea that should be considered, but can only be done if Minister Garrett is prepared to accept our motion to look at providing flexibilities for kinders so that they can implement things according to their own wishes.

I commend the motion to the House and I hope that it will receive support across the chamber.

Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against this motion moved by the Member for Aston. In 2008 the federal Labor government made a historic commitment to this nation's early childhood sector, and that is a sector that in the past has not received funding from a federal government. In a national agreement signed between the federal government and every state and territory government, the universal access obligation for the provision of preschool or kindergarten programs was expanded—a great thing. This increased the universal access obligation from 10 hours per week to 15 hours per week for 40 weeks of kindergarten or preschool education in the year before school, and that is for every child in Australia. This program continues on as an ambitious and important reform that will increase investment in our children and it is a program that grows by the year with more money each year going from the federal government to the states to do the work that is needed.

Research from around the world shows that quality early childhood education benefits all children and that children from disadvantaged backgrounds gain particular benefit if they attend kindergarten. Research also shows that benefits include improved cognitive functioning and social skills and thereby improved school readiness. Longitudinal studies have demonstrated positive effects on school completion, further education participation, employment outcomes, earnings and general social wellbeing. That is why the federal Labor government acted to expand the amount of kindergarten education a child will receive. A recent government report of 2011 suggests that around 30 per cent of all Australian children are missing out on early childhood education in the year before schooling and, although Victoria has a much higher percentage, I know the difference between the states is particularly marked. Queensland has a far, far lower participation rate than Victoria. I believe it is somewhere around about that low 30 per cent and it has got a long way to go. Victoria historically has had a very high participation rate in four-year-old kinder or equivalent and that is a good thing, and I certainly hope that continues but obviously for a larger amount of hours each week. Boosting the federal government's investment in the early years of learning is crucial to Australia's long-term economic, social and physical health for the reasons I just previously went through.

This is a long term and challenging reform. More kindergarten teachers will have to be trained and recruited and more money will also need to be expended to expand the buildings and cater for more children at kinder for longer periods of time. When the federal Labor government made this commitment, it was clear that delivering on this would demand significant investment and a suitably long lead time to assist providers to implement the additional hours of teaching. All up, the federal government is delivering over $900 million over five years to all the states and territories through to 2012-13 to implement the universal access commitment. As I said, this is the first time the federal government has substantially funded early childhood education, and that is a great result. The share of this national funding going to Victorian kindergartens and preschools over the full five years is $210,626,000. That is a great investment from when previously there was almost nothing.

I understand that Victoria has already received about $71 million of this funding with a further $29½ million due in early December. I took the liberty of going through the original COAG agreement to find the payment schedule and to see when the money does come across. I find it interesting that even though the Commonwealth has put more money in, the state government has stood back or has been able to point the finger elsewhere and say, 'But it is not us. We need more and even though we have money and it is coming in, it is not enough.'

Although Victoria does have a particularly good program of three-year-old kinders, in many cases they have always operated as an adjunct to four-year-old kinders and, I would say, with money from the Commonwealth and investment from the state there should be enough to go around. It does not seem to be the case at the moment. I find that quite frustrating because I do not know where this federal funding is going to in Victoria. I cannot go out into my electorate and see where it is going as there is no badging, no signage, no acknowledgment of any federal money anywhere with kindergarten programs, whether they be for three- or four- or any years old. That is a particular issue when it comes to accountability of the state in spending federal money. It is something that every member in this place should also be well aware of. If we do the hard work here and collect money, pass bills and then expend money, if that is passed over to the states then we should know what we are getting for our dollars. The general public should have a right to know and demand that information.

The previous state Labor government announced and allocated $4.6 million for use in expanding some kindergartens across the state. It is expected that all these capital works will be completed by 2012. But as part of its commitment to support the expansion of universal access, the previous Victorian government—a Labor government—increased funding to the sector. Indeed, in 2010 the state Labor government at the time committed to spend more than $82.6 million over the next five years to support the expansion of places, $63 million of which would have been spent boosting state government funded kindergarten places from 62,500 to 66,090. I am sure that more are needed but it is always good to start on a problem rather than wait until it is overwhelming.

Emma King, the CEO of Kindergarten Parents Victoria applauded the previous Labor government's investment in the early years education. She said:

This comprehensive package will help ensure that all Victorian children have access to a quality kindergarten program in the year before school.

And then, after all this investment by Labor state and federal governments, what does the Victorian Liberal state government do? In the first budget of the Baillieu Liberal government there were substantial cuts, not directly to core funding but to programs around core funding to kindergartens and pre-schools, ending the free internet service provided to the state's 1,800 community-run kindergartens. The state government IT support for these community kindergartens is important and includes internet connectivity, help desk and remote technology assistance.

There were also cuts to occasional childcare services out of 220 neighbourhood houses across the state. That leaves a gap in the provision of other childhood services in Victoria. Other cuts were made to the Young Readers program, which distributed free books to children on their second birthday and also cut the books-for-babies services. The $2.1 million program distributed 70,000 books and a further 70,000 reading-to-baby manuals over four years. The loss of the Young Readers Program dismayed picture book author Jeanette Rowe, who was the program's ambassador last year. She said:

It invited mothers to start with their children at a very early age to create that habit of reading.

The literacy sessions run by maternal and child health nurses 'weren't just about reading' said Lisa Fitzpatrick, the state secretary of the Australian Nurses Federation. She said:

It was an opportunity to assess a child's vision and their hearing. It wasn't just handing out a book.

It should be underlined that, in a period when it has been estimated by the Municipal of Association of Victoria that Victoria will need an additional 400 kindergarten teachers, the state government ended its funding of retraining for early childhood workers required to upgrade their qualifications. I find it disappointing that the Liberal Party have not taken full advantage in expanding the number of hours in kindergarten education for Victorian preschoolers. It is estimated by research that every dollar spent on early childhood education gives the community a gain of $3 in return. Australia has been one of the lowest spenders on early-years education, and this reform is turning that around, with federal funding.

The original timetable for implementation included an extended five-year period, agreed to by the federal government and all the states and territories at COAG. The federal government, after discussions with state and territory governments, agreed to fund additional training of kindergarten teachers and the early-childhood workforce, with $126 million over four years, to train and retrain the professional early-childhood education and care workforce.

What this really comes down to is: where is the Commonwealth's money? Where is our investment? Fifty-nine million dollars went this year to Victoria, and yet what we hear from the member for Aston is, 'Oh, but there's no money for places.' Well, I say that there is money for places, and I say there is more money coming from the Commonwealth next year. But I say to everyone in this House that we, the members of parliament, should know where this federal money is going. I think it is only right and proper. And as long as there are groups out there calling for more, it is always worth remembering what we do with what we already have.

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

The blame game is back. It is back bigger and better than ever. We were going to see an end to the blame game in 2007. We were going to have the states and the Commonwealth cooperating together. Now we have an issue—an issue of bungling and mismanagement. And what is the response of the government? 'We are going to blame the states. We're back to the blame game. We'll throw financial figures around: $900 million we're giving to this, $210 million we're giving to that, to try and put a huge smokescreen up, to get around the issue.' Yet it is a very simple and commonsense issue. It is an issue on which the government, if it could take a step back, could say, 'We can stop three-year-old kindergarten programs and four-year-old kindergartens closing in country areas.'

Let us hear from a couple of the practitioners. I am going to quote the North Hamilton Kindergarten director, Chris Wildgoose, who said that the 15 hours could result in reduced hours for three-year-old sessions. I will quote her directly, from the Hamilton Spectator of 26 May:

"I think it's a good thing for children to have that much kindergarten but it's just a challenge to fit it into the timetable with the three year-old groups and the playgroup as well," she said.

"Our committee hasn't really made a decision about how the timetable will look. It's possible our three year-old sessions will be cut back to two hours."

Ms Wildgoose said that currently parents had the option of extra kindergarten hours for their four year-olds.

"The Government has mandated that this year children do 10 and three quarter hours, so that's the basic level," she said.

"We've got another session on top of that, so parents can choose if they want to do the extra hours."

Ms Wildgoose said they had the option of introducing the 15-hour weeks next year but were still unsure if that would go ahead.

What Ms Wildgoose would like is the ability to say, 'Maybe we will have the flexibility to bring this in over three, four or five years, so that it can suit the needs of the individual kindergarten.'

I would now like to quote Sarah Millear, quoted in the Ararat Advertiser of 26 November 2010. The Willaura kindergarten wrote to the government on this issue, so they have had plenty of warning. What did she have to say? She said that the government's universal access to childcare reforms would seriously strain the over-stretched community.

"The further increase in 2013 will leave us with an insurmountable fundraising requirement, forcing us to seriously consider closing the centre unless government funding is made available.

"If the Willaura Kindergarten is forced to close, there would inevitably be a drop in enrolments for the local primary school. The community playgroup and maternal and child healthcare centre, which rely on the support of the kindergarten community, would have to look [at] their long-term viability as well. Three key services could be lost and the long-term future of the school put at risk."

That is what this motion is about. We are going to see three-year-old kindergarten programs close, we are going to see four-year-old kindergarten providers in country areas potentially close. All we need to see is a tiny bit of flexibility from the government. As the motion clearly states, what I and the member for Aston are calling on is for the government to provide flexibility for kindergarten operators to deliver kindergarten services according to the needs of their own communities and in line with local infrastructure and staffing capacity, or at the very least provide flexibility on the start date for the implementation of universal access.

We all agree with the concept that we should move to 15 hours universal access. What we do not agree on is how we should go about it. Should we mandate from Canberra that you have to do a compulsory 15 hours by 2013? When individual circumstances are not suited by mandating 15 hours, why can't you say, 'All right, in your particular circumstances you can keep it at 10 or 11 hours.' If you are the Willaura kindergarten and you are forced to close, there would inevitable be a drop in enrolments to the local primary school, the community playgroup, and the maternal and child healthcare centre, which rely on the support of the kindergarten community, would have to look at their long-term viability as well. Three key services could be lost and the long-term future of the school put at risk. That is quite clear. Given that, why would you not allow them to say, 'Yes, look, you aspire for 15, but your circumstances at the moment mean that if you have to mandate it and you have to introduce it by 2013, you are going to lose in that community all those services.' Why would you not say, 'Leave it at 10. Then when you can afford it, then more to 15.' Why do we have to mandate from Canberra, which is going to cause this hardship for the township of Willaura? The same thing is going to happen in my electorate, in the township of Cavendish. Dunkeld potentially can be left without a kindergarten teacher, all because this government has to mandate, has to be prescriptive and will not let an individual circumstance dictate how a kindergarten should run.

We have heard from the member for Aston the impact it is going to have on three-year-old programs in urban areas. Devastating. In country areas it is going to have a broad impact on whole communities. Kindergartens closing. Schools, in the future, closing. And all the services that go with it, especially your maternal primary healthcare, being threatened. All because you will not provide a tiny bit of flexibility. You want to mandate from Canberra, from here, without having thought of what the consequences on the ground would be. I see the member for Corangamite here. I am sure there are kindergartens in his community which will be suffering as a result of this.

The government needs to stop. They have been warned. They were written to by the Willaura kindergarten in 2010 raising this issue. So they knew about it. So why has the minister not acted? What we have put here, in this motion, is a very sensible, positive approach to fixing this problem. It is not a problem that is saying the government has got it completely wrong. We are saying, 'Yes, aspire to 15 hours, but do it in a way where kindergartens can adapt to it in their own individual circumstances.' Here is a positive response to an issue that needs to be fixed, needs to be addressed. The government continues to harp about negativity. Here is a positive response to a problem which they have created because they have not thought through the issue. Why not look at it? Look at it. Read what we are calling on. Provide flexibility. It is not too difficult. Instead of saying, 'We know best—this is how it will be. Canberra on high: this is how you should act,' why not say: 'Generally this is what we would like, but when your individual circumstances are different then, sure, you can have some flexibility. If you want to do 11 hours of teaching next year and then move to 12 and then to 13 and by 2018 get to 15 hours, we are fine by that'? We would prefer that to communities having the guts ripped out of them, which is what this motion has the potential to do.

I call on the government. I call on the minister. I have written to the minister on this issue. The Willaura kindergarten has written to him. The Dunkeld and Cavendish kindergartens have written to him. They have all stated their case. It is not necessary to change the whole policy. Just show flexibility—a tiny bit of flexibility—in how you are going about doing it. That will save kindergartens, it will save three-year-old programs and it will potentially save communities. I call on all members of the government to have a look at this motion. It is a good motion; it is a common-sense motion. An urban representative and a country representative are saying: this is going to cause problems. Fix the mess. (Time expired)

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say at the outset that I am going to have to do something slightly controversial. It really does pain me to do it but I am going to have to do it, and that is to say congratulations to members of the coalition from Victoria. You won the last election in Victoria. I think it is important to remind them of that because so regularly these days they forget; they forget that they are out of opposition in Victoria. They forget that they actually have their hands on the purse strings now. They forget that they can take out the chequebook and make financial commitments to things that they profess so heartily to be committed to. I congratulate them most heartily on having that level of responsibility.

I might have expected coalition members to put up a motion like this when they were in opposition in the state of Victoria, when they did not have their hands on the state coffers, when they did not have responsibility for the policy direction of the state government. I could understand that. Have a crack at the federal and state governments. Have a crack at them with no responsibility for implementing your own agenda. But the circumstances have changed, as much as it seems to have passed by Victorian members of the coalition and their state counterparts. What I cannot understand is why coalition MPs from Victoria would choose to raise these concerns when their own Victorian coalition government has the means to commit funding to the kindergartens which they profess to be concerned about.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If those members opposite who are interjecting would allow me to continue with my words, I will address their concerns in due course. The facts are that all state and territory governments, not just the federal government, agreed through COAG to provide access to kindergarten for all children by 2013. For the first time, as my colleague from Deakin mentioned earlier on, the Australian government is funding early childhood education. The federal government has committed over $955 million over five years to support the states and territories to enable them to achieve the goals which they have each committed to. Apparently these are mere details for those opposite, who choose not to take an interest in the substantial funding commitment which their government failed to put in place. The federal government has committed $955 million to achieve the goals which all the states and territories committed to under the National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education. So far as flexibility is concerned, the manner in which the Victorian government meets the universal access commitment it signed up to is entirely up to it. That is the nature of the national partnership agreement. The Victorian government is responsible for implementing universal access, supported by the very significant financial contribution of the Commonwealth government. Indeed, the Victorian education department's own website reflects this. Under the heading 'Early Childhood Education National Partnership' and the subheading 'Funding' it notes:

The Australian Government has committed $970 million nationally over five years for this reform, including $210.6 million for Victoria. The Department is responsible for leading implementation of universal access to 15 hours of kindergarten.

Unequivocally, the Victorian education department has recognised quite publicly the responsibility of the Victorian coalition government for leading implementation. If our coalition colleagues here do not consider their own state colleagues to be up to that task then they are also admitting that the coalition simply is not up for governing the state of Victoria—a matter which so many of us are very happy to conclude—

Mr Danby interjecting—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the member that there are appropriate ways to interject if he wishes. The member for La Trobe has the call!

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, member for Melbourne Ports. This is hot on the heels of the Victorian government's handling of Take a Break services funding. We all recall what happened there and the protests about that. Despite the Commonwealth government—

Honourable members interjecting—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All members, including the member for Melbourne Ports—

Honourable members interjecting—

Gentlemen, stop interjecting and give the chair the opportunity to draw the House to a little bit of decorum. The member for La Trobe has the call.

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I was remarking, this is hot on the heels of the Victorian government's handling of Take a Break services funding. Despite the Commonwealth government providing record funding for early education and care, the Victorian government tried to say that the decision to de-fund Take a Break services was out of its control.

The facts are: the Brumby government had funded Take a Break services for several years, the federal government had provided record funding for early childhood education and care and the decision to de-fund Take a Break services was a unilateral decision of the Victorian government, based on its priorities and it policy dictates. But the opposition would have anyone who will listen believe that its hands are tied. We are seeing the same kind of sham here. The Victorian government says one thing on its department website—it knows what its responsibilities are under the national partnership agreement—yet it sends in federal coalition MPs to pretend it has no say in the way that services—

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for La Trobe willing to give way?

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. As I was saying, two federal coalition MPs are sent in here to pretend that the Victorian government has in fact no say in the way that services under the national partnership agreement are administered in Victoria. I have no doubt that that is the case they are each putting in their respective electorates. It is unfortunate that they do not have sufficient confidence in their own Victorian colleagues to approach them with the same level of earnestness with which they come to this place—

Opposition members interjecting—

There we are. That is an interesting admission. Not only are they coming to this place raising concerns but they also seem to have limited faith in their own coalition colleagues at the state level. On so many issues it seems that the Victorian government still thinks it is in opposition. The people are certainly starting to see through its attempts to deflect responsibility.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The member has not discussed flexibility once.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry. There is no point of order. The member for La Trobe has the call.

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting to see that the attempts to shut me down and keep me from speaking are being pursued at any opportunity.

On issues around the implementation of universal access, we know that Victoria already achieves the universal access target of 95 per cent of enrolments and, overall, Victoria is one of the jurisdictions closest to achieving the main goals of the national partnership agreement, no doubt due to the current government's predecessor's efforts. According to the state government's annual report, under the National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education in 2009 the average weekly hours provided by standalone kindergartens in Victoria was 11.8 hours and, when provision in long day care is included, that figure is 14.6 hours.

As with other state and territory governments, Victoria remains responsible for ensuring the delivery of kindergarten programs, including its approach to achieving universal access by 2013. In agreeing to the universal access commitment, the impact on other programs, including kindergarten for three-year-olds, was considered. Indeed, it was noted in the bilateral agreement with the Victorian government. That is one of the reasons why a five-year lead time for implementation was allowed, so that kindergarten providers have time to adjust their services so that they can deliver on the universal access commitment. As the state government is responsible for ensuring the provision of kindergarten services, it is open to the Victorian government to make greater funding contributions to kindergarten services for three-year-olds if it so wishes. I would suggest again that members make their remarks to their Victorian state colleagues.

We know that Victoria already meets the 95 per cent enrolment benchmark for four-year-olds, it provides 10 hours free through state subsidy and it has a robust system of delivery through local government, placing it well ahead of many other jurisdictions in terms of reaching the goals of universal access commitment. The federal government has provided a significant amount of funding. It has kick-started this initiative and it really is up to my Victorian coalition colleagues to stop bleating about that kind of commitment and start working with their Victorian colleagues. (Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the member for Gippsland gets the call, I just remind the House that we should contain our enthusiasm a little bit for the debate. I am sure the member for Gippsland would like to be heard.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very important motion and I do commend the member for Aston and also the member for Wannon for putting forward what I believe is a very common-sense proposal. I do acknowledge from the outset that these are very reasonable members of parliament. They have come here in good faith trying to solve a problem in their community and what concerns me is those opposite automatically go straight to the barricades. This is so typical of this government: they go straight to the barricades and take a partisan position. This is a very reasonable motion which seeks to provide flexibility and some common-sense solutions to what is an impending disaster for this government.

This government was warned in the early days in relation to home insulation, it was warned in the early days in relation to the Building the Education Revolution scheme, it was warned in the early days of the green loan assessment scheme—and we all know what happened to each and every one of those programs. They were monumental disasters on the ground. Now we have two very reasonable members of parliament—one from a metropolitan area and one from a regional area—coming into this place and sounding the warning bells. I hope the minister is listening more closely than those opposite right now. This is an issue which has the potential to be disastrous on the ground in many communities, particularly when we are talking about young people and their futures in our communities right across regional areas—which I am more interested in, I must admit—and also the metropolitan areas that the member for Aston referred to. There are major problems brewing across Victoria in relation to this universal access issue and the effort to try to provide 15 hours by 2013. I said at the outset that that is the bad news. There is a crisis brewing. It has the potential to be an enormous mess, but the good news is there is still time to try to fix this.

Those opposite can block their ears and go straight to the barricades like we heard today. The leader of business on the government side in the chamber referred to the protesters out the front today as being the 'convoy of no consequence'. They can go down that path where they just put their fingers in their ears and ignore the concerns of everyday Australians or they can actually listen to the concerns being put forward by Australians. The benefits of early childhood education programs are well understood I believe by members on both sides of the House. I do not think there is any question about that at all. I think everyone understands the importance of early childhood education programs. I do believe the 15-hours-per-week issue is well intended. I do believe that the government was heading down the path of trying to provide good early childhood education right across Australia. I give the government credit for its good intentions. But, like so many of the Rudd government's and the Gillard government's good intentions, the delivery is a cause for concern.

Mr Champion interjecting—

It is interesting that the member for Wakefield intervenes. The member for Wakefield often interjects. He interjects when I make 90 second statements in the House, but he never actually shows the spine to stand up for his community. He never actually stands up on issues like the carbon tax or on this issue, where there is genuine concern in communities across Australia. He never stands up and says to the government, 'We have got a problem, Minister.' Those opposite can interject as much as they like when I am making a speech, but do they stand up to their own ministers and say, 'Minister, we have a problem'? You have not got the guts to do that in the House on issues like the carbon tax or on the issue of early childhood education.

The member for Aston made some very important points and I hope the minister has a good look at the Hansard. He talked about flexibility being critical and I think that is an aspect that our national government needs to understand more. The one-size-fits-all model driven by this government has been a disaster on many occasions across several programs. There are several programs—I referred to a couple earlier—where a national agenda fell flat on the ground right across Australia because we went for a one-size-fits-all model. I fear that this program is heading down the same path. On those points I congratulate the member for Aston for his contribution and for the motion he brought to the House. I also congratulate the member for Wannon for his contribution. He raised very reasonable concerns on behalf of this community.

I noticed that the member for La Trobe referred to another aspect of early childhood education—the Take a Break occasional care program. Let us get this right: to save a miserable $12.6 million over four years this Labor government has withdrawn support for an occasional care program across regional areas which provides a vital service in each of our electorates, but it can still find $12 million for a carbon tax TV advertising campaign. So it cannot fund occasional child care in regional communities but it can fund propaganda campaigns on the carbon tax. If those opposite want to have a reasonable debate on issues of great significance to the Australian people, start treating members on this side with respect when they raise reasonable and legitimate issues. (Time expired)

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is really important in debates like this that we actually put some facts on the table. The last Brumby government had in their forward estimates $109 million for the provision of kindergartens. That is what the last Brumby budget said. Guess what the first Baillieu government budget said with respect to kindergartens? It said $9 million. The Baillieu government in their first budget cut $100 million out of the kindergarten budget in Victoria. That is so that they could get around to funding their uncosted election commitments.

This government is very proud—

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Corangamite willing to give way?

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am not. The Gillard government is very proud and very pleased to have entered into a COAG agreement with all of the states and territories to lift the provision of kindergarten for four-year-olds. That is an important initiative. It is an initiative that will give all Australian kids the best opportunity to access schooling in the following year. The universal agreement was entered into with all of the states and territories and it led to a very substantial amount of money flowing to those states and territories to deliver 15 hours of kindergarten for four-year-olds. That is something that I am very pleased about. I actually, just this last week gone, read in the local newspaper that Minister Wendy Lovell, the state Minister for Children and Early Childhood, was at the Inverleigh Kindergarten within my electorate. I read with some interest that she was opening a new kindergarten room within that facility to provide for the Inverleigh community. I thought I might do a bit of a Google search to see where that money had come from and—surprise, surprise!—I found a press release by John Brumby, the then Premier of Victoria, announcing that under the universal access agreement with the Commonwealth they would be providing money to the Inverleigh Kindergarten to provide the infrastructure required to deliver kindergarten facilities in the area. I thought, 'Perhaps I will go back and have a look at the source document because there was no acknowledgement about where that money might come from.' So I went onto the Premier of Victoria's website and had a bit of a look and, no, there was no indication that that money actually had come from the Commonwealth government under the COAG agreement. This is the reality: time and time again I see press releases coming out by the new state minister claiming responsibility for opening new facilities and providing money for kindergartens but, time and time again, I see that there is no acknowledgment or at least very, very poor acknowledgment that it comes under the agreement entered into by the Gillard government with all states and territories.

A government member: They think they get it from the Magic Pudding.

Exactly right! I say to the Baillieu government that the—

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

I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. He has not addressed the motion of flexibility once. Rural kindergartens will die.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The Member for Corangamite has the floor.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point I would like to make is that, time and time again, the coalition government in Victoria run around and try to blame the Commonwealth for a problem that actually does not exist. The reality is that John Brumby, when he was Premier, with the contribution that the Commonwealth was going to make, was able to deliver the reforms that we saw at COAG. The reality is that Baillieu has taken money away from it and he is now trying to blame the Commonwealth.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member's time has expired and 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.